Check out The Pomo Group

[MalignD at aol.com]

<<Meant it doesn't seem necessary to use a special word to describe the new 
buildings. It's sort of taken for granted that the lesson of Los Vegas has 
been learned.>>

There's more going on architecturally in Times Square than the laying of neon 
onto buildings new and old.  There's much new construction and it's that to 
which I referred.  If one's idea of post-modernism is a Chippendale top on 
the AT&T building, then, yes, what's going up at Times Square is something 
other, but it's certainly post-modern, if not "Post Modern."

To cite one example:  there's a rather new building to the north of the 
square which is all glass and steel, but is built with upper story taperings, 
as if for weight-bearing reasons, and ends in an off-center tapered point, 
replicating a radio tower, but all of glass and steel.  It is as if someone 
very large took hold of a glass box and shaped into an approximation of the 
Empire State building.  It's funny and audacious and, to my sense of the 
word, entirely post-modern.  Most of the new architecture there is similarly 
colorful and bold.

<<Hardly the place to look for today's predominant architectural zeigheist.>>

Are you so sure?  It's at least worth noting that among recent new tenants in 
the area are Conde Nast, Bertelsmann, Morgan Stanley and Skadden Arps.  

<<Even though architects are hirelings, working for the Yankee dollar, those 
promoting the "cutting edge" of theory don't give a damn about what 
"everybody wants."  Just ask Frank Lloyd Wright.>>

Architecture in America, good and bad, has been beholden to the corporate 
dollar.  It's the Seagram's Building, not "Mies van der Rohe's black box."  
And Frank Lloyd Wright resurrected his dead-in-the-water career with a 
commission from 3M.

<<Try downtown Boston for architectural zeitgeist, for better or worse.>>

And what century are you living in?