2 Columbus Circle in NYC: Designed by Edward Durell Stone, opened in 1964 as the Gallery of Modern Art. Amid controversy it was rejected for landmark designation and was renovated 2005-2008, completely altering its once-distinctive and unique appearance in exchange for an unremarkable glass façade
I know a lot of people here aren’t exactly fond of modern architecture, and admittedly 2 Columbus Circle might not change your opinion with its windowless marble-clad walls and “lollipop” base. But in the very least, you have to admit that it was certainly unique, unlike its current appearance.
Relevant Quotes (about the renovation):
Justin Davidson, architecture and classical music critic:
>This version won’t satisfy those who thought it should never have been touched, and it’s not bold enough to overpower their arguments—or, I suspect, to turn the Museum of Arts and Design into an essential destination.
James Gardner, architecture critic for the New York Sun:
>Say what you want about Stone’s building, it was indubitably a landmark; the best that can be said for its replacement is that, if we’re lucky, no one will ever notice it … A thought occurs that might help us out of our newfangled mess: Assuming that what was done to the interior is what needed to be done all along, it might be relatively easy – not now of course, but after a decent interval of, say, five years – to restore the original façade.
Google Streetview. As a side note, the 1928 building to the side of it (3 Columbus Circle) was also wrapped up in a glass façade, around 2009. Apparently at one point after it’s recladding another developer tried to buy it just so he could demolish it, for it was ruining the view from his office.
Wikipedia article about 2 Columbus Circle. Real interesting stuff about how it happened, and how the chairman of the New York City Landmarks Commission and the Museum of Art and Design conspired to prevent a public hearing on the building and its proposed landmark status.
The new facade is just sad looking compared that the picture shown here. Destruction of beautiful architecture, modern or old, is sad to see.
ericerikkedodsays
Almost looks like something you’d see in Tehran or Riyadh
suicidepostersays
3 Columbus Circle right next door also had it’s facade raped.
_Dans_says
In Tom Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House, Stone is cast as an apostate. The Corbo cliques hated him. He went native, this building was derided as “every taxi driver’s favorite building.”
GeneralTonicsays
You may not have noticed it because of the other puffy white monstrosity in Columbus Ciricle, but you’ve probably seen this building in Ghostbusters.
CausticSubstancesays
Ah, the lollipop building,used to walk by it all the time. People all thought it was the ugliest thing around until suddenly it was going to be renovated – then everyone changed their tune, hahha.
BringBackBullMoosesays
Could we reverse the damage?
Alphateus1997says
This… Is actually not bad for something meant to represent modern architecture, but to me it looks more like expressionism ¯_(ツ)_/¯. When was it built?
Viscount1881 says
I know a lot of people here aren’t exactly fond of modern architecture, and admittedly 2 Columbus Circle might not change your opinion with its windowless marble-clad walls and “lollipop” base. But in the very least, you have to admit that it was certainly unique, unlike its current appearance.
Relevant Quotes (about the renovation):
Justin Davidson, architecture and classical music critic:
>This version won’t satisfy those who thought it should never have been touched, and it’s not bold enough to overpower their arguments—or, I suspect, to turn the Museum of Arts and Design into an essential destination.
James Gardner, architecture critic for the New York Sun:
>Say what you want about Stone’s building, it was indubitably a landmark; the best that can be said for its replacement is that, if we’re lucky, no one will ever notice it … A thought occurs that might help us out of our newfangled mess: Assuming that what was done to the interior is what needed to be done all along, it might be relatively easy – not now of course, but after a decent interval of, say, five years – to restore the original façade.
Google Streetview. As a side note, the 1928 building to the side of it (3 Columbus Circle) was also wrapped up in a glass façade, around 2009. Apparently at one point after it’s recladding another developer tried to buy it just so he could demolish it, for it was ruining the view from his office.
Wikipedia article about 2 Columbus Circle. Real interesting stuff about how it happened, and how the chairman of the New York City Landmarks Commission and the Museum of Art and Design conspired to prevent a public hearing on the building and its proposed landmark status.
Wikipedia article about the architect
Piece from the LA Review of Books about Stone’s legacy
matt_the_non-binary says
The new facade is just sad looking compared that the picture shown here. Destruction of beautiful architecture, modern or old, is sad to see.
ericerikkedod says
Almost looks like something you’d see in Tehran or Riyadh
suicideposter says
3 Columbus Circle right next door also had it’s facade raped.
_Dans_ says
In Tom Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House, Stone is cast as an apostate. The Corbo cliques hated him. He went native, this building was derided as “every taxi driver’s favorite building.”
GeneralTonic says
You may not have noticed it because of the other puffy white monstrosity in Columbus Ciricle, but you’ve probably seen this building in Ghostbusters.
CausticSubstance says
Ah, the lollipop building,used to walk by it all the time. People all thought it was the ugliest thing around until suddenly it was going to be renovated – then everyone changed their tune, hahha.
BringBackBullMoose says
Could we reverse the damage?
Alphateus1997 says
This… Is actually not bad for something meant to represent modern architecture, but to me it looks more like expressionism ¯_(ツ)_/¯. When was it built?