Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance
I would say exactly the opposite. A building that is less distinctive and less original would be more difficult to market based on image alone. Detail isn't distraction. I don't look at Woolworth or Seagram and think: "If only those subtle details weren't there, I would appreciate this tower so much more."
Tower 3 was the the only tower of the new four that I felt hand any significant separation from the others and its unfortunate to lose it. It now fits exactly in the mold of towers 1 and 2, plain, flat glass with minimal metal angular accents.
|
What I said is not to say I disliked the details; they are exactly what attracted me to this building to begin with. You’re not wrong in your points however in terms of modern trends; I feel being conventional is more practical than being detailed. The new design is certainly more conventional and fits the bill of what you’d expect a modern office building to look like.
Now whether or not that is right or not is irrelevant as proven by the actual design change itself. Cost cutting leads to being more conventional in design. What is unnecessary is lost or ‘simplified’ for lack of a better word.
As NYguy said, this doesn’t mean that the final product will be a bore when you take into consideration how beautifully Tower 4 is turning out.
Prev
Linear Mode
