Reply With QuoteI find that setback much more offensive than the design itself.
dear god....
I find that setback much more offensive than the design itself.
Originally Posted by LightningEagle
Kind of reminds me of this other building with a random out-of-place block in the corner.
street killing level of the tri-pack!
the tumor
Well. That's depressing.
Did we lose anything good to accommodate this turd?
YIMBY strikes again . . .
http://www.newyorkyimby.com/2012/07/...enm-hotel.html
Not a bit of respect for the street wall. Surprise?
As a concrete guy I have to say this is an abomination. I know the whole argument that most buildings are not works of art but this thing looks like (no offense meant) one of those Chinese, dime a dozen apartment blocks we see rolling over onto each other every time someone slams a car door.
Apart from aesthetics, it just looks flimsy, granted I can't see what the shearwalls are like or if there is a slosh tank etc but I for one wouldn't fancy being up there in a tremor...and I fear one day this city will be tested in that regards.
This POS confirms that NY lacks self-respect. I'd love to have "relations" with Amanda Burden, but she really sucks at her job. The fact that you can build any abomination in NYC really needs to change.
I agree that she sucks. Good architects get stifled or stopped while Kaufman gets to do whatever he wants.. Is her position an elected one?
I think CitizenM is an anchor baby. The parents are clearly illegals.
http://www.newyorkyimby.com/2012/07/...tel-still.html
2 August 2012
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceva321/7698439334/
YIMBY's friends love this building.
http://www.newyorkyimby.com/2012/08/...el-nearly.html
NYC needs an architectural standards board to end these disgusting carbuncles ASAP.
When a building aspires to be a work of ART it is always a lovely site to behold ; when it manages only to serve the purpose of providing 'shelter' - well, that is ok too.
Frankly I do not mind either/or, and more to the point, neither does just about 'any one else': I do think, IMHO, you are taking this 'Architecture Thing' a bit too seriously. lol
no offense my friend - just saying.
Maybe for you, settling for that very narrow definition of what a building is for is ok, but for the rest of us in a big city, it should not be.when it manages only to serve the purpose of providing 'shelter' - well, that is ok too.
A building should also be visually pleasing on the outside as well!
In very much the same way as a sculpture...
A building is seen from the outside, in the round- by many more people than will ever see or use the inside.
It's presence not only effects it's inhabitants, but all the visitors and citizens that will have to pass by and look at it on a daily basis.
Every structure that is built need not be a Rodin masterpiece, but a fair amount of thought to how it will visually affect it's surrounds, and the senses of others
who will have to look at it for generations, should also command almost as much attention as to it's internal purposes.
If people didn't take these things "to seriously", then the powers that be would ONLY build for "providing shelter" and not give a rats a$$
about what the outside looks like, or the effects of it's ugly self on the community at large (a very sad commentary to leave as a legacy of our greedy values).
I for one agree that we as a NY'ers should hold these developers and architects to the highest standards that we can. And we should NEVER just settle for
p. o. s. architecture, that merely provides the purpose of sheltering, while at the same time assaulting the senses of everyone who comes in contact with it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks