Quote:
Originally Posted by TREPYE
Yeah cuz when people are looking at a NYC supertall skyscraper they are assessing the price and quality of the windows and masonry.... please.
Fact of the matter is that regardless of what materials were overpaid for to sheath these 2 towers (432 Park and this CPT) they are dismal aesthetically from a form standpoint. The only form they project is to fill space as cheaply as possible. Cheaply being with rectilinear materials that are easy to manufacture; CPT doesn't even have any decent symmetrical setbacks. Just rectilinear glass that, notches and culminates in a flatline.
You folks (Chicago103, Crawford) come off as indignant project managers; if you were involved in the planning and costing of this tower (CPT) and paid $3 Billion dollars to build this atrocious construct, which is even more expensive than 1 WTC/Freedom Tower (even adjusted for inflation), you ought to reconsider your procurement practices as you have been fleeced into blatant overpayment.
|
"Yeah cuz when people are looking at a NYC supertall skyscraper they are assessing the price and quality of the windows and masonry.... please"
No, the general public looks up, admires the height and then moves on. Unless the building is especially disgusting the general public doesn't care what they look like, and neither CPT or 432 are especially disgusting (though 432 isn't eyecandy either)
"Fact of the matter is that regardless of what materials were overpaid for to sheath these 2 towers (432 Park and this CPT) they are dismal aesthetically from a form standpoint. The only form they project is to fill space as cheaply as possible" 1) You starting off by saying "fact" doesn't make what you say a fact, it's still an opinion 2) First off, neither of these buildings is cheap. 3) Yes of course they overpaid for the materials because you don't like them. 4) Uhh, duh. All buildings have the goal to fill the space as cheaply as possible unless they're just a project like the Burj Khalifa. But once again neither of these buildings was cheap or value engineered. (besides the actual building of 432 which apparently wasn't done right).
"Cheaply being with rectilinear materials that are easy to manufacture; CPT doesn't even have any decent symmetrical setbacks. Just rectilinear glass that, notches and culminates in a flatline"
1) Again you calling them cheap doesn't make them cheap. 2) The word cheap isn't a synonym for bad. 3) And? Why do symmetrical setbacks matter? 4) Yep, that is the ending to that building. Congrats.
"You folks (Chicago103, Crawford) come off as indignant project managers; if you were involved in the planning and costing of this tower (CPT) and paid $3
Billion dollars to build this atrocious construct, which is even more expensive than 1 WTC/Freedom Tower (even adjusted for inflation), you ought to reconsider your procurement practices as you have been fleeced into blatant overpayment" 1) If you were involved in the planning and costing of this tower, you'd go bankrupt because you have no idea what you're talking about.
CPT is not some marvel and I'd say is outclassed in style by the closeby Steinway tower, but it's also not some eyesore, it looks perfectly fine.