Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Oh, I don't disagree. But there might be more going on here than what is apparent at first brush. The masonry looks like it will have lots of variation and sort of a rugged/rustic texture, which could be nice.
Also, I see now that those large expanses of glass are actually broken up very faintly - I'm guessing those are structural silicone joints, which will be a lot more prominent in real life than in this rendering. That might actually be an improvement.
Actually, if you click through the slideshow on Sterling Bay's website, there's a lot of nice brickwork detail especially at ground level:
https://www.sterlingbay.com/property/345-north-morgan
I thought Gr333n would be a disappointment, too, but the curtain wall system ended up having a lot of depth and texture so I'll give SB the benefit of the doubt for now.
|
True. If the brickwork is done well, it will help. But again, even if laid super tight and with rich, intricate patterning, it won't be able to stand up against those expanses of windows (which will undoubtedly be visually dense with reflections).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop
Could not agree more. Not at all a fan of 345 N Morgan design. To me it has a 1000 Fultonesque look, which is not a good thing. That reno/adaptive reuse project has always felt chintzy to me. What's infuriating about the very apparent aesthetic cheapness of these buildings is that these are entirely/primarily occupied by GOOG, which has a market capitalization nearing $1T. That company could very obviously not only demand these buildings are designed to some quite good standard, but to the very highest practical standard. They either don't care, or intentionally choose very weak design sauce here. Would expect much more from Google, but perhaps I shouldn't.
|
Yes, 1K Fulton is a bit of car crash to me (the emblem of which being those weird pier stumps at the base of the otherwise nice-looking annex to the west).
Google likely has close to zero influence in the matter (nor do I think they care about making any statements with a regional office). I think it's all driven by whatever people will think will draw the tenants to the buildings (so, the interior and associated amenities), the decisions of which are made closer to the headwaters of the capital that's funding the project (so, in some cases, probably not even the architect).
There's probably something to be said for making a building distinctively attractive
enough to draw a certain type of leasing client, but I don't know what level that is.
I wonder how much importance a building makes to a company's brand, anyway. Certainly with conspicuous and iconic towers, yeah, but not with something like 345 Morgan. A company could make occupying 'good' architecture part of their identity, but they would have to be happy doing it for themselves -- it doesn't have enough visibility or immediacy to be used as a selling point.