Chris, Ralph:
My mistake (I am, forgive me, only an
engineer and not a PE at that). I guess someone got lazy when doing the
letterhead and left out the mullions (probably not what they're called?) that
define the slit windows and other details related to the columns of windows. Of
course, as Ralph pointed out, when the building is viewed in elevation rather
than obliquely the windows do seem to be large and the "mullions" small. It
almost seems like a lot of window for a warehouse but maybe
the architect was trying to save on electricity by using natural light
and foreseeing the need to make it easier to use those dial telephones that
would come into popular use in the late-20s.
Question: What does the "battered walls"
terminology refer to? Is it the recesses between the windows that are in
vertical rows? My reference suggests the term refers to the sloping
of a wall, not vertical recesses (but then it was edited by Kornelius Smit
who is an RPI engineer, not a Registered Architect).
Another technical question: We can't seem to
get concrete to last more than a few years here where I work (granted it is SUNY
construction by the lowest bidder and exposed to rock salt for snow & ice
removal and litigation remediation). Some of the worst failures were stairs and
a sidewalk overseen by someone who supposedly was a mason with extensive
concrete experience (and don't get me started on the terrible duct work that was
overseen by a guy whose name is synonymous with tin-knockers in this town). I
would imagine that a waterfront building in NYC (a freeze/thaw climate) with
even this modest amount of detail would have spalling at the corners of
the mullions between the vertical rows of windows (please excuse my
lack of terminology). I would expect that they must've had a tough time getting
decent quality control back in 1913 or so when this was built yet the building
seems to have held up well (at least from a distance). (Of course there is
Steve's leaking roof explanation.)
Bruce
In a message dated 12/9/2005 12:01:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, some
misguided, credulous person, possibly a CIA mole
(or mohel?) writes:
From looking at the original
rendering of the building it looks to me as though the gun-slits came much
later.
Sweethearts, that ain't the "original
rendering" of the building. Among other things it bears a seven-digit
phone number (which took place well after the building was constructed).
It's a letterhead, subject to all sorts of foolishness (since not designed by
Registered Architect, among other things). Not sure why somebody
put the windows, but they aren't there now, and weren't there
originally.
Find very early photograph 2 pages down in
the following document, clearly showing present "slit window"
conditions:
Sincerely yours, Never Really Liked
Cass Gilbert, Nothwithstanding