Sheer Crock.

I can't believe those people would completely disfigure such an iconic and pretty building into some mediocre corporate culture-like edifice. This just shows the complete lack of taste in the majority of people, pandering to cheap and mainstream notions of blonde-wooded minimalism and inferior quality ideas of "Luxury." http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3583

"Upgrading" now, vandalism later--that's always the attitude with certain pieces of unappreciated works of beauty: '50s Maseratis were considered junkers in the '70s, Soviet architecture gets torn down, '30s-'50s haute couture was seen as used clothing in the '80s, American Chippendale was cheap stuff back in the '50s. That new building looks like something Michael Eisner or some other CEO might come up with. The fact that the location is called Time-Warner Circle is no surprise. It's perverse that New York would go about preserving brownstones and other redundant pieces of late 19th century and early 20th century architecture but not such a unique and captivating piece of work.

I love those sorts of swank architectural pieces; woefully underrated these days rather like '70s design. That townhouse is fantastic as is the embassy. Durell Stone was seen as too decorative and "esthetic" by the original Modernists, a bit like Morris Lapidus I suppose, who actually had the nerve to insult Mies van der Rohe.

Shit-ass motherfuckers and their inane ideas--this is almost protest-worthy.

I think me being hauled away from the building in handcuffs whilst wearing a fantastic suit would be very photogenic.

No, I would be causing a loud scene.

Here is a letter I sent to the Landmarks Committee: Dear Sir, Whilst I may be late to this incident, I will say that your decision--or lack thereof--to allow the desecration of Edward Durell Stone's 2 Columbus Circle is inane and traitorous. For such an institution as you chair--something that calls itself a Landmarks institution--it is obscene, bordering on insulting, that you would dismiss such an iconic and captivating building in a flip manner as this. Were one judiciously forthright, the administration might be likened to an American Taliban simply in the way that it ignores esthetic, historical context and significance; indeed, leave it up for an entity called Time-Warner to plausibly complain that the original design doesn't suit their corporate-culture look of vacuous glass facades at Columbus Circle. Like cheap Chippendale furniture in the midcentury or Soviet architecture 50 years from now, this will come to haunt anyone and everyone who is remotely interested in design in the future. They will say: What were we thinking? ------ And another I sent to the Museum's director; the Museum is the entity responsible for the "revamp." Dear Miss.Hotchner, I found your flippant comments about Edward Durell Stone's building both insulting and remarkably inane. What bluster! It shows a general lack of knowledge and quite frankly, taste. Your brash dismissal about hearing of no one who likes the building esthetically is judicious evidence of that. Inasmuch as one person counts for something, well, I do believe you found one person who does admire the building from an esthetic point. Whilst I will not be writing some long-winded tirade--I'm sure you have something better to do--about why I do respect the building, I will say that your decision to "revamp" the building is a mark of error, a mark of Cain in sheer potential ugliness. This will stand as one of those silly errors that future generations will remark upon with a brief nostalgia and a lot of bewilderment. Think of it as the 21st century's version of Penn Station, but slightly more insidious considering it's "only a renovation." It was only a snort of cocaine; it was only one rape. Excuses seems to count for a lot these days.