4 ms·

The 57th St Tower (still being built I think) is slightly taller and even skinnier - and just as ugly. Really I think it detracts from the beauty of Central Par

The 57th St Tower (still being built I think) is slightly taller and even skinnier - and just as ugly. Really I think it detracts from the beauty of Central Park.

jdpink 6y ago
The skyscrapers are what makes Central Park unique. There are millions of acres of parkland around the world. There is only one place where a park is surrounded by the most iconic skyline in the world. That contrast between the urban and the "natural" (there's little to no true wilderness in Central Park) is what makes it beautiful to me.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  There's a new cluster of super-tall buildings going up around Central Park, though, that are changing the situation a bit. Housing for handfuls of billionaires shading the public park used by millions. https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrapers-cast-super-shadows-on-central-park https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrap...
- bluthru 6y ago
  These supertalls are adding significant shadows to Central Park: https://www.westsiderag.com/2018/11/11/billionaire-shadows-now-creeping-across-central-park-olmsted-and-vaux-would-not-be-happy https://www.westsiderag.com/2018/11/11/billionaire-shadows-n...
  - cborg 6y ago
    I'm not sure I'd say "significant". >This means that the lasting shadow coverage will be relatively faint. On the winter solstice, the longest edge of the passing shadows cast from these buildings is estimated to last one hour. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/upshot/Mapping-the-Shadows-of-New-York-City.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/upshot/Mappin...
    - bluthru 6y ago
      >one hour They're at the southern end of Central Park, which means that one hour is lunch hour.
detritus 6y ago
Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, 432 Park Avenue's one of my favourite pieces of contemporary architecture. *shrug It's so wonderfully unfussy - I particularly like the 'service floors' which are emptier to aid air-flow, reducing the swaying. Admittedly, the skyline might be a bit dull if every building was so bluntly utilitarian, but as an exception, I find it refreshing.
- jml7c5 6y ago
  It's not clear if those floors are empty for structural reasons; if they were habitable, the building would have to be shorter, which is obviously not ideal from a revenue perspective.
Al-Khwarizmi 6y ago
According to Wikipedia, "When completed, [111 West 57th Street] will be one of the tallest buildings in the United States, as well as the thinnest skyscraper in the world with a width-to-height ratio of about 1:23 or 1:24". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111_West_57th_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111_West_57th_Street I was in NYC in February and while both were quite impressive, I don't aesthetically like them either. But to me the favorites are the likes of the Woolworth, Flatiron, Chrysler... so I guess I'm a lost cause to contemporary architecture.

The 57th St Tower (still being built I think) is slightly taller and even skinnier - and just as ugly. Really I think it detracts from the beauty of Central Park.

jdpink 6y ago

The skyscrapers are what makes Central Park unique. There are millions of acres of parkland around the world. There is only one place where a park is surrounded by the most iconic skyline in the world. That contrast between the urban and the "natural" (there's little to no true wilderness in Central Park) is what makes it beautiful to me.

ceejayoz 6y ago
There's a new cluster of super-tall buildings going up around Central Park, though, that are changing the situation a bit. Housing for handfuls of billionaires shading the public park used by millions. https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrapers-cast-super-shadows-on-central-park https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrap...
bluthru 6y ago
These supertalls are adding significant shadows to Central Park: https://www.westsiderag.com/2018/11/11/billionaire-shadows-now-creeping-across-central-park-olmsted-and-vaux-would-not-be-happy https://www.westsiderag.com/2018/11/11/billionaire-shadows-n...
- cborg 6y ago
  I'm not sure I'd say "significant". >This means that the lasting shadow coverage will be relatively faint. On the winter solstice, the longest edge of the passing shadows cast from these buildings is estimated to last one hour. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/upshot/Mapping-the-Shadows-of-New-York-City.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/upshot/Mappin...
  - bluthru 6y ago
    >one hour They're at the southern end of Central Park, which means that one hour is lunch hour.

detritus 6y ago

Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, 432 Park Avenue's one of my favourite pieces of contemporary architecture. *shrug It's so wonderfully unfussy - I particularly like the 'service floors' which are emptier to aid air-flow, reducing the swaying. Admittedly, the skyline might be a bit dull if every building was so bluntly utilitarian, but as an exception, I find it refreshing.

jml7c5 6y ago
It's not clear if those floors are empty for structural reasons; if they were habitable, the building would have to be shorter, which is obviously not ideal from a revenue perspective.

Al-Khwarizmi 6y ago

According to Wikipedia, "When completed, [111 West 57th Street] will be one of the tallest buildings in the United States, as well as the thinnest skyscraper in the world with a width-to-height ratio of about 1:23 or 1:24". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111_West_57th_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111_West_57th_Street I was in NYC in February and while both were quite impressive, I don't aesthetically like them either. But to me the favorites are the likes of the Woolworth, Flatiron, Chrysler... so I guess I'm a lost cause to contemporary architecture.