IMHonestO;
Here's the thing, though.
Eclectic, yes; but truly daring? Not really.
And, matter of fact, not altogether necessary.
With the assumptions that American cities that wish to grow have:
A. The capital to do so
and
B. A mindset conducive to understanding how prevalent economic conditions affect how that capital is spent,
there needs to be a keen understanding of how to harness architectural expressions around the things they need to grow.
And in that respect, the old, yet trusted algorithm of "form follows function" needs to change with it.
That said, with more artistic liberties having been taken by American architects than ever before, there is now the capability to think beyond boxes in which city planners have sequestered themselves since I daresay the 1950's.
This engineering marvel of a beauty of a future city landmark shows how both concepts work hand in hand.
The "F-cubed" (F³) idea applies especially to 53W53/TV when you consider this as MOMA's signature tower.
Nordstrom, the hulking towers at HY and WTC show certain levels of boldness or, if you like, brute presence; but in genreal, their function--and how economic circumstances have in various ways have changed or diminished that over the years--limits what visual dramatics could've otherwise come to fruition.
Somewhat conversely, this, along with the other present/future supertalls of Billionaire's Row/57th do flaunt their grace; but again, their function as magnets for insanely rich internationals is served.
We are blessed to have a tower of this quality in this city for all these reasons. Because in vast swaths of Asian urbanity from Dubai to Shangai, it'd soon find itself a quarter-occupied vanity project with perhaps minimal thought given to actual purpose.
Last edited by Prezrezc; May 23, 2018 at 7:09 PM.
Reason: clean-up/germaneness
|
Prev
This is seriously a thin tower. 
Very nice Central Park views. 
Linear Mode
