Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 257

Thread: Mercedes House - by TEN Arquitectos - Two Trees

  1. #61
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    I don't see any problem with the street level design. Can you give an example of the kind of design you'd like to see?

  2. #62

    Default

    The east side, and the west side, could have been broken
    up from the central section (visually - on street level)
    using a different type of widow, brick/glass pattern or treatment - anything-
    To help break up the visual monotonous bulk that will be the base of this building.
    The neighborhood has a lot of boxy brick warehouses
    tenements, older industrial buildings etc.-one after the other.
    When walking down any block you are greeted by quite a few
    buildings - all with different faces- like people.
    The base of this building is out of character-it takes up
    what looks to be more than 2/3rd's of the entire
    block. As you walk by it, you find (not one after the other, but) the same long face
    all the way around-no visual variety.
    Why work so hard to visually break up the top (that some find in an exciting way),
    only to plunk it down on a visual strip mall. (IMHO)

  3. #63
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    I don't think you've really thought about what you are asking for. Theoretically, what you've proposed: breaking up the ground level into what appears to be different facades that will give a false impression that they belong to different buildings will actually, in reality turn out to looking looney.

    I remember there was a discussion about this a long time ago here on WNY and someone posted a pic of a building in Washington D.C. that did exactly that and the consensus from everyone was that it was not a good idea. I'll post a link to that when I find it.

    Also, keep in mind that not every site has to be "in-character" with everything else in the area. Developments with large footprints tend to have that effect, e.g. NY Times, One Bryant Park, Time Warner Center, etc. It doesn't necessary mean it's bad. Some variety will not kill this neighborhood.

    Plus, this site used to be a large surface parking lot and a few other one-story warehouse buildings so it's not like they razed a bunch of small footprint buildings to amass this huge site. It was already like that.


  4. #64

    Default

    I would like to see a multitude of small stores and restaurants at the base too. However given the location its just not realistic. This area is a dead zone, there is no foot traffic, there is no transportation, aside from bodegas and car dealerships there is no other retail in the area. They wouldn't be able to rent them out and even if they did they would shortly go out of business. There's a big difference between 9th and 11th Avenues.

  5. #65

    Default

    I don't think you've really thought about what you are asking for.
    Oh yes I have.
    Theoretically, what you've proposed: breaking up the ground level into what appears to be different facades that will give a false impression that they belong to different buildings will actually, in reality turn out to looking looney.
    That's not what I proposed...
    I said "using a different type of widow, brick/glass pattern or treatment - anything-
    To help break up the visual monotonous bulk"
    no where did I say to make it appear to be different facades.
    As it is now- it will be one long row, all around the block, of big windows and beams,
    with no ornamentation, no small setbacks or indents at all.
    At least Glenwood ,while building the long monstrosity their putting up on my block (38th/37th), put in a small,
    off center to the mass, set back/indent, along the street level (and not in a gene Kaufman way),
    not making it look like different facades- but breaking up the long unending mass- it works quite well.
    I'm guessing this building looks nothing like the one you mention in DC, and it's own design lends itself to some sort
    of street variation quite nicely.
    Also, keep in mind that not every site has to be "in-character" with everything else in the area. Developments with large footprints tend to have that effect, e.g. NY Times, One Bryant Park, Time Warner Center, etc. It doesn't necessary mean it's bad. Some variety will not kill this neighborhood.
    I also never said "every site" has to be in character.
    But it would be nice if just one new building that goes up in Hells kitchen tried to be!
    Your examples of other buildings with large footprints- all very powerful large towers- something this is not.
    None of which consume so much of an entire block like this thing. All on quite
    different plots, much more suited for where they were built.
    All with far more interesting street fronts.
    I'm all for variety- just not the street level monotonous variety that
    this building represents.
    I don't think in this neighborhood, that any building should be allowed to have such a large footprint-
    unless it is a tall tower that would actually need it- something this is not.
    Plus, this site used to be a large surface parking lot and a few other one-story warehouse buildings so it's not like they razed a bunch of small footprint buildings to amass this huge site. It was already like that.
    Weather they needed to raze buildings or not is no excuse.
    There is no reason to allow one short building, to spread over such a large plot.
    (and even before the nimbys cut it's size down, it was still too short to warrant such a sprawling mass).

  6. #66
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scumonkey View Post
    Oh yes I have.
    That's not what I proposed...
    I said "using a different type of widow, brick/glass pattern or treatment - anything-
    To help break up the visual monotonous bulk"
    no where did I say to make it appear to be different facades.
    What do you think "different type of widow, brick/glass pattern or treatment" is if not facade?

    And if you did that, the place would just look like a chaotic mess, almost like a third-world bizarre.

    Obviously you didn't think it through.

    As it is now- it will be one long row, all around the block, of big windows and beams,
    with no ornamentation, no small setbacks or indents at all.
    I'm all for ornamentation but on modern buildings? Insane.

    At least Glenwood ,while building the long monstrosity their putting up on my block (38th/37th), put in a small,
    off center to the mass, set back/indent, along the street level (and not in a gene Kaufman way),
    Umm...there's a big difference between that building and this one: the base on the former is about 10 stories high. It needs that break up. This one already has the sort of break up in the non-tower portion. Putting in a indent/bay isn't going to make much of a difference.

    I also never said "every site" has to be in character.
    But it would be nice if just one new building that goes up in Hells kitchen tried to be!
    Well then you have a gripe with new buildings in HK, don't pick on this one.

    Your examples of other buildings with large footprints- all very powerful large towers- something this is not.
    Umm...just case you were born yesterday, they don't allow large powerful towers here. 32 stories was already way too tall for folks here.

    None of which consume so much of an entire block like this thing.
    Are you serious? The Times tower takes up nearly as much of the block as this one. Same with OBP. The footprint of TWC is almost twice the size of this proposal.

    All on quite different plots, much more suited for where they were built.
    Only after they were built. Before each were built, the same can be said for each of them. You've got to understand that each new building brings with it their own character and the area then changes along with it just like even this area feel will change when this building is built.

    I don't think in this neighborhood, that any building should be allowed to have such a large footprint-
    unless it is a tall tower that would actually need it- something this is not.
    Weather they needed to raze buildings or not is no excuse.
    There is no reason to allow one short building, to spread over such a large plot.
    (and even before the nimbys cut it's size down, it was still too short to warrant such a sprawling mass).
    You obviously don't know much about FAR's. You can't build the type of building you want because if you decrease the size of the footprint, the height decreases proportionately. In other words, they won't get slender, they just get squatter. That's what happens when they downzone.

  7. #67
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    In regards to FAR: If you decrease the footprint the building can go taller, not squatter.

  8. #68
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    What are you smoking?

  9. #69

    Default

    Any chance of having this in the architecture forum? Its an interesting building architecturally. I keep missing discussion and updates.

  10. #70

    Default

    What are you smoking?
    Something much less mind altering than what your drinking?!
    What do you think "different type of widow, brick/glass pattern or treatment" is if not facade?
    It is facade...but being "a" facade is not not what I was responding to, but rather your:
    breaking up the ground level into what appears to be different facades that will give a false impression that they belong to different buildings
    I never said I wanted it to look like different buildings...
    I just wanted a little more variety in the overall window brick pattern/treatment along the long street wall,
    and the central section could have been built one floor higher, and set back ever so slightly,
    achieving something of what I'm talking about- without looking like
    a chaotic mess, almost like a third-world bizarre.
    Obviously you didn't think it through.
    Being a designer with some architectural background, I have obviously thought it through.
    That is the second time you presume to know what my thought process are....
    Either you a: just don't get what I'm talking about
    b: refuse to believe that a buildings base, can be designed in a pleasing none repetitive way,
    using like materials, and maintaining a level of continuity.
    c: Or- just like to argue over whose opinion smells better?
    I'm all for ornamentation but on modern buildings? Insane.
    I didn't say I wanted Rococo flourishes!
    And I guess (by your wisdom), the architect for this modern building was insane for
    his use of ornamentation ?!

    Well then you have a gripe with new buildings in HK, don't pick on this one.
    Last I heard this was a free country- I can "pick on" this Miami waterfall all I want.
    Umm...just case you were born yesterday, they don't allow large powerful towers here. 32 stories was already way too tall for folks here.
    Again-I never said I wanted a mega sized tower there (but I wouldn't try and block one)
    I wasn't born yesterday -I've also lived in HK for the past 25 years, and know just what they allow- that's my point-
    of all the architecture you used for your examples of buildings with large foot prints,
    none of it would EVER have been allowed to be built here-The block is not as big as in your examples,
    and the area is much more residential than any of your examples- so...
    why should one squat building, with a zigzagging, Vegas looking
    gimmick, be allowed to be built here, with a foot print the size of a giant tower?
    As for the rest of your comments-
    Again you seem to think you know what i do, or do not know... (if you lose your job in this recession,
    at least we know you have a second marketable skill to fall back on!
    What has my knowledge of FAR got to do with anything?
    I never stated what type/height/size of a building that I would want...or even if I would want a building put there.
    I simply stated what I'd rather see (one can want many things- that doesn't mean one can have them- or think one can), there.
    I would
    much rather see two tall, slender towers here than
    this hulking sludge.
    If I had it my way I'd actually rather see several large, loft like buildings,
    with one or two Brownstone thingys in between them.

    In the end it doesn't really matter what either of us think- we are allowed to have varying views-but it's not our land,
    we have no actual say, and what gets built there, will get built, regardless of how either of us feel.

  11. #71

    Default

    Let me see if I understand this correctly, Antinimby likes the building and Scumonkey doesn't.

  12. #72
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    I'm talking the footprint of the building on the lot (which, when made smaller can allow for additional height), not the footprint of the lot (which seems to be what you were referring to). FAR for a site is based on the lot size for a particular project.

    And in regards to what I'm smoking: No doubt you'd love it; it's sweet and tasty and cures the grumps

  13. #73
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scumonkey View Post
    It is facade...but being "a" facade is not not what I was responding to, but rather your:I never said I wanted it to look like different buildings...
    I just wanted a little more variety in the overall window brick pattern/treatment along the long street wall,
    Well that's the facade. I realize you are talking about the ground floor but that's still the facade. You are just purposely trying to be vague.

    and the central section could have been built one floor higher, and set back ever so slightly,
    I think you're grasping for anything to justify your initial stance eventhough you know you have nothing to stand on. Does anyone think that "ever so slightly" set back with an added floor is going to make much of a difference in fooling anyone's impression that the building will any less smaller?

    achieving something of what I'm talking about- without looking likeBeing a designer with some architectural background, I have obviously thought it through.
    So what? Having "some" architectural background doesn't make you know anymore than the architect of this building, who has more architectural background than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    I'm talking the footprint of the building on the lot (which, when made smaller can allow for additional height), not the footprint of the lot (which seems to be what you were referring to).
    Well if you knew that why did you even bother to interject? It's not like you're telling us anything new or anything we didn't know about.

  14. #74
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoyokA View Post
    Let me see if I understand this correctly, Antinimby likes the building and Scumonkey doesn't.
    My liking the building is beside the point. I'm confronting scumonkey on what he said. He wants the ground floor to have different treatments but won't call it a facade, eventhough I don't know what the difference is.

  15. #75

    Default

    I'm confronting scumonkey on what he said. He wants the ground floor to have different treatments but won't call it a facade, eventhough I don't know what the difference is.
    It's obvious your being confrontational- but not why?
    Please show me where I refused to call anything a facade
    (or show the relevance of what the definition of a facade has to do with my opinion, or warrants this confrontation)?
    I never claimed anything to not be a facade.
    As a matter of fact, i said (not using your misquote)...
    It is facade...but being "a" facade is not not what I was responding to, but rather your: Quote:
    breaking up the ground level into what appears to be different facades that will give a false impression that they belong to different buildings
    what it's called has nothing at all to do with this discussion, or my point- who cares what it's called- it's still ugly ?!

    Does anyone think that "ever so slightly" set back with an added floor is going to make much of a difference in fooling anyone's impression that the building will any less smaller?
    Your propensity for missing the point astounds me- yet again!
    I never suggested that what I wanted was to make the building look smaller
    (I'm not against it's size- just the boring way the facade looks at street level)

    And after reading this- another of your false and twisted quotes:
    without looking likeBeing a designer with some architectural background, I have obviously thought it through.
    When I actually said was:
    Being a designer with some architectural background, I have obviously thought it through.
    I see what sophomoric tactics you have resorted to, and feel no more compulsion to correspond with you on this subject any further.
    Combined with all the other astute observations you felt necessary to make, and sound off about me,
    You have easily confirmed my initial impression of you

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Value of Trees
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2014, 11:06 PM
  2. Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 21st, 2012, 01:38 PM
  3. City Trees Outgrow Rural Cousins
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: June 20th, 2008, 04:19 AM
  4. Christmas Trees of New York City
    By noharmony in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 10th, 2006, 03:08 AM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2005, 07:27 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software