Wikipedia: 2 Columbus Circle is a small, trapezoidal lot on the south side of Columbus Circle in Manhattan, New York City, USA. The seven-story Pabst Grand Circle Hotel, designed by William H. Cauvet, stood at this address from 1874 until it was demolished in 1960. From 1964 to 2005 the site contained a 12 story modernist structure designed by Edward Durell Stone to display the art collection of Huntington Hartford, heir to the founder of A&P Supermarkets. As Stone designed it, the building was marble-clad with Venetian motifs and a curved façade. It had filigree-like portholes and windows that ran along an upper loggia at its top stories. Stone's building was often called The Lollipop Building in reference to a mocking review by architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable in which she called it a die-cut Venetian palazzo on lollipops. However, three decades later she admitted that she got a little lift, a sense of pleasure when she walked past it. With architect Philip L. Goodwin, Edward Durell Stone had previously designed the Rockefeller family's Museum of Modern Art in the International style. Hartford wanted his Gallery of Modern Art to represent an alternative view of modernism. Interest in landmarking this building began in 1996, soon after the building turned thirty years old and became eligible for landmark designation. In this year, Robert A. M. Stern included it in his article A Preservationist's List of 35 Modern Landmarks-in-Waiting written for the New York Times. Stone's design at 2 Columbus Circle was listed as one of the World Monuments Fund's 100 Most Endangered Sites for 2006. In 2004, the National Trust for Historic Preservation called it one of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places. Despite a serious preservation effort, The Museum of Arts & Design has radically altered the building for their occupation in 2008. Architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff named the new building as one of seven structures in New York City that should be torn down because they have a traumatic effect on the city. Ouroussoff also wrote: The renovation remedies the annoying functional defects that had plagued the building for decades. But this is not the bold architectural statement that might have justified the destruction of an important piece of New York history. Poorly detailed and lacking in confidence, the project is a victory only for people who favor the safe and inoffensive and have always been squeamish about the frictions that give this city its vitality.