So has the Whitney succeeded, or failed? It’s hard to figure out, since the
current decision challenges us to declaim our pessimist/optimist stance, the Landmarks Preservation Committee having handed down a Solomonic decree to cleave Renzo Piano’s proposed solution neatly in half, mandating that one of the ‘contributing’ townhouses be retained, while one ‘non-contributing’ structure can be removed.
The LPC got all academic, allowing that the rending be also a doubling, permitting the Whitney to shave off the back-half of the one-half that they must retain. Everyone is acting like this half-assed (sorry, it seemed too obvious) decision is a victory all around, one of those vaunted acts of compromise, without realizing that Solomon’s wisdom was not effected by actually bifurcating the infant. At least Chuck Close didn’t mince words, observing that the Museum of Arts and Design is allowed strip 2 Columbus Circle bare “while we’re not allowed to take down one crummy brownstone.”
It’s a fair point, since the every time another act of preservation results in pinning a façade to an otherwise bland behemoth (take a walk down 42nd Street between Broadway and Sixth Avenue, where you can see the remnant of a theater that will be reconstructed as part of the Bank of America tower, or the Mohawk Atelier on Duane Street where the same is being done on a smaller scale) pretty much aligns the preservation movement with the intellectual bankruptcy of Disney. The Whitney would be better served by proposing a completely blank wall where they could get someone like Bill Viola to project the image of various ‘contributing’ structures.
The neighbors are still steamed, something about the big tower that will spring up behind the contributing façade ruining the character of the area, or something. Big buildings have no place in Manhattan, we know. If only we could bring back scurvy and indentured servitude, it would be a historically appropriate utopia. What no one is complaining about, not even the preservationists, which is odd, since the argument bolsters their position, is how bland and uninteresting the Piano scheme is.
Hmmm, let’s see. Museum with great character and a compelling form that actually relates to its entrance, what is the best way to expand? Well, slap a featureless warehouse addition on the side, and put a sliver of glass between it and the original. Studio 101. Hey, maybe the interconnections can be glass bridges! Ooooh. And when you get some really bad direction from a government bureaucracy, what do you do? Radically reexamine your concept? Nah, you just cut it down the middle, eliminating the one putatively reasonable argument for moving the entrance wholesale (circulation).
The plan provided (a surprise in these days of meaningless renderings) shows the original as none too inspired, one of the two entry points — revolving doors — sitting awkwardly under the corner of the tower above. It appears that the main stair of the existing building will still be a prominent feature, though the state of the existing elevator, a grand experience now, is unclear. The Times also thoughtfully translates ‘piazza’ for you. The revised version is simply an even more jumbled interpretation of the same, with the entry way stepping back in chunks, a result of the half a building that is now required.
All of this sits south of the monolithic party wall that terminates the edge of the current site, itself too historic for alteration. With the exception of the canopy that looks to peek past, the entirety of the new entrance will be obscured from any oblique view approaching from the north, particularly on the east side of Madison. The rendering doesn’t show if the bridge that leads to the current entrance will be modified in some way to indicate that such a formally descriptive signifier has been entirely divested of meaning. Maybe they intend to commission a clever aphorism from Jenny Holzer that involves ‘vestigial’. Or they can just pick from the list. Me, I’ll take “Ambition is just as dangerous as complacency” for today.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Pianissimo.
So has the Whitney succeeded, or failed? It’s hard to figure out, since the
The LPC got all academic, allowing that the rending be also a doubling, permitting the Whitney to shave off the back-half of the one-half that they must retain. Everyone is acting like this half-assed (sorry, it seemed too obvious) decision is a victory all around, one of those vaunted acts of compromise, without realizing that Solomon’s wisdom was not effected by actually bifurcating the infant. At least Chuck Close didn’t mince words, observing that the Museum of Arts and Design is allowed strip 2 Columbus Circle bare “while we’re not allowed to take down one crummy brownstone.” It’s a fair point, since the every time another act of preservation results in pinning a façade to an otherwise bland behemoth (take a walk down 42nd Street between Broadway and Sixth Avenue, where you can see the remnant of a theater that will be reconstructed as part of the Bank of America tower, or the Mohawk Atelier on Duane Street where the same is being done on a smaller scale) pretty much aligns the preservation movement with the intellectual bankruptcy of Disney. The Whitney would be better served by proposing a completely blank wall where they could get someone like Bill Viola to project the image of various ‘contributing’ structures. The neighbors are still steamed, something about the big tower that will spring up behind the contributing façade ruining the character of the area, or something. Big buildings have no place in Manhattan, we know. If only we could bring back scurvy and indentured servitude, it would be a historically appropriate utopia. What no one is complaining about, not even the preservationists, which is odd, since the argument bolsters their position, is how bland and uninteresting the Piano scheme is. Hmmm, let’s see. Museum with great character and a compelling form that actually relates to its entrance, what is the best way to expand? Well, slap a featureless warehouse addition on the side, and put a sliver of glass between it and the original. Studio 101. Hey, maybe the interconnections can be glass bridges! Ooooh. And when you get some really bad direction from a government bureaucracy, what do you do? Radically reexamine your concept? Nah, you just cut it down the middle, eliminating the one putatively reasonable argument for moving the entrance wholesale (circulation). The plan provided (a surprise in these days of meaningless renderings) shows the original as none too inspired, one of the two entry points — revolving doors — sitting awkwardly under the corner of the tower above. It appears that the main stair of the existing building will still be a prominent feature, though the state of the existing elevator, a grand experience now, is unclear. The Times also thoughtfully translates ‘piazza’ for you. The revised version is simply an even more jumbled interpretation of the same, with the entry way stepping back in chunks, a result of the half a building that is now required. All of this sits south of the monolithic party wall that terminates the edge of the current site, itself too historic for alteration. With the exception of the canopy that looks to peek past, the entirety of the new entrance will be obscured from any oblique view approaching from the north, particularly on the east side of Madison. The rendering doesn’t show if the bridge that leads to the current entrance will be modified in some way to indicate that such a formally descriptive signifier has been entirely divested of meaning. Maybe they intend to commission a clever aphorism from Jenny Holzer that involves ‘vestigial’. Or they can just pick from the list. Me, I’ll take “Ambition is just as dangerous as complacency” for today.current decision challenges us to declaim our pessimist/optimist stance, the Landmarks Preservation Committee having handed down a Solomonic decree to cleave Renzo Piano’s proposed solution neatly in half, mandating that one of the ‘contributing’ townhouses be retained, while one ‘non-contributing’ structure can be removed.