Exxon Building
New York, USa

HEIGHT: 229m/750 feet
FLOORS: 54 floors
COMPLETION: 1971
ARCHITECT: Harrison, Abramovitz & Harris/ Welton Becket Assoc.

was built in 1967-1971 as the second building in the Rockefeller Center Extension across Sixth Avenue, with the Exxon oil company as the main occupant.
The first plans for the three new office towers, eventually called the Exxon, McGraw-Hill and Celanese buildings, were made in 1963 by Harrison and Abramovitz. The "XYZ" plan arranged the buildings around a large sunken central plaza (with entrances to the new buildings, as well as the Rockefeller Center concourse), with the centermost one placed north-south, at right angles with the established Manhattan gridline. In the realized plan, however, all the buildings were placed east-west on adjacent blocks.

Due to the buildings' excess bulk, as opposed to the allowances given by zoning, the western ends of the plots were to be used as north-south public promenades running through each block.

The 54-storey Exxon building occupies the plot opposite the GE Building, and its vertically accentuated form rises to the height of 228.5 m, being the second-tallest building in the whole Rockefeller Center. Wrapping around the western portion of the building is a seven-storey base. The building houses 195,200 m² of office space.

The vertical facade striping consists of narrow limestone-clad piers as vertical structural members, with a similar structural system used on the other buildings within the new complex. The windows and opaque spandrels form continuous glass stripes -- an automatic washing machine that slides down the facade is used in washing the windows (the windows of the bottom six, seven floors are washed from scaffolding by hand).

Facing Sixth Avenue, there is a sunken plaza with a large pool and fountains as well as trees and the lifelike bronze statue Out to Lunch, of the same series as the one outside the ex-Union Carbide Building.

http://www.nycskyscrapers.com/aveofamericas/images/1251.jpg

http://www.citidex.com/pictures/buildings/others/exxon.gif

http://www.rockgroupdevelopment.com/images/1251pix/1251_tower.jpg
http://www.rockgroupdevelopment.com/images/historypix/1251_fountain_hor.jpg

http://www.rockgroupdevelopment.com/images/1251pix/1251_sigpix.jpg
http://www.rockgroupdevelopment.com/images/1251pix/1251_lobby_north.jpg

Not bad
7/10

it's ok. Not New York caliber

5.5/10

7/10

Yes it is a box, but it looks pristine and its actually one of 3 similar blocks. It reminds me of the late WTC.

6/10. a box with a similar design to the late WTC

6/10. Quite plain looking.

Tha XYZ buildins rul!!!

7.5

Mmm what to like?
5.5/10

I don't like boxes !

5/10 - Yup, I thought that this was one of the infamous XYZ buildings - a box, with an uninspired pin-stripe facade that doesn't even dance with the light - less is a BORE! Looks like it was poured out of a mould and sliced to suit..

it's boxy...a twin will make it look like the WTC.
5... >(

it does resemble the WTC .. and it is a simple and crisp box . . .so 6.5/10:D

A very nice box. 7

Tall and sleek, but still a box, and a boring one at that. 5.5. Sorry.

6/10

Cheap looking building..

8/10. It complements the Rockefeller Center. Its boxy like the late World Trade Center. I think the best looking boxy building was the World Trade Center.

Why did the international style of architecture get such a bad name? This building is the answer. Boring, overbearing, cheap looking, uninspired.

looks like it was drawn on a napkin over lunch after figuring out the dimensions of the box that would fit the most cheap floorspace on the site and still meet the plot ratio.

Utter crap, the only reason it doesn't get zero is because it matches a whole row of them which is a pretty dramtic effect.

3/10

3 What an incredibly boring and lifeless building.

Bland, boring, bourgeois, bulky. Knock it down. 1/10

7/10

A box is bad enough...when the windows are too small..hmm..it becomes 3.5/10.

6.5/10

I know it's just a box, but I have nice memories of this one from my NYC-trip. 7/10

Not bad, but there is of better in New York

6/10

8

7/10
no more no less

facade: bad
form: boxy
points: 2

8/10

elegant box.

O.K.

7/10

this design's so eyesore, but it's amazing when u take a pic of this one with mcgraw hill and celanese; creates a surreal effect. i would of rated this the lower but with the wtc gone, it's about as close as u can get to this (i wonder if yamasaki got his wtc design idea from this one)

6

One of my favorites in the city. A powerful middle finger to the "girlish" overly decorated skyscrapers, which look pretty nice until this one is seen.

quite OK. hope it was more shiny

6.5/10

nice boxy building..............7

5/10 box

Burp 4

5/10
There's not much you can say about it really, is there?

Nope I don't like it because it's too boxy, white, wide and plain. It has a boring base too. The only thing impressive about it is it's height. Overal it's just a huge eysore and I can't believe this thing was built!! 4/10

WTF? Why is everyone wishing this not-too shabby office building to be demolished? It's a 2.5 million sq.ft. office building for goodness sakes, and a money maker. Seriously, the International style buildings have too much of a bad rep. I really do think they're superb buildings, especially when they're mixed in with other sykscraper styles such as Art-Deco.

Anyway, this building stands out due to its strong posture and bravado. I rate it an impressive 8/10.

Cold...boxy classic 1970's crap. 4/10

5/10

What's this! 4.0

hideous less than 3.

A bit WTC like, it's ok, 6.5/10

6/10

6/10.

I don't get it. It's just a freaking box. I give it a 6/10. :(

this is one of my favorites in NYC. I like it because how it plays with the streetscape and surrounding Rockefeller center.

This building loosely mimics the classic GE building and even though it has a lot more office space, it does an excellent job of deferring all of the attention to the GE. Walking through 6th ave, you dont even really notice the buildings bulk until you sit down and really stare and admire it. Whenever I'm in NY, i make an effort to visit the XYZ buildings.

8/10

It's just boring, gray box, but I like it and I don't know why :dunno: :D
7/10

5.5/10

8/10

Giant bland box. 1.

8/10

The facade reminds a lot the WTC.

6/10

6/10

ugly, 5/10

6/10

3/10

I like the vertical windows. 8/10.

Redefines the idea of "boring". 3

5/10

5,5/10

Uninteresting.
1 or 1.5 I'd say.

Bland, not much worth the excitement. But the interior is nice, très bien. Je suis grande sur batiments, et ce est D'accord pour moi. Désolé, it's just ok. Has the similar looks of the World Trade Centre, of course you all should know that by now. I don't know, I am kind of digging the tower a little, I kind of like it, just for the World Trade Centre looks. 7/10.

Exxon building is one of my favorites buildings in world, i really love it.

6/10

6/10

7/10

6,5/10

ewwww 4.5/10

unattractive. But for height and bulk and scope alone, 7/10

4/10.

7/10

7/10

boring 4/10

3/10

5.

Ugh 6.5/10

This is one of the few buildings I think should be shorter.
6.5/10

5.5/10.

3/10

8/10

5/10

not bad 8

great box, i like it: 8/10

Whilst there is nothing to it, the design gives a sense of immense scale so 7/10

7/10

Boxy on the outside, but beautiful on the inside.. 8/10

7.5/10

7/10

5/10 American capitalism: squeeze out every penny with the most efficient desin...the box

Boxy... 5/10

Was not impredde by any of the rockerfeller extention when I walked past it.

5/10

it's like the WTC, which was not great. 5.5/10

:puke: 60's and 70's buildings
:puke: those buildings who destroyed the nice art deco skyline of New york

3/10 feee

Not bad 8/10 :) ;)

Impressive tower. I like it in a way, 7/10

7/10

5/10, looks like the World Trade Center

5/10

7. boring.

4/10 it's just a box

5/10

6/10

OK.

This is half the scale of former WTC. 6.5/10

6.5/10

7.5/10.

6.5/10 buildings help the skyline but the companies Fox News and Exxon give it a lower rating

Nah new york city sorry but i do not like this. A 5 out of 10.

just a box 6/10

7/10

3/10

6/10

5,5/10

4/10

6.5/10

A plain and boring box. 5.5

8/10

Filler in, nothing more. 6/10

box box boring box...... 6

More photos of this 'likable' building. ;) Oh and its two other brothers.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/152450319_e77660b00c_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1360/1245437250_34991ffeee_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2208/1569892622_a075da4f1b_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/462853251_21154e6365_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/242/462853247_8dea0d4596_o.jpg

boxy, lil wtc.

Ugly 70's box
0/10

ewwwwwwwww 3

10/10 totally love the vertical lines...

2/10

Big box!

4/10

6/10

7/10

6/

6.5/10

6/10

7/10

It looks like WTC :(
9/10

8.5/10

7/10 simply box

8/10

6.5/10

5/10

yuck

6/10. boring box.

7. Regards.

3/10
Hideous

I voted 8/10 because the exterior reminds me of the world trade center.

6.5/10

8/10

5/10

Boxy building.

6.5-10

4/10

Ugly, boxy, AND owned by a greedy oil company.

4/10

Ugly, boxy, AND owned by a greedy oil company.


I am glad to find your site - now I know what a good one looks like.
Very good topic to share with us. Great info.:bash::banana::cheers:

7/10

7.5/10

6.5

4/10

Ugly, boxy, AND owned by a greedy oil company.

I so agree.

but i'll give it 6/10

7/10 boxy&boring.

8/10

Looks a bit like the Aon Center which I also like. 7/10

8.5

6/10

6/10

8/10

9/10

7/10 :)

5.5/10

With better materials it would be 6.5/10

6/10

7/10

7/10

8/10

7/10

5/10

70's...

8/10

Just a box with a bad cladding so a 4/10.

Just a box with a bad cladding so a 4/10.

+1

3.5

6 a bulky & bland monstrosity.

5/10

7/10