NEW YORK | 10 Barclay St | HEIGHT | 56 FLOORS - Page 18

GVNY · #**341** Posted **Jan 9, 2008, 7:16 AM**

Ignore the massing, Lecom, which is indeed a valid point, but a point I was not trying to convey or cover.

If a tower of this quality rose abreast the Empire State or any other classic structure anywhere, there would be valid outcry.

Patrick · #**342** Posted **Jan 9, 2008, 7:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GVNY

Ignore the massing, Lecom, which is indeed a valid point, but a point I was not trying to convey or cover.

If a tower of this quality rose abreast the Empire State or any other classic structure anywhere, there would be valid outcry.

Yes but at 1,200 feet, ajacent to the Empire State Building, the tower would be of much more high quality, different massing, and overall look nothing like 10 Barclay. And who would really build a tall residential building blocking the ESB? Yes there would be an outcry, but that would never happen, its like building the Metlife building directly in front of the Chrysler Building instead. So I dont really get you point.

The buildings fine, its alright if you dont like it but your acting like they had to demolish the original Penn Station for this.

GVNY · #**343** Posted **Jan 9, 2008, 7:58 AM**

Now, now, do not exaggerate my position.

I am just responding to criticisms of my own personal belief that this structure is tasteless. And it is.

The nasty hulk only obliterates (formerly, you would have seen and been inspired by Woolworth):

A lovely NYGuy composition from Wired New York.

Disturbing. This is not acceptable design.

A nice photograph from Lofter of Wired New York.

NYguy · #**344** Posted **Jan 9, 2008, 2:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick

Yes but at 1,200 feet, ajacent to the Empire State Building, the tower would be of much more high quality, different massing, and overall look nothing like 10 Barclay. And who would really build a tall residential building blocking the ESB? Yes there would be an outcry, but that would never happen, its like building the Metlife building directly in front of the Chrysler Building instead.

Yeah, as nice as the planned MOMA tower is, imagine if it were proposed next to or accross the street from the Empire State...

NYguy · #**345** Posted **Jan 9, 2008, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GVNY

The nasty hulk only obliterates (formerly, you would have seen and been inspired by Woolworth):

Slightly. But its not the view of the Woolworth you would want anyway. Besides, you could say the same thing about the other neighboring towers. Depending on your vantage point, the Woolworth could be blocked anyway.

Lecom · #**346** Posted **Jan 9, 2008, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GVNY

Ignore the massing, Lecom, which is indeed a valid point, but a point I was not trying to convey or cover.

If a tower of this quality rose abreast the Empire State or any other classic structure anywhere, there would be valid outcry.

Neither of us is going to convince one another of our argument - you value the Woolworth much more than I do, while also despise 10 Barclay more than I do too. Both are questions of aesthetics. I'm content with the situation (could be much better, but meh, could be worse too), you're not. Oh well. We're treading in the territory of pure opinions and tastes now.

NYguy · #**347** Posted **Feb 22, 2008, 7:48 PM**

View from the Woolworth Building, posted on curbed.com

NYC2ATX · #**348** Posted **Feb 23, 2008, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

View from the Woolworth Building, posted on curbed.com

At least the crown isn't terribly boring like some condo towers out there today.

That view will be 20 times as impressive in about 5 years (god willing).

NYguy · #**349** Posted **Feb 23, 2008, 12:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

That view will be 20 times as impressive in about 5 years (god willing).

Yeah, its amazing the amount and size of new towers that will rize in that immediate area, especially considering its right in the middle of a bustling city. Any one of those towers (including Goldman) would be major in a lot of places. We are very lucky to witness this. I certainly don't take it for granted.

Scruffy · #**350** Posted **May 24, 2008, 6:37 PM**

I think that this one is completed and should rest with the other completed towers

Dac150 · #**351** Posted **May 24, 2008, 7:21 PM**

A fine addition if you ask me, certainly is in person. I think it makes for a nice cluster, soon to be joined by 30 Park Place.

Swede · #**352** Posted **May 24, 2008, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffy

I think that this one is completed and should rest with the other completed towers

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z...a/DSC00237.jpg

Sure looks that way to me, so into thw other playpen it goes.

Sandy · #**353** Posted **May 25, 2008, 7:40 AM**

From my 3 last trips:

April 25th 2006

April 21st 2007

April 18th 2008

Fabb · #**354** Posted **May 25, 2008, 10:24 AM**

I'm not sure whether the asymmetry makes it disturbing or distinctive.

Swede · #**355** Posted **May 25, 2008, 2:57 PM**

^I'd say neither. It works, bur isn't spectacular at all. I hadn't even noticed it until now (!) but now that I see it, it doesn't make much difference in how I view the tower.

detmi7mile · #**356** Posted **Jul 3, 2008, 2:11 AM**

What constitutes a "tasteless design" from one that is not?? Everything can't be perfect and the truth is, no matter what designers come up with for a building, somebody somewhere is not going to like it.

george · #**357** Posted **Feb 16, 2009, 1:08 AM**

An average, cookie cutter tower. The window bays with the horizontal banding between floors has a late 1980's look about it. I'm not feelin' this one.