Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
NY Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff reviews Jean Nouvel's future 75-story tower at 53 West 53rd Street, describing it as "the most exhilarating addition to the skyline in a generation." He compares Nouvel's latest to the Woolworth, Chrysler and Seagram buildings.
Filling a 17,000 square-foot vacant lot next to MoMA, the structure will be the future site of a developer Hines' 100-room hotel and 120 "highest-end" (Hines' words) luxury apartments. MoMA, which sold the lot for $125 million (after completing an $858 million expansion), will use three floors for 50,000 square feet of exhibition space. Ouroussoff thinks this fusion of culture and commerce shows that Nouvel is "a master of balancing conflicting urban forces." Last spring, Ourossouff called Nouvel's Soho and Chelsea buildings "eye candy."
According to the Times, the building's design draws on the work of delineator Hugh Ferriss, who created renderings for Cass Gilbert's Woolworth Building and others. Its contorted form features crisscrossing beams on the facade. The frame is pushed to the exterior, creating big open floor plates for the museum's 2nd, 4th and 5th floor galleries. A restaurant and lounge will be below ground, with the top sheathed in glass.
Nouvel has worked on buildings from Reykjavik to Abu Dhabi. Here, aside from designing 40 Mercer (quaintly called "Soho Apartments" on Nouvel's web site - we think they are one in the same) and 100 Eleventh Ave. (with its famed automated parking), Nouvel was a finalist for the now stalled Brooklyn Visual and Performing Arts Library designed by winner Enrique Norten.
Hines chairman Gerald Hines said of the design, “Nouvel’s exciting concept has the potential to become an international architectural design icon.” Work at 53 West 53rd is expected to begin late next year.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
It looks like a handle.
I hate all this modern architecture. It has absolutely zero sense of context. This building could just as well be in Dubai, Singapore, Tokyo or London. New York architecture used have it's own signature design vernacular, just as Parisian Haussman buildings do, etc. You could look at a building and know, this is New York. Now, it's all the same lame shit. Modernism, and its evil bastard child postmodernism, have ruined art and design.
It's RAD! Plus is expands MoMA's exhibition space. Good for NYC.
uh, great. What we need is more luxury high rises. We don't have enough of those yet.
Are they serious? What a POS! Someday soon NO light will ever hit the sidewalks south of 96th Street. It's going to make for a chilly, shaded sculpture garden on fall and winter afternoons. FU too MOMA!
Yesterday, I saw the book, Architecture of the Absurd, on display at B&N. Featured on the cover is Frank Gehry's Stata Center at MIT. I laughed because, since the book's publication, the school has sued Gehry over the buiding's flawed design.
It kind of looks like a skinny version of Chicago's Hancock building that was twisted a bit. Hardly ground breaking architecture. Maybe if it was twice its height I could get excited.
Got to love zoning. Building's of this size are so appropriate.
I think it looks excellent, a great addition to the skyline.
I find it absurd that people whine about "context" in skyscraper central - midtown manhattan and "no more light south of 96th street".
sorry gouda, but the empire state building and the chrysler building for example are both iconic NEW YORK skyscrapers. they look like they are from here, and they create context. every single piece of modern architecture strives to destroy that context. thats why they suck.
More uninspired modern architecture which seems to be more about the BS the architect comes up with to describe their uninspired rubbish. Hell, George Constanza could do a better job.
You're absolutely right smokedgouda. Who needs sunlight? Worthless crap.
tblake - "who needs sunlight?" a strawman and childish argument.
SP - We are certainly capable of building new iconic towers - and have.
Most new buildings are panned before they are built anyways, that's why all you whiners don't really matter.
name one that with one glance says New York, one that couldnt easily be dropped into another city and blend in.
@SP: Easy. Time Warner Center. Aligns with CPW and Broadway. Split by CPS. Very New York; it anchors the south west corner of Central Park.
big glass box, looks like it could be in taiwan. NEXT
i love it. i think it's looks fantastic.
SP, you do have a point. I'm not sure if New York will ever again have a truly unique architectural vernacular. Global market forces won't allow builders to stray too far from the proven, and the big architecture firms all vie to be "international".
I agree that the TWC is generic in construction and detailing, but I do believe it does a great job of aligning with the street grid and the arc of Columbus Circle.
Can you think of any structures built post 1935 that meet your criteria?
Matty, the encouragement from a Chicago critic has weight.
The reason why people are using glass and steel to build buildings everywhere (NYC, Guangzhou, Dubai, etc) is because those are the best materials with which to build buildings. If any of those other regions were building skyscapers in 1930, you'd find your "New York" buildings there as well.
It is incredibly unimaginative to argue that the only "New York" buildings are the ones that already exist. I agree that a lot of new buildings are uninspired in NYC, but this design would fit the bill. So would the Hearst Building. These building will be "New York" over time. Conversely, the Twin Towers were 'iconic' but uninspired and could have been built anywhere.
It looks like a door handle from a circa 1970's car.
...or better yet, a refrigerator door handle ice sculpture.
i disagree with calling something "new york" over time. NYC is an art deco city. Lots of buildings have been built since that era, but none define the city quite like the architecture of the "between the wars" era.
I doubt this building will become "new york" in time. Hopefully, however, it will represent a nice piece of late 2000-early ten's architecture.
who would ever think you could say late 2000 early tens anyway? wow that is cool.
What ever happened to good stone work?
There's something incredibly gratifying and strong about looking at a massive building hewn from stone and concrete. Buildings like the Chrysler are works of art. These LSD addled glass boxes are just not doing it for me.
Calm down everyone. Many NY buildings are unique, but it's because they were built in a time when the rest of the world wasn't building skyscrapers. Just because other cities build similar skyscrapers doesn't mean we have to hate all new ones in NY. Yes, this one is a little odd and worth disliking on taste alone, but to describe it as some epidemic of mediocrity is a stretch. We need to embrace the fact that NY is still NY yet doesn't stand out on the world map like it once did.
I think we've all had enough of luxury condos, but what do you expect when a piece of pavement sells for $200 million? I certainly wouldn't care about middle income people if I were a developer and had that much money to make up for.
Anyone upset about no more sunlight needs to look at one staggering fact: a never ending, growing population. Should we instead cutoff NY to new residents moving here, sign a building moratorium, and take down the existing skyscrapers to suit the needs of those who think they're better than others cause they've lived here longer?
adam