Ok so thread was cleaned up.
6 Likes
What do you think the Pan Am or MetLife Building deserves the landmark status or not?
8 Likes
I am pro-Pan Am/MetLife Building. It’s not pretty, it’s not one of Gropius’ best works, it’s not even one of the best brutalist buildings in the city, but it’s iconic and classic NYC. For me, PanAm is a perfect architectural representative of its era in the city’s history, in the same way that Chrysler and ESB are perfectly evocative of the jazz age. Yes, Lever House, Seagram, and the UN Building are better examples of post-war Modernist architecture, but something about their glassy crystalline perfection separates them from the character and grittiness of the city. PanAm, dominating Park Ave with its bulkiness and concrete facade, embodies the grit and brawn of the city. I place this building in the same category as the Twin Towers and the XYZ Buildings on Sixth—not particularly good works of architecture, but there’s something so iconically NYC about their huge faceless mass and opaque minimalism.
19 Likes
Hear, hear, very well said. I agree 100%.
4 Likes
While I don’t hate this building, if they rounded off the beveled corners and left the sides flat it would look good covered in glass. Otherwise it’s fine the way it is. It’s not going anywhere.
Although many people hate this building, there is no denying that the proportions of its shape are unique. I don’t remember anything like that.
1 Like
I don’t think it deserves landmark status. Granted, to tear it down and build something else would be a major undertaking, but that’s what is happening at 270. And while this building is IMO a better example of Brutalism than most, it’s still an example of Brutalism which is by definition brutal. (Some want to call it an example of International style in an attempt to not label it as Brutal, but who are they kidding?)
1 Like
IMO Met Life should not be landmarked. It obviously is prominent and famous, but I never liked the brutalist design. In addition, I think it also is a pig in a poke. While views are usually not critical when I evaluate buildings, in this case it is. The view up Park from south of GCT before MetLife was built was among the most important in the city. Seeing the modestly sized Helmsley Building behind the terminal from the south looking up the avenue was stunning. It should never have been disturbed. And as I recall landmark approval was required because PanAm altered the northern part of the GCT complex that was protected. To replace that view with the enormous presence of a building like MetLife was a serious planning mistake. To me, the LPC, as usual, didn’t do its job. And remember it took an enormous community effort and years of litigation to protect the GCT itself from virtual destruction by developers. That is all memorialized in the famous SCOTUS case Penn Central v. New York City decided in 1978.
3 Likes
Precisely my thoughts. Could not have said it better myself.
PanAm/MetLife/GetaLife building should be landmarked 100%
2 Likes
I genuinely can’t tell if you’re joking so apologies if I just couldn’t read your tone, but to clarify for folks, the “brutal” in “brutalism” refers to béton brut, meaning raw concrete — it has nothing to do with brutality in the English sense.
6 Likes
I certainly agree. Brutalism is “brutal”. It is cold, uninviting and in many cases, ugly. The Pan Am building is no exception to being ugly and cold. Its shape is not too much of a problem for me, but the facade is ugly and should be replaced with something nicer. It looks like a giant tombstone looming over Grand Central, which is a legitimate architectural masterpiece. The Pan Am Building should not be landmarked otherwise we would all be stuck with this heinous grey edifice that cannot be upgraded.
2 Likes
I did not know that. Thanks for edumacating me.
Part 2:
Oops. I looked it up. It seems the origin is actually a mix of things.
“Descending from the modernist movement, brutalism is said to be a reaction against the nostalgia of architecture in the 1940s. Derived from the Swedish phrase nybrutalism, the term “new brutalism” was first used by British architects Alison and Peter Smithson for their pioneering approach to design (minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design). The style was further popularised in a 1955 essay by architectural critic Reyner Banham, who also associated the movement with the French phrases béton brut (“raw concrete”) and art brut (“raw art”).”
1 Like
Aha, I stand corrected. I guess it is a bit of both.
1 Like
I’m torn; it is too iconic and brutalist at the same time.
We need more time to tell if it deserves landmark status. I believe this building will stay put long enough for us to come to that conclusion.
3 Likes
The public legacy of brutalism as oppressive is kinda ironic, considering many brutalist architects and theorists thought the then-dominant Miesian International Style was too formulaic, repetitive, and anti-urban. But like the wiki states they also did not want a return to tradition. Their response was to return to raw materials (concrete and brick, which they thought had more texture than glass and steel) and literally break up the International Style box using cantilevers and other strange-looking structural heroics. The goal was basically more visual, architectural, and urban qualities than the stale International Style while still being modern.
I generally consider myself a fan of brutalism, but with a lot of caveats: a lot of it is junk, I’m glad it ended up being a short-lived movement, and I don’t blame anyone who hates it. Certain work by Louis Kahn, Le Corbusier, Paul Rudolph, and others is very powerful to me in a manner similar to large abstract sculpture. But even in the world of academic capital-A architecture brutalism was short-lived and by the '80s suffered a huge backlash in the form of postmodernism, neo-contextualism, etc.
9 Likes
I agree those architects were unique - sadly, brutalism, on the wrong hands, helped create a lot of ugly buildings - and in the end, that is its legacy
1 Like
I agree Alemel, Boston City Hall is one of the more interesting and innovative buildings in the Brutalist movement. FIT is ok, it really needs to be cleaned but too many are downright fugly.
2 Likes
The fact that the Dallas City Hall was used as a location prop to set the tone in the dystopian film Robocop says enough about Brutalism to me. It is cold, uninviting, and kinda scary. (Insert barf emoji here.)
9 Likes
There is such a thing as an ugly esthetic.
1 Like
I can’t decide if Boston City Hall is more beautifully elegant than Dallas City Hall. It’s driving me nuts!
1 Like