SO WHAT BUILDINGS do I actually like? Well, I can’t help the dearth of quality. Others can, and back in 2003, the Architectural League decided to try and promote their efforts, creating the New York Designs lecture series to:
…provide a forum for the presentation of innovative and accomplished work in New York City. Exploring a variety of New York building and interior types, New York Designs presents a wide range of projects, from stores and restaurants to offices, galleries, and educational facilities. A new theme is developed each year, and participants are selected based on portfolio submissions.This year’s New York Designs series will spotlight small scale transformations that express big ideas.
How can a single strong design idea definitively shape a project? From material explorations to design strategies and programmatic invention, what elevates a concept beyond mere function to a project that is inventive within modest means?
If you’ve got the chops, you’ll get the props. Or something like that. Notices seem to have gotten mailed a little late, and the deadline for submissions is tax day (April 15). Details here.
AS BEFITS THEIR FUSSY EVENHANDEDNESS, The New Yorker waited until the day before the MTA vote to publish a non-committal profile on Bloomberg. Perhaps they used his washed-out public persona as a template. They do a fine job of laying out the stadium issues in solid New Yorker-style (um, overly long, and with a couple annoying shifts in narrative sequence to distract you from the fact that it is twice as long as it needs to be; again, don’t I seem perfect for a job there?). Unless you have a sub, online you’ll have to settle for Ben Greenman’s synopsis via an interview with author John Cassidy. And they have an interesting approach to disclosure. The Times does its part by dutifully noting their new building (but, hmmm, rarely mention their PILOT deal) whenever development in the Times Square, or Renzo Piano, is mentioned, but even after detailed conversations about the role of development zones and the diviseness they have sown in neighborhoods, Cassidy didn’t think it necessary to note that corporate parent Conde Nast has a home (which includes the editorial offices of the The New Yorker) that is the result of one such battle royale (of which I cannot find any decent online resources, so just trust me), which lasted almost 20 years — and stands as an example of the benefits of being prudent, given the superior quality of work that resulted, allowing me the generalization that PJ and his lackey Burgee would have produced some of their patented late 80’s corporate hackery, given the chance. And that, my friends, is some glittering virtuosity of dependent clauses, is it not?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Errata.
Some loose ends, midweek:
SO WHAT BUILDINGS do I actually like? Well, I can’t help the dearth of quality. Others can, and back in 2003, the Architectural League decided to try and promote their efforts, creating the New York Designs lecture series to:
If you’ve got the chops, you’ll get the props. Or something like that. Notices seem to have gotten mailed a little late, and the deadline for submissions is tax day (April 15). Details here.
AS BEFITS THEIR FUSSY EVENHANDEDNESS, The New Yorker waited until the day before the MTA vote to publish a non-committal profile on Bloomberg. Perhaps they used his washed-out public persona as a template. They do a fine job of laying out the stadium issues in solid New Yorker-style (um, overly long, and with a couple annoying shifts in narrative sequence to distract you from the fact that it is twice as long as it needs to be; again, don’t I seem perfect for a job there?). Unless you have a sub, online you’ll have to settle for Ben Greenman’s synopsis via an interview with author John Cassidy. And they have an interesting approach to disclosure. The Times does its part by dutifully noting their new building (but, hmmm, rarely mention their PILOT deal) whenever development in the Times Square, or Renzo Piano, is mentioned, but even after detailed conversations about the role of development zones and the diviseness they have sown in neighborhoods, Cassidy didn’t think it necessary to note that corporate parent Conde Nast has a home (which includes the editorial offices of the The New Yorker) that is the result of one such battle royale (of which I cannot find any decent online resources, so just trust me), which lasted almost 20 years — and stands as an example of the benefits of being prudent, given the superior quality of work that resulted, allowing me the generalization that PJ and his lackey Burgee would have produced some of their patented late 80’s corporate hackery, given the chance. And that, my friends, is some glittering virtuosity of dependent clauses, is it not?