[JMGarcia]

First, Forster's tower in and of itself was brilliant. It was a classic skyscraper done with a completely modern twist. There was a distinct base, shaft, and crown as is seen in so many of the most loved towers. However it was not particularly cutting edge by today's standards.

Foster's tower also followed the spirit of the site plan much better than any of the other towers including creating a certain jaggedness to the skyline that none of the others achieved. So, for all it's brilliance it didn't, IMO, really fit with the other towers.

The BIG design is not a very classic skyscraper. It is asymmetrical in an ungainly and disconcerting way, especially at certain angles. The mind cannot create any easily discernible patterns in it, jutting out, setting back, squared sides, and stacked boxes none of which follow a familiar pattern of size or shape. It, unlike Foster's tower, is cutting edge, like it or not. Ironically, much like Foster's kissing towers design it gives the impression from certain angles of falling over, of instability only adding on to the unease of looking at it. In many ways it also follows the same sense of incongruous angles in Libeskind's site design, the difference being Libeskind used acute angles and BIG uses 90 degree angles for the most part.

So, does it work for a tennant? The answer is most probably yes. The interiors and amenities are probably fantastic. It also seems to express the idea of "new media" much better than Foster's more "financial institution" tower.

Does it fit with the site and it's surroundings? It does in some ways much better than Foster's tower. Calatrava's building is the outlyer now.

Is the building beautiful? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder but by classical standards, beautiful it is not. It's the big box version of 56 Leonard St.