« Today on the Forum Tuesday Blogwrap »
March 4, 2008
Closing Bell: LPC Still Not Buying Domino Plan
At a public hearing today the LPC once again urged developers CPC Resources and Isaac Katan to rethink the design that Beyer Blinder Belle has produced for repurposing the landmark Domino refinery building. According to a post on the WPGA blog, "In a nutshell, the majority of the Commissioners felt that addition was too tall and that it was not the the right design for this building." Beyer Blinder Belle, meanwhile, compared its design to the Tate Modern, the Morgan Library and the Hearst Tower.
LPC to Domino: Not Yet [WGPA]
Landmarks Commission Sends Domino Back for More Work [Curbed]
New Domino Plans Falter at LPC Hearing [Brownstoner]
Rendering courtesy of Beyer Blinder Belle architects.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4098
Comments
i like it.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 4:16 PM
i like it, too.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 4:19 PM
it's terrible, what does that top have to do with the bottom? It is mismatched and clunky.
How would you like to see that on top of the brownstone next door to you?
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 4:24 PM
Come on, this is not a brownstone or brownstone area. This is quite industrial and lots of new
highrise residential happening next to it.
I do not think is too high at all. It is kind of cool to see new and old merged together. As to LPC, much respect them, but sometimes they are just too picky.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 4:39 PM
This is not a brownstone 4:24, its a factory. The design is a great example of blending the past with the future. It's too bad it was rejected.
We don't all collect antique doilies for our period-perfect parlors. Get thee hence!
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 4:39 PM
It looks absurd! Really, it's quite ugly. Why does the addition to the top have to be so modern in the first place? And, before everyone gets all upset, I like modern design, a lot! And I like when old is mixed with new. I just think that this design is really bad. Start over..........
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 4:49 PM
It would be much worse if it tried to blend - would ruin the lines of the original structure. this is great because it actually accentuates the beauty of the original building through contrast and also not drawing a lot of attention to itself.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 4:49 PM
I think it's really cool--agree with 4:39. That luminous, modern glass top is interesting. Many of these old factories are difficult to adapt to residential, and a developer could often quite reasonably need to grow the space like this to make it successful. Maybe something just a touch shorter would be approved?
Let's just hope nobody tries to build a wacky bridge across the east river as they did across the Thames with the Tate Modern--that thing is goofy.
Posted by: Rehab at March 4, 2008 4:55 PM
Actually looked again and do *not* like the gray boxes for mechanicals on top of the glass part. Perhaps that's what offended LPC?
Posted by: Rehab at March 4, 2008 4:58 PM
It looks really dumb....but like a lot of unusual buildings, if it is built, it will probably grow on folks.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 6:03 PM
This is very common. The developer gets a concession from the city in exchange for preserving the building. Chances are, the conversion won't be economically feasible unless the additional development rights are granted. In essence, that glass top will fund the preservation of this building.
Without it, the developer will let it sit and rot. It's not like the city will do anything to preserve it.
Posted by: Polemicist at March 4, 2008 6:10 PM
I live over here in Williamsburg and like the plan. It looks cool with the old building bring absorbed by the new one. Hopefully the old thing is structurally sound enough to survive. Last time I was there inside it was all falling in and rusted out and even the bricks mortan was failing. Hard to see how they won't have to tear it all down and rebuild it. However, the look sure beats the dumpy graffiti infested crap all around the site now. Not sure that I like the idea of even more condos bringing in thousands more folks for the L train, but as for the design, bring it on.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 6:11 PM
I once worked on a penthouse addition to the City Club. The whole thing ended up looking like air handling units. I wasn't involved from the beginning so I'm not sure if landmarks was involved or not.
Maybe if this one was a bit narrowed and lett the metal portions of the structure express itself in a raw earthy way the marriage would work.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 6:14 PM
why work to preserve the old building in the first place if you are going to humiliate it with a fat glass pillow on top? It is the very essence of a ridiculous, absurd, and ugly addition. Honestly, why bother? the old building looks like a joke with that glass highrise on its head.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 6:55 PM
Guest 6:55, please see the Louvre, the Tate Modern, and Guest 6:10.
Posted by: Rehab at March 4, 2008 8:29 PM
"please see the Louvre, the Tate Modern..."
Oh right, I forgot those European projects were also driven by AVARICIOUS AND GREEDY BROOKLYN LOW-LIFE DEVELOPERS WHO DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE CiTY OR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.
sorry, how could I have missed the parallels with the Louvre?
moron!
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 8:38 PM
8:38....????!!!!! grow up, we are just sharing opinions. This is not a war.
Anyway - glass pyramid in Louvre and Pompidou center were both rather hated by
Parisians, but now they are the essential part of the city. Mind you, they are not residential projects and way more significant (and designed by famous, if not always loved)architects. That said - glass addition looks much better than something fake traditional.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 9:13 PM
the louvre?
just cause you pour syrup on shit, doesnt make it pancakes
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 9:32 PM
The Louvre and the Tate are two super-ambitious cultural projects sponsored by the governments of European allies who are not ashamed to spend big bucks on art projects and are not afraid to be called elitist becaue they do so.
This by contrast is a private speculative development with absolutely no other raison d'etre but to make profits. I don't see how anyone with half a brain can compare these things. On the one hand you have a public interest cultural endeavor and on the other you have a most venal and, I'm sorry, low-life, development project that is meant to extract every last nickel of profit from anything it can. I have a feeling even the architects are embarrased at this and have to put up with the derision of the landmarks commission and a large segment of the public because their clients are too wooden-headed to know the difference between what is decent and what is indecent. I may be wrong but that is how I feel about this abomination.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 9:37 PM
Polemecist: the developer owns a SIX BLOCK site - if this addition isn't approved, the floor area could easily be distributed throughout the rest of the site. The developer's position is a red herring.
Rehab: read the link, the landmarks commissioners dismissed (rather derisively) the comparisons to the Tate. This is a different factory, and simply mimicking the Tate is pretty lame architecture. Bankside is nothing like Domino, and suggesting that the solution to any industrial building is to drop a glass on it because the Tate did it is just phoning it in.
9:37 pegs it. This is a half-assed design that doesn't begin to live up to the precedents they set. The landmarks commissioners said as much, and the architects should be (and probably are) embarrassed.
Posted by: guest at March 4, 2008 11:01 PM
Guests 9:37 and 8:38, I cited the Louvre and Tate not to argue that this building shares that level of significance, or that this architect/developer can rise to that standard. I'm simply responding to the posters above who seem incapable of grasping the very simple idea that good architects have often responded to the challenge of adaptively re-using older buildings by attaching contemporary pieces to them. And that, in both examples I cited, this was achieved--to stunning aesthetic success--with glass.
Posted by: Rehab at March 5, 2008 12:35 AM
On the other hand, you may be right.
Posted by: Rehab at March 5, 2008 12:38 AM
Is that the world trade center to the left?
Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 8:04 AM
i will like it only if the glass box changes color at night.
Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 10:26 AM
the domino building looks fine. beyer binder belle has always done decent work. the towers on either side however, a way too big.
Posted by: guest at March 5, 2008 3:28 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.