Reply With QuoteIf a bubble bursts and no one is there to hear it.
Did it really burst at all?
Maybe it wouldnt have burst if no-one said anything. Think about it
If a bubble bursts and no one is there to hear it.
Did it really burst at all?
On the other hand, if a bubble bursts and there is no one to pay the mortage ...
There are always people listening for the pop in the bubble, given the high percentage of real estate investors as opposed to home buyers.
Short term crashes in real-estate are of more importance to investors than long term buyers, who should be more concerned with trends. Assuming he could meet mortgage payments and his income is secure, a buyer in the late 1980s could whether the crash that followed. In the long run, the trend was upward. What hurts long term buyers is ARMs.
I think 80 South St is an entirely different situation. I doubt that these will be primary homes, and the rise and fall of real estate value will not be as critical a determination as in typical Manhattan real estate.
What could dramatically affect the saleability of 80 South St is the direction the neighborhood takes, which could be somewhat influenced by a bubble-burst.
Damn it! I've contradicted myself.
Gutter has a picture of the Howe & Lescaze tower: http://www.gutter.curbed.com/Originally Posted by pianoman11686
Wow, that's quite a find, lofter. Nothing new under the sun.
Not even in the realm of genius. Maybe even, especially not in the realm of genius.
RE: Genius ... that's what the post at Gutter discusses, specifically in relation to this building.
ps: I didn't reallly find it .. credit goes to Gutter
btw: I'm not sure of the propriety of copying photos like that from one site to another. Any rules on this?
$$$ determine my value
Lets stop blowing Calatrava and start really looking at this building as a piece of architecture. Issues:
1: An infinite budget, not genius, made this an interesting building.
2: This building relies exclusively on the seductive qualities of cool factor to fake 'good' architecture: as mentioned previously in this forum, the idea is not new and can be easily traced to constructivist artwork and theoretical architecture. It's primitive use of geometry calls to mind a four year old with a Lego set and retains none of the subliminal or purist undertones of the aesthetic it evokes.
3: The physical nature of the structure reinforces an excessive sense of individualism going so far as to literally privatize the physical building makeup. You dont live in a this building with other people, you live in your own 'exclusive' (my money makes me better), pod. This withdrawal from the public realm contributes to a general disengagement with the local community and the city in a way that is extremely destructive to the social makeup of the place and the rich identity of NYC.
To close, this is nothing more than a sick experiment that materializes the worst qualities of the NY socialite. Go spend your 29 million dollars, live in your bubble, and die having done nothing but consumed for the sake of status.
Did anyone else note the resemblance to those old school hamster cages connected by the little tubes?
In other words...
1. Housing for rich people is, by definition, bad.
2. NY is just not big enough for this sort of variety. It must adhere to a predefined socio-economic idea of community in all places. Variation in lifestyles should not be tolerated, especially from the rich.
3. Being this is a first post from someone with a screename of CALATRAVA_SUX you obviously have a specific agenda. Most likely you have not stated what it really is in the post itself but have rather posted other "issues" that will lead to the same result that your hidden agenda does. Thereby, achieving your goal without ever stating your real reason.
Last edited by JMGarcia; November 1st, 2005 at 03:41 PM.
No. What's strange is that you did.
"....the idea is not new and can be easily traced to...."
Is there something new about nothing-new-under-the-sun? Who cares that designs show up that are similair? Actually you don´t have to look that far back into history.... there´s a 1970´s apt building in Paris along the Siene that´s made up of cubes. If I can find a photo I will post it.
"The physical nature of the structure reinforces an excessive sense of individualism going so far as to literally privatize the physical building makeup."
Huh? You mean kind of like the cool and aloof Seagrams sitting there alone on it´s plaza?
"You dont live in this building with other people, you live in your own 'exclusive' (my money makes me better), pod."
Like any other deluxe one-apartment/loft-per floor building?
"This withdrawal from the public realm contributes to a general disengagement with the local community and the city in a way that is extremely destructive to the social makeup of the place and the rich identity of NYC."
he he... funny but on Park or on 5th I´ve never seen anyone taking out the garbage in their slippers....
"go spend your 29 million dollars, live in your bubble, and die having done nothing but consumed for the sake of status."
Would you feel better if it cost 3 million dollars? 5? What´s your morally wrong cut-off point?
"Did anyone else note the resemblance to those old school hamster cages connected by the little tubes?"
Yes. Cool.
no agenda
First Post, no agenda... except that i personally would rather talk about architecture than terrorism. Just trying to broaden the discourse.
You could broaden it more by changing your ID.
for JMGarcia
Housing for the rich is not inherently bad, but the physical manifestation of architecture does begin to create readable signage that in this case communicates an extreme sense of hierarchy that i believe to be at least somewhat counterproductive to democratic process. Can there be visual modesty in high end architecture? (to varying degrees no doubt) Also, given the killer opportunity of budget and site, what else could this building have done to contribute to a greater sense of regional identity?In other words...
1. Housing for rich people is, by definition, bad.
2. NY is just not big enough for this sort of variety. It must adhere to a predefined socio-economic idea of community in all places. Variation in lifestyles should not be tolerated, especially from the rich.
3. Being this is a first post from someone with a screename of CALATRAVA_SUX you obviously have a specific agenda. Most likely you have not stated what it really is in the post itself but have rather posted other "issues" that will lead to the same result that your hidden agenda does. Thereby, achieving your goal without ever stating your real reason.
For Fabrizio
Basically, this building completely eliminates nearly all neighborly encounters, let alone street encounters. Most buildings are read as a conglomerate mass, this one reads as completely separate and somewhat visually autonomous units that combine to create a whole that expresses individualism (sort of like Seagrams). Strange enough that while the inhabitants of 80 South will never have to step out of their comfort zone to interact with the world, they are more or less a zoo exhibit of rich people and (as mentioned previously in other posts) somewhat of an urban spectacle (which i like).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks