Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPro
Aside from the hordes of critics who completely *loathe* the PanAm/MetLife building and still yearn to see its demise, did anyone during the course of this discussion or anywhere else suggest or imply that it *would*...or even *should*? I'm asking not to be a rhetorical smart-@$$; but maybe I missed out when the suggestion might have been made during the online presentation.
It needs to stay...if only to keep one of the surprisingly few towers (for the time being) between 800 and 900 feet in *all* NYC intact. The idea of converting two thirds of it to civic use is all the more good reasoning. The only thing I would suggest vis a vis the greenery between the building segments is to ease up a bit. Having rooftop vegetation on any skyscraper just slopped on like ChiaPet paste is just flat out *stupid*.
There...I said it.  |
That rendering is meant just to give an impression of green space. There has been talk in the past of doing
something with the Met Life (Pan Am) building, but it's not coming down. I'm one of the few people who like it, as it stands proud and grand over Grand Central and Park Avenue. It's an iconic New York skyscraper. With the coming changes to the district, and as older buildings are converted to residential, it would not surprise me at all if some changes were made to the building, either in usage or appearance.
Look at the photo below. It's central to all of the new major development. Change is almost inevitable. They're not gonna sit by and let all the "starchitects" have all the fun.
