Reply With QuoteCome on people it's not that bad.
On second thought maybe it is.
Originally Posted by Gulcrapek
Agreed. From what I've seen of the Larkin's renderings it didn't look very interesting. The Chambers Street building I can only give rudimentary knowledge on, because I lent my copy of Higher to a friend and he's not done with it. Stern, I think, has a copy, because when I went on Amazon.com a while back I noticed that someone with the ID "Stern" had written a review for the book.
Come on people it's not that bad.
On second thought maybe it is.
I don't know, by now it no doubt would have been topped by some kind of antenna, giving it a more "needle-like" appearance. It might have looked nice illuminated at night...Come on people it's not that bad.
On second thought maybe it is.
That wasn't me.Agreed. From what I've seen of the Larkin's renderings it didn't look very interesting. The Chambers Street building I can only give rudimentary knowledge on, because I lent my copy of Higher to a friend and he's not done with it. Stern, I think, has a copy, because when I went on Amazon.com a while back I noticed that someone with the ID "Stern" had written a review for the book.
Okie dokie, then.
TOLZLink5 who was it then?
Somebody else with the ID "Stern" apparently.
I am so thankful that they didnt build that. the hearst tower project is so much more interesting.
re: North MetLife
Notice how the top of North MetLife resembles a greek temple atop a mountain.
The USA sure had some great architects until Walter Gropius and his Bauhaus brainwashing kit took control at Harvard.
The pictured building is the Larkin Building and it was proposed for West 42nd Street on a site that is now the original McGraw Hill Building.I am so thankful that they didnt build that. the hearst tower project is so much more interesting.
Supposedly, I have read that the original designs for the Hearst Magazine Tower have mysteriously disappeared. In other words they were lost in time.
The vaulted entrance also has a grander presence befitting a signature building. I’ve always dreamt that one day someone will fulfill the original design, but perhaps in a modern-day fashion clad it in glass and make it shimmer.Yes, the MetLife North building was meant to be the world's tallest. There's actually some skepticism as to whether MetLife actually intended to finish the building, but the 30-story completed portion is obviously to the scale of a much larger building. It is now the headquarters of Credit Suisse First Boston.
Elsewhere on the site the Metropolitan Life Insurance Buildling (that's what we're talking about right? Where is it, Herald Square?) was built in 1909. So how could it have been cut short because of the depression.
I have a feeling this is a dumb question, but I don't yet know why...
thanks for clearing that up for me. I knew about the past of the hearst tower project and the metlife north tower but i must have gotten a little confused.
The MetLife Tower is on Madison Park (at 23rd Street). Now, the building currently referred to as the Metlife Tower is the building that was built in 1909 (the one with the clock) - it ws the tallest building in the world until the completion of the Woolworth Building in 1913. The Larkin building is the building to the north of it, it was never completed. I belive it also has the highest ratio of elevators to tenants/floors of any building in the city. There was an article on it years ago about how tenants rarely had to wait for an elevator because there were enough elevators and shafts built to accommodate the entire tower.
The MetLife buildings are on Madison Square, not Herald Square. In addition, the 1909 MetLife building at One Madison Avenue is referred to as the South building, whereas the unfinished 1930s building we are referring to is called the North Building.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks