A Fight on New York’s Skyline

**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...

**wolverine** · August-31-10, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

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...

Correct. Alot of those renderings are for presentation sake. They get the client excited and sell an idea without nitpicking on codes.

It's interesting though how sometimes project architects personalities are different form design architects. The project architect visits from 10 floors up, fresh to the project and freaks out that these components are lacking. But really, the design will be finessed over time with the railings eventually added.

I sometimes must explain many design competitions are won where submittals have no consideration for egress travel distances or even the structural possibility of supporting itself. But the client understands that....they like to see what firms can push the boundaries in design. When cost, life safety, input from the community come into play things change later on in the project, and hopefully only slightly to preserve the original elegance of the design.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-31-10, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

I sometimes must explain many design competitions are won where submittals have no consideration for egress travel distances or even the structural possibility of supporting itself. But the client understands that....they like to see what firms can push the boundaries in design. When cost, life safety, input from the community come into play things change later on in the project, and hopefully only slightly to preserve the original elegance of the design.

I get the sense that most design architects are more interested in creating "statement" pieces of art or sculpture than they are a building. I submit one Frank Gehry as evidence. At the end of the day, if the building doesn't function, the architect's ego isn't worth a shit. To wit, Frank Lloyd Wright's Kentuck Knob in Pennsylvania has the kitchen located in the center of the residence with a skylight above, and is the hottest room in the house. I used to work with an architect that, no matter what the building, its use, or its context, would introduce as much glass as they possibly could. No reason other than they liked glass. A LOT.

It used to be that buildings were much simpler in form, with the art aspect provided by external adornment, such as detailing in the masonry or sculptures. These buildings are also easier to construct, and make it easier to identify problems such as roof leaks that will invariably occur over time. All you have to do is walk through any pre-war neighborhood to see the skill set we have thrown away in favor of massaging egos who desire to create fad pieces of statement art over dignified, respectable buildings that are able to be used by the owner. In my opinion, the average Philadelphia rowhouse is a far better piece of architecture than Frank Gehry's crumpled aluminum foil crap.

Wolverine hits it right on the head. When your "city" consists of a bunch of independently conceived artistic statements, the result is ill-defined space. This goes as much for a single-family home as it does a 100-story skyscraper. At the end of the day, it's the definition of space [[and scale!) that makes buildings and neighborhoods attractive and useable--not the name of the moron who vomited his latest "masterpiece" onto the public.

**wolverine** · August-31-10, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I get the sense that most design architects are more interested in creating "statement" pieces of art or sculpture than they are a building. I submit one Frank Gehry as evidence. At the end of the day, if the building doesn't function, the architect's ego isn't worth a shit.

It's about that alot and it bothers me. I'm also an urban planner, so holding things in balance can be a challenge. I've been critical of work I've seen where architects become intrigued by large gestures at the streetside elevation when the context is a very fine grained neighborhood.

I can't debate the superiorities of one period of architecture over the other, because my opinion will be different from others. I see merit in all periods to be honest. But personally, the Philadelphia rowhouse is one my favorites too, and my interests rest with pre-depression architecture. My work, however is quite the opposite.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-31-10, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

I can't debate the superiorities of one period of architecture over the other, because my opinion will be different from others. I see merit in all periods to be honest. But personally, the Philadelphia rowhouse is one my favorites too, and my interests rest with pre-depression architecture. My work, however is quite the opposite.

My comments weren't intended to comment on particular styles so much as the approach.

**d.mcc** · September-01-10, 02:14 AM

Now now, I didn't say ALL new buildings need to be an artistic impression of form and function on a grand scale. Certainly, scope, location, functionality, and relation to the surrounding built environment MUST be taken into account. That's not to say that all expression needs to be sucked from a project in order for it to be built. Successful architecture requires the integration of a bevy of systems, modes of egress, and ultimately falls down to usability by those inhabiting the space. The Yokohama Ferry Terminal by Foreign Office Architects, is a prime example of this integration.

**rb336** · September-01-10, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

I'm scanning the design blogs to see what I can find. Any guestimation on the name of the firm? Or the city?

i wish i knew. it was a while ago that a friend emailed a rendering to me

here is a link that worked for me for the ferry terminal:

http://plusmood.com/wp-content/uploa..._from_city.JPG

**rb336** · September-01-10, 07:45 AM

found it

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/r4...nd-arquitectos

**maxx** · September-01-10, 07:27 PM

The Bilbao Guggenheim reminds me of a present tied with a bow. Unusually shaped buildings require more space to show off the design. The real estate prices of Manhattan limit the type of building constructed there.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...iw=989&bih=596

I like this interior.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...1t:429,r:8,s:0

**d.mcc** · September-01-10, 10:22 PM

Ghery...

**shudder**

**Gistok** · September-01-10, 11:21 PM

I like the Guggenheim in Bilbao Spain. It is interesting... don't get me wrong.

But someone here mentioned that it was so wonderful architecture wise that it receives 6 million visitors per year.

Well as impressive as that boastful statistic sounds... 5.5 million of the visitors are bus tour tourists that have multi-city coach trips through Spain... and the Guggenheim/Bilbao stops were added to coach intineraries back in the 1990s. And wouldn't you know it.... each of the Spanish sights in towns and cities along the coach trip way EACH gets 5.5 million bus visitors!!!

That's why one should often be wary of how statistics are interpreted.

**d.mcc** · September-02-10, 04:30 PM

It was like a few years ago when the Phallic architecture trend took over. Perpetrated mainly by Foster and Nouvel, granted there were other guilty parties. It was only a matter of time before an American city wanted their piece of the... ahem... pie:

**maxx** · September-03-10, 06:50 AM

That looks like a twist on the obelisk .

**rb336** · September-03-10, 08:39 AM

um, ha ha?

**d.mcc** · September-03-10, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

um, ha ha?

Wanna see what it looks like currently???

**wolverine** · September-04-10, 03:15 AM

I'm glad the spire failed. It was awfully out of scale in that spot. I heard the whaler rings are starting to show stress. Maybe it will collapse and fill in

**d.mcc** · September-04-10, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

I'm glad the spire failed. It was awfully out of scale in that spot. I heard the whaler rings are starting to show stress. Maybe it will collapse and fill in

I hadn't heard that... Officially the project is on hold... I dunno what the developer plans to do.

**wolverine** · September-05-10, 04:10 AM

It is in hold but I still want to see the site developed, just not with a ridiculously tall tower. Btw, waterview just upriver was handed over to creditors recently. Hopefully now we'll see construction resume soon. They've still retained the developer

**d.mcc** · September-06-10, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by wolverine

It is in hold but I still want to see the site developed, just not with a ridiculously tall tower. Btw, waterview just upriver was handed over to creditors recently. Hopefully now we'll see construction resume soon. They've still retained the developer

Not to mention the thing was completely out of scale and context with the existing urban fabric

**Whitehouse** · September-06-10, 05:38 AM

Thankfully the city of Utrecht shot down this monster before it was build.

Would fit nice among other skscrapers but this was more or less a solitude structure of 262 meters that would dominate everything. It was cancelled in time. One of the better outcomes of financial crisis. That sausage on the bottom, following the 10-lane A2 between Amsterdam and Utrecht was realized. Albeit in a slightly different look.

**d.mcc** · September-07-10, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Whitehouse

Thankfully the city of Utrecht shot down this monster before it was build.

Would fit nice among other skscrapers but this was more or less a solitude structure of 262 meters that would dominate everything. It was cancelled in time. One of the better outcomes of financial crisis. That sausage on the bottom, following the 10-lane A2 between Amsterdam and Utrecht was realized. Albeit in a slightly different look.

And what is that supposed to be?