NEW YORK | 200 East 83rd Street | 489 FT | 36 FLOORS

1 Like

Fresh air or Times Square?

1 Like



This building is a beauty; but here RAM has stretched the formal language of ‘classical/traditional’ to create something that looks almost “modernist” . I don’t think a Classical building needs to be strictly Palladian, or Vetruvian in formal language to qualify as traditional architecture; but this one defies the limits of what can be termed “classical architecture”.

I think we are seeing the birth of a new hybrid architectural style that bridges modern needs of space, construction materials/methods, oversized windows with the limited formal constraints of Classical Architecture. This articled posted below expands on this idea quite well: here is an interesting read on this blend of classical and modern architecture.

1 Like


She’s hot!



Meant to post these months ago and just forgot:


This is one of my favorite Sterns.

Also, what a COLOSSAL improvement. God bless Naftali.


I hope that this tired junk on the next block gets a new faux-limestone facade.




It seems that the limited lifespans of those glazed brick facades are expiring rapidly.

Maybe that’s not glazed brick though.

1 Like

That looks like plain red brick, after the white brick fad ended.

1 Like

imagine walking around the upper east side and lightning zaps one of those twin rods just 500 feet above your head

Michael Young


These classic ornate towers are always quite lovely looking. I fondly think of them as “wedding cake” architecture. It is a time proven formula, never fails to disappoint - but will always lack the originality, style and function of Modern architecture.

The modernist/classist divide is something I am always aware of; but do not quite understand what personal attributes and tastes lead to a preference for one or the other - Classical or Modernist.


Infoshare—I think some of the classical designs actually have lots of modern touches—asymmetry, huge windows, open plan entries, and vastly different interior designs from older classics. So it’s not like contemporary classical designers are uninfluenced by modern architecture. And the same is true of modernists. Some of their designs pick up soho like visible metal supports and horizontal features, use classical materials between window runs, or cornice features. Pure all glass designing seems to be waning a bit IMO.


Indeed, @chused! Take, for example, Rosario Candela. Many of his pre-war residential masterpieces dazzle precisely in virtue of their asymmetry–at least, in my view. And this asymmetry is largely a matter of form following function, stemming as it does from the layouts of the apartments themselves. A bold marriage of style and function that our friend @infoshare would no doubt appreciate!


Yes, I agree - there are many modern touches be incorporated into these classical/traditional works of architecture. I would say they are a type of ‘hybrid’ architecture that blends classical design motifs, with modernist materials, and functional requirements.

My preference is alway for a completely modernist approach; void of any overt decorative references to classical/traditional motifs.

These are all matters of ‘preferences’ or ‘attitudes’ and ‘taste’ - and is great we all can make different choices in these matters and no one is technically “wrong”. The British have a great expression for that sort of difference - “not my cup of tea”… :wink: