|
| Posted by: Seattle Zen
- Donor [554192913] Wed, Dec 18, 2002, 16:16
These are so much more intriguing and awe inspiring than the first batch. Just look at these images!
Here's another view of the one above
Here are my two least favorite
And the biggest POUND symbol ever devised.
New York has given itself a priceless gift. It has opened the minds of government officials to the idea of contemporary architecture. Thanks entirely to public pressure, our great city has taken a giant step toward reclaiming a place of world leadership in the civil art of building.
New Plans Unveiled for Ground Zero |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Wed, Dec 18, 2002, 16:26
|
I remember when these were revealed in the Times. A big reaction on the first couple of messy submissions.
pd
|
|
| | | 2 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Wed, Dec 18, 2002, 19:27
|
But wait, there's more!
Here is "Perpetual Scaffolding"
|
|
| | | 3 | yankeeh8tr
Donor
ID: 3011531712
Wed, Dec 18, 2002, 20:40
|
I'm partial to the THINK groups "scaffolding" and United's design. While I'm not big on new towers (it would be uncomfortable to my psyche to see something different there - the Towers dominate my memories of downtown growing up) I know that the real estate is "too valuable" to developers to let it sit fallow. That said, whatever goes in, I hope it includes a higher residential/recreation to retail/office ratio.
|
|
| | | 4 | WiddleAvi
ID: 361032112
Thu, Dec 19, 2002, 15:42
|
Is the point to rebuild 2 buildings in NY or to rebuild them in a way that it is a memorial and Sept 11 ?? To me it looks like a contest of who can make a cool looking building .
|
|
| | | 6 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Thu, Dec 19, 2002, 20:01
|
I guess the goal is to give any follow up terrorists vertigo.
|
|
| | | 7 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 13:26
|
Built or only imagined, architectural designs all contribute to the larger cause of making cities live. Yesterday, New York got its first look at the latest round of designs for ground zero.
Check out the slide show with the architechs' comments on their designs. I am really intrigued with Daniel Libeskind's plan which is amazingly dense and gorgeous. On September 11 from 8am-10am every year, the entire plaza will be without shaddow, the only time this occurs. Simply genius!
I am liking Richard Meier's "pound symbol" a little more. He has an very interesting idea of glass-bottomed reflecting pools with long grass "fingers" that extend out to the river, recreating the shaddows of the Twin Towers.
I am baffled by THINK's "Perpetual Scaffolding" design. Are the two towers open air? How could you possibly have people exposed to the elements 1000 feet in the air?
You have to watch the video of United Architech's design. I don't think anyone would ever tire of walking around that amazing set of buildings.
|
|
| | | 8 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 13:43
|
I don't really like any of them. If they are going to put buildings there, there is no need for them to be some architect's wet dream. Just put 2 big buildings there. No need to set any records for height or number of groans upon seeing them. WTC were simple yet majestic. Build a 21st centruy version of them. Maybe something like Petronas (which I recently saw - Wow), but more inline with the flavor of Manhattan's skyline. Sears and Hancock are both beautiful buildings but they'd look ridiculously out of place anywhere outside of Chicago. The fit has to be there. These buildings don't mesh with anything; they are just sort of standalone conceptions.
|
|
| | | 9 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 13:46
|
And I think the bottom and top floors of each building should be huge memorials. Maybe connect the buildings at the bottom with a huge atrium.
|
|
| | | 10 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 13:57
|
These buildings don't mesh with anything; they are just sort of standalone conceptions.
That's precisely what most New Yorkers thought of the twin towers when they were commissioned and in construction, and in the first 10 years or so of their existance.
|
|
| | | 11 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 14:16
|
How boring, Razor. I hadn't pegged you for a philistine. The WTC towers were an abomination. Absoultely nothing "majestic" about them, they were simply tall.
Nothing could be more "in the flavor of Manhattan's skyline" than a bold, excitingly new design. The Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building were audatious expiditions into what was never thought possible. New York was famous because it was the FUTURE. Unlike European cities, New York has a history of tearing down the old to create new at an alarming rate. Name one skyscraper in Europe! Do you even have a guess what city on the Continent has its tallest tower? I'll tell you that it is shorter than the Bank of America building in little 'ol Seattle.
And if you explored United Architechs' design, you would see that the MIDDLE of their buildings are connected in a huge "sky atrium" that looks simply amazing.
These designs cannot be dismissed as "wet dreams", New York needs a dose of vitality to keep its edge or it will be no more interesting than Kansas City.
You probably won't like the new Guggenheim designed by Frank Gehry either. Thankfully you weren't on the board, because it will be one of the most amazing buildings in NYC.
|
|
| | | 12 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 14:42
|
I'm sorry, but I see nothing 'amazing' about the above photos. Looks to me, like molten metal fell and cooled where it sat.
I personally like the idea, of rebuilding the WTC, exactly as they were, exactly where they were. What better way to say how impotent the terrorists activities were?
|
|
| | | 13 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 14:54
|
Whoa, there's a world of difference between a museum and the centerpiece of the Western hemisphere's biggest skyline. Zany architecture I like. But NY has a classic feel to the skyline, even with the new buildings.
See that's your problem. You're looking in the wrong direction if you want to compare skylines. If you look at the new Asian cities, their skyscrapers are way different than ours. Very modern but would look very out of place in a city as old as NY. NY isn't "the future" any more. Leave the new cities like Shanghai to make the huge "Here I am" statements to the rest of the word. As far as keeping an edge, NY isn't going to do it with one building. NY's skyline, unlike many other cities, is a combination of many impressive buildings scattered among the less impressive ones. I feel like making one building stand out so drastically takes something away from the rest of the city. For instance, that giant tic-tac-toe board couldn't be more of an eyesore. Yuck, who'd want that in a silhouette of their skyline? I like the idea of making the new buildings twins. NY can make a statement with its new buildings without ruining the skyline. A pair of 1400 ft. beauties would do the trick.
|
|
| | | 14 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 14:56
|
So true, but you skipped over at least two important predecessors to the Empire State Building:
The Woolworth Building
...erected in 1911, the tallest building in the country at the time (not sure about the world) at 792', it was the first "skyscraper" in NYC. A stunning gothic style structure, kept it's title as tallest building until 1930, when The Chrysler building and The Bank of Manhattan Tower were erected.
Bank of Manhattan Tower
The Chrysler Building (3 blocks from where I type)
The Empire State Building
With the unprecedented Manhattan skyline dominated by such unique and formerly ground breaking structures for the previous half century, you can imagine how disappointing many New Yorkers found the two enormous and incredibly plain rectangular towers that would now dominate the sight from every direction and completely unbalance it from a design focus pov.
|
|
| | | 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:01
|
I feel like making one building stand out so drastically takes something away from the rest of the city.
Again, that's exactly what people said when the twin towers went up. Only difference was, peoples' biggist problem (aside from their obnoxious size) was that they were too nondescript to overshadow the elaborate archetecture of Old New York. Funny how you guys say the proposals for the new buildings that will go up in/near their place are too elaborate.
|
|
| | | 16 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:10
|
NY stopped setting the bar for buildings a long time ago. NY has nothing left to prove. It has the biggest and best skyline in the world, fully representative of its importance in world affairs. NY doesn't need a centerpiece. It needs something that adds to the skyline.
|
|
| | | 17 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:12
|
Sorry, I meant to specify that post 14 was in response to the following from SZ's #11:
The Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building were audatious expiditions into what was never thought possible.
|
|
| | | 19 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:21
|
The ESB is and has been the centerpiece of the NYC Skyline since it was erected in the 1930's. Also, when you say that "NY stopped setting the bar for buildings a long time ago.", your long time ago is actually only back as far as 1974, when the original twin towers were completed. I can promise you that the sentiment of that time was such that any the current proposed designs would have gone over much better with the public 30 years ago than those two buildings did.
|
|
| | | 20 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:29
|
Here's a photo of the proposed Guggenheim Iowa. The Des Moines newspaper polled its baker's dozen of readers and they all agreed that this design was ideal, though none of the readers planned on making a visit to the new museum. "Ain't ever been to a museum before, why start now?"
You won't confuse this with molten metal, Sarge.
|
|
| | | 21 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 554192913
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:42
|
NY has nothing left to prove. It has the biggest and best skyline in the world, fully representative of its importance in world affairs. NY doesn't need a centerpiece. It needs something that adds to the skyline.
You are contradicting yourself and you are flat out wrong. The statement, "nothing left to prove" is a letter of resignation sent in by former champs. NY will not have the best skyline in the world in short order if it simply throws up uninspired square phalluses.
I would hardly call these designs "centerpeices", they are bold statements that DO add to the skyline. They reflect what New York and America is all about, rising above and beyond what was previously unimaginable. If you think a bold design like Liebskind's or UA's would detract from the awe-inspiring buildings in MITH's posts, you are crazy.
New York MUST continue to set the bar for building design or it will lose its character.
|
|
| | | 22 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:53
|
More to dispel the notion that NYC stopped setting the bar for buildings a long time ago:
(Buliding height ranks are pre-WTC attack)
Citicorp Center completed 1977 - 6th tallest building in NYC
Citispire completed 1987 - 9th tallest
Worldwide plaza completed 1989 - 13th tallest
Bear Stearns World HQ completed 2001 - 14th tallest
4 Times Square completed 1999 - 23rd tallest
|
|
| | | 23 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:55
|
Source.
|
|
| | | 24 | ukula
Donor
ID: 480231713
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 15:56
|
In my opinion all of the proposed buildings are UGLY!! Anyway, who would want an office on the top floor of one of the new buildings? Not me.
|
|
| | | 25 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 16:09
|
Since I'm in the mood, here is the HSBC Clock Tower (Formerly the Republic National Bank Clock Tower), about 6 blocks from my aprtment. With no other buildings close to it's size in the vicinity, it's easily the most recognizable landmark in Western Brooklyn that isn't a bridge. There is a giant clock on every side, though two of them have shown the wrong time for months now.
It's an important landmark because right below it is the Atlantic Avenue Subway station, the busiest and largest subway hub in Brooklyn. Almost half of the city's subway lines have stops there as well as the third largest Long Island Rail Road station in NYC.
|
|
| | | 27 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 18:38
|
"Also, when you say that 'NY stopped setting the bar for buildings a long time ago.', your long time ago is actually only back as far as 1974, when the original twin towers were completed."
Well, Sears Tower overtook WTC shortly after its completion, thereby taking away its title as world's tallest building.
"More to dispel the notion that NYC stopped setting the bar for buildings a long time ago"
The skyscraper age isn't even 100 years old yet so the fact that NY hasn't the biggest building in the world in 30 years is a big deal. They haven't even put up anything close either. 30 years is an eternity in that short time frame. NY has a fantastic skyline. But as far as major, major changes, WTC is the only really huge change in recent memory. Tying into Zen's comments that NY won't have the best skyline if they don't continue to innovate and that not building a monstrosity is effectively "sending in a letter of resignation," as far as buildings that have serious global visibility, NY hasn't had any new ones constructed in the last 30 years. If you ask me and just about any Joe on the street be it here or New Dehli, they'll say the buildings that define the NY skyline are Chrysler and Empire State. World Trade Center would be in the same category as the other two. However, none of the buildings MITH posted would be mentioned or even known about. Only 5 of the top 23 buildings are less than 30 years old? I think that's evidence to my case - that NY has not been at the forefront of building skyscrapers. In the last 5 years, Shanghai has added 2 of the biggest 4 buildings in the world (the biggest is scheduled to be done next year). Hong Kong has 3 of the top 10, all built in the last 15 years. Dubai has 3 of the top 20, all in the last 5 years. In the last 35 years, Chicago has added much more to their skyline, albeit closer to the beginning of that 35 year span.
NY needs a building more inline with the other buildings you posted - new age looking but still simple. What statements had to make about its importance were made a long time ago and they've been heard and understood. Why do you think all these Asian cities keep building these skyscrapers? To attract attention and to signal to the world, "We've arrived." NY will be the center of modern western civilization with or without a work-of-art type skyscraper. It's just the work-of-art type doesn't jive with the rest of the city. A simple yet soaring structure would be much more inline with the rest of NY's already impressive skyline. I'd be much more agreeable to the idea of building a pair of towers that stood as the world's tallest than to something totally unconventional looking. That's a statement that NY can pull off. If you want unconventional, look to the East (Far East). If you want classic skyscrapers, look to NY.
Shanghai's new building
|
|
| | | 28 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1010341818
Fri, Jan 17, 2003, 21:21
|
Razor, you should understand that achieving new and greater distances between the tops of our skyscrapers and the ground they stand on is by no means the only way to break new ground in the kind of archetecture we are talking about. You don't seem to get that the biggest problem that New Yorkers had with the twin towers was that from the exterior, they seemed to approach the notion of crossing new boundaries with the same limitations you seem to apply when you say;
The skyscraper age isn't even 100 years old yet so the fact that NY hasn't the biggest building in the world in 30 years is a big deal. They haven't even put up anything close either. (it doesn't occur to you that before the towers went up NY hadn't built the biggest building in the world in over 40 years)
-and-
"Only 5 of the top 23 buildings are less than 30 years old? I think that's evidence to my case - that NY has not been at the forefront of building skyscrapers."
You again exhibit this same limitation or overemphasis on size when you misinterprit Seattle Zen's assessment, "The statement, "nothing left to prove" is a letter of resignation sent in by former champs.", when you morph his notion into this: that NY won't have the best skyline if they don't continue to innovate and that not building a monstrosity is effectively...". I know you are placing emphasis on very large buildings here because the largest ones are the ones that give the skyline some of it's most distinctive features. Funny thing is, the Peterson/Littenberg and Dianel Libeskind proposals are somewhat understated as far as their skyline effect are concerned, and in my opinion don't come close to dominating it as much as the twin towers did. And the Richard Meier and Skidmore/Owings/Merrill models are only about as tall as the surrounding buildings. They aren't as dramatic as the towers were, either - with regard to the skyline.
Also, re that statement;
Only 5 of the top 23 buildings are less than 30 years old? I think that's evidence to my case - that NY has not been at the forefront of building skyscrapers.
No. I only posted the ones that I felt "set the bar" in one way or another for archetectural accomplishments for a structure that size. If you'd have checked the link I posted in #23, you'd have seen that 9 of the top 25 buildings in height were bulit in the last 30 years. Besides those 9, 3 more were built in 1972, making them built in the last 31 years. Considering that, as you say, the skyscraper age isn't even 100 years old yet, having 11 of the 25 tallest buildings in the city built in the last 31 years would indicate a pretty modern skyline, and therefor is no such evidence in your favor, even if I was willing to entertain that a city must build immense structures to be at the forefront of building skyscrapers"
Further, just because you and Joe Shmoe might not recognize other NYC buildings does not mean by any means mean that they are not famous. Before 9/11, you could readily recognize three structures (WTC counts as 1 for now) in NYC. Is there any city other than your own or one near you that you can say that about? I can guarantee that most New Yorkers will recognize in photos many of our buildings, including all or most of the ones in post 22, plus the GE building, the MetLife building, the GM building, The Trump Tower, UN Building and many others.
Back more to the topic, I'm not sure why you hold the view of the skyline itself so sacred. Your main concern here seems to be about how they will make skyline will look, and not the functionalities, structural achievements and real advantages of them. Maybe I view it differently from you because I am used to seeing this city from the inside. As nice as the city is to look at from a distance, that view doesn't really give much of a sense of being in there on the pavement. Much like how looking down from a 50th story window in the Chrysler Building at 9am on a weekday doesn't give a clue about the mad scramble that is taking place outside Grand Central station below, what you see from the George Washington Bridge or the Long Island Expressway will do no justice to the many more appreciable qualities and the far greater purposes these buildings will hold and serve, no matter how incredible it may seem from there.
|
|
| | | 29 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 89321319
Thu, Jan 23, 2003, 12:39
|
Old Gaudi plans being considered.
Anyone else been to Barcelona? Talk about an architect putting his stamp on a city. Beautiful town.
pd
|
|
| | | 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Thu, Jan 23, 2003, 12:42
|
LOL, I saw that yesterday.
|
|
| | | 31 | Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Thu, Jan 23, 2003, 12:45
|
MITH You were in Barcelona yesterday? ;)
Yeah, PD, I've been there. Pretty awesome stuff.
I'm not sure how I feel about the particular design here. I'd be interested to see it put into context, however, and think it IS a decent idea to at least consider.
|
|
| | |
| | | 33 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 15:50
|
So it's between the scaffolding (the top photo in post 0) and the empty bathtub (the top photo in post 2)?
|
|
| | | 34 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 15:51
|
Er... strike that reverse it. So much time and so little to do.
|
|
| | |
| | | 36 | Puckprophet
ID: 1210541114
Wed, Feb 26, 2003, 22:14
|
i kinda like it...as opposed to the obtusely angled alternatives..
|
|
| | |
| | | 38 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 526482422
Thu, Aug 21, 2003, 15:29
|
Captions:
Pic #1: "Aiyeee! The glare! can't see...."
Pic #2: "She said to meet by the curvy thing, but she's not here. That bitch stood me up!"
Pic #3: "If only I had a cafeteria tray and six inches of snow..."
Pic #4: "Now, I knew that bathroom was here somewhere..."
Pic #5: "Oh, it's the orchestra hall! When you told me you were taking me to The Woodshed I didn't realize..."
|
|
| | | 39 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Sat, Dec 20, 2003, 02:27
|
The design keeps changing, but this is still quite an impressive piece of architecture.
I hope it looks this beautiful at night.
|
|
| | |
| | | 41 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719
Wed, Jun 29, 2005, 10:16
|
Well, it's boring as all fu*k.
|
|
| | | 42 | Razor
ID: 36241218
Wed, Jun 29, 2005, 10:54
|
I don't think I've ever seen a boring 1200+ ft. building, save the miserable Aon Tower in Chicago. Sheer size will give the Freedom Tower its majesty.
One thing that I always found funny about Chicago's skyline is the placement of that building with two spires that stands very close to Sears with its two radio towers. At night from afar, they look like sister buildings. The funny part is that building which looks like a pathetic mini-version of Sears is actually one of the largest buildings in the world in its own right. Sears is just that massive.
|
|
| | | 43 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 35241288
Wed, Jun 29, 2005, 11:01
|
Its hardly boring. Even though it doesn't approach the visionary concepts of some of the original designs (some of which were entirely impractical, I'm sure) the new world's tallest building will certainly be the most interesting skyscraper in the city.
Regardless, I think you and Razor are both too preoccupied with the way the thing looks from a distance.
However, I will say that it's nice to see that Razor has gotten over some of his previous NYC skyline aesthetics prejudices. After half a dozen posts about how NYC should not be erecting a record-breaking structure - how doing so would create a skyline imbalance, how other cities should be the ones erecting huge 'here I am' structures - he now likes the design for the tallest building in the world and the ieda of putting it where the WTC stood.
NYC will indeed once again set the bar, both in structural accomplishment and architectural design.
|
|
| | | 44 | Razor
ID: 36241218
Wed, Jun 29, 2005, 11:09
|
I've never had a problem with the Freedom Tower being the tallest building in the world as long as it wasn't some gigantic eyesore. As it is, the Freedom Tower may not be the tallest building in the world when it is completed, and the building itself won't be as large as originally concieved thanks to the use of a spire to artificially add height to the official height of the building.
|
|
| | | 45 | Razor
ID: 36241218
Wed, Jun 29, 2005, 11:11
|
The original winning concept is linked on the CNN page. I still hate it.
|
|
| | | 46 | Boldwin
ID: 543312819
Wed, Jun 29, 2005, 11:30
|
Chicago has a much more impressive skyline anyway, Razor.
|
|
| | | 47 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719
Wed, Jun 29, 2005, 22:22
|
NYC will indeed once again set the bar, both in structural accomplishment and architectural design
Give me a fu8kin' break. Look at that EYESORE!
That is a 200 by 200 foot ugly-ass block of concrete down there at eye level! You are putting a large drill bit on a square Kingdome. An inpenitrable monument to letting your police department "consult" the design process.
When I saw that photo, I thought, "it's not THAT terrible", but I hadn't seen the warhead it sits upon.
Childs, "I feel better about this than the original. The building is simpler, architecturally. It is unique, yet it subtly recalls, in the sky, the tragedy that has happened here."
You can prevent further tragedy by ending this monstrous nigthmare before it becomes cement and steel, you pathetic hack. Bring Libeskind back.
|
|
| | | 48 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 11314719
Thu, Jun 30, 2005, 06:27
|
The new design is beyond putrid. Classic example of overcorrection to a problem.
The old design was far superior to the eye. Isn't radically changing the design of the building the terrorists destroyed "letting them win"? Not that safety shouldn't be a concern, but we don't need a 1776' tall thing that looks like a prison.
I haven't heard of any planned changes to the memorial that will be put there. Have those been forced to change now that the building design is changed as well?
|
|
| | | 49 | Boldwin
ID: 543312819
Thu, Jun 30, 2005, 07:58
|
I think an obelisk is a pretty fitting memorial. With a yearly Shriner's convention riding tricycles and microbikes around it yearly in their fezes.
|
|
| | | 50 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Thu, Sep 15, 2005, 13:04
|
Here's the winning design for a memorial to those who died on Flight 93 in that PA field.
Am I the only one a little stunned that the design to honor people murdered by Islamic nutcases is a red crescent? To me, that a little like a holocaust memorial that happens to be in the shape of an iron cross. Maybe it's just me - but I think it bizarre that this sisn't occur to the designers or the jury.
|
|
| | | 51 | Tree
Sustainer
ID: 599393013
Thu, Sep 15, 2005, 13:24
|
it looks like a crop circle to me.
|
|
| | | 52 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Thu, Sep 15, 2005, 13:33
|
Well, it is in a Pennsylvania field
|
|
| | | 53 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247
Tue, Nov 28, 2006, 14:33
|
Gazprom City in St. Petersburg is in the midst of a design competition. The contributions are outlandish and striking but seriously upsetting the old guard. Here are some examples:
Studio Daniel Libeskind of New York
A design by RMJM London Limited.
A design submitted by the French architect Jean Nouvel.
A design by Fuksas Associati S.R.L. In any of six designs under consideration, the main tower would soar three or four times higher than this city’s most famous landmarks, an alteration of the landscape that has drawn heated protests.
Gazprom City, a proposed complex of stylish modern buildings that evoke, among other things, a gas-fueled flame, a strand of DNA and a lady’s high-heeled shoe, would sit on a historic site on the Neva River here, opposite the Baroque, blue-and-white Smolny Cathedral.
|
|
| | | 54 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Sat, May 31, 2008, 13:39
|
Lower Manhattan's Beekman Tower as designed by Frank Gehry
Rising just south of the entry ramps to the Brooklyn Bridge, it will join an imposing cluster of landmarks around City Hall, including Cass Gilbert’s 1913 neo-Gothic Woolworth Building and McKim, Mead & White’s 1914 Municipal Building, early examples of the city’s deep romance with the sky. Draped over a classical shell, the tower’s crinkled steel skin is proof that the skyscraper has yet to exhaust itself as an urban art form.
Very nice. Love Gehry and I'm glad to see that he's finally making a mark in NYC after years and years of false starts.
|
|
| | | 55 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 11:11
|
This could have been put into Nerve's Dubai thread.
This artist rendering released by Dynamic Architecture shows a rotating skyscraper that is to be built in Dubai, in various stages of movement. An Italian architect said he is poised to start construction on the new skyscraper that will be "the world's first building in motion," an 80-story tower with revolving floors that give it an ever-shifting shape.
Rotating floors? Unbelievable. I don't know how each floor could rotate and yet have such a sleek design. Outlandishly cool.
|
|
| | | 56 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 18:43
|
Back to NYC.
This is a cool new park opening in Manhattan.
It seems crazy to create a park out of an elevated train line, but I thinks it's ingenious. Squeezing public space out of the complex web that is Lower Manhattan is worth the price.
City officials and the Friends of the High Line presented the final design on Tuesday for the first phase of the High Line, the $170 million park that is under construction on the West Side of Manhattan and has been called one of New York City’s most distinctive public projects in generations.
The park — modeled loosely on the Promenade Plantée in Paris — is being built on a 1.45-mile elevated freight rail structure that stretches 22 blocks, from Gansevoort Street to 34th Street, near the Hudson River. The rail structure, built to support two fully loaded freight trains, was built from 1929 to 1934 when the West Side was a freight-transportation hub, but has been unused for decades. The tracks are 30 to 60 feet wide and 18 to 30 feet above the ground. Ground was broken in April 2006. Over the past two years, work crews have been constructing the first, $85 million segment of the 6.7-acre park, which is estimated to cost $170 million, through federal, city and private money.
|
|
| | | 57 | Tree
ID: 95122518
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 19:17
|
SZ - ever since they announced it, i have been waiting and waiting. it is going to be so cool.
Friends of the High Line
definitely an incredibly creative idea to use space, but it does follow the manhattan tradition of "building up" because you can't "build out"...
|
|
| | | 58 | ivan
ID: 37133810
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 15:05
|
re: 55.
while the building looks amazing and the mind fairly boggles at the complexity of floors that will all rotate.
i'm stuck with the question of why is it important for the building to do this? i'd suspect it is to the detriment of the building itself actually (lost space to the mechanisims, elevator shafts ect)
in many ways it is the same knock on some of the more chaotic wtc designs, that they are form for the sake of form - without logic or reason. i find myself oddly bothered by that. perhaps the best way to phrase it - i'd love to see some of these buildings once.
|
|
| | |
| | | 61 | Boldwin
ID: 96150
Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 16:06
|
Somehow that design gravitated to the right thread. 'Form follows function' and I sure get the sense that building is trying to collapse.
|
|
| | |
|
|