Has a plexiglass look in person
3 Likes
The first few larger panels are up. I wonder which part of the facade will be operable as it certainly wonât be the glass elements.
17 Likes
The operable portion is the upper part of the bland gray panels (which are most likely the pv integrated panels if they are still going a long with that).
1 Like
Think so?
I doubt theyâd waste their money putting PV on the north facade, anyway, so weâll have to wait to see what the south, east, and west look like.
Honestly, weâve took a loss with this one. Knew I wasnât going to like it from the start.
8 Likes
From today. Happened to be watching this and this came up. Screenshot.
All things aside, a nice angle.
15 Likes
More people need to start getting outraged by stuff like this of it will never stop. Seriously, whats the point of having a large bank account when you live in an ugly city?
4 Likes
I like this tower. Apartments in it will probably have some of the best views in the entire city. I say keep building tall buildings. If we start restricting development to preserve views or symbolic heights (1776â) then weâre just stunting out own cityâs growth. Most New Yorkers know they donât own their view.
6 Likes
Iâm not particularly sure of the PV panel integration (as I attached if they were still going along with that idea) but generally the top band of bland gray paneling is the operable portion of the window.
Operable portions of windows must always be in reach, that is why they are almost always either at the sill, or are vertical and open like a slightly ajar door, 53W53 and 111W 57th are good examples of vertically integrated operable windows/spandrels. While high up operable windows do exist, they are extremely rare and are of course not very useful if not reachable.
1 Like
No doubt one of the best views in the city, simply because this tower will be out of sight.
4 Likes
I understand seeing this and wanting more oversight on what is allowed. But thatâs a very slippery slope, even giving NIMBYs an inch. Protecting sightlines, I could maybe see but an extremely small amount, and this would have been one lol. But more realistically, I just wish there was general aesthetic standards- namely how this building completely disregards both street walls, and blank concrete should be cladded.
2 Likes
Itâs not about nimbysm or giving them an inch but preventing majestic skylines from looking gross. Especially when we refer to a tower like this with only 30 (?) Units that cater to the very rich which wonât even reside in some.
6 Likes
NY needs a to designate midtown as the super tall zone (where all the billionaire row buildings are). And maybe lower Manhattan.
Stuff like SoHo, the Flatiron district, Chinatown, TriBeCa, etcâŚ, should be preserved as historical. Any new development in the historic zones should be contextual to its surroundings. These single point eyesores need to stop.
5 Likes
Absolutely fucking not
4 Likes
I sort of get it, from an aesthetic compassion point of view and Iâm as anti-NIMBY as it gets. The problem arises that once we start dictating the location, than whatâs to say it wonât be here and there and over there.
If anything, the quality of the design should be of the utmost important if it happens to be say near a landmark skyscraper or if it risks putting a knife in the skyline. Granted skyline aesthetics is subjective but I think there can be common ground on some things, especially on the iconic view via the Flatiron.
Even Iâm bothered by this development. But it sort of sets a dangerous precedent if continuous improvement with respect to the city is desired. We all want the city to grow and what was in the past⌠well⌠that may be lost in time. Sort of like how a child eventually doesnât remain a child, it can be hard to let go but we sure as hell can try to instill some sort of standard to grow responsibly, while retaining some of the history.
Frankly, the city needs to look past Manhattan and expand in the outer boroughs. If NYC is to truly grow, it needs to become multi-nodal. What we are seeing in LIC and Downtown Brooklyn is an example of this but this needs to continue and expand. Multi-nodal will be the true evolution of the city. We have 300 square miles to play with, a lot of room and opportunity.
5 Likes
Wanting to see âtall stuffâ should not come at the expense of beauty.
6 Likes
This why Iâm becoming a NIMBY. Time and time and time again developers are proving themselves to be worse for the city than better. 90% of the stuff being built is pure JUNK.
This building is a global embarrassment. Itâs pathetic to build something this dumb in a city like NY (that can actually command a premium product). If all we can build is crap there should be a height limit so that the crap doesnât dominate the views.
âgrowthâ is not the most important thing. Having an attractive livable city is. America is short on beautiful cities that global talent wants to live in. If you want to attract the talent you canât build crap. Eventually that crap will over run the city and people wonât like it anymore.
2 Likes
If you want to block ESB slightlines - do it like 520 fifth ave - thoughtful massing, quality in cladding, and while being an ultra luxury residential tower too, it has at least, more units than floors which is not true hereâŚ
5 Likes
Actual delusion. Just like a NIMBY.
No it isnât. Having a good looking city is nice to have, itâs not a necessity and itâs not anywhere near the top of priorities. If you wanna complain about how this building looks, go ahead. But the idea that you can just stop development from being a certain height in certain areas because of your idea of what looks good or not is delusion. It is literally NIMBYism. Take that shit somewhere else
6 Likes