NEW YORK | Bank of America Tower | 1,200' Pinnacle / 945' Roof | 53 FLOORS | 2009 - Page 17

DrNest · #**321** Posted **Jan 23, 2012, 11:54 PM**

This is a beautiful example of how to vary the standard rectangular glass box. Post #302 by NYGuy demonstrates perfectly the way this building creates character for itself.
However, like with Trump Chicago, the spire, for me, ruins the look. This would have been way better looking without a spire or antenna. I do not like the look around Times Square now with the collection of tall antennas/spires. This area of Manhattan would look so much better without the skinny points sticking up.

uaarkson · #**322** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 12:32 AM**

You're crazy! Those spires (and especially their lighting schemes) completely reinvigorated the midtown skyline.

DrNest · #**323** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 12:52 AM**

I'll agree to disagree. I love the new buildings, but just am not a fan of the spires. With or without their light show.

hunser · #**324** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 10:50 AM**

^^ Then you've chosen the wrong city. NY is the city of spires, always was and always will be.

Alliance · #**325** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 1:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

You're crazy! Those spires (and especially their lighting schemes) completely reinvigorated the midtown skyline.

If only we could have figured out that the sole key to reinvigorating midtown was an expensive light show on a pole sooner!

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

^^ Then you've chosen the wrong city. NY is the city of spires, always was and always will be.

Statements like this are absurd. Which buildings have spires? ESB? Chrysler? BoFA, American International? Times? Thats 5-6 towers, granted high profile, but hardly enough to define a city the size of New York, which is clearly more dominated by boxy buildings. There are a few antennas too on WTC, Bloomberg, and Conde Nasty in the mix too.

THE BIG APPLE · #**326** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 1:47 PM**

Quote:

Statements like this are absurd. Which buildings have spires? ESB? Chrysler? BoFA, American International? Times? Thats 5-6 towers, granted high profile, but hardly enough to define a city the size of New York, which is clearly more dominated by boxy buildings. There are a few antennas too on WTC, Bloomberg, and Conde Nasty in the mix too.

I think what he meant (he's right) is that ever since the days of the tall steeple of Trinity Church (which at a point LONG ago was the tallest in the city) every building has been built with some sort of needle like capstone. Many buildings like that were built and together they made the city into the city of spires. These days the BOX effect (many boxes) with many International Style buildings have made the effect of the spires go away.

DrNest · #**327** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

^^ Then you've chosen the wrong city. NY is the city of spires, always was and always will be.

You raise an interesting point when looking at past examples like ESB, Chrysler, Woolworth etc. But there are a lot more buildings without them. In my opinion, BoA looks great the way the curtain wall finishes at the top. Other than arbitrarily adding height, the spire as it is doesn't do anything.

Patrick · #**328** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

You raise an interesting point when looking at past examples like ESB, Chrysler, Woolworth etc. But there are a lot more buildings without them. In my opinion, BoA looks great the way the curtain wall finishes at the top. Other than arbitrarily adding height, the spire as it is doesn't do anything.

Agreed. I think the building would look much more graceful without the spire. The spire doesn't look bad on the building, but to me, it strikes me as unnecessary. The highest part of the building already reaches for the sky with it's sleep angles, the busy spire just doesn't really relate with the rest of the smooth curtain-walled building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

^^ Then you've chosen the wrong city. NY is the city of spires, always was and always will be.

Are you sure about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brenGT2

North View from ESB, Floor 102 by brenGT2, on Flickr

Some skyscrapers look great with spires/antennas (ESB, Chrysler, Conde Nast) others would look just fine, if not better without them (NY Times, BofA).

hunser · #**329** Posted **Jan 24, 2012, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Statements like this are absurd. Which buildings have spires? ESB? Chrysler? BoFA, American International? Times? Thats 5-6 towers, granted high profile, but hardly enough to define a city the size of New York, which is clearly more dominated by boxy buildings. There are a few antennas too on WTC, Bloomberg, and Conde Nasty in the mix too.

It can't absurd, 'cause it's true. At least people living in NY should know that the term "city of spires" is a general consensus. Since NY started building tall, the major characteristic of a skyscraper was its spire. It's no coincidence that the tallest building at that time always had a spire (from Singer to Met Life to Woolworth to 40 Wall to Chrysler to ESB to 1WTC).

And an intermezzo of international style buildings doesn't change that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick

Are you sure about that?

Yes I am, see above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

I think what he meant (he's right) is that ever since the days of the tall steeple of Trinity Church (which at a point LONG ago was the tallest in the city) every building has been built with some sort of needle like capstone. Many buildings like that were built and together they made the city into the city of spires. These days the BOX effect (many boxes) with many International Style buildings have made the effect of the spires go away.

I agree.

The new towers in Midtown (BofA, NYTT, Conde Nast, Bloomberg) have somehow reduced that effect. Let's hope the new WTC will be a new focal point so the ugly boxes at the waterfront are overlooked.

yankeesfan1000 · #**330** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 12:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

If only we could have figured out that the sole key to reinvigorating midtown was an expensive light show on a pole sooner!

Statements like this are absurd. Which buildings have spires? ESB? Chrysler? BoFA, American International? Times? Thats 5-6 towers, granted high profile, but hardly enough to define a city the size of New York, which is clearly more dominated by boxy buildings. There are a few antennas too on WTC, Bloomberg, and Conde Nasty in the mix too.

Walt Whitman was the first person to refer to NY as a city of spires in the 19th century in his poem Manahatta. So if you have a problem with that being a nickname of New York bring it up with Walt Whitman.

THE BIG APPLE · #**331** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 2:38 AM**

^ I'm sure the greatest poet in American history and Brooklyn native wasn't wrong.

DrNest · #**332** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 3:16 AM**

When one thinks of 'city of spires' one thinks of Oxford, Prague, or Copenhagen. Cities with a long history of this title. New York isn't the first place that springs to mind.
Whitman wrote in 1860, so I highly doubt he was referencing skyscrapers built in the mid-late 20th Century.
The actual line, deep within his poem reads, "City of hurried and sparkling waters! city of spires and masts! City nested in bays! my city!"

Yes, he was referring to New York in this instance, but look at the photograph in post #328. What percentage of the buildings have spires? Is it really apt to still infer the 'city of spires' tag?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying New York doesn't have a fantastic skyline. It does. Arguably one of the best in the world. My original point was that the BoA tower would have looked better without it's spire as is. Just because somebody wrote about a 'city of spires' over 150 years ago doesn't mean to say it's apt to plonk an 80m or so metal stick on top of a building.

Alliance · #**333** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 4:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Walt Whitman was the first person to refer to NY as a city of spires in the 19th century in his poem Manahatta. So if you have a problem with that being a nickname of New York bring it up with Walt Whitman.

Apparently Whitman missed the past century. Oh wait he was dead. The tallest building in New York when he died in 1892 was The World Building (which had a flagpole not a spire), followed by St. Patrick's Cathedral. Skyscrapers didn't even really exist so CLEARLY, he was not referencing them. Regardless "city of spires" is not represented by today's New York. I can see one out my window (American International). And it never really was, not in any extent that wasn't more prevalent in Europe or any other global city in the modern skyscraper era.

Yes BofA has a spire, but that doesnt make it more "representative" New York than the dozens of other contemporary towers that have gone up near it that all lack spires.

yankeesfan1000 · #**334** Posted **Jan 25, 2012, 9:57 PM**

Clearly not referencing skyscrapers because they didn't exist then? You're kidding right?

When the World Building was finished in 1890 it was the tallest building in New York, and was for five years. It's obviously not what we would think of as a skyscraper today, but at the time it was indisputably a skyscraper. And the term spire vs flag pole is splitting hairs, we're talking about a poem, not a literal historical analysis of what the skyline looked like, or an architectural dissection or critique of the World Building, its a poem, there's some latitude with the language.