The New York Times had an interesting article on Columbia's new science tower that is nearing completion on 120th Street and Broadway. Eyebrow-raising points include Columbia's president Lee Bollinger's thoughts on the institution's intent, which aimed "to open the university to its neighborhood and animate its backyard; and to complement the planned campus extension, designed by Renzo Piano, for a 17-acre area to the northwest." So is this type of architecture a primer for what to expect in Manhattanville?
The department's dean at the end states, “Architects should aim for building something whose beauty is clear but deepens with time, so that later on you couldn’t imagine the city without it,” Mr. Wigley added. “I can feel that coming.”
Our opinion is that the building is out of place, very heavy-handed with the use of aluminum vent windows and proportionally unimaginative. It's basically a box with various industrial panels on it. Hardly modern and far from beautiful. NY Times article: LINK. Photo by Ulysses
I appreciate your blog, however a recurring theme that does tire on this reader is the consistent blanket disdain for all modern architecture in favor of anything historic (and often overly ornamented). Architecture is meant to grow and evolve rather than remain stuck in the past. Without the new energy of modern architecture and design, the city would become a museum of the past instead of a vibrant and eclectic blend of new and old.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I am not a fan of this particular building. I do hope, however, that the entire new Manhattanville campus is bold new architecture rather than a regurgitation of the past. Let's stop trying to turn NYC into a time capsule and instead move into the future while respecting the past. These two goals are not mutually exclusive.
I think my main issue is that most modern architecture that makes it uptown usually comes about after a particular trend or aesthetic that works in high rise areas such as the Financial District or Midtown. Case in point is that there is not really anything modern that one can point out uptown that is worth any critical acclaim.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I was a modernist before studying historic architecture in later years. I do like a well designed building when I see one. Designers are critical and have a point of view. On that note, I would not mind it if Columbia designs something in good taste for Manhattanville that is contextual in scale and also has respects for the past. That is more of an intellectual challenge than creating a copy of Midtown Manhattan in West Harlem. The Meatpacking District is a good example of blending old and new, especially since the newer, high rise elements are not densely packed together.