Author: Eva_Reyes (Page 1 of 2)

Studying the New York City architecture course out of the classroom could be beneficiary for the students in many good ways. It’s very interesting to have a class that can give you a different experience and show you a different way for professor to be teaching classes in a very unique form. I think is exciting for students to go once or more than once a week to field trip where they are learning about the New York history in live.

Since, the students get to see the actual building while their instructor or their classmates talk about the building history, architecture style, design, material, concept and the relationship between the building and the city development. The students get the opportunity to consume better the material giving in an outside class by the instructor and students. The outside class also give students the opportunity to see how the building look currently and the building condition. In contrast to looking at the building in images and been teach in a classroom which will be boring. As well as, the students can have easy access of going to places that they probably haven’t yet gone in New York city.

The   outside class motivates students to go to the class. I believe it force students to be responsible to go to one place and meet with the class which makes the difference of teaching students in a classroom  by  sending them   to an individual trip where you don’t know if they will assist or not. Honestly, I think I learned a lot about this outside classes, they were very helpful to me because I lived the actual experience of been taught in front of a specific building. This teaching will stay in my mind forever. I’m pretty sure every time I pass by these buildings, I visited in this architecture class I will remember about their history.

Besides the extraordinary modern architecture of MoMA, this museum has been collecting modern and contemporary art for many years. The museum is an historical institution dedicated to provides like about hundred thousand of masterpieces which are open to the public visitors.

The spaces that composed the MoMA are very dynamic and outgoing places. Like, the MoMA garden which is very beautiful and symmetrical. It looks very organic and aesthetical. There are two rectangular water fountains slightly located   on the side of the end of the rectangular surface; there’s one that’s facing the opposite of the other two.  The garden is decorated with different types of green plants with different sizes. Plus, it has sculptural statues made of concrete, bronze and other materials. These seem to adorn the park in an organic way because made people have the illusion the statues are part of the garden formation. The flooring of the MoMA garden material I believe is concrete paving.  So far from what I’d seen in New York City, the MoMA garden relates to places in New York city like the Ford Foundation interior garden. Since, the designers of both places contributed to have the same idea of having the presence of nature by having just green plants not other color of plants. Also, the Ford Foundation garden and the MoMA garden contains water fountains which  reinforce the gardens design by showing the connections between plants and water.

Another place in the city that I had visited and I think is some what related to the MoMA garden is the Whitney Museum balconies. People might think they rarely will relate one to the other but in my opinion, I think although the Whitney Museum balconies is not that green, stills relates to the MoMA museum. Since, both spaces are decorated with sculptural statues that represent each museum.  Finally, the liberty park is similar to the MoMA garden because is also adorn with only green plants and have few benches that allow the visitors to seat and enjoy the beautiful space and views just as the MoMA Garden does. The MoMA garden  landscaping  relates to many successful architectural places in the city  like the ones I previously mentioned.

The Hudson yard town is very famous in New York City   because its great and modern architecture. The beautiful urban designed landscapes and remarkable landscaping are what defined this community. Battery Park City is another successful community of New York City equally important as the Hudson Yard. However, battery park city is not identical to the godson yard. They both has their unique essence and characteristic that distinguish one from the other.

According to Michael Kilmmelman New York Times article about The Hudson yard explains that this town is constituted by mostly private developers and few public developers. He also talks about How this west side downtown project contribute in the society. The Hudson is mostly considered as a shopping mall. There’s a brand new architecture masterpiece controversially famous which is called the Vessel.

The battery park city is a neighborhood located in the lower east Manhattan in New York city which is   most likely residential with few commercial areas. The public areas that adorn this remarkable place is green spaces and pavilions. The peaceful environment of the battery park city is very different to the Hudson yard which is in my opinion more noise because is immensely overcrowded by people. The Battery Park City is a less expensive zone compare to the Hudson yards. But, the Hudson yard is built with more expensive materials. As well is more compatibly modern futuristic than the Battery Park City.   The magnificent architecture  happening in the Hudson Yards   relates to few  small places in battery Park City.

The Lincoln center urban renewal and the battery park share so many things in common like both provides open areas to the public. On the other side, the Lincoln center and battery park city has some differences like the conceptual idea. The following paragraphs will explain briefly the similarities and differences between the two land mark.

When I visited Battery Park City the first think that came to my mind was the Lincoln Center, I realized the Lincoln center planning compared to Battery Park City planning strategies used by developers are very similar even though the buildings carry out different programmatic and conceptual functions. The Lincoln center buildings purpose is to perform and educate people about cultural art.  However, the buildings that composed Battery Park City are most likely residential or office towers. The Battery Park City could be mainly see as a green space full of vegetation accommodated in small park near the river is more like a representation of nature. The Battery Park City is designed small parks with bunch of benches put together to give the visitors enough sitting areas. Although, the Lincoln Center doesn’t have that much green spaces since is more a representation of cultural histories.

I believe is interesting how the developers stick with the nature idea  in Battery Park City and  in the Lincoln Center. I observed that the Lincoln Center and Battery Park share in common fairly open centers. Also, the buildings are aligned on the side where the side walk is.

The day I visited the Lincoln center, I observed how this place was related to the city by many factors like the architecture. furthermore, the cultural landmark imitates some spaces like the city. Also, the Lincoln center was built with paths that connected to the street roads.

The Lincoln center architecture is very aesthetic. The center has a beautiful water fountain that occupied a small portion of the center. People have the access to different views of the city skyscrapers.  The   first buildings built in the plaza like the New York Philharmonic building and the New York City Ballet building are made of travertine stone just as the main building which is the Metropolitan Opera House. The exterior design facade is very unique on each of them. A very cool predominant features these buildings share in common are the long structure columns that support each cantilever roof.  These three buildings perform arts like opera, ballet dancing and function as theater. The other buildings like the Vivian Beaumont theater, the Juilliard School   and Alice Tully hall are slightly different the architecture is more modern and buildings functions. The Lincoln center is up for any type of public.

The center has park and other places for the public to enjoy during a good weather. I felt the connection of the Lincoln center with others civic centers by seeing how the developers think commonly about how the visitors needs will be and the facilities that it should provide them. For instance, I believe a successful center should provide people areas to hang out, gather and rest.

The exterior skin of the modern office/institutional buildings we visited has improved to support the buildings quality structurally and aesthetically. The Lever House, the Seagram Building, the Citi Corp, the Lipstick Building , the Ford Foundation and the United Nations relates each other by some features that made these buildings to be the perfect buildings for their functions.

During  the trip, I noticed that besides the fact this  buildings are designed  to serve as private  office/institutional building, it provides  open spaces for the public and the people whom work in them  have the access to space where they can relax and hang out after work. The open places are surrounded by vegetation and sitting areas.

we visited the lever house designed by Gordon Bun shaft is one of the office buildings which was very influential to other architects in the neighborhood. Like, the very famous architect Mies Van who built the Seagram Building which is located across the Lever House. The Seagram Building façade is curtain wall with a yellow visible glass and black stainless mullions; the spandrel glass is dark solid black. In relation to the Lever House which curtain wall has transparent light green glass, stainless silver mullions and dark green spandrel glass that covers the floor and ceiling structure. The ground floor is an open space plaza with a garden open to the public. The Seagram Building, the Ford Foundation and the lipstick building have open spaces similar to the Lever House that provides people an unique place to gather in public. Furthermore, The Seagram Building and the Lipstick Building also connects to the Lever House since the architects of both buildings adopted the idea of having columns lifting their buildings just like Bunshaft did for the lever house by being inspired by Le Corbusier’s idea. The massing of the Seagram Building was similar to the Lever House, the UN Building and the ford foundation that were rectilinear. In contrast to the Lipstick Building that has a circular massing.

Even though each offices and institutional buildings were built in different years, they connect each other by performing similar structure functions and similar features.

The Frick museum and the Guggenheim museum are very distinguished by the unique way that each museum has their art works displaced however, these museums provides people pure education of certain important historical events and cultures. Both museums have their own identity that characterizes them as two well-known museums of New York.

The Frick museum was originated in a very organic way. Henrick Frick was a very entrepreneur industrial businessman who turned his mansion into a museum by collecting artwork during his trajectory.  The way how the painting and sculpture are arranged in this museum is mostly like in a home decorative style.  I believe Frick strategy to organize his art collections in his mansion was to make every room of his mansion to stand out with the masterpieces he places in each space. The movement through the museum galleries is simple, the center is where the most circulation happens. The masterpieces are located by the walls of the rooms.

On the other hand, the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Guggenheim museum based on a more planned idea about a specific museum. The art paintings are neatly aligned in the walls. The sculptures are randomly placed in the museum. The circulation goes in a spiral motion pace movement where the spaces gets from the smallest to the biggest starting from the bottom to the top. The Guggenheim museum in relationship with the Frick museum has a skylight that allows natural light into the museum.

The Guggenheim museum is more modernist than the Frick museum which is more traditional and older conservative museum. However, they are both very historical.

https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/_/wAFP3ZlpUL4qDg

The Chrysler Building and the Empire State are very competitive buildings of New York City.   Both are beautiful landmarks built in the 20^th century. Among the different background stories behind these two buildings, there are similarities that connect one with the other as skyscrapers of the city.

The Chrysler building was built by Walter Chrysler between the 1928 and 1930.  The architectural style used on this building was art deco. Even though the empire building was built by different architects, the architecture style is also art deco as the Chrysler. Plus, the Empire State building was built few years after the Chrysler building. The massing of the Empire State building is defined as a building which overall height including the tip is 1,250 feet tall with 102 stories.  The width of the building changes at the highest levels where the setbacks happens. On the other hand, The Chrysler Building massing is different, this is a 1,046 feet tall building with 77 stories. In comparison to the Empire State building this is shorter in massing.

In the Empire State buildings was built with tons of stainless steel and aluminum and millions of bricks, granites, and limestones were used for this skyscraper construction. Also, the Chrysler Building was made with stainless steel. Other materials used in the Chrysler were masonry, stone, marble and concrete. Structurally, the Empire State and the Chrysler Building were built under a rigid steel frame structure system. The top of the Chrysler building is more sculptural and artistically detailed to represent the Chrysler automobile and the machine age. In contrast to the Empire State building which is stiffer not as aesthetic as the Chrysler Building which represent more the art deco era.

In conclusion, both skyscrapers are very important because they represent New York City all over the world and provides people knowledge about how successful the skyscrapers and the art deco were in the 20^th century.

The way the civic infrastructure is developed in the city is by trying to accommodate the people needs in term of transportation  media. Through the process of developing the best transportation places for the people many incidents happen that let to a best improvement of what it used to be before in comparison to now. The Grand Central Terminal and the Penn Station are two historically examples.

The instrumentality of Grand Central and all the open spaces that it has can serve a huge amount of people. Plus, I believed it gave a sense of scale which shows and the relationship between people and this terminal.  The Grand Central has varies trains that goes to different routes some goes to north in south and some just goes to one way. This place has a massive sculpture that catch visitors’ attentions. The programmatic system welcome people to enjoy every place of Grand Central.

The Penn station design programs is like the Grand Central since this subway station also was a landmark and was designed to provide people access to more than one train line.  Even though both train stations are overcrowded, the MTA transit staff are planning to do some changes improve the trains services to people.

In my opinion both trains station provides efficiency and sustainability to the NYC transportation. I think both are authentically beautiful. The story behind the Grand Central and the Penn Station is very interesting demonstrate the perseverance of a community to try to convert the chaotic transportation that New Yorkers been struggling with over many years into a perfect satisfactory movable place with less crowded.