NEW YORK | 23 East 22nd street | 24 fl | Pro

[romanamerican]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

You got the point - it's all about subjective views I won't detain you from those.
Just wanted to question this monochrome "America yay - Europe nay"-attitude. It's commonly spread throughout Europe, whether some people affirm that we'd have some superiority complexes. That rather is the case for the US, you can't deny that - and it's far from being a stereotype that they have a limited, America-centered view of the world. Asians are more neutral in this regard (than both, EU and US), that's true.

So you're fully americanized now. Congratulations

Perhaps I'm going to seize your other points later on.

It is both the cases, but in two different ways: europeans claim they are more intelligent and have more taste (especially in italy), while americans claim they are stronger (power-wise). Now, of the european point of view, there is no proof, in the sense that it is not scientifically proven that europeans are smarter (as for the "better taste", that is again, a subjective fact). As for the american point of view, there are facts that support it: they are in fact the biggest world economy, they have the strongest army (and army budget) and yes, they could blow europe away with all their atomic bombs. So strictly sticking to facts, only one point of view is based on facts.
As for the "america-centered", it is true, but I see more benefits than losses, since they concentrate on their own country and their own problems. Europeans tend to look far too much at other countries problems, without realizing they have the same problems at home.


As for me being "fully americanized", instead of saying "congratulations" you should ask yourself why.

Sorry everybody for the OT, but a clarification was necessary. If a moderator can cancel all the OT comments (this one included), it would be appreciated.

[unmentioned]

I thought if I came back to this proposal and looked at it again and tried to see the positive in it, I might change my mind.

...


Still hate it. Still find it positively garish.




It's funny how many people just get all jazzed about something shiny and new and in that they fail to see how absolutely incongruous a project may be with its surroundings.

[erbse]

Originally Posted by unmentioned

Still hate it.

It's funny how many people just get all jazzed about something shiny and new and in that they fail to see how absolutely incongruous a project may be with its surroundings.

Absolutely agreed.
This thing will be disliked, just as the modernist MetLife Building is (not the ML Tower) for instance, though it doesn't might be that big.
Some may like it, but it fails to worthily amend this ensemble.

There are more than enough places that are spoiled by crappy modern boxes around Manhattan! I've got nothing against great modern buildings, but they can build them anywhere else. I listed some places that'd be appropriate for this tower.

Originally Posted by Skyscrapercitizen

But just for the record, I've been to NY 3 times. First time my hotel was on 25th street, 2 minutes from madison square. The second time I lived in NY for 3 months and visited this area weekly or more

So what? You still don't seem to know it properly. It's just a stone's throw from Madison Square Park and one of the first highrises in the world. And it is a unique historical area of NYC, that you won't find anywhere else. That highrise is going to afflict this area. I wouldn't even bother if this tower had some decent facade, such as limestone or sandstone.
But this metal/glass-stuff just doesn't suit this place in any way.

Originally Posted by Skyscrapercitizen

If the new yorkers in the first decades of the 20th century had your point of view, all these cool historic skyscrapers wouldn't be there, think about that.

Oh dude. Another bland modernist phrase, please stop it!

In short: Mankind built with classical proportions, ornaments, columns, pilasters, pitched roofs, dormers, gables, balustrade and arches for hundreds of years. But then, out of a sudden, the modernists came up - and abandoned any known architecture. They completely broke with any centennial traditions and rules of our built environment. Modern buildings were meant to derange our human viewing pattern, to be disharmonious, to discard ornaments and to contrast everything built before. That might have worked in some places and still works, if done properly.
But certainly not in such inimitable, harmonious surroundings.
It might end up better than in these renders, though. But I highly doubt that.

Originally Posted by romanamerican

Sorry everybody for the OT, but a clarification was necessary. If a moderator can cancel all the OT comments (this one included), it would be appreciated.

No, it wouldn't be appreciated. It belongs here, nowhere else.
I already left my lines regarding this.


So well, let's all keep our angle and have a drink or two

[Matty]

Originally Posted by Skyscrapercitizen

I don't like the way you discuss.

But just for the record, I've been to NY 3 times. First time my hotel was on 25th street, 2 minutes from madison square. The second time I lived in NY for 3 months and visited this area weekly or more, so if you want to discuss it that way, I think I know this city and this location better hen you do.

I'm a native born New Yorker. I work and go to school in this area, have been for YEARS. I know this area way better than you do. It's you who does not understand. This thing would be a blight in this area. It would be fine anywhere in Midtown (note: this is the very southern edge of "Midtown", but isn't Midtown per se, more of it's own area). To put some odd looking modern building near one of the most beautiful buildings in the city, a historical and architecturally rich area just for the sake of plopping a modern object down... A total waste. This thing doesn't belong here. It would be way too prominent in an area where you'd be seeing this against the contrast of so many beautiful historic buildings. You don't just plop anything in an area like this for the vain sake of "contrast". Understand that.

[Skyscrapercitizen]

You simplify architectural history so badly that I don't want to spend time to tell how thing really are. Koolhaas is influenced much by old greek and roman architecture if you have a closer look at his work. And dont't forget that most of these 'historic' buildings in this area are (much) younger then modern architecture itself.

[Skyscrapercitizen]

Originally Posted by Matty

I'm a native born New Yorker. I work and go to school in this area, have been for YEARS. I know this area way better than you do.

That's my problem. The fact of being a native new yorker doesn't mean your opinion is more valuable then mine. There are most likely many native new yorkers who like this building on this location. You are not THE new yorker.

And what I said, what is historic? Most buildings here are younger then modern architecture itself.

[Audiomuse]

I agree with you. I don't see how it is detracting from the area. I think it enhances it actually.

[erbse]

Originally Posted by Skyscrapercitizen

You simplify architectural history so badly that I don't want to spend time to tell how thing really are.

Don't be ridiculous now. You said we shouldn't have all this 'offtopic' stuff in here, and now you claim I should bring up more of it? You got the point of my historical abstract.

Originally Posted by Skyscrapercitizen

Koolhaas is influenced much by old greek and roman architecture if you have a closer look at his work.

Oh vey. Now everything behind your posts seems clear to me... You're trying to defend it just for the sake of a building by a Dutch architect. Koolhaas built one of the most uninspired modern buildings I've seen lately, the Dutch Embassy in Berlin. Sorry to say (I know you "don't care").
And his works don't resemble ancient architecture in any way. That's laughable. What would it have in common with that? He also apparently never heard of the golden section, looking at most of his works.

Originally Posted by Skyscrapercitizen

And dont't forget that most of these 'historic' buildings in this area are (much) younger then modern architecture itself.

Rubbish. We have some of the oldest skyscraper architecture in history around this place. MetLife Tower was finished in 1909, the Flatiron in 1902. Modernism wasn't even introduced at this time, just some idea on paper.
And there's by no chance any historic building that is much younger than modern architecture itself - because this style came up when historicism came to an end. The buildings around Madison Square belong to the oldest of Manhattan, anyway.

However you're right if you meant to say they co-existed for quite some time (mainly in the golden 20s). But well, the first true modern skyscraper of NYC was built in 1957 - the Seagram Building.

But that doesn't change anything. Why build this thing in this particular area? Are you finally going to answer that matter? Why can't they just build it somewhere else, where nobody would be bothered by its appearance?

[wonwiin]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

But that doesn't change anything. Why build this thing in this particular area? Are you finally going to answer that matter? Why can't they just build it somewhere else, where nobody would be bothered by its appearance?

Well, that is easy to answer. The developers own the ground there .

I am myself not so sure about this tower. The surroundings are already spoiled by the One Madison Square which already dominates this site of the square. The tower will be hidden behind it.

On the one hand I think the real building will look better than the rendering. On the other hand I do not know how the overhanging part of the tower will effect its surroundings. Think spaces under bridges for example. It could be a total success or a total failure.

One good thing is that it is interesting in comparison to many boring econo-boxes built in New York.

[JohnFlint1985]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

Read carefully. I said 'in most cases'. I'm not gonna argue with you about that matter, 'cause I know it wouldn't lead to anything grave

I love Sydney. And yeah, it's full of people. But look where those people go to. In fact, you find them in the historic areas (the city still has lots of them), that are interrupted by few modern bloopers and some skyscrapers - the modernist business district isn't even half as lively. A lot of the city's elation result from its unique landscape and the climate, anyway.
Melbourne is another case. I didn't like it. And it wasn't anywhere near the vibrancy of Berlin for example. No way!
(And btw: Shops aren't the only criteria of a 'lively' city.. Ever heard of nightlife?)


Just tell me: Why not have a dignified historical composition of grand skyscrapers in this area?
Why does it have to be interrupted by this strange experiment? There are other untouched places where it may work. It could look great somewhere around Chelsea, SoHo or White Hall, for instance.

Luckily it isn't that big, so it actually isn't that disruptive, as already said. But I fear there is more shit to come. Just take a look at some renders, it seems they included another ugly modernist wreck.

Edit: "One Madison Park" is the shite they're building next to it. Yuck.

See you are raising a valid argument but it is in wrong contexts – so let me explain. NYC has so much nightlife that Berlin will sound boring to many of us from NYC. I have been to Berlin and seen it personally. No offence, but it was not that crazy to me. Architecturally all of NYC is one big contrast and your comparison with Europe cannot stand here – since European cities are so much older. Berlin is dating back to 10 Th century. Or Paris goes back to Roman times. You simply cannot compare these two. The longer I go around NYC the more I understand that there is simply no historical center there. It is all fragmented all over the place. Dakota bldg on Central Park West and Woolworth on Broadway and Park Row. If we use your logic which I agree should be applied to most of the cities in the world, then 99 Church street Bldg that they build next to Woolworth should be scrapped all together – since it will be too modern to stand right next to it. So to answer your question I have to say – I don’t like this proposed bldg any bit at all. But your argument that this particular place should be left intact – just not working in NYC. Especially if you see that it is not exactly on the square but one block away from it. I am all for restoration and preservation of old heritage of the city where it is possible and makes sense. But it is already so contrasted that it is simply no point to stop now.

[JohnFlint1985]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

Don't be ridiculous now. You said we shouldn't have all this 'offtopic' stuff in here, and now you claim I should bring up more of it? You got the point of my historical abstract.




Oh vey. Now everything behind your posts seems clear to me... You're trying to defend it just for the sake of a building by a Dutch architect. Koolhaas built one of the most uninspired modern buildings I've seen lately, the Dutch Embassy in Berlin. Sorry to say (I know you "don't care").
And his works don't resemble ancient architecture in any way. That's laughable. What would it have in common with that? He also apparently never heard of the golden section, looking at most of his works.


Rubbish. We have some of the oldest skyscraper architecture in history around this place. MetLife Tower was finished in 1909, the Flatiron in 1902. Modernism wasn't even introduced at this time, just some idea on paper.
And there's by no chance any historic building that is much younger than modern architecture itself - because this style came up when historicism came to an end. The buildings around Madison Square belong to the oldest of Manhattan, anyway.

However you're right if you meant to say they co-existed for quite some time (mainly in the golden 20s). But well, the first true modern skyscraper of NYC was built in 1957 - the Seagram Building.

But that doesn't change anything. Why build this thing in this particular area? Are you finally going to answer that matter? Why can't they just build it somewhere else, where nobody would be bothered by its appearance?

Because the developer bought the place there and sees it as the best place to build it and sell it.

[erbse]

^ It's not like I didn't expect that kind of response
Of course it's up to the investor to build whatever he wants at this place. But the city council/construction committee/whatever should intervene in such cases. I know, NYC is one of the most liberal cities in this regard.
But it should protect its heritage and, even more important, historical ensembles such as the area around Madison Square (not just the buildings standing right at the square.
Anyway, this tower replaces a pre-war building, so NYC could have done something to protect it (I know about the legal hold of building protection - does it replace a protected building?).
So isn't there any resistance by neighbouring occupiers, citizens' organizations, whoever?
Or wasn't there any against 1 Madison Park? It's awful.

Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985

See you are raising a valid argument... NYC has so much nightlife that Berlin will sound boring to many of us from NYC.

Mate, what are you talkin bout? My response gone to goschio and alluded to his statements regarding Australian cities, it wasn't connected to NYC in any way.
And Berlin definitely is way more exciting than Melbourne, the city I was talking about - not NYC. Of course New York's somewhat better in this regard, but it's a comparison of apples and oranges (no pun intended).
We already abandoned that discussion, anyway. You're too late Mr. Flint, I'm sorry

Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985

Architecturally all of NYC is one big contrast

Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985

But it is already so contrasted that it is simply no point to stop now.

See, that's the point. Do we have to destroy one of Manhattan's last grand harmonic ensembles? It doesn't need contrasts all over the place to be worth called Manhattan. I don't need I don't see any sense in adding a contrast at this area. It's not like we'd have to put all of NYC under a big cheese cover and protect it from everything.
But it wouldn't hurt to keep some of the things that made NY big.

When you forget your roots, you forget how to grow and start to fade.
Only the one who knows his roots, is able to constantly grow on them.
(Ok, enough with the cheap metaphorics)

NYC could lost its face, if it proceeds like that. It needs to change (where it's necessary), but not to metabolize.


----------
It's not like this particular building would make NY starting to metamorphose.
But it's one of the steps to the stairway of facelessness.

There are similar boxes anywhere in the world. But there's no second Madison Square. Some of the unique features of NYC start to disappear.


Do you guys really want a city that looks like any other global metropolis hereafter?

[nygirl]

I hate this building because it will block met's clock from lower Manhattan anjd that is a view I have come to admire, but if its going to get built, its going to get built.
I don't want to be a hyprocrite either, or sound nimbyish. But if it is going to block Met in some way or another then do it some justice, this thing just looks like crap to me.

Whatever...

[JohnFlint1985]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

^ It's not like I didn't expect that kind of response
Of course it's up to the investor to build whatever he wants at this place. But the city council/construction committee/whatever should intervene in such cases. I know, NYC is one of the most liberal cities in this regard.
But it should protect its heritage and, even more important, historical ensembles such as the area around Madison Square (not just the buildings standing right at the square.
Anyway, this tower replaces a pre-war building, so NYC could have done something to protect it (I know about the legal hold of building protection - does it replace a protected building?).
So isn't there any resistance by neighbouring occupiers, citizens' organizations, whoever?
Or wasn't there any against 1 Madison Park? It's awful.


Mate, what are you talkin bout? My response gone to goschio and alluded to his statements regarding Australian cities, it wasn't connected to NYC in any way.
And Berlin definitely is way more exciting than Melbourne, the city I was talking about - not NYC. Of course New York's somewhat better in this regard, but it's a comparison of apples and oranges (no pun intended).
We already abandoned that discussion, anyway. You're too late Mr. Flint, I'm sorry



See, that's the point. Do we have to destroy one of Manhattan's last grand harmonic ensembles? It doesn't need contrasts all over the place to be worth called Manhattan. I don't need I don't see any sense in adding a contrast at this area. It's not like we'd have to put all of NYC under a big cheese cover and protect it from everything.
But it wouldn't hurt to keep some of the things that made NY big.

When you forget your roots, you forget how to grow and start to fade.
Only the one who knows his roots, is able to constantly grow on them.
(Ok, enough with the cheap metaphorics)

NYC could lost its face, if it proceeds like that. It needs to change (where it's necessary), but not to metabolize.


----------
It's not like this particular building would make NY starting to metamorphose.
But it's one of the steps to the stairway of facelessness.

There are similar boxes anywhere in the world. But there's no second Madison Square. Some of the unique features of NYC start to disappear.


Do you guys really want a city that looks like any other global metropolis hereafter?

I am sorry my friend. I got distracted by all these conversations and responded to something that was not meant for me.

But in any case - let me show you something about this particular place. AS you can see on the picture below - the historical outlook is already altered, so I see no point in blocking anything else there. Though once again - this particular bldg doesn't belong there.




image hosted on flickr

[erbse]

Indeed, but well - Why the heck keep going on to worsen the situation?

We still have some magnificent unspoiled lines of sight around this area. But that could be heavily affected soon...

This tower isn't worth the pain.

[JohnFlint1985]

Originally Posted by erbsenzaehler

Indeed, but well - Why the heck keep going on to worsen the situation?

We still have some magnificent unspoiled lines of sight around this area. But that could be heavily affected soon...

This tower isn't worth the pain.

I don’t think that anything that ugly belongs there. I think the project will be killed just because it doesn't look safe enough - but not because of any historical alterations in the vicinity. Such is life it seems.
In general I think NYC deserves much better and more thoughtful bildinghs then this. How come in 1931 they were able to come with elegant yet so bold of a design like ESB. Now it seems to me that any blds they can build will be below 1000 ft and will be another tall glass box - nothing interesting to remember by. Shame.

[wonwiin]

Originally Posted by JohnFlint1985

I think the project will be killed just because it doesn't look safe enough - but not because of any historical alterations in the vicinity. Such is life it seems.

Why should they cancel this tower because it looks unsafe? It is a perfectly save construction. The core rises straight to the top and you can hang the floors from it without any balance problems. There are crazier buildings like the CCTV building in Bejing. Or look at these twin towers in Madrid standing there for years... It is not really a revolution in building techniques.

[Barnardgirl]

erbsenzaehler I totally agree with you...

It saddens me that we are loosing so many of our architectural jewels for shitty designs like this. This is not the only one, I hate most modern buildings the designs are boring. I wish someone had the idea of constructing something similar to the Singer building, but taller and using modern tech.

[goschio]

Some good points here. Protecting NY heritage scrapers from crazy modern stuff is not a bad idea.

Considering the latest development on the financial market, it is questionable anyway whether this thing will be build or not.

[Skyscrapercitizen]

Nostalgia...