Beautiful… 
This building is the perfect example why I love ‘modernist’ architectural designs: when done well, you get the optimal outcome - form & function.
HOWEVER, I have growing admiration for traditional architecture ever since following various NYC Architectural projects here on YIMBY. Particularly all the great projects by RAMSA that are done in the more ‘traditional’ architectural style.
I have always preferred the modern architectural design: this building here at 50 West 66th is a prime example of modernism done well.
That being said, I decided to take my quandary between modernism/classicism to AI for some answers & insights.
My Question: Is modern architecture better than traditional architecture
Answer from Grok2 -
The debate between modern and traditional architecture isn’t about which is definitively “better” but rather about what each offers in terms of aesthetics, functionality, sustainability, and cultural relevance. Here’s a breakdown considering various perspectives:
Aesthetics:
- Modern Architecture: Often characterized by simplicity, clean lines, and the use of materials like steel, glass, and concrete. It emphasizes form following function, with buildings like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao or the Sydney Opera House showcasing unique, innovative designs. Critics might argue that it sometimes lacks warmth or historical context.
- Traditional Architecture: Focuses on historical styles, regional materials, and techniques, often providing a sense of place and continuity with the past. Examples include Gothic cathedrals, Japanese pagodas, or Georgian townhouses. Critics might say traditional designs can feel outdated or less adaptable to modern needs.
Functionality:
- Modern: Typically prioritizes open floor plans, flexibility, and integration of technology. Buildings are designed for efficiency, often with considerations for light, space, and environmental control. However, some modern structures might not age as gracefully or could require more maintenance due to the materials used.
- Traditional: Might have limitations due to less flexible layouts or less consideration for modern living standards like energy efficiency. However, these buildings are often built to last for centuries, with many still functional after hundreds of years.
Sustainability:
- Modern: Newer designs can incorporate sustainable technologies like solar panels, green roofs, or passive heating/cooling systems. Some modern buildings aim for LEED certification or similar standards. Yet, the environmental impact of producing modern materials can be high.
- Traditional: While older buildings might not initially seem sustainable, they often use local materials, reducing transport emissions, and can be adapted for modern sustainability practices. Traditional methods can also contribute to passive heating and cooling.
Cultural and Social Aspects:
- Modern: Can represent progress, innovation, and a break from past constraints. It might not always resonate with local culture or history, potentially leading to a loss of cultural identity in some places.
- Traditional: Offers a connection to heritage, community, and identity. It can foster a sense of belonging but might struggle to accommodate contemporary cultural shifts or global influences.
Conclusion:
Whether modern architecture is “better” than traditional depends on context, purpose, and values. Modern architecture excels in innovation, adaptability, and sometimes sustainability, while traditional architecture might be superior in terms of longevity, cultural significance, and community integration. Both have their place, and the best architectural solutions often blend aspects of both, creating buildings that are functional, beautiful, and respectful of cultural contexts.
In essence, the choice between modern and traditional architecture should be informed by the specific needs, values, and environment of the project at hand, rather than a blanket judgment on superiority.
I can’t tell you all how relieved I am they didn’t ruin the roof. I was worried about another Madison Square Park Tower mess.
Good point, but MSP Tower had an arguably smaller footprint which would’ve made it difficult to cover the MEP stuff on the roof and still allow the BMU to swing around.
great pic!
It does look like that though. That render is not of the same corner as your photo.
The photograph is an overcast day, the rendering is a mostly clear sky during sunset. That’s why is looks “different”, but scroll up for sunny days and it looks the same
Time to take a tour ‘inside’ one of the new condo apartments. The interior FF&E (furnishings, finishes & equipment) is well done: because it is not ‘over-done’.
The built-in cabinetry is tasteful, attractive - yet minimal. The floors, baseboards and door/window trim: all look great - and understated. The appliances are all top quality brands, nice finishes - but not too glitzy.
The rooms are spaciously proportioned, good ceiling heights, and all the main rooms are flooded with natural light emanating from those oversized windows.
The punched windows was a wise choice; I think it is a much better look/feel than the floor-to-ceiling windows.
The designers of these interior spaces did a brilliant job. My guess is that the interior detailing was also Snohetta - but not sure.
Inside & out; this is one of the best designed new condos in NYC - IMHO. 
BTW - Don’t miss the 3D walk-thru: great feature. 