Why would Barnett change the tower when he most likely has been overseeing the design process all the way and shaped the tower into what it is right now?
|
I have a question but it so off topic ... Do you know if the new mayor,Bill De Blasio,stop the new development for the city or go on the same way like Bloomberg ? It will good to know for the future of New York.
|
Quote:
http://observer.com/2013/11/extell-f...-street-tower/ Extell Finally Reveals Renderings for Controversial New 57th Street Tower http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.c...4213.jpg?w=262 By Kim Velsey 11/05/13 Quote:
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153243890/original.jpg http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153243892/original.jpg |
Quote:
^So this is it.... how sad. |
That would have looked cool if this was 1985.
:( |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Truly, AS+GG are the worse architects to come to NYC. This is worse than any Kaufman or Poon midrise hotel. There was no respect give to 57th St or to Central Park. In fact, i would venture to say this is more offensive than 432 Park Ave. Truly despicable. Local NYC architects and generally European architects always seem to get it right. American architects...:yuck: |
Ummmmm............
Does not one person here find it in any way peculiar that the WSJ hyperlink below the second pic in this article is dead? It seems that WSJ deleted their 225W article--i.e. virtually the same one as this--from their website. The assertion has been made--FWIW by Robert Walpole at SSC--that the WSJ removal was done at Extell's behest. I'll wager half my bank account that Observer's gonna pull the plug on theirs and for the same reason...'coz it's essentially the same article. Observer would've better served itself to not engage in copycat journalism. And again...why no active hyperlinks to the Smith/Gill website? SG is credited for the images; but that's it. Matter of fact, there's absolute zilch on the SG site on this tower...No drawings. No press releases. Bupkiss. Has nobody even bothered to look to corroborate any of this??? I remain adamant in my belief that someone knows something that we don't. And I'll leave it at that. |
I have noticed a patter on this website about how people feel about New York's residential Supertalls. At first, there is a ton of criticism and everyone hates them, then as they start to rise and people get a look at the actual building people start to love it. Then when it nears completion, people start to nitpick and say "at least we have _______ supertall going up in the region". Then repeat the process with _______ supertall. People who didn't like One57 were so excited for this tower, till they saw the render.
The only tower that has not seems to conform to this lately is Tower Verre. But I have noticed it with 432 Park and One57. I for one am going to give this one a chance. I wish it was a little taller so that it could surpass One World Mumbai. |
This will be very easy & quick for them to build.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So I'm stumped as to why in the Observer article, the pic with the WSJ hyperlink directed me to (essentially) a 404 Not Found error.
|
Quote:
|
I think it's a slippery slope when we start thinking that any tall building should be welcome in NYC. As a skyscraper enthusiast, of course I'm happy to see buildings pushing new boundaries in terms of height but I will trade that any day for a stunning design. Besides, if the thinking is there's always going to be a taller building coming up, what's to say the next building will look any better? To me that's a rationale for mediocrity and before we know it we'll end up with a bunch of tall, banal towers anchoring our great city's skyline. Developers don't have to put up a masterpiece all the time but when you build what is expected to be the tallest building in the city and given the location, one would expect a design that will catch the public eye, in a good way, which I obviously think this "massing" doesn't. But you're right in the sense that we should wait for the final reveal to make a judgement.
It should also be said that, I'm speaking for myself, but there was a certain intrigue when One57 and 432 Park were introduced, but I grew to like those towers, this one on the other hand has a massing that no matter what can be done to the curtain wall, will be hard to improve upon. |
Quote:
And remember guys, you really wont see the lower 200 meters of this tower from a distance, which is where most of the weird massing is. What we will see will be a very tall, thin tower. Like 432. Not saying I love it, but I think it is a bit early to judge this one. I bet at least a few of you who hate it now will be declaring your love for it by the time it tops out. |
^Agreed :|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
[quote]Still, the renderings give a sense of the general look of the Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture-designed tower I don't know why people tend to leave that out, but the bottom line is what you see is pretty much the tower we will get. The potential changes won't create a different building. Quote:
Quote:
I'm someone who doesn't require a whole lot for acceptable architecture. And I love boxes. This tower would be fine at half it's height - just another in the vast skyscraper sea of Manhattan. At it's current height, and with the legacy of Manhattan skyscrapers, it is grossly unacceptable. Of course, that won't stop it from being built. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.