I think it’s a great design. I’m not sure what inspiration you were pulling from but it reminds me of one of my favorites here (70 Pine). I looked into your link because I wanted to see how the building interacted with the neighborhood at street level. Looks like you have a blueprint of the building set back onto 58th with the main vehicle drop off on 59th but I’d be interested to see what the facade of the building looks like at that level
It would be interesting to see it in the context of 432 Park Avenue. The window patterns seem to reference 432. Using a traditional design that attempts to be contextual with an acontextual modern building like 432 helps create a more harmonious skyline in my opinion.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a tower like this by Central Park. Even a stripped down postmodern tower like the NTT DoCoMo tower in Tokyo looks iconic with that shape, especially next to a park like Shinjuku Gyoen. The effect would be similar with Central Park.
Thank you for your comment GentriVacation!
The plan, when I started designing, was to make a “New York style building” and not something that could be placed in either Europe, Asia or Middle East. Studies made by Quantierra and KPF show that 40% of NY buildings could not be built today because of new zoning regulations, but these are the buildings that make the city. It was even stated that 3/4 of all the living area in Manhattan was made in the years from 1900 to 1930, so many of the buildings are shaped by the zoning regulations from that era. You could say that NY architecture is the predominantly architecture from that era. This doesn’t mean that the style of that era is the best answer to the question what is good architecture, but with fair certainty you could say that majority of us love buildings from that time and they share certain geometric properties.
At the street level, the ground floor of the tower has a lobby to the south, and a smaller one to the north. Both are open spaces, three storeys tall, with main structural elements of the tower visibly exposed. The facade of the tower at this level could be seen in the section drawings below.
Thank you again!
Thank you for your reply Colrain!
Good point. I agree, I would also rather see a tower like this, than a contemporary one. This was actually a strong focus during the design process - how would the building appear to the ones who will never live in it. The building could at one point in time accommodate around 560 people at full capacity. This means, that every other person living in the city would only interact with it by seeing it from the street level and from afar. Nevertheless, the building would effect everybody, with its interior design and with its outside appearance - there is some evidence that living in and with tall buildings influences mental and social health.
Below is an image of the proposed tower with 432 Park Avenue next to it. Also a diagram of the Central Park street skyline.
First off Nejc, your english is great!
Second, i’m not sure anything can be “objectively good” but I do think when the majority of people think something is good it becomes the “de-facto good.” So I think you are basically asking if good architecture is a “de-facto” principle or a “de-jure” principle.
Third, I really like the building. The only part that seems a little off is the middle section. The sections in the middle look copied and pasted (which I think most people don’t like). But the top of the building and the base look great! Maybe just remove the cornice looking sections in the middle because the cornice is typical reserved for the tops of the buildings in almost all of NY’s buildings from that era.
Other than that I love the building and would love to see it get built (just needs to be built with the right building materials)
Have you thought about what materials this would be constructed out of?
There have been some really nice buildings built out of limestone and terracotta lately that harken back to NY’s golden age.
Thank you Robermat!
Perhaps you could word it like that yes. What I was exploring and came to find is that when you ask a group of people, which of many different things (lets say you are comparing different buildings/benches/cutlery - a contemporary one, a brutalistic one, a modern one and a traditional one) is the best representation of persons true selves, its own true values and all hidden hopes and ideas what they think is possible for them to be - if they try to express their deepest selves in form, so to speak - 80% will agree about which is their best representation. And this is regardless of their personality, age, gender, rase, culture or status. And when you make several of this comparisons, you see that the things that are chosen, they all share similar properties and they share similar geometric features (levels of scale, borders, alternating repetition, contrast, …).
The middle section (segments 1, 2, 3 separated with two mechanical floor segments), is basically repeated yes, although the number of storeys is getting smaller towards the top segment - a fibonacci sequence is used here, first segment has 14 storeys, the second 13 (14-1), the third 12 (14-2), the forth 11 (14-3), fifth 9 (14-5), top 6 occupied (14-8). But the cornices in the middle section are the same yes, and I agree, they could be done more appropriate to their location within the whole.
Thank you again for your comment!
Material of the main structure is reinforced concrete. This is cladded by precast concrete panels, perhaps limestone panels at the base - this was the cladding used on 99 Church Street.
Which are the recent buildings using terracotta?
111 W. 57 has a terracotta (and bronze) facade, though there are a few others in NYC.
I don’t think that this will be redeveloped for quite some time. It will be eventually, but it will take a while.
Did you ever look into the Gestalt principles of design and factor those in during your research? I’m not sure what scientific method Gestalt used to come up with those principles but I get the feeling they would line up with some of your findings.
I was vaguely aware of them, but haven’t used them. I mainly focused on the theory about living structures from Christopher Alexander. And yes, they seem to line up with these findings. I think that these theories that are focused on discovering and explaining in a scientific manner (or at least try to the extent that is possible) are the most beneficial during the design process.
Definitely. It’s always good to define and outline the fundamentals.
I hesitate saying all of this though because so much great art has come from breaking the rules lol. At the same time though so much bad art has come from breaking the rules as well. It’s a fine line indeed.
Modernism = making the rules too strict
Post-modernism = making the rules too lenient
I think it looks absolutely wonderful.
However the windows look very small to me. I wouldn’t want to live or work there. I prefer more natural light. And I think the market generally prefers more natural light, in both residential and commercial buildings.
I wish this was built, the nejcvasl design, I kinda dig it. Whatever rises here, i do hope it keeps the feeling of Gotham. Something iconic given the location, it demands the best being right next to the park and in such a photographed area.
Exactly! I think that this is partly the reason that contemporary climate of the profession (as far as I was able to experience it) is that everything goes. Every idea is as valid as the next. So (new) ideas are the standard and, quite obviously, not the form of things. God forbid that we would say that there should be a standard for what is acceptable in form and what is not and that not everything, that is new and different, is also better than the old.
Thank you rbrome!
The windows are about 2/1,5m (6,5/5 feet), so they are still quite large. But the depth, to which sufficient light penetrates, was not properly calculated, so the size could have to be adjusted accordingly.
The concern of not making the windows too big was, that big windows do not give us the feeling of safety which is a strong psychological need. I remember reading about living in Farnsworth house - to live there was to feel like an animal on alert, always uneasy and anxious. This feeling could be amplified in tall buildings, which is why they are not from floor to ceiling and the glass is divided into smaller panes.
Yep. I went to art school and I can’t even begin to tell you how much preference was placed on something being “new” over something that was already established as being great.
That being said, we no longer even live in a time of architectural ideology. Right now it’s all about “value engineering”
Which sucks because everytime something is valued engineered, it just saps the creativity right out. Architecture is less and less an art, and more a slave to P/L statements. Its a shame really ala Kaufman designs for example.
Hell at least Manhattan gets some sort of world class designs. Once you leave the island, any sense of “good design” all but disappears (across the country).