[Uaarkson]

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.

Nonsense. 20 Fenchurch is a fat, goofy piece of shit. 432 Park, in true NYC style, is thin and tall and will have several similarly sized neighbors to compliment it.

If 432 was finished today it would look ridiculous on the current skyline. But that skyline is on its way out.

 

[erbse]

It'll still look ridiculous when it's finished and for years after, since the development of the surroundings doesn't quite catch up with this monster. You'd need like 10 new supertalls to hide this piece of junk.

 

[Kanto]

Good architecture doesn't need a lot of money, but creativity and talents. It's not hard to create a better structural facade than Vinoly did. To use setbacks, refined regional material mixes (instead of expensive imported Chinese stuff), classical proportions.

It really IS NOT a monetary matter.

Of course a new Chrysler Building wouldn't come along cheap. But we're not talking about new Chryslers here. A new Wells Fargo Center, NBC Tower or a new Messeturm (figuratively speaking) would be a good start though.

Btw... Chrysler was still built brick by brick. Of course you wouldn't do that nowadays, but you could still use brick panel facades or proper limestone facades on similar structures. While 432 Park obviously goes the most brutal way by using nothing but bare concrete.

I agree that Wells Fargo or NBC would look good in NYC. For me what is characteristic for NYC is its diversity of architecture. I think both postmodern buildings like these and modern buildings like 432 Park have a place in NYC. One thing I'd like to note is that 432 won't be an alien in NYC, there are many modernist boxy buildings in NYC, only no supertalls after 9/11 :cheers:

The perfect spot for postmodernism buildings I can think of would be as extensions of art deco buildings like on 1 Madison or the Metlife North Building. I don't like when modern glassy extensions are built to such buildings like in the case of the Hearst Tower or the stale proposal 1 Madison :cheers:

 

[JD47]

If 432 was finished today it would look ridiculous on the current skyline. But that skyline is on its way out.

How do you mean? I dont think there will be much change to the skyline when this is finished. I think there will be a few projects that dont go ahead because the developer could run out of money.

 

[dexter2]

Of course a new Chrysler Building wouldn't come along cheap. But we're not talking about new Chryslers here. A new Wells Fargo Center, NBC Tower or a new Messeturm (figuratively speaking) would be a good start though.

This kind of postmodernism is more out-of-date than actual historism or modernism (at least in NYC). Those two (with glassy modernism/postmodernism) are now in charge, so I dont think anyone would build towers similar to those you posted.

Anyway I just hope that NYC will avoid asian-style kitchy postmodernism and this strange, rounded Hadid-like glassy monsters.

Solid concrete, stone, brick, steel were always familiar with NYC and they are making this city of skyscrapers looking so solid, incredible and outstanding.

 

[GeoDude]

dude. you need to chill out. as a moderator you are setting a very poor example. your use of bold, capital letters, and italics is evidence of your overly strong opinions on the matter. i can picture you flipping out at your computer. how can you accuse jconyc of stating a personal remark when that is all you have done the past 2 pages? architecture IS subjective, and yes kanto, beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. architecture is art, there is nothing about art/design that says everybody has to love it. some people love da vinci, some people love picasso, they are both very different. and as somebody said, if it was known fact that traditional architecture was perfect in every respect, in likeability, functionality, etc, we would have never developed new styles since.

you need to chill and respect other people's opinions on design.

anyways, back to the tower. the work is so exciting to see. i could watch this camera all day! can't wait for the next pour!

 

[erbse]

GeoDude: I'm perfectly relaxed. Don't need to chill either. Some people just need to take more time for serious discussions which most in the construction forums simply don't. They even feel it's wrong to discuss architecture here which is awkward.
And it's just that people in here have a very short attention span sometimes and need important statements to be highlighted.

Concerning your comparison: While many people don't like Picasso, they aren't forced to look at his work every day. While architects are constructing our environment with their "art". We're forced to look at their work every day, it's all around us.

It has always been understood that the work of architects has to please the majority of people, while many modernists fail at this task.

Many New Yorkers and visitors will be forced to look at the atrocity called 432 Park. You just can't ignore it, considering its absurd size.

 

[Hudson11]

some might call it an atrocity, others will call it a landmark.

 

[erbse]

Sure, an atrocity can also be a landmark - see Ostankino Tower or Genex Tower.


Anyway, I'll move this discussion to the architecture forums, since a majority of readers still ain't familiar with discussing the architecture of a said project here...

 

[dexter2]

It has always been understood that the work of architects has to please the majority of people, while many modernists fail at this task.

I laughed so hard at this point.

Do you know why modernism exceeded? Firstly because It was cheaper, secondly, because majority of people were tired of decorations.
So the conclusion is simple - architects were pleasing majority of people.

Architecture is like clothes fashion. Almost ALWAYS shows what majority of people want. Of course It is a little bit deformed by present costs of materials, but thats all.

Or even better - It is something like evolution - poorest examples are rejected, the best ones evolve.
In hard times reduced for surviving (commieblocks build for exceding amount of poor people, just like cheap tenaments in XIX century with decorations from catalog), but generally based on domination.

 

[600West218]

Anyway, I'll move this discussion to the architecture forums, since a majority of readers still ain't familiar with discussing the architecture of a said project here...

Thank you, that is appreciated. While everyone is entitled to their personal opinion most of us here are simply not interested in those opinions and they detract from the main purpose of the thread.


Still pouring :cheers: I really wish the 57th Street cam wasn't down, we need it now hno:

 

[erbse]

^ The main purpose of the threads over here is to discuss the projects - both their construction and their architecture.
If you're not interested in these discussions, just ignore them.


dexter: Show me any survey that shows how people were tired of decorations, please.

In fact, during the rebuilding phase after WW2 in Germany (and Poland e.g.) a lot of people were protesting against the removal of stucco or the demolition of historical buildings - while still struggling to survive, I may add.

Nowadays loads and loads of modernist structures are torn down everywhere in the world and replaced by New Urbanism concepts, reconstructions or postmodern / historicist or at least more aesthetically appealing architecture. Traditional modernism fails to deliver answers to modern urban needs and urban life.

Most of these structures hardly survive their 40th birthday.

 

[Kanto]

GeoDude: I'm perfectly relaxed. Don't need to chill either. Some people just need to take more time for serious discussions which most in the construction forums simply don't. They even feel it's wrong to discuss architecture here which is awkward.
And it's just that people in here have a very short attention span sometimes and need important statements to be highlighted.

Concerning your comparison: While many people don't like Picasso, they aren't forced to look at his work every day. While architects are constructing our environment with their "art". We're forced to look at their work every day, it's all around us.

It has always been understood that the work of architects has to please the majority of people, while many modernists fail at this task.

Many New Yorkers and visitors will be forced to look at the atrocity called 432 Park. You just can't ignore it, considering its absurd size.

I personally think Picasso's paintings are hideous. I have often seen them on billboards though, so when I walked the street I didn't have a choice to not look at them :cheers:

 

[GunnerJacket]

Concerning your comparison: While many people don't like Picasso, they aren't forced to look at his work every day. While architects are constructing our environment with their "art". We're forced to look at their work every day, it's all around us.

...

Many New Yorkers and visitors will be forced to look at the atrocity called 432 Park. You just can't ignore it, considering its absurd size.

This is a point I've referenced before, which is basically the architectural Theory of the Second Man. Unless located within a completely secluded location all pieces must engage their conext and location. But I also concede that is the paradox of architecture, to the point that I disagree with the middle of your post:

It has always been understood that the work of architects has to please the majority of people, while many modernists fail at this task.

Does it? Ideally, yes, and as a matter of business practice yes but there is no particular law or code at play mandating appeal. Which is how it should be.

My discontent with this building is simply that IMHO there is no real architecture at play such that I'm astounded that it's receiving such praise. So it's tall and slender. Big deal! So was Manute Bol, but that didn't make him a great basketball player.

This building is so derivitive of the mechanics of its construction methodology, so oriented to the efficiency of its internal uses that it appears to completely disregard its role within the skyline and the streetscape. (Much like many conventional glass monoliths) There is no ornamentation to emphasize a connection to the city, no crown to celebrate its height (Sorry, Mr. Sullivan!), nothing artistic upon its sides to draw the eye or punctuate its presence. It simply is.

The developer is within their rights to do this and people are free to like it, I just think it represents the opposite of what architecture should strive to be. The best structures create/add to great spaces and make statements about their time, cultures and place. This one makes one, too: "We are the Borg. We will add your being to our own. Resistence is futile."

Yay.

 

[dexter2]

dexter: Show me any survey that shows how people were tired of decorations, please.

Come with me to the library, I'll show you

They were protesting, just like I'm protesting against demolition of modernism

Nowadays loads and loads of modernist structures are torn down everywhere in the world and replaced by New Urbanism concepts, reconstructions or postmodern / historicist or at least more aesthetically appealing architecture. Traditional modernism fails to deliver answers to modern urban needs and urban life.

You are still mixing ideas even writing em down. Architecture is not urbanism (at least not in this case).
Show me these examples if you can.

 

[erbse]

Ah, come on mate.

Still, architecture and urbanism are closely related, one being part of the other. Appealing architecture can create appealing urban scapes/places and vice versa. It all has to be done in harmony. One of the major failures of modernism is to strictly separate form, function, architecture and urbanism.

What examples do you refer to?


GunnerJacket: One of the best posts this thread has seen so far, thank you Mr. Borg.

At least one well-founded statement.

 

[Kanto]

This is a point I've referenced before, which is basically the architectural Theory of the Second Man. Unless located within a completely secluded location all pieces must engage their conext and location. But I also concede that is the paradox of architecture, to the point that I disagree with the middle of your post:

Does it? Ideally, yes, and as a matter of business practice yes but there is no particular law or code at play mandating appeal. Which is how it should be.

My discontent with this building is simply that IMHO there is no real architecture at play such that I'm astounded that it's receiving such praise. So it's tall and slender. Big deal! So was Manute Bol, but that didn't make him a great basketball player.

This building is so derivitive of the mechanics of its construction methodology, so oriented to the efficiency of its internal uses that it appears to completely disregard its role within the skyline and the streetscape. (Much like many conventional glass monoliths) There is no ornamentation to emphasize a connection to the city, no crown to celebrate its height (Sorry, Mr. Sullivan!), nothing artistic upon its sides to draw the eye or punctuate its presence. It simply is.

The developer is within their rights to do this and people are free to like it, I just think it represents the opposite of what architecture should strive to be. The best structures create/add to great spaces and make statements about their time, cultures and place. This one makes one, too: "We are the Borg. We will add your being to our own. Resistence is futile."

Yay.

And that is exactly what I like so much about this building, its dominating presence and simplicity :cheers:

 

[dexter2]

Ah, come on mate.

Still, architecture and urbanism are closely related, one being part of the other. Appealing architecture can create appealing urban scapes/places and vice versa. It all has to be done in harmony. One of the major failures of modernism is to strictly separate form, function, architecture and urbanism.

What examples do you refer to?

Building modern buildings In historical grid is something totally different than whole modern site!! Late modern urbanism which we are talking about was a disgrace of street, that is why It was unsuccesful. It stared even before IIWW: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiedle_im._Józefa_Montwiłła-Mireckiego_w_Łodzi
and contined until postmodern urban planning arrived.

Modern courbusier-like neighbourhoods that are demolished (or humanised) right now are wrong, because they are generating crime social exculsion etc, NOT because ppl don't like their architecture.


Here you have modern Polish city Gdynia: https://maps.google.pl/maps?q=gdyni...N_JOe115wMtwNQRNFSwy4A&cbp=12,12.52,,0,-15.06
It has mostly modern architecture, but buildings were placed on a classical grid. It is one of the tidiest and most people-friendly cities in Poland.

 

[jconyc]

GeoDude: I'm perfectly relaxed. Don't need to chill either. Some people just need to take more time for serious discussions which most in the construction forums simply don't. They even feel it's wrong to discuss architecture here which is awkward.
And it's just that people in here have a very short attention span sometimes and need important statements to be highlighted.

Concerning your comparison: While many people don't like Picasso, they aren't forced to look at his work every day. While architects are constructing our environment with their "art". We're forced to look at their work every day, it's all around us.

It has always been understood that the work of architects has to please the majority of people, while many modernists fail at this task.

Many New Yorkers and visitors will be forced to look at the atrocity called 432 Park. You just can't ignore it, considering its absurd size.

It really unfortunate that you have decided that you know what is best for us New Yorkers and what we enjoy looking at. I will say it again...this is a naive viewpoint and reactionary. I reveiwed the thread on t"traditionalist architecture and there is nothing interesting about it. Most of what is cited there is religious architecture and few apartment and hotels...most of which remind me of Disneyland or Las Vegas..This is not what I want in my city and I venture to say neither do the majority of New Yorkers nor I would also venture do the majority of the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit our fair city each year whom I see enjoying our modernist architecture everyday.

IN MY OPINION Vinoly is doing something very interesting here...I actually love the use of the square and the founding geometry of this structure..in fact the tower itself is centered directly in the center of the entire block.
this establishes a fundamental link with the grid of midtown. It is not something that will be literally easy to see but the building itself will be a marker locating the any viewer of it to the fabric of the city...even a great distance...One can connect to many other tower structures of the past which have functioned in much the same manner but totally different context..the Gothic Cathedral comes to mind...You speak of traditionalist architecture and profess an knowledge of it...then you cannot refute that these principles of unifying geometry, symmetry, repeating elements, proportion, interplay of masses and structures, planes and openings are all are being orchestrated here in this building in a unique way but also in way that builds upon and expands how these principles have been used in the past are being reinvented in the specialized context of New York City in a very courageous manner.

I for one have no desire to live in a museum.
I can't wait to see this rise and look forward to many years of being awed by it. It's like a giant Sol LeWitt!

 

[GunnerJacket]

And that is exactly what I like so much about this building, its dominating presence and simplicity :cheers:

Which is fine. I simply cringe at people calling it beautiful architecture because there is so little to the design it comes across as the epitome of someone abusing the "Copy" and "Paste" commands.