You're in a generous mood, my friend. I predict the trellises will look goofey, but I might like them if they actually had some climbing roses or wisteria on them to soften things up a bit. This is near a park, after all. The whole thing is so severe.
The base just doesn't seem right either.
Is the base as solid and closed-off as it appears to me?
It seems to be a faceless bunker ...
I know, I know.... I've lost all credibilty around here by defending Donald Trump.....but I'm just trying to call it as I see it.
The entrance side of the base looks fine... the other side (right side) looks bad....but not bad bad.
Remember that buildings on the Park don't have retail, and often have long stretches of blank wall and gated windows. ( CPW, 5th, but also strictly residential boulevards like WEA, Riverside, Park Ave etc.)
Obviously the limestone, ornamentation and windows of the older buildings give relief, but the walls of these buildings are usually closed without retail. The buildings on 5th often have set-backs of a few feet with greenery...perhaps that should be called for here.
---
The trellises would be great as a support for vines and such, but they also work, to my eye, as a sort of cornice... I find it neat and attractive. And we've seen this look somewhere before:
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=230990
(How close am I to being kicked off the forum?)
---
Another view from the building's website, showing the other side of the base. It doesn't look too good.
uh...ew....
cancel everything i posted above.
Holy smokes, what is going on with that base? That's must be 5 stories of blank wall! Why?!?
If I am not wrong this building is supposed to have a church. If you look at the rendering, it seems to have a cross? Or am I wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by macreator
Oh my, base is worse than I imagined:eek:
To me, the cornice effect suggested on the roof of the Carnegie Hall tower is so different ...in that case I like it very much. This doesn't reach that level of sophistication, I don't think.
I think as long as homeless don't become a nuisance around the building, the church will be fine. Having both the church and the tower share the same base may actually decrease the chance of that happening if this is a doorman building. I'd take an ugly base over a shanty town on my doorstep.
I also would argue that its quite wrong to say a church is "unsophisticated" - as a secular person I'd rather have a Trader Joes but people have a right to worship and Harlem is fairly religious. If you're talking about unsophisticated architecture, that's fine - we can kvetch about that if desired.
Who said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by investordude
Yes, a church is supposed to take up the bottom 4 stories. That probably has everything to do with the blank wall. I assume the narrow blank wall facing us in the rendering I posted will be the front of the church. I couldn't imagine them having a glass wall right behind the altar, and stained glass windows were probably out of the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by macreator
citytect, probably no one. I'm just saying I don't think having a church is unsophisticated - as there is some ambiguity in critiques. But I also mentioned in my post if we just think the architecture is unsophisticated, kvetch away. Sounds like we're talking about architecture.
Why do you falsely suggest that those are the only 2 options? Very misleading, repeatedly characterizing these things as a choice between two extremes.Quote:
I'd take an ugly base over a shanty town on my doorstep.
And it was pretty clear that I was talking about the trellis/"cornice" features
when I used "unsophisticated". In fact, in dialog with a preceeding post by Fabrizio. Where, sir, is the ambiguity?
By the way, that's the ugliest freakin' church I've ever seen.
And then, here comes pianoman with his questionable statements about how a church should be designed. In defense of solid walls, suggesting that "stained-glass" was probably out of the question, as if Westminster Abbey-style windows are the only alternative to looming brick walls. Can you really think of no other possibilities?:rolleyes:
Oh, give it a rest, MG. I was only thinking out loud, not trying to get on your bad side again.
Look, of course a beautiful base would be nice - but I still think this is a big step forward for Harlem and the ugly base is better than a pretty one next to crappy living. At some point, there are tradeoffs to be made to get things to happen - when the building fills up and people see big demand for Harlem, the next building will also have a pretty base in addition to luxury and height.