NEW YORK | 15 Central Park West - 35 (2 Towers) | (2) 550 FT / 168 M | (2) 35 FLOORS

[CoolCzech]

This building is proof positive that we needn't fear all of New York will turn into nothing but glass boxes one day: obviously, if there is a demand for high quality masonry architecture... it will be built.

[colemonkee]

^ And it seems that Robert A.M. Stern is the force de jure for masonry buildings right now. He's got one in New York, Atlanta, Philly (Ten Rittenhouse, not Comcast) and even LA under construction at the moment.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

Are you crazy? The facade is exactly what makes this building nothing short of spectacular. Can anyone else name another 500ft. plus skyscraper with a honed, limestone facade out there?

I just think the facade doesn't bear up to close scrutiny. At a distance it looks amazing, yes, but the close-ups show it looking like cheap pre-fab facade coverings.
Maybe I'm jilted by that very type of look on modern Stockholm buildings that try to look old...

I do agree that at a distance, like in scruffy's pics, it looks friggin' awesome, and oh yes I would want it built in my hood even if it ment no more direct sunlight for me.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Why would that sadden you?

It would be like putting a dollar store on Rodeo Drive or wearing T-shirts and jeans to a wedding. Just because you are free to do it doesn't mean it should be done. There are instances in life where a sense of appropriateness is required.

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Would you prefer some exclusive establishment most of us don't have enough money to enter without feeling uncomfortable?

It's a superluxe building on Central Park West. There's no reason it has to cater to someone that you said "don't have enough money to enter without feeling uncomfortable."

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

This building is proof positive that we needn't fear all of New York will turn into nothing but glass boxes one day: obviously, if there is a demand for high quality masonry architecture... it will be built.

There are literally dozens upon dozens of projects in the city right now.

Out of all those, name another one that has "high quality masonry architecture."

I'll even let you include all projects from within the past ten years.

[Scruffy]

im still undecided in this whole NYC forum civil war that started at the battle of the drake hotel. for no other reason that i honestly have felt the way both sides have. regardless, this point i will concede to antinimby. other than bear sterns and the Trump Place buildings, and possible 12 Barclay, i really don't know any other high quality masonry, or at least any that are as high profile as their glassy counterparts from the last 10 years

[architect1]

WOw I like that building its nice. there some things I would of done a little different but its vary nice.

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by antinimby

It would be like putting a dollar store on Rodeo Drive or wearing T-shirts and jeans to a wedding. Just because you are free to do it doesn't mean it should be done. There are instances in life where a sense of appropriateness is required.

It's a superluxe building on Central Park West. There's no reason it has to cater to someone that you said "don't have enough money to enter without feeling uncomfortable."

Yeah, and there's no reason for the rest of us to watch out for the lifestyles of the rich, or the "appropriateness" of their surroundings. Believe me: they can take care of themselves quite nicely, and don't give a rat's butt about what store moves into YOUR building. IMO, if a Best Buy or even a (gasp!) Walmart allows the regular working public a chance to enjoy a part of this building... that's just fine.

I mean, consider the alternative: that failed mini-mall in the Trump Tower, a pretentious row of empty stores.

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by antinimby

There are literally dozens upon dozens of projects in the city right now.

Out of all those, name another one that has "high quality masonry architecture."

I'll even let you include all projects from within the past ten years.

Like I said: IF there is a demand for masonry structures, they will come.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Yeah, and there's no reason for the rest of us to watch out for the lifestyles of the rich, or the "appropriateness" of their surroundings. Believe me: they can take care of themselves quite nicely, and don't give a rat's butt about what store moves into YOUR building. IMO, if a Best Buy or even a (gasp!) Walmart allows the regular working public a chance to enjoy a part of this building... that's just fine.

I mean, consider the alternative: that failed mini-mall in the Trump Tower, a pretentious row of empty stores.

You seem to have a certain resentment towards wealth and exclusivity.

Well, using your reasoning, why bother building a luxe tower here and only have affordable retail when you could go all the way and build an affordable housing project here as well?

For that matter, why have anything expensive at all?

Let's make the whole world and everything in it affordable for the you. No Mercedes-Benzes or Rolexes, only Kias and Casios for everyone!

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by antinimby

You seem to have a certain resentment towards wealth and exclusivity.

Hardly - I'm conservative enough to be persona non grata in the so-called political "forum."

But just because I believe capitalism and the Rich are necessary because the alternatives tend to produce less desireable results doesn't mean I need to "love" the rich, or worry about them... like I said, they can take care of themselves quite well... and in any event won't return the favor. I don't fret that they are not being "esteemed" enough.

I submit that someone like Paris Hilton moving into a mere 10 story tall working class tenement in the Bronx would do far more to bring down its dignity than a Best Buy ever would this particular tower's.

I also believe in the dignity of the labor of the common man, and the life he lives: there is nothing "beneath" the dignity of a mere building about them. I don't understand poorer people that are so in awe of the rich they think they are somehow "too good" to be "soiled" by contact with the rest of us.

In any event, Best Buy apparantly CAN afford to move into this building, so it met the "exclusivity test," did it not? Or are you worried that too many Riff Raff will shop there?

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Like I said: IF there is a demand for masonry structures, they will come.

And as I have proven, there has been very little demand for upscale masonry structures of the kind seen here—and there's no reason to believe that will change anytime soon given the high cost of high-quality stone versus glass or brick—so the other part of your comment (which you conveniently left out by the way)...

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

This building is proof positive that we needn't fear all of New York will turn into nothing but glass boxes one day: obviously, if there is a demand for high quality masonry architecture... it will be built.

...is baseless and false.

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by antinimby

And as I have proven, there has been very little demand for upscale masonry structures of the kind seen here—and there's no reason to believe that will change anytime soon given the high cost of high-quality stone versus glass or brick—so the other part of your comment (which you conveniently left out by the way)...



...is baseless and false.

Only if you fancy that you and YOU alone appreciate masonry structures. In fact, may of us - including me and NYguy - appreciate them as well.

Perhaps an alternative explanation for the (current) low demand for new masonry structures in New York is due to the overwhelming numbers of such buildings already extant in it? And isn't that the point we've been making all along: that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of high quality masonry structures in this City, and therefore its silly to hold up a major new building over the fate of one of the less remarkable ones?

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Hardly - I'm conservative enough to be persona non grata in the so-called political "forum."
But just because I believe capitalism and the Rich are necessary because the alternatives tend to produce less desireable results doesn't mean I need to "love" the rich, or worry about them... like I said, they can take care of themselves quite well... and in any event won't return the favor. I don't fret that they are not being "esteemed" enough.
I submit that someone like Paris Hilton moving into a mere 10 story tall working class tenement in the Bronx would do far more to bring down it's dignity than a Best Buy ever would this particular tower's.
I also believe in the dignity of the labor of the common man, and the life he lives: there is nothing "beneath" the dignity of a mere building about them. I don't understand poorer people that are so in awe of the rich they think they are somehow "too good" to be "soiled" by contact with the rest of us.
In any event, Best Buy apparantly CAN afford to move into this building, so it met the "exclusivity test," did it not? Or are you worried that too many Riff Raff will shop there?

You're just going off some kind of incohesive tangent here.

In any case, Best Buy's ability to afford the rent in this building was never in question.

Walmart would be able to afford the high rent even more so but that doesn't make them an appropriate tenant here.

It's their down-market, suburban, big box store type of business that I find incongruent with the upscale nature of this building.

It's equivalent to wearing sandals with your tuxedo. There's nothing wrong with sandals in itself but there's a right and wrong place for them.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Only if you fancy that you and YOU alone appreciate masonry structures. In fact, may of us - including me and NYguy - appreciate them as well.

Now you're just trying to deflect the focus on what you had said earlier.

My preference of building material is not the issue here.

You essentially said that "we needn't fear all of New York will turn into nothing but glass boxes one day" but I have since disproved your statement.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong so we can move on?

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by antinimby

You essentially said that "we needn't fear all of New York will turn into nothing but glass boxes one day" but I have since disproved your statement.

Because you quite simply proved no such thing: I assert that there are so many masonry structures in NYC the market for them is simply too saturated to warrant too much new masonry construction.

But let's move on...

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by antinimby

My preference of building material is not the issue here.

Do you SO utterly miss the point of everybody's posts?

My point, to spell it out for you, is this: MANY people like masonry structures, NOT JUST YOU. And many people can AFFORD them: like the people that will occupy THIS new masonry tower.

Yet there is a current - and ONLY current, because that can change depending on demand - seeming dearth of such new masonry construction in the City.

Since I have a) established that many people like masonry structures, and b) many people can AFFORD masonry, it seem that leaves only one plausible explanation for why there is only limited masonry construction like this singular tower at the moment:

OBVIOUSLY, there is a GLUT of such structures currently in the City. Yes: New York has hundreds, nay, thousands of masonry structures. So why build too many stone ones, when the City is filled to the brim with them? I think the idea that masonry is not being currently used simply because it is too expensive is rubbish.

So it's silly to worry about one mediocre one like the Drake.

NOW do you understand, Grasshopper???

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Do you SO utterly miss the point of everybody's posts?
My point, to spell it out for you, is this: MANY people like masonry structures, NOT JUST YOU. And many people can AFFORD them: like the people that will occupy THIS new masonry tower.

Many people where? The ones on this forum? Judging from the success of even poor and lousy looking projects, it is doubtful that the people here represent your average condo buyer in the city.

Fact is, location and amenities are the biggest factors driving sales, particularly in this city, and not what the material of the facade is.

Zeckendorf could just as easily use all glass here ala Trump International next door or the Time Warner Center across the Circle and he wouldn't have any less trouble commanding the prices he got here.

Your logic is once again faulty.

OBVIOUSLY, there is a GLUT of such structures currently in the City. Yes: New York has hundreds, nay, thousands of masonry structures. So why build too many stone ones, when the City is filled to the brim with them?

No one here was arguing for or against the use of stone or glass. Furthermore, no was talking about existing buildings.

I challenged your statement that NEW construction with high quality masonry was common enough to prevent New York from becoming too glassy, which was clearly not the case.

I think the idea that masonry is not being currently used simply because it is too expensive is rubbish.

Then why may I ask do you think it isn't used more often?

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by antinimby

I challenged your statement that NEW construction with high quality masonry was common enough to prevent New York from becoming too glassy, which was clearly not the case.

Then why may I ask do you think it isn't used more often?

This is my last post on this subject. But just to address that last question:

a) As I said before, There are MANY masonry buildings in NYC, so people that wish to live in one by and large don't need to build new ones: they can move into existing ones that have been refurbished.

b) Masonry is out of fashion amongst architects. Not too expensive, just out of fashion. "Form over function" and all that trite jazz that ceased being meaningful about the time the AT&T (now Sony) building was built... and by the way, the Sony WAS a major masonry-clad structure.

Personally, I prefer masonry to mere glass and steel, but hey: that's neither here nor there. For artistic reason, architects feel they shouldn't use it... and I don't think it's merely due to cost considerations.

But this tower is proof that when clients demand stonework, they can still get it.

[CarlosV]

July 14, 2007

Looking Grand..on a beautiful day in Central Park...