The New York cityscape might get another tower from Bjarke Ingels. At 1,005 feet, "The Spiral" is a new office building proposed to fill up an entire block on 66 Hudson Boulevard in Manhattan's West Side. The concept was unveiled today.
The 65-story Spiral is set to be the fourth tallest tower in the rapidly redeveloping Hudson Yards neighborhood. The 2.85 million square-foot structure shows off a glass exterior and, most notably, cascading landscaped terraces and hanging gardens, akin to BIG's affinity for incorporating slopes and spirals into their designs. As its name describes, the Spiral's terraces will wrap around the tower in an ascending motion to create a continuous green pathway and give easy access to outdoor space on each floor.
Located at the intersection of the four-acre Hudson Boulevard Park and The High Line, the Spire "will punctuate the northern end of...the linear park [and it] will appear to carry through into the tower, forming an ascending ribbon of lively green spaces, extending the High Line to the skyline," Bjarke Ingels states. "The string of terraces wrapping around the building expand the daily life of the tenants to the outside air and light."
The building's concept of "revolutionizing the workspace" carries into its interior, featuring flexible, open floor plans. The interior will include double-height atriums, and spaces for multi-story tenants can be adapted to connect to multiple office floors — which will offer occupants an alternative to taking the elevator. The Spiral's 6-story base will have: the main entrance, a lobby with ceiling heights that soar up to 30 feet, about 27,000 square-feet of retail space, and an "amenity terrace" on the seventh floor.
Developer Tishman Speyer has already secured $1 billion from a group of international investors for the project's funding. The money will then be used to complete acquisition of additional development rights as well as for further design, engineering, and pre-construction costs. According to Curbed, Tishman Speyer is currently searching for the anchor tenant and is aiming to pre-lease about 30 percent of the tower.
UPDATE: You can watch a short video of the project right below.
More on Archinect:
110 Comments
curt, well put. This goes back to the old art vs. architecture thread.
As you've noted, society seems to function on appearances rather than substance. These appearances are often intentionally deceiving for economic purposes.
I'll give you the second part of that, but not the first. You're pushing that as an absolute because it bolsters your anti-"starchitect" crusade and confirms that so-called group's preference for only appearances and never substances, which says you. You were responding to Davvid's post where he gave you softball examples which you could hit out of the park - hairstyles, holiday decor, dance moves - which are mostly appearance based.
But there is no indication that society functions mostly on appearances rather than substance. If you listen to people (and I mean here the hoary "people from all walks of life", not just those in design professions like this group here) talk about how they decided on what to purchase and own in say, a house, a car, an electronic device, or hell, even on taking a trip, appearance is not the only and most times not even the most important factor they consider.
In a house they invariably say "it's a colonial" or "it's kind of contemporary" but then will go into detail about how many bedrooms and baths it has, what kind of utilities, how big a yard, how good the school district is and so on, all very practical and "substantial" aspects of their decision.
In a car they will of course point out how it looks, but then tell you what the gas mileage is, how well they can get their kids to soccer practice or carry their skis, what size trunk, what the engine power is, whether it's four wheel drive, etc.
In electronics, I'll just drop the example of Apple, which we all know kicks butt in the appearance department but has a fraction of the total market mostly because non-Apple products have always had a more open platform and people have judged they prefer the flexibility that gives, and also the lower expense - substance, that is, over looks.
Even when people tell you about a trip they're taking, they will of course say "XYZ is supposed to be beautiful" but then go on to relate air flight prices to XYZ, what the exchange rate is to the dollar, how good the train or roadways are for getting around, how safe it is....all very practical concerns.
That's not to deny popular culture's emphasis on appearances and the Kardashians, I'm just talking about how people decide on what they choose to have in their lives, or choose to make. And I'm also saying that the supposed "starchitect" emphasis on appearance is nothing but a cliched exaggeration, as curtkram keeps trying to point out. And I'll close with that I think this building, based on the renderings at least, is not any great natural born world shaker (to cop from Cool Hand Luke).
PS. Oh yeah, and someone's comment above that mentioned Frank Lloyd Wright as not being concerned with his celebrity status or PR made me roll on the floor laughing....seriously, my sides still hurt, I can barely walk...
You're pushing that as an absolute
Nope, seems is not an absolute. It was used as a synonym for appears because the point being made was about appearances.
But there is no indication that society functions mostly on appearances
Your word, not mine. You're creating absolutes where none exist.
If you listen to people ...
Is an overly broad generalization. Have you conducted studies to demonstrate this phenomena? You dismiss without mention (or thought, apparently) how advertising works as well as the science of behavior (psychology) that it is built on, etc.
Aside from the fact that all of the things you mention can be and often are appearances - 4WD being the appearance of rugged functionality, New iPhones (generations released 8 months apart) appear to be technically advanced, etc. Every day people dress to project a certain appearance, comb their hair a certain way, brand identification, etc., etc., etc.
All of which goes straight back to my point, which in the context of architecture especially has been noted here by others as well.
Nope, seems is not an absolute.
Says the man who dismisses pretty much every what-he-considers-starchitects' project as crap by saying they are only appearances and have no substance. Yea, ok, play coy.
Allright, I'll be diplomatic:
Society seems to function on appearances rather than substance...to you; I don't think you're looking hard enough or are looking with pre-judgement, as you do for most of the "starchitects" you comment on.
Is an overly broad generalization. Have you conducted studies to demonstrate this phenomena?
God, this one really takes the cake coming from you. Yea, the same thought out studies you conduct for your pithy blatherings (never read someone who uses such short declamations to say.....nothing). You always pull this one on people here but where the fuck are your studies to back up your broad generalizations?
Society seems to function on appearances rather than substance...
If you listen to people...
Gee, I thought society was made up of people. I'm pretty sure it is and I love talking to them and listening to what they think and act on, as opposed to lecturing to them. I guess I imagined all the people I know and others who I just talk to casually having said those things (oh yeah, and all the Sunday newspaper articles on houses and cars and electronics and trips who go over those substantial things as well...oh yeah, and the books...but I guess those don't count as advertising, which of course decides all).
You dismiss without mention (or thought, apparently) how advertising works
"That's not to deny popular culture's emphasis on appearances and the Kardashians" ; guess you didn't read that part. Yes, people do what you mention every day...and they also don't, or look further into it, every day; it depends on the people, I guess.
Aside from the fact that all of the things you mention can be and often are appearances
Didn't deny that anywhere (and everything that is a thing has an appearance). I was responding to your statement regarding on how society seems to function. Notice I didn't mention politicians, which is the one arena where people really don't look at the substance of the person before they buy but instead mostly look at appearances.
Curt, you are a very literal person. By art I am obviously referring to "the arts". Architecture falls under the arts. If you want to make buildings devoid of artistry become an engineer.
Humans make architecture not bee hives. Efficiency and economy is only part of the puzzle
Goddam starchitect....look at this monotonous, Bucky-F, piece-of-shit he designed for us!
i now exhibit the work of James Wines of SITE (1981 +/-)
You guys say "eh it's just an office building, what do you expect..." This attitude is responsible for the demise of our natural and built environment. Nothing is sacred any more. This is a huge building and an enormous amount of resources are being dedicated to it from the back of Mother Earth...that's arguably necessary, but we should treat each addition to the built world with respect, rigor, and care because that consequently shows respect for the land the materials came from. This disposable, cheap, 30 year shelf life culture of architecture needs to change, and when people as big as BIG squander such opportunities with half baked proposals, and then sell them as "revolutionary"....smh
Curt, Dont put words in my mouth...In good architecture all of the functional/programmatic requirements are surpassed not just barely met, while also creating something beautiful for the inhabitants and the general context where it exists. Aalto, Kahn, Ando, Zumthor, Ban, Ito, SANNA, Shop, Holl, Etc, etc, etc... all do/did this well. They all deserve their fame and status. Your argument is that the building is good enough. Maybe true for a small coffee shop or a taco joint, but not a 1000' building in one of the biggest cities in the world. That used to be a big deal. I know you have this idea that artistic things are bad and useful things are good...but neither in and of itself is enough for architecture.,.both are required...both must be integrally connected and work in symbiotic harmony.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.