We've already made our thoughts known on architect Brad Cloepfil's reimagining of Edward Durrell Stone's 2 Columbus Circle, soon to reopen as the Museum of Arts & Design: cool design for a loved/hated building, but the reality doesn't quite match the rendering. But who are we, anyway? Just a bunch of nobodies without a clue. Let's leave this sensitive topic to the experts, the first of which to weigh in is Sun archicritic James Gardner. What's his take? Well, uh...
Nor did it help that the architect of the renovation, Brad Cloepfil, was dismissive of the building itself and of the concerns of many eminent architects and historians: “It’s far too weak of a piece of architecture for that site. That site deserves and demands more.” As for his critics, he referred to them in the spring 2005 issue of Bomb magazine as “a very small, exclusive and elitist group that opposes most Upper West Side development.” Given such talk, one would have expected something brilliant from Mr. Cloepfil or, at the very least, something boldly, memorably bad, a defiant stunt of landmark proportions. And yet the new façade is so mind-numbingly dull as to lack even the posture of ambition. In place of Huntington Hartford’s Venetian reverie we have a structure that would not look out of place as an annex to a suburban outpatient center.
Oof! That's gotta hurt! The scaffolding isn't even completely down, and already a savage takedown. Though given the high-profile nature in which this deal got done, we're not surprised. So, will other critics follow with more bashing?
· Unwrapping 2 Columbus Circle [Sun]
· Rendering/Reality: Museum of Arts & Design [Curbed]
· Construction Watch: 2 Columbus Circle Getting Unwrapped [Curbed]