Reply With QuoteAre you guys basing your opinions on the renderings alone, or have they started laying the brickwork?
Color choice
Could be! But, I do not object to the color: the fact that the 'texture' of the brickwork on the facade does not at all match the rendering is my only criticism of this project.Originally Posted by lofter1
Last edited by infoshare; April 19th, 2008 at 08:54 PM.
Are you guys basing your opinions on the renderings alone, or have they started laying the brickwork?
My thoughts are based on new renderings which have been posted on the SHoP website and on new imagery which has been pasted up on the sidewalk sheds surrounding the building site.
All indications are that the brick will be a mauve-y grey color that appears kind of dead & sickly -- and not a color that one is likely to find amongst the rich reds, yellow, and browns of the downtown brickwork (why is so much of the new brick used in NYC so poor & unappealing?).
I'm hoping that the reality at 290 will be something better when the project is complete. But, based upon the following dissection of the art & business of renderings from today's NY Times, I doubt that "better" is what we'll end up with.
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
BIG-TIME development has always been a rough-and-tumble world in New York. But in recent years, as government has ceded more and more power to private interests, developers have become magicians at negotiating their way through the byzantine public review process. Nowhere is this sleight of hand more visible than in the way they tailor architectural renderings for public consumption.
As the battles over mammoth-scale development grow more heated, developers and their marketing teams have become extremely cautious about the information they release before a project passes review, for fear of inciting a public outcry.
Architects are now regularly asked to sign confidentiality agreements that forbid them to talk to the press, a tactic that was virtually unheard of a few years ago. The images released to the public are often restricted to a few renderings that are carefully scrutinized in advance by marketing experts. As a result the public is often left without the visual tools it needs to make thoughtful judgments about a development’s impact.
The design for a 12-million-square-foot development proposal by Tishman Speyer Properties at the site of the West Side railyards is a case in point. When reporters showed up for its unveiling last month, they were handed a packet with a fact sheet and a few cursory renderings.
Basic details like the surrounding context were left incomplete; there were no elevations to show what the project would look like from the street. The largest of the models on display was cut off at mid-elevation, making it virtually impossible to understand the towers’ colossal scale.
I don’t mean to single out Tishman Speyer for criticism here. On the contrary, the company represents the norm. Like most developers it probably sees architectural renderings as just one element of an elaborate marketing campaign. I’m sure it’s even proud of its designs. But the end result is a distorted picture of reality, one that stifles what is supposed to be an open, democratic process.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
More from CURBED on 290's new cantilevering neighbor ...
East Houston Tumor To Be Red, Tiered and Terraced
Looks like there'll be something new at 49/51 East Houston St. that will be going up
(as an addition to the one-story there now) a few doors down from 290.
A Tumorous Neighbor for SHoP and Kopp
CURBED
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
CURBED
April 22, 2008
by Pete
Pity the poor residents of 51 East Houston Street. A bit of digging around reveals
that the owner there goes by the mysterious name of Sultan's DaVinci Ltd.
When we posted the news about the tumorous growth rising over that little
walk-up some readers couldn't believe their eyes. But one guest commenter
had no doubts and kindly directed us to the Arpad Baksa Architect website
for a look at what's to come. And then the mystery deepened.
There it is, 14 stories of stepped-back bright red brick, with windows
amiss and some big cross braces propping it up atop the worn old bricks of
Number 51. However, Baksa's site says "15 Residential Units," which is quite a
difference from the "41 Dwelling Units" shown on the project's application at DOB.
Either way, this new one isn't some dinky little thing like those teeny dollhouses
around the corner on Mott Street. It's big and bold with terraces out front,
sitting high above the madness of Houston Street. The west facade seems to
offer a big blank wall, apparently a match for another one going up on the
corner at 290 Mulberry. Out back, a tier of balconies will face the trees and
quiet of Old St. Patrick's Cathedral down the block. A little bit of this and a
lot of that, all made possible by Sultan's DaVinci, who is probably a real pussycat.
During the upcoming months of noise and construction the residents of
51 East Houston will certainly know who to thank.
The north exposure (L), the south exposure (R) and blank walls on the sides.
The new neighbor at 290 Mulberry, turning a blank face to the Baksa site.
· A Tumorous Neighbor for SHoP and Kopp [Curbed]
· Portfolio > On the Boards > 49-51 East Houston [Arpad Baksa website]
· SHoP Piling On the Bricks at 290 Mulberry [Curbed]
*Pulls hair out*
This cantilevering crap needs to be made illegal.
And the blank walls, ugh...
New Photos, news.
Some news and penthouse views: from todays features at Curbed.com http://curbed.com/archives/2008/04/2...p_shop.php?o=0
Let's put up the rest of those renderings uncovered by curbed, shall we?
The largest windows are on the corner of the building and they're using that space for a staircase?
Wow. It's really nice!
Very nice now that they have released renderings of the interior.
I agree with antinimby when I say that it is a bit weird that the largest windows "house" the stairs.
Those stairs are inside the multi-story units. Fire stairs are adjacent and appear to be scissor stairs (nested for remote access and space-saving); some places those aren't legal.
Yeah, I understood that. I was questioning on whether that was the best use for that particular space.
Large windows like that should be for views and to allow lots of light inside the apartment. As it is, the views from inside is of a staircase.
^
You're referring to the windows on the penthouse, right?
No, I was talking about the wrap-around windows on the front corner of the building but looking at it closely again, yeah I see what you're talking about now. My mistake.
Apparently, this portion:
...is really the glassy bump out at the rear of the penthouse as seen here:
I guess in that case, the use of stairs there doesn't seem so bad.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks