2628 & 2633 Broadway: Ariel West - by Cook + Fox | Ariel East - by Cetra/Ruddy

**lofter1** · September 25th, 2006, 10:14 PM

I was happy to see last weekend that these have fairly minimal impact when viewed from Central Park at the North Meadow.

**ablarc** · October 10th, 2006, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by lofter1

I was happy to see last weekend that these have fairly minimal impact when viewed from Central Park at the North Meadow.

Why is that a good thing? Central Park is surrounded by buildings that don't have minimal impact --and is enhanced by them. Start with all the twin-tower buildings on the West Side, don't forget the Beresford, then focus your attention east and south. Impact, impact everywhere --and almost all of it good.

**lofter1** · October 10th, 2006, 09:13 AM

It is "good" that it has little impact 'cuz I don't like this building ...

Neither do I like the banal red brick building just to the west of the Museum of Natural History which is closer to CP and therefore more "present" when one is in the park. Ditto for the horrid black box hopital buildinig on the east side of the park in the 90's.

Give me beautiful buildings surrounding the park (your CPW buildings including the Beresford are good examples). Save us all from bad design poking up over the trees.

**krulltime** · November 10th, 2006, 01:11 AM

November 9, 2006:

**NoyokA** · November 10th, 2006, 01:27 AM

The NIMBY's werent right. I do like the form of Ariel East, its just the application that's horrible. This is a despicable building, the architecture is simply repulsive.

**investordude** · November 10th, 2006, 04:46 AM

The problem with the blocks above 96th is that prewar architecture, or worse yet, ugly post war brick box towers, are so pervasive it gives the impression of a place whose glory days are in the past. We need a visible modern building that says Harlem and its environs are alive and well, and those buildings should be visible and militant in their message that the future of Harlem is now and ready for investors.

I think the architecture makes that statement well, without detracting from the other architectural heritage. And let's get real - what this replaced was a supermarket that was ugly, so I think its a positive.

So, I think this is a case where the developers "out of context" building sends a useful political message for the neighborhood, even if NIMBYs and architecture critics don't see it.

**Fabrizio** · November 10th, 2006, 05:23 AM

The supermarket was small and ugly. This is big and ugly.

The most usefull "political message" would be great new architecture. Not bad new architecture.

There is good modern architecture going up around the city... new modern buildings sitting next to old that work beautifully. Look downtown...Soho, Tribeca. The great old pRE-wars of upper Broadway deserve sensitively designed neighbors just as much as the cast-irons downtown.

For me height isnt even the problem. Imagine something like the Charles/Perry Street towers here. Simple...clean design....nicely finished. Here we get garish mirrored glass. Puny brick stripes. A tortured shape. Most likely a concrete wall on one side.

**ablarc** · November 10th, 2006, 07:47 AM

Investordude and Fabrizio, you're both right. Great that there's something new and forward looking and terrible that it's such crap. These buildings are contemptuous of their neighbors.

**rsupreme** · January 22nd, 2007, 01:54 AM

So how are sales going here, anyone know?

**NYCDOC** · January 22nd, 2007, 02:57 PM

How can anyone discuss these buildings without expressing anger over the way Ariel West is so far set back, ruining the street wall and exposing the sides of the neighboring buildings?!?!? THIS is without a doubt the worst part of a crappy development.

**rsupreme** · January 22nd, 2007, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by NYCDOC

How can anyone discuss these buildings without expressing anger over the way Ariel West is so far set back, ruining the street wall and exposing the sides of the neighboring buildings?!?!? THIS is without a doubt the worst part of a crappy development.

What's so bad about that? I've seen a number of posts about the set back, but doesn't that add character to a block? Don't other buildings in the city have little courtyards, etc.?

BTW, anyone know who's going to be managing the building? Will it be Penmark like in the Orion?

**ablarc** · January 22nd, 2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by rsupreme

What's so bad about that?

Retail discontinuity, gap-toothed streetwall, exposed windowless party wall, disruption of established pattern.

**czsz** · January 22nd, 2007, 04:57 PM

The problem with the blocks above 96th is that prewar architecture, or worse yet, ugly post war brick box towers, are so pervasive it gives the impression of a place whose glory days are in the past. We need a visible modern building that says Harlem and its environs are alive and well, and those buildings should be visible and militant in their message that the future of Harlem is now and ready for investors.

Reminds me of 1989, when every ex-Eastern Bloc capital needed tacky-flashy reflective glass midrise to show that it had "arrived" into a vaguely Houston-Atlanta-Phoenix vision of the urban future...

Where is the reflective salvation for Park Avenue's aging brick boxes?

**ablarc** · January 22nd, 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by czsz

Where is the reflective salvation for Park Avenue's aging brick boxes?

They don't need salvation any more than upper Broadway needs it. All that's required up there is replacement of the single-story branch banks with slightly updated brick boxes.

Btw, glad to see you back.