A Fight on New York’s Skyline

**wolverine** · August-25-10, 09:13 PM

There's been several news articles about this recently. Quite the interesting issue. A new single-tenant office skyscraper will rise on the Manhattan skyline. Rising 1200 feet, and having 2.8 million square feet of floor space, it will just be a couple blocks from the Empire State Building, its owners are not happy at all. Unfortunately for them, it just got approval from the city. I'm sure there are more towers to follow as demand for new office space continues to rise.

Image Source: The New York Times

The New York Times - A Fight on New York’s Skyline

To hear the two sides in the skyscraper war tell it, never has so much been at stake.
The owners of the Empire State Building and their supporters say their tower’s international status and New York City’s skyline are in mortal danger of an assault from a “monstrosity.”
Their rival: a proposed tower on 34th Street two avenues to the west that, according to its developers, will help the city grow and prosper, provide thousands of jobs and improve the quality of life for tens of thousands of New Yorkers.
What irks the former is that the latter would rise to be 1,216 feet, almost as tall as the Empire State Building, and would be just 900 feet away, a little too close for a building that has stood apart in the skyline for its entire 79-year life.
“The question here is: How close is too close to one of New York’s iconic landmarks,” Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick said Monday, after a hearing in which the owners of both properties made their cases, in advance of a City Council vote on Wednesday...........

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/ny...e.html?_r=2&hp

**d.mcc** · August-25-10, 09:27 PM

Yay for tapered glass tubes!

**maxx** · August-29-10, 08:48 AM

The new building is pretty conservative by the standards of Dubai and Shanghai. Dubai has some buildings that appear to break the laws of physics.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...iw=991&bih=596

**Patrick** · August-29-10, 10:15 AM

Wild and stupid architecture with retarded heights doesn't reflect the greatness of a city. the Arabs have yet to realize this.

**maxx** · August-29-10, 10:31 AM

I see it as architecture as art and pushing the envelope.

**d.mcc** · August-29-10, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

I see it as architecture as art and pushing the envelope.

Not to mention, lack of substantial or sustainable urban planning outside of small pockets and developments I would have to agree with you. Building a hyper-scraper in the middle of a barren development isn't the way to attract tennants, well, aside from the fact that the thin will never be more than 75% occupied.

The buildings that go up in NYC and other American cities are tame by the standards set by European and Asian cities. American developers tend to play it safe and conservative and rarely allow for any real envelope pushing architecture to be built in the urban core. Granted there are niches in which certain architects are allowed to exhibit their art and create truly incredible structures, but again, what I perceive as an amazing piece of architecture, might be seen as gaudy and overdone by others, and certainly vice versa. The rift in artistic and architectural tastes is what forces American developers to maintain the status quo and construct and sell these tapered glass boxes.

Real architectural exploration should cause those that experience to look beyond the building itself and evoke some sort of emotion. This building won't push those emotions, or cause those reactions, and the developers know this.

That's the difference between a building, and architecture.

**wolverine** · August-29-10, 03:24 PM

If the ESB was New York's crown jewel of the 20th century, this new tower is pretty lame for the 21st century. I'm not saying build something wacky. Personally, I find some of the building in Dubai pretty tasteless. But I think we should push the envelope in technology while balancing the functionality and flexibility of an office tower. To me this tower is pretty bland. It lacks identity.

**d.mcc** · August-29-10, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

If the ESB was New York's crown jewel of the 20th century, this new tower is pretty lame for the 21st century. I'm not saying build something wacky. Personally, I find some of the building in Dubai pretty tasteless. But I think we should push the envelope in technology while balancing the functionality and flexibility of an office tower. To me this tower is pretty bland. It lacks identity.

Just like the original freedom tower was an architectural expression, then people got all huffy and puffy about it, and we are left with, you guessed it, a Tapered Glass Box.

Who said skyscrapers can't be beautiful, look no further than the Phare [[if it will ever be constructed) by Morphosis. It's different, its beautiful, it's tall, and it's and expression of not only form, but also function. Thinks like that, hardly EVER get built here...

**ghettopalmetto** · August-29-10, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

Just like the original freedom tower was an architectural expression, then people got all huffy and puffy about it, and we are left with, you guessed it, a Tapered Glass Box.

This is what happens when decisions are made by committee and everything is put to a "popular vote". Let trained professionals do their jobs, I say, and let the truck drivers continue driving trucks.

**rb336** · August-30-10, 09:51 AM

I don't know about the Phare - looks like a glass sculpture of a fat king

**d.mcc** · August-30-10, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

I don't know about the Phare - looks like a glass sculpture of a fat king

Goes back to my original commentary on how beauty is perceived differently by different people. The main point with the Phare, is that it's a different form and design than anything you would find here in the States. Bowed forms, lack of fenestrations and standardized floor plates, yet the building retains functionality. The freedom tower was the closest thing in the States that I saw that came close to anything that was being planned or designed for European cities, and it was destroyed. The expression and design was destroyed and watered down, and we were left with a glass tube with faceted corners. There is nothing exciting about that architecture.

**Gistok** · August-29-10, 03:42 PM

This reminds me of New York's former AT&T Headquarters [[now Sony Building) by architect Phillip Johnson. That was made to resemble an oversized Chippendale highboy... this new building looks like an oversized WIFI antenna.

**d.mcc** · August-30-10, 10:36 PM

bump...

Because I like having ACTUAL architectural discussions on here..

**wolverine** · August-31-10, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

bump...

Because I like having ACTUAL architectural discussions on here..

Actually, I'm a little depressed. My kick-ass building design got severely value-engineered the other day.....

**d.mcc** · August-31-10, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

Actually, I'm a little depressed. My kick-ass building design got severely value-engineered the other day.....

Had that happen a few times at my last firm. Luckily a few of the small projects I was the design lead on were actually approved for construction. Tough to say what they are doing with them now, but when I left our drawings were going out for permitting.

**Fury13** · August-31-10, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

bump...

Because I like having ACTUAL architectural discussions on here..

Architecture reached its peak under H.H. Richardson and has been going downhill rapidly since Louis Sullivan stopped drawing. How's that?

**rb336** · August-31-10, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Fury13

Architecture reached its peak under H.H. Richardson and has been going downhill rapidly since Louis Sullivan stopped drawing. How's that?

pretty grim. nothing interesting since the 1910s or so??

**East Detroit** · August-31-10, 06:48 AM

Every time you use your credit card, a yuppie in New York gets his wings.

**maxx** · August-31-10, 01:06 PM

Dubai hotel: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...1t:429,r:2,s:0

http://www.dezeen.com/2007/02/02/zah...-dhabi-update/

**maxx** · August-31-10, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

I don't know about the Phare - looks like a glass sculpture of a fat king

At least it's not a box.

**d.mcc** · August-31-10, 01:52 PM

Instead of this Norra Djursgårdsstaden Ferry Terminal, Sweden ...

We get this:

**Gistok** · August-31-10, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

Instead of this Norra Djursgårdsstaden Ferry Terminal, Sweden ...

We get this:

I bet that no liability insurance company in America would provide insurance for that Ferry Terminal building, were it ever built here.

The problem with cutting edge designs usually means that it is a maintenance nightmare. Just ask Frank Gehry and the company that's suing him for building problems.

An speaking of Gehry... has anyone ever figured out a scaffolding window washing system for his buildings??

Just look at the Sydney Opera House.... 10's of millions in later repairs.

Although I'm all for innovation, many American businesspeople usually see this equation....

INNOVATIVE BUILDING = COST OVERRUNS + HIGH MAINTENANCE COSTS

**ghettopalmetto** · August-31-10, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I bet that no liability insurance company in America would provide insurance for that Ferry Terminal building, were it ever built here.

The problem with cutting edge designs usually means that it is a maintenance nightmare. Just ask Frank Gehry and the company that's suing him for building problems.

That doesn't prevent insurance companies from covering ridiculous McMansions with fifteen-thousand different roof gables that aren't even designed by licensed professionals.

...and liability insurance doesn't cover buildings.

**wolverine** · August-31-10, 06:25 PM

I wouldn't say there is necessarily anything wrong with a box. There's a lot more to architecture than achieving unusual forms. But I would agree glass boxes have gotten monotonous. One thing that gets me about the harbor fronts of new middle eastern and Asian cities is the assortment of shampoo bottles that comprise their skyline.

There's always been something nice about European and American architecture to be contextually sensitive. The New York skyline tends to be more of a balanced composition because of the relationships between building to building, street canyon to street canyon, and neighborhood to neighborhood. The voids between buildings are architectural spaces as well. They have definition. While I agree we need to push the envelope on building form, I also fear these well defined voids will become heavily eroded. Our skylines will appear too spontaneous and random, and we'll actually see a loss sense of place.

**Gistok** · August-31-10, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

That doesn't prevent insurance companies from covering ridiculous McMansions with fifteen-thousand different roof gables that aren't even designed by licensed professionals.

...and liability insurance doesn't cover buildings.

Perhaps I was too subtle... the point I was trying to make is that the building has no railings... and if someone fell off.... business liability insurance would cover it.

Likely the preliminary designs omitted those railings that would have somewhat compromise the sleekness of the design... but would have been required by most building codes in most countries...