Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy
Enough, you've derailed this thread for the last time. A move forward is not subjective. When this plan is enacted, it is a move forward, and the plan will progress. It will be a progressive development of the site, not a flash backwards. Now go back into hiding unless you have something to add about this development.
|
Go back into hiding? This is an internet message board, what am I hiding from? Why so personal? Every one of my posts on this thread made a reference to this building along with our discussion of "new" and "progress".
Don't exonerate yourself from derailing this converstation. You are equally as culpable as me, despite your moderator status. In fact, you are the one getting personal and attacking another forum memeber, not me.
Before you settle too much on your strawman argument,
now defining progress as "the plans will progress" let me take you back to the ACTUAL converstation, that anything new in New York is defended as "progress" and "not a museum" against valid architectural criticism. It is progress in what sense? Economic...ok. Since that is the ONLY grounds you can stand on in which "new" equals "progress" virtually unequivically, the argument has no grounds as a defense against architectural criticism.
So far, based on the renderings posted on this thread, this building looks too glassy in the context of its surroundings. I finde that architecturally shameful, especially in this part of Manhattan which is stone and limestone as the backdrop of Central Park. I stand hopeful the massing is not indicative of the final design.