Foster's 980 Madison Smacked Down

1.

The big issue here is precedent. A Landmark designation is promise that the neighborhood is indeed protected. Without it, it becomes meaningless. There are plenty of other areas to develop. Let's keep the sanctity of a landmark designation intact.

2.

Um, Anonymous, you are missing the whole point. Landmarking was never intended to permanently freeze an entire neighborhood. NYC isn't Venice. The point was to regulate any changes by requiring oversight by the Landmarks board.

You are advocating a completely different idea. You apparently think that landmarked neighborhoods cannot even entertain the possibility of physical change, even if the property in question is not a contributing building to the landmarked district.

Thankfully, your opinion is extrmely radical and in the minority. I hope Landmarks does the right think and approves this future landmark. It's really a brilliant design.

3.

I think this building should be built. Personally, I think 30 stories are not high enough but, I am glad that it's not at 50 stories either. Anybody else notices how majority of the buildings are pretty much at the same height of around 50 stories. I'd prefer to see more 70+ stories and definitely more supertalls for sure, but with the first 10 stories being “especially” more aesthetic as opposed to designless, faceless, modern blandness.

Well, that's what I would do anyway.

4.

Precisely... the point of having architectural preservation is that it is an extension of aesthetic appreciation and encouragement. So the idea of rejecting all buildings in a given district, regardless of the value of what's there (it's not always uniform value among buildings), is counter-intuitive. Surely these historic districts would not exist in the first place if some piss-ant "community board" from 200 years ago insisted that each creek, cave, tree and boulder be preserved exactly as-is. You have to allow for evolution. And sometimes you gotta kill a few of your babies. That's art.

I personally support landmarks, historic districts, and community oversight boards. It keeps the ugly buildings out in the 'burbs, and raises the standards for development. But we're getting to a point in NYC where mindless conservatism (along the lines of arborists, birders, district supervisors, air rights, etc.) are winning out over aesthetics, good design, efficiency, bold vision, and, most importantly, urban needs.

Also: just because you show up to every community board meeting and have something to say about preservation does not mean that you're not a garden variety kook who would otherwise be harboring 500 cats in a small house. The preservationists are losing easy battles and making lots of noise about innocent targets, basically bullying anyone who they think they can win against. "Precedent" my ass. If you can't win the fight when it really counts, then don't just pick fights you can win. See: Mike Tyson's late career.

5.

In preschool I discovered that the round peg does belong in the square hole. Nor does this design belong in the neighborhood.

6.

Curbed, try a little context. The argument at Wired New York over this development was ONE member against, nearly all the others FOR. So get your NIMBY asses some glasses and report facts, not what you want to hear.

7.

Why, um, does every snarky poster say, um, um?

Anyway, the developer can build this thing legally outside the borders of the district, which are merely a block away. But don't let the renderings fool you -- it is not a 'brilliant' gossamer-light luminous design. It will loom, hulk, cast shadows, create wind tunnels and generally be completely out of a context that was deemed worthy of saving. I am not denying reasonable proposals (and felt the Whitney expansion should be just fine), but this thing right off Madison Avenue is crazy.

8.

#6 - the developer cannot build this thing legally outside of the HD. They not only need landmarks approval, but they are asking for special permission from landmarks and the city planning commission to allow they to build higher and break all sorts of setback and other zoning regulations.

They're applying for what's called a 74-711 process - and it allows landmarked buildings to break certain zoning regulations IF they go above and beyond and the development serves some sort of greater "preservation purpose." I don't see what "preservation purpose this addition serves."

So if this building were outside the historic district, they would have to get a variance in order to build it (and in order to get a variance you have to prove a hardship).

9.

There is nothing "illegal" about this proposal. It is Landmarks job to determine the appropriateness of this change–just like when storefronts and windows are replaced in an historic district.
This is an addition to an existing building. If the developer built elsewhere the building would be different given that the base if the tower is an existing building and it would be subject to different zoning and may not need a variance.

10.

if you have seen sir foster's dome on the reichstag, then you will appreciate how a thouroughly modern addition can merge wonderfully with historic architecture...there is nothing like that going on, to my eyes, in this madison ave. proposal...the existing building is low slung and formal, indeed a bit intimidating to the pedestrian, and so something that sweeps the eye up, in a measured manner, would be wonderful, no matter how modern...this design seems to be like a huge toothpick stuck in a corned beef sandwich...or bananas foster, to use another food analogy...anyway, time to eat...

11.

maybe it's intimidating if you're poor or not from the neighborhood.

the suddenness of this design and the way it was "announced" to the public with a glowing review by Nicolai Ourousssofff felt like a ploy to game the community/landmark process. Ditto that deceptively evanescent rendering. this thing'll be as invisible as the Bloomberg Tower.

And the size feels frankly grossed up to allow for some "gracious concessions" in order to get it to the size the developers originally built their ROI models off of.

I remember as a kid, being seduced by ads for a modern concrete & glass tower perched on top of a townhouse, just east of Park Ave [70th st, maybe?] Now I look at that bldg and think what a piece of architectural crap it is. Foster's work is a far better starting point, but that, combined with the too-tall 70's tower on 79th and fifth, tells me the neighborhood has some bad tower karma.