Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy
I don't think the people who want to save this building want to save it for its looks so much as for an "idea", or what it supposedly represents. It was built at the time of blah, blah, blah, it's built in the style of blah, blah, blah.
New York has an excess of many things, buildings of this type being one of them. It's not something that needs to be saved. The district as a whole is something that needs to be preserved, and I'm not just talking about it's buildings, but it's purpose. And that purpose sadly, is not to be a museum, no matter how much many may want it to be.
|
I certainly don’t speak for everyone who wishes to see this tower preserved, but what it “represents” has nothing to do with it for me. I want this tower preserved because, while it may not be an icon, it’s a fine building overall, and it’s entirely possible that what replaces it may not be nearly as good. When you’re talking about a site as large and visually prominent as this one, that’s an immense amount of risk—not to mention completely unnecessary, as there are numerous smaller buildings in the area on sites as large, or nearly as large, as this one. Many are far inferior architecturally to this tower, and, quite frankly, should be demolished. These midcentury buildings are certainly not all equal in quality, and are certainly not as dime-a-dozen as you suggest—especially ones the size and quality of 270 Park. It may not be equal to Seagram or Lever House, but its facade detail and texture, quality of materials, and elegant proportions are above average compared to most other buildings of the period, and even many glass towers being constructed today. After Seagram and Lever, 270 is probably the most deserving example of this style for preservation—and doing so is hardly turning Midtown East into a “museum.” As I’ve said, there are plenty of other sites in the area, and additionally, 270 is only outdated as a
bank building. It is still a perfectly viable office building for almost any other type of tenant (or even residential use, as I suggested). In fact, 277 Park, a building almost as old as this one, continues to attract new tenants including major law firms—and as far as I’m aware, it has not been upgraded to nearly the same extent 270 has. I want this building preserved because there is simply no valid reason to tear it down, from either an architectural or economic standpoint. The only purpose it serves is to satisfy Jamie Dimon’s ego.
Threaded Mode