[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

I’ve been wondering the same thing for a while now. Like the terra-cotta or bronze skinny supertalls going up in NYC, it doesn’t feel quite right to call these postmodern or neo-classical. But they’re also distinct from the new Tribune which, while also utilizing bronze, still follows a somewhat neo-futuristic form.

I’ve heard references to neo-deco which sounds appropriate for the NYC towers, especially 111 W 57th, and might be adaptable to this. 400 N LSD also has a somewhat New York style but not as much; it’s less wedding cake and more bundled tubes. But the neo-deco name fails when it comes to others, like Brooklyn’s [gorgeous] 9 DeKalb that has a somewhat gothic (like Tribune) feel, even though I feel like these are all part of the same movement.

Originally Posted by Jibba

Post Modern describes these best, though they haven't been conceived in the original era of that movement.

These are fine, but a bit fussy with the details. They could use two or three more rounds of editing. The BKL site I tower will likely outshine these, for me, design-wise.

Has the setbacks and possibly the overall massing to fit into the neo deco category but so many other features that keep them out of it. The towers don't seem to be recalling distinct features openly enough from other styles for me to call it true post modern, even if that's the designation that probably most closely fits right now. I agree with the comparison to the stuff going up in NY. Maybe we're seeing the formation of a new movement? A highly blended style that doesn't belong neatly into any current category.