NEW YORK | InterContinental Times Square Hotel | 307 FT / 94 M | 34 FLOORS | T/O - Page 2

antinimby · #21 Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 2:29 AM**

6/14/2009 - All topped out.

The cladding is not looking so good (looks worse in person).

NYC2ATX · #22 Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 2:47 AM**

ROFL these hotels are getting a little too creative now.

vandelay · #23 Posted **Jun 15, 2009, 3:16 AM**

You would think that the "zebra" building was a Kaufman. But 420 W. 42nd st. was actually designed by Hardy Holzman and Pfeiffer, who were pretty respectable. If you get past the ugly fecal stripes, it's not a terrible building. The developer said this to the Times, "It's not your traditional building that's meant to blend into the surroundings. Hugh Hardy felt — and we agree — that you build contextual buildings in a place where there is a context. Here, there is 42nd Street."

So there you have it. Even though the landmark Art Deco McGraw-Hill building is right down the street, they decided to have a condescending and arrogant attitude about the neighborhood and building, and pushed the bar even lower. Yeah, I hate the Zebra.

(wiredny)

NYguy · #24 Posted **Jun 16, 2009, 6:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

Wow, just when 8th Ave was beginning to get some interesting architecture. And that tower is so prominent too.

RoldanTTLB · #25 Posted **Jul 5, 2009, 7:37 PM**

Cladding must be a little slow on this one (or there's a SWO)...

RoldanTTLB · #26 Posted **Jul 8, 2009, 5:37 PM**

Or they they poured the whole building before starting to clad, because as these photos show, they're doing SOMETHING:

Roaming · #27 Posted **Jul 8, 2009, 6:14 PM**

The glass looks nice. Too bad is not a tall building though.

JACKinBeantown · #28 Posted **Jul 8, 2009, 8:56 PM**

What a piece of crap.

Dac150 · #29 Posted **Jul 8, 2009, 9:13 PM**

Ugh, I guess it's ok. It's on par with all those hotels that were built next to the NYT Tower. At least those are more creative on the top with the lights.

NYC2ATX · #30 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 6:06 AM**

It might pull itself off. I'm in wait-and-see mode.

Dac150 · #31 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 9:23 PM**

Adds a little density to the mix, and it really only jumps out at you when you're walking by, otherwise just gets lost.

CGII · #32 Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 1:18 AM**

Thank god the cladding for the base isn't applied to the tower, as I worried first looking at the above photos. I thought we'd have another Toren...

RoldanTTLB · #33 Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGII

Thank god the cladding for the base isn't applied to the tower, as I worried first looking at the above photos. I thought we'd have another Toren...

Hey now! 1.) I really like the Toren. 2.) I don't know what else. From being right up by this building a few times now, it's really not so bad. The panels, while not stone level quality, are pretty nice. I like the glass going up on the tower, and other than the creamy white glass (which is now and will continue to get dirty in a bad way), it's pretty good. It's beyond the quality of the other hotels (the westin, the 6 pack of new ones, etc) in the area, so there's not a whole lot to complain about other than the fact that the building should probably be 20 floors taller.