NEW YORK | ABC Office Building | 1,262' (OBS) | 582' - 60 FLOORS | 1963 | NEVER BUILT

Jibba · #1 Posted **May 13, 2008, 3:49 AM**

ABC Office Building by Bertrand Goldberg:

Photo by Hedrich-Blessing. www.bertrandgoldberg.org

Photo by Hedrich-Blessing. www.bertrandgoldberg.org

From bertrandgoldberg.org:

"This unrealized project for a new American Broadcasting Company headquarters was a sixty-story office tower at 67th and Columbus Avenue in Manhattan. It was to have housed both ABC's corporate body of 1400 employees and their broadcast studios. The proposed building was a complex circular structure of concrete and glass which resembled a set of bundled tubes. Goldberg clustered related 'companies' and knitted them together, arranging interior space so that it more closely followed ABC's organizational structure. The various clusters were organized around a communal space in the center for joint enterprises. Goldberg providing a windowed, daylit area for the secretaries, and each level of management had easy access to one another. The focal point of the design was a major transmission antenna, a graceful structure that would have been the tallest in New York City. It was never built due to financial difficulties.

As described by Goldberg in his Oral History, 'in our perhaps over studied way, we began to pry into their business organization, and we discovered that the way they actually operated was quite different from the way they thought they operated. They were actually a series of little companies, each with its own special way of making money and functioning in a communications system.'"
_______________________________________

This tower, to me, is one of the best examples of Goldberg's design philosophy. The form is a pure expression of the tower's function, and the layout of the space is innovative and likewise enabled by the "bundled tubes" scheme that forms the basis of the design. I also find the contrast between the office tower and the observation tower to be incredibly pleasing and well-designed, with the choice of materials for each imbueing each respective structure with the perfect visual weight; the observation tower is more than twice the height of the office tower, and yet the massing and materials lend a perfect balance between the two. Of course, this analysis could obviously become irrelevant depending on how the built design turned out, but unfortunately no one will ever know.

So I am obviously a fan of this design...what about the rest of you?

Swede · #2 Posted **May 13, 2008, 9:24 AM**

I like the design of the building, in a way. I'd connect the round windows though. Could work as a residential tower too, this lay-out. The observation tower is atrocious and the base of the whole thing leaves pretty much everything to be desired.

My take on it would be a real base with streetfront retail, no obs-tower and at least 200 feet taller. With the round windows connected as a long panoramic window with rounded ends. kinda Coruscanty.

The building would have been great, and might even have aged well, but the transmition/obs tower... no thanks.

skyscraper · #3 Posted **May 13, 2008, 12:45 PM**

goldberg was the same guy who did the marina towers in chicago, which is a similar design.

JDRCRASH · #4 Posted **May 13, 2008, 3:08 PM**

The tower is crap; but in New York?...no way.

Jibba · #5 Posted **May 14, 2008, 3:53 AM**

Hmm...I suppose I was expecting a love/hate dialogue with this one, but I thought at least someone would like it.

I will say that the base area leaves something to be desired, though. A lot of Goldberg's designs have the type of developmental configuration that this one has wherein the development is more of a towers-on-a-plaza deal than a lot line-to-lot line build. However, I still find the architecture of the constituent structures to be incredibly beautiful.

Scruffy · #6 Posted **May 17, 2008, 2:54 AM**

this sucks. Im glad it wasn't built. the tower they do have is not bad looking. 23 floors, post modernish. instead of going upwards the broadcast studios take up the majority of the block running behind the apartments.

Its 7 buildings with connecting corridors. its cool.

FrancoRey · #7 Posted **May 17, 2008, 7:41 AM**

Why did people in the 50's/60's think this looked 'futuristic'?

It reminds me of something I'd see in Disneyland's 'Tomorrow Land' when I was a kid, which was also renovated because it looked so horrible.

CGII · #8 Posted **May 17, 2008, 2:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancoRey

Why did people in the 50's/60's think this looked 'futuristic'?

It reminds me of something I'd see in Disneyland's 'Tomorrow Land' when I was a kid, which was also renovated because it looked so horrible.

Goldberg was not a futurist, he was an organicist. 'Tomorrow Land' was designed to resemble a future world, while Goldberg designed his buildings to uniquely acommodate its purposes with fluid design. Mind you his buildings elsewhere have aged quite well:

rivercitycondos.com

preservationchicago.org

dkimages.com

Tom Servo · #9 Posted **May 21, 2008, 7:53 AM**

wow... the people on this forum are

this tower is beautiful and yet another example of goldberg's GENIUS.

and CGII, do you just say stuff about architecture that sounds good to you, or do you actually read about the subjects you talk about? first of all, what is an organicist? are you trying to saying he subscribed in some way to the philosophy of organic architecture (which btw, is loosely defined anyway)?? if so, then in what way at all was anything that goldberg did interrelated with nature? hmm. goldberg was a bauhaus trained modernist. and his style is very much reflective of this. and not only was he an architect, but he was also an engineer and sought to create unique structural systems in the buildings he designed. his buildings are a continuation of the chicago school of architecture (the second school) and structural innovation; they were a reflection of the pragmatism of chicago architecture (back then) and the social ideas of the bauhaus. he was a social idealist just like all the other modernists. and just because some of his buildings were round doesn't make him anything else. or did you assume he was an organicist because you think marina city looks like corn cobs???

Dac150 · #10 Posted **May 21, 2008, 4:31 PM**

I see no point nor need for a tower such as that. The 'building' itself is okay in the sense of innovative architecture. I highly admire Marina City, so in the spirt of architectual comparison, I wouldn't mind to see a building such as that in the city.

The tower on the other hand just woudn't fit in. I see no need for a 1262' metal rod. It adds nothing to the surrounding area, nor does it go. I other like it than fine, it's just not my taste.

drew11 · #11 Posted **May 24, 2008, 3:16 AM**

I don't really care for the design either.

Complex01 · #12 Posted **May 30, 2008, 4:06 PM**

I dont like this tower at all. It just looks crazy and out of place. Glad it was never built...

StarScraperCity · #13 Posted **May 30, 2008, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

wow... the people on this forum are

this tower is beautiful and yet another example of goldberg's GENIUS.

I don't mind the building itself. It is the ridiculous and unneeded observation tower that ruins this proposal for me.

RLS_rls · #14 Posted **Jun 2, 2008, 2:39 AM**

Oh I love the base of the tower. It's monumental and modern, changing it would simply ruin the effect. The observation tower as well...I really like that.

I dunno, I think this would have aged surprisingly well.

mthq · #15 Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 8:58 AM**

What a nightmare of a design. I kinda wish it was built just so ABC, in the year 2008, gets stuck with offices on floor plates the shape of a 60s/70s Dating Game-flower

http://www.beamagnettohollywoodsucce...gGame%2016.jpg

America 117 · #16 Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 1:21 AM**

Swede · #17 Posted **Jun 13, 2008, 8:49 AM**

Stuck with those offices? By now the potential for conversion to residential would be too great to pass up. Up to 16 appartments per floor times 60 floors... up to 960 appartments!