NEW YORK | 909 3rd Ave

I’ve always hated this heinous PoS.

This stretch of Third needs serious redevelopment.

4 Likes

Yeah, I hope this dumpy tower will eventually be redeveloped. At bare minimum, it needs a new facade.

1 Like

hah, idk its certainly of its time but that makes it sorta cool to me at least. Maybe they could plant some climbing vines on the pedestal part to make it “green”

1 Like

This building is, oddly enough, an ‘icon’ among Architectural aficionados’ - and I can see why.

I am no expert, but I do see a degree of thoughtful detail and refinement in this particular building; and and do see some beauty in the somewhat cold hard look that is the school of ‘Brutalism’.

I am glad great Architects never design to please ‘the masses’ - as that approach would only result in Architectural mediocrity in each and every building they designed.

Here is a bit of a primer on why some, but not many, find this building to be truly ‘iconic’. I would like to see this one be landmarked - which may happen.

Midtown

Link here - NYC URBANISM — Midtown’s 909 Third Avenue, included in our Brutal...

7 Likes

This is one of those buildings that’s better on the outside than I would imagine it is on the inside. The main reason is that the window framing extends what looks like 3 feet/1 meter beyond the actual glass, thus blocking a good portion of the view from the people on the inside. So while it looks as cool as a Brutalist building can possibly look (which is a low bar in my opinion) it’s not that thoughtfully designed for the humans who actually inhabit and/or work inside the building, from a vantage point POV.

1 Like

Totally agree, @infoshare .

After a decade or two of glass boxes, I’ve come to a newfound appreciation of brutalism. Love it or hate it, brutalism, at the very least, offers surfaces with texture and pattern, which, in the main, I find to hold greater visual interest than acres of smooth, unadorned glass.

3 Likes

Yes, there is little natural light/views to be had with this type of design. I think of Brutalism, and Classism - and a few other styles - as being designed from The-outside-IN.

The strict formal design language of these ‘styles’ of architecture compromise on the need for the essential ‘function’ of the building; the result is a sub-optimal interior space.

Modernism is the only style that permits the Architect to ‘shape-shift’ the building into varying forms, and to design facades with huge windows: make any type of form factor that best suites the occupants.

Brutalism is a ‘style’ and one I can appreciate as much as the Classical style; but I always prefer the Modernist style as the best of all possible Architectural options. I like the ‘inside-out’ design approach - as long as the ‘outside’ can look great too… :innocent:

1 Like