daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Supertalls > Proposed Supertalls



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 25th, 2016, 11:29 PM   #5581
Brooklyn Rising
Registered User
 
Brooklyn Rising's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 81
Likes (Received): 59

So I told my architecture class that BIG's design may not be built and that Foster's may stay. They weren't happy lol. They felt BIG's design was more dynamic and fit the future more. They felt Foster's was very bland and too meh. Also my class loves BIG's work and feels Foster's designs aren't as interesting. Not saying Foster is bad just that we like BIG more.
__________________

Garfield... liked this post
Brooklyn Rising no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 26th, 2016, 12:39 AM   #5582
Msradell
Always looking up
 
Msradell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,772
Likes (Received): 209

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Rising View Post
So I told my architecture class that BIG's design may not be built and that Foster's may stay. They weren't happy lol. They felt BIG's design was more dynamic and fit the future more. They felt Foster's was very bland and too meh. Also my class loves BIG's work and feels Foster's designs aren't as interesting. Not saying Foster is bad just that we like BIG more.
The way of thinking of our future architects is disappointing if they really like BIG's design. It takes no originality nor thinking to stacks of boxes on top of one another such as his design. It takes foresight and thought to come up with truly remarkable design buildings like Fosters in this case and the Chrysler building, Empire State building etc. in the past. Even 1WTC is overall a boring design but significantly better than what BIG proposed for the site.
__________________
"Written using Dragon Naturally Speaking"
I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

stop that, Assemblage23 liked this post
Msradell no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 02:29 AM   #5583
xing lin
I ♥ HK
 
xing lin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Holroyd
Posts: 863
Likes (Received): 614

I think it's because BIG was better at marketing their design
__________________

AlexDemens, JMGA196 liked this post
xing lin está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 02:45 AM   #5584
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Msradell View Post
The way of thinking of our future architects is disappointing if they really like BIG's design. It takes no originality nor thinking to stacks of boxes on top of one another such as his design. It takes foresight and thought to come up with truly remarkable design buildings like Fosters in this case and the Chrysler building, Empire State building etc. in the past. Even 1WTC is overall a boring design but significantly better than what BIG proposed for the site.
Architecture is art. There's no objectively better design. Some people prefer the new one.
__________________

Brooklyn Rising, Garfield... liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 05:04 AM   #5585
Brooklyn Rising
Registered User
 
Brooklyn Rising's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 81
Likes (Received): 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Msradell View Post
The way of thinking of our future architects is disappointing if they really like BIG's design. It takes no originality nor thinking to stacks of boxes on top of one another such as his design. It takes foresight and thought to come up with truly remarkable design buildings like Fosters in this case and the Chrysler building, Empire State building etc. in the past. Even 1WTC is overall a boring design but significantly better than what BIG proposed for the site.
Actually it's quite ironic cause everything we design is extremely dynamic. No one in our class makes anything thats necessarily boxy. The way I see it, architecture is music, every style is a genre, and every building is a song. Take for example the Empire state Building and 1 WTC. Two different songs, two different genres, both architecture. Is one better than the other? No of course not cause every ones tastes are different. There's really no such thing as bad architecture, just different tastes.
__________________

Garfield... liked this post
Brooklyn Rising no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 01:33 PM   #5586
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 791

Quote:
Originally Posted by Msradell View Post
The way of thinking of our future architects is disappointing if they really like BIG's design. It takes no originality nor thinking to stacks of boxes on top of one another such as his design. It takes foresight and thought to come up with truly remarkable design buildings like Fosters in this case and the Chrysler building, Empire State building etc. in the past. Even 1WTC is overall a boring design but significantly better than what BIG proposed for the site.
....at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that the developer and the potential [anchor] tenants like the design. Or, rather, that they don't hate it.
__________________
MCRP '16
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 04:22 PM   #5587
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
....at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that the developer and the potential [anchor] tenants like the design. Or, rather, that they don't hate it.
But isn't this a rather sad state of affairs? I appreciate the benefits of sound, efficient business practices when it comes to capital expenses, but it feels that we're now to the point of so regularly compromising our architecture that the built environment becomes more and more cold, mechanical and inhuman. The universality of the big box store, the garden apartment complex, the staid office tower... All because we're settling on just "not hating it" instead of pushing for something that we can love and that truly inspires.

And this isn't directed toward either of these particular designs, just the prevailing mentality that I agree is guiding our collective idea of what we want versus what we accept. Bummer.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."

WR HEARST liked this post
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 04:26 PM   #5588
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Rising View Post
So I told my architecture class that BIG's design may not be built and that Foster's may stay. They weren't happy lol. They felt BIG's design was more dynamic and fit the future more. They felt Foster's was very bland and too meh. Also my class loves BIG's work and feels Foster's designs aren't as interesting. Not saying Foster is bad just that we like BIG more.
a) What level of students are we talking about, and would you say your particular program is rooted in the artistic side versus the more practical side? (I've found most collegiate programs tend to lean heavily either toward the theory of architecture or the engineering aspect.)

b) I'd be curious to what they'd have said if you simply left it at BIG's design not being built, without speculating as to what the new plan might be. (ie: How much of the sentiment is pro-BIG versus anti-Foster, as it were.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhalsey166 View Post
Why would Murdock pull out so late? It seemed a done deal...maybe this was a ploy to negotiate better prices up at mid town?
Figures Murdoch's pull-out game is weak.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 04:33 PM   #5589
WR HEARST
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: AUSTIN
Posts: 137

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
But isn't this a rather sad state of affairs? I appreciate the benefits of sound, efficient business practices when it comes to capital expenses, but it feels that we're now to the point of so regularly compromising our architecture that the built environment becomes more and more cold, mechanical and inhuman. The universality of the big box store, the garden apartment complex, the staid office tower... All because we're settling on just "not hating it" instead of pushing for something that we can love and that truly inspires.

And this isn't directed toward either of these particular designs, just the prevailing mentality that I agree is guiding our collective idea of what we want versus what we accept. Bummer.
You got the point!..

"Today, the tendency is for ever-larger architectural firms to speed up the design process to cover overhead," said Holl. "There is no time for research; no time for exploring the language of architecture. Our studio is dedicated to the potential found through developmental research, even if it takes time."(Steven Holl)
http://www.dezeen.com/2016/01/22/unp...lery-new-york/
WR HEARST no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 06:49 PM   #5590
NYStruct
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 153
Likes (Received): 184

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
But isn't this a rather sad state of affairs? I appreciate the benefits of sound, efficient business practices when it comes to capital expenses, but it feels that we're now to the point of so regularly compromising our architecture that the built environment becomes more and more cold, mechanical and inhuman. The universality of the big box store, the garden apartment complex, the staid office tower... All because we're settling on just "not hating it" instead of pushing for something that we can love and that truly inspires.

And this isn't directed toward either of these particular designs, just the prevailing mentality that I agree is guiding our collective idea of what we want versus what we accept. Bummer.
I understand your statement but I'm not sure if that's necessarily true: I believe that any developer will want an architecture that stands out and differentiates itself from other designs, if only for marketing reasons and because it will be easier to sell units/S.F. in a remarkable skyscraper than a bland one.

However the counterpoints are:
1 - Not everybody agrees on what defines a "remarkable" (let alone successful or beautiful) architecture/design
2 - Most importantly: money. Architecture is an investment: nowadays developers want to spend the minimum to get a good return (by attracting more suitors) - without "overkilling" it and throwing money around...

It's all a balancing act. For example in the case of WTC#3 spires:
- Would the building be more aesthetically pleasing with the spires? Probably.
- Would it help attract more tenants? Unlikely
- Would it cost more? Definitely
Hence by virtue of "value engineering", the spires were scrapped

In the case of WTC#2:
- Would the architectural redesign be more aesthetically pleasing? Yes for Fox/Murdoches (disputable for all others)
- Would it help attract more tenants? Yes (for Fox/Murdoches at the time)
- Would it cost more? Definitely (retrofitting foundation)
Hence the decision to redesign WTC#2 - which spectacularly backfired...

WTC#1 does not qualify for this kind of argument due to its symbolism (though the spire was not totally unscathed as value engineering stripped it of its radome).

As far as the collective idea of what we want versus what we accept - well, first not all of us agree on what we want (as evidenced in this very thread) and it wouldn't matter anyway as beggars (99.9% of the population) can't be choosers (top 0.1% controlling the funding for the projects).

Real estate development has never been a democracy or a popularity contest - it's a cold hard business, and the latest trends reflect the economic context of today.
NYStruct no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 07:26 PM   #5591
ThomasK2001
Registered User
 
ThomasK2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Lawnside, NJ
Posts: 519
Likes (Received): 652

__________________

GunnerJacket, Mr.Blian97 liked this post
ThomasK2001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 07:38 PM   #5592
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,663
Likes (Received): 2613

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixboi08 View Post
....at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that the developer and the potential [anchor] tenants like the design. Or, rather, that they don't hate it.
Makes me think public opinion matters here, because it reflects on both developer and tenant. On the other hand, there's no such thing as bad publicity, and I don't think 375 Pearl St ever hurt Verizon's business one bit.
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 07:40 PM   #5593
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYStruct View Post
However the counterpoints are:
1 - Not everybody agrees on what defines a "remarkable" (let alone successful or beautiful) architecture/design
2 - Most importantly: money. Architecture is an investment: nowadays developers want to spend the minimum to get a good return (by attracting more suitors) - without "overkilling" it and throwing money around..
Most definitely, and as I said I don't dispute the business acumen behind value engineering. My fear, in summation, is that aspects of architecture are more and more becoming lost arts, particularly with regards to contextual sensitivity. Example:

Quote:
It's all a balancing act. For example in the case of WTC#3 spires:
- Would the building be more aesthetically pleasing with the spires? Probably.
- Would it help attract more tenants? Unlikely
- Would it cost more? Definitely
Hence by virtue of "value engineering", the spires were scrapped
One could argue that absent the spires and additional external elements WTC3 will fade into the background, simply supplying the skyline with more white noise as opposed to a contributing to a collection of grander structures, and thus leaving the structure and the whole development subject to declining appeal from tourists and tenants. Hyperbole, to be sure, but there's a reason certain structures stand the test of time, etc etc etc.

But I digress and we don't need to stray too far from the original topic.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 07:43 PM   #5594
boss-ton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 370
Likes (Received): 183

As a person from boston who doesnt give a **** about new york......please dont built this. This is terrible compared to the previous designs. Im rooting for you guys on this one.
boss-ton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 08:12 PM   #5595
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by droneriot View Post
Makes me think public opinion matters here, because it reflects on both developer and tenant. On the other hand, there's no such thing as bad publicity, and I don't think 375 Pearl St ever hurt Verizon's business one bit.
To be fair, Verizon could have their HQ in Barad Dur and it still wouldn't hurt their image. There's nowhere to go from zero.
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2016, 10:01 PM   #5596
Scrapernab2
Registered User
 
Scrapernab2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 896
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Rising View Post
Is one better than the other? No of course not cause every ones tastes are different. There's really no such thing as bad architecture, just different tastes.
I disagree. When most people who follow these types of structures see a new design and 80% say BLAH! I think it's bad architecture. Just like food or cars...

You can't convince someone to like or dislike.

Try the turnip greens again! They are delicious!
__________________

JuanPaulo liked this post
Scrapernab2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 03:09 AM   #5597
AnOldBlackMarble
read lightship chronicles
 
AnOldBlackMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 5757

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
Architecture is art. There's no objectively better design. Some people prefer the new one.
I think architecture is 50% Art and 50% Geometry. The problem with BIG's design, and many other modern skyscrapers, is that it's 99% Geometry with 1% Art, if that. In this case you don't need an "architect" since a structural engineer is enough if all you ever design is geometric shapes.
__________________
Read my science fiction adventure Lightship Chronicles.com

Msradell liked this post
AnOldBlackMarble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 04:54 AM   #5598
SpeedoPro
Registered User
 
SpeedoPro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 192
Likes (Received): 21

This new design is so hideous. Who is the idiot that approved it? Roll eyes..
__________________

AlexDemens liked this post
SpeedoPro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 05:03 AM   #5599
JMGA196
Registered User
 
JMGA196's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Guatemala City
Posts: 4,567
Likes (Received): 5144

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
Architecture is art. There's no objectively better design. Some people prefer the new one.
There's a difference between beauty or quality, and taste. I recognize One57 for example, is a nice tower, but I just don't like it. While BIG's 2WTC was not utter sh*t, it was not nice at all. Beauty can be found through symmetry, harmony or balance in the design, for example, and BIG's design has very low or non existent attributes like those.
__________________
follow my new photography account on instagram @miguel_alecio

Mimar Sinan - Sebastian Treese - Sejima - Nishizawa - Pawson - Horia Creangă - McKim, Mead & White - Gord Scott - Peter Pennoyer - Charles Hilton - Annabelle Selldorf - Roman and Williams - Morris Adjmi - Diller Scofidio + Renfro

★★★ MAKE ARCHITECTURE GREAT AGAIN! ★★★
JMGA196 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2016, 06:42 AM   #5600
Brooklyn Rising
Registered User
 
Brooklyn Rising's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 81
Likes (Received): 59

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
a) What level of students are we talking about, and would you say your particular program is rooted in the artistic side versus the more practical side? (I've found most collegiate programs tend to lean heavily either toward the theory of architecture or the engineering aspect.)

b) I'd be curious to what they'd have said if you simply left it at BIG's design not being built, without speculating as to what the new plan might be. (ie: How much of the sentiment is pro-BIG versus anti-Foster, as it were.)
a)We're all first year and second year architecture students. The program focuses more on the artistic side rather than the engineering side. They do this to get us thinking more creatively and designing "sculpture that you can live in". As a student I like to find a balance between the functional and artistic side. My whole thing is taking something that looks really dynamic and making it very simple without compromising the dynamism.

b) I actually told them BIG's was no longer being built and showed them the previous Foster design. I will say our class loves Bjarke Ingels, we love his work and his thought process behind a lot of his buildings. His ski slope power plant is interesting in my opinion and we all love the NYC pyramid. We don't dislike Foster at all. Most of us actually really look up to him especially me and greatly respect his work. But all of my class mates feel that Foster designs are very "safe" and not risky. I like his design for 2 WTC too alot and wouldn't mind if it were to be built.
Brooklyn Rising no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
200 greenwich st., 2wtc, foster and partners, lower manhattan, new york, nyc, silverstein, supertall, world trade center

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu