# New York City - The Greatest Architectural Losses



## S_O_N_Y (Aug 28, 2010)

Uaarkson said:


> Uh, what? OLP is not a bad building by any means, but it's not even the best modern skyscraper in New York. How can you possibly think it's better than the Singer building?


to be honest i think the singer building was ugly and really didnt give much to NY's skyline.it definitely pales in comparison to Woolworth only a few blocks away.though OLP is just so massive and unique with the steel beams that line its exterior,like the original WTC it gains its character through size and even color which makes it just look like a strong prominent structure on the skyline,which i think is better than anything the Singer building brought to the table but thats just my opinion


----------



## Chainedwolf (Feb 27, 2010)

I don't like most of the architecture in NYC. I prefer really modern glazed skyscrapers. Or at least with a modern design of not glazed. There are some really beautiful buildings spread around the city, though, especially in wall street and upper east side.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

How about Nieuw Amsterdam?


----------



## S_O_N_Y (Aug 28, 2010)

Chainedwolf said:


> I don't like most of the architecture in NYC. I prefer really modern glazed skyscrapers. Or at least with a modern design of not glazed. There are some really beautiful buildings spread around the city, though, especially in wall street and upper east side.


awww dont be hating on the art deco, neo classical,international,formalism,brutalism,post modernism etc. :lol:


----------



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

Added the following:


*St. Paul Building*
1899-1958
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON012.htm











*Pennsylvania Station*
1910-1964


----------



## rd77 (Nov 23, 2007)

Wunderknabe said:


> cool topic. Please ad pictures of the buildings standing today at those locations.
> 
> Why did they demolished so much quite new buildings? Like the "Hanover Bank"-Building.
> This one stood for just 2 years..


Agree, WHAT happened to the Hanover building? Inquiring minds want to know 

Did it burn or collapse? Construction faults perhaps? 'cause I can't think of any sound business case to tear down a two year old skyscraper...


----------



## wrabbit (May 14, 2005)

Interior shots of Penn Station. The demolition shocked New Yorkers into creating the Landmarks Preservation Commission.









*http://blog.caryconover.com/2008/06/old-penn-station.html*


-----


Here is what replaced it:









*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NY_Penn_Station_Amtrak_Terminal.jpg*


----------



## White Shadows (Nov 22, 2008)

nnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

:badnews:


----------



## Brunarino (Jul 11, 2010)

The last one is almost a crime against humanity.
I think we could summarize by saying it's all due to capitalism at its best (that is to say worst), when your life is only focused on making profit you ain't able to appreciate other aspect of life such as for instance the taste for beauty.
So you build and tear down just for the sake of profit and nothing else matter.
A great form of shortsightedness I'd say!


----------



## White Shadows (Nov 22, 2008)

^^
+1


----------



## luci203 (Apr 28, 2008)

Chainedwolf said:


> I don't like most of the architecture in NYC. I prefer really modern glazed skyscrapers.


Then go to Dubai. :|


----------



## nicksplace27 (Jan 11, 2010)

Brunarino said:


> The last one is almost a crime against humanity.
> I think we could summarize by saying it's all due to capitalism at its best (that is to say worst), when your life is only focused on making profit you ain't able to appreciate other aspect of life such as for instance the taste for beauty.
> So you build and tear down just for the sake of profit and nothing else matter.
> A great form of shortsightedness I'd say!


Well lets not blame this on capitalism. Becuase without capitalism being the driving force behind the railroads wealth, we never would've been able to build the former Penn station in all its glory in the first place. 

I think we should lay the blame squarely on the prevailing belief by architects at the time, including taking Miles Van Dar Roche's maxims to the extreme. This affects how developers and the public percieve how thier public spaces and skyscrapers should be and Modernism, while good in it's own right should not replace Neo-Classical gems like Penn Station.


----------



## jpsolarized (May 3, 2009)

the good thing is that New York has alot of them nowadays and hasn't been that murderer as many other cities in the world


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

What happened to Penn Station sounds very similar to what happened to Euston Station in London: A beautiful 19th Century rail terminus was demolished and rebuilt as a depressing modernist block, horrifying people to the point that it gave birth to a powerful preservationist movement.

Gare Montparnasse in Paris also seems like it suffered a similar fate. It's almost like this was a trend in the great cities of the time, unfortunately.


----------



## Botswana (Aug 29, 2009)

wrabbit said:


> Interior shots of Penn Station. The demolition shocked New Yorkers into creating the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quick, somebody get me a pail. I'm going to be sick. uke: The new one is horrendous. The period between 1960-1980 was a horrible for architecture, just disgusting modernist blocks of puke.


----------



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

New article which highlights more lost architecture in New York.

http://nymag.com/arts/architecture/features/49959/


----------



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

http://keithyorkcity.wordpress.com/...test-architectural-loss-in-new-yorks-history/


----------



## Beda8894 (Dec 19, 2011)

I liked more the architecture of before than now


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Beda8894 said:


> I liked more the architecture of before than now


Most people with a taste do too


----------



## RegentHouse (Sep 2, 2012)

koolkid said:


> I'm sure a handful of the buildings shown above were replaced with art deco highrises/skyscrapers. In that case I definitely don't lament their demolition, especially The Waldorf Astoria, which itself was not very unique. I'm sure one can find tons of buildings very similar to it in Europe. A building like the ESB however, can be found in none other than in good o'le New York.


What kind of logic is that? Are you implying every classical building in NYC should be replaced with some jagged Art Deco and glass box buildings, all because Europe has "similar" buildings? Besides, American grand hotels, whether destroyed or existing, were/are of a much larger scale than most European ones.


----------



## william of waco (Jul 13, 2008)

I recently found a curious photo on flickr and felt this would be a good place to post it.



> On Pearl st, downtown Manhattan, they have demolished an entire row of buildings, which included some restaurants, bars, pizza places, and small shops, and left up the facade of one of them, for some odd reason. A construction worker there told me that it cost them a fortune to leave this facade there, I wonder if it was landmarked or something? very strange.


One of the comments said that it had indeed been given a landmark but provided no further explanation. Does anyone here know more about this? I'm assuming a famous person lived there if the architecture was not considered important enough to save the others.









http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeskliar/2151099916/


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ Bizzare.

The old Waldorf Astoria is probably the bigggest loss, to me.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

ThatOneGuy said:


> ^^ Bizzare.
> 
> The old Waldorf Astoria is probably the bigggest loss, to me.


While I LOVE this hotel, this is one of the very few times where beautiful buildings were demolished for something better.


----------



## RegentHouse (Sep 2, 2012)

william of waco said:


> I recently found a curious photo on flickr and felt this would be a good place to post it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't look very important to me.

Also, this must be mentioned:








http://farm1.static.flickr.com/250/455880255_b76095e7dc_b.jpg



ThatOneGuy said:


> The old Waldorf Astoria is probably the bigggest loss, to me.


I'm not the biggest fan of the Empire State or even Chrysler Building, but I suppose this was an acceptable sacrifice. If the original Waldorf=Astoria wasn't basically two strangely conjoined hotels, I might think otherwise.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

I personally found the Waldorf much more beautiful than the Empire State Building so I see it as a huge loss. Considering I like the ESB, it only says more about the beauty of the Waldorf.


----------



## william of waco (Jul 13, 2008)

RegentHouse said:


> It doesn't look very important to me.


I agree. But I could not find another thread to place it in and did not want to start one either. I was just curious as to why they kept that one facade and demolished all the others. Do you know of another New York thread that is more suitable? I could request that it be moved there.


----------



## RegentHouse (Sep 2, 2012)

^^It's alright. I still found it interesting why the wall was kept.


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

Of course one of the worst losses, along with the Penn Station:

RIP! 

*The Singer Building - 1902-1967*









Singer Building ca. 1913 by Steve, on Flickr









Singer Building Completed ca 1910 by Steve, on Flickr


----------

