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

[futurecity]

Sorry for the finger wagging, and condescending commentary - BUT.
This building is as a fine a work of architecture as was the Seagrams back in it day: some here just can not 'see it'.

I once bought a friend to a Rothko exhibit at MoMa; who was clearly unimpressed and very disappointed with his art work.

"Thats just a blurry horizontal blue line painted across the canvass" she said. "I am sorry, but I just do not see how THAT is considered ART" she rejoined.

Her second statement was 'exactly' the point: and she still, to this day, can not SEE.

Reading the commentary by some of the architectural 'philistines' here brings back memories of that 'bone chilling' past experience: the realization that 'cluelessness' is often accompanied with a total lack of self awareness.

I have to say that I prefer more detailed and avant-garde styles although I can appreciate a certain amount of minimalism, but since we are all philistines with no vision, maybe you can enlighten on why this building is so special other than height? Otherwise, I suggest not being so condescending.

[RoldanTTLB]

Not to speak for infoshare and at the risk of sounding like a broken record (I must have written almost this exact comment before). I love the squareness of it all. Most international style buildings lacked the guts to be square. Blackrock is not square. 140 Broadway is not square. The original WTC WAS square (although with chamfered corners), but went with very strong vertical elements. Each of the major towers on 6th ave strongly favors vertical or horizontal elements to varying degrees of success hiding or enhancing mass. In the end, though, this building went square. Really square. Squares everywhere. In fact, the facade appears to go one step further, and have incorporated square molded elements that weren't detailed in renderings either. I think it's amazing.

I DO think there are a few places where it could go wrong, still. I do not know where the windows will be set on the facade. If there is no depth at all, it will be a wasted opportunity. The building shouldn't try to be perfectly flat. I will be disappointed if that happens, but it's a bit premature to comment on it now.

That's my $0.02. I can definitely see, although don't entirely agree with, many of the arguments against this building as well, including, but not limited to: dull, poor pedestrian environment on the south side, destruction of some lovely 57th st town homes, demolition of the Drake, etc. I think in the end, what we are getting is worth it, but again, it's a little early for me to make a final judgement on certain elements.

[infoshare]

Here here, to that: this thing is "to my mind" - sublime. I really think that if something like this - http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...l=1#post425088 - tacky looking architectural extravaganza got built it would get quite a few rave reviews on this thread.

As the saying goes "there is just no accounting for good taste". That being said; there truly is no exact or explicit means of 'accounting' for matters of art/taste - so I am careful to preface my crits with a IMHO whenever possible. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...ting-for-taste

Cheers

[Tectonic]

New site and renderings

http://www.432parkavenue.com/?state=home

via SSP

[infoshare]

10,9,8,7,6,5,......432.....1 Bingo. This building is as brilliant, and beautiful as it gets. Thanks for the website link: that 'views' feature is fantastic.

[londonlawyer]

This tower sucks. It has no design. I find a 1,400 foot concrete box to be oppressive.

[Tectonic]

I actually wish it was shorter, less prominent.

[londonlawyer]

I agree.

[infoshare]

I actually wish it was shorter, less prominent.

I can see your point: but, compared to those renderings (which tend to exaggerate everything) it will at 'look' a lot less prominent when actually built.

I know you do mean that you would like to see this one 'built' less tall. If these things were driven by 'aesthetic' as opposed to 'finance' I agree that this puppy would be better a bit shorter: but that's just not the case.

[RoldanTTLB]

This is true. It's very heavy and dark on the skyline in the image above. It won't look like that finished. The only dark tower in the whole image that's actually dark is the ESB, since it's a ton of lime and very little window comparatively. 432 will be much lighter than the renderings show. If I were trying to sell expensive apartments, I'd definitely make the building seem more important in this way, but I don't think it will be.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Not sure about the windows; would have liked if they were set deeper.

Can't tell from the rendering what's going on at the edges, but found this floorplan that shows some detail.

[BBMW]

Not for those inside it. And, really, those are the only people who count.

This tower sucks. It has no design. I find a 1,400 foot concrete box to be oppressive.

[Tectonic]

I can see your point: but, compared to those renderings (which tend to exaggerate everything) it will at 'look' a lot less prominent when actually built.

I know you do mean that you would like to see this one 'built' less tall. If these things were driven by 'aesthetic' as opposed to 'finance' I agree that this puppy would be better a bit shorter: but that's just not the case.

Exactly. I'm hoping Extell's 225 W 57th blows this out of the sky .

[IrishInNYC]

I actually wish it was shorter, less prominent.

Like 5 floors or so.

[IrishInNYC]

Not sure about the windows; would have liked if they were set deeper.

Would imagine they'll be as flush as possible. Windows set back are a breeding ground for problems...water egress, snow, ice etc.
This building will be an ORM nightmare as it is with such a vast area of exposed concrete.