Category: Short Writing Assignment (Page 4 of 14)

Hudson Yards has become a new place that gravitates many people. It gains more attraction with the help of the High Line. As people start walking the High Line from the Whitney Museum and observe the beauty of nature and architecture, we end up in the Hudson Yards and greeted by many high rises. Each building has its logo and style. How do we know when it is too much architecture?

I have walked the High Line multiple time, and whenever I end up by the Hudson Yards I question my self “is this what a commercial architectural look like?” Each building costs billions upon billions of dollars to build and of course rant is not cheap either. This place becomes a new sinkhole for money. Should we stop building and focus on the well being of the old building? Many great architectures are surrounding the Hudson Yards and I believe the architectures are used to attract people to spend their money. This place becomes an architecture petting zoo. Buildings were built to make money, it makes me feels negative about architecture. Minimum designs were applied to the highrise. Architecture in NY is amazing, but many buildings were built for commercial purposes which often time don’t mean architecture to me.

Hudson Yards can be beautiful but in my view, it is a place where many resources were put in just for the sake of making money. Architecture becomes a tool for developers to make money. Turning away the possibility of design and focus on the speed.

Both Lincoln Center and Battery Park is an imitation of someplace. Lincoln Center mimics the Plaza of Campidoglio and puts art as the center of the important. Where else in Battery Park City, the elements of nature can be seen in many places. The relationship between humans and nature becomes the focal point of Battery Park City.

Imitation is a good thing, and Lincoln Center did a good job of bringing the Campidoglio plaza into the city. The needs of art turn away the needs of the city from the planner, which is green spaces. Walking around Lincoln Center, I only see one green roof that represents green space, but we were not allowed to use the green space. In Battery Park City, I am surrounded by the elements of nature. The new plan intends to focus on residential and commercial land use. The buildings near the waterfront haves façades that shape like waves. Some of the privately own courtyards are landscaped to form natural-looking terrains. Along the waterfront, there are parks, playgrounds, and pavilions. Giving people a chance to interact with nature. This condition reminds me of the BIG U rebuild by design projects. Where a variety of parks and terrains were used to build up resilience around the flood zoom. Unfortunately, the project was unable to become a reality.

The needs of parks and green spaces in the city are far more important than anything else. It has direct effects on the well being of people especially in a busy city where people are constantly working under pressure. Park is an imitation of nature and it brings peace into its surroundings.

Aleksandar Dekic: Hudson Yard, new life into an urban architectural design

Hudson Yards is one of Manhattan’s newest and biggest communities. It represents the city developer’s prioritization for maximum efficiency and profit before the design. Creator of the article in the New York Times, Michael Kimmelman, gave his opinion about this location in the city. It looks like the architects and developers of Hudson Yards try to create a city within the city like the Rockefeller center was created. We can compare it to some other projects, like Battery Park City, which can give us an opinion about what Hudson Yards represents the city of New York and what its residents deserve. Hudson Yards deserves to be compared to the other parts of the city and to be critiqued and praised at the same time.

Architecturally, many details deserve big applaud, like the curved steel window frames at 55 and the V-shaped limestone segment where the Shed intersects the tower. Michel Kimmelman point out in his article things like: “how the angled limestone slabs decorating 35 make the facade seem to shift between stone and glass as one passes the building; how the podiums of 55 and 35 play off each other, and how the chamfered base of 10 cedes the stage to a spur of the High Line, making the skyscraper suddenly appear to step back on tiptoe”.

But Hudson Yards is created to show its architecture as luxury branding. Each building exists to be a logo for itself. That is not a case with Battery Park City where we can see buildings, streets and open spaces which are integrated with its waterfront environment. Hudson Yards is created to be a high-end residential district with a focus on branding, in a way that the whole area represents the modern shopping mall. Battery park was created with landscape architecture where we have use of open areas to be tampon zones between buildings and streets which gave us filling of oasis and gateway of over urbanized city. It shows us the very soul of the city and the uniqueness of its residents. Hudson Yards is more like Lincoln center where we have a presentation of a row and cold materials (glass façade compared with concrete ones at Lincoln center). Also, Hudson Yards has a small amount of its surface area opened for public use, and that area gravitates toward shopping mall and it serves the mall purpose. In Battery Park City, the focus is on park and nature and it’s coexistent with the city and architecture, as a most sustainable model in architecture, while in Hudson yards we can see lack of human scale appearance and the focus on the shining glass buildings and monotony of the polished brass, marble, and stone. Even though Hudson Yards creators try to mimic Rockefeller center, they failed. Rockefeller center is made to show a site with multiple entrances, the dignity of the place and architecture with an urban design that shows the harmony between the streets and buildings. All these things are not presented at the Hudson Yards.

Throughout the semester, we have seen several areas that represent New York City. Some of them were bad, some of them good and some of them breathtaking. In a world that is trying to copy one thing, and to repeat that action again and again all over the world, brings us to the point that every place is becoming the same. Cities are destroying old buildings just because they are old, but they don’t understand that they are losing that uniqueness which sets them apart from others. They are destroying the very last thing that can keep people in this city, bring more tourists and create bigger revenues.

Lincoln Center urban renewal seems like a force pushed down into a neighborhood, that causes a major displacement of the people – the poorer residents are just forced to move into neighborhoods already stuffed to the brim with these issues. Battery Park, in contrast, was developed from scratch; this design was worked on as the land on the coast of Manhattan was being filled to extend the land further. Though the original concept never came to fruition, as it was considered impractical, this placement rather than displacement is a much more soothing action. The design of battery park is integrated into the surroundings, extending the streets and avenues down into the park. Despite the fact that Lincoln Center is also inside of the grid of the city, I will not label it as integrated, as it had not taken into account the lots and the homes of the people living there already.

The current spatial experience of the Tower in the Park feels like a waste of space; that is, when focusing on the projects in new york city –  the housing structure, vesus the surrounding greenspace – seems like there is no point to it in the first place. Greenspace should be use as leisure and play; but caging the grass presents a clear idea. I dont think this is a design option; this seems like a more political issue, rather than architecture. The urbanism of Battery Park seems more amusing; and the parks rolled out between apartment buildings are smaller, but more accessible. Creating extra park space right on the waterfront for anyone to access is very successful from my point of view.

When walking through the Lincoln Center I saw many different views of the buildings that were surrounding it. When entering the main entrance of Lincoln Center, there is a beautiful water fountain in the center of the plaza. To the left, there is the Metropolitan Opera House of the Fountain, the Lincoln Center Theater straight ahead and the David Geffen Hall is on the right.

Lincoln Center is surrounded by multiple schools, many being high schools and colleges. Many students come to visit after school or during their break to enjoy the open space. It has many wonderful views and areas to sit and eat during the summer.

Many people come to Lincoln Center to see the Metropolitan Opera House enjoy the show. Lincoln Center’s is a unique design and is inside the building it is very decorative. Across the Opera House, there is a theater where people come to see many different plays and shows. Many times, both the Opera House and Theater let out at the same time at night. There are a lot of people coming out of all 3 buildings including David Geffen Hall. During the evening you can have a wonderful experience with all the people surrounding you and watch the lights come on at the center.

The way Lincoln Center relates to the city is by having local businesses and stores nearby. This entices people to come freely and visit the plaza. People coming from the local restaurants, bars and cafe’s, shopping areas, pass by often.

Nelson Rockefeller the governor of New York City at the time desired to redevelop Battery Park city as a comprehensive community, he wanted it to include housing, social infrastructure and light industry. At the time there was a person named Jane Jacobs that evaluated architecture from a social perspective therefore she brought back certain principles that were being lost even when the Lincoln center was constructed these principles consist of public ground with streets blocks that should define edges nicely and buildings should look at the public. Battery Park city turned out to be what is known as new urbanism. Prior to this master plan which demonstrated how it connected the new with the rest of lower Manhattan there was a late 60s plan, which was very idiosyncratic. Architect Alex Cooper criticized the old plan just as Jane Jacobs did. The ideology of a successful street is when strangers’ behavior all functioning together to fulfill goals yet coexisting without knowing each other. The principles for Battery Park city were 1) Battery Park should not be self-contained. 2) It should be delivered as an extension of lower Manhattan in grid and blocks. 3) It should embrace the waterfront entity. 4) Should not be idiosyncratic. 5) Circulation should emphasize ground level. 6) Reproduce and improve what’s great about New York City neighborhoods. 7) Commercial center should be the focal point of the activity around the neighborhood.  8) Land use should be flexible for future improvisation.

As Jane Jacobs explains her principles and observations as the performance of a successful neighborhood it leads me to the reasoning as why NYC is one of those cities that doesn’t embrace the car culture rather the social culture. NYC streets were made for people to be their own way of transportation like this people were able to gather and create a healthy social neighborhood.

Battery Park City is very much the complete opposite to what Lincoln Center stood for. Meanwhile Lincoln Center was made for the upscale, it was a plot of land that isolated itself from the rest of the city and despite it’s beautiful aesthetic in architecture they were buildings that were created for the awe or the reaction of people rather than the functionality and organization of society.

Civic centers to be a focal point of a community, whether that is for sports, arts or performances. Lincoln center relates to the city around it by disassembling the previous lacking block, and force it to become a sophisticated neighborhood with a plaza that allows for people to see each other in bright spotlight, forcing a safety down onto the people.

Walking into the rainy plaza of Lincoln Center and being protected by the colonnades from the rain was slightly reassuring. This nucleus of the arts that it is, it seems like an elaborate expanse with these buildings towering over you, but also providing an unexpected shelter from the elements. A huge piece of land is surrounded on three sides by glass front buildings, inviting you in, with a fountain in the middle for aesthetics. This land used to be a neighborhood, an entire block with residences on it; after hearing the history behind it, the Center became slightly more concerning.

The idea of taking land from people because you don’t like the neighborhood and turning it into an open space just doesn’t sit right with me. I’m sure that there are better ways to implement the arts and safety into already existing neighborhoods. I know for a fact that actions like these will cause greater issues in surrounding areas, as this one improves. When it comes to residential buildings here, the ones we had looked like weren’t exactly too practical; I understand wanting to use the idea of the tower and the land of Le Corbusier, but the implementation doesn’t look that great now. The idea of having your own little suburbia in the middle of the city seems a little bit unrealistic; most importantly, having a street terminate into a parking lot also makes the area feel  unsafe, as there isn’t any storefronts or anyone who is surveilling. The parking lots that could instead be parks seemed more and more intimidating as the night drew close, and having only one exit way seems downright dangerous.

Walking up to the Frick Museum on a rainy day felt like an absolute chore that I wanted no part of. It was a long walk from the station that had forced me to purchase an umbrella, but as I was plodding along the tall brick boundary of the house, I hadn’t realized that this would become my eventual destination. I bounded up the stairs, to be greeted by one of my classmates. It was a challenge simply walking the museum; the doorway was much too small for a pair to enter at once, let alone with umbrellas, and visitors exiting the building at the same time from the same entrance.
Entering the lobby felt hectic; you could tell it wasn’t designed to be a lobby. Your path was guided by well-placed desks and velvet ropes. After the claustrophobic fiasco that is entering the museum, the class met in a central garden, atrium, plaza that is in the center of the house. I couldn’t exactly fathom this existing in someone’s home; I kept thinking, “What would you put in here?” “What do people do in this space?” “Is there WIFI here?” granted, the last question is unrelated to the topic, but I’m sure it made someone exhale through the nose. Walking through each gallery and admiring the art, it was clearly as claustrophobic as the entryway. I spent a lot of time trying to decode the building; “What room was this?” “Where is the kitchen?” Every time I walk into a dark room with a green rug and a fireplace, I say “Yes, this is the living room!” Only to be proven wrong by the next room.

In contrast, the Guggenheim museum only proved as a great design. There was a separation between entrance and exit; there was much more space in the atrium, and felt more like the architecture itself is guiding you to the ticket booth. What I admire about it is the clear line of movement through the art; the single ramp that guides you down the atrium; you don’t get lost, like in some other museums.

Aleksandar Dekic: Battery Park City

Battery Park City is a beautiful example of urban planning. This contemporary urban part of New York City provides buildings, streets and open spaces which are integrated with its waterfront environment. It consists of three elements that are different but, in some way, made one inseparable unified part of the city and it is almost opposite of Lincoln Center area.

Battery park has the name of a park because one-third of this area is parkland. Also, one third is residential, and the rest is the financial area. When this landfill area was constructed in the 1970s, urban planners try to plan this area, so it fits the surrounding parts of the city. Also, they try to create an appealing area for living to attract people to move here. They use different ways of landscape architecture where they use open areas to separate buildings and to create small park oasis filled with monuments and art installations. Buildings are built new, but they look like they were here for centuries. At the Lincoln Center, we have the creation of elite cultural venues, while here we have a place for residential and business purposes. At Lincoln Center, we have a style of brutalism and heroic where concrete is dominant, while in Battery park everything is settled and in harmony with nature. Lincoln Center has strip-type classicism elements used to emphasize the buildings itself, while in Battery park we have settled modern buildings that are one with nature. Also, in Battery Park, we have returned to the subtle move in geometry with the exact street grid between the buildings, while in Lincoln Center that was lost.

Unlike Lincoln Center where we have a creation of the city within the city with rigid buildings and non-existence of the city street grid, Battery park has a warm welcoming architecture that creates this contemporary development approach and provides amenities to attract new residents. It also has the key element which every part of the modern city should have, and that is the existence of the many street corners which are the veins and arteries of the city, as a meeting points and as a sign of city vibe.

This short writing is about the 20th century civic infrastructure in New York city . The first paragraph is focus on the relation between grand central terminal and the New York public library. The second paragraph is about the impact on people and the city after pen station was demolished.

At First, civic infrastructure is the way of animating and programming existing place and also the way of maintaining them. Grand Central terminal also referred to as Grand Central station is pretty much the end of the northern part of the city and also have a connection with New York city subways. It’s located at 42nd St and Park avenue and was designed by Reed and Stem firm. The style which is the Beaux-Arts incorporates beautiful art work all around the terminal. For example the main concourse have this oval barrel vaulted ceiling which contains an beautiful green painting background with some cool zodiac signs.The design and the way it’s setting up there can also be interpreted like the stars in the sky. Like Grand Central the New York library presents the same feature as an people place of triumphant glory. It also carries the same Beaux-Art style. The entrance is quite majestic with it’s unique stone vault above and it’s daunting white interior marble. The light in the Celling really show the decoration, the gallery and stairs. As you going thru the building the painting in the ceiling creates a filling of drama that kinda connects you to the high life of the pass. I also notice that in every floor there’s an alleyway that divided the space in two. Both building really embrace the concept of civic infrastructure where they provide places and attraction for people to visit or enjoy with amazing art, food court, transportation or education.

Penn station is quite different from those building but I would have another opinion if it was the old one. Modernity can be very good but not in that case. Penn station is the main intercity railroad station in New york city it’s located between seventh and Eighth Avenues. During my Visit I notice people weren’t to fond of the place, instead of tourists taking picture I saw people running to go where ever they wanted to go, They didn’t even notice the place. Compare to the old design Penn station had a claustrophobic feeling with those low celling, thin light and poor acoustic. In the 1900’s people really loved the station because it gave them the impression of entitlement or the feeling of arriving to a special place. They didn’t like the fact that the station was about to be destroyed. So they signed petition and protested but nothing works.