Design is in our blood, and we've always had an opinion about those creations that designers and architects come up with. When it comes to building architecture, however, we've rarely weighed in. Today we thought we'd give it a shot. These two buildings defined NYC architecture in the late 70's and 80's.
Two Styles: Modern and Postmodern
Two nicknames: "R2D2" and "Grandfather Clock"
Two big companies: Citigroup and Sony (originally AT&T).
Three architects: Hugh Stubbins Jr. and Philip Johnson & John Burgee
Jonya & Brad's Modern A–Frame 
Quick Cleaning Tip: Keep Baseboards Cleaner With Fabric Softner
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Profile Chair by Ma...
15 Essential Building Blocks for Quick Weeknight Meals
Summer Recipe: No-Bake Strawberry Icebox Cake
Comments (20)
Should be "which building do you like better", not best. Best is for three or more (superlative), while two is comparative.
Sorry; professional force of habit.
Here is a cool picture of the citibank building my husband took in May.
http://bahche.blogspot.com/2007/05/rain-is-coming.html
Ugh... I'm troubled by this post. Comparing any postmodernist offerings to much of anything is just painful to me because I just think it's all vile... And the name Philip Johnson only goes so far for me... to the MoMA Sculpture Garden and back home again. It doesn't even get me to New Canaan.
In fact, two posts in one week that pay tribute to Philip Johnson are quite enough... there are loads of fantastic architects from the period to mention here.
And although the Citibank tower has an interesting counterbalace mechanism in it's upper structure, to correct its swaying in the wind... I have to say that particular offering of modernism doesn't do much for me either. The street-level and sunken plaza feels isolating to me and always has... and I get no romance from the tower itself.
The above comparison makes me depressed.
The Ford Foundation on E. 42 pre-dates the 80's, but that's the modernist creme de la creme for me. I think Kevin Roche was the brilliant architect. This is a building that excites, and it comes in at about eleven stories.
Having nothing to do with the aesthetic design, the Citigroup building had a potentially disastrous engineering mistake and a shameful ethical mistake in its history. That's why it loses in my book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center#The_building.27s_engineering_crisis_of_1978
Ah, lighten up people - what's a little major potentially disastrous engineering flaw when it's such a fun design? Richard Guy Wilson calls the Citigroup building a big Chippendale highboy in the middle of a bunch of skyscrapers (or something like that, it's been awhile since Arch. History class). I think it's one of the wittiest examples of PoMo, though my favorite postmodernists are Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. Architecture does not always have to be so serious.
Becky
Reason #1463 why value engineering sucks. I think both projects are fun.
Oh my. Talk about boring responses. We have a grammarian, an aesthetic prude and an engineer all weighing in with their incredibly nuanced opinions. And I hate to be nasty but that photo is horrible.
No comments yet on how incredibly striking Citigroup Center's ground level is, how it creates a spatial moment in the city unlike any other? Or how the grandfather clock's irony, amidst the general architectural mundanity, can bring a smile to one's face?
Granted, neither of these buildings are masterpieces. The Ford Foundation is a good building, certainly much better than the two at hand, but it is really just Paul Rudolph-lite. And to label it "Modernist" is lazy; it was, in fact, a direct contrast to the main thrust of Modernism and the International Style. Architects like Rudolph and Saarinen built functional buildings that challenged the dull rectangular aesthetic, and to simply call them "Modernist" and leave it at that doesn't tell the truth of the story.
Most people issue knee-jerk reactions to most of Postmodernism based upon aesthetic objections. Modernists, in particular, object on the grounds that a building should look a certain way because it needs to function a certain way (which, in the end, is an aesthetic argument regardless of whether they'd admit it or not). These people apparently don't realize that this is the POINT of Postmodern architecture: to challenge the ridiculous functional/aesthetic assumptions of Modernism. It is supposed to make people think about architecture, about what it is, what it can be, and how it relates to our lives and culture.
Architectural beauty is a difficult thing to pin down. As somebody mentioned, there have been two posts regarding Philip Johnson's buildings on this website this week. One building is, hands down, the singular icon of what is broadly called the "Modern movement." The other building is generally considered a milestone in "Postmodernism." If nothing else, Philip Johnson should be respected and admired as a man who actively embraced the complicated nature of architecture and never made assumptions about what it should or shouldn't be.
Ugh. So glad you brought us an exciting post as a counterpoint to the "boring" ones. Thanks a lot. No, really.
Sydney, took care of the grammar. thx.
As for the rest of you, tell me your faves and we'll put them to the test.
What buildings really excite you?
I'm a little shocked that Emery Roth and Sons would not be mentioned in conjunction with the Citibank Building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emery_Roth
You've lost a faithful reader for not giving credit where credit is due!
Jolly -- Engineering errors won't stop me from loving Fallingwater, however!
To my mind, the Sony building looks to much like this one furniture store in Highpoint, NC:
http://www.furniturelandsouth.com/highboy/
But I suppose we wouldn't have one without the other....
I'm scared to post this because I expect a lot of criticism, but here goes.
NYC bothers me because so much of the architecture is in your face. It's showy, glitzy, way too much and way over the top.
Of the huge-ish buildings in NYC I like only two: the Seagram on Park and the Blackrock on Sixth Avenue. Why? They are simple, they make it a point to be discreet, they are elegant, and they allow people to feel human relative to them.
The Seagram Building's plaza is particularly lovely: its inspiration, I believe, is the Alhambra.
My rant is over. I'd appreciate it if readers would allow me to express my feelings without a lot of hostile tirades.
I just got back from Chicago, and THAT skyline totally KICKS ASS.
(and personally, I am not a big fan of these "which design icon is better" voting things.)
My favorites are the buildings at Rockefeller Plaza - but really mostly when viewed from the street level (any street). They give me such visual pleasure. [And, yes, I loved, truly loved, the WTC.]
As a (recently) former Chicagoan, I would have to say that New York may have a lot more buildings in shear numbers, but Chicago has an overall better quality of architecture. Historically New York has been a follower, while Chicago has been a leader. This is not just my opinion, but an opinion held by many architects.
I agree with p(too) and Devyn regarding Chicago: great architecture.
Chicago had some unfortunate help however, the fire in 1871 that destroyed about 4 square miles of what is now the heart of the city. They had a clean slate when the "skycrapers" of the late 1800s and early 1900s came along.
Check out the burned area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chicago_Fire_map.JPG
Chicago skyline from Lake MI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chicago_Skyline_Hi-Res.jpg
My favorite Chicago skyscraper is the Hancock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hancock_tower_2006.jpg
I also love Pei's Bank of China in Hong Kong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bank_of_china_night.jpg
My favorite hometown building is L. Sullivan's Wainwright Building in St. Louis (considered by some the first true skyscraper-plus it's just plain gorgeous!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wainwright_building_st_louis_USA.jpg
That is all.
For NYC, The Chrystler Building and The Seagram Building. Surveys are fun, but perhaps you should compare two more buildings from the same genre, for example the Seagram vs. the Lever.
Eliel Saarinen's 2nd placing never built design for the Trib. Probably the only thing that could have made the number one architecture city in the US's skyline even better. Chicago is incredible and is really where most of my favorite architects did their best work. It must be something in the water there!
The new Symphony Building at 1180 Peachtree in Altanta rocks my world. It's so different from every vantage point, and it's so clean and beautiful compared to the bad examples of PoMo all around it.
In anticipation of being jeered, my favorite building on the NYC skyline is the CitiCorp tower in Queens. I love the shadows of the set backs and the grid pattern on the facades. For what ever reason, it gives me a thrill every time I fly home.
Ugh, Chicago is full of modernist junk. (Besides a handful of examples like the United Building and the NBC Tower.) If you don't like postmodern architecture it's because you don't get it, go back to worshipping your curvy chairs.