Barclay Tower @ 10 Barclay Street - by Costas Kondylis

[ZippyTheChimp]

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.

I also agree with the author. 200 Chambers is not a great building, but I see it as a success.

From the article:

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...

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.Not even trying.

[lofter1]

The truths about 6-12 Barcaly and the work of Kondylis there are worth repeating:



... a pronounced banality ... predominates on Barclay Street ...

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.

[Fabrizio]

And this:

"....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."

[BPC]

NYSUN:

Stacking Up Lower Manhattan

BY JAMES GARDNER
March 13, 2007

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.

What did he expect the Barclay Street building to look like, a 60-story version of the Roman Coliseum? I'm sorry, but I find this critique beyond idiotic. I assume he's writing it for NY Sun readers, most of whom have no idea what St. Peter's Church even looks like.

And to compare it unfavorably to 200 Chambers??? Excuse me, specifically which of its neighbors does that hulking thing NOT clash with? It looks like the worst of 1970s office architecture, and could not be more out of place in Tribeca.

The problem with architecture critics is that they play favorites, piling praise on to the cool guys they want to be their pals (e.g., Gehry, Koolhaus) while always slamming the corporate guys (e.g. Kondylis) who don't get invited to the hip coctail parties. The only reason the author can muster up any praise at all for 200 Chambers is because it derives from a Foster design.

[Fabrizio]

200 chambers is perfectly nice honest modern architecture and fine for that site:

http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200chambers06c5pd.jpg

Barclay is kitsch.

[lofter1]

In person 200 Chambers is harsh and cold from the outside. It hits the street like someting that dropped from the sky.

Plus the lower floors will be in the shadow of 101 Warren as it rises to the south.

[TREPYE]

standards and expect more as Kondylis' 200 Chambers Street demonstrates.


NYSUN:

Stacking Up Lower Manhattan

BY JAMES GARDNER
March 13, 2007


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.



None of these two towers do nothing for me. One is just tackyness that is magnified in the presence of greatness and the other one is just bland. 10 Barclay, as Gardner writes, did not take more than 10 minutes to conjure up (the same could be said for TWT), unless you are not that bright and intellect takes you some effort. 200 Chambers is definitely better but I dont think Klondys should be given that much credit as he got some of the design aspects from Foster.

[BPC]

200 chambers is perfectly nice honest modern architecture and fine for that site:

http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200chambers06c5pd.jpg

Barclay is kitsch.

That, of course, is the standard Modernist line. Any building that borrows even relatively minor design elements from the Beaux Arts buildings of seven decades ago is accused of peddling "kitsch" and "disney." Meanwhile, the Modernists have been recycling the exact same designs for five decades now, somehow without losing the title "Modern." Quite a con job.

[ablarc]

That, of course, is the standard Modernist line. Any building that borrows even relatively minor design elements from the Beaux Arts buildings of seven decades ago is accused of peddling "kitsch" and "disney." Meanwhile, the Modernists have been recycling the exact same designs for five decades now, somehow without losing the title "Modern." Quite a con job.
Quite a bit of truth to this.

[NoyokA]

What did he expect the Barclay Street building to look like, a 60-story version of the Roman Coliseum? I'm sorry, but I find this critique beyond idiotic. I assume he's writing it for NY Sun readers, most of whom have no idea what St. Peter's Church even looks like.

And to compare it unfavorably to 200 Chambers??? Excuse me, specifically which of its neighbors does that hulking thing NOT clash with? It looks like the worst of 1970s office architecture, and could not be more out of place in Tribeca.

The problem with architecture critics is that they play favorites, piling praise on to the cool guys they want to be their pals (e.g., Gehry, Koolhaus) while always slamming the corporate guys (e.g. Kondylis) who don't get invited to the hip coctail parties. The only reason the author can muster up any praise at all for 200 Chambers is because it derives from a Foster design.


All the author is saying is that no thought was put into 10 Barclay. 200 Chambers Street on the other hand transitions nicely from the office towers of the financial district and the residential towers of Battery Park City through the contrast of different materials, modulations, and thoughtful proportions.

[tone99loc]

From the building I work in downtown, the top does look very nice and it will be interesting to see how they light it up (as someone mentioned, the top does "look" as though it will be illuminated somehow). The rest of the building is nothing to write home about, but:

1) When Freedom Tower and the other WTC buildings + Goldman Sachs + Beekman are finished, this 600 (??) foot skyscraper won't get as much attention. It will be more peripheral and less like "the P.O.S. that's messing up the view of the Woolworth"

2) The immediate area is pretty drab as far as residential life goes...At the very least, the hundreds of new residents at 10 Barclay should at least inject some life into the area and improve the night life (especially on the weekends)...

3) It still looks better than a lot of other towers in a quarter mile radius...Including: the Western Electric Building (IMO, one of the ugliest buildings in the city), 22 Cortland, and some of the windowless switching buildings...The point is, most people won't look at 10 Barclay and say "That's one ugly buidling!" It's just unremarkable and could have been worse.

[Derek2k3]

200 Chambers is basically a watered down Foster design. All the other Kondylis buildings downtown are banal and if not for Foster this would've been too.

v Foster's design.

[NYguy]

APRIL 8, 2007

Still not complete...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76895664/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76895664/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76895666/large.jpg

[GreenwichBoy]

4/8/07

[Jeter]

Took a look at the inside of this building on Friday (July 27). They have a renter's office on the 34th floor, and the first tenants were moving in on Saturday (July 28).

The views are reminiscent of the views from 7 World Trade Center. There is still a lot of work to be done in this building... they said the common areas, gym, etc. would all be done by December, but I'd be surprised.

[Tectonic]

Is there a website for this building?

[Tectonic]

Is there a website for this building?

[stache]

Did you try google?

[GreenwichBoy]

http://www.glenwoodnyc.com/Streamline?p=viewPage.jsp&id=5&nid=4&bid=107

[Derek2k3]

Emporis obtained the real height - 673 feet. It's our third tallest residential tower, just beating out Trump Tower.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1210/1033627503_643b33328a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1033627503&size=o)
08/04/07
negs26 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/negs26/)


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1422/869205115_916029b333_b.jpg
m1mx (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10172395@N07/)


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1125/870056204_0671d3674f_b.jpg
m1mx (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10172395@N07/)

[NewYorkDoc]

What great shots! Thank you for posting them!

[Derek2k3]

Welcome

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1140/1051226172_82eed8b432_b.jpg
attilamag (http://www.flickr.com/photos/55353120@N00/)

[stache]

A shot even lofter might like!

[lofter1]

Wrong ^^^

I still detest this building :D and everything it stands for :mad:

[BPC]

I think it came out pretty good, although I do wish it were a few blocks farther away from Woolworth.

[scumonkey]

Wrong ^^^

I still detest this building :D and everything it stands for :mad:
I'm with Lofter1.......YUK!
Glenwood = Visual Ghetto box
A better world.......
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/scumonkey/Untitled-1-1.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/scumonkey/1.jpg

[infoshare]

This is a good design; and from what I have seen at the site - well constructed.

But, in the final analysis, - and viewed along with it's neighboring buildings - a non-contextual approach (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=51854&postcount=90) to the architectural design of this new building would be preferable.

[sfenn1117]

673 feet? I knew it had to be around there. What a shameful looking tower for being the 3rd tallest residential in NY.

Makes you wonder about the height of all Kondylis buildings. I saw on SSP today that the Atelier is actually 521 feet.

[DarrylStrawberry]

I took a tour of the building last week. The high-floor(40+), large one-bedroom apartments are spendy...going for $4800-$7200 (depending on floor, #bathrooms and sq ft) per month. Garage is an extra $650. The interior fit and finish of the apartments looks nice (at least in the demonstration apartments), granite in the kitchens, decent fixtures, w/d, high ceilings and windows everywhere. The lobby is tacky.

The views from the high floors are obviously great...especially of the woolworth building which looks like you could reach out and touch it from the apartments on the east side of the building. (this probably only makes you wish with greater fervor that 6-12 was never built in the first place so that the view of woolworth for the rest of us wasn't obstructed). (BTW, WNY should recruit a resident of 6-12 to take pics of WTC construction as it happens...)

The upper floors are still being built out and the building managers think construction will end by January.

[BrooklynRider]

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/TranportationBldg-10Barclay-Woolwor.jpg

[Kris]

The crown is supposed to be compensation for the tower’s crude and banal mass blocking views of the Woolworth, and it’s unbearably tacky.

[RandySavage]

Thankfully, in a few years, with the coming of WTC 1 and WTC 2, Barclay won't be much more than an afterthought from that view.

[TREPYE]

It will be very distressing seeing 2 terrible crowns next to each other. I am not looking forward to my reaction to Barclay's crappy crown with that criminally banal crown of WTC1.

Hopefully Gehry come through and gives us a great compliment to the Woolworth, WTC2, WTC3.

[BrooklynRider]

Gehry's tower should block these three from center span of the Brooklyn Bridge.

[Derek2k3]

I've gotten so use to seeing this thing, I don't mind it anymore.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2365/1528423660_948bcae8bd_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/1528423678_9ce9f07202_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2108/1528423738_404bc7a4f5_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2031/1528423760_e39bdad5e9_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2207/1528436092_3104aa742e_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/1528423806_5913a3a669_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2144/1528423724_892110e804_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2396/1528436066_7edb00fd47_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2195/1528436076_113fb9a23e_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/1528436048_730a11a5b1_o.jpg

[lofter1]

It is such a dead building ... inert ... without any energy at all.

Truly a horrid pile of stuff.

[BrooklynRider]

Riffing off an old comment about the Twin Towers....

The best thing about living there would be not seeing it when you look out your window.

[Harvick2933]

673ft huh, well no surprise considering that it looks much taller than its previous advertised height of 590ft or so. That'll actually make it NYC's 2nd, not 3rd, tallest residential tower since the Metropolitan Tower (or whatever building that's implied as 2nd tallest) has offices on its lower floors, as does the Trump Tower.

What annoys me the most about this building is the 2-story tall blank wall beneath its crown that presumably houses the mechanical floors. It totally ruined what could've been at least a decent top and instead makes it look top-heavy.

Personally, I feel that midblock plot is simply not meant to support any tall, bulky-looking building. Any kind of building of that description only screws up the existing architectural harmonics of the area.

[TREPYE]

What annoys me the most about this building is the 2-story tall blank wall beneath its crown that presumably houses the mechanical floors. It totally ruined what could've been at least a decent top and instead makes it look top-heavy.


Yeah man, something more elaborate should have been done. Klondy sreally suxs.

[krulltime]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/1528423678_9ce9f07202_o.jpg

When I first saw the rendering I was so scared that it will look too horrible, but it actually turn out to look so much better. Pheww...

http://www.pbase.com/image/77812530.jpg

[Alonzo-ny]

The massing just plain sucks.

[Optimus Prime]

This building reminds me of a Lego man. Or maybe a robot.

[RandySavage]

Yes. It's always reminded me of Go-bots, the less-cool precursor to transformers that I used to play with.

http://jeannero.free.fr/dessins-animes/LesGobots.jpg

[kz1000ps]

This building reminds me of a Lego man. Or maybe a robot.

I said the exact same thing a while back. I even gave it a name - Zoltar!!

Eventually he'll sprout some arms and a robotic grimace, and then he'll shoot off to the moon for some intergalactic battles with alien creatures named Quargon and Spootneek 25 :D

[krulltime]

Or maybe a robot.

Ofcourse it does Optimus Prime. ;)

http://images.wikia.com/transformers/images/thumb/3/37/Optimusg1.jpg/300px-Optimusg1.jpg

[LeCom]

Gobots were the shit. Too bad they get nowhere near the love they deserve since they are overshadowed by the obviously superior Transformers.

[BrooklynRider]

I post this purely for Lofter's enjoyment.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/BrooklynRiderRob/EighthAve24thStreet200709160540.jpg

[antinimby]

For all you arm-chair architects out there. If you could make some changes to this tower, what would you do to make it more attractive (and no lofter, making it disappear is not an option)?

[BrooklynRider]

Install the worlds largest burka?

[sfenn1117]

^lol

I just hate the relentless bay windows and the half-assed crown. Setbacks echoing the Transportation building would look much better as well.

[scumonkey]

Have the Klingons install a cloaking device in the building and NEVER turn it off!

[lofter1]

YES ^^^

(everything else would be futile)

[macreator]

I hate the look of the setback 3 floors from the crown. It looks so tacky and unnatural. Fixing that would help things a lot, but it would still not make this thing a looker.

[Alonzo-ny]

get rid of the bay windows, fix the facade, use better materials, redesign the crown, change the massing so it doesnt look like a horrible robot.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Put a building in front of it.

Thank you Mr Stern.

*That's a nice photo, BR.

[Tectonic]

LOL You guys are mean, I don't really mind the building. Its another Costas, so I'm like BLAH, generally ignore it or forget its there. Till I come on here, lol.

[lofter1]

You ^^^ must not get downtown much, eh?

If you're near the WTC site it's nearly impossible to ignore:mad:

[NYguy]

NOVEMBER 25, 2007

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508692/medium.jpg__http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508695/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508692/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508695/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508698/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508702/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/89508705/large.jpg

[lofter1]

Seven times http://wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif for each photo shown :mad:

(Wherein it blocks the Woolworth to some degree in each and every one)

[STREETLOVER]

I know it blocks Woolworth, Lofter, but the WTC will block both, for the most part. I think it will really become part of the background. OTOH, I am not as dissatisfied with this structure as others. It seems a bit more muscular to me with its massing than so many of the squat rectangles that go up. Also, its slenderness appeals to me. I hope it's not heresy to say this, but as much as I love the Transportation Building, its detail is scant and, from a distance at least, does not pose a depressing contrast to the Barclay Building.

My 2 cents from Hawaii. Actually, we have some decent architecture over in Honolulu (I live on the Big Island) that fuses classical forms with asian motifs. I will post pics sometime.

[lofter1]

I'm sure it looks just fine from Hawaii :rolleyes:

Feel free to move the POS to Waikiki and see if you still like it :cool:

[scumonkey]

When you move it, maybe you could sink it off the island and, use it as a new reef for marine life?!

[Optimus Prime]

This building needs Jenny Craig. It's a fat blob.

This is a perfect illustration of why FAR zoning sucks. Clearly someone thought to themselves, "this building can't be too tall, we'll get killed for making it taller than Woolworth, plus we don't want to compete with the WTC buildings." But in this city when the developers don't build tall, they build fat. Especially when the site has no depth, like this one. Gotta make those profits. And the city lets them do it. Gotta make those tax revenues.

[GreenwichBoy]

The crown/roof is lit up tonight, not bad....

[BrooklynLove]

The crown/roof is lit up tonight, not bad....

tis indeed - nice addition to the nightscape. excellent catch.

[DarrylStrawberry]

it's lit green tonight.

[STREETLOVER]

Gosh, I just love this building; I hope they build lots more just like them!

[scumonkey]

;)

[Derek2k3]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2670734545_b54ed1873d_o.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/2670734555_c3e4017d9f_o.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/2670734563_2d81b3bccb_o.jpg
At street level the building is actually attractive.

[stache]

Yes, very nice formal scale, but don't tell lofter! ;)

[lofter1]

I hate to say it but street level of this one is quite detailed and, despite the tons of pre-cast material used here, it looks quite elegant -- if you go for the "don't you dare cross this line" type of space.

But just to get even: Everything above the aracde looks like anyplace USA and this one remains the worst view killer built in the last 10 years.

[BrooklynLove]

My problem with the building is its form - very Frankensteinish. I'm curious to see how it blends into the skyline once Beekman Tower, 99 Church and the various WTC and Washington Street buildings go up around it.

[Tectonic]

For you lofter:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3355748281_1881179b53_b.jpg

[Alonzo-ny]

I feel like someone just poked me in the eye.

[philvia]

i've always liked it, deal with it! :D

[BrooklynLove]

I think that it will look a lot nicer contextually once 99 Church is up across the street.

[scumonkey]

no accounting for taste

[tone99loc]

The massing sucks, but I've always been a fan of the very top part:)

[londonlawyer]

I hate to say it but street level of this one is quite detailed and, despite the tons of pre-cast material used here, it looks quite elegant -- if you go for the "don't you dare cross this line" type of space.

But just to get even: Everything above the aracde looks like anyplace USA and this one remains the worst view killer built in the last 10 years.

I agree.

Everyone knocks this building, but I think it's undeserved. Regardless of its location near the Woolworth, it's a rental tower on a former parking lot in an area that was rather forlorn when it was conceived. Nonetheless, it has a nicer design that Zuckerman's 250 W 55th or the disaster Macklowe planned for The Drake or the POC across from the Empire State building (with the bluish glass) or Leyva's 8th Ave. tower.

Moreover, as you note, the street level is quite nice.

[asg]

Blending into the skyline viewed from 60th floor of One Chase Manhattan Plaza:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v651/asg9000/CIMG3825.jpg

[CitiesfromSpace]

You know...the longer I look at it, the more I like that quirky deco revival crown...

[stache]

Doesn't quite make up for the blank space right below it.

[BrooklynLove]

That is not a flattering shot - building looks horrible.

[avngingandbright]

The base and entryway is very, very nice. Very high quality, and blends seamlessly with the street.

[scumonkey]

But the top looks like a radiator cover from the Wizard of OZ :cool:

[BPC]

I'm sorry it blocked Lofter's view of the Woolworth. It blocked the view from southern BPC too. But the building is actually pretty good, as far as these things go.

[Travis]

Does anyone have any shots of the lobby/streetscape of this?

[GreenwichBoy]

Blah

[ablarc]

^ Actually, it's pretty good. If this were the standard for New York apartment buidings --which should be background buildings with a small dollop of [deco] styling-- the city would look much less disorderly.

[lofter1]

That hat is terrible.

And look what is trying (in vain) to peek out over the top. The Wooly has lost its view of the Hudson due to this broad shouldered block head.

[Dan Kohn]

And look what is trying (in vain) to peek out over the top. The Wooly has lost its view of the Hudson due to this broad shouldered block head.
True, but if you really wanted to implement a zoning policy that historic buildings had to keep their unobstructed sightlines, you stultify a city's architecture. cf Philadelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Billy_Penn). Besides, both projects will be lorded over by the Four Seasons at 99 Church (http://curbed.com/archives/2008/10/29/hotel_armageddon_huge_projects_in_holding_patterns .php), if it ever gets the funding to move past foundations.

I came close to renting an apartment on the 51st floor of the Tower, which had the most spectacular views of the city I've ever seen. You look directly down at Ground Zero. You can see architectural details of the top of the Woolworth Building that are invisible from the ground. You have an untrammeled view of Tribeca (until 99 Church is built). You can even see the Brooklyn Bridge.

It was quite an apartment. Unfortunately, the location at the border of FiDi and Tribeca is not that great for kids. It's next to City Hall Park, but several blocks from Washington Market Park. Once you get used to the amenities in North Battery Park City, it'd hard to give them up.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
A sightlines rule is unreasonable. But where an iconic landmark exists in a non-landmark area (as is the case here), there should be an architectural standard for new construction that shares the same view.

If 10 Barclay were two blocks away, it might not make a difference, but it's right across the street.

[lofter1]

Exactly. A blanket rule covering everything wouldn't work. But in the case of a few special buildings & areas such zoning regulations would be ideal.

On the other hand, implementing that would probably be a bureaucratic nightmare.

But imagine the positive impact if they had done so opposite Lincoln Center (to maintain a low-rise view corridor east towards Central Park as originally planned).

Coulda, woulda ...

It seems that Wooly is soon to be viewed only from the streets of downtown Manhattan, closed off from harbor, Brooklyn & Jersey views by newcomer towers.

[ablarc]

That hat is terrible.
At least it has a hat. Fashions in millinery come and go.

[stache]

But imagine the positive impact if they had done so opposite Lincoln Center (to maintain a low-rise view corridor east towards Central Park as originally planned).



Actually the original plan was to have parkland all the way to CPW, extending Central Park. Ethical Culture and the Y refused. :mad:

[lofter1]

They proposed to tear down those two great buildings to create open space?

[Derek2k3]

Luckily that didn't happen happen. The buildings of Lincoln Center don't deserve it.


That hat is terrible.

And look what is trying (in vain) to peek out over the top. The Wooly has lost its view of the Hudson due to this broad shouldered block head.

Only to the southwest and that view was going to be blocked anyway. 30 Parc Place will kill most of its view to the Hudson.

[lofter1]

Only to the southwest and that view was going to be blocked anyway.

Blocked by what to the SW?

Oh, you must mean that proposal for the 2 WTC site ...

But that one won't go up for YEARS, maybe decades.

And meanwhile we're stuck with having to look at the ever-boring 10 Barclay instead of the grand old Mr. WW.

[DKNY617]

If you wanna look at Woolworth, go outside for a walk and walk to it. :D;)

[lofter1]

Truth be told, all I have to do is stick my head out my window, crane my neck and there he is :D

And he greets me from afar every time I walk out my front door.

[Gulcrapek]

5/30/10
http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy207/ssa091011/DowntownManhattan5-30-10/May10374.jpg?t=1275366571

To be blocked by 99 Church.

[lofter1]

That blockage ^ can't happen soon enough :cool:

[Derek2k3]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/5078313116_d07dfdd9a5_b.jpg

[londonlawyer]

I don't mind this building. There are A LOT of new ones next to landmarks that are far worse than this. Consider the utterly ridiculous blue glass POS across from the Empire State Building.

[lofter1]

It will be much better when Stern's great limestone tower rises across the street -- and blocks it out of sight. Ditto for 2 WTC.

[macreator]

Thank god for the crown. It isn't by any measure great...not even good...but it prevents this from being a total boring hulk.

[londonlawyer]

I think that this is better than BP's box on W55th or Leyva's idiotic tower with a 600 foot blank wall on 8th Ave -- granted, that's not saying much!

[lofter1]

Bad is bad, no matter where it is.

[londonlawyer]

I agree. But 600 feet of blank, concrete wall is f..king HORRIBLE. 10 Barclay is like the Taj Mahal compared to Leyva's POS.

http://www.emporis.com/images/5/2009/05/706847.jpg

[lofter1]

On this site back in 1951:

12001

[stache]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benziger_Brothers

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming... :p

[lofter1]

Notice that Benziger's also offered vestments ... as seen displayed in the window at left.

Nice moderne building.

[stache]

They must have altered it. I don't remember it.

[lofter1]

I don't remember how it looked in its last days, but DOB shows a demo permit (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=2&passjobnumber=103062604&passdocnumber=01) for the existing 5-story building that was signed off in 2004.

Here's a WNY photo (http://wirednewyork.com/real_estate/10barclay/) of the site from just after demo:

http://wirednewyork.com/images/real_estate/10barclay/10barclay_2oct04.jpg

[stache]

I thought that building was on the 8th. Ave site. :o :o :o Now I see it was wider.

[Derek2k3]

Looking at that photo above, I was wondering how many years has the Woolworth Building had scaffolding around it in it's 99-year history. Damn terra-cotta.

Anyway the sleek side of Barclay Tower, where you don't see it's broad awkward shoulders that resemble a 1980's shoulder padded dress

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7199/6990208326_ee294449ca_b.jpg


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8145/6990208308_2433b30d5b_b.jpg

[TREPYE]

This tower is a bad attempt at quality. They obviously did not want to go cookie cutter, but the end product still suxs. The architect simply did not have the talent to pull it off.

[scumonkey]

They obviously did not want to go cookie cutter...
Sorry but cookie cutter seams to be all they can do...all their new buildings look almost exactly alike, with the only difference being in height.
take a look at emerald green on 37th, also on 38th, and their new pile going up on 39th- all from the same cutter;)

[Tectonic]

That's true, this is just a stretched version.

[londonlawyer]

My old office overlooked this tower. I liked it. Obviously, it's not One57, but in a city filled with cheap boxes that have blank, concrete sides that rise 50 stories, it's not bad. In fact, if. Glen wood uses this design for its site on 8th Ave., it will be among the best new towers on 8th.

[DUMBRo]

This tower belongs on Chicago's Gold Coast, not among the likes of the Woolworth. It's dull, banal patterned fenestration and almost fraudulent top that faintly echoes Art Deco crowns without actually bothering to attempt a vernacular is just deadening. It's as soul-killing as the flat side of 8 Spruce St.

[lofter1]

Stop Talking About the CAKE!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVApt_45Hiw