NEW YORK | 432 Park Avenue (Drake Hotel dev.) | (1,396) FT / 432 M | 89 FLOORS - Page 88

Islander · #**1741** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 1:52 AM**

Given the size of the plot and the amount of space they wanted to get out of it, there weren't really any sane design options available beyond the box route.

plinko · #**1742** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 2:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Given the size of the plot and the amount of space they wanted to get out of it, there weren't really any sane design options available beyond the box route.

Shush you! That kind of reality-driven exclamation has no place here!

TechTalkGuy · #**1743** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 2:52 AM**

I hope all skyscraper enthusiasts will appreciate the beautiful design of 432 Park Avenue.
I like this design more and more.

It's tall, it's bold, it's proud and it's New York !!

theWestisDead · #**1744** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 5:54 AM**

When I look at the design and its relation to the surrounding area, the expression "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" comes to mind...

TechTalkGuy · #**1745** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 5:59 AM**

This building has character. It's has a New York ego.
It says, here I am, tall and proud.

JSsocal · #**1746** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 6:15 AM**

"I'm Ugly and I'm Proud"

Oura · #**1747** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 7:08 AM**

Disappointed to see they decided to drop a square box in the middle of a L-shaped plot. Will make this thing look out of place at street level.

Illithid Dude · #**1748** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 8:37 AM**

I dunno, it looks pretty ugly...

NYguy · #**1749** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 9:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveve

I just don't get it. something that will take the Empire State's title as King of Midtown has to be this proposal

ESB is losing its crown as Midtown's tallest whether this one is built or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theWestisDead

When I look at the design and its relation to the surrounding area, the expression "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" comes to mind...

And likewise, just because you have the option not to doesn't mean you shouldn't. Works both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oura

Disappointed to see they decided to drop a square box in the middle of a L-shaped plot. Will make this thing look out of place at street level.

Actually, at street level, it will be part of the 57th Street streetwall. On the backside (56th) is where the driveway and parking entrance for residents will be. The glass "cube" on Park Avenue is meant to be a focal point of its own, somewhat similar to the cube at the GM Building, but more than an entrance to the lower levels.

Observe The Random

It's not the best design, the top could certainly use more work. But what matters is if the building is successful for what it is. For the people on the inside looking out, it will be. For the rest of New York, its just another extra tall tower on the skyline that will suddenly have a large number of them.

patriotizzy · #**1750** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 9:53 AM**

Honestly, in this day in age, I find it very hard to comprehend how someone can actually defend the most blandest and old school proposal in the 21st century. Just look at Hudson Yards, they changed their building's design because they realized they needed something modern and much more iconic. Looking at 432 makes me sick to my stomach. I never imagined a 1970s building being built in the middle of 2012. Who needs an architectural degree and sense of design to come up with this? I can design something much more appealing in a mere 10 minutes. Anyways, people who defend this atrocity in 21st century architecture make me laugh.

sterlippo1 · #**1751** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 11:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish

I hope all skyscraper enthusiasts will appreciate the beautiful design of 432 Park Avenue.
I like this design more and more.

It's tall, it's bold, it's proud and it's New York !!

exactly

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish

This building has character. It's has a New York ego.
It says, here I am, tall and proud.

this too!!! i agree with both your posts, it most assuredly IS New York!

UrbanImpact · #**1752** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Honestly, in this day in age, I find it very hard to comprehend how someone can actually defend the most blandest and old school proposal in the 21st century. Just look at Hudson Yards, they changed their building's design because they realized they needed something modern and much more iconic. Looking at 432 makes me sick to my stomach. I never imagined a 1970s building being built in the middle of 2012. Who needs an architectural degree and sense of design to come up with this? I can design something much more appealing in a mere 10 minutes. Anyways, people who defend this atrocity in 21st century architecture make me laugh.

The architect is not the one paying for the building so his design reflects the budget that he is provided. Also, the architect must deal with the spatial requirements that the customer is requesting.

That being said, I don't think it's fair to judge this building at this point since there isn't a proper rendering. Calling it an atrocity is a big dramatic exaggeration in my opinion.

Duck From NY · #**1753** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Honestly, in this day in age, I find it very hard to comprehend how someone can actually defend the most blandest and old school proposal in the 21st century. Just look at Hudson Yards, they changed their building's design because they realized they needed something modern and much more iconic. Looking at 432 makes me sick to my stomach. I never imagined a 1970s building being built in the middle of 2012. Who needs an architectural degree and sense of design to come up with this? I can design something much more appealing in a mere 10 minutes. Anyways, people who defend this atrocity in 21st century architecture make me laugh.

I'm not a fan of boxes. Not so much because I don't like them, but because New York doesn't have to build any more for the rest of time, and we'd still have enough to provide a canvas for our more lovely and unique buildings. Nevertheless, the height and width of this building set it apart, and from what I can tell by the renders, the materials will look great. I like this one.

plinko · #**1754** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 5:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Honestly, in this day in age, I find it very hard to comprehend how someone can actually defend the most blandest and old school proposal in the 21st century. Just look at Hudson Yards, they changed their building's design because they realized they needed something modern and much more iconic. Looking at 432 makes me sick to my stomach. I never imagined a 1970s building being built in the middle of 2012. Who needs an architectural degree and sense of design to come up with this? I can design something much more appealing in a mere 10 minutes. Anyways, people who defend this atrocity in 21st century architecture make me laugh.

Except you're talking from the armchair and you don't have even 5% of the information (or more relevant...constraints) that Vinoly has.

It's pretty easy to dissect a design when you have no clue what the parameters are.

Urban Impact is exactly correct... wait until it's built. You (and most others) have no clue what that facade is going to look like.

TechTalkGuy · #**1755** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 5:40 PM**

I really like the renders so far, so if a design change occurs, I hope it's minimal.

JACKinBeantown · #**1756** Posted **Jun 8, 2012, 7:30 PM**

Seems as though the general consensus on this forum is that this building is pretty ordinary in terms of design. Yes, it will be tall and impact the skyline in that regard and it may have a shiny white surface, but in terms of actual design it will be pretty bland. Of course there are a few members of the forum who will disagree (you don't need to call attention to yourselves)... I'm just making a "statistical" statement.

UrbanImpact · #**1757** Posted **Jun 9, 2012, 12:09 AM**

I think the "peek-a-boos" or voids might make this tower a little more interesting than just a straight shot box....along with the cladding.

lakegz · #**1758** Posted **Jun 9, 2012, 1:21 AM**

found some buildings with designs comparable to 432.
Jianwai Soho Beijing

I think 432 will have less detail and interruptions in the fenestration and will give it an even sharper look than these towers (which I think are pretty sharp).

easy as pie · #**1759** Posted **Jun 9, 2012, 1:33 AM**

this thing is just astonishingly tall.

JayPro · #**1760** Posted **Jun 9, 2012, 2:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakegz

I think 432 will have less detail and interruptions in the fenestration and will give it an even sharper look than these towers (which I think are pretty sharp).

Don't forget the nickel-based (IIRC) exterior hash-grid which will add an additional reflective quality. In your pics this feature looks to be made of a white-painted metallic substance.

Of course I do get your gist that this is a faint idea of what it could look like....but the operative word "could" is exactly because the renderings given so far might only indicate the look of the materials.

We might yet be thrown a little curve-ball that will shatter many a strongly-held forgone conclusion.