This is classy architecture. Fits with the old but has a great modernist feel. I like it. And the side wall finish is a lesson so many others should learn.
5 Likes
See what you get when you don’t build a wall of glass! This looks great.
3 Likes
looks great!
thanks for all the updates
I wish we had more buildings this good.
18 Likes
Yes! Very handsome and the quality speaks for itself.
1 Like
Yes, a real stunner that has not gotten the accolades that is will deserved for doing Architecture with a Capital A… 
This facade is almost as detailed and opulent looking as the classical stone facade on the neighboring building.
It is good to see here at 200 Montaque Street an example of modern architecture that actually achieves the same rich visual effect as classical architecture; yet, without resorting to historicist decorative motifs.
Here is proof that Modern Architecture need not always be a boring glass box: though that, unfortunately, is the case MOST of the time… 
The main feature for me are those light colored vertical sections with the slight concave curves; they add so much visual richness to the facade.Those curved sections appear to me as if they are made of ‘solid’ stone: a big plus IMHO. I realize they may actually be thin metal hollow panels that are often used to achieve the look of ‘solidity’ - but those sections look solid to my eye, not hollow.
I am often disappointed by the look of the hollow metal panels frequently used on building facades; the hollow metal panels tend to look a bit flimsy IMHO. Here is a good example of hollow facade panels - NEW YORK | 1 Park Row | 305 FT | 23 FLOORS - #223 by Alemel
Or maybe they are hollow porcelain or whatever material - but HOLLOW. This example looks looks a bit less flimsy than when done with sheet metal.
I am going to guess those sections on the facade of 200 Montague are some sort of SOLD material: maybe not limestone - but SOLID. Both buildings look great - but 200 Montague is exceptional. A section-through shop drawing or photo would be needed to prove the question definively. 
Anyone care to wager?
1 Like
Its gfrc panels, the same thing thats being used at 1 Park Row, so no, they are not solid. Things are not made of fully solid materials anymore, thats not economical or feasible.
1 Like
Plus it would add to weight load.
1 Like
I do get the above points about the “weight” and other factors: but I am not convinced. I think they are solid. When I see an actual spec sheet, and shop drawing from the fabricator - then I will be convinced. Honestly, for me the jury is still out on this - need an original source. We are all doing ‘conjecture’ at this point.
I did some checking about the methods/material used to make this gorgeous facade: I did not find project specific information, but I think it is this (or similar) material.
I believe this is what those facade panels are made of; they are called Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete. These panels are in fact sold pieces as you can see in the video showing the front/back of the facade panels. It looks to be about 1" thick - solid fiber concrete material.
If anyone has detailed shop drawings or other info: please do help with more input.
Photo from post by Arctic Camel…
1 Like
Do you think I post stuff just randomly pulling information out of thin air?
The architects website states them as being gfrc panels. Why do you need shop drawings or/and drawings of anything when its stated by the architect. There’s no such thing as a solid gfrc panel, they are hollow shaped forms, like i said, just like those at 1 Park Ave.
To stache’s point, this has nothing to do about being convinced of anything, facts are facts. It is not economical to use “solid” variants of materials, and neither is is feasible in addition to cost because of added weight.
There are previous photos on this thread where you can see the shaped hollow nature of the panels.
Not all gfrc panels are hollow, but that doesnt make them “solid” as you described. If something is thin enough in profile, theres no need to make it hollow, but a material being 1" thick doesnt make it solid.
All I am asking is something more definitive. Please do not take offense. Also, perhaps our disagreement is only semantic: maybe the term I am using is being misunderstood. Not sure?
For example; regarding definitive evidence regarding the question if the material is hollow, or solid.
The HOLLOW window frame mullion is shown in detail at the 42 second mark in the video.
I realize I may be asking too much… 
Sorry, no offence intended.
This shop drawing shows that the window mullions on this facade are “hollow”. This is the sort of definitive evidence we need to see in order to determine if in fact those concrete panels are ‘solid’. This is probably something that the fabricator or speciality trade contractors can present. We may need to leave this as ‘merely conjecture’ at this point. It’s all good. 
Fantastic. However - I now see we only had a semantic misunderstanding…
That panel is what I call a ‘solid’ panel. I say solid because there no ‘voids’ or empty space inside the approx. 1 inch thick fibre concrete.
Thanks for the photo. Good to know. Cheers…
Why is it considered hollow at 1 Park Ave though when the principal idea is that the material buildup is still just only following the profile and is not full or “solid” as you say.
The pieces at 1 Park Avenue have a HUGE hollow void inside: so the ‘hollowness’ is quite significant. Where the panels attached at 200 Montague are practically flush with the concrete slab wall behind. That is perhaps why I ‘read’ them differently.
That being said: I see your point - those two conditions are very much alike. So, you would be technically correct on that matter. 
Cheers.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarity.
I think Beyer Blinder Belle does good work.
1 Like