The news of Snøhetta's renovation of Philip Johnson's iconic postmodern AT&T Building has the architectural world abuzz, with many lamenting the controversial overhaul. There is a petition going around to give the building landmark status—only recently made possible due to the structure's age—in an attempt to save the building's signature base from the proposed glass-curtain treatment. There is also a protest that has been scheduled for this Friday, more details on which can be found here.
Beyond organizing action, many have also taken to twitter to offer up their opinions on the new design met with mixed reviews, both in particular and in principle. Below are some of the responses.
Say goodbye to Philip Johnson, and hello to, um, glass... wayda go New York... pic.twitter.com/YqpxBGrbzp
— Adam Nathaniel Furman (@Furmadamadam) October 30, 2017
this defacement of pj's landmark att tower by snohetta is a travesty. i know att is controversial but this is wrong. https://t.co/fAKwH0ERX8
— mark lamster (@marklamster) October 30, 2017
because att is one of the most significant buildings of the 20th century and a defining work of postmodernism.
— mark lamster (@marklamster) October 30, 2017
the "failure" is overstated, and can be ameliorated with FAR less intrusive measures. this is a marketing ploy that compromises a landmark.
— mark lamster (@marklamster) October 30, 2017
In our own comment sections regarding the plans, Archinect readers had this to say:
"WTF Snohetta" –Koww
"It’s not hard to give the building a respectful upgrade—brighten up the windows and lighting which are dark and obstructed now (can do the same with the nice interior space). Not sure why this requires going to Snøhetta in the first place (weird, I’m old enough to remember them doing nice projects in Norway, you’d think they would know what to do).
The weirdest argument I’ve heard is from the big urbanists arguing the renovation opens up the space to the public. It’s already a public space! A decent one that could be better with obvious fixes. If anything the new transparency is false.. it will end up being much more private and commercial when the new tenant easily scratches that space out.
When money is involved, architecture is the last thing on big urbanists agendas. But it should be!" –Chemex
"Is this a done deal? If so, it's ruining a beautiful and unique public* space that *should* be a landmark. Nice going, Snohetta. Jeezus.
*Probably actually a POPS, but still. Anyone can walk through and it's gorgeous." –Donna Sink
"I agree Donna. As cheezy as the original building is, you couldn't screw this up worse if you tried. My guess is they're still trying to reveal the "truth" behind the facade. Gotcha." –Thayer-D
"Personally, I'm not against updates like this one. But I think the arch and the uniformity of the granite on the first floor are part of what makes this building iconic. I don't see anything in Snohetta's design that can be as powerful as what is already there." –davvid
"they might want to never show that design or renderings again. Pretty bad work. And as long as trump is president that street sucks for public access...and its already accessible to the public" –fictional\_/Christopher
45 Comments
Mark Lamster should be arch critic for the New York Times. Kimmelman is neither knowledgeable nor does he even do the job (3 bad reviews in 5 years?). Better yet, they need a design, arch and urbanism department with all the new buildings, bridges, etc around the country going up and shitshow renovations like this one. Kimmelman thinks people should live in public space and wait for crumbs from the architecture table (for the grown ups, not plebes)
Yes, Kimmelman should be sh*t canned.
There's one in Chile if you want to save it too, the spaniard bankers put their logo on it
Pass
because of the logo? otherwise is an exact replica of that crap.
Not to be overly pedantic, but seriously, that thing is not even close to "exact replica".
This shouldn’t be a referendum on postmodern architecture. This is about one particular building that should have its main features preserved while getting a respectible upgrade. Not hard when you can see where the stone is vs. the weird bubble plastic windows in the interior and dark opaque windows on exterior
To me, the Crystal Cathedral renovation is also quite the travesty. Talk about loss of main features...
Kimmelman is useless as an architecture critic.
"This shouldn’t be a referendum on ------------- architecture"
"----------------- is useless as an architecture critic"
I love this forum.
Yes, ------------ architecture is bad, not afraid to say it out loud, shouldn't be preserved more than a strip mall.
-------------------- isn't useless as an architecture critic, architecture critics are useless.
“Why Travesty?”
The magnum opus.
The original arcade, with that monumental arch, was a unique and sublime space. I visited it in 1992 or 93, before Sony via Gwathmey retail'd up the arcade, ruining it *but not irreversibly*. The Sony changes can be undone.
If Snohetta's glass Kleenex is thrown on there it requires removing what is critically important, unique, and gorgeous about the street level: that over-scaled but beautifully proportioned arch and the grand arcade to either side. The heavy stone - and its physical quality of weight, gravitas, and the earth - will be peeled away, ruining the street-level experience. "Peeled" away because yes, it's veneer, but this is definitely a building that Michael Benedikt would call "real enough".
If Snohetta goes through with this, well, screw them. It's a travesty. Their proposal is so middle of the road and uninspired. It's not furthering the discipline via any risk-taking, as PJ did in his original design; it's taking a risk of "destroying a beautiful thing" a la Fight Club. Stop waving your dick around, Snohetta. PJ's is bigger.
Teardown.
A stupid joke that should have never progressed beyond a simple sketch.
Tear you down.
How mature.
Lighten up, Miles. I thought you loved stupid jokes.
"A stupid joke that should have never progressed beyond a simple sketch." -Postmodernism in general
Postmodernism was self-aware. It recognized that irony and humor are alway part of the context that we operate in. With humorless technocrats, the irony is still there but they're too dumb to appreciate it. When we point out how absurd the smug overly-serious technocrat appears, they get pissed off. I'll take the knowing architect who recognizes irony in the world, over the overly serious yet oblivious architect.
I get that, but I don't think it's an appropriate language to introduce in architecture. Postmodernism is a philosophical idea that exists comfortably in the intangible, and should remain there. PoMo painting or literature is fine because it requires active engagement. The user chooses to engage in a dialogue with the artist in which the artist may punish the user. Any discomfort created is accepted as part of the tacit contract between artist and user, because the user can disengage if they want.
Architecture brings this into the tangible built environment that "users" of reality are forced to engage with. The discomfort that 'ironic' architecture creates is then, in my opinion, non-consensual.
Put simply: Architecture as a built expression should always be in earnest. To do otherwise is to punish the public. And that's fucking arrogant.
Whimsy and humor are fine, but they shouldn't come at the expense of usability or function (Lookin at you, Portland Building)
Earnestly intentionally offensive.
tduds, What is so punishing and uncomfortable about it? Its beige granite with arches. I really do not understand what you're talking about. I used to work nearby and eat lunch in the atrium. It was very comfortable, in a totally unironic way. The people who are actually irked by whatever irony there might be in the building's aesthetic are the guardians of good taste. New York's common man doesn't give a shit about the ATT building.
One time I whole heatedly agree with Miles. An ugly, dumb building that architects have layered on pedantic bullshit onto. Teardown.
I was on a tear about some other bullshit this morning and let my pissy mood bleed into this thread. I guess I should clarify that my criticism as I wrote it is my stock response to the Postmodern movement in general, and I actually don't mind this specific building quite so much. The gestures are dumb and they know they're dumb, but at least they don't undercut the functionality or inconvenience everyday users.
On a barely related note, I'm currently neck deep in an interior remodel of a 1980's Hugh Stubbins tower. The aesthetics are almost as bad as the circulation.
Miles I respect you a lot but you're wrong on this one. This is a gorgeous building - an inside-jokey one, yes, but well-built and important. Same with Humana Tower (not jokey, more short story). The Portland building is important, but not well-built (though that's being fixed now). I'd say this one is more important than Portland, and even - maybe - more-so than Humana.
I do think it's telling that the guy from FAT decided this week to disavow his former firm's work as being about something he hated, not loved - that PoMo is always inappropriate, and we shouldn't explore its ideas any more. That's just dumb, akin to Shumacher harping on that the
"only" legitimate way to do architecture is Parametricism. Life thrives on bio-diversity - no one style of building should ever be the only one. We *need* a mix of old, new, cheap, expensive, fun, serious, etc in our shared built space. Yes, it's fine to get rid of the crappy examples that don't offer any improvement to our shared condition - the built world is replete with shitty buildings, and the city is a growing, changing organism. But I LOVE that AT&T could exist next to WTC (RIP) and the Empire State Building and SHoP's newest needle tower all at the same time.
Yeah, the space is low key public. Nice, quiet, people eating lunch and having meetings, not a zoo.
Not a huge PJ fan but AT&T is one of best. Most people don’t see the postmodern irony, only the composition, which feels both monumental and modern. Wish I could do the Reno, it’s so easy and obvious, needs some cleaning up
Johnson is one of the most overrated architects ever.
The Glass house is a rip of Mies' Farnsworth House. That Johnson is often given credit for the Seagram Building is a travesty - his major achievement was in helping Mies get the commission. Other than that all he did was the restaurant interiors. He's celebrated for PoMo, which as a style is uniformly some of the worst architecture ever produced - especially AT&T and The Lipstick. All in all his work is just more fascist architecture.
If he deserves credit for anything it's for facilitating Mies' and Breuer's entry to the US.
My father worked for Johnson in the early 1960's in New York. Here's a picture of my his inscribed copy of Johnson's 1962 monograph.
That took a surprising turn! Everyone knows PJ was derivative. But his work itself (especially in NY) stands on its own merits. Lipstick is another interesting work that has personality, would be sad to see that one altered as well.
Chris, you're overthinking it. This is just the Apple version ...
What frustrates me about this is that two good “architects” PJ and Snøhetta are layered and clashing against each other, meanwhile there’s other good work not getting much MS media play, and many mediocrities going up that could have used a Snøhetta more than this (see Miami tower story next to this one). Are architects supposed to fight all of these battles vs an ignorant media and uneducated public?
There are so many mediocre buildings going up and none of it is being called out by NY's so-called Architecture critics.
Get the feeling they neglect it because they don’t know how to cover it well. Most have other beats like classical music, climate change, urbanism. arts, etc so they don’t get fired. Keeps it away from better journos
This decision is not about architecture per se, but more about corporate business. Maybe the volumes of conversations grandpa clock created at the time will now be resurrected because of this remodel job, (look up recent interest in po-mo). I just am sorry that PJ is dead when the audience could have some juicy verbiage filling their social media time.
I also think it is pretty lame for remodel architects to resort to structural frame details to jizz it up even though I too like the corporate tower buildings in their framing stage. I don't think they are the right architects to do this. The job requires someone theoretically better armed to fuck with such an edifice. Where is Robert Venturi when you need him and when you need some humor in this?
+ "jizz it up"
I know Hernan's project well. The audience trashed it. In retrospective, I think it was pretty good jizz.
look up "gin fizz urbanism"
Remember there's a protest at ATT today (it's this afternoon but I'm not sure of time)!! Bring your best double-entendre protest signs - PJ would approve!
Johnson is not over-rated. If anything he is under-rated. Somehow he was able to navigate projects that were corporate and still take risks that paid off. Perhaps someone thought Snohetta was a firm that could do the same thing.
I kind of understand why that could have been the idea. Snohetta has an amazing office organization. They have also made
exceptional architecture once or twice. They might do so again, but this is not close. Their recent projects seem to be aimed at mediocrity, I suppose out of fear of losing big commissions. That is totally fine with their own work, but why mess up something so important from architecture history just because they are scared of taking a risk, or of digging deeper to make something actually special? It is not like this renovation is based on a strongly held belief about what architecture could or should be. Its just generic convenience store style automated glass facade design. For what?
@Donna, I agree about that weirdly anti pomo article from FAT-man, Sean Grifitths. Did you see this response from
Not related to the discussion but the glass house by johnson is so fucking good its amazing. It is not derivative of Mies' building at all.
I think Snohetta's proposal is a witty take on an ugly building. Things would be much more fun if architects weren't overly pedantic.
The Apple store looks pretty nice and would probably benefit the city. Maybe this is a good idea after all. I’d probably leave the Apple logo and get rid of the ‘made in knock-off’ sign
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.