Page 118 of 151 FirstFirst ... 1868108114115116117118119120121122128 ... LastLast
Results 1,756 to 1,770 of 2257

Thread: 50 East 57th Street @ 432 Park Avenue (former Drake Hotel site)

  1. #1756
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bkguy1985 View Post
    You know, I have to disagree with you. Desgin is subjective, you may not like it but I find it quite nice. This building is simplicity in the purest form and it works. It doesnt need any tacky flourishes or a subscription to any of the latest design trends. I find that it has a timeless elegance to it. With that said, i find your comments rudimentry to the utmost degree. It has form, Its facade does have texture as concrete is quite textured. It does has a top as the structural facade extends above the roof line. While, I respect your opinion, you have to understand that it's simply YOUR opinion.
    I know, I dont proclaim my opinion to be absolute (even though your rudimentary comment does come off a bit... elitist); . If such buildings is what you like/enjoy then you are in luck... they are the most profitable and the ones developers prefer the most. For a building this height/prominence it is way too simple and again reeks of a lazy effort by the architect and a money grub by the developer and IM(humble)O way too much of a simpleton/monotone; but, hey, if it doesn't bother you then don't let me get in the way of your non-rudimentary opinions . By all means enjoy its simplicity even though all the knowledge in the world can (prob will) never allow me to enjoy it.
    Last edited by TREPYE; July 14th, 2014 at 06:57 PM.

  2. #1757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    I know, I dont proclaim my opinion to be absolute (even though your rudimentary comment does come off a bit... elitist); . If such buildings is what you like/enjoy then you are in luck... they are the most profitable and the ones developers prefer the most. For a building this height/prominence it is way too simple and again reeks of a lazy effort by the architect and a money grub by the developer and IM(humble)O way too much of a simpleton/monotone; but, hey, if it doesn't bother you then don't let me get in the way of your non-rudimentary opinions . By all means enjoy its simplicity even though all the knowledge in the world can (prob will) never allow me to enjoy it.

    Lazy? you must design 100 story engineering marvels every day. Forget i said anything in dissent of what you have stated time and time again. God-forbid anyone disagree with the all mighty Trepye

  3. #1758
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    If you read my posts I have said that it is lazy effort by the "architect" not the engineer; as if once the engineer finished ensuring the superstructure's structural integrity and passed it off the architect did not do much to it after engineering was done. Jeez dude, dont get all indignant, I explicitly said it was an opinion, am I not entitled to one without u getting offended?

  4. #1759

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    You attemp to throw one contortion by telling us that the magazine used this tower because it was the tallest,
    I didn't say that at all. I said that authors rarely choose titles or title images. What I said was that if I was to choose what building to make the cover, I would pick the tallest.

    that didnt work
    The entire point about this building as cover was pointless, so I don't know what you think I was trying to prove. You're the one what stated:
    and the author/editor of NYer seems to concur with that sentiment as it selected this tower's rendering for the article's (which has a negative view on the practices) cover
    No it will not and cannot be apparent to me because the author does not even cite it as the tallest tower.....

    “If you bend down like this,” Wallgren said, stooping to street level, “you can really appreciate the height of it.” The development will top out at 1,396 feet, making it the second-tallest building in the city. Wallgren pointed to a comparatively stunted model a few blocks away. “There’s One57,” he said. “It’s about 1,000.” (Left unmentioned were plans by One57’s developer Gary Barnett to build a 1,423-foot tower down the street.)"
    Then you went on about what you learned in pre-K, and that Barnett's tower is taller, and why did they not shoot the entire building.

    I could have answered these, but to what end?

    out so you decide to fling the aspect that I cant realize that this article is about multiple tower not one; stop making it up as u go along.
    Again, I didn't say anything like that. All I said was that "the article isn't about this building or architecture. If your first instinct was to put it in another forum, then you should have gone with that."

    It's amazing how many people don't actually read what's posted. I could have just moved the post to a more suitable thread, but I knew you would wind yourself up into a frenzy.
    Last edited by ZippyTheChimp; July 16th, 2014 at 11:07 AM.

  5. #1760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bkguy1985 View Post
    Lazy? you must design 100 story engineering marvels every day. Forget i said anything in dissent of what you have stated time and time again. God-forbid anyone disagree with the all mighty Trepye
    Be thankful for "lazy." He used to post that it was "cheap."

  6. #1761
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    I'm guessing the editors wanted to go with an actual photo for the cover, as opposed to a rendering.

  7. #1762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bkguy1985 View Post
    Lazy? you must design 100 story engineering marvels every day.
    Not at all joining in the Trepye vs The World debate but I will say, with some structural engineering experience, that this building would literally have taken minutes to engineer. Once the architect sketched (minecrafted?) the look of it, it's just a matter of plugging a few numbers in and giving the thing a final height, the program pukes out column sizes, concrete strength, rebar spacing etc. Really basic stuff for this building.

    No one can deny that the architectural and structural thought process was minimal (cheaper) on this building. It's a fact.

  8. #1763

    Default

    There was a lengthy analysis of the engineering challenges involved in designing such a tall, small footprint building, with no interior columns, and no shear walls either in the interior or perimeter.

    As far as complexity of design automatically equating to superior...

    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
    - Leonardo da Vinci

  9. #1764

    Default

    Okay, so the engineering might be elementary. The architecture is clearly not elementary. Maybe pre-k, but not elementary.



    also, da Vinci is not on the record for saying that.

  10. #1765

    Default

    Thank you Captain Hyperbole.

  11. #1766
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishInNYC View Post
    Once the architect sketched (minecrafted?) the look of it, it's just a matter of plugging a few numbers in and giving the thing a final height, the program pukes out column sizes, concrete strength, rebar spacing etc. Really basic stuff for this building.

    No one can deny that the architectural and structural thought process was minimal (cheaper) on this building. It's a fact.
    Heh, its like you dont even need the architect.... the bare minimum Vinoly put in could have been learned and applied by the engineer. Considering how much more basic and "minimalistic" these designs get it could turn out that architects may extinct themselves out of highrise developments and out of work.

    Wouldn't that be something? LOL.

  12. #1767
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    The engineers do all the real work.

  13. #1768

    Default

    I'm sure the architects did plenty of work on the interior, and that's where they're selling the building from.

  14. #1769
    Senior Member DKNY617's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Astoria, Queens
    Posts
    525

    Default

    July 18th, 2014










  15. #1770
    I admit I have a problem
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Koreatown
    Posts
    532

    Default

    ^ Nice pix, DKNY. The Mercedes House zigzag looks terrific.

Similar Threads

  1. W New York - Times Square Hotel
    By hyperfine in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 18th, 2005, 08:55 PM
  2. Station Renovation - East New York
    By Gulcrapek in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 30th, 2004, 09:59 AM
  3. Future of Flushing Airport Site
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 13th, 2004, 08:15 PM
  4. East River - large file
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum Photos and Videos of New York
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: March 31st, 2003, 04:50 AM
  5. Pictures of luxurious W Hotel - Times Square
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 29th, 2001, 12:36 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