Culture,Design,Urbanism

Making Room at the Japan Society

WEDNESDAY , November 9, 2011 | BY  

As a member of the Board of Directors for the Citizen’s Housing & Planning Council (CHPC), a non-profit research organization founded in 1937 to improve housing and neighborhood conditions throughout New York City, I have been fortunate to help organize and participate in a number of unique programs.

Two years ago, CHPC Executive Director, Jerilyn Perine, and Senior Policy Analyst, Sarah Watson, launched a program, “One Size Fits Some,” which examined housing standards in New York City, in comparison to other regions of the country as well as the world. The objective was to learn from other cultures as a means of redefining allowable housing units in New York City, in response to changing lifestyle and demographic patterns. Subsequent investigations identified key parts of New York City housing laws and codes that are currently acting as regulatory barriers to the development of new housing types, critically needed for the safety and continued prosperity of New York City.

This past week, CHPC in collaboration with The Architectural League presented a sequel to the previous analysis, “Making Room,” a daylong program that was presented on Monday, November 7, 2011, at the Japan Society. Making Room included presentations from four New York City teams of architects led by Peter Gluck, Stan Allen and Rafi Segal, Deborah Gans, and Jonathan Kirschenfeld, which suggested ways of redefining how we live in New York.

The program opened with an introduction from Linda Gibbs, New York City Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services. As she explained, “the major issue is that the traditional household is changing; New York has more people living alone than ever before.” Additionally, as the baby boomer population is aging, we are about to enter a period where there will be more people over 65 than below 18 years of age, for the first time in New York City’s history.

It was explained that most housing units in New York are designed to serve the typical nuclear family; however we are increasingly living in more diverse, non-traditional household configurations. As a consequence, young professionals, low wage workers, and members of the “creative class,” have highly limited housing options that are safe, legal, affordable, and suit their needs. Additionally, the typical unit does not support the lifestyle of a single parent, a transient worker, or our ever-increasing aging population.

As part of the program, I participated as a respondent to Jonathan Kirschenfeld’s presentation, “The Pleasures of Density: Flexible Single and Shared Housing Typologies.” Kirschenfeld began the presentation by showing how affordable housing options for single persons have disappeared over the last 50 years. He explained that supportive housing regulations in Use Group 2 permit small unit sizes and reduced areas for rearyard courtyards in community facilities. However, for the typical residential tenant, housing standards are defined by Use Group 3 that requires a much larger unit and an extensive rear-yard setback and/or courtyard. Additionally, shared facilities are not easily accommodated.

Plan and perspective cut at the duplex apartment level of ‘The Mix’ building, showing a planted roof terrace and coffee bar, overlooking a ‘greened’ Grand Concourse. Such shared amenities for building residents link the individual dwelling units to the dense city beyond.

As a consequence, Kirschenfeld suggested that if we were allowed to design residential buildings for single tenants under Use Group 2, we could create greater densities, create more affordable units, and offer more housing options. He showed a scheme for a new residential building, “The Mix,” on the Grand Concourse in the Bronx. The building included very small single room units with shared common space. It also included live-work duplexes and loft units for a multiple of lifestyles. What was unique about Kirschenfeld’s approach was that it also suggested an attitude about blurring the distinction between inside and outside by greening the Grand Concourse and creating more opportunities to let activity to spill out on the street.

I reminded the participants of the quote from Eliel Saarinen, “Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context–a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, and an environment in a city plan.” By embracing the city as a whole as a part of the program, we are creating a city that supports our future needs.

What I appreciated most about the “Making Room” discussion is that architects are having a voice in public policy in the City. Five years ago, when I was President of the AIA New York Chapter, my theme was “Architecture and Public Policy,” and I spoke about the need for architects to have a voice, as policy decisions are defined by our governing bodies. What has been great about working with CHPC and the Architectural League in concert with City officials on this program is that there is an appreciation that architects are part of the dialogue as we define the city to respond to our future needs. Now we need to stop talking and make some of these ideas really happen.

commentsCOMMENTS (0) tags , , , ,

Culture,Urbanism

Landscape of the City

THURSDAY , May 5, 2011 | BY  

It is springtime in New York and we all need to appreciate what this transitional period means (hint: the rebirth of nature) by spending a little more time outdoors. As temperatures became more forgiving and the skies less ominous, I followed my own advice and wandered over to Madison Square Park to enjoy a glimpse of nature. There, a temporary installation “Kota Ezawa: City of Nature,” afforded  a supplemental and unexpected look at the natural world in addition to all the flowers and greenery.

As I entered the park’s southeast corner and headed towards the always buzzing Shake Shack, I heard the strange hum of uncannily familiar music only to discover ‘planted’ among spring’s tulips were several flat screen monitors playing a six-minute continuous loop of video collages by multi-media artist and illustrator Kota Ezawa.

From the park’s manicured setting, I contemplated vivid, exuberant scenes of pointedly ‘wild’ nature (sharks, cascades, mountains, and prairies) through the bias of the artist. The piece strings together re-worked popular culture film clips, themed around nature, leading one to ponder the larger questions of nature as a construct of culture.

Kota Ezawa comments about his work, “City of Nature is an alternative to the mainstream nature film in that it weaves together 70 nature scenes from 20 different pop culture films through animation. The nature scenes, stemming from films as diverse as Late Spring by Yasujirō Ozu and Rambo: First Blood, are stitched together into an abstract narrative where one natural element leads to the next. The entire film collage is hand redrawn and transformed into an animated film.[1]

a. Kota Ezawa, video stills from City of Nature, 2011. Courtesy of the artist and Madison Square Park Conservancy.

The experience was well-worth the detour as this culture/nature juxtaposition reverberates at many scales. Consider, for instance, the history of the park’s land itself. Although today Madison Square Park offers a planted haven from its built and paved surroundings – the reason for which I felt compelled to go there to begin with – it is remarkably alien to the original wilderness of the Island of Manhattan. To get a sense of the original ‘natural’ conditions of our habitat, navigate the fascinating Manahatta Project (http://welikia.org/explore/mannahatta-map/.) Otherwise, to give you a sense of the Island’s transformations, here are some striking representations (drawn from the Welikia Project.)

British Headquarters Map, circa 1782

b. The British Headquarters Map, circa 1782, is the best record of Mannahatta's early topography and ecology. The National Archives of the UK, ref. MR1/463. (http://welikia.org/about/how-it-all-began/)

Current-Day Satellite Photograph of Manhattan

c. Current-Day Satellite Photograph of Manhattan. Photomontage by author from Google Maps Imagery ©2011 Google © 2011 DigitalGlobe, Bluesky, Sanborn USDA Farm Service Agency, GeoEye

Madison Square Park

d. Current Day Bird’s Eye view of Madison Square Park. Pictometry Bird’s Eye © 2010 Pictometry International Corp © AND © 2010 NAVTEQ © 2011 Microsoft Corporation. Image courtesy of USGS.

In fact, as the artist himself suggests, his work invites a careful consideration of our outlook onto our surroundings:

“Surrounded by classic Manhattan buildings, Madison Square Park itself can be experienced as a piece of architecture, and as such, encourages us to view Manhattan as landscape. The fusion of nature and construction is a prevalent theme in City of Nature as throughout the city of Manhattan—natural film landscapes are re-constructed over and over again through the process of animation, just as nature in real form is re-constructed time and time again as Manhattan continues to evolve. In this way, the film mirrors Madison Square Park, attempting to draw park-goers into a conversation about nature both within the film and throughout the park itself.”[2]

It seems like too good an invitation to pass up. Let’s celebrate Spring, the rebirth of nature, and the City we live in by appreciating its complexities through Ezawa’s fascinating art installation. But go now, for like Spring, it will be gone soon; the installation closes on Sunday, May 15.

Kota Ezawa: City of Nature. Madison Square Park. Daily 9am -11pm. Madison Square Park Conservancy, Art Program (Mad. Sq. Art).

http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=46126

http://www.madisonsquarepark.org/things-to-do/calendar/kota-ezawas-city-of-nature-now-playing-in-the-park

[1] Madison Square Park Conservancy’s Mad. Sq. Art Premieres Commissioned Film, http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=46126 (04/19/2011)

[2] Kota Ezawa. Madison Square Park Conservancy’s Mad. Sq. Art Premieres Commissioned Film, http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=46126 (04/19/2011)

commentsCOMMENTS (1) tags , ,

Sustainability,Urbanism

Are New Yorkers up for the Challenge?

TUESDAY , April 26, 2011 | BY  

Our problems of climate change and diminishing energy supply are greater than ever – but architects and designers can have a significant impact in improving the state of the planet. Buildings are responsible for over 75% of New York City’s greenhouse gas emissions, and there is a tremendous opportunity to effect real change through energy efficient and innovative design.

Ed Mazria

Edward Mazria, Santa Fe, New Mexico. ©2007 Jamey Stillings

Ed Mazria is one architect who is making a big difference. He is a pre-eminent leader and visionary in the field of sustainable design. With a career spanning 45 years, he has been engaged in environmental issues since the 1970’s. He is the author of the “Bible” of solar design, The Passive Solar Energy Book. Most significantly, he closed his practice in 2006 to start Architecture 2030, a non-profit organization that challenges designers to achieve carbon neutrality in buildings by the year 2030. Carbon neutral buildings do not emit greenhouse gases or offset any emissions by producing renewable energy.

Ed Mazria speaks to an audience of 400 attendees.

As part of Earth Week 2011 (April 16-22), the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) invited Mr. Mazria to give a keynote lecture to launch its 2030 training program, which will educate designers on how to achieve ambitious energy and carbon reduction targets. I had the privilege of speaking with him about creating a sustainable vision for the future and how New York City architects and designers can rise to the occasion.

IJ: How do you see New York City as uniquely-positioned to achieve significant greenhouse gas reductions?

EM: New York City is already quite energy efficient due to the city’s high density and public transportation network. The inherent efficiency of the city’s plan and infrastructure will make it easier to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets than in many other locations.

IJ: The city consists primarily of occupied existing buildings. It is typically much simpler to design a sustainable building when it is a new constriction. Do you see significant environmental improvements being possible in this regard?

EM: Most buildings in New York will undergo renovation over the next twenty years. A number will also get demolished. As well, many building enclosures will soon need replacement, particularly post-WW2 curtain wall buildings. Gut renovations of office spaces take place on a regular basis. There is great opportunity to re-imagine and reduce energy consumption in all these buildings.

IJ: How do you specifically see New York architects as champions of the global climate crisis?

EM: It’s up to the design community to solve the problem. If we don’t do it, nobody will. New York City is a global center for design that takes place all over the world, both directly by firms doing work internationally, and indirectly by the city’s leadership role. New York should be forging the way.

IJ: Do you think that the role of architects and designers needs to adapt to meet these ambitious environmental goals?

EM: Absolutely. The field of sustainable design is exploding and the boundaries of practice need to expand – and are doing so. Architects are also engaging more deeply in policy and legislation to help advance the agenda more quickly.

IJ: There is a lot of discussion these days about building design vs. performance, and the role of the owner and operator in helping to achieve energy reduction goals. What are your thoughts about this?

EM: We need to keep design simple and easy to operate. In my experience, if we rely on too many overly complex technologies, things will fall apart when a building operator leaves or new tenants move in. As much as possible, we should design the buildings to operate themselves. 60-80% of the energy reduction strategies can be dealt with through design strategies.

IJ: With so many years of experience in sustainable design under your belt, what advice would you give to students, architects, and designers just starting out?

EM: Be visionary about how to transform buildings and the building sector, and about the possibilities for the future. Don’t hesitate to experiment and test. Finally, education and information sharing is critical for us to collectively achieve significant impacts in improving the state of our environment.

Ed Mazria and Bruce Fowle

Ed Mazria with FXFOWLE Founding Principal Bruce Fowle.

An edited version of this interview was first published in the Huffington Post.

commentsCOMMENTS (1) tags , , , ,

Culture,Urbanism

A Bird Eat Bird World

TUESDAY , March 15, 2011 | BY  

 

I may be far from waking up to birdsong in the mountains of Vermont, but occasionally something reminds me that even New York City has a significant wildlife population. After spending ten hours a week on an underground train I sometimes forget that, despite all the concrete, steel, and taxi cabs, we share this city with a lot of, if not angry, at least hungry birds; and not all of them are pigeons.

During a recent mid-afternoon trip to the office coffee machine, I just barely caught the moment when a carnivorous bird swooped out of the sky and dropped to the roof of the building next door with a still struggling pigeon clamped in its beak. I immediately grabbed my camera and snapped a few shots of this National Geographic moment before the unlucky victim was reduced to a pile of feathers and blood-stained snow.

Hawk vs. Pigeon

Hawk vs. Pigeon

Hawk vs. Pigeon

The only meat-eating birds in New York with which I am on somewhat familiar terms are the Red-Tailed Hawks of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park, which soar nonchalantly over our pick-up Frisbee games and Sunday barbecues. This Manhattanite bird whose attack I witnessed outside the kitchen window was a stranger to me, so I sent the photos around to various sources for identification: my boyfriend (an internet savvy sleuth), some coworkers (who helped develop the Audubon Society’s Bird-safe Building Guidelines), my father (a member of Cornell University’s Project Feederwatch), and Marcia Fowle (former Executive Director of the New York City Audubon and wife of FXFOWLE’s Founding Principal Bruce Fowle).  Most assumed the bird was the speedy Peregrine Falcon, but my dad, Marcia, and her daughter Margaret, the Fowle’s “in-family ornithologist,” officially identified the bird as a Sharp-shinned Hawk.

The Sharp-shinned Hawk, according to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, “winters in a large variety of habitats, including urban and suburban areas,” and is “a regular visitor to bird feeders, where it eats birds, not seed.” The small hawk has a wingspan of only 17-22 inches, less than half the intimidating 52 inches of the red-tailed hawk, making this featherweight snare even more impressive.

While I probably won’t witness another Sharp-shinned Hawk nature scene as dramatic as this one, who knows what other aviary activities I might see outside my office window this spring.

commentsCOMMENTS (5) tags , , ,

Design

Lincoln Center: Behind the Scenes

TUESDAY , August 10, 2010 | BY  

by Jessica Pleasants

We at FXFOWLE take pride in knowing that our buildings really shape how people interact with New York City—whether at the Bronx Zoo, in Times Square, or walking through Lower Manhattan. One of the perks of my job is having access to project architects who have spent hundreds of hours analyzing the site or designing details for a city-altering project. Not being an architect myself, I never thought I’d have the opportunity to see these buildings the way a member of the design team does. But lucky me! Our office organizes site visits to give staff behind-the-scenes looks at some of our works-in-progress.

I attended one of these site visits with Bob Katchur, project architect for Lincoln Center’s new public spaces. Regular patrons of Lincoln Center already will have noticed changes to the performing arts complex—a shaded tree grove, a sloped green lawn, and improved access from Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 65th Street. But, nobody knows Lincoln Center like Bob!

The cavernous mechanical complexities beneath Lincoln Center.

He took us underground and walked us through an enormous, three-story below-grade building that spans the entire north-south length of Lincoln Center. Although I had heard about the extent of the work done to the Plaza Building, actually seeing it gave me a real understanding of the complexities of its program. Portions of the structural floor slabs were removed to maximize the 460,000 square feet of usable space. Long, winding tunnels lead to expansive mechanical rooms that extend city blocks. The ceiling of Lincoln Center’s steam and electricity distribution room was cut out to make room for a new elevator pit above—all done without disturbing current steam and electricity service. The average opera connoisseur or ballet aficionado would have no idea of the mechanical complexities keeping Lincoln Center operational. But now, I do.

One of thirty trees lifted over Lincoln Center Theater to plant Barclay's Capital Grove.

Here are a few facts I learned that I thought I’d pass along:

  • Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts comprises twelve separate constituencies; each was involved in the decision-making process. (Can you name them all?)
  • During a single night, Barclay’s Capital Grove’ s thirty trees were lowered into place by a 300-foot crane anchored on 65th Street that reached over Lincoln Center Theater.
  • The monolithic surface of the North Plaza actually slopes. It’s so subtle that you can only notice it when you examine the edges of the reflecting pool.
  • The unusual shape of the Illumination Lawn—geometrically a hyperbolic paraboloid—is a series of straight steel beams, each slightly more rotated than the previous. It slopes as much as 18 degrees in some parts.
  • The design team evaluated over 3,000 species of grass before choosing the color and durability of Tall Fescue Grass and Kentucky Bluegrass for the lawn.
commentsCOMMENTS (0) tags ,

Culture,Urbanism

Water Street: Looking Back

FRIDAY , August 6, 2010 | BY  

  

By James Way

Last month the New York Times reported on an 18th-century ship found buried at the World Trade Center site, an amazing discovery that harks back nearly thirty years to our building site at 175 Water Street. 

In 1981, while digging the foundations, excavation exposed the wooden skeleton of an old merchant ship. The 100-foot hull was within view of the South Street Seaport Museum ship docks in the East River. Dating from the 18th century, the merchant ship was the first find from that period. 

 IMAGES FROM THE FXFOWLE ARCHIVES – 175 Water Street 

February 10, 1982: A view of the archaeological investigation of the 175 Water Street site in Lower Manhattan during the excavation of an 18th-century merchant ship.

March 1, 1982: An archaeologist holds a “depth sounding weight” found during the excavation.

August 11, 1982: The construction of the tower designed by FXFOWLE (Fox & Fowle).

Archeologists speculate that the ship sailed the Caribbean as part of the tobacco trade, but they are not sure how the three-mast merchantman ended up in Manhattan. Regardless, sometime around 1750 the ship become part of a retaining wall that extended the Lower Manhattan shoreline. We uncovered it 230 years later. And, while Bruce still has a piece as his trestle coffee table, the boat resides in storage in Norfolk, VA. Other noteworthy historical discoveries in Lower Manhattan are listed here.

commentsCOMMENTS (0) tags ,

Culture,Urbanism

Make-Shift Café

THURSDAY , August 5, 2010 | BY  

Makeshift cafe at West 55th Street between 7th and 8th Avenues

It was a classic case of “if you build it, they will come” OR possibly a reaction to a general lack of outdoor space in this vicinity: “I am going to MAKE an outdoor space to sit—because I can’t take it anymore!!!”  This makeshift outdoor café, whose creator is unknown but suspected to be someone involved with the construction site immediately beside it, was spotted along the south side of West 55th street between 7th and 8th avenues.  At 9am this gem of indoor rebellion was not being used as it should, but I imagine the lunch crowd will definitely enjoy it. See, outdoor space is such a premium in this city that even folding metal chairs and TV tray tables become the saving grace for New Yorkers cooped up at their jobs on brilliantly sunny afternoons and evenings when the air is just right. Perhaps that is why no one had wandered off with the un-secured furniture…yet.

commentsCOMMENTS (1) tags ,

Culture

I Spy Ballerinas at Lincoln Center

TUESDAY , August 3, 2010 | BY  

by Jessica Pleasants

Lincoln Center has always existed to me as a vaguely defined area near my friend’s apartment on the Upper West Side. As a kid walking by I was interested in which movies were playing at the Loews Theater or what was on sale at Tower Records, completely unaware that live music and dance performances were taking place right across the street at one of the city’s premier cultural arts venue. It wasn’t until I saw Center Stage, a movie about ballet set in the fictional American Ballet Academy at Lincoln Center, that I focused my attention on the entire complex, wondering to myself, “Where exactly did they film that movie?”

ballerina silhouettes

Ballerinas inside the Glorya Kaufman Dance Studio between performances

Anyone who has passed by Lincoln Center and the Juilliard School in the past year, regardless of an interest in architecture, would have to be oblivious not to notice the changes on 65th Street and Broadway. Most obvious is an expansion to the block between 65th and 66th Streets that extends Alice Tully Hall’s lobby to Broadway. An all-new curtainwall allows one to see Tully’s entrance and lobby as well as the rehearsal and circulation spaces of the Juilliard School above. That passers-by can see ballerinas keeping their muscles warm between performances, or “peek behind the curtain” as FXFOWLE’s Sylvia Smith, Partner-in-Charge of the renovations, put it, creates an intimacy between the viewer and the performer previously available only by private tour, or in my case, by watching actress Amanda Schull as Jody Sawyer make her way through the Academy.

commentsCOMMENTS (0) tags , ,

Urbanism

Artistic and Waterfront Neighborhoods, Migration and Densification

WEDNESDAY , June 30, 2010 | BY  

By James Way

Last weekend I walked across the Williamsburg Bridge and couldn’t help but think of all the hub-bub around waterfront development. Manhattan’s west side has been transforming for years in that stretch between the West Village and Hell’s Kitchen, with the more celebrated development revolving around the High Line in Chelsea. Now that development is growing up along the East River, and the hotbed of debate there, settled yesterday, has been revolving around the Domino Sugar Refinery in Williamsburg. Congestion, affordability, and infrastructure were among the top points of contention, in a largely political debate aesthetics were not.

This all reminds me of a panel in May, IIDA NY’s “Residential Forum: Art & Design in Artistic Neighborhoods.” The event, subtitled “Potential Growth of Residential Waterfront Real Estate and the Artists Behind the Transformation” gathered Mark Strauss, Senior Partner of FXFOWLE; Brian Lewis, Senior Associate of Andre Kikoski Architect; and Julie Pham, Senior Vice President of Corcoran Group as three constituents of the forces transforming waterfront neighborhoods: the planner, the architect, and the broker, respectively. I thought any moment someone would accuse one, if not all, of the panelists of destroying the artists’ neighborhoods. It came a lot later than I had anticipated.

L to R: Julie Pham, Mark Strauss, Julie Iovine, Brian Lewis, Hans Galutera

Conspicuously missing from the panel was a developer or an artist, especially as the forum was to highlight artists’ roles in new neighborhoods and how architects and interior designers envision new waterfront residential buildings. Without an artist, or a developer, the discussion was fairly one-sided. Granted, Strauss gave a sweeping history of migrating art-centric neighborhoods—LES, Chelsea, WeVil—and the zoning affecting development. This led to waterfronts, whether in Hell’s Kitchen, Williamsburg, or Hunts Point, and their increasing role in the city, which begins to court controversy. While touching on FXFOWLE’s projects, including Northside Piers (adjacent to Domino) and the Helena (Hell’s Kitchen), he focused on the political factors involved and the need to maximize mixed-use, diversity, and vibrancy as possible. Lewis used his firm’s work in Williamsburg, Bushwick, and the Wright restaurant at the Guggenheim Museum as examples where context informs the project. However the latter, neither residential nor waterfront, seemed moot (but it did win a James Beard award that evening). Pham’s delivery begged the most vehement reaction from the crowd, but she emerged unscathed from the fallout that would soon emerge. Listing a litany of recent High Line-associated projects by starchitects—Lindy Roy, Jean Nouvel, Shigeru Ban, Neil Denari—that fetch up to $4,600/sf for prime penthouse real estate, she speculated that the units are occupied a mere month or two out of the year; however, she indicated that the waterfront market remains strong even in the economic downturn. Furthermore, these prices have established “Manhattan as a gated community” beyond the reach of most artists.

Moderated by Julie Iovine, Executive Editor Architect’s Newspaper, the Q+A started quite innocuously until one young attendee, who has been living in Williamsburg, lamented the development along the waterfront and sporadically further inland, which is effectively pricing-out young designers, artists and those caught between affordable and “market-rate” housing. This caused the proverbial other shoe to drop when another accused the panel, Mark Strauss in particular, of destroying the community fabric of “artist neighborhoods.” Architects, he responded, cater not to developers, but are inextricably tied to the politics and economics that realize projects. Plus, this push of the market causes exploration of other neighborhoods such as Astoria, Clinton Hill, Washington Heights, or, yes, even Staten Island, a whole untapped borough.

Which brings me back to the controversial 2.8 million-square-foot Domino. The developer and politicos have been debating the proposal’s “appropriateness” and establishing its program. Supporters praise the inclusion of playgrounds, a four-acre park, riverside esplanade, a school, a supermarket, and 30% affordable housing, sadly needed even in an economy leaving many neighborhood units vacant. Those expressing concern cite the plan’s density, 40-story towers (which have come down to 34, see the Architect’s Newspaper for coverage) and the limited public transportation. As an L-train rider, I fully understand this rush hour concern. However, beyond mere pros and cons, widely-published writer Stephen Zacks criticizes the plan for supporting the status quo of development and lacking the vision and creativity deserving of New York and the designer.

photo by Eugenio Pastor

The issues are well-worth debate as the waterfront is a commodity and resource increasingly attracting, even demanding, attention and development. The debate, quantitative for city officials and the developers and qualitative for the design profession and public, could very well be a turning point in how we approach integrating design with market forces and public policy. While many cities have developed their waterfronts with high-rises and public parks (the more successful tend to front beaches), New York must accommodate mixed-use, accessibility, amenities, affordability, and diversity, as well as expand notions of and approaches to planning, development, and design. Our city certainly has the talent. Let’s not sugar-coat it.

commentsCOMMENTS (0) tags , ,

Culture,Urbanism

Fifth Edition of AIA Guide to New York Wide-Ranging and Comprehensive

THURSDAY , June 24, 2010 | BY  

by Jessica Pleasants

The AIA Guide to New York, which was updated (as a Fifth Edition) for the first time in ten years, imparts a critical opinion on the architecture of our city. Just as previous editions conveyed astute observations on New York’s building stock, so does the 2010 Guide—with a few additional judicious comments.

Often thought of as a bible for both architecture practitioners and aficionados, the Guide contains entries on over 6,000 buildings throughout the five boroughs. How did the authors decide what buildings did and did not make the cut? In describing the late Norval White’s editorial attitude of the Guide at its June 2nd launch party at the Center for Architecture, co-author Fran Leadon explained that the structures either had to be “either really good, or really bad.”  

The authors collaborated on the project from separate continents—Leadon in New York and White from France—using Flickr, Google Docs, and Skype to share information and data. 22 of Leadon’s students from City College of New York assisted in scouting and photographing the buildings, eventually creating an online database of 4,200 images from which White chose 300 for the Guide. The two-year project resulted in a 1,055-page long reference and walking tour guide that reflects the diversity and vitality of New York’s built environment.

commentsCOMMENTS (0) tags ,
« Newer Posts — Older Posts »



architizer