At a panel discussion on architecture journalism held at the Center for Architecture last month, the New York Post's Steve Cuozzo griped that The New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman had yet to weigh in on the 9/11 Memorial. Indeed, even the Times's go-to architecture reporter Robin Pogrebin had to concur. She noted that she too had raised the question. Nevertheless, World Trade Center reporting—let alone criticism—can be a full time job. Although Pogrebin continues to report on the cultural venues slated for the site, the architectural aspects of the project have been the province of David Dunlap from the get-go. With the topping of Four World Trade today at 977 feet, Dunlap once again provides a highly detailed report, as he did two weeks ago in his analysis of the grossly altered designs of One World Trade. Standing in the shadow of One World Trade, Dunlap notes that architects Fumihiko Maki and Osamu Sassa have no problem with his building being labeled "the biggest skyscraper New Yorkers have never heard of." "Subtlety extends one’s appreciation," Sassa told the Times. Kimmelman, meanwhile, has made a trip to the area, but to review a glass canopy, "in the shadow of One World Trade Center no less."
Posts tagged with "Steve Cuozzo":
Architecture & the Media #2: Design Reportage Thursday, May 3 6:00-8:00pm Center for Architecture 536 LaGuardia Place What drives the decisions to present architecture stories or programs? How do non-specialist reporters portray architecture and architects? Or explain architecture concepts, processes, and key milestones as a project unfolds from concept to reality? Can reporters help to demystify architects and architecture for the general public? Join us at the Center for Architecture on May 3 for a panel discussion on design reporting, the second installment of Architecture & the Media, a four-part series exploring today's media landscape co-produced by the Center for Architecture, AIANY's Oculus and Marketing & PR Committees, and The Architect's Newspaper. For Design Reportage: The Business Press and General Interest Media, moderator and AN executive editor Julie Iovine will be joined by Matt Chaban of the The New York Observer, Steve Cuozzo of the New York Post, The New York Times' Robin Pogrebin, and Rob Lippincott, senior vice president of education at PBS. $10 for members and students, $20 for non-members; OR purchase a ticket for the 4-part series (3 events remaining!) at $25 for members and students; $50 for non-member. PURCHASE TICKETS HERE
It has not been a good day for Gary Barnett and his Extell Development. First, the Post's ur-real estate columnist Steve Cuozzo gave Barnett a hard time for delays at his skyline-bursting Carnegie 57. (How come Tony Malkin didn't complain about this one, by the way?) And this evening, Borough President Scott Stringer has announced he is giving the project his ULURP thumbs down. What more does everyone want? Barnett has promised to build a school, to up the affordable housing from 12 percent to 20 percent, and he has hired one hell of an architect. But this is far from enough apparently, given Stringer's strongly worded announcement. There are two schools of thought when it comes to ULURP: community boards and BPs who do not like a project can either approve with modifications or disapprove with modifications. Though there is an open debate as to which sends a stronger message to the City Council, which has ultimate say on land-use projects, Stringer tends to subscribe to the former school, saying "yes, but" far more than he says "no, but." In other words, a "no" from Stringer is a rare thing (see: 15 Penn, Manhattanville, etc.) and should probably give Barnett pause. Here is the rationale, from Stringer's announcement:
Riverside Center development is the largest development site remaining on the Upper West Side. The proposal includes five mixed-use buildings, 1,800 public parking spaces, an elementary/middle school, 135,000 SF of ground-floor retail, and an automobile showroom and service center. Its redevelopment has the potential to improve existing site conditions, create thousands of new jobs, and provide much needed neighborhood amenities. Riverside Center is also the last remaining undeveloped or unplanned piece of the Riverside South development, which failed to achieve broad consensus and resulted in detrimental impacts on the community. [...] While emphasizing that the “development of the [Riverside Center] site is desirable to the Upper West Side community,” the borough president’s recommendations identifies several areas that necessitate improvement and modification. The current proposal lacks good site planning, creates inactive streetscapes, and obscures access to the proposed open space. Additionally, the proposed project has many environmental impacts that require real mitigations. The borough president’s recommendation advocates for the inclusion of public amenities such as a public school of an appropriate size to meet the needs of the community and additional active recreational space.Granted Stringer's recommendations are wholly advisory, but they do point to the rough road ahead, not least because City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden aired her own reservations about the project when it was certified back in May. Local City Councilwoman Gail Brewer has also expressed skepticism and is not especially pro-development by the council's standards. Still, Barnett has repeatedly shown his willingness to compromise on the project. To see it built, he will almost certainly have to continue doing so.