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
Unnecessary frills just decrease ROI
BIG is an unnecessary frill. they could have gone with som. however, the developer decided they would get a higher return on investment with their marketing and making a website by attracting tenants who will pay a premium for a space in this building. if quality design and/or quality construction, or sustainability, or whatever else you want to see in construction, were to support the ROI, then the developer would prioritize it.
ergo, make quality profitable. somehow.
Make quality profitable AT SCALE.
I think there's a parallel with consumer goods.
Big box retail has made an industry of low quality, high volume, high profit.
You can still buy well made goods, but not cheaply.
Developers have made an industry of low quality, high volume, high profit.
You can still buy well designed buildings, but not cheaply.
Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick two.
It's an interesting design, but asks the question why other typical office towers don't get so much coverage. That has to do with the PR strategy, how this firm has developed narratives to sell products rather than rely on an architecture press that doesn't really exist anymore. Terraces aren't new. Maybe i remember when starchitects aimed for higher than developers. Oh, when starchitects were starchitects. This looks like a statement of political correctness.
You guys need to watch the video. It's irresistible. Dammit. Dammit.
'Nuff said. Target demo success.
Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick one.
Oh, come now. That's a bit harsh.
Define 'good'.
In this context, "good" is typically defined by the client.
Which more often than not is fast and cheap.
Our country needs inspiration...we need innovation. Foster's Airport in Mexico, that Calatrava watch tower in Dubai...it goes on and on around the world with amazing structures started every year. 1 World Trade is at least a formal icon. When $1billion is thrown into a site / volume of that scale, it must be built with reverence and permanence in mind. We must look towards the future of the skyline in Chicago and NY. We Must NOT Settle for MERELY Sq.ft. of office space. Furthermore, to echo some of the prior comments... The "spiral landscape" is visually and functionally inappropriate. At least if it were composed into one side or corner, there would be a consistent presentation. The Trump Tower pictures with the trees is actually a good example. If that were cascaded up the whole facade at least there would be visual and functional continuity. Trees on a North side in shade all day are not practical. Above all: a building of that scale should be either elegant, meaningful Iconic or forever remain "on the boards."
Its just boring....Its a Concept taken directly from the toilet bowl, shower, or where ever this guy does his thinking and thrown into sketch up.
No rigor, nothing that any B+ arch student couldn't pull off in a semester.
So the question is why is he so successful? Like music, success in arch has little to do with quality these days and more to do with persona. That's what annoys me.
that's where i think architecture criticism is failing us jla. i think you should be able to understand why BIG is doing a good job as an architecture firm, and why he gets commissions. i don't understand what piece of the profession of architecture you're missing. is it just mismanaged expectations? do you believe there should be less glass in buildings, or more glass, of fewer right angles or some other weird sort of ideology like that?
somebody else could have done something different and it could have been just as good, or a little better, or a little worse, but most B+ arch students would not be able to do what BIG, as a firm, does. most B+ arch students would not be able to get this building built on their, especially without a bit of real world experience. granted bjarke himself will have a lot of help if the project moves forward. i'm sure he had a lot of help rendering these images as well.
So your saying success is proof of "good work". Are you a Belieber too?
We talk about this project on the podcast this week.
jla-x, how would one pronounce your screen name? I always say it in my head "jay-ell-ay-ex" but I've never said it out loud.
quondam / lauf, why don't you enlighten us with your criticisms of the work instead of sitting on the sidelines throwing feces?
^you got it Donna
Quondam, 7th grade logic was not your subject I see.
Business success does not prove "good work". McDonald's is a successful business but not exactly a model of culinary excellence. Good work proves good work with or without success in business. Now, what is or is not "good" is somewhat debatable.
what does 'belieber' have to do with this?
i think as the design develops, this project could go in a lot of directions. as a starting point, i don't see anything wrong with it.
there is nothing in most of these comments that explains why this is a bad start for a project. i don't see anything wrong with what quondam is saying. he's not saying it's particularly bad or good, just that the comments saying it's bad because of 'architecture students' don't make sense, which i agree with.
what does this building need to meet your standard of 'good' architecture jla? you say you don't understand why BIG is successful. let's start with why people hire architects. for some reason, certain people or groups who have a choice of which architect to pick chose him. he's successful because he gets hired by the sort of people who hire architects. what do you suppose those people are looking for when selecting an architect?
to be honest, i think the video is kind of dumb. for me, the association of galaxies and dna with this building is unnecessary. if some people like that though, more power to them/him. my interest is in the architecture not the rationalization.
Curt, it's not bad architecture when compared to the 98% of the buildings out there. It's just not great. His work does not justify his celebrity status. His celebrity status does however create a false sense of greatness which perpetuates his success. It's not real, it's not in the work itself, it is an associative value. At one time celebrity status was earned by quality of work. FLW was famous because he was a great architect. Louis Sullivan, Mies, Lou Kahn, were famous because They were great architects not because they were hip and had cute smiles.
so you don't like this design because bjarke ingels is hip and has a cute smile?
this is the kind of building that gets built today for a lot of reasons. bjarke's smile is only a very small piece of that.
frank lloyd wright never designed a building anywhere near this scale. i don't think kahn did either. sullivan had some tall buildings, but surely you understand the differences between the environment sullivan was working and the environment BIG is working in?
architecture critique should be done with an understanding of architecture and the real world. it sounds to me like what upsets you with BIG has nothing to do with either.
Remember that most people don't take in as much design press as we do. Its very likely that only a small fraction of the people who will work in this building will know who designed it. While Bjarke's persona looms large in the design blogosphere (and drive some people crazy), ultimately his designs exist apart from all of that messaging.
Which is why I find it so amusing that the fiercest critics of him on this site are the ones most obsessed with his personality/celebrity.
^ I'm not obsessed with his celebrity, I'm disgusted by the overall culture of celebrity in this country, and the way it raises mediocre design/art/music (all forms) to levels that are underserved. I'm bothered that Kim Kardashin's shit could probably fetch 1000$ on Craigslist. This culture has now infected architecture...
lol "the revolution will have terraces"
did anybody in NYC see this competition two summers ago:
http://www.archdaily.com/775914/brooklyn-bridge-park-what-a-design-by-oneill-mcvoy-plus-nvda-says-about-the-state-of-architectural-design
The project was featured on the cover of WSJ instead of the renderings that BIG did a proposal for the day after the competition. I ain't pointing fingers, but at least give the BIG back to Biggie.
"I'm not obsessed with his celebrity, I'm disgusted by the overall culture of celebrity"
You are clearly drawn to that aspect of culture. This tendency isn't uncommon. Its the very same attraction/disgust paradox that fuels tabloids, the paparazzi and even stalkers at the most extreme degree. The cure is to recognize that all people posture. We all put on an act to impress people. We develop personal narratives. Its best to take it all with a grain of salt. Focus on the architecture, not the celebrity.
Focus on the architecture, not the celebrity.
Focus on real architectural issues, not just personal aesthetics.
I'm bothered that Kim Kardashin's shit could probably fetch 1000$ on Craigslist.
what i do is, i don't buy kim kardashian's shit on craigslist. works for me anyway. i suppose if you're really drawn to it though, maybe it would be harder.
Miles, how do you avoid aesthetics in design?
When you compare it to Allie/Oxford project, it's not all that bad. Tishman has the benefit of hindsight. And the trees can happen, you'll just add a tub/tank of soil and styrofoam and leave the water spigot a little loose. Perhaps as part of a green strategy, they could filter all the blackwater and use that for irrigation. That could be interesting.
I do find fault with the video in that his project is not at the end of the Highline, but transitions between Hudson Park and Hudson Boulevard- a different center for new "new capital" in Manhattan.
Define aesthetics.
Full Definition of aesthetic
1a : of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful <aesthetic theories>b : artistic <a work of aesthetic value>c : pleasing in appearance : attractive <easy-to-use keyboards, clear graphics, and other ergonomic and aesthetic features — Mark Mehler>
2: appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also : responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses
Only commented on plants above 500’, choose to add:
HNTB did an arena near me and touted – “The arena's signature green design element is a 900-square-foot "green wall" outside of the building, to feature the use of plant life on the exterior of the building to help cool the arena by shading the glass-enclosed main entrance of the arena.” The “green” was to be supported by a metal veil…the problem was it was mounted on the south elevation…which made it into a “plant broiler”. There are no plants there today.
I think the lambasting here has more to do with - “cut the bullshit”. We’ve turned into a country of liars….people say anything because they know people will believe anything…I think you turn the corner when you start believing your own bullshit.
Also have a high-rise office near me with a single large balcony (6th fl)...in 30 years I’m yet to catch anyone on that balcony…who exactly do they think is going out on those office balcony’s? I worked at a place that had one (2nd fl) and I tried going out there to work…the glares from the boss brought me back in forthwith.
The steps are fine, green roofs would good, but cut the bullshit on the renderings.
can't beat the denny crane balcony
@ curtkam: you don't know about FLW's skyscraper designs??
National Life Insurance Building, 1923
The Illinois aka Mile High Tower, 1956
FLW only has two extant examples of vertical structures - Johnson Wax Research tower and the Price Tower, but to say he never designed anything on a scale comparable to this project by BIG is pure ignorance.
Look up his unrealised plans for the LA Civic Center from 1925 - it's a massive futurist megastructure that dwarfs Bjarke's boring tower in scale and complexity.
they weren't built threadkilla. the complexities of getting a project like that built are far greater than just drawing a picture. it's not just a question of structure and code compliance and all the boring stuff real architects do for a living, but for this building to exist it needs a purpose. it needs to be profitable to the people paying for it.
of course BIG's hasn't been built either, but i'm pretty sure the intent is there. it looks like the sort of building that intends to get built, rather than paper architecture intended to remain a rendering in a magazine somewhere.
johnson wax is 153' tall. this proposed structure is 1,005'.
davvid, A Balkins cut 'n paste is the best you can do?
What is it that constitutes aesthetically pleasing? Is it simply visual, or are there other qualities that one could find attractive?
I find your definition shallow and one dimensional.
Miles, I don't know what you want. Even the definition says that its not just visual. You wanted a definition. Thats the definition. I'm not going to be able to do any better than a dictionary.
i can do better than the dictionary, but, LOL talking to Miles . . .
BIG fleas have little fleas
upon their backs to bite 'em,
and those fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum.
reminds me of you, Miles.
^ Somebody forgot to flush again.
davvid, aesthetics in terms of architecture, not semantics, and specifically for you. Your posts are all about what you like or don't like but rarely about more than visual appearance, which is why I bring this up. I'd like to understand where you're coming from, you're obviously an intelligent guy.
Granted we're all just looking at photos here, but even so many implications are clear, such as the unreality of spiraling the landscaping around a high-rise. Looks great in a rendering ... I once had a discussion with a NYC developer about sculpting trees for a courtyard. One time expense, no maintenance required.
Fixed the tree problem...
growing plants on the terraces is not impossible. not even difficult.
if you're particular terrace isn't going to get a lot of sun, put in some fescue and hostas. plants grow at high altitude as well. concerned with maintenance? how do you think the light bulbs get changed or paper towel rolls get replaced? my building has plants in an elevator lobby in the middle of the building with no natural light at all. how do the plants grow? they pay a service to move them around.
in the end, maybe the plants will change. it's still early. there hasn't been a single rfi or change order in this project yet.
here is a rendering of the robie house. notice all the plants spilling over everywhere
not how it ended up
Celebrity culture has stripped Art of its ability to exist outside of the artists shadow. Now art can just be the excrement of the artist (sometimes literally) rather than a thing that stands on its own merits. That's what bothers me....
Miles,
I guess my personal interest around aesthetics is how it relates to cultural evolution. We all make aesthetic choices in our personal or professional lives based on our personal preference or our interpretation of other people's preferences. Somehow those responses come together to form a collective aesthetic. I used to be obsessed with the idea of the Meme, as defined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, as a basic unit of cultural transmission. The idea that every thing from a particular type of hairstyle to a way of pronouncing certain words to holiday decorations to dance moves, are being continually shared, modified, distorted, rejected - and that these responses across an entire society are what defines our culture. As a small "d" democrat, I have a soft spot for citizen participation, collectivity, and pluralism. While I may react negatively to certain aesthetics (like faux-historic architecture, for example), I can still appreciate that it has a place in the diverse cultural soup.
I'm not sure if that is what you're looking for, but thats what came to my mind when I read your question.
As you've noted, society seems to function on appearances rather than substance. These appearances are often intentionally deceiving for economic purposes.
As a personal aesthetic I am more concerned with suitability to purpose including consideration for broader social and environmental issues. According to this aesthetic many of the buildings posted for discussion here fail miserably for a number of reasons.
They'll use russian olives. A resilient (invasive?) tree, that takes on some interesting shapes with the hardship of wind. I think that was the tree someone posted earlier.
The added "benefit" is that with the lack of soil in those tree pits, they'll become natural sculptures that will be gnarly enough that no one will want to take breaks outside.
Celebrity culture has stripped Art of its ability to exist outside of the artists shadow. Now art can just be the excrement of the artist (sometimes literally) rather than a thing that stands on its own merits. That's what bothers me....
this comment has no place in architecture. if you want to be an artist, then go be an artist. if you want to be a chef, then go be a chef.
with respect to the project in this article, there was apparently a need for office area so a developer decided to get a building built to meet that need. of course there is a certain amount of 'look' to the design of a building, but that is not what drives markets. it is not what architects do for a living. a building needs a purpose to exist, and that purpose is not to suit your 'artistic sensibility.' in this case, it's to create a place to stack cubicles. it seems to me that the reason you don't like stuff* is because you just don't understand what architecture is or what an architect does.
to contrast that with what i think miles is trying to hint at towards 'craft,' a building gets built. the act of building, or of putting together the pieces that a building is composed of, is of course a craft. the architect designs a building and can keep in mind what those pieces are and how they go together. that craft, and the design, are entirely within the scope of what an architect does. a good architect should, in my opinion, try to understand the craft and design of the building they're working on. what you're doing is completely divorcing the building, and the reason the building exists, from what the architect is doing. you're taking the architecture out of architecture and turning it into an empty artistic rendering. that's not helpful.
*stuff - i don't know if that's the right word, but there sure seems to be a lot of stuff that you don't like.
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.