Looks almost topped out 
12 Likes
Stern isn’t doing anything groundbreaking, but his buildings are always classy and always add a classic value to the city and immediate location.
2 Likes
Why reinvent the wheel? A lot of these buildings with more daring designs never turn out as good as the renders.
1 Like
Modern architecture is still influenced by the notion that rare giants among men are the only ones that bring progress. When like in any other realm of human endeavor 99% of progress is made by standing on the shoulders of giants.
2 Likes
What? That’s nonsense.
Or on the shoulders of other normal sized people.
It’s a figure of speech, but yes exactly. Or as Winy Maas put it, “We train our architects these days to be original, and the whole domain of star architects is cultivating that. The industry demands that architects should be original, which is partly okay, but I think 90 per cent of the built environment is not about that. It’s actually production that is building on top of existing knowledge.”
1 Like
Eventhough I would take this building over a glass box any day of the week I find this one a little fussy. In this case less would be more. IMHO
It’s still 3 feet too short.
1 Like
The three constants in life are death, taxes, and traditionalists making sweeping, asinine generalizations about modern art and architecture. I have plenty of criticisms of modernism myself (I am a pluralist who opposes any rigid aesthetic doctrine) but none of them are based on the willful misinterpretations of the modern movement by the likes of Tom Wolfe, Roger Scruton etc.
Bob Stern himself is a very prominent critic of doctrinaire modernism who at the same time recognizes its historical, aesthetic, and social value. He’s a good critic of modernism because he knows what he’s talking about. Wolfe and Scruton don’t.
Also, starchitecture =/= modern architecture
2 Likes
https://www.instagram.com/rockefellergroup/
“We recently celebrated the topping out of 200 East 83rd Street, an 86-unit luxury condominium project on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. The joint venture with Naftali Group was designed by Robert A.M. Stern Architects, and is slated for completion in Winter 2022. Congratulations to the Northeast development team on this milestone achievement!”
8 Likes
Well said, and quite enlightening. I find Traditional Architecture universally beautiful yet still prefer modernist architecture: so not sure why the bias in my preference.
I think you have pointed out one possible reason: “a rigid aesthetic doctrine”. The very definition of ‘traditionalist architecture’ could include the term - “adherence to a rigid aesthetic doctrine”. I have some disdain for the ‘rigid aesthetic doctrine’ that goes into ALL traditional architectural design.
The ‘the golden ratio’ and the ‘orders’ Corinthian, Ionic, doric to name a few; are some of the elements of this ‘rigid aesthetic doctrine’. Then there is the “Vitruvian man” and the formula of ‘perfect proportions’ - there are many formal rules that go into creating ‘classical’ architecture.
This building is a beauty: so I guess I can live with the ‘rules’ that were required to create these aesthetically pleasing results. 
3 Likes
Like I said, I enjoy almost all architecture, from gorgeously decorated Victorian or Art Deco buildings to glass-and-steel-minimalism. The only architecture I dislike is cheap architecture. Even if I am not a fan of a particular building, I can usually respect what the architect was trying to accomplish.
It is precisely because my tastes are so broad that I dislike blanket condemnations of any one style. Unfortunately, it goes both ways. You definitely have some elitist modernist architects who look down on traditional construction. On the other hand, there are also tons of people who believe all modern buildings are hideous and they have destroyed our cityscapes. I’ve even seen some of these people make the argument that modern design is actually a sign of “civilizational degeneracy” which I think is ridiculous. The modern movement has tons of failings, but it is important to discuss them in a level-headed way. That’s why I made my initial, rather exasperated comment, because I saw posters in this thread repeating some tired canards about modernism that I do not feel further the discussion in any way.
Getting back to Stern and this particular building, I have mixed views about architectural contextualism. There are several different approaches and each has their strengths and drawbacks. There is straight revivalist construction, in which the architect makes a conscious attempt to mimic older styles. Here in NYC, you see this in the work of RAMSA and Peter Pennoyer. Then there’s what I call “Modernist contextualism”, where there is no traditional decoration but the designers attempt to fit in with the neighborhood using material or massing choices (or by applying ornament in new, interesting ways). This is my personal favorite, and there have been several lovely examples built recently in NYC, like SHoP’s 9 DeKalb and 111 West 57th, various buildings by Morris Adjmi and CookFox, FX’s One Willoughby, and David Chipperfield’s 11-19 Jane Street. Finally, some buildings simply aren’t contextual at all, and sometimes that’s okay! The Guggenheim sticks out like a sore thumb in its neighborhood, yet it’s still a beloved icon.
4 Likes
