Reply With Quoteperhaps Gehry was channelling Hollywood Studio back lots with all those facade-only buildings?
Yes
No
Well I was not referring to the developers of the epoch of some the building you mention above. The profession of being a developer used to encompass making money along with some artistic pride in the end result....now the profession -and of course today it has its exceptions- has degenerated just making money, not that I expect every tower to be a masterpiece (although this one was supposed to be) but too many of the taller towers do not have one iota of artistic input in them, way too many. So that is where my expectation of developers comes from.Originally Posted by antinimby
BTW for all of those bringing up those exmaples of flat walls at least compare apples to apples not a flat wall that was produced to acomodate an adjoining buiding that was going to be pretty much attached to it to a flat wall that is to be on the side that is going to have the most exposure to sunlight and will never have any attached obstructions.
Gerhy sold out on that southern wall.
Last edited by TREPYE; September 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 PM.
perhaps Gehry was channelling Hollywood Studio back lots with all those facade-only buildings?
Who said this building is suppose to be Gehry's masterpiece? He is working within a developer's budget. Would the expense of that crenelated wall translate into higher rents?
Most views to the south are impeded by Chase Bank, and there are hardly any public places one can view the south face head on...it might as well be designed as if it were the "back." Gehry has all the showcase sides covered and I feel that's what's important.
Last time I checked 99% of our new buildings were flat walls with windows. Since when has it become the norm to crenelate all sides to pass as acceptable. This flat face will probably beat most new towers' good side.
Anybody is free cheerlead da Rat's version if they want to do so ...
However, it has been established that under the original Gehry design the building was intended to have the waviness / crenelation cover all eight sides. Value engineering won out.
So ... Should we now all concede that it's a BETTER building with the one flat side?
And that Gehry was wrong from the get-go?
Well it would have been better without the flat side but I feel it's something that had to take place in order for the project to move forward. Nearly every skyscraper is a compromise of what the architect dreams and what the developer can afford but I'll choose to appreciate what we do get.
It's easy to criticize on an internet forum with none of your money involved. Once again, if Ratner was cheap, all the sides would be flat, he wouldn't have hired Gehry, and he wouldn't be constructing the most expensive residential tower ever in NY.
there is something to be said for the art of the possible
Obviously its not better but its only slightly worse, which is still much better than the status quo of crap.
^Grasping at fictitious straws.BTW for all of those bringing up those exmaples of flat walls at least compare apples to apples not a flat wall that was produced to acomodate an adjoining buiding that was going to be pretty much attached to it to a flat wall that is to be on the side that is going to have the most exposure to sunlight and will never have any attached obstructions.
Not to differentiate between an exposed lot-line wall and a fully exposed facade is somewhat ridiculous.
Is it now?
I really doubt that those flat walls were put up with the expectation that another skyscraper would rise flush with it. It's been 80 years, in both cases.
It's not as if this tower is rising on a prominent full-block site in a low-rise area. It's rising mid-block in the financial district. Someone mentioned it earlier: the south wall will be largely obscured by the tall slabs to the south of it.
You're sayiing that the Pierre and 401 Broadway (both of which are shown in previous pictures with lot line wal,s comprised 90% of brick) were not constructed in that fashion precisely because those walls are on lot lines and the developer / architect fully understood the distinct possibility that another building would rise up against those blank walls?
It is just a matter of luck and / or economics that those walls remain visible to us now 80 or more years later.
I'm saying that line of reasoning has no merit. It's a moot point - the buildings have been standing there like that for 80 years, yet few would debate they're landmarks. 500 Fifth Avenue (NOT the Pierre) is especially significant because of its comparable height and setbacks.
We should get back to the discussion of the new building in particular.
okie doke...
Wow, that sure is gonna be a swell flat wall on the south side, don't y'all think so? Flat and straight up. Pretty novel way to do things. Innovative. In 80 years folks will still be talking about how unique it is.
Why this is relevant. We are discussing precedents of buildings with blank walls and their merits.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks