The garage also kills any vibrancy in that area.
2 Likes
Honestly the 1950 garage isnât too bad IMO. It at least tries to fit with the neighborhood and kinda tries to look okay.
The 1968 garage on the other hand absolutely disgusts me. I want to see it gone. Itâs only grace is the tribute in light which in no way directly relatesâŚ
4 Likes
14 Likes
This is going up fast!
1 Like
Whatâs the cladding material there, Tectonic? In the renderings, the base looked to be a stone, but this looks different (and less attractive to my eyes sadly).
1 Like
Whatever it is, it looks lame. I was hoping for higher quality on the base. Hopefully the glass tower above will look more impressive.
3 Likes
FX Fowle has been churning out budget-looking designs recently. Theyâve only been a step above Peter Poon lately tbh. Theyâre designing the new tower on Broadway too, which isnât a far walk away.
And letâs not talk about the current iteration of 3 Hudson BoulevardâŚ
1 Like
What a great, and timely, photo by Tectonic: we have been waiting for some time now to see this all important âcladdingâ phase to begin. The âcurtain wallâ , the âfacadeâ, the cladding; whatever the trade jargon may be - it is a major component to the overall aesthetic of the architectural design. That being said: this looks like a cheep, low quality curtain wall.
My guess, just looking at the photo, that they are thin sheetmetal panels with rigid framing supports directly behind to give them some structural rigidity. Think of your refrigerator, or oven door: that sort of panel - that is what I am guessing this is basically the material composition of that facade.
The building will look nice enough design wise: but this is a detriment to the architectural integrity
as a whole. A detriment that only a minority of observers will notice: so thats why they can pull a VE move like this - they know the masses are, UH, uninformed. HeHe
3 Likes
Honestly, it looks like the cheapest ceramic tiles youâd buy at Home Depot.The whole thing is Gene-Kaufman-esque.
4 Likes
This and 200 Amsterdam are major disappointments.
1 Like
It would be one thing if the developers bought up the entire block as they should have, but as it is this thing needs to directly interact with its neighborsâŚand what I see is a jarring and unpleasant divergence of styles. The building looks like it becomes much glassier above the podium and based on renders it should be nicer, but that little brick POS at the south end of the site will be irritating me for the rest of my life.
1 Like
I donât think they had a choice since itâs a landmark and theyâre obligated to preserve at least the facade, something which usually pleases neither developers nor preservationists. This practice is often referred to as âfacadism.â
1 Like
I am wondering what that material actual is: sheet metal, ceramic tiles, etc. I call them panels, made of what I donât know, but whatever the substance - they not particularly attractive or substantial in appearance. My guess is sheet metal panelsâŚ
2 Likes
I agree. In person, it does indeed look just like cheap tiles from Home Depot.
The dark panels look like sheet metal. The lighter sand-color panels appear to be very thin stone tiles. The color is so even that it might be processed stone (like quartz countertops, etc.) The tiles are so thin that theyâre already chipped and cracked all over. (Yikes!) But the texture is also quite unfortunate. In person, it looks kind of like cheap stucco at first glance. Looking closer, I donât think thatâs the case. But itâs a really unfortunate look. They should have gone much thicker on the tiles for durability, and chosen a rougher texture that actually looks like stone.
9 Likes
I was under the impression the panels were powder coated sheetmetal, until seeing the above photos, this is now looking like some other material: not sure what exactly, but not great looking.
1 Like