Quote:
Originally Posted by Stenar
I bet it'll still be ugly.
"It seems to me that one of the things that I would want from a project ... would be to really do something that's interesting to our skyline, to our city," Nancy Saxton said. "It seems to me that the emphasis on the glass is interesting, and the night-lighting is very interesting, but in the day it seems to be less than titillating. It's just a square building."
Bingham maintained that the tower will be unique to the city and will prove to be anything but dull.
"With all due respect, within the context of your question: Compared to what?" Bingham said. "Compared to New York, compared to Chicago, compared to San Francisco? I think you've got valid concerns. Compared to Salt Lake City, it is a striking building. There is nothing else like it."
Uhhh... it's just a dull, square building. How is that striking?
|
Stenar, thanks for all the great info. on the convention specific stats.
Regarding 222, I would have to agree with Orlando to an extent. I think the actual building will be very nice. However, most of my opinion would be regarding the Main Street elevation, particularly the very well-defined curvature of the northeast corner. I think the Main Street elevation is going to make for a beautiful piece of infill.
I'm not looking to 222 as major skyline addition, but more of a decent sized, very sophisticated, infill project. I'm looking more to Tower 1 as a much needed addition to the skyline. I definately look forward to some addtional 450-600 footers for skyline enhancement.
I think I know where your tastes are probably leaning. Say something with a top like this below. Am I right? I would like to see a few of these, (I'm thinking of the creative tops especially!)
I'm also liking the main body of Gehry's Beekman in New York a lot.
Threaded Mode