Page 119 of 151 FirstFirst ... 1969109115116117118119120121122123129 ... LastLast
Results 1,771 to 1,785 of 2257

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

  1. #1771
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    This was your initial [obnoxious] comment:
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    If I was picking an image for the article, I would choose the tallest of those being built. I can't believe that isn't apparent to you.
    then you got on to further "elaborate"....

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    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.

    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:

    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?
    Except ZtC did NOT select the tallest by citing this tower....

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    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.)"
    Hence the comment on the pre-k to elementary education. I'm curios to know if it is a contortion, or an educational gap.
    Oh and also, I know that the authors do not select the cover
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I didn't say that at all. I said that authors rarely choose titles or title images.
    R-e-a-d....


    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    "There" (56 Leonard), despite money laundering practices being no better, there is a very beautiful tower to show for it; it gives something back to the city... in 432 Parks there isn't that is why I posted it on this [architecture] thread and not on the "Anything Goes" thread. In case it is still being missed, the common thread with this tower is that there is nothing good about it; 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:

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    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.
    No, it is specifically for this case. I am trying to make a point on how this tower is being so imaginatively and financially frugally constructed despite that the profits were there to make an actually quality product that goes beyond the bare minimum use of materials and form. Sorry if some of us who expect more out of an architects human condition cannot hallucinate it to be more beautiful by using some non-rudinmentary judgement. But that is just me, in order for me to think it is some sort of beautifully minimalistic accomplishment I would have to hallucinate out some attributes as I cannot find it in my realm to see any architectural (it obviously has some engineering attributes) quality/merit to this tower, but like I've said before, that is just me (and hence my opinion). But if I was to have a psychotic episode and all of the sudden think myself to be an accountant I would think it is the most GORGEOUS thing on earth.... no thanks; I would prefer being a non-accountant.
    Last edited by TREPYE; July 20th, 2014 at 09:30 AM.

  2. #1772

    Default

    The raw concrete surface is a big disappoint for me: unfinished looking, blotchy, drab grayish color. I like the minimalist form: and there is an artful hand at work in the proportions and frame detailing of the windows. If only this building were clad in some sort of fine quality material - no raw concrete - it would rank as one of my favorite in NYC.

    That being said, and as the saying goes; there is no "accounting" for 'taste' - so TREPYE's (and LondonL's) opinion on the aesthetics of this building are as valid as are my own opinion.

  3. #1773

    Cool

    In regard to what I do like about this building, I give you this “Food” for thought regarding a former wholesale grocery warehouse building: utilitarian, austere, minimalist - can result in a skillfully designed, beautiful building.

    http://www.saveindustrialbrooklyn.or...in_nichols.pdf
    (excerpt from linked website)
    'The building is skillfully designed'.
    Gilbert believed that a building should convey the spirit of its use and to that end avoided excess ornament in a building that had a utilitarian purpose. This idea of expressing the use of a building through design was gaining hold with architects in Europe at this time. Those early European modernists identified industrial buildings such as this one as a major influence.

    Although it is not richly ornamented, the building is highly designed. Gilbert employed a minimalist Egyptian Revival style, evidenced in the coved (outwardly curved) cornice, battered walls and slit windows. The Egyptian Revival style is rare in the United States, and the warehouse is one of the only examples in New York City. In testimony to the commission, noted architect and author Robert A.M. Stern called the building “nothing less than an aesthetic gift to the street and its neighborhood.”

  4. #1774
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    From Greenpoint

    ©tectonic

  5. #1775
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    How many people here remember when Citibank looked tall?

  6. #1776
    I admit I have a problem
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Koreatown
    Posts
    532

    Default

    ^ It'll always be one of the greats.

  7. #1777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Except ZtC did NOT select the tallest by citing this tower....
    It's the tallest under construction. Most people don't read architecture news or participate in websites like this one; so they are probably not aware of the taller buildings in planning. I might have chosen this building for the cover because it is already visible. I might have not included the full building to give the impression of a completed structure.

    The point is that this building as cover is a pointless debate; it means nothing as to the article. What's ironic is that if you go to the link, the pictures you see on page one and page two are of One57. 432 Park isn't even mentioned.

    R-e-a-d....
    Physician, heal thyself.

    I am trying to make a point on how this tower is being so imaginatively and financially frugally constructed
    We went over this before. You should not only read, but remember.

    Where did you get the information that the building is "frugally constructed?"

    the bare minimum use of materials and form.
    You think all that concrete is cheap? 10 x 10 windows are cheap?

    That you don't like this building is fine for you - that it doesn't have a hat; or not enough bells and whistles; or that the architect didn't rack his brain to justify your favor.

    But you continually try to attach other negative attributes to it, while giving the others a pass. The "giving something back" rationalization was ridiculous. I'm fairly confident that most people would rather all these buildings give back the tax breaks.

    ----------------------------

    As for tourists recoiling in horror, most will probably view it as part of the NYC landscape - big.

  8. #1778

    Default

    432 one amazing looking tower on the horizon.....


  9. #1779
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    It's the tallest under construction. Most people don't read architecture news or participate in websites like this one; so they are probably not aware of the taller buildings in planning. I might have chosen this building for the cover because it is already visible. I might have not included the full building to give the impression of a completed structure.

    The point is that this building as cover is a pointless debate; it means nothing as to the article. What's ironic is that if you go to the link, the pictures you see on page one and page two are of One57. 432 Park isn't even mentioned.


    Physician, heal thyself.

    We went over this before. You should not only read, but remember.

    Where did you get the information that the building is "frugally constructed?"

    You think all that concrete is cheap? 10 x 10 windows are cheap?

    That you don't like this building is fine for you - that it doesn't have a hat; or not enough bells and whistles; or that the architect didn't rack his brain to justify your favor.

    But you continually try to attach other negative attributes to it, while giving the others a pass. The "giving something back" rationalization was ridiculous. I'm fairly confident that most people would rather all these buildings give back the tax breaks.

    ----------------------------

    As for tourists recoiling in horror, most will probably view it as part of the NYC landscape - big.
    Oh so now you realize its the tallest but you wouldnt have picked it becasue it is not being visible constructed.... Contortion, got it.(it is better than not knowing how to count)

    Is it more expensive than a Kaufmann, yes. It means nothing the total $$ spent on it, its an expensive low quality product; thats cheap. It does skimp out on materials, details due to maximize profits per sq ft -no doubt. Defend it all you want but if you take the profits to aesthetics/or architectural attributes ratio this is a cheap, absolutely, yes.

    Enough of this ZtC moviing target business, on to a more evolved debate....

    Infoshare,
    If modernism is such a benelovent movement that is an artistic expression of the building as a whole how come 95% of all modernism is the same interchangable shape of a rectangle/square made out of glass, cement and aluminum facades? If the shape is such an important form of expression why is it primaily rectilinear shapes and how come they are primarily made out of materials that are not of the most elegant. Monoliths of building materials that as a whole resemble a shape other than a rectangle or square would give me more confidence in this so called modernist principle is true to art and not profit; for example 1WTC deveates from this norm and so does the Hearst Tower and to a certain extent The Gherkin. Cant you you be sleek and precise without being a rectangle or square??

  10. #1780
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Harlem
    Posts
    2,805

    Default

    From St. Nicholas Ave and 146 St.


  11. #1781
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    This tower is at it's best from a distance.

  12. #1782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tectonic View Post
    This tower is at it's best from a distance.
    Like pig farms.

  13. #1783

    Default

    Reminds me of a smokestack from far away.

  14. #1784
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UrbanToronto.ca
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Looked really good in person when I was in NYC last week.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	84.3 KB 
ID:	17964
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo.jpg 
Views:	74 
Size:	85.2 KB 
ID:	17963  
    Last edited by Ed007Toronto; July 28th, 2014 at 09:32 AM.

  15. #1785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    Oh so now you realize its the tallest but you wouldnt have picked it becasue it is not being visible constructed.... Contortion, got it.(it is better than not knowing how to count)
    Yes of course. That's the point. I can't count.

    The point has zoomed so far over your head that you can't hear it.

    Is it more expensive than a Kaufmann, yes. It means nothing the total $$ spent on it, its an expensive low quality product; thats cheap.
    You still haven't said how you know that it's cheap. Kaufman is an obvious straw-man.

    It does skimp out on materials, details due to maximize profits per sq ft -no doubt.
    The main design consideration was interior space without columns or shear walls. If this is the cheap way out, why are most buildings designed with post-and-beam throughout? Because that's the more expensive option? That doesn't make sense.

    Defend it all you want but if you take the profits to aesthetics/or architectural attributes ratio this is a cheap, absolutely, yes.
    Aesthetics is a subjective opinion. Material and construction costs are objective facts. Give me facts about cost.

    It isn't often that you see a building being stalked.

    Infoshare,
    If modernism is such a benelovent movement that is an artistic expression of the building as a whole how come 95% of all modernism is the same interchangable shape of a rectangle/square made out of glass, cement and aluminum facades? If the shape is such an important form of expression why is it primaily rectilinear shapes and how come they are primarily made out of materials that are not of the most elegant. Monoliths of building materials that as a whole resemble a shape other than a rectangle or square would give me more confidence in this so called modernist principle is true to art and not profit; for example 1WTC deveates from this norm and so does the Hearst Tower and to a certain extent The Gherkin.
    This is just Trepye deciding what everyone should like.

    Cant you you be sleek and precise without being a rectangle or square??
    Isn't there room for both? Isn't NYC big enough to accommodate different viewpoints?

    I thought that was the point of this place.

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