That is exactly how I would describe the design of 50 W 66th; “exciting”, original, innovative, contemporary.
What I like about Howard Roark in this scene is his stated reasons for doing modern architecture.
Classical architecture is always lovely; but lacks the originality, creativity and “excitement” of modern architectural designs IMHO.
This new building at 50 W 66th demonstrates the kind of “excitement” that can only be achieved by the originality, and creativity of Modern Architecture.
It’s a different kind of excitement. I like this building. I also like Robert Stern’s buildings, and they’re pretty much always in a classical style. I hated the character Howard Roark as portrayed in the book.
I agree SMCYB. Both classical and modern architecture can be first rate. The Lincoln Memorial and National Gallery in DC are both spectacular buildings with totally different architectural foundations. And there are, of course, examples of both styles that are terrible. The bevy of new buildings going up in LIC are largely modern bores. And so are some UWS apartments finished in brick and obviously classical motifs slapped on with no particular theme. And there are a few buildings that manage to do some of each quite well. I’m thinking of some new Tribeca buildings using steel beam fronts to great effect that emulate both nineteenth century industrial buildings but are obviously modern in many ways. For me this not an either/or issue. Creativity can appear in a variety of ways if we are open to look carefully at new buildings. 50 W 66 is a good example of modern creativity with beautiful sculptural qualities and creative finishes.
I thought that film clip presented a good example of why I think ‘well done’ modern architecture such as 50W66th is preferable to doing the sort of ‘historical recreations’ currently being designed in the classical style.
They both have merits; but the originality, and congruence with modern methods of construction technology, and contemporary style, are strong arguments for choosing Modern Architecture.
I don’t have any particular feelings about the Howard Roark character either way: it was the image of the ‘compromisers’ pasting-on the historical decorations that was a powerful statement in defense of modernist originality.
It was also the words of Howard Roark that clearly demonstrated the merits of the architectural designs he was defending. His words resonated with my opinions about architectural design.
I hope that post did not come off as my promoting or endorsing the book, or the protagonist Howard Roark. However, I do not find him either contemptible or admirable. I will try to use a better (less controversial) example next time. 
Cheers.
Your example was perfectly fine. You were using him as an example in that one scene, and you did it to talk about architecture.
Seeing it just reminded me of my experience reading the book and disliking the character’s general attitude toward people and life. Throughout the book (architecture aside) he was an uncaring, myopic narcissist who blatantly disregarded other people’s feelings and opinions because he could only accept his own.
Yes, expressing my admiration for modern architecture: particularly GOOD modern architecture such 50W66th. I do think this movie is simply great entertainment - and that scene was a perfect illustration of my views regarding Classical Architectural Design vs Modern Architecture.
BTW - This really is a must see movie for all YIMBY followers. There is a philosophical, political, social message; but watching this simply for the enjoyment of everything architecture was enough for me to really like this film.
One can find this movie streaming on the internet. I did a google search, and watched the movie for free. Quote from the film - “You see those people down there? - Do you know what they think of architecture?. I don’t care what they think of architecture”