Hartford announced plans for the Gallery of Modern Art on the south side of Columbus Circle in June 1956, although construction did not start until 1960 due to various delays.

Gulf and Western Industries bought 2 Columbus Circle in 1976 and donated it to the New York City government, but the building remained vacant for four years due to various issues.

The lot occupies an entire city block bounded by Broadway to the east, 58th Street to the south, Eighth Avenue to the west, and Columbus Circle to the north.

[7] In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Central Park South was developed as Manhattan's "Gold Coast", with many prestigious hotels and apartment buildings being erected on its route.

[5][6] Stone's first proposal filled the whole block and consisted largely of a blank facade, with windows arranged in a narrow vertical strip and along the top floor.

[62][63] Hartford procured numerous works of art for the new museum, including a large mural by Salvador Dalí entitled The Discovery of America by Christopher Columbus.

[19] Hartford wanted his gallery to represent an alternative view of modernism; his art collection included works by Rembrandt, Monet, Manet, Turner, and Dalí.

[72] The museum's early exhibits included retrospectives of the work of artists Jean Hélion,[73] Reginald Marsh,[74] and Salvador Dalí,[75] as well as a set of paintings depicting New York City over a 50-year period.

[106] In October 1974, Fairleigh Dickinson University indicated it would no longer operate the Cultural Center, citing increasing expenses, waning public support, and the expiration of its agreement with Hartford.

[96][107] The New York Cultural Center's trustees began seeking a buyer for the property, considering bids only from organizations that could take "full responsibility, including purchase", of 2 Columbus Circle.

[113] In December 1976, Gulf and Western Industries announced that it would purchase 2 Columbus Circle and donate the building to the government of New York City, as part of an agreement with outgoing mayor Abraham Beame.

[120] Cultural Affairs commissioner Henry Geldzahler and his partner Christopher Scott oversaw the renovation, which left the building's materials and open spaces largely intact.

[121] This stipulation was part of a "reversionary interest" clause that ran for thirty years; if the city government did not use the building for cultural purposes during that period, Gulf and Western could take back ownership.

As part of a $15 million tax-incentive agreement with Viacom in 1994, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) acquired the reversionary interest in 2 Columbus Circle.

[131] In July 1996, faced with the increasing difficulty of selling off the neighboring New York Coliseum for development, the city government also offered 2 Columbus Circle for redevelopment.

[134] Although architecture critic Herbert Muschamp believed there was little chance of 2 Columbus Circle's survival,[135] the building received a high amount of attention from preservationists.

[27][144] This time, the city government sought to replace the building entirely, with the EDC describing 2 Columbus Circle as a "prime location for residential apartments".

[161] Preservationists requested that the LPC hold public hearings for 2 Columbus Circle, but the commissioners were reluctant to do so, as they did not believe the building had cultural, architectural, or historical merit.

[170] Landmark West and the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in an attempt to nullify the approval, but a state judge upheld the previous ruling in early 2005.

[171][172] Preservationists, joined by residents of the nearby Parc Vendome development, then filed a lawsuit to force the LPC to hold a public hearing for 2 Columbus Circle.

[185] Work on the building was temporarily halted in early 2006 after workers were caught using a small bulldozer to demolish portions of the structure that were supposed to have been deconstructed manually.

The critic Stuart Preston compared the building to a Venetian palazzo, but Frankfurter wrote: "To attribute a 'Venetian' style to the design is to libel on the grandeur of the Queen of the Adriatic.

[196] Olga Gueft, writing for Interiors magazine, said the colonnades and portholes "are too winsome for heavyweight criticism",[5][197] contrasting with the "glittering ice-cage architecture" that was prevalent across New York City at the time.

[37][33] In 1974, Manuela Hoelterhoff wrote for The Wall Street Journal: "Slowly, that architectural oddity [...] is recovering from its peculiar birth in the middle of a traffic island 10 years ago", largely because of the Cultural Center's diverse offerings.

[106] The next year, John Canaday wrote in The New York Times that the building was a "white elephant", constricted largely by its small lot area and designed "in a weak moment" for Stone.

[200] In 2003, Laurie Kerr of The Wall Street Journal compared 2 Columbus Circle to the original World Trade Center, saying that neither project "ever fit into any of the architectural narratives of the city" as Lever House and the Plaza Hotel did.

[156] Kate Wood of Landmark West said the plan "utterly erases Stone's vision for 2 Columbus Circle" in discarding the portholes and loggias, while Wolfe wrote a two-part New York Times editorial detailing his objections to the new design.

[161] By contrast, MAD director Holly Hotchner likened the existing design to a mausoleum, while MoMA curator Terence Riley compared the building to "a patient that has been on life support for so long that none of the doctors are still alive".

"[205] Conversely, Justin Davidson opposed the efforts to designate the building as a city landmark, saying it "minimizes flexibility and privileges the status quo, which in this case is dilapidation and uselessness".

"[210] Witold Rybczynski wrote in Slate that the new design "feels like an alien presence",[211] and architecture critic Justin Davidson said, "This version won't satisfy those who thought it should never have been touched.