What are they referencing in this design? The urns, chamfers, cornices and arches suggest the Hearst building. Never saw the original unbuilt tower design though.
3 Likes
Yeah, that’s a fabulous crown. This tower will be an instant landmark, hopefully replicated in some of the nearby assemblages along 1st, 2nd and 3rd Aves.
Is it me or are Stern’s NYC residential buildings getting much better recently? The last half-dozen or so have been outstanding. Some of the earlier ones were nice and contextual, but kinda blah.
2 Likes
Interesting how it’ll pair up with the two tower crown on the Beckford tower. And you can already see this one across town and from the park. Definitely one of his most impactful designs. Maybe Stern’s touch is getting lighter and the younger partners are exerting more influence on the final product. Stern’s earlier stuff was well in the postmodern camp. Traditionalism is definitely having a resurgence, particularly in that neighborhood.
2 Likes
Did you post a photo of Woodrow Wilson because you think the tower is racist?
5 Likes
that’s not the 28th President, it’s a big
2 Likes
That is Woodrow Wilson, the same photo is on his Wikipedia page.
2 Likes
It could be that technology is making it cheaper to render these architectural details.
1 Like
Well, “Traditional Architecture … leveraged to support violent political agendas…” He may be on to something about this architectural style being “racist” ! The gist of this article: Classical Architecture = White Supremacy.
Let’s not make disingenuous political points. That executive order was widely panned and nakedly political. Classical architecture has spent decades slowly disinfecting the stench of fascism. Ordering its adoption by executive fiat was the opposite of advocating for it.
3 Likes
I personally don’t have a political ‘point’ to make here - but do see the “racist” connection being made in the posts above, with this particular article. This article provides some good talking points - not my personal political opinion.
If you are accusing the article of being “disingenuous” - that is different . I believe that article is mostly wrong, and they are trying to score “political points” , but the author is not being ‘disingenuous’ - he believes what he is saying, and therefore he is being completely sincere. I admit to being a bit pedantic here, and my point is merely about semantics.
I agree with the thrust of your post: this article has a ‘political agenda’ and in that sense - partisan point scoring.
I find the classic architecture ‘always pleasing’ to the eye: not the case with modernist architecture. That being said, I always prefer Modernist Architecture over Classical when the modern architecture is ‘well done’.
I like the ‘form follows function’ approach of Modernism - but that ‘form’ is too often not beautiful to behold.
I find the post of Wilson, and the idea of a ‘racist’ and/or political implication interesting enough: but for me it is all really about the universal appeal of ‘beauty’ - that exists in both Classical AND Modernist Architecture.
1 Like
The photo of Wilson could have been replaced by any of these “Woodys”
Not everything is about racism.
1 Like
So the context of your post of Woodrow Wilson was sexual?
It was a sophomoric joke!
That’s my forte.
2 Likes
Understood, interestedly my original question brought up a topic I had not known about. I found that Dezeen article enlightening. I guess I missed, or ignored, the proposed Trump decree of making the government looking more like Ancient Rome than it already does. I wonder what else he wanted to bring back?
Why isn’t this building 3 feet taller to make it 150 meters?
1 Like
