Roosevelt Island Outdoor Public Viewing Of 2012 London Olympics Opening Ceremony Tonight At Riverwalk Commons
Come watch the 2012 London Olympics Opening Ceremony tonight outdoors at the Riverwalk Commons. According to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC)
Don’t forget that tonight is the start of the 2012 Summer Olympics! View the live coverage on the Riverwalk Commons lawn, the pre-ceremony coverage will be shown at 8:30PM and the opening ceremony will begin at 9:00PM. Feel free to bring blankets, lawn chairs, and food while you view the games. See you there!Grab a bite to eat from Eddie's Pizza Cart, dessert from La Bella Torte, the Riverwalk Bar & Grill, Fuji East, Nonno's or Starbucks and enjoy being outdoors watching the Olympic Opening Ceremonies. Can you handle all the choices?
Sincerely,
Roosevelt Island Operating Corp Advisories Group
Just hope that it doesn't rain.
UPDATE - It didn't rain last night and the Roosevelt Island Public Viewing of the Olympics Opening Ceremony was a wonderful event. The Riverwalk Commons was full of lots of people enjoying the evening. Roosevelt Island resident Jonathan Kalkin shares this photo of the evening.
Image From Jonathan Kalkin
Good job by RIOC Director Margie Smith in suggesting the idea and RIOC Staff in implementing on short notice.
20 comments :
Looks great. Finally we are moving out of the 1970s. Can't wait for the entire Main Street strip to be renovated.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.. renovating the arcade means we are moving out of the 70s? Are you kidding me? So any past era of architecture has to be "moved out of"? Only Southtown is OK because it is so modern, so shiny, so new? What about the Chapel of the Good Shepherd, which also stands on Main Street? Get rid of that too -- because it was built in 1888? Time to move out of the 1880s, eh?
Learn to read Cheshire, the question on the blog asked what people thought about the Main Street arcade. If the question has been about the Chapel I would have said great job there too since that was also renovated. So to answer your question, No, I am not kidding you & yes only Southtown looks modern because it is new. Somehow you probably already knew the answers to your questionsm ha, ha, ha, ha.
Yeah but the Chapel is so 1888.. It was restored not destroyed. And why should any City entirely move out of the past? If it was up to you, I guess we'd have to get rid of Lever House, the Seagram Building, maybe the UN buildings too -- since they're all pre-1970s... Plenty of great modern buildings are even older than Eastwood; and just because Southtown is new doesn't make it good architecture. It's just shiny, like the color of coin.
Cheshire, RI is not a City. If the Lever House, Seagram Building & the UN building looked as ugly as the Main Street arcade, then yes, if it were up to me I'd say get rid of them also, but thankfully they are not. Get over yourself, if you don't like the fact that not everyone shares your opinion, don't read this blog.
It's philistines like you that destroy the buildings that have architectural value - and say cookie-cutter high-rises like those at Southtown have finally brought RI out of the 70s.
So it was the new, shiny Duane Reade that finally modernized RI, or do you really mean it was the Duane Reade that made Southtown's overpriced apartments marketable.
It seems that if it was up to you, Eastwood would be leveled because it is so ugly, so 70s, right? This despite the fact that Eastwood's architect was the Dean of the Harvard School of Architecture and a direct "descendant" as it were of Corbu, with many many excellent commissions in the air (i.e. actually built) around the world.
So what is supposed to happen to buildings that are well-designed but are left to deteriorate by either the owners -- Urban American -- or, in the case of the RI, the entity that is supposed to take care of the sidewalks/arcade and so forth, RIOC. Should we simply demolish structures because they have gotten dirty over the years, and haven't been well kept up? This is evidently what you are applauding in the case of the arcade, and even suggest the entire building should go, since it's so 70s. Hey - we've got several more 70s buildings on RI, NYCIslander: Westview, Island House, and Rivercross. Is it OK if they stay? Or do they have to go, too - because they're so 70s. Oh, maybe it's OK that they stay, because the residents of those buildings aren't as poor as those in Eastwood, right? You're willing to overlook some 70s architecture if the residents are richer - whiter.. Oh, we get the picture now. It's not the architecture of the 70s that bothers you, it's the people within the specific buildings: Some are OK, and some are not OK, right? The rich can stay, but the poor must go, right?
Maybe there a more nefarious reason behind the demolition of a portion of the facade of Eastwood? Is it really just a prelude to declaring the building uninhabitable... a way to effect a mass eviction of all the "pesky" poor, or elderly, or disabled residents that so irk the developers of the luxury buildings on RI, since the presence of the old and poor "bothers" the yuppies they are trying to attract and get to lease their overpriced apartments. I guess it must really irritate those luxury building owners how those old, disabled, poor people just seem to hang on and linger and drive the prospective tenants or buyers away - just by their very presence on the sidewalk!
Imagine how happy Hudson would be if all at once, not only were the long-term chronic care facilities (Coler and Goldwater) shut down, but all of the poor people on RI also somehow disappeared!
Then the building owners could imagine their investments are really "in the Upper East Side" or maybe "Williamsburg" and charge even more money for those apartments.
But, back to the question of what to do with 70s architecture - which happens to contain hundreds of poor residents, or at least, residents that could never afford the luxury apartments Hudson has on offer. If it was up to you, Eastwood would be torn down because it is a 70s building, whether or not it has merit architecturally, which it does, and which Southtown does not. Conveniently enough for you, the faces of poverty and disability would go as well, right?
All I can say is: Thank God they don't let people like you make decisions about architecture on any level of government, as, it is absolutely plain to see, you have no taste, and more importantly, no soul.
"Thank God they don't let people like you make decisions about architecture on any level of government, ..."
Same to you, same to you. Pot. meet kettle.
Are you on bath salts?! That's the only justification I can imagine for such a disjointed misinterpretation of reality. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to live with the cacophony of the echo chamber inside your skull.
Interestingthat you do not answer a single question I am asking you about Northtown.All the WIRE building and their facades and their arcades were built in the 70s, a*****e. Are we supposed to get rid of them, too, like the Eastwood arcade, because they're "too 70s". Just say you like those buildings - I dare you.
It must feel like floating on a cloud of scum to be proud and even flaunt your philistinism, NYCIslander. Hope you are enjoying the stink.
Wow - what a useful, insightful comment on the topic at hand - the unashamedly 70s architecture of the WIRE buildings. If you don't like Northtown,YetAnotherRIer, I'm sure there are plenty of appropriately priced, more "modern" apartmentsyou could lease at Southtown.You would then be in your element - with all the yuppies...
There's nothing seriously wrong with the WIRE buildings, except their exteriors have been poorly maintained over the years since they were built. The changes to the Eastwood arcade are already rolling, and will make the building more appealing and a friendlier place to live. Thank goodness nothing in your 2.5 million arcade-related blog comments will change or stop the Island's steady march toward this much-needed progress.
You and Chesire can go screw yourselves. You dont agree with someone's opinion so you resort to making comments because God knows if it's not how you view things, it must be wrong. Go to Hell with that attitude. If you don't like what people write don't read the blog.
similarly, wouldn't yoube happieer in Queensbridge Houses?
Well, yes, architecture from the 60/70s was horrid. Concrete was generally thought of as the building material of the future, and thus buildings were 'futuristic' when made out of them. Plus, it was incredibly cheap to work with compare to other, better materials. However, 40 years no in the future, it certainly isn't anything close to 'futuristic', and, it is in fact just ugly. No way around that. Take City Hall in Boston. They moved out of a beautiful old Second Empire structure (1865) to a giant Brutalist-style monstrous concrete structure. Honestly, a rose by any other name is still a rose, and concrete structures are never going to be appealing, especially over long periods of time. Why are you so against more classical anesthetically pleasing architectural styles? I respect the design of a few of the WIRE building interior wise, but I don't think anyone can honestly defend the exterior building material chooses - let us be honest, they went with concrete because it was the -cheapest- building material around.
As for South Town - yes, I find these buildings to be much nicer. To your point, yes, I really like the Chapel. Let us look at these structures - while South Town is relatively new, The Chapel, as you pointed out, was constructed in 1888. But, oh hey, look at that, built over 120 years apart, but they use the same build material! Simple red bricks! And look at how nice both look, on over a 120 years old and one relatively new. I would in fact say, architecturally, the South Town buildings match the old Chapel a lot better that the WIRE buildings do. Also take a look at the Blackwell house - built in 1796 (over 200 years old) and still looks sharp and nice, again, because they used classic building materials (this time wood). Even the Renwick ruins still look nice, and that is because they were constructed out of yet another classical building material - real stones.
Note that before you try to flip this comment around and twist it into nothing - I am not commenting on the anyone or anything inside the WIRE buildings, or anything to that effect - I am simply stating the obvious: concrete buildings are ugly/not the most aesthetically pleasing structures. Just admit it, as its true.
Unfortunately, my reply has been lost in the netherworld of the internet - somehow I must have hit the wrong button. It's impossible to re-write it - basically, at the end of the comment, I said, what if one day, like other 60/70s architecture that you may dislike (examples are the TWA building and the National Assembly Building in Bangla Desh) but which still stands and is still appreciated, the concrete buildings on RI are also considered important or notable - thus would add value to the community - especially in the context of the upcoming FDR Memorial.
I question if UA or RIOC haven't already thrown in the towel on Eastwood because they do not think it adds value to the community, and that is why they do not push for proper upkeep of the building/arcade, including having the exterior building windows washed which UA used to do, or keeping up the arcade, which I think is RIOC's responsibility. My only contention is that just as Blackwell and the Chapel were sensitively restored and thus add value to the island, the same principle should be applied to the rehab of the arcade.
Keep to thetopic please.
Here's a concrete design from 2004 that also plays with indoor vs. outdoor spaces just as the arcade and glassed-in little garden spaces of Eastwood arcade.
http://www.pottgiesser.fr/christian_pottgiesser_architecturespossibles/maison_L.ht
I personally don't really dig the design of the new memorial, either, but I am reserving to see it complete before passing judgment, and it honestly doesn't look that bad so far and from the designs.
Anyways, yeah, the TWA isn't too bad. I personally don't like the National Assembly Building at all though (btw, it is spelled Bangladesh - one word) - it looks more like a castle/prison than a center of for a country's democracy (then again, Bangladesh has had issues historical with democracy). Also remember for every "nice" concrete building you find, there are equal if not more a large amount for that are not from the US to Brazil to France to Russia, etc.
BTW, I don't think that it is fair to compare the WIRE buildings to the Chapel or Blackwell house - which are much older structures and certainly deserve historical preservation.
"Page non trouvée - Erreur 404" - hehe, a 404 error in French, how amusing.
Post a Comment