Page 67 of 71 FirstFirst ... 1757636465666768697071 LastLast
Results 991 to 1,005 of 1063

Thread: 99 Church Street (30 Park Place) - 82 stories, 926 ft - by Robert A.M. Stern

  1. #991

    Default

    Well said.

  2. #992
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    Really, what's up with those windows? And hang in there 125 Greenwich is coming.

  3. #993

    Default

    The windows I get. Metal would have helped a great deal. But faux-historicism? When is historicism faux? Is the Woolworth building also faux because it's neo-Gothic? Nothing in the middle ages looked like it. Also it's a midblock public terrace, not a porte cochere.

  4. #994
    Fearless Photog RoldanTTLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    No, but neo-gothic was a prevalent style at the time Woolworth was built. That's why it's called neo-gothic and not just gothic. The same can be said of Beaux Arts, or Art Deco, or any other number of styles. Making a knockoff of an art deco building right now would, in fact, be faux historicism. It's not so different from a band like The Darkness. Had they existed in the 80s, they would have just been music. Now they are faux 80s music. The unfortunate term for this in architecture is of-the-time.

    Anyway, I can't find a current site plan, but it looks like it is a public terrace, but that there is a new curb cut to the garage midblock on both Park and Barclay. Please forgive the inaccuracy of the original porte cochere claim. I was thinking about it, though, and 15 CPW has one without drawing as much ire. I'll have to consider that more.

  5. #995
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoldanTTLB View Post
    Making a knockoff of an art deco building right now would, in fact, be faux historicism.
    Or you could call it Neo Deco or Art Deco Revival.

  6. #996
    Fearless Photog RoldanTTLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Well played!

  7. #997

    Default

    The cast-stone facade on the tower is obviously inferior, but not such a big deal. I think the windows are a bigger problem.



    The street level stone veneer is very attractive.



    There is attention to detail. A nice touch on the HVAC building grills.


  8. #998

  9. #999
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoldanTTLB View Post
    Or you could see faux historicism in all it's supposed glory with the same crappy mid-block Porte-cochère. This building still dominates a landmark (Woolworth). It's still prefab, panelized, fake limestone. It still has cheap looking white-trimmed windows, whereas they could have gone for a more sophisticated bronze finish. I mean, I certainly like this building, but no less than 432 Park. It's just different.
    My post was not about quality of materials, it was about effort put forth by the architect in its design. Heck, even something as terrible as 10 Barclay across the street required some architect's input. In 30 Park Pl obviously some consideration put into making this something else besides cement and glass stacked safely as high as possible. Which is basically what 432 Park is, an exercise in engineering only. There is minimalist such as 4WTC, which I do not care much for, but you can see the architects hand in the design; then there is indolence which is what 432 Park visually represents. And if Vinoly did charge a commission I do wonder how much was saved with not having a façade, base, crown or even a window size variation to consider intellectually as well as actual implementation of such.

    The terrifying thing about that tower is that they are already planning another one like it DT, albeit all glass, it is the same concept; make it as tall as possible as cheap as possible. Same façade, window treatment, floor plates, (seems like) no distinctive base, and obviously no crown for the architect to mind for more than (seemingly) 5 minutes on his desk.

    And if this becomes a trend; architects have lost a good portion of their work on buildings exteriors.

  10. #1000

    Default

    Incredible how one can state that they are not talking about the quality of materials, and then complain about the (perceived) lack of quality somewhere else.

    This building is formulaic for Robert Stern; he can practically crank them out in his sleep. There is nothing particularly difficult about the design of 99 Church, but that doesn't really matter, does it? It's a nice building, competently executed.

    If one doesn't like cement and glass, there's a lot more of it at 56 Leonard, and of much lower quality than 432 Park. I have no problem with it, though.

    432 Park has a base.

    As for 432 Park not having a facade, that's not necessarily to save money. They could have sheathed the building in metal and glass, but I think that would have ruined it. A stone facade similar to 99 Church would have added non-structural dead weight. For a 1400 foot building without shear walls, that added load would have meant increasing the size of the core and/or the perimeter walls. You could say it's an engineering exercise, but I think making sure a building can remain standing is an important component of architecture.

    It's debatable whether the ordinary concrete + facade of 99 Church is more expensive than the processed concrete (with more mass) of 432 Park. It appears to me that it's 99 Church that went cheap; they didn't use stone veneer embedded in concrete as was done at 15 CPW, and the windows are of lower quality.

    Now if I wanted to troll 99 Church, I could make an issue of this, and go on and on about it. But as I said before, it's no big deal.

  11. #1001
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    My post was not about quality of materials, it was about effort put forth by the architect in its design. Heck, even something as terrible as 10 Barclay across the street required some architect's input. In 30 Park Pl obviously some consideration put into making this something else besides cement and glass stacked safely as high as possible. Which is basically what 432 Park is, an exercise in engineering only. There is minimalist such as 4WTC, which I do not care much for, but you can see the architects hand in the design; then there is indolence which is what 432 Park visually represents. And if Vinoly did charge a commission I do wonder how much was saved with not having a façade, base, crown or even a window size variation to consider intellectually as well as actual implementation of such.

    The terrifying thing about that tower is that they are already planning another one like it DT, albeit all glass, it is the same concept; make it as tall as possible as cheap as possible. Same façade, window treatment, floor plates, (seems like) no distinctive base, and obviously no crown for the architect to mind for more than (seemingly) 5 minutes on his desk.

    And if this becomes a trend; architects have lost a good portion of their work on buildings exteriors.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Incredible how one can state that they are not talking about the quality of materials, and then complain about the (perceived) lack of quality somewhere else.
    I put up a perception of lack of quality when referring to 432 Park, really? I SAID lack of effort and mental exertion on part of the architects, not quality.... Chimpy, are you contorting again??

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    This building is formulaic for Robert Stern; he can practically crank them out in his sleep. There is nothing particularly difficult about the design of 99 Church
    I guess you mustve been there, watching him in his sleep as he cranked out different window sizes, barconies, facade detail and crown. If there is any professional architect out there to directly comment on how formulaic this is vs 432 Park; I would REALLY appreciate it.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    If one doesn't like cement and glass, there's a lot more of it at 56 Leonard, and of much lower quality than 432 Park. I have no problem with it, though.
    56 Leonard is lower quality? LMAO, I vehemently disagree. Anyways in the materials (which I belive to be of similar quality), therein lies the rub, 56 leonard makes the most of the materials virtues creating a sophisticated structure that does not just aim for height, 432 Park just simply stacks it as high as possible with no regard to how ridiculously out of proportion the overall structure comes of.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Now if I wanted to troll 99 Church, I could make an issue of this, and go on and on about it. But as I said before, it's no big deal.
    Riiiiight, one draws a comparison put forth by two architecs and their product and cuz u disagree it is trolling. Always armed with those bannana peels, deterring away an architecture discussion in an architecture forum; good way to hold ur members, forum moderator.

  12. #1002
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Here we go again...

  13. #1003

    Default

    I agree that the white windows look bad (I otherwise like the building a lot). But let me offer a hypothesis (which others should shoot down if wrong). Though traditional-looking (or "faux historic" if you prefer -- I don't, the International Style has been around for 75 years versus 100 or so for Beaux Art, so there really isn't a meaningful distinction at this point, but I digress) on the exterior, like every other high end condo being built these days, I am sure it wants to looks super-modern on the interior. (No one is building interiors these days that look like apartments on the Upper West Side). The means ALL WHITE, including the windows. I suppose one can build a window frame that is bronze or black on the outside and white on the inside, but I don't think anyone does, so you have to pick your poison. (In my apartment, I have black window frames, which look like crap. I hate them.)

  14. #1004
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stache View Post
    Here we go again...
    Fret not.... I have said may piece and when inevitably ZtC retorts I will have not follow up because as we know, it will not end till he gets the last word. No matter what is said or how bad the contortion/banana peel/accusation I will not reply; maybe if there is a bald-face OMG inaccuracy that I can succinctly disprove -but I don't anticipate this to be the case; so that should be it.



  15. #1005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    I put up a perception of lack of quality when referring to 432 Park, really? I SAID lack of effort and mental exertion on part of the architects, not quality.... Chimpy, are you contorting again??
    You said: "cement and glass." I mention that there is more "cement and glass" at 56 Leonard. Get it?
    I guess you mustve been there, watching him in his sleep as he cranked out different window sizes, barconies, facade detail and crown. If there is any professional architect out there to directly comment on how formulaic this is vs 432 Park; I would REALLY appreciate it.
    As you were there when 432 Park was designed, right? And again you seem to have trouble reading. The word formulaic isn't a comparative. It's a description. Stern's work is formulaic. For that matter, so is Vinoly's. So what? That's not the point. You're trying to put a quantitative value on something that doesn't matter. I guess from your criteria, Stern is really lazy compared to someone like Zaha Hadid.

    56 Leonard is lower quality? LMAO, I vehemently disagree.
    As usual, missed my point, and actually, what I said. I said the concrete is of lower concrete, and added that it was not a problem for me. Meaning: I don't think that 56 Leonard is lower quality, and I like the building. I made it quite clear that I like all three of these buildings. So explain again why you are laughing.

    Anyways in the materials (which I belive to be of similar quality),
    Actually, the concrete is of lower quality. That's a fact.

    therein lies the rub, 56 leonard makes the most of the materials virtues creating a sophisticated structure that does not just aim for height, 432 Park just simply stacks it as high as possible with no regard to how ridiculously out of proportion the overall structure comes of.
    The concrete, or the amount of time the architect spends on it, really has nothing to do with it. You don't like the building, that's all. I get it. Everybody gets it. Maybe you can send it out on Twitter for the handful of people in the western hemisphere wh still haven't heard.

    one draws a comparison put forth by two architecs and their product and cuz u disagree it is trolling.
    No, posting the same shit everywhere is trolling.

    The comedy of these contortions is that you wind up stepping in your own contradictions:
    There is minimalist such as 4WTC, which I do not care much for, but you can see the architects hand in the design
    The most evident aspect of the design is the glass. Maki's design called for something more translucent, with a metallic component. We never saw the mockup. There's a video in the 4WTC thread where a Maki representative states, (paraphrase): "The facade material was chosen by the client."

    So what did Maki do here?

    If you still don't understand, how much time an architect spends on a design, or even who the architect is, doesn't matter at all. It's what you see. You like it or you don't. If you don't like faux deco - historical deco - neo deco, you won't like 99 Church, no matter how much effort the architect put into it.

Similar Threads

  1. 165 Charles Street @ West Street - by Richard Meier
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: June 8th, 2010, 05:36 PM
  2. Central Park Place
    By MikeV in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 19th, 2007, 02:38 AM
  3. Trump Place
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 313
    Last Post: October 29th, 2007, 06:53 AM
  4. Best place to celebrate New Year's Eve
    By noharmony in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 31st, 2006, 05:48 AM
  5. Parishioners restoring Annunciation Church
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 28th, 2002, 11:53 AM

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