Foster can deliver when he wants to. Look at these ones from Toronto. Developers here can be crazy cheap but his firm can still pull of quality designs. If he can do it here than he can definitely come through in New York!
While those designs are better than a basic box, I still think that is setting the bar EXTREMELY low for the city that gave rise to the Chrysler and ESB
those two are nothing exciting. They are good examples of Foster’s designs going conservative lately. This is what he’s capable of. Sadly, we already know 270 Park will also have a conservative massing.
Okok I see u. Point taken
Foster’s design depends on what JPMorgan wants and that involves massive floor plates. I don’t think it’ll even be as slim as One Vandy and ESB with a tapering top. More like something we see at the WTC site or HY. Foster is capable of great designs but the final say is not his.
Why hire an architect such as Foster, who is capable of greatness, if you’re just going to constrain him to a box?!
The client too. I think if architects are left to their own will, great things would happen… but… clients have a big say in it. Budgets… certain requirements or needs, and so on. And zoning as well. NYC building code/zoning requirements for certain parcels is a maze.
What could potentially be the 2nd tallest tower in nyc or 3rd… needs excellent work. Because any sort of crap design would stain the skyline. At that bulk and height, it will do damage if its subpar.
I think that the 1,400’ design, which it appears is the one that will rise, is nice. I hate 50HY, but this is much better due to extra setbacks and indentations, and it’s not as fat.
Obviously, a landmark like 30 HY, 10 HY, or 1 Vandy would have been nice, but they’re the exception to American office towers, which tend to be squat boxes. Those rising in Chicago, Denver, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. are boring. We’re very luck to gave gotten three very unique, supertall office towers.
Also, I guess that financial tenants require boxier buildings. Thank god, we’re not getting a version of Foster’s horrible HSBC tower in Canary Wharf.
I love that 432 is starting to look a lot smaller. It’s such a gigantic building and for it to start looking smaller and smaller is something exciting. NYC skyline is going to be epic (it is now too) and indescribable in the coming years.
I hope it’s not some hulking beast like 22 Bishopsgate in London, which looks like it should be built in 90’s Atlanta. (Although London needs some filler boxes, its skyline is starting to look like a circus.)
My wishlist for Madison is that these two pieces of junk on the east side of Madison at 49th St are razed.
Also, while I like the two old buildings across the street, the junky three story PoS between them must go.
New York has always been good at squeezing some piece of junk between two nice buildings.
No comment on the rest of the photo.
Totally agree. But lets not forget that in a city with only 21 skyscrapers (500ft +) completed or u/c. (Los Angeles, Mexico City have 26 for sense of scale), almost anything stands out. Every new building is trying to outdo each other in shape and attention. Also, skyscrapers are relatively new for London, with its first one just built in 1980. New York has been familiar with great heights since 1909, and 270 Park Avenue should just once again remake the working environment for this century with a great example. As Chase did with its now soon-to-be demolished Union Carbide building (1960).
If 270 Park rises in an international (bland) style, I wouldnt be upset because it will provide the filler for a megatall to grow into.
Meant to ask what’s up with those.
NYC needs a Shanghai World Financial Center-level modern tower. Just one and I can be happy.
The 2 WTC site would be the best location too for it. Its probably the best location aesthetically for a mega tall (if that day ever happens) as it is right by the bay.
It would be the perfect location but we all know they’ll never build something taller that the “symbolic” 1WTC at that site.
Speaking of Foster: what the …