Search results for "east new york"

Placeholder Alt Text

Fair Trade
The rebuilt High School of Art and Design will sit within SOM's one-million-square-foot, mixed-use complex.
Courtesy SOM

Even in flush times, the New York City public school system has capital needs that far outstrip its budgets, and so for several years now, the School Construction Authority has been looking at its biggest asset: the 1.5 acres of land under the schools themselves. At 250 East 57th Street, on a site that used to hold P.S. 59 and the venerable High School of Art and Design, work has begun on the first phase of a one-million-square-foot complex that will house the rebuilt schools, as well as housing and retail. Roger Duffy, the lead architect at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, explained the logic of the idea: “A lot of school sites in New York remain underdeveloped in terms of FAR (floor-area ratio).”

In exchange for the right to create a lucrative mixed-use development on the block-through parcel, developer World Wide Holdings negotiated a deal with the State Board of Education to rebuild and enlarge both schools on the site. In addition to lease payments, a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Tax) scheme will contribute additional funds to other education programs across the city.

Construction will occur in two phases, with the retail levels and a significantly enlarged P.S. 59 emerging first. A 59-story residential tower and new High School of Art and Design will follow in an estimated four years.

One of the more appealing features of the design is the large Astroturf play area on top of the building’s retail plinth. There are six outdoor terraces, each catering to a different age group—which are unusually generous outdoor provisions for a public school in Manhattan. The second phase will see the rise of a concertina-like 59-story glazed tower, housing 320 apartments and condos; 20 percent of the units will be affordable, with another 30 affordable units built off-site.

This type of partnership has been growing more common in recent years and is not without its critics, but in a time of chronic budget shortfalls, Duffy sees it as an avenue worth exploring. “The involvement of private developers needs to be composed in an intelligent way to create leverage [for the school system],” he said. “But there is also a need to bring the public and private sectors together.”

The project's first phase will include an enlarged P.S. 59.
All images courtesy SOM


Generous outdoor terraces are designed to serve different age groups of students.
Placeholder Alt Text

Times Square Shuffle
Emile Wamsteker

Times Square’s new TKTS booth, which officially opened on October 17 in Duffy Square, is an object lesson in how things get done in New York. The new structure replaces a rickety affair of canvas and metal rods put up in 1973 that was supposed to fold up in a few months; it overstayed its welcome by more than thirty years.

Eight years ago, the Van Alen Institute sponsored a competition to design a new booth, and the winner was the Australian firm of Choi Ropiha. As so often in New York, out-of-towners were responsible for the basic concept, yet the actual design was farmed out to Nicolas Leahy of Perkins Eastman, the well-known local firm, who worked with engineers Dewhurst Macfarlane.

Also as usual, the architects had to serve different and competing masters: the Times Square Alliance, the Theatre Development Fund, the Coalition for Father Duffy, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Due to difficulties in engineering the red glass that serves as seating atop the project’s relatively modest structure, what was supposed to be a six-month job extended to nearly three years, and, at $19 million, came in nine times over budget.

The design of the structure and its surrounding space is a partial success. The booth, which houses the ticket counters and is encased in glass, vaguely recalls naval architecture. It is an elegant invocation of the machine aesthetic, even if, at this point, the truculent honesty of exposing a building’s mechanical core has become almost a cliché. But at night, when its roof of bright red steps (which can seat as many as 1,500) is illuminated from below, such quibbles seem trivial.

The square itself is less successful. Two crooked arms, forming continuous granite benches, extend from the ticketing booths into the surrounding space, but they make little structural, utilitarian, or visual sense. Meanwhile, unavoidably, a good part of the plaza is covered in subway grates. Most disconcerting of all, because of the intransigence of the Coalition for Father Duffy (the World War I chaplain for whom the square was named) his statue could not be moved, and now sullenly turns its back on the tourists who, as though by some gravitational attraction, naturally gather at the top of the steps.

What ultimately redeems this project (if redemption were needed) is the urbanistic triumph that it represents. It is not an exaggeration to say that Times Square itself is transformed by this new addition. What used to be a zone through which one only passed has now become a space in which to pause and sit. With all the lights of Times Square buzzing and beeping around you, it feels rather more like Piccadilly Circus than anyone would ever have thought. As you stand at the summit of the steps, you may well believe that, finally, you are seeing the place for the first time.

The ticket booths themselves are tucked under the stair ramp (above); Father Duffy's statue is back in place (below).
Emile Wamsteker

Editorial: Onward and Upward

It’s hard to believe, but America’s first architectural broadsheet has published its 100th issue. Since our debut on November 10, 2003, our determination to deliver architects the news they need with speed and sophistication has only redoubled, along with our size and our staff. With an eye on the central place that British weeklies such as Building Design hold in the architectural discourse over there, we wanted to address the immediate interests and concerns of practitioners in New York with news that was quick, on-the-spot, and opinionated.

One of the reasons we’ve grown and changed is that the architecture community has also undergone a transformation. In our first 16-page issue, we pointed out that while “barely a day passes that a design-related WTC story does not appear in the local press…little other architecture news is reported in general.” Five years ago, Ground Zero and the politics surrounding it were daily preoccupations for many in the field; we wanted to broaden the conversation. Since then, we’ve covered the dramatic impact of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s neighborhood rezonings, and the struggles over the biggest projects the city has seen in decades, from the Atlantic Yards to Hudson Yards. We looked at the towers that have sprung up on seemingly every available site, and talked to the architects who designed them and the developers who created them. We’ve interviewed icons like Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown, and introduced you to tomorrow’s stars.

While the city’s architecture community and its concerns will keep on evolving, we believe this is still true: “This community is not easy to pin down, we recognize. As all other industries clearly understand, a timely, reliable news source can be crucial to business as well as to fostering a healthy sense of community and competition.” Many of you agreed: Readers regularly tell us that AN fills a need that they didn’t know existed. Others tell us that we’ve helped forge a more cohesive and informed community of architects, designers, and urban planners, and that while they subscribe to other magazines and journals, it is ours that they actually read, cover to cover.

Our original intention to create a local news source quickly spread beyond city limits to encompass the entire Northeast. In 2006, we launched in California, and in the next year, we plan to be in the Midwest, too. We want to keep apace in meeting ever-higher expectations from readers and from ourselves. Today, we bring you news about projects, financing, practitioners, ideas—and of course gossip—across several platforms, including an enhanced website and a blog launched in September at the Venice Biennale.

Conversations with our readers have always been a crucial part of our process at AN, and they shape the news we put in every issue. We want your input and look forward to hear ing from you about the paper—its look, its content, its cultural coverage—and how we can better connect with the architectural community. So we hope you will join us in this celebration and in our mission to keep you at the very center of the loop. Over our first 100 issues, we’ve changed and grown along with the architecture community, and we’re looking forward to keeping up with even more!

Placeholder Alt Text

Crumbling Concrete
Yesterday, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau served an indictment against a dozen employees of a concrete inspection company, which the DA cited for improperly inspecting at least 102 buildings in the city in recent years. According to the Times' account, Testwell, of Ossinning, New York, was "the city's leading concrete-testing firm." AN picked up a copy of the indictment today, and how right the paper of record is. What is striking is the number and range of projects Testwell touched--or didn't, as the case may be. The Times notes three--the Freedom Tower, new Yankees Stadium, and the Gensler-designed Terminal 5 for Jet Blue--and adds that city officials believe all projects to be safe, though the quality of the concrete may be inferior and thus have a shorter lifespan. But the other 99 projects are not just faceless outer borough in-fill. 7 World Trade Center is there, as are a number of high profile projects, including Norman Foster's Hearst Building, Frank Gehry's Beekman Place tower, Polshek's Brooklyn Museum Expansion, FXFowle's One Bryant Park and 11 Times Square, KPF's Goldman Sachs HQ in Batter Park City, and the new Greek and Roman Gallery's at the Met by Beyer Blinder Belle. (The indictment [we've linked a PDF of the list below] lists the gallery as MoMA, but that can't be right. Not surprisingly, roughly half the projects are nondescript luxury condo projects--10 Barclay, 150 Lafeyette, 801 Amsterdam, Latitude Riverdale--not unlike the majority of construction work in the city during the recent boom. A number of government projects, big and small, local and federal, are listed, including Brooklyn Borough Hall, I.S. 303, Thurgood Marshall Federal Courthouse, as well as a number of collegiate buildings. Perhaps most unsettling, safe or otherwise, are the infrastructure projects the company worked on, such as the Second Avenue subway, New Rochelle MetroNorth station, and, scariest of all, the deck replacement of the Triborough Bridge. There are a few oddballs, too:the USS Intrepid's refurbished Pier 86, the Pier 90 cruise terminal, the massive Xanadu commercial complex at the Meadowlands. The Testwell 102
Placeholder Alt Text

Cutting the Nets?
At Monday's Coney Island charrette kick-off, hosted by the Municipal Art Society, a number of stakeholders from the area gave presentations to the design team to help them form ideas for leading the charrette in a few weeks. (To share your own, visit the, which just launched today.) One of the presentations was given by Jon Benguiat, the director of planning and development for Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, who spoke about Asser Levy Park, a small outdoor amphitheater and park across Surf Avenue from the aquarium, which is getting a dramatic $64 million retractable roof courtesy of Grimshaw. (More on that soon, we hope.) As with all these things, there was a Power Point presentation, and as with all Power Point presentations, the whole thing took some time to boot up. In the interim, Benguiat decided to tell the story of how he became Marty's planning direct, during which he let some shocking news about the Atlantic Yards, or at least the fate of the Brooklyn Nets, slide. But first a caveat: We had considered letting this news go on Monday, in light of the off-hand circumstances and the fact that AN is not one for "gotcha journalism." After all, it would not come as a surprise to most people following the project that it is in trouble, what with Forect City's stock plummeting, its credit rating following suit, and, speaking of suit's, DDDB's got picked up by the state appeals court. Granted the IRS ruled in Bruce Ratner's favor on some tax-exempt bonds, but that's got to be small consolation. However, when reports about the possible sale or relocation of the Nets began to circulate the past two days, as Atlantic Yards watchdog Norman Oder has pointed out, we felt it out duty to relay Benguiat's words. Waiting on Monday for the projector to warm up, Benguiat told the crowd that, when Marty got elected, he had served as the previous borough president's director of land use. Asking if Markowitz was looking for one, the beep-to-be said no, but he did need a director of planning. "Without even thinking about it, I said yes," Benguiat said. "Then I spent the whole night fretting, wondering what I'd gotten myself into." Benguiat said his anxiety only grew when he showed up for the first day of work and Markowitz rattled off the list of initiatives he hoped to pursue: the revival of Coney Island, return of pro sports to the borough, realization of Brooklyn Bridge Park, and redevelopment of the Greenpoint/Williamsburg waterfront. "I won't repeat all the expletives I spewed when I heard this," Benguiat said. "But here we are, nearly all of them complete. I'm not sure if we're going to get the Nets or not. We should have groundbreaking in December, but we'll see." How much Benguiat knows--even Ratner has admitted that the groundbreaking will likely be pushed back due to the lawsuit--is uncertain, but his statement is one of the most dire to come out of the Markowitz administration, which is uniformly unwavering in its support for the project, no matter the legal or financial circumstances. Asked to clarify his comments afterwards, Benguiat declined to comment, instead directing AN to the borough president's press office, which released the following statement from Markowitz:
The current state of the American economy underscores the importance of moving ahead with projects like Atlantic Yards, and I am confident the project will happen. It will create union jobs and much-needed affordable housing, as well as bring professional sports back to Downtown Brooklyn—becoming just the kind of investment magnet that Brooklyn and New York City need right now
Now that the team is in doubt, would the Atlantic Yards project still enjoy the full support of the borough president without one of its foremost reasons for being? Markowitz's office has yet to respond on that front. No word yet from Forest City Ratner, either.



Frank Gehry, Thom Mayne, and Sharon Johnston were among those scheduled to join Hillary Clinton at “Angelenos Go Green for Obama,” a $500-ticket carbon-neutral fundraiser at steampunk wonderland The Edison on October 4. But Gehry actually gave an even bigger chunk of change to Barack Obama over a year ago, bolstered by additional contributions from his wife Berta. In fact, when it comes to (mostly blue) support from California architects, Gwynne Pugh, Kevin Daly, Barbara Bestor, Frank Escher, Steven Kanner, Rob Quigley, Olivier Touraine, and Anne Fougeron to name a few, are all in the tank with Obama. However, across the board it’s not a resounding “O”: Craig Hartman gave his big bucks to Hillary Clinton, as did Michael Lehrer and Brenda Levin, while Leo Marmol and Ron Radziner both donated to John Edwards’ campaign last year.


We recently got our grubby hands on a mockup of the new magazine Homefront LA, planning a January debut. It promises to go “beyond architecture, home design and real estate to feature people who have a passion for the everyday luxury of home” in the midst of a mortgage crisis. Homefront LA is the baby of the young JD McRae, who touts himself as a “third generation publisher whose family owns about 45 other publications,” thanks to his grandfather George Sample, a journalist and newspaper owner who died in June of this year. But staff shuffles and logistical issues have already plagued the start-up. Once named on the website as editor-in-chief, former House Beautiful EIC Mark Mayfield balked at the move to LA and opted to stay in New York instead with an editor-at-large title, so the mag tapped Michael Cannell for the top gig. Although Cannell recently left his online editorial director role at Dwell, we hear he, too is going to stay in NY, commuting every few weeks to the Beverly Hilton. We guess writing about “the unique, exciting lifestyle of Angelenos at home” doesn’t require you to be one. At least one of the mostly NY-transplants, executive editor Deborah Schoeneman, lives here, and is best known around town for her salacious gossip industry novel, 4% Famous—sigh, a woman after our own heart! 


Things are rough everywhere, so we hear. Not the best time to be putting Craig Ellwood’s famous Daphne House in Hillsborough, California on the market for the first time since it was completed in 1961. The San Mateo county steel-beam and glass construction features a 3,700-square-foot open plan around a central courtyard pool for a cool $3.7 million. Yet, according to realtor Jim Arbeed, a sale is pending … Speaking of San Francisco sales, we have it on good faith that local firm SMWM is about to be acquired. The rumored suitor? Drumroll, please: Perkins+Will.

Send tips, gossip, and earmarks to

Placeholder Alt Text

A Prospective Landmark or Three
Courtesy Landmarks preservation commission

Talk about a busy day. Following a meeting at the New School yesterday morning, for what many members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission called their hardest decision ever—voting on the demolition of Albert Ledner’s National Maritime Union in favor of a hospital—the commissioners then had to hustle downtown for a full day of work. Fortunately for them, this included the first hearing on the proposed Prospect Heights Historic District and the designation of two considerable landmarks—decidedly happier occasions than overseeing the demise of one of the city’s most unique buildings.

Unlike the highly divided vote on St. Vincent’s, and the divisive hearings that preceded it, all 27 speakers were in favor of designating Prospect Heights. “Brooklyn will breath a sigh of relief if Prospect Heights can be designated,” Christabel Gough, secretary for the Society of the Architecture of the City, said in her testimony, adding that the neighborhood was “due for Manhattanization, if present trends continue, and the city does not act soon.”

Indeed, development, and particularly the Atlantic Yards project to the proposed district’s north, were seen as the primary threats to Prospect Height’s preservation. Some speakers even pointed out that a small section of the neighborhood that falls within the Atlantic Yards footprint had been left out of the proposal. (Asked for comment, a commission spokesperson had not yet responded at the time of this story’s publication.)

With about 870 properties in the district, it would become the second largest in the borough and largest designated in 18 years. In its designation report, the commission lauds the neighborhood for its distinctive, cohesive mix of masonry rowhouses, many rendered in brownstone, that incorporate Neo-Classical, Renaissance Revival, and Romanesque Revival styles.

Letitia James, the local council representative, said the neighborhood had been under development pressure for more than a decade, and so it was time for the commission to act. “This area has already suffered from the demolition of historic buildings and out-of-scale construction,” she said. “The loss of more of our past, this fabric of our historic neighborhoods, will be prevented with this historic designation.”

Marty Markowitz, the borough president and Atlantic Yards booster agreed with James, a usual adversary. “The better Prospect Heights does, the better it is for all of Brooklyn,” he declared. Other supporters included the local community board, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council, Crown Heights North Association, Vanderbilt Avenue Merchants District, Municipal Arts Society, Historic Districts Council, and more than a dozen residents.

The commission also designated two individual landmarks, the St. Stephen’s Church in Murray Hill and the former F.W. Devoe & Company factory in Greenwich Village. The church, completed in 1854 in the Romanesque Revival style by architect James Renwick Jr., is located at 151 East 28th Street and was once the largest Roman Catholic church in the city, boasting 28,000 parishioners. “St. Stephen’s restrained, elegant, design belies the powerful influence its congregation and pastors wielded in the closing decades of the 19th century,” commission chair Robert Tierney said.

Founded in 1754, F.W. Devoe and Company, a producer of oil- and varnish-based paints, built its five-story factory at 110-112 Horatio Street in 1883-1883. “Like so many other factory buildings the commission has designated, the Devoe factory vividly recalls New York City’s industrial past,” Tierney said. Because the number of factory buildings remaining in the Far West Village has dwindled in recent years, the commission was especially interested in preserving this terra cotta gem.

Placeholder Alt Text

Seaport Thwart
SHoP Architects/Courtesy General Growth Properties

The most talked-about part of General Growth Properties’ recent presentation to the Landmarks Preservation Commission of a proposal for a mixed-use development at South Street Seaport doesn’t even fall under the LPC’s jurisdiction: A 495-foot-tall hotel/condo tower that is the most visible part of SHoP Architects' design for GGP sits just outside of the historic district. What was on the agenda at the spirited October 21 hearing, however, was the overall appropriateness of the project—which includes four two-story retail buildings, a department store, and other uses on Pier 17—along with a proposal to relocate the Tin Building, the only historic structure in GGP’s plan.

That naturally didn’t stop preservationists from commenting on it, however: “The new tower will have a huge negative impact on the historic district,” Frank Sanchis, senior vice-president at the Municipal Art Society, told the commission. “The new construction would completely wall in the seaport at the waterside with a 42-story skyscraper.”

And so with the tower looming over the proceedings, the rest of the hearing revolved around the relocation of the historic Tin Building and the overall merits of the project. GGP’s proposal for the Seaport involves removing the 1982 mall and replacing it with a series of smaller buildings for retail and hospitality, moving the Tin Building to the edge of Pier 17, and building the residential and hotel tower. The new construction would sit in a series of public spaces and promenades.

The designers argued repeatedly that moving the Tin Building to the end of the pier and out from under FDR Drive would not only give it pride of place within the new development but restore it to its rightful historical site on the waterfront, which was blocked when Piers 17 and 18 were filled in to make way for the mall. “The significance of historic buildings partly resides in their historic context, which, over the years, has been lost to the Tin Building,” said Elise Quasebarth, principal of preservation consultancy Higgins & Quasebarth. Moving the building would also allow for a seamless connection to the East River Esplanade, another SHoP project.

The Tin Building was heavily damaged in a 1995 fire, and little of the existing structure is original. The team argued that this meant there is little of true historic value to displace. “The property owner’s and our intent is to take unprecedented steps in the recreation of the building,” said Richard Pieper, director of preservation at preservation architects Jan Hird Pokorny Associates.

While many of the preservationists did applaud the restoration efforts being put into the project—as well as GGP’s outreach in sharing the project with them during its development—they still took issue with the decision to move the Tin Building. “That so little of the original structure remains is all the more reason to leave it where it is,” Andrea Goldwyn of the Landmarks Conservancy said. “Its historic location is all that’s left of its historic role.”

Some also pointed to the dangerous precedent such a move could set. “Simply put, a building in a New York City historic district has never been relocated,” Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, said. He noted that a handful of individual landmarks had been moved to prevent their demolition, but never to satisfy a developer, something he and others said would become common practice if it were allowed here.

After the hearing, Gregg Pasquarelli, a principal at project architect SHoP Architects, told AN that it was about striking the right balance between reverent preservation and a successful plan to revive the neighborhood. “It’s a matter of understanding the trade-offs,” he said.

In the end, the project may come down to a question of economics. The development team, whose proposal has the imprimatur of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, said that it does not wish to ignore the seaport’s historic value, but that something must be done to revive it and make it enticing to locals as well as tourists.

“The South Street Seaport has been an underutilized part of Lower Manhattan for years, slowing its growth and holding the area back from the renaissance it deserves,” said John Skillman, a representative of the Partnership for New York City. Skillman and others said the new development would offer much needed amenities, like grocery stores and locally owned businesses, cultural and recreational space, and a Bryant Park–sized public plaza adjacent to the Tin Building.

Local City Council member Alan Gerson, the one person who could vote down the commission’s decision, expressed serious reservations about the project. “I remain willing and available to work with General Growth and the community to come up with a redevelopment plan that meets the financial needs of General Growth without obliterating the charm and history of this unique district and further separating our citizens from their own waterfront.”

Placeholder Alt Text

Waterfalls of Revenue
Though some people were more than happy to see Olafur Eliasson's New York City Waterfalls dry up a few weeks ago, one person who will dearly miss them is the mayor. Standing beneath the Scandinavian artist's massive mirror installation at P.S. 1 yesterday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced with great excitement that, according to a study undertaken by the city's Economic Development Corporation, the falls generated $69 million in economic activity, exceeding the $55 million initially expected and countering criticism that the $15 million project was wasteful. "Art also has the power to invigorate neighborhoods, as you know, and catalyze new investment" Bloomberg said. "That's why we've made investing in culture a major part of our efforts to diversify the economy." He added that this would be especially important in the wake of the collapsing financial sector--long the bedrock of the local economy. While it will likely never reap the dividends Wall Street once did, it is good to know we can put our art to work for us, rather than simply embracing art for art's sake. Other findings of the report include:
  • An estimated 1.4 million people visited the Waterfalls in the 13 weeks it was up this summer. Of those, 79,200 would not have visited the city or otherwise extended their trip, and 590,000 people from the metropolitan area made special trips to view the falls. They drew people from all 50 states and 55 countries.
  • As part of the administration's plan to revitalize the Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn waterfronts, 23 percent of visitors, or 320,000 people, visited those areas for the first time. Of them, 44,500 were residents of the five boroughs.
  • About 95 percent of all out-of-town Waterfalls viewers participated in at least one other cultural attraction during their stay. About 43 percent of visitors attended one or more Broadway shows; 42 percent attended a visual art, photography, or design museum; 34 percent visited a history museum; and nearly 27 percent viewed a public art installation other than the Waterfalls.
  • Circle Line Downtown offered between 25 and 30 tours a day, with sell-outs on many tours, particularly during its evening cruises. Between June 26 and October 13, more than 213,000 passengers bought tickets for Circle Line Downtown's Waterfalls tour, Zephyr and Shark boat tours that all went past the Waterfalls.
  • The Public Art Fund's official Waterfalls website,, received more than 512,000 visits between January and October 2008. More than 6,000 photographs were posted to Flickr, 1,200 blog posts were written, and 200 videos with 235,000 viewers uploaded to YouTube. [Here's a personal favorite because, you know, who doesn't love models.]
  The full report [PDF] Video of the press conference
Placeholder Alt Text

On the Right Track
Barack Obama is one of a growing number of U.S. politicians who support increasing the nation's use of mass transit.
Courtesy Obama for America

Yesterday, President Bush signed into law the first Amtrak five-year reauthorization bill since 2002. The bill had long been delayed, but thanks to the rising price of fuel and record ridership, Republican opposition to the money-losing railroad slackened. The $12 billion set aside in the bill nearly doubles the Amtrak budget. Furthermore, it has provisions for two $1.5 billion grants, one to promote high-speed rail, and the other inter-city rail. (Both could be a big boon for AN’s New York and California readers.)

But the most significant part of the bill may not yet be on the books: Congress’ growing interest in funding mass transit. With the five-year surface transit bill, which funds 95 percent of transportation infrastructure in the country, due up for reauthorization next year, the nation could be looking at a landmark shift in where and how it travels the country.

“We think, and we’re getting reception for this on the Hill, too, that the 1950s highway-based transportation system has run its course,” said Daniel Goldberg, communications director for Transportation for America, a mass-transit and transit oriented development group.

As gas prices skyrocketed over the past year, mass-transit ridership increased by more than 5 percent, a record expansion, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Though oil has tumbled recently, in step with the rest of the economy, politicians and the public are increasingly aware of factors like congestion and the environment that should continue to boost support for mass transit programs at the federal level.

“I think [the Amtrak Bill] indicates a recognition out there between the impact of fuel but also the environment and congestion,” Paul Dean, director of government affairs for the American Public Transportation Association, said. “Especially on short haul trips—under 500 miles—from metropolitan area to metropolitan area, rail and other mass-transit programs can have a huge impact. Just look at how bad the New York airports have gotten. A reliable train network linking the city to others in the region could be a big boon. Plus, there’s no wading through security.”

Though Congress may be more concerned at the moment with the saving Wall Street and Main Street than the streets themselves, transit advocates like House Transportation Committee chair James Oberstar have expressed a commitment to pushing the surface transit bill in new directions. “Chairman Oberstar has said he’s not going to break the mold on this bill, but he’s certainly moving away from past models and trends,” Jim Berard, the committee communications director, said.

Historically, the surface transportation bill splits roughly 80/20 between highways and transit. Berard refused to make specific predictions, but said he would not be surprised to see that ratio shift in favor of more mass transit. “We’re seeing more interest than we ever have before,” he said. Should Democrats secure greater control of both houses, as has been predicted, it will only boost these efforts. But, Berard added, “the timing really couldn’t be worse.”

The vast majority of funding for surface transportation comes from the highway trust fund, which is funded entirely by the federal gas tax. It follows that if Americans continue to moderate their driving, there will be less money to pay for the transit expansion just at the same time demand is rising for it. (Some hope could come from the sale of carbon credits under a cap-and-trade system, but that remains years, or at least an election, away.)

Another pothole is all the potholes. The nation’s physical infrastructure is crumbling, made fatally clear by last year’s devastating bridge collapse in Minneapolis. With both transit and infrastructure programs drawing from the same trust fund, it could create a shortage for both.

But the crisis has already presented a new opportunity. “It’s become the accepted wisdom that part of the solution is public transit spending,” Dean said. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested as much in recent stimulus package (first item), and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is a longstanding advocate of rail programs and infrastructure investment; he has reiterated his commitment to linking the two in stump speeches and bebates. “Overall,” Dean said, “our support on the Hill is at an all-time high.”

Eavesdrop: Anne Guiney


Money is on everybody’s mind, but we just had a dizzying experience that provided some consolation regarding how little of it we have. The launch party for this year’s Open House New York was held at the penthouse of Enrique Norten’s almost-complete One York, right at the edge of the scenic Holland Tunnel. We went to go take in the views on the glassy 14th-floor terrace when we were struck with a bout of vertigo so strong we were rendered speechless. We put on our best grimace-grin, gripped the wall, and tried a little liquid courage of the merlot variety, but to no avail. We think we saw MoMA’s Barry Bergdoll making the rounds, and Norten himself was apparently moving in that same day, but it could have been the googly eyes. For the sake of the future inhabitants, we hope the apartment’s $37 million asking price includes a lifetime supply of Dramamine. 


Well, at least a really swirly tie: Congratulations to Gia Wolff and John Hartmann, who got married on a recent sunny Sunday afternoon in Brooklyn. Wolff, who works at David Adjaye’s New York office, and Hartmann, a partner in the Dumbo firm Freecell, were cheered on by family, friends, and colleagues including Vito Acconci, the groom’s partner Lauren Crahan, the bride’s uncle David Wolff (a London architect working on Madonna’s house there), artist Allan Wexler, designer Jonathan Jackson, and Giuseppe Lignano and Ada Tolla of LOT-EK. Other than a very elegant and spare huppah, the only giveaway that these nuptials were heavy on the architecture were the home-made centerpieces featuring a spinning globe of chrysanthemums lit by an LED mesh. There was some puzzlement as to what, exactly, they were: hidden video cameras that would take movies in the round? Mobile breathalyzers? They were just decorative, however, which suits us fine: At the end of the evening, we made off with three of them. 

Send tips and Jordan almonds to

Placeholder Alt Text

Gallery Quest
New gallery Haunch of Venison's painted white brick walls are as deliberately untrendy as its location in a Midtown office building.
Dean Kaufman

Back in 1951, the venerable gallery Duveen Brothers, which bought from Stalin and other cash-poor Europeans and sold to Andrew Mellon and everyone else with money, moved from 5th Avenue to a townhouse on a more quiet East 79th Street. The reason, according to Time: “the old location was getting a bit too commercial.”

New York gallery spaces are as mobile as their merchandise, and just as prone to the vagaries of fashion. The galleries and their contents have been migrating around Manhattan since the 1950s, from Madison Avenue and 57th Street, to Soho, the East Village, Chelsea, and beyond. As always, the business has been coyly, un-commercially commercial, in its interior architecture as much as in everything else.

The Duveen story points to the complicated relationship between art and real estate, shaped by who’s buying and who’s selling which particular kind of art. Architects became players in the equation in the1980s during the contemporary art boom, when galleries multiplied in Soho and dealers wanted interior spaces that would reflect, even justify, the kind of money in play—better than the East Village squats where the artists had been living and the party spaces where they showed their work. When architect Richard Gluckman came on the scene, he established the look: smooth-walled, high-ceilinged volumes in buildings with a stolidity not found in the East Village.

Architect Steven Learner gave a cool residential
look (top) to Haunch of Venison, where some art even
hangs in the hallway (above).
Dean Kaufman

Gluckman designed more than 20 Soho galleries. As tourist traffic thickened, landlords raised rents, aware that they could charge more to tenants selling tank tops or tortellini than to galleries peddling Clementes. (Today not one of Gluckman’s spaces is still a gallery.)

As rents ascended, most of the art trade fled Soho for Chelsea, where Gluckman went on to define the look of that district’s galleries as well. In the hodge-podge of warehouses, industrial/commercial buildings, and auto-repair shops, the concrete slab floor was the norm. Spaces tended to be wider and even more unadorned than in Soho, which fit the massive scale of the art being made: installations and large-format photography. Entrances could monumentalize the old single-story garages and workshops that the galleries now occupied, creating a kind of neo-Bauhaus effect. Wide, ground-floor windows played with transparency. His clients and their sepulchral interiors (Gagosian, Cheim & Read, Andrea Rosen, etc.) are still there, and elements of Gluckman’s work have found their way into the museums he has designed, not to mention into the galleries designed by most other architects.

What’s next? The most closely watched art space in New York right now is Haunch of Venison, the London gallery whose New York branch is now installed at 1230 Avenue of the Americas, on the 20th floor. Guards in the office building’s lobby issue tickets that get you into the elevator, and guards inside the gallery watch your every move. The space opened in the spring with a show of works by Donald Judd, evoking the artist’s spare studio. “It’s the closest thing I’ve seen in New York to Marfa,” said one dealer.

Stripped down to corporate minimalism by its architect, Steven Learner, the gallery now looks like a business suite, where the elite works receive the best exposure—what architects like to call the “money wall”—and lesser-known artists are relegated to corridors. Cold and calculating would be an understatement. The space is subdivided by white panels to show works of abstract expressionism by Pollock, DeKooning, Rothko, and other artists whose work the gallery wooed away on loan from museums and private collectors. None of the work is for sale (the guards are evidence enough of their value), but it is the kind of art that high-flying buyers could very well find at Christie’s, the auction house nearby that owns Haunch of Venison.

The power space is selling its power connections—with a painted white brick wall left as homage to Ab Ex painters who toiled in poverty and drunkenness far from Rockefeller Center. Perhaps it’s no surprise that the gallery’s director, Robert Fitzpatrick, put in a stint as head of Euro Disney. By forsaking Chelsea, where most of the art in New York is, Haunch of Venison is deliberately adopting a different profile from the multitude of dealers there. With paintings displayed as if an auction house were exhibiting a corporate collection (minus the wall labels), the gallery is flexing its business muscle.

So far, midtown won’t be stealing any more business than usual from Chelsea. Arario Gallery opened on 25th Street in the spring with shows of work by Asian artists, the most significant new infusion into the global market today. Its new space, designed with a hand from British architect David Adjaye, sprawls horizontally through 7,000 square feet, with walls painted blue and red, departing from the monochromatic norm, for a new exhibition by Indian art-star Nilani Malani of huge panels that look back to the violent division of India in the late 1940s. Black oak floors by Adjaye, who is designing a museum for the gallery’s owner in Korea, help to silhouette sculpture and installations. The floor color gives the effect of a performance space when Malani’s multicolored images are projected onto the walls, accompanied by music.

In Chelsea, black oak floors give the Arario Gallery the look of a performance space. 
Cathy Carver 

With an eye on the future, Arario Gallery’s owner, Ci Kim, has only a ten-year lease on this vast, versatile space that can accommodate multiple exhibitions or a huge group show, or even a massive, single-artist retrospective. Yet when the lease expires, Chelsea could no longer be the neighborhood of choice for galleries, as residential buildings are already crowding in at the edges and driving up rents.

Some Chelsea dealers are already looking east to the Bowery, where the New Museum of Contemporary Art opened its eight-floor building last winter. One Bowery newcomer is Lehmann Maupin Gallery, which took over a glass repository at 201 Chrystie Street, just south of Stanton Street, around the corner from the New Museum. Through a dark passageway, visitors pass the pro forma desks and enter a 26-foot-high gallery that the building, seen from outside, could hardly seem to contain. Installed with Jennifer Steinkamp’s cascading video of flowers twitching in a breeze, the gallery (like the New Museum) has a verticality rarely found in Chelsea. The space seems right for elaborate sculpture and installations by Do Ho Suh, a Lehmann Maupin artist, yet galleries that opt for the neighborhood may find themselves installing work in small spaces on multiple levels. (In the 1800s, dealers in galleries nearby would “sky” paintings all the way to the high ceilings.) Here, space seems likely to dictate architectural style—the high-rise gallery. Will it dictate the art inside, as well?

The Aicon Gallery opened in September on the Bowery. 
Liz Ligon

Along the Bowery, galleries will have to build up rather than out, given tight sites, high costs, and lax landmark restrictions. The much-rumored new Sperone Westwater Gallery could be extremely vertical. Housed in a gleaming, 12-story tower designed by Foster and Partners, the gallery building will replace a restaurant supply building reportedly bought for $8.5 million. The gallery has not released any information officially, but hints at an announcement in the coming month. Sperone Westwater is now located in the Meatpacking District, an area that has never materialized into a much-hyped “next Chelsea.”

Clearly, galleries moving to the Bowery are hoping to exploit critical mass: the traffic of tourists, shoppers, and residents that galleries seek in their frequent migrations to art fairs. Yet the most efficient way of achieving that goal may be to bypass architecture entirely, and fit one’s wares into an existing space. That was the approach of the Adelson Gallery, specializing in American paintings, when it opened on the second floor of the Mark Hotel, so that guests would not even need to put on their coats to shop for the right Sargent or Marie Cassatt. Although spacious, Adelson Gallery had a discreet, intimate and profitable feel. (The gallery moved out when the hotel was converted to a condominium.)

The strategy might be called lobby-tecture, and the latest example is The Forum Gallery, which has set up Forum 57 in the north lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel on 57th Street, filling a once-neutral concrete-walled space with American paintings and a sculpture or two. Forum 57 isn’t just selling limited inventory on view 24 hours a day, like an art fair that never closes; it’s selling itself, offering an “art concierge” service to hotel guests, who tend to be some of New York’s wealthiest visitors.

The gambit evokes a sly element that architect Arata Isozaki tried back in 1992 with the design of the Guggenheim Soho, where visitors were required to pass through the gift shop to enter the galleries. Much of the art of that era has disappeared, as has the Guggenheim branch itself, but at least one aspect of its commercial spirit has survived.


Richard Gluckman's Luhring Augustine Gallery established the bare but monumental look for art spaces in Chelsea.
Lydia Gould Bessler

Space Talk

No architect did more to establish the language of the pristine gallery than Richard Gluckman of Gluckman Mayner Architects, whose high points include Gagosian in Chelsea and the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh. The gallerist David Maupin of Lehmann Maupin Galleries wanted a different kind of gallery space in Soho and invited his friend Rem Koolhaas to design it. Both Gluckman and Maupin have kept moving, though, to different scales and different neighborhoods. David D’Arcy recently sat down with the two to talk about what makes a gallery a good place to show artwork.

David D’Arcy: What forces are driving the gallery scene now: the market, the clients, or the artists?

Richard Gluckman: Market forces, for sure. Of all the galleries I designed in the 1980s—something like 25 of them—every single one is gone. A lot of the spaces are now clothing stores. Art, as Jeff Koons keeps showing us, is a commodity.

DD: Another major evolution in the art market has been the rise of the art fair. A huge number of people are passing through them and see art in very small, undesigned spaces. Has that had an effect on the ways galleries look?

David Maupin: Art fairs have had a huge impact as to how we function as a gallery in the physical sense. Because so many curators, writers, and collectors go, we have to participate in at least four of them a year. But art fair spaces are horrible—the walls are very flimsy and the lighting is often ghastly. The Shanghai Art Fair had particularly bad conditions. This makes it even more important that when artists show at a gallery, they feel that they have a space they can control.

DD: That brings up another issue: Gallery space today has to be able to adapt to so many different types of work. 

Lehmann Maupin’s new gallery on Chrystie Street
takes advantage of verticality to show Do Ho Suh’s Reflection (2004).
COURTESY lehmann maupin gallery

RG: Flexibility, or rather having a variety of differently scaled rooms, is the key right now. The reason we were so successful when we got started was because we created, to a certain degree, a presentation of space that matched artistic production. The nature of the space related to the kind of large, site-specific work that minimalist artists were doing in the 1970s and early ‘80s. In the last 25 years, that parameter—where the nature of the gallery relates to the nature of the work—hasn’t been really continuous. For better or for worse, the gallery model we helped to develop—the industrial space, the concrete floor—isn’t necessarily valid for new kinds of art. The nature of the space didn’t truly shift as younger artists started doing installation and video work, and with a few exceptions, the commercial galleries didn’t try to design spaces to accommodate the newer kinds of work. Right now, I see another shift back to large-scale spaces, driven primarily by the incredible installations that Chinese artists are doing: In China, they can have a 10,000-square-foot warehouse space for 500 bucks a month.

DD:Was the jump from Soho to Chelsea about finding bigger space?

RG: Sure, it was about space and scale but also about rent, of course. Spatially, they are very different. Soho was characterized by 19th-century structures with heavy, timber-filled lofts, spaces that were a lot like the ones the artists were working in. They already understood the dimensions of the 20-foot structural bay. But in Chelsea, galleries moved into 20th-century or even postwar buildings that were often a single story with spans of 100 feet. Many were on the ground floor with top lighting. But it is just a matter of time before all that type of real estate is gone and the galleries move on to the next neighborhood.

DD: David, you moved to a big space on Chrystie Street right behind the New Museum. Do you think there are a lot of buildings with volumes of that scale on the Lower East Side? Do you think that it will be the next art neighborhood?

DM: There were a few, and we certainly had more options than we did when we moved to Chelsea in 2001. But I don’t really think in terms of real estate; the New Museum was the trigger for us, and I’ve heard that Sperone Westwater is moving, too. But it’s really the Bowery that people are interested in, not the Lower East Side, because the buildings there are a little more like Soho buildings in scale.

DD: Does space have something to do with artists migrating from one gallery to another?

DM: Absolutely! It can make the difference. Artists want everything: They want natural light, they want artificial light, and sometimes they want no light—for video. They want no columns and then once in a while they want columns to hang a projector. I try to provide as many opportunities for my artists to show in different ways as possible. I don’t have natural light in Chelsea, but I do have it on Chrystie Street. You have to keep your artists interested and challenged.

DD: So what does the space itself have to deliver?

RG: Everything. The whole entity that is the gallery has to be flexible; it’s not just about individual spaces. In fact, we have to come up with a better word than flexibility; flexibility is a myth from the world of corporate interiors. Architects tend to want to develop the perfect modular system, but it’s not doable. Workstations are designed to be reconfigurable but then in five years, they aren’t reconfigured, they’re thrown out! Likewise, you cannot design a gallery with the perfect flexible wall system, and no artist wants it anyway. The whole institution has to be adaptable; the program has to allow for different kinds of work. For me it’s ideal when there are different spaces. The gallery has to be nimble: It could be as simple as going on the roof and putting a tarp on the skylight for video. Basically, there has to be a financial commitment to making space that can do what the space needs to do. Any smart dealer knows that and is interested in advancing the architecture along with the art.