I was happy to see last weekend that these have fairly minimal impact when viewed from Central Park at the North Meadow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Fabrizio; November 11th, 2006 at 04:54 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.
So how are sales going here, anyone know?
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?
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...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.
Where is the reflective salvation for Park Avenue's aging brick boxes?