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.

**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-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.

**d.mcc** · August-30-10, 10:36 PM

bump...

Because I like having ACTUAL architectural discussions on here..

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

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

**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.....

**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, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

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.

I definitely agree that I would rather see the phare than most of the uninspired crap we get in the US. "hey, let's take a tower and make it look like a twizzler!' seems to be the most creative our architects have been lately. No wonder MSU went abroad to design the Broad

**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??

**maxx** · August-31-10, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

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.

So much for individual expression. Anyone ever hear of "The Fountainhead"?

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

**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.

**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/

**d.mcc** · August-31-10, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

I definitely agree that I would rather see the phare than most of the uninspired crap we get in the US. "hey, let's take a tower and make it look like a twizzler!' seems to be the most creative our architects have been lately. No wonder MSU went abroad to design the Broad

Now in that sense, I suppose it all falls back on personal preference. I can't stand Zaha, and a lot of her buildings, whether it be due to complexity of design or quality of construction, have some pretty glaring issues ie. water incursion, premature weathering and what have you. There were some decent entries into that competition. I'm usually impartial to Thom Mayne and Morphosis, especially when he allows his designers to break from deconstructionist architecture and create actual forms. I was really pulling for the Morphosis submission, but alas, Zaha wins again.

There are some extremely talent American architectural groups that take their talents overseas just because they have more freedom in design. Asymtope, Diller + Scofidio, and their ilk. Even in our own backyard we have Bill Massie at Cranbrook.

**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.

**rb336** · August-31-10, 01:23 PM

There's some cool building planned in mexico by a company whose name sounds -- scandinavian or finnish or something, but I think they are Mexican. It looks like a glas sculpture. I can imagine the changing reflections as people go by it, as the sun changes its angle, etc.

**d.mcc** · August-31-10, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

There's some cool building planned in mexico by a company whose name sounds -- scandinavian or finnish or something, but I think they are Mexican. It looks like a glas sculpture. I can imagine the changing reflections as people go by it, as the sun changes its angle, etc.

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