I remember Poly Styrene, the singer from X-Ray Spex, and all her prophetic songs from the late 70s: "I Am A Poser," "Germ-Free Adolescents," "Prefabricated Icon," "Genetic Engineering." Take a look at architecture and people today and you realize that it all came true. — Vice Magazine
A candid conversation on the horrendous state of new construction in New York, with the crankiest of architecture critics, Ivana Force-Majeure, and Vice Magazine's Bob Nickas.
10 Comments
not so much an architectural critique as a lament of a lost metropolis, i can't help but wonder....which is more repugnant, the ridiculously over-priced and over-designed buildings or the over-priced and over-designed inhabitants? Generally I find the architecture to be less repugnant than the utter lack of design from the city previously....BTW, who can live in manhattan anymore? It's like the world's largest gated community. a massive bedroom community of the global trust-fund jetsetters.
Brooklyn is where people live in NYC now....my 2 cents
exactly..although, frankly, it's almost as expensive as manhattan these days.... but back to the article, which is worse the architecture or the "amenities" that are tacked onto everything in a city these days? Do we really need this much amenity? After all all the costs for supplying it from the private sector just get passed onto the market....
I mean, is our problem really the gash in Thom mayne's facade or the fact that a curtainwall building with perforated metal sunshade system is suddenly an accepted expense? Is this really sustainability or the last gasps of a consumption based empire?
Don't worry USA will be fine. There are plenty of places to live in Manhattan for normal people.
BTW, who can live in manhattan anymore? It's like the world's largest gated community.
The true delirious new york.
there are plenty of places to live in manhattan...you just have to look a little harder. I looked to move out of Manhattan for a while but it was more expensive to live in Williamsburg and Carrol Gardens where I wanted to go... My commute is five minutes by bike to work and the idea of paying more to live in Brooklyn with a longer commute just didn't make sense. I guess I did get a little lucky with my place but I had two places before this that were similarly cheap and were pretty huge by NYC standards +1k sf. NYC is definitely expensive, but there are pockets of cheapish housing for sure.
"I mean, is our problem really the gash in Thom mayne's facade or the fact that a curtainwall building with perforated metal sunshade system is suddenly an accepted expense? Is this really sustainability or the last gasps of a consumption based empire?"
Is this an amenity? Was any of the cost of this passed onto the public?
Are you asking if this is an architecture problem or an American problem or an NYC problem? Because obviously this idea was used in Europe first and several places in America after before coming to NYC...so I'm a tad confused. And I guess the question of sustainability is whether or not it indeed works...similar ideas have also been used in Europe for years...usually with glass, but is the idea that disimilar?
I think that there is a current misconception within the architectural community (that translates to the larger community) that to buy more with the promise of sustainability is, in and of itself, a fiction. One that I like, but there are demons inside it...as with anything. Let's confront them. For instance when it translates into the housing market, we only end up with a bunch of glass towers that are all luxury condos...which taken as a whole are bland, even though there are some very beautiful and well executed ones. I think that my problem with the article is that it makes so many knee jerk reactions without questioning the causes...and we are all falling into the same complacency.
what does it mean when consumption is seen as a driver of society and what does that mean to architecture and our place in history? and finally to the streets of NYC.... which I live in and love and think is worth the expense, but there is a creeping sameness that is invading and erasing areas further and further afield.
no answers, just questions....
I think that most people, and this includes Ivava, seem to think of New York as falsely representing itself as a 'great' architectural city. Which it simply is not, and frankly does not try to be. I think New York does not care as much about architecture as architects and critics may wish it to. Rather, through it's complexity, size, and pluralism it is a city of architectural contradictions. Look at the autocratic authority of Robert Moses and the contradiction via the nimby-ism of Jane Jacobs. Or the sublime Highline and the utter tomfoolery of outdoor cafe space in a median on Broadway.
This does not make the city architecturally 'ugly' nor 'beautiful' but merely democratic. In a city of such size and complexity there will always be unheralded works of genius and lambasted works of compromise and contrition.
well said jplourde......
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.