NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,079 FT | 80 FLOORS - Page 104

STR · #**2061** Posted **Jul 23, 2011, 6:57 PM**

The crown is pretty much done. It hasn't changed much from before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

I'm guessing that if they shaved a few floors off the top, the last (top) X bracing piece won't fit because it will just go over the top of the building.

Just one more thing on this, the X's were shaped to fit what was needed. This meant that a couple of them were actually crooked, including the topmost X's. If you weren't looking for it, you probably wouldn't notice it from head on, but from edge on...

I know this would probably bug the crap out of a few of you, so I never pointed it out before. However, if you look back at my previous renders, you'll see it now.

Zapatan · #**2062** Posted **Jul 23, 2011, 8:02 PM**

that's f*cking disgusting

(Your'e renders a great I'm reffering to the (new) design)

pico44 · #**2063** Posted **Jul 23, 2011, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

This building is really 'nothing' now IMO. I mean, the base has been destroyed too and turned into a bland glass box with none of that eye-catching detail that we saw before. That is just worse than the height decrease and the removal of the bracing.

Here we have another typical NY box here folks, nothing to see here, move along now.... They took a fantastic Rogers design and NY'ified it. How charming. Certainly, NY is steadfastly in the 20th century in terms of architectural design and nothing recently has proven that false.

Oh shut up.

colemonkee · #**2064** Posted **Jul 23, 2011, 11:29 PM**

STR, those renders are amazing. I hope someone's paying you (a lot) of money to do these professionally.

patriotizzy · #**2065** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 2:40 AM**

Amazing renders STR. I was about to fap away to them, if only my friends would leave the room

aquablue · #**2066** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 3:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

Oh shut up.

Same to you mate. Some people don't like what they've done to the tower and find the new version bland and dull, so get that through your head and stop being rude with your snarky posts. It is not all about height and skyline, but design counts, and this one won't be half as interesting to look at as the first design. The base itself has been pared down to a simple glass cube and has seems to have lost its metal slat detailing (or whatever the correct term is). This is hardly better than tower four. I'm not that interested in large glass boxes no matter how high they are if they are uninteresting and featureless and bring nothing to street level. The skyline will be restored, but this complex just became a lot more boring, especially since T2 won't be here for years.

JayPro · #**2067** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 3:56 AM**

If you think about it, STR's pic of the (extremely) crooked X brace from that angle is IMHO precisely *why* those of us who've come to grips with the elemental elimination should be quite glad of it...even more so than ever, I dare say.

I look at that particular STH drawing/mock-up and can sigh in total relief that things are running the course they are now...::breaks into his attempt at the Lewis Black inflectional crescendo of latent rage::...except for the dilly-dallying in scoring a flipping ¡¡¡tenant!!!

PS: re STR's pic I mentioned...Did it occur to not one person in the architectural brain-trust that some of the X's were going to look like that?(!!!) 'Twould seem to me that merely slapping on a design element--for reasons aesthetic, practical or both--without an "all-I's-dotted-and-all-T's-crossed", holistic view of the project doesn't exactly bespeak good planning. I hope that makes sense.

aquablue · #**2068** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Amazing renders STR. I was about to fap away to them, if only my friends would leave the room

I think that is disgusting. It is just a building, God!

patriotizzy · #**2069** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 7:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

I think that is disgusting. It is just a building, God!

It was a joke

NYCLuver · #**2070** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 8:08 AM**

Atleast I appreciate your fapping and posts patriotizzy.

Anyway, I never noticed the crooked X braces so thank you to STR for pointing them out! I still don't know how I feel with the building being without the X braces, I have to warm up to it a bit and it will take some time, but i do hope it gets built.

brian.odonnell20 · #**2071** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 11:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

It was a joke

no, that's disgusting.

STR · #**2072** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 1:27 PM**

Refined a few of the lower floors. Result was a drop in roof height by another 12 feet, putting it at 1042', with fins at 1073. Pretty much done with overall size alterations. I only have the lobby and retail levels left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

If you think about it, STR's pic of the (extremely) crooked X brace from that angle is IMHO precisely *why* those of us who've come to grips with the elemental elimination should be quite glad of it...even more so than ever, I dare say.

Given that no one noticed it (despite dozens of renders) until I pointed it out, I'd say "extremely crooked" is hyperbole.

CGII · #**2073** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 3:54 PM**

STR, now that you've spent many hours up close and personal with the new design, have you developed any new opinions regarding the design?

STR · #**2074** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 4:02 PM**

It's okay by itself. I like it more than when I first uncovered it. In someways it's better than the old design. It's more consistent with itself, all of the columns use the same industrial motif since they removed the cylindrical stringers. On the other hand, I liked the X's, and would have preferred they ditched the corner braces instead. I was never a fan of those, in any of their 3 configurations. But I think this will work out well in the end.

I like that there's a tiny gap between the braces and the glass curtain wall. You'll be able to go to the corner of the building on Church and look up through a 6" gap all the way to the sky. It's not something that looks good on a render, but will be cool in person.

However, I haven't put this model in with the other buildings yet. The key is how it will relate to Tower 4 and Tower 2, and the impact of the height reduction on the overall massing.

Dac150 · #**2075** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 4:05 PM**

I feel the new design makes the building more marketable because what you see is what you get. The building is no longer dressed up with bells and whistles which in a way acted as a distraction to the overall shape of the building. If anything this is the same building without the ‘makeup and high heels’.

The Grand Architect · #**2076** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 5:32 PM**

If STR's renderings were burgers, I would stop going to Burger King.

Alliance · #**2077** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

I feel the new design makes the building more marketable because what you see is what you get. The building is no longer dressed up with bells and whistles which in a way acted as a distraction to the overall shape of the building. If anything this is the same building without the ‘makeup and high heels’.

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.

NYguy · #**2078** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

I feel the new design makes the building more marketable because what you see is what you get. The building is no longer dressed up with bells and whistles which in a way acted as a distraction to the overall shape of the building. If anything this is the same building without the ‘makeup and high heels’.

It looks a little more "plain" because of what we're used to seeing. I liked the other version better, but had the current version been the original design, I doubt you'd hear as many complaints. But since we're talking about it, we're a long way from being able to say this building is a downer. Many people have complained that tower 4 was the most boring and visually uninteresting of the planned towers. But from what I'm seeing with my own eyes, that just is not the case. We'll have to see what towers 2 and 3 actually look like once the begin rising. Many that are disappointed now likely won't be. Patience people.

Zapatan · #**2079** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 7:01 PM**

I'm just worried the four towers are going to look silly and unbalanced considering how small they are compared to tower 1, we're kinda right back where we started. Why would they market it as 80 floors when it really only has 60 some?

The Grand Architect · #**2080** Posted **Jul 24, 2011, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I'm just worried the four towers are going to look silly and unbalanced considering how small they are compared to tower 1, we're kinda right back where we started. Why would they market it as 80 floors when it really only has 60 some?

Hardly the case. Tower 1 was meant to be the main tower of the complex. I don't think it's fair to have any tower exceed Tower 1 or be near it. (Exception is Tower 2). The other towers are perfectly fine considering their current height.