You must log in or register to comment.
Well get ready for pretty much every building to wind up like this by 2050. The newer design is much more cost-efficient to the tune of upwards of a million dollars in maintenance and restoration savings over the long-term. It also doesn’t need inspections for ornamental elements that might fall off and hit somebody. Maintaining a historical building in its original state is a money black hole. Some condo guy isn’t shelling out extra cash so the building can look prettier.
And the reason nobody other than Hungarian fascists build buildings like that anymore is because it’s expensive as hell. The international style is just cheaper.
So until the revolution happens and so many issues get solved where we reach a point where building aesthetics are a top concern, have fun with this…
More like brutalization.
I wish it was brutalist instead of the architectural equivalent of
Brutalism has thought and creativity behind it. This is just slop.
Looks cool idgi
Extremely iconic historic building being replaced by a soulless “modern” building.
It was a pretty building but there’s no point to romanticizing a relic from the Gilded Age. I sure as hell wouldn’t want taxpayers to foot the bill for preserving this monument to capitalist excess.
Not exactly a counterargument but something to consider
I think the historic value is what it is regardless of what era the building belongs to, though. I’m not from New York but this building is pretty iconic (I admit I confused it with Flatiron when I first saw the post) and it’s a shame for it to be lost because it would cost a drop in the bucket to maintain the exterior. Obviously, if even after the most egregious spending on defense and subsidies for capital were cut the spending on maintaining historic buildings was getting in the way of providing healthcare and other necessities then I’d be in total agreement.
