Errrr...how can I put this in perspective without sounding too "stuffy"?
Speaking from almost 30 years of experience in engineering and construction and the love and study of great architecture I immediately observe the following:
All these designs are abominations and evidence of some great character flaws within those selfsame designers.
Only one do I find the least bit attractive, and none do I find practical from a structural design or construction standpoint. I guarantee you that none of these structures (bar one) could possibly come in on time or under budget.
Only one is the least bit "sympathetic" with the general character of the city as a whole and the neighboring structures in general. (That one comes a lot closer than the others, but still misses widely.) In other words: they all stand out like a sore thumb.
NYC is home to a great deal of classic and timeless architecture, which, though it may look "old fashioned" to some, was necessarily rational and generally charismatic in it's form. This is the cue that should have guided the hands which brought forth these expensive and unsightly monstrosities.
Don't get me wrong. I love tall structures, unique design and challenges of both engineering and construction. But uniqueness and challenge for it's own sake is fruitless and ill-advised.
For this group of well known and distinguished architectural firms to propose such nonsense bespeaks of only one thing: self-serving aggrandizement. In other words, they were more concerned with getting their pictures on the cover of the
Architectural Digest than on delivering something attractive, practical, and well conceived.
(OK...that did sound stuffy.
My opinion stands.)
Linear Mode
