Glass structures can be beautiful, but only if the glass is tastefully and sparingly used. The glass buildings that have sprung up in New York City, many of which have been designed by hot shot architect Frank Gehry, are neither. Case in point: the Sail Building along the West Side Highway, across the street from Chelsea Piers. An atrocious combination of curved and tinted glass, this eyesore rejects Frank Lloyd Wright’s wise ethic: architecture should reflect and be integrated within its surrounding environment. Similar to a big ego, the Sail Building has little to do with its brick surroundings. Nor does it have anything to do with the Hudson. West Siders know, the beauty of the Hudson is in its urban feel, a feel entirely lost on the Gehry.
I admit, glass has its benefits. A July 7, 2009 article in the Science Times outlined some of them: when laminated with other polymers, glass can be stronger and safer than many metals. Aesthetically speaking, structures like the Apple stores are famous for using glass appropriately. The glass compliments and enhances the look and feel of their sleek and shiny products. In another example, L'Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris, is exquisite. Imprinted with patterns typical of the Middle East, the structure is as magical and classic as it is modern.
Is this not the same as a "tree-hugger" complaining about the ugly aesthetic of NYC having been built over the beautiful island of Manna-Hata (island of many hills or as the Lenape preferred to call it "Manahachtanienk" which roughly translates to "the island where we all become intoxicated")?
ReplyDeleteArchitectural tradition and nostalgia is subject to personal taste and the time in which you live. Do you not think that early in the history of NYC there were people who complained about the construction of many of the buildings we know and love today? Or how about a hundred years from now, won't there be a generation who looks on today's "modern" buildings as beautiful relics of an older time, and the new "nano-tech" buildings as the ugly aesthetic of the future?
I agree that the Sail building is an eye-sore, but I am all for architecture that breaks the norm and provides a little variety to what I would call the relatively "cookie-cutter" architecture of Manhattan that exists today (oh look, that completely unnecessary decorative stone is slightly different from the one on that building there!). Furthermore Gehry wanted the "sails" to evoke the boats of the river (rather than the bricks of the city) if I remember correctly.
Lastly, will the river cease to scent the streets simply because it is surrounded by glass and steel? Will we really lose good drinking company when the Starbucks move in? As far as I can tell this is not the case.
PS - Hi Vanessa! I like that you have a blog, and it's a great topic too. I'll definitely be following you on RSS. I hope all is well in post-Skidmore life.
Venessa,
ReplyDeleteJust discovered your blog - commented on the Upper West Side as well. I couldn't agree more about the Urban Glass House - The Ear had been my (sort-of) Manhattan local but I stopped going after the Glass House went up. It wasn't just the condos, and the truncated view, but the kind of people that went there changed (do they still have the bikers in on Tuesday nights I wonder?). The ambiance changed completely.
Best,
Tim