An Iconic Skyscraper

[ablarc]

AN ICONIC AND BEAUTIFUL SKYSCRAPER

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/01.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/02.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/03.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/04.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/05.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/06.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/07.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/08.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/09.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/hancock/10.jpg

In view of how many skyscrapers we build annually in New York, why do we so rarely rise to this level?

[pianoman11686]

Part of the reason that building is so iconic is its isolated, and nicely-backdropped, location. The building itself isn't very memorable on its own; it would probably go unnoticed in most locations in Midtown (although it might have done well in place of the PanAm building). It's a solid, clean design, and the glass is nice. And because of that, it's timeless. The closest NY version is probably this:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~julieneg/photos/UN/un_building.jpg

Incidentally, one of the postcards I brought back with me from Boston depicts the very same image in your 3rd picture. Definitely one of the nicer skyline shots of an American city.

A little off-topic, but: This tower had a tough approval process due to Back Bay NIMBY's, right?

[Stern]

In view of how many skyscrapers we build annually in New York, why do we so rarely rise to this level?

Answer: Setting.

Put the same building on Sixth Avenue and you no longer have an iconic building and you no longer have a particularly beautiful building either. You simply have another face in the crowd.

[Jasonik]

The best thing about the Hancock is that its cleavage reflects (http://www.pbase.com/flyinggina/image/30146401) the sunset.
I'll try to find a better picture - its especially good from the skinny side view (from MIT).

[pianoman11686]

Now I know where this building could have gone, and done much better than what currently sits there:

http://static.flickr.com/33/53540569_ece804fc98_o.jpg

Recladding, anyone?

[Bob]

Yeah. How about recladding Random House...the most anonymous new building in NYC?

[Fabrizio]

The Hancocks form and setting are spectacular...it is a beauty.... but can a mirrored reflective glass building ever reach the upper echelon of architectural beauty? Or is it just an easy and pleasing "effect"? (clobber me, but....I always seem to find highly reflective, mirrored glass a little crass...)

[lofter1]

Ahhh, Fabrizio !!!

Good to "see" you -- Welcome back :cool:

[ablarc]

Benvenuto Fabrizio.

The beauty of Hancock goes far beyond skin deep. As you and others point out, it's also the relationship to setting: Trinity Church, Copley Square, the Back Bay, the River Charles. To each of these it addresses itself clearly and comprehensibly, so you know what it's doing and it makes sense.

It's also Jasonik's notch. Brilliant.

So since every building has a setting --even in New York-- let me rephrase my initial question that was so glibly answered with "setting, setting, setting", and ask: why do so few New York skyscrapers respond brilliantly to their setting?

Put the same building on Sixth Avenue and you no longer have an iconic building and you no longer have a particularly beautiful building either. You simply have another face in the crowd.
That's right, and you're assuming that the Hancock's brilliant architect is such a dolt that he would put the Hancock on Sixth Avenue.

Pianoman led off with the same error of underestimation:

The building itself isn't very memorable on its own; it would probably go unnoticed in most locations in Midtown
The first sentence ignores that in most views it is on its own, and the second assumes, like Stern, that the architect is unsophisticated.

There is in fact no location in Midtown except Columbus Circle where this building would work. Pei, Cobb are not Kondylis; they don't recycle designs from setting to setting. So my question can be restated once again: Why is there in New York so much of what Kondylis delivers and so little genuinely contextual architecture?

[pianoman11686]

Talk about asking a loaded question.^

First off, let me acknowledge that this building is iconic because of how well it relates to its setting. I could hardly imagine a different building in its place; to me, it looks like it "belongs." Placing it on 6th Avenue, on bland corporate row, would not work, and it shouldn't. That area has its own style, and this building would not flourish there like it does in Back Bay. Furthermore, I'm sure it wasn't blind luck that led to this particular design resulting in a building in this location; any good architect looks at his/her surroundings to judge how contextual the building should be, and what kind of effect it would have on the skyline.

That being said, there is still a fundamental problem within New York, and especially Midtown, as far as setting is concerned. I brought up the UN, PanAm, and One Penn Plaza as a few examples of very prominent skyscrapers, where John Hancock might have done well. I happen to disagree with Columbus Circle as a good location for it, owing simply to what would have been a sharp contrast between circular geometry at street level, versus the sharp-edged parallelogram form of the building rising up from it. In its place, I would consider the GM Building's location as a possibility, although I happen to like what is currently there.

So we come back to the original question: why are there so few contextual buildings in New York? This is a tough one, because it makes New York sound like it lags in this category behind many other cities, when in fact, I don't think it does. There's a mix of good and bad; 15 CPW is an example of the former, 325 Fifth of the latter. I like to think that two new buildings on either corner of Bryant Park accompish, for that neighborhood, what John Hancock does for its own; obviously, One Bryant Park will have the bigger impact of the two.

Do you ever read descriptions of buildings on architects' websites? They seem to always talk about how their designs relate well to the surroundings. There's always talk about the materials used; sometimes the reason behind a setback or two is elaborated. Is it mostly bull? Or do they just not see it the way we do? I don't know, but I also don't think that we can discard the efforts of good architects because of poor performers like Costas. One category of buildings that seems to have good contextual designs quite often is the sliver building. Here, the issue is almost always forced. But how do you uphold these standards on a nondescript Midtown block, already overwhelmed by monolothic structures? Maybe the physical constrictions don't allow for true context, like that of the Hancock in Boston, to exist. Or maybe, the context is just that - tall, glass, uninspiring, invisible to the outside world.

Whatever your response is, I'd still be curious to learn what you consider to be examples of good and bad in New York. Concerning Pei Cobb Freed: Do you think of either the Javits Center or the new Goldman Sachs Tower as good examples of contextual architecture?

One final note: I'm aware of at least three cases where architects have reused a design in different locations. The most famous one I can think of is John Portman's Renaissance Center in Detroit, whose main cylindrical tower was nearly an exact copy of his Peachtree Plaza in Atlanta. Then there are two in New York that I'm aware of: Bunshaft's Grace Building and 9 West 57th, as well as SOM's Park Avenue Plaza and Tower 49. Are any of these towers examples of good contextual architecture?

[ablarc]

I happen to disagree with Columbus Circle as a good location for it, owing simply to what would have been a sharp contrast between circular geometry at street level, versus the sharp-edged parallelogram form of the building rising up from it.
Well, with a curved base, of course. ;)

In its place, I would consider the GM Building's location as a possibility...
OK, that's even better.

So we come back to the original question: why are there so few contextual buildings in New York?
Maybe it's the grid. Tempts lazy architects to think there is no context. And the NIMBYs; they moronically think it's all a question of height. Or sometimes...style.


This is a tough one, because it makes New York sound like it lags in this category behind many other cities, when in fact, I don't think it does.
Well, it doesn't lag behind Houston.

There's a mix of good and bad; 15 CPW is an example of the former, 325 Fifth of the latter.
Precisely.

Do you ever read descriptions of buildings on architects' websites? They seem to always talk about how their designs relate well to the surroundings. There's always talk about the materials used; sometimes the reason behind a setback or two is elaborated. Is it mostly bull? Or do they just not see it the way we do?
Do we see it differently? How?

[pianoman11686]

I don't know if we see it differently. I was trying to find out what your view is. If all of these architects are designing noncontextual buildings that they claim are contextual for one reason or another, is it mostly empty language or do they just not see what we see? In other words, has their perspective become some clouded by focusing on the details that (should) make a building contextual, that they forget to look at it as a whole?

[ablarc]

If all of these architects are designing noncontextual buildings that they claim are contextual for one reason or another, is it mostly empty language or do they just not see what we see?
The best ones see what we see; that's both cause and effect of their excellence. Most architects are filled with bullshit by their educations. And worse than that, they're inculcated with a vast tolerance for nonsense --a consequence of their great familiarity with it. The more half-truths and undigested gobbledygook you hear, the more you assume that what you can't understand is actually deep. Then after a while you start doing it yourself. That's why a lot of architects don't really make sense when they talk --or when they design, for that matter. They've been taught to look at a cigar and see...anything but a cigar.

Try listening to Peter Eisenman's sometime. Then read Sullivan's Kindergarten Chats to see that the nonsense has been around for a while. And Le Corbusier...

As a consequence of a job I once had, I got to meet a lot of the best ones. Most of them made superb sense. In descending order: Leon Krier, Frank Gehry, Michael Graves, Robert Stern... The ones who didn't: Gwathmey, Eisenman (too clever by a half).

[pianoman11686]

^Makes sense. It seems there's a delicate balance to maintain between "practice" and "theory." The way I see it, theory should be used (in moderation) to advance practice, not the other way around.

But getting back to some of the questions I posed earlier: I'd still like to hear (see) some examples of what you consider good and bad contextual architecture in New York, especially anything done by Pei Cobb Freed. And, what is the context of your average Midtown block?

[ablarc]

And, what is the context of your average Midtown block?
No such thing.

The best ones IMO are the blocks of brownstones in the West 70's and on the East Side and Greenwich Village on the grid south of 14th Street, and the stretch that everyone loves to hate: the tombstones on Sixth Avenue. I also love Helmsley and MetLife together, Grand Central from the south, the view east on 44th to MetLife's narrow side, the infinite view up Park Avenue from that building's lobby, the UN closing 43rd Street's vista, and the string of disruptions occasioned by Broadway, each an event: Columbus Circle, Times Square, Herald, Madison and Union Squares, and even Astor Place.

Another gem: St. Bartholomew's Church and its skyscraper tower. Most contextual buildings: Guggenheim, St. Patrick's, the Metropolitan, Lever House and the Seagram Building for knowing how to disrupt their surroundings, though in the case of the last two the impact is now gone, since the surroundings have come to imitate the disruptors.

Lincoln Center is profoundly contextual, and the stupid wedge-shaped building opposite is just the opposite. Rockefeller Center is intimately contextual, Grand Army Plaza was a totality produced by cooperation of Frenchified buildings; when the Savoy-Plaza departed, it all fell apart.

[pianoman11686]

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about: 310 E 53rd Street (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=109974&postcount=121)

If you visit the building's website (www.threetencondo.com), the first words on the home screen are: Thoughtfully Planned. Superbly Executed.

They have a special section on the design of the horrible non-contextual base, and even a collection of sketches that depict inspirations for its design. Clearly, there was some consideration of context, but how could they have been so hopelessly far off? Is it even possible that they thought it was a good fit for the surrounding streetscape? This is what I mean when I ask, "Do they see it the way we do?" That kind of failure is just inexcusable.

Anyway, thanks for that clarification on context. I agree with all your selections, although I tend to view them more as context-generators than anything else. Maybe it's because I haven't been around for too long. :) I will try to snap some photos this week of some examples of contextual/noncontextual in Midtown. And while I do agree that you can't really come up with an "average block," there is a certain quality to a street in Midtown that isn't matched on the upper West Side or even the financial district.

[Ninjahedge]

Piano, I just walked by that the other day and I could not believe the base on that thing!

It looked like a 1970 minimalist school building. No finesse, and no lines for drainage or anything else.

ADD to it that it is out of place with all the brownstones in the area make that one a serious no-no!!!!!

[lofter1]

310 E 53rd Street (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=109974&postcount=121)

If you visit the building's website (http://www.threetencondo.com), the first words on the home screen are: Thoughtfully Planned. Superbly Executed.

They have a special section on the design of the horrible non-contextual base, and even a collection of sketches that depict inspirations for its design.


And photos of modern minimalist buildings that seemingly they used as "inspiration" for the base.

Clearly they jumped from "inspiration" to "uninspired" in about 3 seconds. All the "inspiration" images are low rise buildings -- they took a window insert from one, a recessed entry portal from another, pasted them onto a box covered in limestone and (thoughtfully??) announced "Presto / Change-o" ...

What do we get?? Pure CRAP.

[ablarc]

And photos of modern minimalist buildings that seemingly they used as "inspiration" for the base...

Clearly they jumped from "inspiration" to "uninspired" in about 3 seconds...
Exactly.

What do we get?? Pure CRAP.
Pure as it comes.

[cymurai]

elo peeps :D