NEW YORK | 29th & Fifth | 555 FT | 34 FLOORS


Last week


I wonder if Ziel will build on spec.


hmmm… :thinking:

In October, the developer filed plans with the DOB for a 34-story, 301,167-square-foot office tower on the site, which sits between Fifth and Sixth avenues.

But those plans, sources say, were merely filed to keep the approval process rolling with DOB. Sources said HFZ’s true plan is to build a tower double that size.

HFZ declined to comment, so the exact size of the project is not clear.


Great scoop by YIMBY, but this is HIDEOUS!

I think that this requires city consent. Hopefully, this atrocious PoS will not be built.


Dont sugarcoat it robert, tell us how you really feel :wink:






I can’t accept this as reality. First off, blank walls make me angry. Why are they becoming so prominent in this district? This does not look like a hospitable working environment for people on the western side of the building. I mean, WTF? Is that huge chunk of the tower even occupied? This…thing looks like an apartment block and a modern office building had an unwanted child.

what makes me really, really angry is that there will be two prominent towers with HUGE westward facing blank walls next to each other. Come on, man!


Agreed. Skyscrapers shouldn’t have a “back” side. Period. That’s just a recipe for a really shitty skyline.

I’d like to see building codes amended to ban blank walls above a certain height. 100ft, perhaps? At the very least, such walls should have a convincing, high-quality façade, like 220 CPS.


I agree with you 100%. I never really wrote this much for a post before but what do you think:

First of all, the blank and windowless facade will no doubt look aesthetically bad on the skyline, probably one of the tallest in the city. Yes there are buildings like 33 Thomas St that have even bigger windowless facades but that was intentionally done by as part of the overall architectural and engineering idea by design and function. However in this case, if this blank wall is NOT a party wall that will sit directly on the lot line of the property, BIG still has the chance to cover it up with something as simple as a thin layer of fireproof metal or aluminium cladding. One example is 19 Park Place that now covered its eastern and western blank walls with a black metal cladding and an underlying waterproofing layer as opposed to bare concrete walls which it has for a while after topping off.

Second, while it looks like there’s plentiful sunlight in the morning at all times of the year, the design missed a huge opportunity of taking advantage of the late afternoon sun. This will be especially true in the summer when the sun is almost directly behind the facade (think of Manhattanhenge when the shadows stretch perpendicular to the avenues) and is completely blocking the last several hours of sunlight coming in. My best guess is maybe they designed the building this way to prevent having the core in the center of the building and wanted a larger uninterrupted floor plan since the plot of land is somewhat small compared to other sites like the WTC or Hudson Yards.

Finally, in addition to my second point, this building is supposed to go up in an area of Manhattan that does not have as many tall buildings yet (with the exception of the Empire State Building and the condo tower just down the block) as downtown or the heart of midtown. Which means there is a huge abundance of sunlight and lack of huge shadows on the skyscraper for now. But since the western facade is nearly completely blocked off, that means more money will be needed to spend on electricity for artificial lighting through the offices as the sun passes it peak altitude in the sky.

In the end, bringing in natural light to even the darkest spaces of a floor, watching it move through a space, embracing the skyline and skyscraper from inside or down at street level as an observer or as someone that works at this building, and observing the light and shadow condition of the building facade change, is what makes the interior and exterior of a building feel inviting, habitable and gives the building a unique sense of character and relation to the street and surrounding skyline. It’s also a big selling point for the developers and clients that want to be in this area of the city. That’s how skyscrapers, whether office or residential or a mix of both or more, become iconic and remembered no matter how old or new, tall or short, or what they are on the inside and outside.

That’s all I have to say about this, but like you said and what most of us already read and thought, “This does not look like a hospitable working environment for people.”


It won’t be a blank West Wall. If you zoom in the first pic of the article, you can see floors/windows. The second pic shows full sun reflection, only glass can achieve that.


Even if it isn’t bare concrete, the western face is clearly opaque (ignore that oxymoron) , as in blank. Making it look glossy doesnt make it any less banal.

the southern face of that wall appears to be transparent, at least. Taking the role of an armchair critic, this design is overall unfortunate, in my opinion. The blocky massing and the balcony design are unpleasant. Im sure prospective tenants will like it for those reasons, but looking at it from the exterior there’s nothing good it adds to the skyline. I didn’t have high hopes for this, but I expected BIG to at least cook up something interesting to look at.


This is quite bad. This is more suitable for the 48th Street near TS. Looks like a budget hotel or banal residential somewhere in the lower 40’s.



offset from the street too
that stupid hack bjarke is finaly in gene kaufman’s league


Such a beautiful and timeless building was destroyed for this turd. And in such a prominent location. This doesn’t deserve to be in the same frame as the ESB.


Im not a fan of bjarke’s recent work, but I’ll reserve judgment on this until some better quality renderings are revealed. While the shape is boring, a decent facade could make this a passable filler in a booming area.


It’s very strange how schticky hacks get elevated in haute architecture cicles. Gehry, Calatrava, Vinoly, Bjarke.


These are all great architects. You just have different tastes, which is fine.


I like the balconies. But the rest is just too boring. It will be 100% generic from most angles. I would feel seriously ripped off if I paid good money for a famous architect and just got this basic glass box.