Originally posted by DJ Eco
Architects or not, here's a thread about cool things going on in New York elsewhere in the world of architecture :) I'll start!
This is being built down in Tribeca and is probably one of the more revolutionary high-rises going up here in the city. I didn't like it at first but it's absolutely incredible how it works as a whole. Herzog & de Meuron have become one of my top 5 favorite architects in my opinion.
Great architecture is about more than revoultionary design. A building must fit within its environment, which doesn't mean it must conform with its surroundings. When a building draws all the attention from the surrounding it overwhelms the neighborhood.
My view is that great architecture build upon the foundation within which it is located. This building goes too far, and while it may be revolutionary, it takes away from its surrounding and is therefore obscene (poorly designed for the neighborhood).
DJ Eco
I agree with you to a certain extent but disagree in others. World Trade Center, Guggenheim Museum, and Empire State Building very much stood out in the context of their neighborhoods, not only now, but especially when they were built. Eiffel Tower is another example. I'm not saying this has the same aura as any of these world-famous landmarks, but as a city, we must start SOMEWHERE in the direction of progressive architecture. There's only so much you can do with boxes, and that's what New York City has become. It lags way behind any other city of the same size in the world. I'll be the first to say that I don't want a Frank Gehry building to be built in New York, but some sort of steps in a more progressive and "different" direction DO need to be taken, and I think this is a great one :)
ReenTeenTeen
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
Great architecture is about more than revoultionary design. A building must fit within its environment, which doesn't mean it must conform with its surroundings. When a building draws all the attention from the surrounding it overwhelms the neighborhood.
My view is that great architecture build upon the foundation within which it is located. This building goes too far, and while it may be revolutionary, it takes away from its surrounding and is therefore obscene (poorly designed for the neighborhood).
what environment? you lost me there.
PS. the name of the building on its own fits the bill of NY theme.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by ReenTeenTeen
what environment? you lost me there.
really - that lost you?
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
I agree with you to a certain extent but disagree in others. World Trade Center, Guggenheim Museum, and Empire State Building very much stood out in the context of their neighborhoods, not only now, but especially when they were built. Eiffel Tower is another example. I'm not saying this has the same aura as any of these world-famous landmarks, but as a city, we must start SOMEWHERE in the direction of progressive architecture. There's only so much you can do with boxes, and that's what New York City has become. It lags way behind any other city of the same size in the world. I'll be the first to say that I don't want a Frank Gehry building to be built in New York, but some sort of steps in a more progressive and "different" direction DO need to be taken, and I think this is a great one :)
that's true, but it must be gradual and temper the current surroundings.
the empire state building was still art deco like many of the buildings which surround it. what made the empire state building stand out was its size, not its style. the WTC was a ugly, and not exactly well taken by the architectural community. Even so, it conformed with many of the modern buildings erected downtown during the period.
the eiffel tower isn't really in a neighborhood, its in an environment of its own in the Champ de Mars, and is sort of a center piece, which in my view makes it different. The tower is also more monumental than it is practical, which adds another element to its uniqueness.
ReenTeenTeen
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
really - that lost you?
yeah, it did. You must be kidding me when saying the new architecture should match the serrounding area? Like what?
1. NYC is the most un-updated city in USA & possibly the world. A shame in my opinion but go cry a river to the building department.
2. The skyline of the area is being redefined all around already so its no way out of place.
PS. WTC was engineered, not designed.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by ReenTeenTeen
yeah, it did. You must be kidding me when saying the new architecture should match the serrounding area? Like what?
1. NYC is the most un-updated city in USA & possibly the world. A shame in my opinion but go cry a river to the building department.
2. The skyline of the area is being redefined all around already so its no way out of place.
PS. WTC was engineered, not designed.
i agree that big box[y] buildings are not that appealing, but those buildings are mainly confined to midtown and downtown. in any case, most of those buildings are located in sparsely populated areas with little character to begin with. Tribeca is not one of those places without character. It has character and a living population, with some old factories, cobblestone streets, and brownstones. While being creative in times square is entirely appropriate, i don't think revolutionary design adds much to the neighborhood, in fact, i think it takes away from the area.
i'm approaching this more from the urban planning/design aspect, rather than the architectural aspect. That building would fit well in times square or somewhere on westside below 42 street. I just don't think it's appropriate in the place where it is being built.
ReenTeenTeen
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
i agree that big box[y] buildings are not that appealing, but those buildings are mainly confined to midtown and downtown. in any case, most of those buildings are located in sparsely populated areas with little character to begin with. Tribeca is not one of those places without character. It has character and a living population, with some old factories, cobblestone streets, and brownstones. While being creative in times square is entirely appropriate, i don't think revolutionary design adds much to the neighborhood, in fact, i think it takes away from the area.
i'm approaching this more from the urban planning/design aspect, rather than the architectural aspect. That building would fit well in times square or somewhere on westside below 42 street. I just don't think it's appropriate in the place where it is being built.
i get your point
although from my point of view to how you comparing it, i don't see that building fitting in the times square.
bluE_Neon
All these rich dogs that occupy the oil market are actually doing something right when it comes to economy for the country. Dubai is the most facinating city in the world. If I was a millionaire I'd live there & Hong Kong as well!
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by ReenTeenTeen
i get your point
although from my point of view to how you comparing it, i don't see that building fitting in the times square.
times square has some pretty interesting buildings. 11 times square, which is currently under construction, appear to be leaning forward. the conde naste building is interesting with its two facades. all the unique advertising space makes the addition of a radical building less bold.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by bluE_Neon
All these rich dogs that occupy the oil market are actually doing something right when it comes to economy for the country. Dubai is the most facinating city in the world. If I was a millionaire I'd live there & Hong Kong as well!
as eco said before, dubai is the antithesis of a well designed/planned city. There is no sense of community and all the measures to make it look like a real city fail because no one treats it like a real city. all the flashy buildings (and decent architecture) can't make up for poor urban planning.
