Proposed: Shangri-La Hotel, New York - 610 Lexington Ave - by Norman Foster

**londonlawyer** · November 28th, 2005, 05:48 PM

I appreciate your ability to see the bright side of things. However, the YMCA building is nice, and, in my opinion, it should not be razed for this box. Moreover, if it was just another building by just another architect, I wouldn't care that it's merely a box, but Foster is supposed to create landmarks. People would be upset if Gehry's building downtown looks like this.

I think that Abey Rosen sucks. He could have built this tower (though perhaps not as tall) on the crap sites north of this one on Lex in the 50's and could have saved this nice Y building.

http://www.thecityreview.com/lex610c.jpg

PS: Are you the same guy who used to post as Fabb from Paris? You have good posts as did he.

**antinimby** · November 29th, 2005, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by londonlawyer

Basically, that moron Abey Rosen paid Foster a fortune to design a box. This building sucks.

At first glance, I was thinking pretty much the same thing as you but upon further contemplation, I realized exactly why this is.

First, we know Foster doesn't usually do boxes. Just look at some of his work mentioned in that article: HSBC in HK, Commerzbank in Frankfurt, Swiss Re in London and of course, our beautiful Hearst building to name a few.
These buildings are hardly what you would call boxes. In fact, I would even call them to be cutting edge.

So why I asked myself, would he do a simple box design here?
Again, it comes down to this being NY.
Abey Rosen, like any other developer in this city knows all too well how a proposed project can be easily rejected and knows how many hurdles he must overcome in order to get this (air-rights transfer) approved.

You've got the community board, this commission, that commission (even now there is supposed to be one last approval required from the Planning Commission).
He figured that in order to have the best chance to get through all this red-tape, would be to do an elegant but low-key building.

These organisations are not known to look favourably upon flashy or radical designs. Remember, this city has very conservative skyscraper tastes. Anything more elaborate is looked upon as threatening and out-of-context.

The second reason I could come up with is that Foster doesn't want to upstage the much-revered Seagrams.
Imagine the outrage it would cause here on this forum let alone the public, if he were to do something to the contrary.

Knowing this now, I have the utmost respect for him. Truly an admirable designer with tremendous foresight.

**londonlawyer** · November 29th, 2005, 10:02 AM

I agree with your points. I think that Foster designed this box in order to complement the Seagram's International Style. It's disappointing though because Rosen could have hired Kostas Condylis to design the box, and none of us would have been disappointed when we saw the uninspired, boring project that's rising. We would have expected that from Kostas.

**ablarc** · November 29th, 2005, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by londonlawyer

I agree with your points. I think that Foster designed this box in order to complement the Seagram's International Style. It's disappointing though because Rosen could have hired Kostas Condylis to design the box, and none of us would have been disappointed when we saw the uninspired, boring project that's rising. We would have expected that from Kostas.

"God is in the details." --Mies

That's what distinguishes Seagram from the other brown boxes.

Foster will probably get the details inspiring, and Kondylis probably couldn't if he wanted to.

**lofter1** · November 29th, 2005, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by londonlawyer

none of us would have been disappointed when we saw the uninspired, boring project that's rising. We would have expected that from Kostas.

Expected, yes ... but it does not ease the disappointment.

**londonlawyer** · November 29th, 2005, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by lofter1

Expected, yes ... but it does not ease the disappointment.

I agree.

**NoyokA** · November 29th, 2005, 12:36 PM

Not everything's about razzle dazzle....

Look at this buildings in relation to Seagram. It has a lower flank like Seagram has and this is in relation to the flank behind Seagram. Seagram has a mass that rises vertically. This building has a greater and even more dramatic shaft. These buildings work together not as a modernist campus but rather as a single entity. If you look at it as an addition to Seagram, which it really is, you will see how great the design is. Cross bracings or a sloped ceiling would be entirely inapropriate in that respect.

**NoyokA** · November 29th, 2005, 12:45 PM

A better way to think of it is to forget this is being built today. Look at the image I posted and think of it is as this is how it was first built, as it was intended to be built, as a full block building, as a single entity.

**TallGuy** · November 29th, 2005, 01:56 PM

I think it looks amazing; slender and graceful. Its' narrowness gives its' height a much more dramatic presentation than if it were wider or had setbacks.

**BrooklynRider** · November 29th, 2005, 05:46 PM

It is a very flattering perspective, but not the only one.

**lofter1** · November 29th, 2005, 10:24 PM

And a perspective that will never actually be seen -- unless they level about ten full blocks to the north.

**krulltime** · November 29th, 2005, 10:40 PM

It is ok... Nothing special. It will just become unnoticeable after is built. But maybe I am wrong. I need to see a better rendering.

**Citytect** · November 30th, 2005, 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by krulltime

I need to see a better rendering.

Definately. It's a little premature to judge this one based on that blurry image.

**NYguy** · November 30th, 2005, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by TallGuy

I think it looks amazing; slender and graceful. Its' narrowness gives its' height a much more dramatic presentation than if it were wider or had setbacks.

That's exactly right. It makes the 700 ft (plus) height more dramatic...