I agree with you on hearst. I love the base though. If the depression hadn’t held up the construction of the top portion we’d probably have a very uniform looking tower. Instead, i could never get excited about the polygonal modernism on top of the older base
World class infrastructure? That’s socialism! We don’t do socialism.
But Walpole isn’t alone. There is a vast disarray in feelings about Hearst. It’s gotten both awards and kudos on the one hand and terrible reviews on the other. It may be one of the most controversial of recent projects. Stuff of life.
The problem with Hearst is that it’s like a movie without a third act or with a lousy, abrupt, ending. It doesn’t terminate in anything interesting. The meat of the building is just a discordant, repetitive gimmick, i.e. the diagrid structure. Foster in NYC stinks.
It’s certainly no Gherkin. It’s one of those towers that I’m always told is exceptional but never could see it with my own eyes.
The bottom looks good. The top looks great. They look stupid together though.
surprising statement coming from the likes of Selma Hayek lol
another big name will be coming here.
The aesthetics of this building: not exceptional, but acceptable. I find it to be a somewhat attractive modernist design: reminds be of buildings like Lever House, and Seagrams. This one has less visual cohesion then those above mentioned modernist classics; but nice looking enough. I give an easy C when it comes to the pass/fail on Architectural Designs.