Let’s rev this up again but this time from a completely different perspective – instead of arguing about the exterior architecture lets discuss the interior, the living space, the place where you would prefer to live yourself and spend your time. Which would you choose?
The offerings are fantasy suites (just to make it fun) in Manhattan just blocks from each other, one historical the other avant-garde modern…..both making big news…don’t let money (both are comparably priced though), building type or size get in the way…ok to say “neither” if you explain.
Carrera, what I can assure you of is that if NYC elite purchase any of those interiors at 432 Park Ave, the odds that they will be converted into 'traditional' design is about 75%, trust me....
The buyers will hire an Interior Decorator (who makes about 5 times most well paid architects, because they get a commission on everything including $100k+ Persian rugs, a sculpture by an artist only the Louvre and they own, etc...)
They will rip-out whatever modern bathroom sink faucets are in that building and install bathroom faucets made of solid gold that look like dolphins and cost more than a semesters Tuition at Columbia U.
for example, see P.E. Guerin (welcome to New York)
TIQM
Mar 21, 15 3:23 pm
I like the "modern" one much better....
Mar 21, 15 3:49 pm
I like both although the traditional invokes a warmer atmosphere than the modern....
Remember, your yellows and blues.
Volunteer
Mar 21, 15 4:55 pm
The top one looks kitschy. What's with the track lights and pot lights on the top one as well?
Miles Jaffe
Mar 21, 15 6:41 pm
Both are stage sets and unliveable (autocorrected to unloveable, LOL), at least without full-time staff to maintain them. To imagine any substantive difference between them is delusional.
Also, the first is not historical in any sense (except for maybe a few of the furnishings) and the second is not avant garde.
curtkram
Mar 21, 15 6:42 pm
/
geezertect
Mar 21, 15 7:18 pm
I like the simplicity, bigger windows and lower ceiling of the "modern" one, but the colors and materials (not necessarily the design itself) of the "traditional".
Mar 21, 15 7:35 pm
Miles, your right the first probably isn't true traditional but traditional-inspired but the elements of the first photo brings a warmer atmosphere which is the main goal and desire public has with homes because they work 8+ hours a day in a cold 'modern' environment and public demand for homes by and large is warm atmosphere. Yellow light not blue light and how not only the light source but the paint on the walls. The wood flooring, which can be done with less expensive material as the budget calls for.
Sure, real life day to day clients spaces would be smaller and closer in scale to that of the 'modern' interior. Simplify the scale and here is a real McCoy of historic home:
Granted, these places are often cleaned and organized up for photographs but some owners do keep things largely tidy.
This was probably done after a degree of restoration and renovation for an upscale owner but the element is a balance and warmth that many people seek in a home.
In fact, it is just a couple blocks up the hill from me. I seen this house among others. Colors are often in natural earth tone color. Usually. Homes are typically painted using earth tones and complementary colors. Green is a not too uncommon color but wood, brown and similar colors. An off-white that often catches a little bit of a yellow tint. Warm color light fixture and bulbs.
You get the idea.
awaiting_deletion
Mar 21, 15 8:10 pm
the 'traditional' one is really poorly done, even I have an eye for that...it's almost as modern as the modern one really...
Shut the fuck up Donny! You're out of your element!
there have been some other buildings I've been in that have blown my mind with regard to detailing and materials, can't remember all their addresses at the moment...
what both those images show is by essentially providing a Vanilla box you will probably sell the place well...the rest is staged as noted.
Neither quite fits my taste, but I'd go more towards the modern for sure. I think the interior designer on the modern one did an awful job though. That furniture does not look good together (or alone in many cases).
Generally I prefer a playful modern style, but I also like really sterilized traditional.
Anyone ever been to Bottega Louie in LA?
Mar 22, 15 2:33 am
Looking back at the original post, the traditional example actually is a true traditional of 1920s French Chateau style PENTHOUSE SUITE of a fancy hotel of the high high income folks but of the Manhattan skyscraper elite sort and obviously this would be very elite for the million dollars a day type folks. The common houses for the common folk level with more subdue level of income would have a more subdue implementation of such styles.
Carerra, interesting traditional example for the skyscraper elite. I would be bankrupt renting that for a day.
Volunteer
Mar 22, 15 9:45 am
In the top photo you could get rid of the track lights, the pot lights, the sconces (they have dual sconces at each location!), half the furniture, paint the walls an off-white and it might be tolerable until you figure out what else to do.
In the bottom photo the Brancusi sculpture is exceptionally nice, the rest is eeeech. There is not a comfortable place to sit down in the whole room. Replace the sofa with a comfortable Italian leather version, replace the chairs and lounges with modern versions that you can use. The ice-cold coffee table probably cost $200 to make and retails for $10,000 - get rid of it and install an contemporary wooden table. The door at the left of the photo is awkward, as is the picture frame. The lack of closable drapes on the windows is a silly cliché. And on and on...
what bothers me is the lighting in the ceiling of the Grand Salon....I suspect these guys mentioned above did that....can't find any historic photos of prior....
Volunteer
Mar 22, 15 11:08 am
It is possible to update traditional interior architectural elements to a contemporary standard and to add a mix of traditional and contemporary furnishings. When done right the effect is transformational. http://1drv.msl/1EvrOk3
Is the above traditional or modern? Are you sure?
awaiting_deletion
Mar 22, 15 11:11 am
so I did my best to find other similar projects from The Pierre's original architects - Schultze & Weaver . It appears Leonard B. Schultze had been an employee of Warren & Wetmore where he worked on Grand Central Terminal in NYC...after googling for a bit I found the Grand Central Terminal ceiling to be the closest to the image at top. Schultze & Weaver also did the Sherry-Netherland and the Waldorf-Astoria
I
I would suggest there never were any lights besides chandeliers in the top photo, the supposed 'traditional'.
"Track lighting saw a tremendous amount of changes and options until the early 1990's when Track lighting was revolutionized again by an upstart company named Tech. Lighting. Out of a small shop on Rush st. in Chicago's Northside, Tech Lighting introduced the low voltage monorail and cable rail systems."
___________in conclusion
Track lighting was really trending so the designer's noted above incorporated them in to the arching plaster ceiling, which is just silly.
Note the Modern 432 Park Ave, has no Ceiling lighting.
Miles Jaffe
Mar 22, 15 11:19 am
^ Maybe its primary purpose is to view the city at night.
Volunteer
Mar 22, 15 11:24 am
This should fix the link above. shows a very creative blend of and new.
Richard, maintenance fees (Including taxes) for both is around $40,000 per month!
Olaf & Volunteer, was originally the grand ballroom of the Pierre, with very minor alteration it is historic.... imagine the events staged there.... have done a lot of museum work in classical buildings with track lights, "pot lights" in cathedral restorations... the tradeoff is bringing the space alive with light.
Hired once by a typical rich homeowner with a 10,000 SF house that looked much like the second photo throughout.... wanted me to do a room addition saying "we have no place to watch TV". Ever try to watch TV sitting in one of these?
,,,,
Mar 22, 15 12:19 pm
I do not like either of those. What bothers me is that they look like boxes that they put shit in rather than spaces that were designed.
If it were me, I would get rid of all the furniture, it does not look comfortable. The character of the light looks unremarkable in the one on the top and atrocious on the bottom one. Get rid of the lights as well.
I agree, an off-white for the paint.
On the top put spot lights and sculptures in the alcoves.
Put a small round table with spot lights and a couple of chairs and up right book cases for a reading area and use the vastness of the space as a design element.
The only architectural element I can see is the marble table in the bottom one. Although I detest marble, I like the low flat plane character. On this one I would use some vertical planes to modulate the space to channel the light from those windows.
In addition, I would take the money from the sale of the furniture and all the other decorations and donate it to the local food bank. Although when I was younger I probably would have dragged it onto the street and set it on fire and had a marshmallow roast.
awaiting_deletion
Mar 22, 15 1:05 pm
Carerra I don't think so...this is the Grand Ballroom at The Pierre
the top image is the Grand Salon of the 42nd floor....
also, I understand the track lighting purpose, but in a giant space as shown above, what the fuck are those spot lights high lighting?
see Lye's post above /\ for this
Volunteer
Mar 22, 15 1:12 pm
Looks like Liberace's funeral parlor.
,,,,
Mar 22, 15 1:38 pm
^+++ Volunteer.
Olaf, I meant get rid of all that stuff and have an element that creates a space in the space not just a vast space.
awaiting_deletion
Mar 22, 15 2:28 pm
Add pink and a painting of Italy on the ceiling and you have Rush Limbaugh's bedroom. (The ballroom)
,,,,
Mar 22, 15 4:45 pm
Rush Limbaugh would need something duplicitous like California framing.
charlyflint
Dec 27, 20 8:48 am
I love minimalism and I would choose the second option because for me this aesthetics is closer. Perhaps I would add contemporary rugs from DorisLeslieBlau there to make the room cozier, but in fact, in such an interior, there are more chances to use different bright elements like paintings. I love bright posters and unusual sculptures. Only I would choose darker colors
Let’s rev this up again but this time from a completely different perspective – instead of arguing about the exterior architecture lets discuss the interior, the living space, the place where you would prefer to live yourself and spend your time. Which would you choose?
The offerings are fantasy suites (just to make it fun) in Manhattan just blocks from each other, one historical the other avant-garde modern…..both making big news…don’t let money (both are comparably priced though), building type or size get in the way…ok to say “neither” if you explain.
Offering links if you want to delve for fun:
http://www.bhsusa.com/manhattan/upper-east-side/795-fifth-avenue/coop/12025971
http://432parkavenue.com/?state=432parkave
Carrera, what I can assure you of is that if NYC elite purchase any of those interiors at 432 Park Ave, the odds that they will be converted into 'traditional' design is about 75%, trust me....
The buyers will hire an Interior Decorator (who makes about 5 times most well paid architects, because they get a commission on everything including $100k+ Persian rugs, a sculpture by an artist only the Louvre and they own, etc...)
They will rip-out whatever modern bathroom sink faucets are in that building and install bathroom faucets made of solid gold that look like dolphins and cost more than a semesters Tuition at Columbia U.
for example, see P.E. Guerin (welcome to New York)
I like the "modern" one much better....
I like both although the traditional invokes a warmer atmosphere than the modern....
Remember, your yellows and blues.
The top one looks kitschy. What's with the track lights and pot lights on the top one as well?
Both are stage sets and unliveable (autocorrected to unloveable, LOL), at least without full-time staff to maintain them. To imagine any substantive difference between them is delusional.
Also, the first is not historical in any sense (except for maybe a few of the furnishings) and the second is not avant garde.
/
I like the simplicity, bigger windows and lower ceiling of the "modern" one, but the colors and materials (not necessarily the design itself) of the "traditional".
Miles, your right the first probably isn't true traditional but traditional-inspired but the elements of the first photo brings a warmer atmosphere which is the main goal and desire public has with homes because they work 8+ hours a day in a cold 'modern' environment and public demand for homes by and large is warm atmosphere. Yellow light not blue light and how not only the light source but the paint on the walls. The wood flooring, which can be done with less expensive material as the budget calls for.
Sure, real life day to day clients spaces would be smaller and closer in scale to that of the 'modern' interior. Simplify the scale and here is a real McCoy of historic home:
Granted, these places are often cleaned and organized up for photographs but some owners do keep things largely tidy.
http://www.revestor.com/details/13197331/1188-Harrison-AVE-Astoria-97103
This was probably done after a degree of restoration and renovation for an upscale owner but the element is a balance and warmth that many people seek in a home.
In fact, it is just a couple blocks up the hill from me. I seen this house among others. Colors are often in natural earth tone color. Usually. Homes are typically painted using earth tones and complementary colors. Green is a not too uncommon color but wood, brown and similar colors. An off-white that often catches a little bit of a yellow tint. Warm color light fixture and bulbs.
You get the idea.
the 'traditional' one is really poorly done, even I have an eye for that...it's almost as modern as the modern one really...
Shut the fuck up Donny! You're out of your element!
----------------------------------------------------
I was in this building recently - The Osborne (it much better interior) and i believe at one point each floor was a residence...
----------------------------not directly related, but the problem with the 1st image from OP is so numerous, so some stuff for comparison,....
for instance - Rosario Candela see his plans if you find them....
of course there is always McKim,Meade, White
there have been some other buildings I've been in that have blown my mind with regard to detailing and materials, can't remember all their addresses at the moment...
what both those images show is by essentially providing a Vanilla box you will probably sell the place well...the rest is staged as noted.
Shut the fuck up Donny!
fineprint of fantasies, genius, note the Dude on the right ha ;)
Cutting Room: Joseph Kosinski talks to Archinect about his transition from architecture to Hollywood
a wee bit of modern....
Traditional?
Modern?
Neither quite fits my taste, but I'd go more towards the modern for sure. I think the interior designer on the modern one did an awful job though. That furniture does not look good together (or alone in many cases).
Generally I prefer a playful modern style, but I also like really sterilized traditional.
Anyone ever been to Bottega Louie in LA?
Looking back at the original post, the traditional example actually is a true traditional of 1920s French Chateau style PENTHOUSE SUITE of a fancy hotel of the high high income folks but of the Manhattan skyscraper elite sort and obviously this would be very elite for the million dollars a day type folks. The common houses for the common folk level with more subdue level of income would have a more subdue implementation of such styles.
Carerra, interesting traditional example for the skyscraper elite. I would be bankrupt renting that for a day.
In the top photo you could get rid of the track lights, the pot lights, the sconces (they have dual sconces at each location!), half the furniture, paint the walls an off-white and it might be tolerable until you figure out what else to do.
In the bottom photo the Brancusi sculpture is exceptionally nice, the rest is eeeech. There is not a comfortable place to sit down in the whole room. Replace the sofa with a comfortable Italian leather version, replace the chairs and lounges with modern versions that you can use. The ice-cold coffee table probably cost $200 to make and retails for $10,000 - get rid of it and install an contemporary wooden table. The door at the left of the photo is awkward, as is the picture frame. The lack of closable drapes on the windows is a silly cliché. And on and on...
Lady Fairfax hired a team of designers including Balamotis McAlpine Associates and Frank Grill to create her a “palace in the sky”. An 18 foot high limestone fireplace was installed at one end of the 75 foot by 46 foot by 23 foot Grand Salon and a “monolithic” chandelier was brought from a demolished Melbourne theatre. It was here that this Polish born philanthropist entertained on a very grand scale until she sold The Penthouse at The Pierre for $21,500,000 in 1999.
what bothers me is the lighting in the ceiling of the Grand Salon....I suspect these guys mentioned above did that....can't find any historic photos of prior....
It is possible to update traditional interior architectural elements to a contemporary standard and to add a mix of traditional and contemporary furnishings. When done right the effect is transformational. http://1drv.msl/1EvrOk3
Is the above traditional or modern? Are you sure?
so I did my best to find other similar projects from The Pierre's original architects - Schultze & Weaver . It appears Leonard B. Schultze had been an employee of Warren & Wetmore where he worked on Grand Central Terminal in NYC...after googling for a bit I found the Grand Central Terminal ceiling to be the closest to the image at top. Schultze & Weaver also did the Sherry-Netherland and the Waldorf-Astoria
I would suggest there never were any lights besides chandeliers in the top photo, the supposed 'traditional'.
Quick history of Track Lighting
"Track lighting saw a tremendous amount of changes and options until the early 1990's when Track lighting was revolutionized again by an upstart company named Tech. Lighting. Out of a small shop on Rush st. in Chicago's Northside, Tech Lighting introduced the low voltage monorail and cable rail systems."
___________in conclusion
Track lighting was really trending so the designer's noted above incorporated them in to the arching plaster ceiling, which is just silly.
Note the Modern 432 Park Ave, has no Ceiling lighting.
^ Maybe its primary purpose is to view the city at night.
This should fix the link above. shows a very creative blend of and new.
ODN, good catch on the track lighting.
http://1drv.msl/1DKSBe2
Aaaarg! I will try later.
Richard, maintenance fees (Including taxes) for both is around $40,000 per month!
Olaf & Volunteer, was originally the grand ballroom of the Pierre, with very minor alteration it is historic.... imagine the events staged there.... have done a lot of museum work in classical buildings with track lights, "pot lights" in cathedral restorations... the tradeoff is bringing the space alive with light.
Hired once by a typical rich homeowner with a 10,000 SF house that looked much like the second photo throughout.... wanted me to do a room addition saying "we have no place to watch TV". Ever try to watch TV sitting in one of these?
I do not like either of those. What bothers me is that they look like boxes that they put shit in rather than spaces that were designed.
If it were me, I would get rid of all the furniture, it does not look comfortable. The character of the light looks unremarkable in the one on the top and atrocious on the bottom one. Get rid of the lights as well.
I agree, an off-white for the paint.
On the top put spot lights and sculptures in the alcoves.
Put a small round table with spot lights and a couple of chairs and up right book cases for a reading area and use the vastness of the space as a design element.
The only architectural element I can see is the marble table in the bottom one. Although I detest marble, I like the low flat plane character. On this one I would use some vertical planes to modulate the space to channel the light from those windows.
In addition, I would take the money from the sale of the furniture and all the other decorations and donate it to the local food bank. Although when I was younger I probably would have dragged it onto the street and set it on fire and had a marshmallow roast.
Carerra I don't think so...this is the Grand Ballroom at The Pierre
the top image is the Grand Salon of the 42nd floor....
also, I understand the track lighting purpose, but in a giant space as shown above, what the fuck are those spot lights high lighting?
see Lye's post above /\ for this
Looks like Liberace's funeral parlor.
^+++ Volunteer.
Olaf, I meant get rid of all that stuff and have an element that creates a space in the space not just a vast space.
Add pink and a painting of Italy on the ceiling and you have Rush Limbaugh's bedroom. (The ballroom)
Rush Limbaugh would need something duplicitous like California framing.
I love minimalism and I would choose the second option because for me this aesthetics is closer. Perhaps I would add contemporary rugs from DorisLeslieBlau there to make the room cozier, but in fact, in such an interior, there are more chances to use different bright elements like paintings. I love bright posters and unusual sculptures. Only I would choose darker colors
This is the 2nd Spam Bot for this rug company.