6-12 Barclay Street & More - Costas Kondylis

[ZippyTheChimp]

A critical mass of shallow bay windows.

[Fabrizio]

NYGuy: It´s a crime to put flimsy window treatments and a thousand air-conditioner ducts in this evironment.

Look at the 7WTC. Look at the Millenium Hotel, with its beautiful black skin and elegant profile and the other modern buildings next to them. Those are real buildings. Modern...yet they have every right to be here. This thing does not.

[TREPYE]

While I am not too crazy about this new tower it is an improvement from the Millennium Hotel IMO. The setbacks up top of it and a nice mix between glass and and brick on the surface go along much better with DT classical architecture as opposed to the the all glass, all black monolithic presence of the Millennium Hotel.

[ablarc]

a nice mix between glass and and brick on the surface go along much better with DT classical architecture as opposed to the the all glass, all black monolithic presence of the Millennium Hotel.
Agreed. Downtown is all about windows.

Don't like 7WTC for this reason.

[lofter1]

:confused: ^^^ :confused:

7 WTC is nothing but windows (aside from the base) ...

Barclay is a cheesy looking knock-off. Perhaps a perfect construction for the times, considering the knock-offs for sale that abound on the streets of downtown.

[pianoman11686]

I think ablarc was talking about discernible windows, whereas in the case of a glass curtain wall, you can't see where the columns or floorplates exist, as they're all covered by glass.

Nonetheless, I find myself agreeing with you, lofter. I don't see many redeemable aspects of 10 Barclay, not the least of which is the monotonous appearance of those faux bay windows.

Ablarc: I see your point here, but there's still something to be said about the quality of construction. Downtown's historic, windowed buildings are all about quality, especially the taller ones. This (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2324&d=1157414003), on the other hand, is not high quality. And its juxtaposition next to a veritable cathedral of commerce makes it seem all the more inappropriate. I'd much rather a high-quality glass curtain wall in its place.

[ablarc]

:confused: ^^^ :confused:

7 WTC is nothing but windows (aside from the base) ...

Now come on lofter: what I said isn't so opaque that you need to be puzzled. Ask your grandmother what a window is and she'll tell you it's an opening in a wall.

Ask any Lower Manhattan architect before Chase and he would have told you the same thing.

Much or even most of the glass on an all glass office building isn't window; a lot of it is spandrel glass. Look at the building at night and you'll see.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[ablarc]

Ablarc: I see your point here, but there's still something to be said about the quality of construction. Downtown's historic, windowed buildings are all about quality, especially the taller ones.
Yeah, but you can't really see that from a distance, which is how you mostly see a skyline element. Though it may be a nice-looking object, I think the blue glass building that faces the Battery is very disruptive.

[lofter1]

Now come on lofter ...

... you knew that, didn't you?


After you finish wiping the floor with me I feel like I know absolutely nothing

;)

But I still detest this building ...

[ablarc]

^ My humble apologies. :)

[pianoman11686]

Yeah, but you can't really see that from a distance, which is how you mostly see a skyline element. Though it may be a nice-looking object, I think the blue glass building that faces the Battery is very disruptive.

I don't know about the distance argument. 2 Gold Street, shown here (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70578&postcount=70), is a recent rental tower, of similar low quality to 10 Barclay. Look how out of place it is in that photo. Furthermore, I can assure you that the view from across the East River makes this building stand out as a "disruptive" beige slab, not at all appropriate for its location. Perhaps 10 Barclay will not stand out as much (due to its more neutral color), but from the initial photos, it looks like a poor neighbor for Woolworth.

As for the blue glass building: you must be talking about 17 State Street, shown here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:17state.jpg). Is it disruptive because of color, shape, height, or some combination of those? I happen to think it adds to the vibrant mix of color for the Downtown skyline, and depending on the angle you're viewing from, the shape works or doesn't work. But very disruptive? I think the older monoliths to its east already took care of that long before it was built.

[ablarc]

But very disruptive? I think the older monoliths to its east already took care of that long before it was built.
Yeah, you're right. It would have been OK all by itself in that context of window dots, just as Chase-Manhattan was for a few years.

[NYguy]

Barclay is a cheesy looking knock-off. Perhaps a perfect construction for the times, considering the knock-offs for sale that abound on the streets of downtown.

I think the problem here is that residential towers are not the norm Downtown, but in the coming years they will be. Its refreshing for Downtown, and I find this a very attractive residentail tower. Light years better than some of that BPC crap.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284784/medium.jpg

[Fabrizio]

Pure 8th Avenue. Or how´s about B´way across from Lincoln Center. It´s that bad.

This thing looks like plenty of other mid-town condos with the flimsy painted metal window casings and cheap air conditioning ducts.

What are those construction cost-cuts doing here?

I agree with Pianoman. This is downtown. The buildings in this grouping are powerful and have the look of wealth. Whether it´s a graceful pre-war with windows, brick & limestone or a modern black curtain wall ....the feel has been one of luxury...big bucks.

The all-black Millenium is a well tailored cocktail dress...this condo tower is off the rack.

Ablarc: Ikea furniture looks nice from a distance too.

----------

[pianoman11686]

Or how´s about B´way across from Lincoln Center. It´s that bad.

Incidentally, the same developer (Glenwood) was responsible for that one, too. I can't decide which one's worse, or less appropriate for its setting.

[LeCom]

I'm probably the only one here who likes the size and massing of the tower...

[Scruffy88]

9/4
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01592.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01593.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01598.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01599.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01615.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01617.jpg

if anything this shot proves that this tower would look better with a pointy crown.
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01618.jpg

Very close to hitting its max height
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01690.jpg

[kz1000ps]

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01598.jpg

I know nobody ever said progress was beautiful, but sheesh..!

[Ninjahedge]

It is just painfully blah.

Not as bad as a residential box, mind you, but still BLAH!!!!

[BrooklynRider]

This building hurts my feelings.

[Fabrizio]

A rental-fleet Ford parked next to a fine old Rolls.

[lofter1]

LMAO (through my tears) ^^


... if anything this shot proves that this tower would look better ( ANYPLACE ELSE BUT HERE ) [with a pointy crown]

.
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i210/Scruffy69/DSC01618.jpg

[lofter1]

The baser part of me wants to tear down those two great old buildings ^^ (just to the south of this along Vesey) and build a nice tall sleek tower there just to hide this MFer.

[Fabrizio]

Another view:

[LeCom]

Another view:

10 Barclay Street Facade Mockup

Location: Trailer Park, Rural Route 17, Butthole, GA

[lofter1]

Costas Kondylis Clones Self in Tribeca

http://www.curbed.com/2006_09_clone.jpg

CURBED (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/09/13/costas_kondylis_clones_self_in_tribeca_.php)
September 13, 2006
by Lockhart

Aaron Donovan of Starts and Fits (http://www.startsandfits.com/) takes a gander at architect Costas Kondylis' apartment tower rising fast at 10 Barclay Street just north of the World Trade Center site in Tribeca, and sees signs of clonage:

"From these early indications, 10 Barclay Street is going to look identical to the Grand Tier [at 1930 Broadway, a building between 64th and 65th Streets that the developer of 10 Barclay, Glenwood Management, completed about a year or two ago]. Not surprisingly, they were designed by the same firm, Costas Kondylis & Partners."

Self-clonage! The new architectural hotness since 1802.


**********

Scroll to the end to see that WiredNewYork is the Link of Choice for INFO ...
A Clone Outgrows Its Parent

· Clone Outgrows Its Parent (http://www.startsandfits.com/2006/09/clone-outgrows-its-parent.html) [Starts and Fits]
By futurebird
Monday, September 11, 2006


http://www.startsandfits.com/images/glenwood1.jpg

Since everyone's attention is at Ground Zero today, I thought it would be fitting to look at the residential tower rising at 10 Barclay Street, just north of the site and towering next to the Woolworth Building. As The Sun has noted (http://www.nysun.com/article/38628), this bad boy is going up fast.

Here is another photo:

http://www.startsandfits.com/images/glenwood2.jpg

Think that's a shot of 10 Barclay? Nope. That's the Grand Tier at 1930 Broadway, a building between 64th and 65th Streets that the developer of 10 Barclay, Glenwood Management (http://www.glenwoodnyc.com/flash.htm), completed about a year or two ago.

Here's a picture with more of it:

http://www.startsandfits.com/images/glenwood3.jpg

From these early indications, 10 Barclay Street is going to look identical to the Grand Tier. Not surprisingly, they were designed by the same firm, Costas Kondylis & Partners (http://www.kondylis.com/).

Here are a couple of close ups of 10 Barclay, so you can really see it:

http://www.startsandfits.com/images/glenwood4.jpg

http://www.startsandfits.com/images/glenwood5.jpg

And finally, another overall view.

http://www.startsandfits.com/images/glenwood6.jpg

Regardless of its similarities to a (rather boring)* building uptown, it's great to see construction of a building that will bring 396 apartments to revitalize this part of the city.

*Boring, yes, but I do like the way 1930's base maintains the street wall for the first six floors and provides good neighborhood retail.

- 6-12 Barclay Street & More - Costas Kondylis (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3461) [Wired New York Forum]
- 1930 Broadway (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3486) [Wired New York Forum]

Wow. This is HOT.
(http://www.startsandfits.com/2006/09/clone-outgrows-its-parent.html#115802202932814683)

[Fabrizio]

"Regardless of its similarities to a (rather boring)* building uptown, it's great to see construction of a building that will bring 396 apartments to revitalize this part of the city."

That kind of comment bugs the hell outa me. It´s dumb. Cost-cutting, inappropriate architecture, has NO excuse in this area. The building will surely have a positive impact as far as bringing in people and so forth...but beauty and quality MUST be served as well.

[antinimby]

From the middle of Ave. of the Americas (literally) near SoHo on 9/19/2006:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5005/barclay6aveqd5.jpg

[EugeneNYC]

Costas Kondylis Clones Self in Tribeca

http://www.curbed.com/2006_09_clone.jpg


IMO, the "clone" has much better proportions.

[Derek2k3]

http://static.flickr.com/87/242809435_c7d178d505_b.jpg
Sister72's photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sis/)

Ugh, that DoB height of 584' must be way off. This thing looks closer to 700 feet.

[TREPYE]

^ Yeah, I was noticing the same thing about this tower. It seems to be a lot bigger than the originally proposed height.

[lofter1]

that photo ^^^ :eek: :mad: :eek:

[NYguy]

September 26, 2006

The view from the 45th floor of 7 WTC...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67581890/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67581924/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67581890/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67581924/large.jpg

[lofter1]

The folks here will have fantastic views, that's for sure ...

Basically this one is a lost cause, but would a sloped / peaked top help :confused: -- instead of this:

http://www.sunassociate.com/currentwork-htm/work-08/view-02-cs.JPG (http://www.sunassociate.com/currentwork-htm/work-08.htm)

[antinimby]

Believe it or not, I don't see the top as being all that bad. It actually has some details and varying texture.

What would really help is if the first set-back (or the "shoulders") was reshaped somehow. It's just too damn square.

Basically this one is a lost cause, but would a sloped / peaked top help :confused: -- instead of this:

http://www.sunassociate.com/currentwork-htm/work-08/view-02-cs.JPG (http://www.sunassociate.com/currentwork-htm/work-08.htm)

[lofter1]

What would really help is if the first set-back (or the "shoulders") was reshaped somehow. It's just too damn square.

Yep ^^^ a more graduated step-up would have at least softened the effect. Plus resulted in some terraces on upper floors.

And who wouldn't pay more for a terrace?

But this is a rental, right?

[NYguy]

The folks here will have fantastic views, that's for sure ...

Imagine having the crown of the Woolworth right outside your window (day or night). One of the best views in NY. And then there's the coming Gehry tower (whose own residents will gave great Woolworth views)...

[SilentPandaesq]

Glenwood loves those square roofs. That is where the "roof top deck" will be located. I live in a Glenwood next to two other Glenwoods and they all have tops that are squared. My building actually has 1 setback at the top floor, but that is the exception. The top of this one is square for the roof deck and then the penthouse will houses the elevator and a little sitting room and kitchen that leads out to the roof deck. (you can rent the roof out for parties, when I signed the lease they tried to have me book the roof for my engagement party.)

[macreator]

I gotta say I love the skininess of the building from this angle. Reminds me of Trump World Tower's proportions. Unfortunately, this building is butt ugly.

[LeCom]

September 29, 2006

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/9784/pict002210barclayucsep06tothesouthwestbway491460ja 7.jpg

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/4681/pict002410barclayucsep06tothesouthwestbway2491461g h1.jpg

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/6945/pict002810barclayucsep06tothesouthwestbway3491462v j7.jpg

[marcat]

Here are a few more pics of 10 Barclay, taken Sept. 30. I do like the base of this building. However, the setbacks at the top could have been asymetrical, rather than square shouldered, with reliefs (changes in the vertical plane, a la Empire State Building) to give more visual interest. I don't mind the sheer vertical face at the front elevation, but not as thrilled with the "broad shouldered" look at the top. I'll wait and see what the building looks like, and assess it when completed.

[marcat]

A few more pics of 10 Barclay. I want to see the floor plans within. This picture taken same day from the Vesey Street side, above the New York State Lawyer's Association Building. The overall proportions aren't bad, given the restrictions of the site. This building would have been better if located elsewhere, not beside the Woolworth Building.

[TimmyG]

September 30
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m230/TimmyG_04/PICT0017b.jpg

[lofter1]

A few more pics of 10 Barclay...from the Vesey Street side, above the New York State Lawyer's Association Building.

That's a nice building ...

http://www.nycla.org/images/about-bldg.jpg

Maybe they've got scads of air rights and will build a beautiful tower using this ^^^ as a base -- the perfect way to hide the fugly backside of that Barclay POS ;)

[londonlawyer]

By the way, what was on the site of this building?

[lofter1]

Parking Lot :( and some dinky buildings: Google MAP (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=10+barclay+st.,+new+york,+ny&ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=40.71215,-74.008732&spn=0.00089,0.002682&t=h&om=1&iwloc=A)

[londonlawyer]

Parking Lot :( and some dinky buildings: Google MAP (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=10+barclay+st.,+new+york,+ny&ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=40.71215,-74.008732&spn=0.00089,0.002682&t=h&om=1&iwloc=A)


Thanks. I take it that the buildings were POS's

[lofter1]

You can get a peek of one with a nice mansard roof (rectory?) to the left of St. Peter's:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/peter.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM074.htm

btw: St. Peter's is the new home of the "cross (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/06cross.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin)" of beams from the WTC site:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/06/nyregion/600_cross_1.jpg
Librado Romero/The New York Times
The cross made of steel beams that was taken from ground zero,
arriving at St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church.
It will remain there temporarily.

[Derek2k3]

Thanks to everyone who posted pictures above. I took these nearly a month ago.

[Stern]

September 30
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m230/TimmyG_04/PICT0017b.jpg

It complements the Woolworth Building nicely from its skinny side. Unfortunately that is the only vantage point where it positively contributes to the skyline. Much like the Chase Manhattan Bank Building, these would be excellent buildings if all sides were there skinny sides. There long sides clash with the romantic, cigar-shaped towers that define Lower Manhattan.

http://www.som.com/resources/projects/2/9/2/onechasebwe1_823.jpg

[lofter1]

About the only place from where this POS looks good are the upper floors of 7 WTC -- OK for those tenants, but it sucks for just about everyone else.

The design problem with this building -- which is important due to it's placement within the existing fabric of the city and proximity to the Woolworth building is the unrelenting uniformity of its facade. As a contrast look at the tower block of 15 CPW ...

http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/58806708.10Barclay.JPG..........http://i.pbase.com/v3/55/435155/1/48580851.15cpw2.JPG
6 - 12 Barclay........................................... ..................................15 CPW

I fully understand that there are huge cost differences between the two buildings (and I'm not saying that 15 CPW is what is needed downtown -- it's a perfect building design for CPW, but not necessarily for the financial district). However I see no reason that the design of Barclay could not have incorporated some of the design ideas used at 15 CPW -- which would give Barclay a visual rhythm that it so sorely lacks:

variaton of window placement
variation of window sizes
variation of materials and their placement on the facade
more refined treatment of the upper floors and crown

I could go on ...

[ramvid01]

i like how the set backs on 15 CPW look like stairs, it just makes it so much more interesting compared to Barcley.

[NYguy]

From this Port Authority photo, you can see how this new tower rises above
ground zero (right). You can also see the "tiny" 200 Chambers St. (left)

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/WTCSiteCOverlay.jpg

[ablarc]

You can also see the "tiny" 200 Chambers St. (left)
Too tiny. You might almost say "ridiculously tiny."

[antinimby]

Funny, I said the same thing (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=122661&postcount=274), too.

[internet_user_9]

anyone heard/have a guess what these units will rent for?

the vertical progress has slowed, but when i went by there today they were definately still pouring concrete up top...

[DarrylStrawberry]

one more.

[LeCom]

^That's actually a good angle... it closes a hole in the skyline from there.

[lofter1]

Gehry / Beekman will really plug that "hole in the skyline".

What happens when all the holes are closed?

Nothing but glass, stone, steel & bricks ... no building standing out by itself -- except for that part which rises above 50-stories.

Guess we just have to build more tall ones ...

[ablarc]

...plug that "hole in the skyline".

What happens when all the holes are closed?

Nothing but glass, stone, steel & bricks ... no building standing out by itself -- except for that part which rises above 50-stories.

Guess we just have to build more tall ones ...
Answered your own question.

We need you, lofter, as AMBASSADOR TO THE NIMBYS.
(Since they're aesthetically motivated, maybe you can give them a little aesthetic tutoring to dispel their teeming misconceptions.)

[TREPYE]

Gehry / Beekman will really plug that "hole in the skyline".


Ummm... Beekman will not plug a hole it will pretty much superimpose the Woolworth building.

[lofter1]

^^^ From many angles, yes ...

[GreenwichBoy]

photos taken today

[lofter1]

aaahhhh, progress :mad:

[Citytect]

Ohmygod.

[NYguy]

photos taken today

Funny how from that angle the tower almost perfectly hides the Woolworth Building...

[NYguy]

November 12, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157056/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157086/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157109/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157132/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157158/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157188/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157244/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157273/medium.jpg

[NYguy]

More of the same...(November 12, 2006)

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157056/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157109/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157132/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157158/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157188/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157244/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157273/large.jpg

[lofter1]

Funny how from that angle the tower almost perfectly hides the Woolworth Building...

You have some weird sense of humor ;)

[NYguy]

You have some weird sense of humor ;)

You have to admit it's true though...

[LeCom]

Dude, where's my Woolworth?

[GreenwichBoy]

bye bye to my view!

[lofter1]

You have to admit it's true though...

But hardly what I'd call "funny" :( :mad:

[TREPYE]

Dude, where's my Woolworth?
LOL!

[internet_user_9]

i think 10 barclay would be a great building to live in over the next decade...but i would want an apartment in the back of the building looking down on ground zero. to be able to watch nyc rebuild...amazing

cheers to glenwood management in their choice to rebuild at ground zero

[GreenwichBoy]

Glenwood!

[macreator]

cheers to glenwood management

Ummm.......I'm going to have to go with "no".

[lofter1]

I second that "no"

[Fabrizio]

Third.

(rhymes with....)

[SilentPandaesq]

i think 10 barclay would be a great building to live in over the next decade...but i would want an apartment in the back of the building looking down on ground zero. to be able to watch nyc rebuild...amazing


Do you live in / own a Glenwood building or do you just work for them???

No Glenwood building has ever had the term "great" applied to it (aside from in combination with the word "bland" or "catastrophe".

I hope you are getting paid to shill for this building, cause I would love to know that the rent I pay to Glenwood is being well spent...on something other than my building.

[internet_user_9]

shoot i wish i lived in a glenwood building.

no i do not work nor am i affiliated with them in anyway. i just think its a nice location for a high-rise rental. im sure theyve got quite a few spectaular (and overpriced) units in there.

sure its no lever house, its no time warner center, or whatever your personal perference is in nyc architecture.

its a pure money maker building...thats all glenwood cares about obviously! they will take away the public's view and charge hundreds of residents thousands of dollars a month for an even more spectatular one.

i do HATE the ptacs all the way up ALL the facades...thats shitty.

[SilentPandaesq]

shoot i wish i lived in a glenwood building.

This one, or any one? - To tell the truth, I would not mind living in this one as opposed to the one I currently live in.


no i do not work nor am i affiliated with them in anyway. i just think its a nice location for a high-rise rental. im sure theyve got quite a few spectaular (and overpriced) units in there.


sorry if I was a little harsh, but I have never heard praise for Glenwood on this board. I thought you might be a viral marketer or whatever they are called. If you arn't, then my mistake.


sure its no lever house, its no time warner center, or whatever your personal perference is in nyc architecture.


again, not to be harsh, but my perference is "not crap", which I think this building is. On the UES it would be fine (hell, it looks like my building so why not put it in Glenwoodistan with the rest of them)


its a pure money maker building...thats all glenwood cares about obviously! they will take away the public's view and charge hundreds of residents thousands of dollars a month for an even more spectatular one.


We agree!!!


i do HATE the ptacs all the way up ALL the facades...thats shitty.

Agree X 2 !

[kz1000ps]

11/20.. my nickname for this building is "Zoltar"

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/2389/dscf0052li6.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/3433/dscf0070pg7.jpg

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4324/dscf0074nz4.jpg

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/801/dscf0075ly0.jpg

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/271/dscf0076dr4.jpg

[SilentPandaesq]

"Zoltar"

i.e. the enbigganing machine from the movie "Big"?

note: "enbigganing" from the root "Enbiggan"; usage - A noble spirit enbiggans the smallest man. by J.Springfield

P.s. Thanks for the pics. I never get downtown anymore.

[Xemu]

I think it's Zoltar from Dude Where's My Car.

[SilentPandaesq]

I think it's Zoltar from Dude Where's My Car.

I thought it was Zoltan...but my memory of that movie is not so great.

Kznyc2k needs to clear it up. So I leave it up to him.

[Xemu]

I thought it was Zoltan...but my memory of that movie is not so great.

Kznyc2k needs to clear it up. So I leave it up to him.
Oh yeah. Your right, I'm wrong.

[kz1000ps]

I have no clue when I first heard the word. It's been something I've used from time to time in silly situations since at least high school.

But it makes me think of something you'd see in an old Godzilla film, probably of robot origins, that sprang to life outta nowhere. the Prudential Center tower in Boston would be another good example.

But really, it's just a feeling I get and "zoltar" seems to be as great a noun as any for it.

[antinimby]

This corner of the base bugs me.

Should be either a few stories shorter in that particular corner or at least be chamfered in deference to the church and therefore will not appear to overwhelm it like it does now.

It's little details like that that makes a big difference.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/801/dscf0075ly0.jpg

[lofter1]

This corner of the base bugs me.


horrible ^^^

***

Zoltar from Zoron (http://www.slamdance.com/sd99/festival/zoltar.html)

A twelve-year-old boy claims to be an alien
in order to escape his cruel family life
and the horrors of junior high.

http://www.slamdance.com/sd99/festival/images/99festival/zoltar.jpeg

(15 mins, color)

http://www.slamdance.com/sd99/festival/images/hdr_line.gif (http://www.slamdance.com/sd99/festival/filmline_body.html)

[pianoman11686]

Worst new building?

[lofter1]

http://www.star-lowrideronlineshop.com/lr_news/060319/zoltar.jpg

http://www.star-lowrideronlineshop.com/lr_news/spring2006tsrirt.html

[GreenwichBoy]

Too bad this "Zoltar" can not just walk away far away.

[lofter1]

lol ^^^

Zoltar might be magnificent, but his building is anything but ...

Yeah, I'd say WORST new building now going up -- by far.

[TREPYE]

Yeah, I'd say WORST new building now going up -- by far.
Worse than Goldman Sachs in BPC????:confused:

[pianoman11686]

Is that a joke?

[NYguy]

NOVEMBER 26, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858568/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858601/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858658/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858661/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858661/large.jpg

[lofter1]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz http://forum.greenzone.de/images/icons/icon_bored.gif

[kz1000ps]

I really hate how those bay windows are recessed so much. Instead of having a smooth, undulating flow to it, the facade rhythm is instead very fussy and jerky.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I hate this building. Never photographed it.

[Fabrizio]

Another one for the gallery:

http://www.brickface.com/product_gallery_detail_work.html

[LeCom]

Lynch me if you will, but I am pretty satisfied with the final result, especially the crown. Windows could've been better, but overall I almost like it.

[Fabrizio]

Theres something about that color...

http://www.band-aid.com/basic_protect_prod.shtml

[lofter1]

there's something else that is often this color (http://www.monkeybrainsoup.com/barf.gif) ...

[alonzo-ny]

i have no idea why anyone would spawn this tower on the world

[ablarc]

^ Make money.

[Ed007Toronto]

You could see this building under construction from an office building to the south in last week's episode of Law And Order.

[londonlawyer]

Lynch me if you will, but I am pretty satisfied with the final result, especially the crown. Windows could've been better, but overall I almost like it.

I agree. I used to live in the bowels of Manhattan (i.e., the rent-controlled dominated domain located east of Third Ave.). Scores of mundane boxes are built there which utterly pale in comparison to this tower. While this tower is no masterpiece, it's certainly decent and could have been worse.

[BPC]

Ditto. Perfectly acceptable building. Its only real flaw is that it blocks views of the Woolworth Building from certain angles (including, alas, my own.) The only reason I had the view of the Woolworth, however, was because of 9/11, so [difficult]-come-easy-go, I suppose.

[Fabrizio]

Fast-food luxury IS perfectly acceptable in other neighborhoods.

Not here.

[Ninjahedge]

Looks liek one of those hair-irons taht you use to make your hair wavy....

I have to say it is better than the boxes that are springing up, but it is also very formulaic and repeditive. It looks like they tried to use every last square foot of space the could in thieir airspace.

It also looks like the architect did not really consider structure when they were designing it and failed to realize how much room they would need for their perimeter columns.....

Ah well. Ho-hum is about all it is, not good, not bad.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Look at it from the inside. All those almost-bay-windows must be a good marketing item.

On the outside, it's surrounded by quality buildings.

[Fabrizio]

Exactly. The building's web site will talk about the views of the landmark buildings that surround it:

"The magnificent, Gothic-inspired Woolworth Building provides your backdrop..."

All the while, forever ruining a classic grouping of buildings with its ticky-tack architecture.

Its all about what the RESIDENTS are seeing.

Not what the rest of us have to put up with.

[Ninjahedge]

Well, sadly, that is one advantage the reflective glass boxes have over these types of buildings. They may be nothing to look at themselves, but so long as you have SOMETHING better to look at on your block, the building will at least reflect it!!!!

[NYguy]

This building really did turn out to be a nice surprise. With more towers planned and
beginning construction, there will be a buzz in this part of Manhattan that wasn't there
before. They could have used more like this one in BPC..

DECEMBER 17, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841339/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841341/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841343/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841346/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841315/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841339/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841341/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841343/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841346/large.jpg

[stache]

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/71841315/large.jpg


The building looks attractive from this angle (at a distance lol). Good proportions!

[lofter1]

Please explain what is good about this POS?

[stache]

Squint and look at the silhouette from the above angle.

[antinimby]

Looks like they changed the design (for the better IMO) of the crown.

http://www.sunassociate.com/currentwork-htm/work-08/view-02-cs.JPG

[kz1000ps]

This building really did turn out to be a nice surprise.

Only because the bar for this one was set so incredibly low. It's still a POS.

[Derek2k3]

This building really did turn out to be a nice surprise.
Nice pics but you can not be serious. Is there anything tall you do not like? Besides the Times of course.

I'm only happy this pile of windows didn't stack higher. Fortunately a lot of our new mistakes will be hidden by our older ones.

http://static.flickr.com/142/326954045_c3050c6681_o.jpg
12-18-06

[BPC]

I'm only happy this pile of windows didn't stack higher. Fortunately a lot of our new mistakes will be hidden by our older ones.


Maybe we can come up with a new mistake to hide One New York Plaza.

[Derek2k3]

They should revive the Guggenheim then.

http://static.flickr.com/143/327913292_841044cc3d_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/143/327913291_2f8cc9257d.jpg http://static.flickr.com/136/327913288_bf434892e6.jpg

Even with all the mistakes the skyline somehow works cohesively. Even better when that space is filled again.
http://static.flickr.com/134/327913295_c7b252e6fd_o.jpg

[stache]

This building is tall enough to look important.

[BrooklynRider]

Thankfully, with Ratner's Beekman Tower to the east and the WTC towers to the west, this thing will disappear from sight in a couple of years. The only positive thing about it was seeing a crane over the Lower Manhattan skyline.

[LeCom]

December 28, 2006

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/563/pict001110barclayucdec0lk3.jpg

Transportation Building's the one that got the bad end of the deal. Check out all these windows that are now pretty much blocked (the brown tower on the right of Woolworth):

http://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/03/444870.jpg

[lofter1]

December 28, 2006

Transportation Building's the one that got the bad end of the deal ...

Along with the rest of us :mad:

[ablarc]

^ That view: almost alright.

[GreenwichBoy]

What do you think so far?

[lofter1]

A complete abomination :mad:

[LeCom]

Uhh! What the hell are those crates on top?! The flying buttresses on top were a real great way to top off an otherwise uninteresting structure, and made a great imprint on the skyline. Now, they just ****ed it up by taking it back to a big ol' boxy look. As if that wasn't bad enough, they added those cross harchings on its sides.

I have usually been lenient toward this building, and even admitted to liking some of its aspects over time, especially the crown. Now I can safely say the building is an eyesore.

[antinimby]

I agree - like wearing a cheap and ugly cardboard box for a hat.

What on earth are these people thinking?

[LeCom]

Let's put up that Silverstein tower directly to the north ASAP to block at least one view of this mediocre POS.

[kz1000ps]

I thought diagonal crosshairs went out of style as "ornament" back in 1989.

[lofter1]

I have usually been lenient toward this building, and even admitted to liking some of its aspects over time, especially the crown. Now I can safely say the building is an eyesore.

I knew you'd eventually come around ;)

[NYguy]

I can proudly say that I love this tower...

JANUARY 14, 2007

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101694/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101710/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101722/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101669/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101672/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101675/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101694/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101696/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101722/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101723/original.jpg

[stache]

Best from a distance!

[lofter1]

Yeah -- a real far distance -- like from Kansas :p

[infoshare]

If this is by Glenwood, I am surprised: good architectural design (http://www.sunassociate.com/currentwork-htm/work-08/view-02-c.jpg) on this one.

[lofter1]

Could someone please explain anything that is good about this building, from an architectural POV?

[krulltime]

To me it ain't too ugly nor too handsome. It is more like bleh. If it wasn'f for its height it will be too Forgetable. I do wish they can light up the top.

[Fabrizio]

OMG... look at it in the photos next to that building with the perfectly fitted limestone. It truly looks awful.

Good God...sliding windows! (and handled in the cheapest way ...just look at them) Dinky window frames, exposed air-conditioners.... not to mention that squalid crown with the criss-cross motif. The whole thing has a cut-rate Wal-mart feel to it. Its reeeeaaally a crying-shame this banal thing is sitting along side 20th century masterpieces. It cheapens the setting. Gone will be those great photos of this grouping of majestic buildings.

You can bet that crown will be lit up... and I guarantee you it will be a friggin over-bright artless torch. Ooooo....aaahhhhhh!

[kz1000ps]

What are people's opinions on the Transportation Building? I look at it and, while it has nice massing, I see the 1920s equivalent of our dearly hated 6-12 Barclay Street. Blank spans of brick, cheap punch-out window openings, a lame crown.. it downright sucks when compared to the Cathedral next door.

I raise this question not just because I want input on its design, but also because I'm curious to know if the people who experienced it when it was new were/would've also been having the same venemous thoughts towards it we now have for the POS behind it.

And the last question I suppose is: should I have any more respect for the Trans. bldg than I do for 6-12 Barclay?

[Bob]

The Transportation Building is no prize. Looks like it needs a power-wash, for starters. Then, perhaps some decorative lighting to highlight the setbacks. As it is now, the building definitely runs under the radar, almost like a stealth building.

[Fabrizio]

Wha? Am I missing something?

The Transportation Building is unquestionably a beauty.

This is the 1920s and it is the Tuscan-hill town/Romanesque architecture style that was a rage. Its all over the city... go to Riverdale especially.

Or a trip to the YMCA on west 63rd street for a great example:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=492285

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=453429

West Side YMCA:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/UWS/UWS006.htm

Halloran House:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/UES/UES105.htm

[ManhattanKnight]

Wha? Am I missing something?

The Transportation Building is unquestionably a great beauty.




Well, not unquestionably . . .In 1926-27, York & Sawyer designed the forty-four-story Transportation Building, a surprisingly banal design for that firm. . . . Aside from its functional problems, its awkward proportions and the meagerness of its Lombardic detail, the Transportation Building bore the added curse of rising across the street from [the] Woolworth Building. . . . So grim was the design that the owner was obliged to find other ways to excite prospective tenants: advertisements focused on the elevator operators---"the corps of snappy looking young girls . . . uniformed in attractive brown military costume with saucy little 'doughgirl' cap."
Robert A.M. Stern, et al., New York 1930, 540.

[Fabrizio]

Today, in 2007, Ill call it beautiful ( BTW: please notice that before you posted, I pulled the word "great" from my post... I toned it down... none the less, it is a beauty.)

Though one must agree, it IS a grim dark style (see the other photos of the examples above)

Origins... note the fortress details, note the low peaked roof:

http://www.tuscany-charming.it/en/places/collevaldelsa.asp

BTW: why does R Stern talk of the buildings "Lombardic detail" when the style is further south? Ablarc?

[kz1000ps]

Well, other than the low-relief panel brick work (rather imperceptible unless you're looking for it) at each setback, I see blank expanses of brown brick that reminds me of the backsides of buildings in Tudor City. Definitely not a beauty in my eyes (although by no means a dog either), but thanks for cluing me in to the origins of that style.

a surprisingly banal design. . . .So grim was the design that the owner was obliged to find other ways to excite prospective tenants

Pretty much answers my question #2, and even a bit of #3.

[Fabrizio]

"I see blank expanses of brown brick that reminds me of the backsides of buildings in Tudor City."

That fortress-like look is part of the deal:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/UES/UES105.htm

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/park_laurel_ymca.jpg

[lofter1]

While you could easily label the Transporatation Building as the less-handsome (yet still regal) step-sister of the Woolworth it is the PAIRING of the two that is so magical -- and the image of which is so indelibly etched in my mind as a classic NYC cityscape.

The restraint of the TB plays perfectly against the Gothic splendor of the Woolworth's gargoyles and filigree. That same simple restraint also honors St. Paul's Chapel on the block to the south. Remember, too, that when the TB went up in 1927 that the massive pile of the old Second Empire Baroque City Hall Post Office (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON022.htm) (1878) sat directly across Broadway (where it sat until it was demolished in 1938). With the simplicity of the TB it seems that York & Sawyer made the choice with this design to step back and not to fight for attention amidst the other grand buildings in the immediate vicinity.

One should also compare the detail (however simple it might be) of the base at the Transporation Building vs. what is going up next door at 6-12 Barclay. While 6-12 banally attempts to echo the Woolworth with it's pre-cast chamfered edges the designers of the TB understood that understated contrast is the better way to go.

http://fr.structurae.de/files/photos/1/100km023/pict5736.jpg

http://fr.structurae.de/files/photos/1/100km023/pict5735.jpg

http://fr.structurae.de/structures/data/photos.cfm?ID=s0021926

[internet_user_9]

Could someone please explain anything that is good about this building, from an architectural POV?

are you an architect? or are you the wanna be architect that couldnt make it in school and now lives a disgruntled life full of criticism?


maybe you are neither--but i would put my money on one of the 2

[kz1000ps]

And to which side do you fall between those two questions, internet_user_9?

[Fabrizio]

"....and now lives a disgruntled life full of criticism?"

Lofter's sounds more like a full life of opinions, knowlege, culture, enthusiasm.

Tell us about yours.

--

[lofter1]

are you an architect? or are you the wanna be architect that couldnt make it in school and now lives a disgruntled life full of criticism?

Wrong on both accounts. I'm just a grouchy old SOB who loves NYC and rags on those who, through greediness / ignorance, are leaving piles of POS in their wake.



i would put my money on one of the 2

You can PM me -- I'll let you know where to send the check ;)

[BPC]

Architectural commentary is the raison d'etre of this web site, or at least this portion of the web site. While I disagree with Lofter's views on this building, I am not sure how his critical posts differ from the other 99.9% posts on this site. But since we are flinging around accusations, "internet user #9," are you one of the developers of this building or have some other monetary incentive in stifling any criticism of it?

[BrooklynRider]

are you an architect? or are you the wanna be architect that couldnt make it in school and now lives a disgruntled life full of criticism?


maybe you are neither--but i would put my money on one of the 2

Wow! On your 4th post here, you zoom in and lay into someone with 10,062 more posts than you. Rather than having Lofter divert himself from his immense sharing with this community, perhaps you might want to read his last 1,000 posts and come up with the answer. If the first 1,000 don't answer your question, theres 9,062 to go.

[stache]

I think he might be someone who was here previously under a different name.

[DarrylStrawberry]

As a mere 5-post-schmuck, allow me to me thank Lofter1 (and all the rest) for making this one of the best resources on the web about New York.

[lofter1]

Thanks for standng up for me, comrades :cool: .

But not to worry, I can take the pseudo-abuse ...

Although I'd rather take the money that internet_user_9 mentioned -- but have not yet received either the check or a PM inquiring where to send same :mad:

[LeCom]

are you an architect? or are you the wanna be architect that couldnt make it in school and now lives a disgruntled life full of criticism?


maybe you are neither--but i would put my money on one of the 2
Heh heh, check it out, Costas created an account to defend his building.

[lofter1]

hehe ^^^

But that's good -- means he can afford that money he laid on the table ;)

[LeCom]

I know the "classic paired Woolworth/TB view" you're talking about; while I always thought it looked too sparse, it did have undeniable class to it. It would still be a great view if 10 Barclay retained its flying buttresses and didn't **** them up with the cross-hatched cubes.

Whatever the case, look at the view now.

http://photos-151.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v56/131/33/8228078/n8228078_32074151_8519.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

This may be good news for fans of the building.

The cargo boxes are translucent, so the crown may be back-lit.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5708/12barclay01ctt4.th.jpg (http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=12barclay01ctt4.jpg)

[kz1000ps]

Hey hey, a redeeming feature after all! (assuming they do light it up)

[NYguy]

I know the "classic paired Woolworth/TB view" you're talking about; while I always thought it looked too sparse, it did have undeniable class to it. It would still be a great view if 10 Barclay retained its flying buttresses and didn't **** them up with the cross-hatched cubes.

Whatever the case, look at the view now.

http://photos-151.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v56/131/33/8228078/n8228078_32074151_8519.jpg

Don't worry, the new WTC was going to take that view anyway.

[NYguy]

Could someone please explain anything that is good about this building, from an architectural POV?

I really couldn't care less about the architectureal POV on this tower. It's a great tower, one of those New York towers that brings a desperately needed sign of life to this part of Manhattan. Will it win any awards? Hardly. But then look around Manhattan.

There are times when a tower just feels good, and this is one of them. So critique if for the architectural value as you please, but this tower brings something much more valuable to the city than that, just as the WTC towers will.

[kz1000ps]

You really like this tower, eh? What about other residentials in the area? 2 Gold, 4 Albany, 111 Washington; do they make you all warm and fuzzy inside too?

[ablarc]

BTW: why does R Stern talk of the buildings "Lombardic detail" when the style is further south? Ablarc?
Sant' Ambrogio, Milan: http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/ambrogio/ambrogio.html

[ZippyTheChimp]

one of those New York towers that brings a desperately needed sign of life to this part of Manhattan.Hyperbole.

[stache]

This may be good news for fans of the building.



"Because I'm not one of your FANS!"

[lofter1]

Just as 6-12 Barclay is a farce as a skyscraper, so too Faye as Joan ...

http://blogs.chron.com/specialfeatures/archives/HI_J0394.JPG

[GreenwichBoy]

January 25, 2007 Barclay Street Closed on Sunday

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/news/091406_10_Barclay_fr_7WTC_HD.jpg Barclay Street tower nearly complete With construction of the new 10-12 Barclay Street (http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/10_12_barclay_street_44865.aspx) tower nearly complete, crews will deconstruct and remove its tower crane on Sunday, January 28th. To accommodate the crane's removal, Barclay Street will be closed between Broadway and Church Street for several hours. Vehicles can use Fulton Street (two blocks south) as a west-bound detour and Park Place (one block north) as an east-bound detour.

[Derek2k3]

Sooo forgettable.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/370055471_d0a1c33db7_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/370055473_2a51508c43_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/370055470_fbd904117f_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/370055477_d3ac08026f_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/370055480_2938db210c_o.jpg
My favorite angle of the tower.

[antinimby]

I think this is the tallest residential in the city since TWT.

[lofter1]

The last pic shows the absolutely perfect position from which this tower should be viewed :cool:

[NYatKNIGHT]

^That view will look very different in about 5 years.

[antinimby]

I find that "wedding cake" 1950's tower to the right of Woolworth (in the last pic obviously) more offensive-looking.

Can it be gotten rid of, somehow?

[Fabrizio]

Most 1950s International-style architecture sits nicely with the old classics.... not competing but deferring... just as that old one on the right. And it wasnt designed to fool anyone.

[lofter1]

I agree that one -- 250 Broadway (aka 239 - 250 Broadway) which went up in 1963 (Emery Roth & Sons) -- is a good example of "background" buildings that work well in NYC. And in particular this one works well as a neighbor to the Woolworth.

More info at: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=250broadway-newyorkcity-ny-usa

Could it use some TLC? You bet. But the massing and size serve well the location across from City Hall Park ...

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2006/04/451636.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2006/04/451646.jpg

[kz1000ps]

The last pic shows the absolutely perfect position from which this tower should be viewed :cool:

Amen.

[GreenwichBoy]

Barclay Tower

[Derek2k3]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/382575542_53ed4fa3b3_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/382575546_0ffa1185d8_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/382575549_b251eb3000_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/382575553_e6d9434e89_o.jpg

This could be mistaken as skyscraper morphology.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/382575980_0e2422498d_o.jpg

This would be a nice building somewhere else.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/382593042_abe8ef6294_o.jpg

[NYguy]

Sooo forgettable.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/370055471_d0a1c33db7_o.jpg

That could be a new song...(somebody get Natalie Cole)


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/370055480_2938db210c_o.jpg

My favorite angle of the tower.

That one's for all the people who say this tower has somehow killed the Woolworth Building. Please.

[gradvmedusa]

Yawn:: Like an oversize college dorm. http://www.fordham.edu/images/facilities/lc_reslife/1mcmahon%20hall%20copy.gif

[SilentPandaesq]

Yawn:: Like an oversize college dorm.

Guess who will end up living there. Hint: white base ball caps....

[kz1000ps]

<..searches for something positive to say..>

Well, that bright white winter light makes it look decent, and I suppose we should count our blessings that the core is wholly internal, meaning we don't have to stare at any blank 54 story walls on any side.

[krulltime]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/382575542_53ed4fa3b3_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/382575546_0ffa1185d8_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/382575549_b251eb3000_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/382575553_e6d9434e89_o.jpg

This could be mistaken as skyscraper morphology.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/382575980_0e2422498d_o.jpg

This would be a nice building somewhere else.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/382593042_abe8ef6294_o.jpg

Nice set there. I actually like the top of this new building. It is not as scary as I first thought.

[lofter1]

Oh, GAWWWWD ...

Horrid proportions ...

Terrible over-bearing lumpish top ...

Banal brain-numbing repetition ...

Obnoxious look-at-me coloration ...

But, aside from that, just another POS.

[Stern]

It looks bad from the North and South views but I think it looks quite nice from the East and West. Its slender, has nice setbacks, some attention to detail and a light color. From the East and West sides it does a good job of creating a context with the cigar shaped towers that once defined Lower Manhattan.

[lofter1]

It looks bad from the North and South views.

It sure does -- and those are the sides from which it will be seen by most.

It's a bully of a building. Offers nothing and pushes its way in.

[stache]

But lofter, how do you really feel about this building?

[ramvid01]

But lofter, how do you really feel about this building?

I think the better question is how would lofter feel of this building if it was built in Queens? :p

[DarrylStrawberry]

2/3/07 - From Brooklyn...

I think the North/South view is lousy, but from here, it's o.k. imo

[antinimby]

Was there talk of lighting the crown up?

[antinimby]

It looks bad from the North and South views but I think it looks quite nice from the East and West.I'm not so sure it looks bad even from the north and south.

Some of you might hate it because of its proximity to Woolworth and that is a legitimate gripe, but looks-wise I think it looks fine, from any angle.

One place I could see this fitting in well would be Trump Riverside or along with the other new condo towers on 6th Ave. in Chelsea.

[lofter1]

Even there ^^^ it would be a big dull POS.

It's horrendous.

[pianoman11686]

Oh, GAWWWWD ...

Horrid proportions ...

Terrible over-bearing lumpish top ...

Banal brain-numbing repetition ...

Obnoxious look-at-me coloration ...

But, aside from that, just another POS.

I understand #'s 1-3, but #4?

[ablarc]

^ lofter's just got a thing about this building. Can't really see the bad of it.

[lofter1]

I understand #'s 1-3, but #4?

#4 being: "Obnoxious look-at-me coloration" ...

The "stone" of the BARF-clay is a fairly bright white-ish tone -- similar in color but not in texture or surface -- to the Woolworth's terracotta facade.

Not that it would help remedy the other problems that come with this building but a notch or two down on the brightness scale would have been better.

btw, some workers took down the big crane here over the weekend ... which means that before long we'll get to see the artistry this gang has in store for the street-level facade.

I can't wait :cool:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Financial%20District/12Barc_01a.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Financial%20District/12Barc_01c.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Financial%20District/12Barc_01d.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/Financial%20District/12Barc_01e.jpg

***

[antinimby]

What are they going to do with the opening in the floors and roof left by the crane?

[lofter1]

What are they going to do with the opening in the floors and roof left by the crane?


I assume they'll build some frames and pour more concrete.

[pianoman11686]

#4 being: "Obnoxious look-at-me coloration" ...

The "stone" of the BARF-clay is a fairly bright white-ish tone -- similar in color but not in texture or surface -- to the Woolworth's terracotta facade.

Not that it would help remedy the other problems that come with this building but a notch or two down on the brightness scale would have been better.

Maybe it's the fact that I haven't seen it recently, and the pictures don't highlight the color that well, but I don't see anything wrong with the "coloration." It's fairly dull and background-ish, and certainly nothing looking to grab attention. I'd even venture to say that being similar in color to Woolworth makes it stand out even less.

[Fahzee]

I think people have hit on this before, but I'd thought I'd ask - is the hatred towards this building based on the boring, and somewhat sloppy design, or is it more about its' placement downtown, near the woolworth building

I only ask because this building is incredibly similar to the Grand Tier building by Lincoln Center - and although the Grand Tier is certainly not a work of art, it seems to compliment that area nicely.

my guess is that the real killer with this building is the location

[ZippyTheChimp]

my guess is that the real killer with this building is the locationThat's mostly it for me.

[lofter1]

It's a dull, dreary and uninspired building no matter where it sits.

The fact that it sits across from one of the most glorious buildings ever constructed in the USA and, from one major vantage point, blocks the view of that building compounds its dreariness one hundred fold.

[MidtownGuy]

The crinkly, fussy facade really irks me and it's position near Woolworth is a shame!
I've heard the Woolworth and buildings like it described as cathedrals of commerce. Their beauty was a celebration of capitalism and economic strength. This generation mostly builds eyesores like 6-2 Barclay. Something, somewhere, went horribly wrong.

[Harvick2933]

To me, if compared to the quality of all the residential skyscrapers out there in NYC, this building is actually above average in quality. Kondylis actually paid decent attention to the details on this building.

The location is the main problem for this one. Despite its above-average architecture quality for a residential tower, the building is still not good enough to be worthy of blatantly blocking such an architectural great like the Woolworth Building from certain views.

Also, I feel that the building's shape and proportions are out of sync with that of Woolworth Building. Its lack of setbacks until toward the top makes it appear rather stiff and offensive while the Transportation Building and even the International Style 250 Broadway did a much better job of complementing Woolworth with their well-positioned setbacks. Those two are defintely much friendlier neighbors to Woolworth than 10 Barclay.

It seems like they just plopped this building onto the current site without much consideration for its context.

[lofter1]

... they just plopped this building onto the current site without much consideration for its context.

Precisely.

[lofter1]

Filling in the floors where the crane used to rise ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/City%20Hall%20Area/12Barclay_02a.jpg

Above that: unrelenting banality ... floor after floor after floor after floor ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/City%20Hall%20Area/12Barclay_02b.jpg

Below they have started to cover the concrete frame and blocks with "stone" ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/City%20Hall%20Area/12Barclay_02d.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/City%20Hall%20Area/12Barclay_02c.jpg

It looks like there will be an open arcade at street level ^^^

Very high, with the doorways to the interior set back and inside the arcade --
all of it done in some neo-classic style (Neo-Corporate?? Quite at odds with the simplicity of the facade of St. Peter's, next door) ...

For the most part it seems to be pre-cast something or other ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/City%20Hall%20Area/12Barclay_02f.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/City%20Hall%20Area/12Barclay_02g.jpg

Large slabs of polished granite for the bottom of the base ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/City%20Hall%20Area/12Barclay_02h.jpg

[antinimby]

What are their plans for the ground floor?

[lofter1]

Doesn't look like retail. With the size of what appears to be the exterior covered arcade the interior space will allow for a lobby, service delivery space and elevators -- and not much else. Looks like amenity spaces will be on the floors above the double height arcade / lobby.

According top this report (http://www.ctj.org/itep/gjny/rec_libertybond_breakdown.htm) this POS got $135 Million in Liberty Bonds -- so nice that our tax money paid to hide the Woolworth Building :mad: :

Residential Liberty Bonds (total allocation of $1.6 billion)

Date.........Amount.........Developer........Site


1/20/04....$135 million.....Leonard Litwin....10 Barclay Street

[GreenwichBoy]

3/14/07

[stache]

They ruined the scale of the upper setback by piling all that crap on top.

[lofter1]

Not only that-- there are 3 floors of solid facade and then that 80's criss-crossy thing on top. Horrible.

Jeez, Louise ... I hate this building :mad:

You could dip the entire thing in gold and I'd still call it a ...

[stache]

P.o.s.?

[MidtownGuy]

This building puts the UG in ugly.
I can't find one good thing about this design. Now they will build another ugly tower to the west of Woolworth and block it in some more. We're going to fill in every last space with a tower so that we can't even see the classy buildings we do have and the plateau just fills in even more. It's really frustrating to watch the city develop in a way that is all wrong.

[lofter1]

P.o.s.?

You're too kind to this FUGLY stewing pile :cool:

[kz1000ps]

We're going to fill in every last space with a tower so that we can't even see the classy buildings we do have and the plateau just fills in even more. It's really frustrating to watch the city develop in a way that is all wrong.

Not to nitpick, but that argument could've been made some 40-50 years ago with the Chrysler or GE/RCA building and their environs as they got filled in with the banal boxes we love to hate today, especially in the Chrysler Building's case which has no park nearby to protect views of it. And yet we are still more than able to enjoy what delights they give us, encroachments and all.

At least the Woolworth will always have its eastern (and most impressive) facade facing on to open space... All things considered in this opportunistic city, that's shooting above par.


And about 6-12 Barclay, I hate it for reasons already mentionedmany times, but I'll freely admit it turned out better than I expected.

[MidtownGuy]

What do you think came out so well about 6-12 Barclay?

By the way, here's an old pic of the exact area you mentioned.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/422132842_7a6ef1e9a5_b.jpg

Not to nitpick, but that argument could've been made some 40-50 years ago with the Chrysler or GE/RCA building and their environs as they got filled in with the banal boxes we love to hate today

But this isn't 40-50 years ago. There is a point between extremes. No one is suggesting that we should preserve the place in amber, just develop with aesthetic considerations in mind. There are plenty of places to build without boxing in one of our most famous landmarks, in this case the Woolworth, with the kind of gargantuan junk that 6-12 Barclay typifies.

[TREPYE]

Not only that-- there are 3 floors of solid facade and then that 80's criss-crossy thing on top. Horrible.


Its despicably atrocious! :mad: I know Klondys does not have much taste as per his pathetic designs, but what was the logic behind 3 floors of concrete on top of a tower?

[kz1000ps]

What do you think came out so well about 6-12 Barclay?

I said it turned out better than expected, not "well." I hated its appearance in the renderings (remember: I named it "Zoltar" out of disgust, lol) so it had a very, very low bar to jump over to get me to say "better than expected." I don't mind the beige color and the crown is better than (there's that comparison again) many other residential projects of a similar nature, cheesy pomo criss-crossy panels and all. Better than expected, but certainly no cause for celebration.

[BrooklynRider]

I love this building for the simple reason that it produced some of the funniest posts from Lofter - ever. Such delectable venom.

[TREPYE]

Each and every person at both Costas Kondylis Partners and Glenwood Management who so much as added one line or penny to this project should be bound spread-eagle, have their entrails ripped from their bodies, be forcefully drawn-and-quartered, the pieces spread to the far ends of the earth.

May their spirits wander the hallways of each and every building that they have developed, forever haunting the inhabitants.

May their bank accounts dwindle, leaving their heirs penniless.

May their names be wiped from the tongues of anyone who has any love for the City that is New York.

May they rot in shame.

Hey BR, this classic post (BTW thanks for the laughs Loft) had nothing delicate to it. Thats what a call a literary bludgeoning! :p

[kz1000ps]

this classic post had nothing delicate to it.

He said delectable, not delicate ;)

[TREPYE]

LOL, oops. In that case thanks for delicately correcting my delectable oversight. :p

[krulltime]

By the way, here's an old pic of the exact area you mentioned.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/422132842_7a6ef1e9a5_b.jpg

Wow so many old buildings destroyed for the 1950's and 60's boom. I think history is repeating itself with the few special old buildings that are been or getting ready for demolition. :(

[Derek2k3]

If only more of the wealth could have spread to the outer boroughs instead.

[mumbles]

this would be fine on the beach in miami...not where it sits.

[alonzo-ny]

does anyone know of a site where i can get alot of those stunning black and white, old new york images?

[stache]

Look around in the 'anything goes' forum, there's a few links.

[JCMAN320]

Yea we in JC got one of his fugly ass buildings as well. How is he still in business?

[ablarc]

does anyone know of a site where i can get alot of those stunning black and white, old new york images?
A few here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5010

And some more:http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5136

[NYguy]

More Barclay/Woolworth

MARCH 18, 2007

Even the scale complements the Woolworth...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75902055/medium.jpg__http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75902059/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75902061/medium.jpg__http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75902087/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75902055/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75902059/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75902061/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75902087/large.jpg

[RandySavage]

Are my eyes playing tricks or does Barclay actually compliment both Woolworth and Transportation Building from that angle and distance!

[stache]

Only looks good if mostly covered.

[Fabrizio]

It's like it's her first swanky cocktail party.

[BPC]

I must say that from the angle in which the above shots were taken (as opposed to the angle I usually see it, which is from BPC), the building works pretty well with the Woolworth.

[sfenn1117]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_kay_1/426921853/

http://i10.tinypic.com/487lqj7.jpg

From some angles it fits right in. This is an impressive skyline in itself.

[kz1000ps]

Only looks good if mostly covered.

It's like it's her first swanky cocktail party.

LOL at both! But too bad she's got such wide shoulders and no curves..

[lofter1]

Oh, c'mon --

It sorta looks somewhat OK if you stand within a 20 foot radius and look at it hiding behind other better buildings.

High praise, eh?

[BrooklynRider]

It isn't nearly as horrendous as you view it walking over the Brooklyn bridge, but then again you can't see all that bulk from that angle. Either way, Beekman is going to block this oot soon enough from the Bridge side.

[londonlawyer]

I think that this building is decent. Does anyone think that Macklowe's disaster at 510 Madison is any better? I'm afraid to see what he'll build on The Drake's site.

[krulltime]

What saves this building is the crown. I really like that crown. If it was a flat roof than that would have been a dissater.

[BrooklynRider]

And that's what we see from Brooklyn.

[lofter1]

If you want to see how bad it is take a walk down 6th Avenue from West 4th Street ...

Like someone said before: it's a big shouldered brute with no grace and a bad hat.

[BrooklynRider]

Any view from north or south of this building leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[lofter1]

WTC2 will block it from the southwest (to some degree).

Silverstein's new hotel project at 99 Church will block it from the northwest (for the most part).

The more buildings that go up to encircle this pile the better. But PLEASE let the others be better than this one ...

[Stern]

WTC2 will block it from the southwest (to some degree).

Silverstein's new hotel project at 99 Church will block it from the northwest (for the most part).

The more buildings that go up to encircle this pile the better. But PLEASE let the others be better than this one ...

In its editiorial the NYSUN is hinting that 99 Church will also be a Kondylis building. I enjoyed reading the following editorial though because the critic is not writing solely on reputation, a trap that many critics find them selves guilty of, rather he is stating the case as I see it as also, 10 Barclay is mediocre and underwhelming and we should achieve for higher standards and expect more as Kondylis' 200 Chambers Street demonstrates.


NYSUN:

Stacking Up Lower Manhattan

BY JAMES GARDNER
March 13, 2007

Lower Manhattan now finds itself in the throes of a sloppy transformation, from an exclusively financial area to a multipurpose residential zone. If Santiago Calatrava's catenary of stacked boxes, also known as 80 South Street, ever becomes a reality, there will be at least one good building that emerges from that sea change. But this is New York, and it seems far likelier that the majority of the new residential buildings will look something like the two latest efforts by Costas Kondylis & Partners, at 10 Barclay Street and 200 Chambers Street.

This firm has been responsible for dozens of residential towers in Manhattan during the past generation. "If I'm going to do a residential building in New York," developer Larry Silverstein recently said, "the most natural thing in the world is to pick up the phone and call Costas." Donald Trump apparently agrees, since he has enlisted the services of this firm on a number of projects, from the Trump World Plaza overlooking the East River to Trump Place overlooking the Hudson.

This default mode of choosing an architectural firm may well serve as the defining fact about architecture in New York. And the architecture that results is as good as the default firm itself and the historical circumstances in which the firm works. We have no reason to expect that, 20 years from now, when the streets of Lower Manhattan are crowded with residential towers, the result will have the stylistic continuity or harmony that can be found in the hulking, granite-clad piles built between 1890 and 1930, or even in the International Style structures of the postwar years.

As it happens, the firm of Costas Kondylis & Partners works in a variety of idioms. Their two latest projects, the historicist at 10 Barclay Street and the modernist 200 Chambers Street, are a case in point. In either of these, it can achieve a moderate grace or a pronounced banality. Unfortunately, the latter quality predominates on Barclay Street, in the form of an all but complete 56-story tower, containing 396 luxury rental units.

The historicism of this building seems misplaced, since it clashes with that of the Woolworth Building, its unlikely new neighbor, and does not accommodate any of the smaller and older buildings in its vicinity, like Saint Peter's Church at its western flank. Just two blocks from the World Trade Center site, it will clash even more with the four towers that have already been designed for ground zero.

But the problem here is not historicism, which can still be employed to excellent effect. The problem is a pervasive sense of not even trying, a feeling of pronounced depletion verging upon exhaustion in this drably twotoned structure, whose main claim to contextualism is that it, like the classic skyscrapers of early 20th century, can be divided structurally into a base, a shaft, and a lantern. The lantern, a fussy affair consisting of three flanges interspersed with a metalwork filigree, looks as if it could not have taken more 10 minutes to design. Less time, surely, was needed to conjure into being the shaft and base, whose bays are formed through a pallid deployment of limestone facing, and whose corners are determined, illogically and unhistorically, by darkened glass walls. In fact, other than the lantern and a whiff of rustication at the base, there is little here that is specifically historicist beyond the overall structure, which is supposed to prompt vague reveries of a Beaux-Arts past in residents who are far more interested in looking out than looking in.

Somewhat better is 200 Chambers Street, a fairly stylish modernist structure distinguished by its complicated massing. Along West Street, its primary façade unfurls, in all its modular, modernist uniformity to form a slab of uninterrupted flatness. The complexion of the façade is dominated by the gleaming white marble infill that runs straight up, dividing the darkened glass zones of the windows. Meanwhile, on its northern side, the 30-story structure splits in such a was that it appears ready to split into two buildings.

What is going on along Chambers Street, however, is far more interesting and far more "architectonic." At this point, the project becomes almost a complex, with two smaller, satellite buildings emerging from the base of the main slab. The modular division of these buildings differs slightly from that of the main structure, but they are equally modernist in vocabulary and formed from equally gleaming materials.

Let it be said that a good deal of the inspiration for the project must be attributed to Sir Norman Foster, who originally designed a building for the site but backed out when the community boards demanded certain changes that he found unacceptable. This was the point at which Mr. Kondylis's firm stepped in. The general massing, the division into smaller buildings, and the fracturing of the slab are survivals from Sir Norman's design. Even the whiteness and the modernist modularity were there from the start.

Ironically, however, the strict International Style rigidity of Sir Norman's design lacks something of the movement, the life, even the grace that, from certain angles, can be seen in the version that was eventually realized.

[BPC]

The author has them flipped. Barclay Street is moderatley good; Chambers Street is moderately bad.

[MidtownGuy]

What an apt description of Barclay. This building fails horribly. He's right about the lantern- 10 minutes tops. Of course the facade is just hideous- all of those fussy bay windows smashed right up against each other like a highway pile-up. I can't find anything good about this clumsy hulk no matter how hard I try. The design fails, from ugly base to ugly crown. Blech!