JANUARY 14, 2007
Last edited by NYguy; January 15th, 2007 at 09:37 AM.
treype: if I bust your nutz: you have to remember I am one of the oldsters here (at least compared to some of you)... I want to provoke some thought and research.
It's from this distance when the building works and looks it best. From the distance of 1 to 5 blocks away. You can see through the screens at this distance and it works. Move 1/2 a mile away and you cant see through them.
I wonder if the tenants on all of the floors have to use the same lighting, simialr to the Seagram building.
There are no rods at all on the X-braced part of the building. To my eye, it's darker.
That observation is correct, but at 1/2 mile, your eyes would still not be able to resolve the rods into individual components. If they were spaced twice as far apart; the wall would still appear solid, but more of the darker glass component would be shown, darkening the overall tone. I'm sure you've seen the building close-up. Don't the individual rods appear much lighter than the entire wall at a distance?If the rods were more oblong, they could bounce more light into the space and provide greater shading while providing less visual obstruction from the interior. My issue with the rods is when they are viewed from a distance of 1/2 a mile or more away and the screen takes on a solid appearance. At that distance, I do not like the 'window' gaps in the screen which then dominate the facade. yhey appear as giant razor blades hung on the building.
But we still can't know if they work.Will the rods reduce glare into the interior, absolutely. Will they bounce light into the interior? Maybe. Will they block light into the interior? Without a doubt. Does 40% of the office space facade have no rod screening? Yes.
I'm not about to get into Piano's head, but given this project was Ratner's first foray into more than mundane architecture, I don't think Piano would have sold him on the added expense based on aesthetics alone.But c'mon, the ceramic screen is there mainly because it looks cool and creates a semi-diaphonous layer, not because it really works as a sunscreen.
I'm not going to say anything about the Hearst building, and risk a spillover debate. It should have been one unit (8 floors) taller.
Jeez, said it anyway.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on the shading.
I agree that a polarizing design is beneficial to architectural discussion. No one debates 55 Water.
I hear what you are saying finnman, you wish the rods looked whiter. But I think it's important to note that the rods are white when viewed up close, not french gray. Being cylindrical, they spread the light and shadows they reflect, doing what they are supposed to do. The rods in our retinas serve the same purpose.
Yesterday they were using external pulley-system scaffolding to do repair work on the rod curtain at the north facade (replacing rods damaged during construction, etc.).
It seems to me that the rod curtain now appears to be a lighter shade and contrasts more sharply with the darker grey of the steel of the tower -- so perhaps they've been cleaning the construction grit off the rods as well
Sunday was a cloudy day. It made the building look nice. This is the corner of 41st and 8th.
^ So Gotham! This building deffenetly screams 'NYC.'
They've got a shorter one in Toronto also.
I guess it screams 'Toronto' as well.
Just my opinion but I think it would be a better fit in Detroit or Buffalo.