"[Hudson Yards] is, at heart, a supersized suburban-style office park, with a shopping mall and a quasi-gated condo community targeted at the 0.1 percent. — The New York Times
Ahead of the opening of the long anticipated Hudson Yards complex in New York City, New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman spared little time in sharing his disgust with its turn out.
Kimmelman picks the complex apart building by building, including those by some of the biggest names in practice today such as Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Thomas Heatherwick and Norman Foster. Of Heatherwick's Vessel, Kimmelman writes that it is "purportedly inspired by ancient Indian stepwells (it’s about as much like them as Skull Mountain at Six Flags Great Adventure is like Chichen Itza)," and that "the object — I hesitate to call this a sculpture — is a 150-foot-high, $200 million, latticed, waste-basket-shaped stairway to nowhere, sheathed in a gaudy, copper-cladded steel."
While he finds DS+R/Rockwell Group's Shed to be "the most novel work of architecture on site," Kimmelman still sees little to celebrate among the dozen acres of new construction. When comparing the complex to Rockefeller Center, a development inseparable from the city's geography and culture, he finds that Hudson Yards lacks the precedent's emphasis on human scale and engaging public art.
Kimmelman ends his review with what sounds like one of its redeeming qualities, an uninterrupted view of Manhattan on the observation deck of the Hudson Yards' tallest tower. 'New York is awesome,' he thought as he recalled gazing over the city from the new vantage point. 'Then it occurred to me... from that deck you can't see Hudson Yards.'
NYC gave $6b (and counting) in tax breaks to this project. Meanwhile city infrastructure crumbles, public schools are cesspools, the subway system is on its last legs, homelessness abounds, etc. Real criticism would address these issues instead of just the quality of superlux "design" (with details he adores).
All 16 Comments
Kimmelman forgot to mention the $6 billion in tax credits lavished on developers, that there are more to come, and that the city has ponied up money to cover their shortfall on payments.
lol @ "billionaire whisperer"
this is so absurd. us cities are so far behind the rest of the world and need whatever development they can get
uhhhhh, beware of unintended consequences.
It's not a difficult argument to make that "whatever development we can get" has led US cities in the direction away from other world-leading cities. Not toward them.
criticism that doesn't attempt to dig in to the context and requirements of a development always becomes generic. Suburban place in a city, lack of human scale, all about money... this is the formula of the contemporary architecture critic discussing commercial developments everywhere and isn't informative or helpful for anyone who would want to improve the planning and design process in the future. if it falls short in some respects, a thoughtful critic would spend some time to be a bit of a journalist and explore why.
it's certainly a more inviting and urban space than what was there before. that whole strip of the west side from msg and penn station over and past the javits center and lincoln tunnel entrance is bleak. i don't think a charming organic neighborhood can just grow up out of conditions like that; someone needs to be bold and build something workable. there's always later to make it nice.
The NYT has several real estate sections every week that feature the "product" of billionaire developers. Don't look for meaningful criticism there.
I guess what I'm looking for is analysis. Giving architecture a star-rating or thumbs up-thumbs down isn't interesting or helpful. It's not a restaurant review where enough 1 stars shut it down. If he really thinks it's this bad he is in a position to figure out what went wrong and make his case. It's almost as if a review like this is just clickbait to provoke architects without any care towards influencing anyone or anything.
So what would Kimmelman have preferred? The mass of dilapidated and decrepit concrete that was there?
he literally lists a half dozen alternatives
He did? I didn't see those. I would have liked a real analysis of what could have been. I'm not a big defender of this project, but to be honest, it's not an easy site from an urban design perspective. What do you mean? It's on the Highline next to the river! Yes, but it's at the end of the Highline. When and if I ever get to 30th St., I usually feel like turning around and going home. The existing fabric around HY is pretty stark, large-footprint bland modern midrises with totally dead ground floors. 10th and 11th Avenue are not great streets, wide, traffic-oriented, some of the worst pedestrian streets in the city. Given HY's context, I'm not sure designing an island was such a bad idea. Could it have been improved? Of course. (Why KPF is doing a master plan is beyond me.) But then again I would have liked to have seen the alternatives developed to have a better sense of what could have been.
The Shed is phenomenal by Diller Scofidio + Renfro. I’ve visited that project a number of times - it’s truly astounding.
As good as the Folk Art Museum was? #FolkMoma (I admit I'm just doing my shtick here, Mitchell).
The Folk Art Museum narrative was a complete disaster.
But, but, but Time magazine said Diller is the most influential architect in the world! All of her work is thus excellent! And MOMA director Glenn Lowry said they really, really, really, tried to save the Folk Art building, but DS+R just couldn't find a way! Who are we to question such luminaries?
good quote from jerry saltz:
“Where were the architecture critics for the last 12-years. Now they all carp; much too late. This is something that should have been written about/protested by *them*, *together* constantly, never letting up. That was *the job*. Instead they oversaw another "Mission Accomplished"’
There were better, more egalitarian designs on the table (like the Holl proposal). Kimmelman is basically exposing himself as a part of the problem he criticizes. He fails at the most basic values of his job, then comes around to dunk on himself with the graphics team
Even the critique itself is lazy and nostalgic. Why do you need to bring in Rockefeller plaza or apartment complexes. All you had to do is bring in design knowledge instead of top down politics, which have conveniently shifted from Bloomberg cronyism to faux populism
right, there was a competition. but the winning scheme was evaluated afik only on financial feasibility and bid for the land. which is ok as a start for the developers, but really ought to include a separate stage design competition. since what's the point if the designs aren't actually being judged. he didn't at all get into how this whole process proceeded and got twisted about and almost failed due to the financial crisis, resulting in the current project that may not live up to the ideals first hoped for this site. though personally i thought it was as nice as any large development i've seen in the last 20 years. his comparisons seem to me to suggest this will eventually grow into a recognizable and likable part of the city too.
Jerry Saltz is a self-aggrandizing ass. Rockefeller is mentioned for a very precise reason.
(Oh oops sorry, Chemex, was that comment about Rockefeller you or Saltz? Either way Saltz is an ass.)
I was talking about how the review compares Hudson Yards to Rockefeller plaza. Which many would read as nostalgic proof that its too early to critique Hudson Yards. And that contemporary design has no hope of matching the past, which is a dangerous and wrong idea—but par for the course for Kimmelman.
At least 30 years of studio project reviews on this exact site in every NY/ NJ school of architecture -- competitions and publications too.
Delirium. Thanks REM.
“Over all, Hudson Yards epitomizes a skin-deep view of architecture as luxury branding. Each building exists to act like a logo for itself. The assortment suggests so many crowded perfume bottles vying for attention in a department store window display.”
I think Kimmelman is right on the money. My favorite passages:
"Over all, Hudson Yards epitomizes a skin-deep view of architecture as
luxury branding. Each building exists to act like a logo for itself.
The assortment suggests so many crowded perfume bottles vying for attention in a department store window display."
...a $500 million city-sponsored arts center called the Shed, featuring a giant sliding roof, eye-catchingly swathed in a tufted Teflon-based sheeting that can bring to mind inflated dry cleaning bags.
...Purportedly inspired by ancient Indian stepwells (it’s about as much like them as Skull Mountain at Six Flags Great Adventure is like Chichen Itza) the object — I hesitate to call this a sculpture — is a 150-foot-high, $200 million, latticed, waste-basket-shaped stairway to nowhere, sheathed in a gaudy, copper-cladded steel."
...It is, at heart, a supersized suburban-style office park, with a shopping mall and a quasi-gated condo community targeted at the 0.1 percent. A relic of dated 2000s thinking, nearly devoid of urban design, it declines to blend into the city grid."
The comparison to Rock Center is particularly telling. Rock Center simultaneously creates an inviting, memorable urban place while recognizing the geometry and the fabric of the city grid. And the fact that all of the buildings share materials and detailing, while maintaining individual character, makes it hang together cohesively. Also the building massing at Rock Center is masterfully orchestrated to allow light into the plaza spaces, and vistas out.
Not the Hudson Yards. It appears as if the primary goal was five different architects competing for attention. It's like some weird "museum of the avant-garde". "Crowded perfume bottles" indeed.
That Kimmelman looks to Rockefeller Center for an example isn't nostalgic...he references it because it's one of the greatest urban planning successes in history. So much to be learned from there.
NYC gave $6b (and counting) in tax breaks to this project. Meanwhile city infrastructure crumbles, public schools are cesspools, the subway system is on its last legs, homelessness abounds, etc. Real criticism would address these issues instead of just the quality of superlux "design" (with details he adores).
And people will say Rockefeller center was disliked by its contemporaries therefore Hudson Yards is too new to critique. I think it’s better to compare to the many better designs that were left on the table.
5th Avenue made Rockefeller Center, not the other way around. That’s what’s missing from any comparison.
Public art slideshow:
Prometheus, at Rockefeller Center
Uraeus, by Anselm Kiefer, just installed at Rockefeller Center
"The Vessel" at Hudson Yards (image via Architectural Digest)
Uraeus:
“Does the snake represent power or danger?” asked Mr. Baume. “It can be both an auspicious symbol in many cultures and something we have an instinctive fear of. Of course the book itself is the centerpiece of the work at a moment in our cultural history where books are under deep assault — both the commercial enterprise of book publishing and book reading and of course just the whole idea of truth and knowledge."
Nicholas Baume of the Public Art Fund (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...)
plus, you're on your own if you decide to "experience the vessel" https://www.hudsonyardsnewyork...
jeez, talk about health , safety and welfare - you'd be lucky if they call the ambulance after you fall.
Assisted suicide. Stairway to better buns. tourist hive. All better names than the vessel...
Funny to see archinectors literally jerking off to the DS+R Shed concept (which is as wasteful as the stupid vessel), and now all up in arms that the project is over. Did you expect better out of NYC?
Must have missed that ... literal... circle jerk.
That's not what literally means.
lol
I do like that last paragraph:
Kimmelman ends his review with what sounds like one of its redeeming qualities, an uninterrupted view of Manhattan on the observation deck of the Hudson Yards' tallest tower. 'New York is awesome,' he thought as he recalled gazing over the city from the new vantage point. 'Then it occurred to me... from that deck you can't see Hudson Yards.'
Echoing (intentionally?) Guy de Maupassant, who so hated the new & intrusive Eiffel Tower that he took to having lunch in a restaurant at the tower's base, saying "Inside the restaurant was one of the few places where I could sit and not actually see the Tower!"
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.