It’s basically going to compete with the WTC and Hudson Yards square footage wise and that’s it. Thing is, these are new floors, new steel beams being built, new materials being shipped on site. You’re also building more retrospective, intimate and conservative settings inside, not attempting something neofuturistic, Zaha Hadid, Santiago Calatrava as the other two sites. This may not be one of those Pritzker Prize winning projects, but it’s a project that New York City can be proud of, and that means a lot for most people.
2 Likes
I would love to talk to the owner of the building to see if they ever took this idea seriously and if so, whats holding them back.
Money, zoning, I think something is being built like right beside it right now. Also the standards are different.
People may endlessly complain about all the glass but there’s a reason it is so common now, the interior experience is heavily favored over the exterior. And that glass makes the interior experience vastly, vastly better. This design would need modifications, it wouldn’t be a glass skyscraper ofc but it would be changed at least slightly to accommodate some tenants needs.
Maybe slightly bigger window frames?
But technically if the zoning was changed and the money is acquired there is no reason this couldn’t be built today
1 Like
Slightly. Maybe 6 inches on each side is all you’d need for most spaces. Just as long as the exterior looks the same way as the original proposal was billed during the 1930’s.
1 Like
Agreed
I don’t know if I agree with the demand for glass. One Wall Street condo conversion as well as the Woolworth building and soooooooo many buildings in the Flatiron district (right next to this building) are in high demand right now. I think you underestimate Americans love for beautiful old architecture. Many Americans want the US to look more like Europe rather than Dubai or Asia.
I think developers use glass to save on coast, not because people like it.
3 Likes
I was thinking more Office building, residential has different standards and expectations, and they’re usually vastly more varied than Office.
I don’t think most Americans really care that much unfortunately. Otherwise they wouldn’t accept living in the cookie cutter suburban shit they do, at least the ones with money. (Yes I realize that isn’t everyone and it isn’t everywhere, you don’t have to tell me).
Perfect example! Use each setback for private terraces in a residential purpose, but for commercial uses, just change it up to something a bit more durable and maybe take out a plant or two if they are too delicate.
2 Likes
Oh I think many Americans do care because more young people than ever before in US history have been to Europe and want that urban, walkable lifestyle. And a huge part of that “walkability” is having aesthetically pleasing things to look at. Many older people just live in the suburbs for the cost savings. But if given the chance there are plenty of young people who want to live in an attractive urban environment where they can walk around a be inspired. Thats why sooooo many young people love SoHo for example.
Maybe maybe. Anyway my point was this building was designed in the 1920s and would need to be updated for modern tenants, that’s all. It wouldn’t need to be significantly changed but would need to be updated.
Btw how close is this site to transit access? Closeby or a walk or what?
Yeah, make the windows slightly larger while not affecting the exterior aesthetic, implement better programming for the requisite observation facilities and yes, work with your smaller neighbor to make an exclusive tunnel to the 23rd Street Station nearby.
2 Likes
This block of buildings could also be redeveloped. Then the entire area could have some momentum behind it like the development that just happened around City Hall Park.
Imagine if something like 25 Park row was built on this plot of land. That would really help out the entire area.
4 Likes
Yes to this as well!
I would love for this hideous block to be demolished and an architecturally-beautiful building to be built in its place
1 Like
That one’s fine right there, it just needs some low-rise bays to come out and meet the street edge.
The worst building in NY IMO just because of its location. Its a selfish, ugly building.
Exactly. Imagine what 111 W 57 Street would look like here in this spot.
From a comment on Dezeen by freeholder Wlodzimierz Zielinski;
The most baffling tragedy to me is that a corporation, any company wanting to build tall in NYC, has not looked at the uncompleted plans of the extant Metropolitan Life North Building. The original intent was to build upward in 6 reduced, elegantly proportioned replicated stages to a height that would have surpassed the radio mast of the Empire State Building.
The only reason Metropolitan stopped when it did was due to the precarious financial situation brought on by the Great Depression of 1929. I think it should be possible to resurrect those plans and, using modern construction techniques, add the unfinished art deco upper stories.
2 Likes
Another set of renderings I improved somewhat. I made the actual tower a few floors taller, and I replaced the two small spires with one, large spire, perfect for New York City. Bringing balance to the NYC skyline, and allowing the Empire State Building to ride off into the sunset nicely.
@bmosborne @mcart @DeSelby @MarshallKnight @NewYorkCity76 @5Bfilms @chused @GSPLover
6 Likes