Page 5 of 116 FirstFirst 1234567891555105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1734

Thread: 200 Greenwich Street - Proposed WTC Tower #2 - by Norman Foster

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PHLguy
    This building is going to go through alot of changes even once we see what it will look like. Reguardless of the height ot design. I mean just look at what the Freedom tower went through!
    I agree.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Foster has not yet done his best work. Here's a tip from this sidewalk superintendent: get some inspiration from Raymond Hood.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PHLguy
    This building is going to go through alot of changes even once we see what it will look like. Reguardless of the height ot design. I mean just look at what the Freedom tower went through!
    Maybe not. This building is not carrying all the emotional and symbolic baggage as the FT. It might just be developed in a normal, rational way.

    The more I think about it, I even prefer the address.

  4. #64

    Default

    Lucid in the sky with diamonds

    Norman Foster has beaten New York at its own game with a tower that raises the high-rise stakes. Next stop ... Ground Zero


    Deyan Sudjic
    Sunday January 8, 2006
    The Observer


    There are times when Norman Foster looks like two entirely different kinds of architect. Which one you get depends on which side of the Atlantic you happen to be. In London he has become a ubiquitous, monochrome presence, dressing everything from Wembley stadium to the Asprey jewellery store in the uniform of self-confident corporate modernism, like a reliable machine. But in New York, where he still has something to prove, and is operating at the top of his game, he is unbeatable as a brilliant architectural innovator.

    In the city that perfected the skyscraper then repeated the formula endlessly, he is the European who has taken on the apparently impossible task of rescuing the high-rise from creative exhaustion. His just-completed new headquarters for the Hearst magazine empire, on Eighth Avenue, close to Central Park, succeeds in doing that, and deservedly is getting astonishingly enthusiastic coverage.

    The New Yorker's architecture critic, Paul Goldberger, not normally overawed by Foster, calls him 'the Mozart of Modernism', and describes the tower as the most beautiful high-rise to be built in Manhattan since 1967. Goldberger is putting him in almost the same category as Mies van der Rohe and the Seagram tower, and he is right to do so. He is even more enthusiastic about the interior. He calls the lobby as much of a surprise as the spiral at the heart of Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum.

    Foster has succeeded brilliantly with a commission that involved putting a million square feet of offices on top of an existing Art Deco structure. It is a combination that could have looked as uncomfortable and freakish as King Kong perched on top of the Empire State. Instead Foster has developed a convincing strategy for an office tower that is entirely distinctive but shows no sign of straining for effect.

    He animates the tower not just by exposing its triangulated structure - an arrangement that is strong enough to reduce the cost of the steel by 20 per cent compared with a conventional design - but by crumpling the façade, pushing each corner in and out to follow the geometry of the building, giving it a massive, craggy quality very different from the curtain-like nature of most glass towers.

    But this is not just a convincing piece of sculpture, and structural logic, it is equally a piece of contextualism, and of historic preservation, that makes a strong contribution to the vitality of the city.

    Perhaps as a result of the Hearst project, developer Larry Silverstein has hired Foster to design one of the cluster of skyscrapers he wants to build on the site of the Twin Towers, suggesting he may be regretting it was Daniel Libeskind who was selected to do the master plan for Ground Zero, and not Foster. Indeed the Hearst Tower resembles the pair of linked towers Foster proposed in the ill-fated Ground Zero competition, albeit on a much smaller scale, which also had the diamond pattern Foster used for the Swiss Re tower in London, and the Hearst Tower.

    At 42 stories, the Hearst is modest by New York standards, yet even in a city crowded with skyscrapers it stands out. Like the Swiss Re it tries to do things differently to overcome the sheer inevitability with which most high rise architecture clothes its box shapes, but the differences between the two are as instructive as the similarities. Swiss Re has a circular floor plan while the Hearst is rectangular. But the Hearst Tower's faceted diamond structure introduces ambiguity into the order of its structure that is lacking with Swiss Re. Its crystalline geometry is like a cubist version of the Swiss Re cylinder. The diamond panels slant in and out, touching at just five points, every eight floors. It works the magic trick of abolishing corners.

    In fact the tower is symmetrical, but the diamond pattern of its façades makes it look as if it isn't. As you move around New York, you keep getting glimpses of a tower whose character seems to shift with every new view. Swiss Re on the other hand is exactly the same from wherever you see it. And while Swiss Re is something of a non-event at the pavement, the Hearst Tower has a much stronger presence at ground level.

    William Randolph Hearst commissioned the original New York headquarters for his publishing empire in 1928. The Viennese exile Joseph Urban designed a six-storey Art Deco block, faced in stone, always intended as the base for a tower that, 70 years later, still hadn't been built. Urban used the language of Busby Berkeley for a design that would have looked more at home in Hollywood than on Eighth Avenue, within sight of Central Park. Foster keeps the stone base as a kind of skirt, allowing the tower to float above it, neither continuing the original aesthetic nor ignoring it.

    Inside its skin he has carved out what he describes as a town square, but does not reveal it at once. Coming through the bronze doors of Urban's original façade, visitors are confronted with banks of escalators funnelling them through a cascading waterfall and up to an expansive vaulted space that explosively reveals itself. As they ascend, they find themselves in a light-filled cathedral, five floors high, with the elevator lobby, a staff cafe and other social amenities at its centre, offering an exemplary demonstration of all that a high-rise can offer a city.

  5. #65

    Default

    Now don't get me wrong, I think the Hearst building is "nice" but I certainly don't want anything like that at GZ. It's sort of how the first FT looked weird, and the 2nd one is just right. I want a building-looking building, not some exercise in modern art. There's many many many ways of making a good looking building that is still interesting, I hope he won't do some upside down cone with steel beams sticking out. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see

  6. #66
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    I's take a 1000' foot Hearst clone over the latest Freedom Tower without a second thought.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
    I's take a 1000' foot Hearst clone over the latest Freedom Tower without a second thought.
    heh, well I would definately not.

  8. #68
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    The phrase "building-looking building" , is, to me, revolting. Even more the second time I read it. With such thinking, and by the way not limited to architecture, progress ceases.
    Not trying to start some big debate, which I really don't have time for,
    but, IMO, that phrase can't slip by without comment.

  9. #69

    Default

    Well I just see the ESB as the definition of what a building should be. That's just me and that's the kind of architecture I find appealing. It's of course just my view but I don't like much of what Shanghai had built. i don't like things that are flashy and oddly shaped and brutalist buildings just "fit" in NYC and I love that.

    Assume that Hearst was 1500 feet high, do you think that's a building that could be as iconic as our other supertalls? BoA is an original nice looking building yet it retains the basic things that make it appealing in a convential sense. Same goes for NYTT. I can't say the same about 80 South, while an interesting building and perhaps essential to the revitalization of our waterfront it simply IS NOT in my book, a good looking building.

    I hope for this tower not to be a box but if the alternative is something crazy looking then I'd rather take a box.

  10. #70

    Default

    I've come to the conclusion that Foster's tower should have either 2 spires or
    2 antennas that reach the roof height of the Freedom Tower. This will help
    balance out that large spire on the skyline...





    _



  11. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jake
    Well I just see the ESB as the definition of what a building should be. That's just me and that's the kind of architecture I find appealing. It's of course just my view but I don't like much of what Shanghai had built. i don't like things that are flashy and oddly shaped and brutalist buildings just "fit" in NYC and I love that.

    Assume that Hearst was 1500 feet high, do you think that's a building that could be as iconic as our other supertalls? BoA is an original nice looking building yet it retains the basic things that make it appealing in a convential sense. Same goes for NYTT. I can't say the same about 80 South, while an interesting building and perhaps essential to the revitalization of our waterfront it simply IS NOT in my book, a good looking building.

    I hope for this tower not to be a box but if the alternative is something crazy looking then I'd rather take a box.

    I have to agree.

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jake
    Now don't get me wrong, I think the Hearst building is "nice" but I certainly don't want anything like that at GZ. It's sort of how the first FT looked weird, and the 2nd one is just right. I want a building-looking building,
    Most people feel that way.

    Jake, what is your opinion of the original Foster WTC submission?

    Given that the majority of the population is averse to radically different architecture, I think the popularity of the Foster model was due primarily to the great height, and that there were two.

    I think the Hearst building is terrific, in spite of its lack of good height; but I thought the kissing-twins were awkward, especially from certain perspectives.

  13. #73

    Default

    Will Foster design the hotel that was proposed for part of this Tower 2 site?

  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    456

    Default

    I liked the original Foster proposal as an updated version of the originals and for their simplicity and lack of pretension, although I had reservations about the angles, but it could have grown on me. Part of my problem with most of the proposals for the site has been that they have been too pretensious and trying to hard for grandeur, too much going on, etc. I think more is said with less, and the WTC site IS and SHOULD BE conservative design-wise in my opinion. Nothing weird, although there is a place for that. The latest FT design accomplishes that for me inspite of some of its' shortcomings. If an Egyptian pyramid were destroyed and rebuilt, would we want a big cube to be built? No, we would want a pyramid. I know this is not a perfect example, but I think there are more suitable places in New York such as Midtown, more suitable for cutting edge design.

    I know, I'm dull. Just my preference.

  15. #75
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    ...the original Foster WTC submission ... I thought the kissing-twins were awkward, especially from certain perspectives.
    Agreed. From certain angles, especially as one moved to the north east / west and south east / west (where the openings between the two towers were not apparent), it appeared to be one huge wall and far too monolithic.

Similar Threads

  1. Greenwich Village Preservation Watch - Be on the alert!
    By OKoranjes in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 24th, 2015, 04:17 AM
  2. Greenwich Street 'Restoration'
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: December 21st, 2013, 06:05 PM
  3. 165 Charles Street @ West Street - by Richard Meier
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: June 8th, 2010, 06:36 PM
  4. 497 Greenwich Street - Condo
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2006, 05:44 PM
  5. Director's Guild of America Tower -110 West 57th Street
    By londonlawyer in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 18th, 2003, 12:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software