Will Anyone Miss This Building?

1.

Quick Answer: No

2.

Long answer: No

3.

i'll miss it.

4.

Not a chance - it's horrible!

5.

I will miss it. I like it.

6.

Great building and I will miss it.

But we must obey the prime directive and replace and fill all of Manhattan with tall glass condo boxes - no?

7.

A design only an architect could love.

Raze it.

8.

looks like a Florida bank HQ. Let it burn.

9.

It's ugly and stupid and threatening. The sooner it gets knocked down, the better.

10.

Can't we just paint it blue? Then it will fit in.

11.

I thought the prime directive was to resist any and all change. Change is bad, BAD!!! Anything old is good, anything new threatens to alter my existence.

I live within 3 miles of this building, and therefore I have the right to determine its destiny, because it may adversely affect my life in a minute way. I pay 1/10th market rent, and very little taxes, but I have rights. Squatter rights!

12.

I would not miss it, but it does not annoy me as much as seeing a 17 floor building there would. Let there be NO light! PS: The Maritime is very cool. Ledner did good on that one--the fact that the tower part is set back from the avenue helps. PPS: I LIKE Florida banks!

13.

i will

14.

Ledner was a Taliesin architect. An odd building no doubt, a colleague of mine referred to it as "the overbite building". I like it as the oddity it is, much as many of us liked EDS's Huntington Hartford Gallery.
Ledner was also the subject last winter of a Times article re: his New Orleans home damaged after Katrina.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/garden/21nola.html

15.

#11 -- Spot on

16.

#11 -- Spot on

17.

Very odd building. Completely out of context. Belongs in Rio.

18.

I don't mind the building. I fear what would replace it.

19.

That is the building I hate most. I can't wait for it too be demolished.

20.

It would be hard to build a more anti-urban building than this one. Look at the experience a pedestrian has with the building at street level - it could not be more dismal or alienating.

21.

I agree with #12. The lack of light would change the feel of the neighborhood. Not tremendously, but somewhat.

It's not that I love it, but I'm not sure I undersatnd where all the pro max-development comes from on this site.

22.

#s 12 and 21 are idiots.

23.

It's not quite a windowless building - the top 2 floors have windows recessed into behind those overhanging semi-circles.
The building isn't too bad from the outside but good lord, the inside is drab, musty and could use a serious overhaul.

24.

Suck it AJ.

25.

tear it down, the top is ugly and the street level is uninviting and dirty and dark.

26.

Lets not let NY loose another great building. If a taller building is needed just add 14 more floors with the same pattern.

27.

UGLY!

28.

Face-lift though please. As it stands now the hospital is trying to get the neighborhood to hate the facility so they will bend over and take a 17 story light-blocking building. Oh and forget it if you thought you would get a view of the new downtown towers.

Buildings need to be maintained, yet the hospital has let this one fall into the eyesore category. Instead, it could be respected as an architectural statement. You would not believe what a good groundskeeper and tenant can do for the outward appearance of a building in this style.

But hey when was the last time that you went into St. Vincent’s? Oh yah, that’s right their patient care is famously bad. I don’t know why I expected more of their ability to take care of buildings.

My advice: Put it in the hands of a decent administrator.

29.

Church of Scientology should buy it and make it the Manhattan fortress of reason and science!

Me, like space!

30.

Diana says it's "ugly and stupid and threatening."
Funny, I haven't seen it eat anyone yet with its overbite.

Calling buildings "stupid" or "threatening" or ascribing other silly useless adjectives does nothing to advance a reasonable discussion about what makes for a good building or a good city.

31.

I had relatives in from out of town this past weekend. They came from FL and NC, and had never been to NYC before. We were in a cab and came around the corner to this building and they both oohed and ahhhed - they thought it was really cool - which I thought was interesting because I've never been particularly fond of this building.

But, as NYC seems to be quickly becoming a land of tall, featureless glass towers, I think we should preserve these odd modernist relics so we retain some historical perspective. A better one to save would have been the one in Columbus Circle that is currently being torn down.

32.

The better of 2 evils would be to keep the
lower level building so you at least get the sunlight/open sky on the block.

33.

#31
If you’re referring to Edward Durrell Stone's 2 Columbus Circle, it’s not being torn down, it’s getting a new skin. For some reason somebody decided to make it ugly.

34.

I wouldn't care, if it wasn't for the interesting element it attracts on it's ground floor that the owners of the building don't seem to care about or care about cleaning up after.

35.

Just put some glass over it.......right?

36.

This is a serious post. Does anyone know what the status is on the St Vincents/Condo deal that will affect the future of this building? I haven't heard anything about it since the credit crunch news was released in August and I am wondering if current economical conditions are affecting this? Please let me know if you do, thanks.

37.

Why are all public buildings built in the 1960's look like they were meant to be on a moon city, this building isnt easy on the eyes, tear it down please.

38.

LIke the soon-to-be-demolished New School building at 14th and 5th, this one is destined to go simply because the air above it is way too valuable to waste on something like, you know, sky.

It's a fait accompli. No use even discussing it really.

39.

I only support this building because of its familiarity, considering how much of my Olde Chelsea has been lost.

But I think it's hideous. I once went to a proctologist's office in that building to have a hemorrhoid looked at. I got on all fours in a little platform thing that whirred me into the air, where I finally after eight-odd years saw the view out of a porthole window. The setting and situation seemed appropriate, somehow.

40.

If folks don't like glass, then they'll love the architects designing St. Vincent's replacement for the O'Toole. The hospital ran out of money, entered bankruptcy, didn't pay the businesses they owned money to, and have now hired I.M. Pei's expensive architecture firm to build the new building. They've been asked to make it contextual, but given Pei's hospital buildings (on their website), I find that unlikely. Glass is exactly what you'll get.

Furthrmore, I find it odd that no one is focusing on the fact that St. Vincent's is selling their existing buildings to the Rudin Family for A PROFIT. The Rudin family/St. Vincents will seek a variance from the city and from the community in order to develop the parcel into high rise condo buildings. PS41 is already at capacity. How will the village handle the flow?

I'm not a squatter, I have student loans, and now mortgage loans because I live nearby. So this is not just a random shout out. I am *sincerely* concerned about the ability of this organization to manage its resources.

41.

#11 and his sycophantic little yes-man, Colin, #15:

NO ONE cares what you have to say about your neighbors. You are two of the most hateful commentators on this blog. You do not think, you only criticize without facts and with much hate

This is in a landmarked neighborhood. St. Vincent's must go through a Zoning Change to build a new building.

So, like this or not, the Public, the People, your neighbors will have a say.

So, STFU!

If you don't like it, move to Houston where there are no Landmarking or Zoning law, you churlish hateful duo.

42.

Not only should it come down, but it MUST come down. Have always hated that piece of modernist crap. But several of the comments are right in fearing what greater (and certainly taller) evil might replace it. And #11 and Colin: I hate you, too, you reactionary know-nothings. You have no idea what progress is or isn't, let along community, culture and other broad concepts that rule our lives.

43.

Personally, I love this building. The inside offices are kind of amazing too (I'm sure very few of the people commenting have ever ventured inside). It's kind of a shame that they can't refurb it into something grand. It seems to me that very little of the original building is intact, but the far offices against the windows (yes, it has many windows on the outside, they are just expertly and discreetly set back) are really cool. They're squared off to make it usable space. If they would just put some gardens around the base and gut the inside of the building. You could make a really great hotel at the base and build a tower on top if that's what St. Vincent wants.

Whatever, they're going to tear it down. What ru gonna do? People have no taste. It's very typical NY. It's either glass und scteel or old and tired. Very little modernism survives in this city. They even kind of ruined the Maritime building with all that nasty business in front which is completely uninviting and elitist. (Keeping out those "public housing people" is probably what their aim was. typical)

44.

re: 20
right on - the building is a failure not because of its design but how it interacts with the streetscape.

45.

I like it, but I'd like it MUCH MORE if it was kept in better condition. The planters outside are full of refuse, and the structure could do with a hardcore cleaning. If left to crumble than why not replace it, BUT ideally I'd rather see it cleaned, updated, and preserved.

46.

Hey jimbo,
There is some serious irony and hypocrisy in telling #11 and #15 to STFU and then adding that "the Public, the People, your neighbors will have a say".

Presumably only the people who agree with you should have a say?

47.

#36:

I have been wondering the same thing - what will the effect be of tightening project credit, falling real estate prices and a glut of new residential buildings? I would guess it all adds up to less money for the properties St. Vincent's is proposing to sell, which might cast serious doubts on the viability of the plan.

48.

I thought that place was a parking garage.

49.

Worked in the O'Toole bldg for three months for a witch named Brenda Smith. Hated everything about it, except for the unusual bldg.

50.

Thanks for your response #47. This would be a truly positive effect the credit crunch would have on NYC. I hope the project falls through! I don't mind the building at all. Just clean it up and all will be OK. And do something with the roof too. It is a big eye sore from my apartment!

51.

#46
I have my opinions on the fate of this site. I may like the old building or want a new building. I may support St Vincents, I may not. It is irrelevant overall what I believe.

However, what ignoramuses like you and #11 and Colin fail to see and abhor is that the People will have a say in this at Public Hearings, whether they live across the street, three miles away, or in Houston.

That is how NYC laws work, in this instance.

If you don't like the Public Review Process, you too should go to Houston, where there is none.
Or better yet, try to change the NYC laws to reflect those of Houston.

Or come out at the Public Hearings and give your 2¢ instead of criticizing on a silly blog.

Or just STFU

52.

It's not even a good example of brutalism or whatever it's supposed to be.

53.

#39 Jeff FTW! That's an awesome story.

I've always disliked that building. "Threatening" is a pretty accurate term. I hope the replacement building has something pedestrian-friendly on the ground floor.

54.

Can't we just put a bank and ATM's in the lobby of it...then it'll fit right in.

55.

They should tear it down a build a building that looks like toilet girls ass. Now that would be a beautiful place to go into.

56.

St.Vicent's - O'Toole is amazing!!
I wanna Scream! I wanna hug it!
14 floors on top of it would be great
But plz respect the form

57.

You want to replace the building? Fine.

Just so long as you do not build anything on the site that is even so much as five feet taller than the building already there.

No *more* of this destruction of the sky in one of the few (at least partly) low horizon neighborhoods left in the city. No more. None.

Truly, most of the development going on and attempted down in this neighborhood is rapacious and destructive of simple spirit, decency, aesthetics, and human ease.

It is pure conscienceless predation.

58.

You guys always insult any building that's not a boring gray box. I haven't been inside this hospital, but I love it on the outside. It's unique.

59.

I hate reading the comments on this site exactly because of comments like #6's "A design only an architect could love." Only an architect? As in only a person who has studied centuries of building design for five or more years, who knows how to construct one from inside and out? As opposed to the ignorant people who marvel at their new Jennifer Convertibles furniture they bought for their cookie-cutter vinyl siding home in the suburbs? Give me a break...