Extremely exciting! Once we see more cladding installed onto 45 Park Place, I’ll be jumping with joy about Lower Manhattan again. Finally finishing these towers and the addition of the 900 foot tower at Independence Plaza will replenish Lower Manhattan
5 Likes
Well, it has been a long time; but this ‘modernist masterpiece’ is finally coming to fruition.
It has been years in the making. I have noticed that the work of Rafael Vinoly also takes years when it comes to getting the love his work deserves: take 432 Park for example.
His park avenue building at 432 Park was widely disliked for being a “big boring box” etc…
Now, generally speaking, 432 Park is quite often being referred to as an Architectural Icon. I have always admired the aesthetics of this new tower on Greenwich Street; and it is taking a long time - but remember good things come to those who wait… 
This too, (as is the case with 432 Park) we come to be known as an Architectural Icon IMHO. Enjoy.
Excerpt -
“Román Viñoly, son of Rafael Viñoly and Director of Rafael Viñoly Architects comments: ‘My father loved people. He was endlessly curious about how they live their lives and how the spaces he designed for them could contribute to their sense of well-being. The Greenwich is designed to elevate the human experience in a building that celebrates its unique location in the greatest city in the world.”
3 Likes
432 Park is an architectural icon? Is there a reliable source for that claim?
2 Likes
Waymond_Womano, post:998, topic:51, full:true"]**
432 Park is an architectural icon? Is there a reliable source for that claim?
Read carefully - “generally speaking”. In other words, I have heard this building referred to as being “iconic” . I think it is “iconic”. Some of my friends and acquaintances have referred to this building as being “iconic” - in other words, Architecture with a capital “A”.
So, yes - generally speaking.
However, interesting thought - maybe I can find a quote somewhere, from an article that may prove to be an official ‘reliable source’. I will post here if/when I find it…
Well, that was fun…you will find the word “Icon” and this building in many publications. I am actually surprised to see that 432 Park does get more ‘public praise’ than expected.
Many more: google the term 432 Park & Icon - lots of HITS.
Anyway - I think the same fate awaits 125 Greenwich Street; but it will take time… 
Also don’t miss commentary from Debora Berke: she says “iconic” too. Scroll the website to see interiors of 432 Park, and some commentary from the firm Tenberke
1 Like
I am very glad to read that the interior designer thought her own work was iconic.
9 Likes
It is his, work she said is ICONIC… I agree.
Well, she was working for Rafael Vinoly at the time; so I will admit she is a bit biased in her claim… 
1 Like
It’s usually referred to as a trash can.
2 Likes
HeHe, but really, everywhere I see comments and articles like this: so I guess it comes down to who’s opinion we value. Difference like this is what makes the world-go-round.
2 Likes
No, it was inspired by a Gucci trash can. Architecture
2 Likes
It was inspired by a 1905 waste bin/umbrella stand designed by Austrian Architect Josef Hoffman, not a fashion house.
I dont think Stache is wrong to say that its referred to as a trashcan since it was inspired by one though.
7 Likes
And in1905 Josef Hoffman was way ahead of his time. This building is certainly not that.
BTW I am referring to 432 Park Ave, not 125 Greenwich which I find infinitely more interesting. Just wish they would clad or stain the bare concrete on 125, it never ages well.
1 Like
This building or 432 Park Ave?
I dont deny that neither of the projects is very forward thinking in appearance, but i personally dont think they are great nor ugly buildings, they are just merely there/present. I dont care for them.
But surely everyone can agree that what was built here is better than what was originally proposed, which was a literal box regardless of the height it used to possess and the former iteration of the current design that had a stick ontop of it.
1 Like
In other words: “not your cup-of-tea” to use a common British expression. I find that to be a sensible sentiment when I comes to the very ‘subjective’ issue regarding how a building “looks” or the aesthetic merits of the design.
I have always found the aesthetics of both buildings to be ‘well designed’ - yet we are both here in agreement in one important senses: neither one of is WRONG.
The claim that the design of a given building is attractive/iconic/exceptional must remain simply a matter of opinion.
My opinion is this that both are BOTH capital A architecture, both often referred to as great works of Architecture: so that has been my only contention in the above ‘debate’… thanks for your input.
