Well, seeing as the original facade to that portion of the building was dumpstered in the mid-40s by the people at Ogilvys, the "recreation" using the rear 1916 bricks to recreate what was originally there seems like a pretty cool concept. At least they aren't substituting brick like they did for Caplan's across the street. Their using everything as original as possible to fix the past. Ogilvys modernized in the 40s for a different appearance. That's something most don't know and assumed that what was pulled down a year and half ago was the original. It wasn't. They should've kept the building as it sat, but it's a dead argument now. I've seen the final 1934 look, now I'll get to see the original vision spring back to life. It's a good compromise for me. I've done my dues paying the building homage with my upcoming book. What else can I do. It's a decent outcome rather then loosing it all "a la daly building" ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi
I'm glad you're giddy about it, but the concept of a reproduction facade offset as decoration for the real building sounds like a Potemkin scheme that makes a mockery of heritage preservation. Put all the positive spin you want, but simply put, the white panels are there because the floors of the new building don't line up with the original facade, thus it will show through the old windows.
|
Threaded Mode