New York sacrificing its heritage and unique flair - an affront to its grand historical cityscape? Dumb York?

[dexter2]

Architecture is hardly art. Mostly engineering, money and protection

But tell me... Why is everybody so excited by WTC1, WTC3 and WTC4. It's almost the same, but simpler - facade in case of WTC4 is almost only made of glass.
Yeah, It has some additional forms, but other than that every random person could draw that.

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by dexter2

Why is everybody so excited by WTC1, WTC3 and WTC4.

Simple. Location, location, location

Currently there are a lot better recently build or planed towers for NYC (including 432 park ave) than anything in wtc complex.

[OnePointWest]

*Four World Trade Center is x1000 better than this concrete slab of a building,have you seen its immense mirror.Though 432's height and proportions make it an engineering marvel.

*Two World Trade Center is about the best thing since the CitiCorp Center,unique.

*One World Trade Center,the greenest and strongest building in the world.A new symbol for New York.

*Three World Trade Center has the New York Look,an industrial and immense structure.

Of course people are going to be excited about these structure all side-by-side.

[The Quiet Storm]

Surely no one's comparing the two?

[dexter2]

Nobody shouldn't even start to compare, because we still haven't even seen official final renders. That goes mostly to erbse...

OnePointWest - WTC complex is generally no better or worse than this tower - we can say, that 432 is next old WTC... And certainly has New York look to it. It is just good architecture. Everything else is just a matter of taste.
I mentioned It just to show dependance.

Ok., I thing It's really enough. EOT.

[GunnerJacket]

Architecture is an art, otherwise we'd all be living in caves and monotonous apartments. True, it's become less decorative and ornate since the advent of commercial construction, modern technology and cost-conscious developers, but otherwise the design of space and structure is every bit an artistic craft and expression as music, painting, etc.

As for the WTC buildings I don't find them the highest standard for comparison (especially the insulting 'pinnacle' atop #1) but at least they're providing their own twists on a conventional theme while also paying homage to their particular site. plus the developer worked with the community and others in conceiving a look that allows those buildings to work individually and as a group. And they follow Sullivan's concepts of required tall building elements. So without needing to love them I at least "get it."

I do understand that 432 is working with a confined space and is mostly concerned with maximizing the views to the outside from within. I applaud its high degree of functionality. But now compare it with One 57, a building with a comparable function and location but a decidedly different design ethos. One 57 has a defining theme (beyond I Am) and then alters materials and form to make that theme work for that site. It engages its setting, even in proportionality. Stylistically I'm still not a fan, but compared to 432 I appreciate the efforts to create architecture rather than simply making a building.

To date everything I've seen on 432 suggests it takes one form then literally builds the same thing on top. That's it! It's not the first (or worst) to do this and certainly won't be the last. There's nothing truly unique to account for the site, minimal harmony with adjoining structures. It is a non-descript building as banal as a strip mall. NYC has plenty others like it, just nothing as tall. (At least the old Twin Towers had crowns, a pedestrain appropriate plaza and a marquee location.)

As I've said before, if I'd turned this in as a concept during my days as a student the professor would've chided my laziness. "Never produce something the contractor could've designed on their own," as they say.

[dexter2]

I think you mentioned the most important thing - I personally don't like One57.
I don't like It's reflective blue glass, I don't like those curves and proportions...
But I can still appriciate that as a good design. I know It's a good design, but simply don't like it personally.
The same goes for 432 - It's not in your type, but perhaps you can still say that It is not kitchy or repulsive.


One of my favourite styles in architecture is simplified to the edge Functionalism. It's great because of It's simplicity, (usually) high standard and... feel.
I will ALWAYS disagree with a person who will say that It is not an architecture.
And I think that is why I love this tower.

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by OnePointWest

have you seen its immense mirror.

yeah it's pretty much all it is, a huge mirror

Not saying all of wtc is crap just think that 432 park avenue, tour verre, beekman, and recently 425 park avenue are all imo much more interesting architecture than any of the glass mirror towers of wtc complex. But that's just my subjective point of view and I'm not going to force it on anybody.

anyway eot on my part.

[dexter2]

Originally Posted by patrykus

Not saying all of wtc is crap just think that 432 park avenue, tour verre, beekman, and recently 425 park avenue are all imo much more interesting architecture than any of the glass mirror towers of wtc complex. But that's just my subjective point of view and I'm not going to force it on anybody.

Totally agree with that

[deadhead262]

Originally Posted by patrykus

Simple. Location, location, location

Currently there are a lot better recently build or planed towers for NYC (including 432 park ave) than anything in wtc complex.

You keep thinking that.

[DinoVabec]

Originally Posted by patrykus

yeah it's pretty much all it is, a huge mirror

Not saying all of wtc is crap just think that 432 park avenue, tour verre, beekman, and recently 425 park avenue are all imo much more interesting architecture than any of the glass mirror towers of wtc complex. But that's just my subjective point of view and I'm not going to force it on anybody.

anyway eot on my part.

Good point.

[Celt67]

This will be the biggest eyesore in Manhattan.

[erbse]

The Domino Sugar Plant project once again proves what an insensitive, abysmal reincarnation of 1960s architects Rafael Vinoly is: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=579100

Screwing up the Brooklyn waterfront with one monotonous, social housing like gated community block.




http://www.pbase.com/image/92584369/original.jpg

If it wasn't for that project being upper-class on purpose, you'd have to assume it's social housing. That's supposed to look somewhat pleasant by adding random colors. Ridiculous bullcrap, sorry. Just as 432 Park is.

I think I've got a new #1 architect's foeman.

[erbse]

I created this thread by getting some posts of the 432 Park Tower over here.


What do you think about NYC's way of sacrificing its heritage to fulfill the needs of greedy developers?

Shouldn't the city show more ambition to keep its heritage and try to arrange new development and redevelopment in a more sustainable way?

Thank you all for your input!

[Ludi]

Originally Posted by Phobos

Omg, cant believe that they take down this building for new building.

In Europe unimaginably to deal with buildings like that so ....

[Ribarca]

I'm with you regarding the demolished buildings on page 1. I always hate it when they destroy parts of our history. In Hong Kong there is almost nothing left that is old.

But this Domino Sugar Plant development looks pretty cool to me. It will stand or fall with the material used. What is the material used on the top?

[bolg]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

It's okay. Not many people have the ability or mental capacity to understand modernism or minimalism. They just cannot comprehend those styles. It's easier to be superficial and enjoy the decoration on the sides of the building instead of taking in the building as a whole. Even if they don't understand the point behind said decorations. Why have the cake when you can have just the icing?

Also, what if I don't find the Chrysler beautiful?

This is a common argument coming from pro modernists. "It's not for everyone". Yet, if it's hated by 98 % of the populace, it shouldn't get built.

[Suburbanist]

Moot argument.

If they hadn't destroyed anything that has ever been built on Manhattan Island, almost all NY icons such as the Empire State Building, Rockfeller Center, original WTC etc. would have never been built, since they took over previous existing buildings.

For new things come to existence, buildings that will be celebrated in 50 years or so, old stuff needs to see the wrecking ball.

It is a NORMAL, HEALTHY and NATURAL cycle by which cities renovate their building stock by demolishing what is old and replacing by newer construction.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by bolg

This is a common argument coming from pro modernists. "It's not for everyone". Yet, if it's hated by 98 % of the populace, it shouldn't get built.

In a "brownfield" development like the sugar factory, the only tastes that matter are those of the people who will buy or rent property there, frankly.

Everybody else, who didn't spend a dime on the area, have no stake in terms of a development being merely "not aesthetic according to my own taste". It if is going to pollute the waters or release toxic fumes, yes, that might be a valid discussion, but a building being just "ugly" (not decayed, not unsafe, not unhealthy for human use; just 'ugly') is no argument to forestall a project.

[ThatOneGuy]

I would rather have had that greenish building on the far left of that picture demolished for 432 park, instead of the beautiful Drake, but I am still a great modernist supporter.
And my comment, that was reposted by bolg, was not a 'common argument'. The jokey side might not have been painfully obvious, but still, it was taken out of context. It was directed to someone who bashed modernism in the same way, so it was a fair rebuttal.
The question I asked after that was rhetorical. They said that everybody found beauty in details like in the Chrysler only. Which is not the case. Of course, I like the Chrysler, but I, like many others, find greater beauty in simplicity and clean, modern designs.