Look, I'm a person that usually hates contemporary office-based sky-scraper design in general- I don't think the art has really every been interesting since the art-deco period that the Empire State Building existed in, but this is a stunningly amazing design.
And yet the immediate first thought of everyone in the world is "It looks like it's collapsing". Bad design.
Even if it were built, and this were everyone's first thought, that alone shouldn't sink it. Lest you contend that we judge every future skyscraper we build in America on the basis that it look like it can survive a hit from an Airbus A380. This would be like limiting the size of future cruise ships to the Titanic because we want to limit people's hubris in thinking that the ship is unsinkable. To challenge the design on this point is cowardly, frankly.
And it doesn't even look like its falling over in most of the view angles. It only does that when you're in a high-rise next to it. Most people are not going to view it that way.
Hideous.
I'll take all the Chinese/Middle-east designs over this.
And how do these designs relate in context to the Manhattan skyline or the nearby Tribecca neighborhood? Answer: They don't. And neither does that diamond looking building either. Their architectural art pieces, that are childish displays of power and wealth, that ignore the context of the city they're in- which is exactly what New York doesn't need.
Not really it looks like stairs or baby blocks...weird for no reason.
It's not weird for no reason. The staggered blocks are utilized for 3 purposes. (1) For the purposes of the structure itself: to provide green plazas that enhance the experience of working in the structure. No need to go to the street to get a break from work, just head down a few floors to the nearest outdoor plaza. (2) To relate to the architectural form of Tribeca. Instead of rising like another vertical glass tower that dominates the Tribeca area, the structure relates to the more "boxy" form of Tribeca's structures. This blends well into the background of the the view of the skyline from Tribeca:
(3) And finally, from certain angles on the Hudson, it looks like a twin of the Freedom Tower, hearkening back to the original Twin Towers.
GameGuru59 said:
Notice how, in skyline renderings, the edges of the towers appear to be parallel, even though we know they're not? Also, notice how the shaded edge of Ingles' Tower is perfectly symmetrical to the Freedom Tower's shaded edge.
Fuck no, I like the old proposed 4 rhombus design.
Why? In what way is that rhombus better? It looks better from the helicopter viewpoints they always post of every skyscraper ever? How does it relate to the city. How does it relate to the surrounding structures? What does it look like from the ground? Is the interior experience as good as Ingles' design with its outdoor plazas (which could also be a safety feature if the building ever had a major fire, I might add).
I understand there are subjective aesthetic differences that will always exist. But this isn't an art-piece that disappears into the ether. This is a major work of architecture that must relate to multiple needs and contexts. I've never seen how the previously proposed structure did any of that.
That's one way to ruin a skyline.
In what way?
In my opinion that looks just as good, or better than the NYC skyline prior to the 2001 attacks.
Oh, and that rhombus design doesn't look anywhere near as good as either:
Whereas this one looks like a high school project. Fascination with dubious looking structures does not become tall buildings, and is conceptually cheap. With a few exceptions.
It is not conceptually cheap. See above for why. That rhombus thing is.