It’s tempting to see this as celebrity’s flourish, but consider all that the shape achieves: It maximizes river views and covered balconies, obstructs its neighbors as little as possible, fills a deep narrow block without resorting to an ungainly slab, protects even low apartments from the noise of the West Side Highway, pierces the skyline with a jaunty top, and leaves room for a courtyard that even in winter basks in sunlight most of the day. — nymag.com
More BIG news from around the world:
45 Comments
Not a closer look... Didn't even go inside?
oh look, it's BIG! i wonder if people have an opinion about it.
The opinions will be: architects will love it, most people will hate it. Typical of mod architecture.
BIG seems to be inverting that a bit, Nate.
I'm interested to see more photos that don't paint it as a bleak facade. Interior unit shots will help, too.
I like this quite a bit.
The narrative is that they will invert it, but it looks like a typical modern developer building to me. Even colder on the outside (that interior shot looks nice, but so do a lot of manicured magazine shots that don't hold up).
But when compared to the level of intention paid to this
The level of detailing is more involved and scalable.
Could you elaborate Marc? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
I'm not trying to bash or praise BIG per se. I'm just comparing some of the work that's been posted recently.
Granted, W 57th is constructed, but there are 7 materials in the fore to mid-ground that have variation and clear purpose, and the brick is detailed to provide some additional interest. As an assemblage, they work across scales to describe the entry. Compare that to the Toronto project where there are only 4 materials, and one set is inherited because it's one of the existing buildings (I think).
I prefer Alejandro Alevena's customizable urbanism to more cold oversized housing
not too close, I 've seen pictures of the sidewalk where that massive slider ends, wouldn't go through there on a rainy day
"The opinions will be: architects will love it, most people will hate it. Typical of mod architecture."
Architects don't hire BIG. Architects don't fork over bucket loads of money to live in a BIG designed building. Architects are the ones crying in comment sections on Architecture blogs about BIG's conventional detailing.
Who's crying?
Olaf, Nate and jla-x big cry crocodile tears about BIG nearly every time the firm is mentioned. Its so predictable.
I find BIG and others talk about the brilliance of their massing etc... but the interior plans are usually quite awful. His Vancouver House has completely unlivable 350sqft studios selling for $500k with awkward columns and left over wasted spaces. This project doesn't look to be that much better.
http://www.via57west.com/availabilities/468556
But in THIS thread... That hasn't started.
Here's the benefit of all the BIG coverage. Despite all the comments about braggadocio or genius, there's actually enough work posted frequently enough that you can talk about the body of work with interior references. That way the consistencies or unevenness of the practice are exposed, which imho is more productive.
So- I stand by my previous comments. Based on the renderings, the process that produced the current vision for the Toronto project is not as successful as the NY works. But here's something interesting- ho said BIG projects aren't about detailing? That brick wall and stair suggests that can do that, so is it a matter of not being given the opportunity?
Chris, fair point. But do people who purchase these units really live there, or is it a speculative purchase until they find a larger, more suitable box along the river? Addresses can impress, even if you live in tne wonky box on the cheap side of the building.
davvid? ok since you suggested I should post something
do you know how SNOW DRIFTS form?
Is Bjarkey a Danish snow voodoo master?
that is an odd comment olaf. bjarke is in fact a snow voodoo master. i figured everyone already knew that.
surely if you can be a ninja, bjarke can be a voodoo witch doctor? why not? i'd bet $15 right now that snow loads will never be a problem with this project..
I'm staying a few blocks from it...may go take a first hand look tomorrow...
the old architect I respect, only one...that was his first comment.
i'm a ninja. bjarke's a voodoo witch doctor...
the old architect is ninja+bjarke in years. yoda may know something.
IKEA + PowerPoint = W57
I was lucky to visit some of BIG's work in Copenhagen. The '8 House' and 'The Mountain' felt less like buildings than really, really big diagrams. Like diagrams built 1:1. It was weird. I think generally what BIG is doing is good for architecture (i.e. increasing its mainstream appeal...although it often feels like architecture's increased popularity may at the expense of its agency or legitimacy as a profession) The Maritime Museum was also pretty jarring...Another project I felt worked brilliantly as a massing exercise, but fell short in execution. That stair image is promising...it would be good if they could match their brilliant massing strategies with proper (Scandinavian) detailing ingenuity.
Matthew,
In previous threads and on the podcast, the argument has been made that BIG's projects are more about the idea and not the detailing. Would you agree with that, or are you suggesting that the work would be stronger if it was intimately detailed?
I also visited Orestad a few years ago. As a pedestrian, I didn't get the sense that these were diagrams. I was more interested in the atmosphere and culture of the area. It has probably become more developed since then, but at the time it was a fairly quiet place with a small population of what seemed like sophisticated well-dressed youngish people. The buildings are far enough apart where a person could walk entirely around them. Essentially like small urban blocks. There is a small canal that runs directly behind Mountain Dwelling. From the trains, to the streetscape, to the architecture, nothing really felt overly luxurious to me, but it all seemed efficient and nice in a humble way. The scale is large but pedestrian friendly and it definitely has the feel of a new planned community.
Wasn't that Orested development a showcase for many different architects, kind of like little experimental communities out in the middle of nowhere? Interesting.
The look from interior photos of W57 is kind of industrial (Chic?) that would support the notion that BIG projects are more about the idea and developers come in and figure out the details. Vs. other architects which finely tune the details, as does their office and methods (lots of big foamy models).
I wonder if this project is misaligned with the luxury market when it could be a great method for affordable housing. I think this building is what, 5% affordable. Maybe they should build these with 50/50. As I see, many others are replicating this style elsewhere--simple geometric formalism and industrial details. Like IKEA, as mentioned above.
I'm not sure what people are imagining when they argue that W57 doesn't have luxury interiors. Its quite normal for a luxury unit owner to renovate their space with their own architect. If you look at a range of brand new luxury towers, the interiors are usually very basic with white walls, wood floors and a fairly open plan.
Beckman Tower by Gehry:
Bernard Tschumi Blue Tower:
Aqua Tower by Studio Gang:
BIG's W57th:
Those examples don't look like luxury much either (though Gang's work is very very similar to BIGs both in marketing and process) and that Gehry building is super weird all around--strange base and everything.
This is my, highly biased, view of modern luxury. It's probably not fair since these are more $$$ but just to show you the other side of the spectrum where all of the details are finely crafted and not left to chance.
53 W 53 by Nouvel
152 Elizabeth by Ando
and FTW
320 W 28th by ZAHA
I'm going to say there's no comparison. The BIG examples look to be renderings...
Marc, The BIG examples are renderings because I can only find images of the projects smallest apartments.
Think the biggest problem with BIG is its miscategorized. The work is ok, but the socialist housing block thing doesn't really translate into luxury, finely crafted thing. That they try to pretend to be high design and also cheap and dirty is what is problematic.
Davvid,
Personally, I just don't think comparing these rendered images (flip flopping terms here, sorry) against photoshop retouched images (or lack of) is unfair for two reasons.
1- The obvious point is that you can make any price point look attractive in a digital rendering. The finishes and detailing are always perfect, despite how rushed the crews may be during real construction. So, the ptac in the Tschumi project looks like it received a terrible paint job, and the carpet edges in the Zaha project seem to be coming apart, and the carpet in the Ando images are still wet from cleaning. But the carpet in BIG image almost looks like a looks like a perfect patch of grass, partly because that's kinda how the render works. I'm getting fussy here and will soon stick my foot in my mouth...
2- I'm not sure that these are the best rendering to make your case, given that the spaces are smaller than the other examples (save the Beckman). They're just too skinny to say luxury.
I just wish there were better examples.
But that Nouvel image is begging to be a set for the remake of Blade Runner in Manhattan.
Think it doesn't matter as much when photographers can stage a photo to match renderings pretty well. From what I've seen the real interiors from W57 aren't that far from the renderings. But the point is that the renderings themselves don't really emphasize craft in the first place... There's very little of interest. In the LiMX examples there is a lot of variety in materials, lighting, structural touches etc.
I do wonder if BIG is prepared to handle the critical onslaught, not from critics (don't exist) but new media outlets carrying images of their ill-conceived detailing
a microwave recircuilating hood over range and non integrated fridge with an island that looks like a table is not high-end in nyc. nevermind cabinets that pretend to be Skandanavian plywood. not saying BIG is trying to be high-end but those renderings clearly do not indicate high-end. so that is a moot point.
further. if those are cont. finger pull cabinets the gaps are not big enough and the range is taller than the countertops. these are all things high-end clients notice right away. look at the division of the cabinets as well, its badly planned. so again, those renderings do not indicate high-end.......davvid you have no clue or are ridiculously dedicated to BIG.
Olaf, Those are renderings. Why are you critiquing the cabinet finish?
Nate, I'm not sure they or anyone else would care. If they follow any comments anywhere, they'll likely dismiss them saying the point is not to be perfect.
Sorry- that being perfect is not the point.
davvid, exactly. not high-end
Davvid,
Did you walk the cow path along the Orestad project? I'm curious as to why people made it.
Well, you can only hide the reality for so long. If they don't care, so be it. Somehow a lack of care in details in the smallest parts can spell the failure of entire communities and cities... Many problems today are from short sided perspectives...
Perhaps that's a fap in the design as collaboration/curation process. If you pick the best idea from a hierarchy that is relatively flat and unskilled, can you expect an attention detail?
Tiny screen typo as usual- gap...
I wonder how it will be covered in a magazine like architecture record, that usually focused more on interiors and craft. Usually they have been more focused on finished product than other media outlets.
Hopefully there is a way to fix the curation process and new media to reward craft and not just marketing prowess. Or else it's gonna be a whole lot of cheap looking garb.
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.