What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Agree, noki! My objections to AY are about scale and size. the arena was the most interesting part and supposedly what ratner used to promote AY. And I’m sure Ratner will will now flog us with blame for not being able to use the Gehry design. What better way than to put up an arena straight out of the worst of Soviet Russian design?.

  2. Oh. I forgot to say, I agree so completely as to be nearly shaking from my head nodding. And my feelings about it are so strong that it is one of the reasons I (and I think some others, like Bxgrl) get so ticked off by folks like 11217 and others who dismiss our dismay as ridiculousness, and hey, do we prefer a big hole in the street? Well, given that a hole is a blank canvas upon which to be built, YES.

  3. I just had to paste this because I’m so angry I’m almost sick:

    “A new design by the firm Ellerbe Becket has no such ambitions. A colossal, spiritless box, it would fit more comfortably in a cornfield than at one of the busiest intersections of a vibrant metropolis. Its low-budget, no-frills design embodies the crass, bottom-line mentality that puts personal profit above the public good. If it is ever built, it will create a black hole in the heart of a vital neighborhood.

    But what’s most offensive about the design is the message it sends to New Yorkers. Architecture, we are being told, is something decorative and expendable, a luxury we can afford only in good times, or if we happen to be very rich. What’s most important is to build, no matter how thoughtless or dehumanizing the results. It is the kind of logic that kills cities — and that has been poisoning this one for decades.

    I suppose we should have seen this coming.” (Aroussoff for the New York Times)