Official name: The Museum of Arts and Design Chazen Building Also known as: The Lollipop Building Formerly: Two Columbus Circle Formerly: New York City Cultural Affairs Department Formerly: The New York Cultural Center Formerly: Huntington Hartford Gallery of Modern Art Built: 1964-1965 Designed by: Edward Durell Stone & Associates Type: Skyscraper Stories: 12 Maximum Height: 158 feet / 48 meters Location: 2 Columbus Circle, New York, United States
Building Rating 60% of readers like the Museum of Arts and Design.
Advertisement
A strange looking building that resembles a piece of modern art, because it was designed to house art. Its design is a concave upright rectangle like a giant marble juice box with all the juice sucked out of it.
In its original design, the building's dges were perforated with double rows of round holes arranged in squares of four. The perforations were designed to allow the art inside to be viewed, at least partially, in diffused natural light. At the top was a series of double volume arches, adding to the verticality of this building. The building was more than a place to house art, it was a modern design exhibit on its own.
The building's fortunes have been up and down. Just five years after it opened, the art museum that first occupied it closed and the building was turned over to a New Jersey college. Later, the building became offices for city bureaucrats. A decade later, even they moved out, leaving a very large, very pretty, very vacant space.
After four years of gathering dust the Museum of Art and Design was selected to take over the building. It put together a $90 million rehabilitation plan that replaced the aging and neglected mechanical systems inside while at the same time giving the skin of the building a makeover, much to the horror of preservation groups.
The new look is all about lines instead of pockmarks. Its right angles suggest a retro-modern look in the feel of Buck Rogers, but at the same time provide a visual link to the Time-Warner Center next door, which is also looks like concave rectangles with right angles. The lines are actually long windows which allow even more natural light into the interior spaces while allowing those inside to take advantage of the building's height and location to enjoy one of the more remarkable views available of Central Park.
More interesting than the lines is the actual skin of the building. It's now made up of 22,000 terra cotta tiles coated with an iridescent glaze. This causes the building display splashes of pink and purple across its face as the sun moves through the sky and the observer moves around Columbus Circle. The tiles are also symbolic because much of the museum's collection is made up of glass and ceramic pieces.
2002-2008 redesign principal architect: Brad Cloepfil
2002-2008 redesign project architect: Kyle Lommen
2002-2008 redesign architecture firm: Allied Works Architecture
2002-2008 redesign construction manager: F. J. Sciame Construction Co.
The building was originally named after Huntington Hartford, heir to the A&P supermarket fortune. It is for that reason that the auditorium is decorated in red and orange -- the colors of the A&P supermarket chain.
G.Zhubrak
Thursday, May 7th, 2009 @ 10:16pm
Rating: Five stars. I give it five stars.It reflects Columbus circle and does appreciate it's surroundings.
Don Borgerson
Friday, November 14th, 2008 @ 7:59pm
Rating: Three stars. Since I haven't seen the renovation I can only say that anything would be an improvement over that eyesore which used to look like a dreary 1960's prison.
Mary L. Santarcangelo
Thursday, March 20th, 2008 @ 12:42am
Rating: Four stars. I give it 4 stars because once you see it, you never forget it. Also it is a delicate artifact amidst its burly assertive big brothers. Keep it for the whimsey.
Thomas Yanul
Saturday, February 23rd, 2008 @ 12:49pm
Rating: Five stars. Although not a particular fan of Stone, I do think it should be preserved as particular type of architecture of the time. I visited with Huntington Hartford (about 66") and if nothing else should be saved in his memory.
T. Morgan
Thursday, August 16th, 2007 @ 3:18pm
Rating: One star. I would first like to say I support saving quality architecture whether traditional, modern or whatever. While certainly modern and abstract this building has reached the phase where shear age seems to grant a sort of affection. This building is an architectural statement for statements sake alone and warrants no such affection. It carries little relation to the surroundings, site, or pedestrian. Age or isolationist design in this case does not justify any protection for a building that itself destroyed a venerable predecessor, the Grand Circle Hotel. What goes around...
WRR1 NYC
Thursday, August 4th, 2005 @ 5:28am
Rating: One star. So 60's in my opinion is not to impressive it lacks style it looks more like a air ventilator for the city's tunnels if they preserve it they should use special lighting techniques to enhance the appearance.
Susan Moscareillo
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005 @ 8:06pm
Rating: Four stars. An impressive piece of art/architecture. I wish it was in Baltimore!
Add your corrections, comments, reviews, or thoughts about this
building. Simply fill out the form below.
Your name:
E-mail address:
Your nation:
Rate this structure:
15
Your comments:
Messages without valid e-mail addresses, or containing profanity
will be automatically discarded. You're wasting your time, not ours.
G.Zhubrak
Five stars.
Three stars.
Four stars.
One star.