SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 802 Posts

·
LIBERTINED
Joined
·
46,540 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Let's talk about NYC's horrific tendency to sacrifice its historical heritage and globally unique flair due to careless investors pulling up soulless modernist buildings, with the Landmark Preservation Commission keeping blind to it.

Please add more examples and join the controversial discussion!



The honor of being the thread opener goes to:

432-Park-Tower!

It's screwing up the whole skyline of Midtown Manhattan. And as if that wouldn't be enough, a whole intact block with a historical highrise and neat townhouses was torn down for this abomination. While they could easily have been integrated into the complex, as happened at so many other places. I'll introduce them after showing some visualizations...

432 Park is the long drawn-out, badly proportioned, concrete facade stalk to the left here... :no:


by SSC User sbarn

If, apart from the failed proportion of width and length, they'd have come up with a more interesting facade, features, setbacks, a NYC-worthy crown, etc... BUT THIS! *insert facepalm here*

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screen-shot-2012-06-05-at-8-43-45-am.png?w=900


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/140203164/original.jpg


http://www.sgacquisitions.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/432_park_1024.jpg


And these intact, vital, original Manhattan gems were all torn down for this ^ monstrous madness! :(
Goodbye Drake Hotel and neat townhouses, welcome greed and ugliness!
This building will occupy the place of the now demolished Drake Hotel (built 1926). Some other small,and quite pretty buildings were demolished as well. A big loss if you ask me. :eek:hno:




http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON062.htm







Source:Wired New York

:cripes:



The news that 432 Park is going to have a concrete facade at that height is just frightening.
I told you how this thing will be horrible by any means. Now it's not only the proportions, but also an ill-bred cladding! I've never seen any good modernist tower featuring an exposed concrete facade.

And they've torn a beautiful ensemble with Drake hotel and historical townhouses for it!
I'm getting really mad at NYC. And what they're doing to their heritage that is global architectural heritage, too! :no:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
512 Posts
Perhaps people should wait to see it before hitting the panic button.
At the prices that are being talked about for these apartments they're going to have to build something that looks bloody attractive from the outside as well as the inside, or they won't sell many.
 

·
LIBERTINED
Joined
·
46,540 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
C'mon, at that location and height, you can sell golden crap to people. :|
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
A 426 meter brutalist residential tower is the perfect addition for NYC.
It's NOT brutalist. How many times has this been said...
 

·
LIBERTINED
Joined
·
46,540 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
^ It got main brutalist features, but other than that, it's just a minimalist modernist box.


DinoVabec: Concerning the Setai... It got a limestome cladding, didn't it? Additionally, it has design elements that add something to its neighbourhood and its Art Deco inspired base and structure complement the grown surroundings very well. That can't be said about 432 Park.

So that's in no way a valid comparison, sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
^ It got main brutalist features
features shared by many architecture genres. Brutalist architecture is not defined by the material used, but overall presence of the building. Brutalist buildings are rough and "heavy looking" fortress like structures with limited window area. This tower is nothing like that.

Like you said:

, but other than that, it's just a minimalist modernist box.
 

·
Roof height crusader
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
No it isn't. By wikipedia:



You just don't understand/feel the style of brutalism.
What you quoted means that such an exposed concrete facade exhibits elements of many styles. Brutalism is one of these styles, so is constructivism and the other styles you quoted. It is hard to find a building which clearly belongs 100% to just one style. Buildings usually have elements of several styles :cheers:
 

·
LIBERTINED
Joined
·
46,540 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
^ It doesn't really matter what style 432P belongs to. It's another modernist box. A huge box.

You guys must despise the Apple cube.
The Apple cube has a whole different level of transparance and is incomparable in scale.

Thus, again, not a valid comparisons.

In fact, you people should stop making comparisons in here - as 432 Park really falls out of context and is pretty much incomparable. Incomparably ugly, imho. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Perfectly comparable. Visually, 432 is a glass shaft contained in a rectilinear lattice. It's minimalist in the renders, and to my mind hits a pitch of understatement resoundingly welcome in that location. It should play off the neighbors very well.

I'm fond of a range of architectural 'schools' and eras. But like to see them delivered pure. For my part, I think it's admirable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
It is hard to find a building which clearly belongs 100% to just one style.
Well then lets measure it by number of people calling it brutalism. I'd say you are in minority if not alone.
 

·
LIBERTINED
Joined
·
46,540 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I'll call it a brutalist building too, because it's brutally ugly and an affront to human nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
Haha well we've seen brutally ugly buildings of all size, shapes and styles but that doesn't make them any more (or less) of brutallist architecture does it :lol: ?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,838 Posts
This was rendering before it was built. Everyone was hating this thing.


http://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/real-estate-insider/nyc-real-estate-roundup/19441

And this is hot it looks now. 432 PA will be very similar to this. just way taller. If that concrete will be painted white, even better. Those huge windows will have perfect reflections, you won'r even notice concrete there.


http://www.400fifthavenue.com/views
Dino - Setai is much more luxuriously built. It has quite a few elements and materials of earlier times and that gives it much more refined look.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,606 Posts
It may be hard to visualize, but this will be a very attractive tower. CIM are very sophisticated investors who are investing a billion dollars in this tower. They're not reckless idiots who will build a value-engineered piece of junk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
^^ A facade is not a part of the structure. A perimeter structure is called a perimeter structure, not a facade. The facade is a decorative cover of a perimeter structure :eek:hno:
Facade simply refers to the face of a building, whether it be structural or a cladding that wraps the supporting structure.

Personally, I like the idea of a facade that is not 100% glass. The concrete could be clad with just about anything but the choice is purely stylistic. I suspect that this building requires significant structural elements at the perimeter because it is thin. Swaying of the tower thus puts massive compressive load on the side toward which it is currently leaning. Wider/shorter buildings can rely primarily on a core and get away with less structure around the perimeter. Either way is feasible, but this is a fine solution.

Concrete has come a long way in the past few decades. It is now many times stronger yet can also include aggregate or other material to achieve a far different look than standard portland gray. Some of the most expensive counter tops now commissioned for luxury residences are made from concrete. These include fancy ingredients such as ground quartz or any color of rare mineral.

Whether that is economical on this scale is unknown to me. But imagine if it is possible, a glittering or iridescent concrete supertall. This is going to be spectacular, even if comprised of standard concrete and glass!
 

·
LIBERTINED
Joined
·
46,540 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
20 Fenchurch Street is about to screw up London's skyline and is an unproportionate bastard. Just as 432 Parks is.

So could we now please return to discuss how ugly this bastard is? Thanks. :)
 
1 - 20 of 802 Posts
Top