Forgot to post more of these pics of this building
12 Likes
one of the more beautiful examples of brutalism, when maintained
this should be landmarked and loved
not everything needs to be a stupid glass box
8 Likes
Absolutely not
3 Likes
nope, absolutely yes
3 Likes
I spent a long time hating this building, but over the years have come around to deeply appreciate it for its architectural importance and its massive impact on the skyline.
My issue is, as the new Midtown East supertalls begin to radiate out from Grand Central, this 808 foot tower finds itself standing in the natural location for the district’s centerpiece crown jewel. (I had a similar sensation when that old 1800 ft. concept for the eventual Spiral site went out, where the giant tower appeared to be standing at the back of 30 HY, which is clearly designed to be the focal point of the neighborhood.)
I don’t especially like the look of that vision bmosborne posted, but if the engineering for a massive addition is indeed possible, I find myself dreaming about what it would look like to add another 800-1200 feet in a neo-brutalist style that marries with the original.
9 Likes
This building oozes history with its pedigree-- designed by the father of Bauhaus, originally anchored by Pan Am, and still a pristine example of its time today. IMO it is perfect for landmark status, whenever that may be considered. Hopefully the Pan Am signage may be reinstated one day.
7 Likes
This building is quite ugly in its current state and should not be landmarked. It should be recladded and made less heinous. This can also be said for lots of ugly brutalist blights scattered around the city.
The LPC should be shamed if this would be landmarked by them yet many infinitely more beautiful buildings are able to be so easily demolished that they’ve done nothing to prevent.
Agree that more buildings should be landmarked.
But completely disagree about this one. It is well-designed by a generational architect. A city icon in the true sense of the word. In fact, I think other International Style towers of the era, along Park Avenue for example (think the Union Carbide Building), should also be landmarked.
7 Likes
I can understand both sides for the MetLife, I personally do like the building even though it may not be the prettiest, but as others have mentioned, appearance isn’t the only quality of a building even though at face value it technically is. But the general appearance of a structure isn’t the only criteria that the LPC uses to landmark buildings and thats clear from the number of beautiful buildings that have been torn down. I think history of the building and what it symbolizes are the 2 main points that LPC looks for in a building.
I agree with Antonio that the building is an icon in its own right.
5 Likes
I think a really good cleaning would help. It is a great example of brutalist architecture and even though it is not pretty, hence the name brutalist, it is an icon of the city and an important movement in architecture.
4 Likes
I was surprised to see this detail on the ground level of MetLife
It looks really good and contextual - I"m torn about the renovation: on one end is an important building from a very important architect, but at the same time, it has a brutalist look that didn’t age well
10 Likes
@TKDV I find it amazing that this building is not even in the top 30 of the tallest buildings in NYC, yet it would absolutely dominate the Bridgeport skyline in Connecticut. 
5 Likes
It is amazing isn’t it, but even not including those buildings with spires that surpass it in height, this building still wouldn’t be in the top 20. Buildings are simply just tall in NY, and while 808" is still considerably tall, it ofcourse just disappears next to a 1400’ building. The only reason this building is still visible is because of it’s width, which would allow it to stand out anywhere in the city in a similar manner to One Chase Manhattan Plaza.
2 Likes
That’s true. A 1400’ building next to Metlife makes it look like a mid-rise building lol, but it’s still a behemoth because of the width.
(Sorry for going a little off topic here) However, even 3 Sutton Place looks huge despite having less width. 
3 Likes
That diagram depicts 3 Sutton Place about 2 times too wide even though it’s showing it at an angle. A lot of diagrams on SSP for NYC are incorrect in their depictions/proportions.
3 Likes
Thank GOD someone else has said it.
The left diagram is horrible and is the current selected diagram on the timeline, while the one on the right is passive and more accurate…yet is not used anymore
1 Like
@TK2000 I definitely don’t hold back on my criticism of SSP diagrams no matter the artist, I’ve been slowly trying to get back into diagram making to replace some NYC based diagrams as I have already done for One Vanderbilt and 520 5th Ave (though not visible to the public).
A shot from my evening walk yesterday, unfortunately didn’t get one of the full building though I thought I had.
6 Likes
Huge!
2 Likes