To begin with, I don't know the current status of the project, and of the three redesigns, I was always a big fan of the second one. I would like to see it built, but I don't really know if it will actually happen.
i understand where you’re coming from, but i like it precisely because it looks similar. it’s similar enough to have a sort of “call and response” effect but not similar enough to be totally samey - it still feels like it has its own identity
The stepped front is more boring than the triangular original but the back seems to be better instead of a tall blank wall. It’s elegant, if a little boring.
It’s 270 park cut in half. Even copied the tapered elevations on the sides starting from the podium to the tower top. it’s uninspired and has no identity. The podium on stilts is also unimaginative and looks unresolved. Design copy was very surprising considering the difference between foster’s 425 park and 270 park. I’m sure they still have world class consultants and builders so the building will likely come together very well.
FYI “aesthetic” doesn’t mean “pretty.” You can say “aesthetically pleasing,” but just “aesthetic” makes no sense. All buildings have an aesthetic. People have been misusing this word for the past 5+ years. It’s my pet peeve.
Yes, dictionaries respond to colloquial use of words. That’s why one of the definitions of “literally” is “used for emphasis while not literally true.” It doesn’t change that fact that the people who said “literally” to mean “hyperbolically” until it was noted in dictionaries were misusing the word. “Aesthetic” as a predicative adjective is a misuse. It’s in the directionary because it’s widely used slang, not because it’s “correct.”
Language evolves over time. Some changes degrade language (by which I mean they degrade meaning by replacing specificity with generality), and others diversify language or invent new meanings. This use degrades meaning.
I like the shape but agree about the glass. I like 270 Park for its warmer, more solid looking materiality. Same for Brooklyn Tower. I hope New York avoids getting overwhelmed by blue glazing, it's too generic looking.
Also the renders tend to play fast and loose with how these facades look in real conditions
If Chase didn't exist already, I'd like it. Because it does, this looks unoriginal. Essentially the Chase cut in half.
i understand where you’re coming from, but i like it precisely because it looks similar. it’s similar enough to have a sort of “call and response” effect but not similar enough to be totally samey - it still feels like it has its own identity
GREAT
It’s crazy how small the new developments make the Chrysler look.
And the Crysler is already quite tall at 319m/1046ft, it’s crazy. But I do really like how these new mega skyscrapers look
First one is by far the best imo.
Assuming its steel, i hope i get to work on it
The steez levels are off the charts
The stepped front is more boring than the triangular original but the back seems to be better instead of a tall blank wall. It’s elegant, if a little boring.
Stunning. Belongs here in NYC. I look froward to seeing it go up.
Meh
I love it!
Looks like some kind of delicious wafer cookie
Beautiful 😊
It’s 270 park cut in half. Even copied the tapered elevations on the sides starting from the podium to the tower top. it’s uninspired and has no identity. The podium on stilts is also unimaginative and looks unresolved. Design copy was very surprising considering the difference between foster’s 425 park and 270 park. I’m sure they still have world class consultants and builders so the building will likely come together very well.
Nice, I appreciate it
I don't like the stepped design. It's boring and not aesthetic.
FYI “aesthetic” doesn’t mean “pretty.” You can say “aesthetically pleasing,” but just “aesthetic” makes no sense. All buildings have an aesthetic. People have been misusing this word for the past 5+ years. It’s my pet peeve.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aesthetic
Yes, dictionaries respond to colloquial use of words. That’s why one of the definitions of “literally” is “used for emphasis while not literally true.” It doesn’t change that fact that the people who said “literally” to mean “hyperbolically” until it was noted in dictionaries were misusing the word. “Aesthetic” as a predicative adjective is a misuse. It’s in the directionary because it’s widely used slang, not because it’s “correct.”
Language evolves over time. Some changes degrade language (by which I mean they degrade meaning by replacing specificity with generality), and others diversify language or invent new meanings. This use degrades meaning.
I see this matters to you, so sure, not aesthetically pleasing.
I don’t, engagement bot
Another blue glass monstrosity. This deserves to go in Hudson Yards🤮
I like the shape but agree about the glass. I like 270 Park for its warmer, more solid looking materiality. Same for Brooklyn Tower. I hope New York avoids getting overwhelmed by blue glazing, it's too generic looking.
Also the renders tend to play fast and loose with how these facades look in real conditions