Astor Place's Gleaming New Face:

Madame de Sevigne once remarked that young people, as long as they are not positively deformed, have something attractive about them. And new buildings, as long as they are in conformity with the regnant style of the day, have some provisional interest by virtue of their contemporaneity. But once that style has passed, how paltry those buildings seem that can boast no other aesthetic value than that they were once of their day.

Here's an image -- does it have any relation to what is built? -- which I pulled down from Google and which shows a decent urban building:

Update: See the comments.

Unfortunately the retail space was rented (I gather) to a bank but that is not an architectural issue but a flaw in the zoning code etc etc.

Comments

[Hal O'Brien]

It may (or may not) help to see an illustration of the place in question. This appears to be the tower's web site.

[David Sucher]

Well I posted the quote not because of the tower itself -- which I have not seen -- but just on its own merits. Thank you, Hal, for the link.

On taking a glance at Hal's link, I'd suggest that the Astor Place Tower, seems to be a fine model for highrise urban development and that the author of the underlying post (James Gardner) bewilderingly ignores the staying power of such an urban form i.e. a base structure for retail uses which is built to the sidewalk with a tower emerging from the base but at a much lesser footprint. Seems more than OK to me. Am I wild about what appears to be mirrored glass for the tower etc? Not really. Are the variety of shapes at the crown appealing? Not from the images I have seen so far. Is it too big for the site? I have no idea; I don't know the area.

But what immediately struck me as important and good is the basic massing which manages to create a street-wall and a high-rise at the same time. I'll have to look for some good images of the building from the street, however.

[john massengale]

Take a look at Paul Goldberger's review of the building at the New Yorker (online, I think). He's usually very nice to New York Starchitects, but not this time.

[Hal O'Brien]

Oh, it's a swell quote and thought on its own. But my immediate response was, Does it apply? :) Or, just how paltry was the building in question to inspire the writer?

[miss representation]

It's interesting, as a matter of reporting, to see a building discussed at 'a distance'. This building is routinely villified in local press. If I could think of a source of positive commentary, I'd link to it, but I honestly haven't come across one. It's good to be reminded of how provincial we can be here -- this building was seen as the end of the world, aesthetically-speaking, to anyone within shouting distance

Aside from zoning being an issue for the retail space, the zoning which permitted that much height is more of an issue. Astor Place is a strange nexus in Manhattan, not having a proper park at it's center, but instead featuring the Alamo, typically referred to as the 'Astor Place cube' on a rather banal, small plaza, and bounded by too much traffic, most of it at dangerous speeds, and compounded by the multiple bus routes that terminate or return (the addition of articulate buses to most lines has intensified the problem). Nonetheless, the role of the Alamo as a gathering point for generations punks, NYU students, skateboarders and the like, has made it a very lively space (it also used to be the site of the first distribution of the Village Voice in Tuesday evenings, which, in the days before craigslist, made the ritual of apartment seekers queueing up just after work another reason for communal nostalgia). Add to that the presence of the Great Hall of the Cooper Union, and you have a site that, even as botiques and condos crept up Lafayette from NoHo, is steadfast in its association with counter-culture (Astor Place is also the head of St. Mark's Place, which is now disney-esque in its grunge, but still a place of fairly outre urban living).

The implantation of this building was then a slap in the face, and it's completely acontextual approach made the assertion that Ghery-like expressionism was viable, even if the local community embraced the notion of $9 million condos within throwing distacnce of the Continental, and slightly further from CBGB's, a rather specious claim.

Not knowing which, if any, large buildings you admire or see as successful, it would be unfair of me to say 'I'm surprised' that you like this project, but given your oft voiced disdain for the Big Names, it is not an unreasonable response.

[David Sucher]

As you seem to imply, MissR, the real issue seems to be the zoning which allowed _any_ construction on the site. Any profit-motivated construction, at any rate. No? Even a one-story building would have been a slap in the face to the urban counterculture. Agreed?

As to my disdain for big names -- that's not even remotely accurate; check out my posts -- you'll find not a one which denigrates fame, per se.

It's the anti-urban work of starchitecture which sparks my venom.

My disdain is for structures which do not contribute to walkable cities. The hard reality is that for reasons which (truly) still escape me, startchitects (and I don't think Gawthmey is truly a "starchitect") almost universally build in a manner which avoids creating a good streetfront, one which promtes a walkable neighborhood etc etc. If they built to The 3 Rules, I would ignore their attention-seeking contortions and be happy.

That's why the scorn which seems to be heaped on this Astor Place project puzzles me: it may be not be a great building but it seems (from a distance) to be a good urban one. Certainly we can ask for more but what's odd is why there seems to be no recognition at all of its merits. Of course I was a C student to I look up to even a good, solid B.

[Benjamin Hemric]

I have very mixed feelings about this building.

As a long time nearby resident, I've been daydreaming about what "should" be on the site for some 35+ years! In my daydreams, it's usually a bulky, brick or masonry low-rise building, of modern traditional design, that entirely fills the site. In this daydream, Cooper Union uses the upper floors of the building as an academic building, and the very top floor for skylit studios. (And, of course, it rents out the ground floor as retail.) This would allow them (in my daydeam, at least) to tear down the skylights atop their historic Foundation Building ("the" Cooper Union Building) and return the building to its orginal massing (and perhaps allow for a return to the original use of the ground floor -- rentable commercial space to replenish the school's endowment).

In urban design terms, filling out the blockfront would help to better define the unusual -- and now chaotic -- small spaces created by the odd intersection of streets. (It would help create a space that would be kind of like mini- low-rise Times Sq. or Herald Sq.)

When I first heard Cooper Union was seriously on its way towards building something on the site, I thought other designs and a different architect had been chosen. I forget the names that had been mentioned. But at one point Gehry was supposed to do a boutique hotel for Ian Schrager. And I thought the final design was an apartment house by Metamorphis[?]. And from the advertising on the huge billboard on the construction site, I was really fearing the worst.

So when I finally actually saw the building, I was relieved -- and pleasantly surprised. Strictly judged in visual terms, it is quite pretty. HOWEVER, I still think that the building is an example of a good building in the wrong location. I think this building really belongs somewhere on the Upper East Side, along Third or Second Avenues. So I still think a modern traditional building would have been better for this site.

In terms of retail on the ground floor: one reason I never thought about it that much is, despite all those bonused-plaza buildings, ground floor retail still seems to be (thankfully) the "default" design solution in Manhattan. Plus, there are a number of other recent (but less eye-catching) "towers-on-podiums" in the immediate vicinity already. So I don't think it seemed all THAT unusual to me.

But given the proliferation of bonused plazas and buildings with driveways, it is something to applaud in this new building.

[Benjamin Hemric]

Re-reading my post, I see I should have been clearer. What I mean to say is that ground floor retail in buildings that come out to the building line (one way or another) still appears to be the "default" mode of design in Manhattan -- so this aspect of this building did not seem all THAT unusual to me.

The nearby, less distinguished, buildings that were also built along these lines (i.e., having a tower atop a retail podium) were built, I believe, in the late 1980s.

[miss representation]

David, where did you get your reading comprehension? I said "that height", not "any height". This is another example where a meager set back allowed the developer to go a good 50-60 feet above the surrounding cornice lines (which are reasonably consistent in the immediate environment, and very consisent running down Lafayette -- since Manhattan slopes as it runs south, this building, and an even worse one coming up by Scarano Associates, are the two largest figures on the skyline from the East Side).

As to meet the street, that's where foolish and glib discussions of zoning are hopeless in the face of use and context. Like most new buildings (including the Avalon Chrystie, which 'meets the street'), there is an apron of storefront that is entirely inward focused, leading to a mean and monolithic street wall. New York succeeds because older building types modulate this intersection, via sidewalk seating, news and flower vendors and the like. Newer buildings discourage this type of use, an a upscale residental building wants to be as cloistered as it can be. It is certainly jarring to arrive at that corner and be greeted by a dry and interesting wall of grey, but considering it is replacing a parking lot (which, taking a cue from de Certeau, was the most notable example of pedestrian path making, since everyone cut through to when crossing from the south), it's not as if we are complaining about destruction of a extant object (in fact, having the entire goopy think rise behind a fence would have resulted in a far better experienc for pedestrians. The building is inane and forced, its height driven by craven development considerations, and an arrogant architect who wanted to force another ungainly and ill-considered form into a well known vista (see, Museum, Guggenheim). There was plenty of volume on the site building into the envelope established by a number of good to great immediate neighbors. Even if a variance wasn't necessary to get to that size, set back bonuses under a certain height seem foolish, particularly given your predelicition for meeting the street.

BTW, the original plan was to have Herzog & de Meuron collaborate with OMA on a hotel (which is now sort of happening a few blocks south, though no one has a decent rendering yet). I suspect that would have resulted in a far more interesting project.

[Jesse McCann]

The height is fine in my opinion, it stands out in the area in a good way. It will be an excellent wayfinder for those looking for the subway station. I am not a fan of the mirrored glass, it seems a little Shenzhen to me, but I am sure this will come back in fashion again. I am delighted, however, to find out that it has a civilized base with retail (no one has seen this yet as it has been mostly covered in scaffolding). I don't mind outre' tower designs as long as they protrude from a reasonable urbanized base (Vancouver-style). As to the ultra-cool bohemian aspect of Astor place which Miss-R seems to imply, IIRC the square is also bordered by K-mart, Barnes and Noble and Starbucks, Starbucks, Starbucks. So building a mirrored-glass office tower-like building in front of the Alamo, a corporate park-style sculpture could actually be considered contextual! But the Sculpture for Living is residential, not an office tower, and you're only a few blocks from a great Ukrainian 24 hour diner. Perhaps it's a perfectly appropriate design for the purpose and for the location.

[Bill Seitz]

I live around the corner from the building.

I think the curvy/reflective glass thing is rather alien to the area's feel, and personally I prefer stonework and brick.

But, more relevant to this discussion, I think the sidewalk is rather narrow in comparison to the 2-story uninterrupted (except at the corners) flat glass walls with just a boring bank inside.

(And million-dollar studios piss me off. At least in this neighborhood.)

I'll try to post some street-level photos soon...

http://flickr.com/photos/webseitz/tags/astorplace/

[Bill Seitz]

OK, more photos added from walking around yesterday:
http://flickr.com/photos/webseitz/tags/astorplace/

Regarding that long N-sidewalk, see
http://www.flickr.com/photos/webseitz/72357371/

It's a nice wide sidewalk, but there are no doorways from corner to corner, and it's one long bank branch inside, vs say a series of different interesting retail windows.

[Bill Seitz]

When you look at the list of tagged photos, you don't see that each of them has a Description.

See also:
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/AstorPlace

[Bill Seitz]

Even more photos posted - this batch focused on view around the open space. (Have more shots, including the residential side entrance to the building, but filled my FlickR upload limit.)

http://flickr.com/photos/webseitz/tags/astorplace/