Mad about MAD

              by Saxon Henry 

The uproar over the 2 Columbus Circle building that nowhouses the Museum of Arts and Design was a raucous one. In the August 18, 2005,edition of The New York Times, David W. Dunlap wrote, “The LandmarksPreservation Commission seems to have painted itself into a corner over 2Columbus Circle.” Hicks Stone,the original architect’s son, remarks to DesignCommotion, “I think that whenyou replace a building you have an obligation to produce a work that is as strongas the building that you replaced. MAD and Brad Cloepfil clearly did not dothat.”

IN HIS OWN WORDS...Hicks Stone on the renovation of 2Columbus Circle: “Whatever you choose to say about father's building, it took arhetorically strong position. Maybe the decorative elements of the originalbuilding made people squeamish, maybe some felt that the vaguely Venetiandetailing was eccentric, but it made a very strong statement about themodernist aesthetic and it's almost Puritanical attitude toward warmth andsensuousness in design. The building there now is as bland as it can possiblybe: even the Time Warner project looks bold and dynamic compared to it. Also,when I walked around the building, the execution of the details was poorlyconceived with unfortunate and unresolved conditions at the base. If you aregoing to follow the path of serene modernist design, then you need to take thetime to make your detailing flawless, like Taniguchi did at MoMA. I think thatin an effort to rebrand themselves, all MAD did was succeed in dumbing down thebuilding and the City, which I sadly suppose is representative of every otheraspect of our society and culture.”

See other design/architecture-related stories at www.DesignCommotion.com.