Last week, the final piece of the third and highest apex of Jean Nouvel’s first residential skyscraper was anchored and installed over Midtown. 53 West 53rd Street now stands 1,050 feet tall, and is currently the 7th-tallest skyscraper under construction in New York City. — New York YIMBY
If the introduction of 432 Park Avenue, the 1,300-foot-tall Rafael Viñoly and SLCE Architects-designed apartment tower wasn't a jarring enough addition to the New York skyline, the completion of a controversial second building will soon normalize the movement towards ultra-tall residential living.
Across from the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), Jean Nouvel's 53 West 53rd Street apartment tower is nearly complete. At 1,050 feet tall, it is currently the 7th tallest building under construction in the city. While not the tallest of the supertall that are coming to define New York City's skyline, it stands as a unique triumph for the French architect and a bold addition to the MoMA block. Below is a rendering of the building from when it was first proposed over 13 years ago.
53 West 53rd Street is expected to be complete by the end of the year.
I see projects like these as a reminder that we have the design/engineering talent to build amazing structures -- and could build public housing for everyone with fantastic quality if our politics and culture were oriented around architecture rather than demagoguery and hate. The pop media does its part by not focusing on the built world. There is a reason why the elites value architecture and the general public is sold a bill of goods.
The talent is definitely available and willing to produce work that serves the public. But we often run up against small budgets or clueless (or corrupt) administrators who would rather hire a mediocre firm because they're politically well connected.
Somehow we need to change the way that architects are selected for public projects. And we need to spend more on public projects.
All 6 Comments
Great new building. These well-designed buildings get all of the attention, when people should be more concerned about the crappy, glass, energy-sucking developer junk being sold as luxury--and all of the junk being sold as "affordable" when it isn't. More design, everywhere.
It's unfortunate that the building was prevented by NYC authorities from being built to its originally proposed (taller) height.
Inhumane superlux architecture for the 0.1%. A one bedroom, 2 bath starts at $5.2m. (ranging from $3,000 to > $5,000 / sq.ft.).
Meanwhile homeless veterans are begging in the street. More than half the country does not have $1,000 in a bank account.
This represents everything that is wrong with architecture (among other things) and it should be despised, not celebrated.
+++++ May as well celebrate the "design" of sandcastles and doodles for all the good this architecture does the species.
So, how does not building it help homeless vets? When in history has architecture not been a product of wealth and elitism?
This building isn't a cause of rapacious hypercapitalism, merely a reflection of it. ...not that that's any better.
As opposed to what? What’s better?
I’m not trying to be argumentative...just trying to dive deeper into the debate.
I see projects like these as a reminder that we have the design/engineering talent to build amazing structures -- and could build public housing for everyone with fantastic quality if our politics and culture were oriented around architecture rather than demagoguery and hate. The pop media does its part by not focusing on the built world. There is a reason why the elites value architecture and the general public is sold a bill of goods.
I disagree. You are conflating opposing economic/social/political opinions for “demagoguery and hate.” That’s the demonization of opposition
thought that is plaguing the world.
I disagree. You are conflating opposing economic/social/political opinions for “demagoguery and hate.” That’s the demonization of opposition
thought that is plaguing the world.
I disagree. You are conflating opposing economic/social/political opinions for “demagoguery and hate.” That’s the demonization of opposition
thought that is plaguing the world.
We all want to solve these problems...just not willing to bow to chairman mao to do so.
Maybe don't accuse someone of conflating opposing economic/social/political opinions for “demagoguery and hate” and then immediately invoke Mao as a counter-example.
Mao is where it ends up. How else do you stop such “reflections of hyper capitalism?” How much authoritarian power would be needed, and how much are you willing to accept?
MAO? you mean the guy that's been dead for 40 years? From the country that's manufacturing your phone, your computer and your future employee? that Mao?
Yeah that guy. And that country that still has terrible human rights violations, because of its Marxist underpants, and suppresses it’s people. Perfect example actually as to why you cannot have a socialist govt with capitalism sprinkled on top. Yes, we are complicit in this. America is enabling this shit as we do around the world when it suits our interests...
And yes, that’s one of the ills of capitalism...we export all the bad stuff to other places...we want the milk without the smell of the cows...
The talent is definitely available and willing to produce work that serves the public. But we often run up against small budgets or clueless (or corrupt) administrators who would rather hire a mediocre firm because they're politically well connected.
Somehow we need to change the way that architects are selected for public projects. And we need to spend more on public projects.
What is meant by “serves the public?”
Please describe the characteristics of a space or building that serves the public.
And define who you mean by “the public”
Of course you would have trouble with this concept. Of course. Blockhead.
I’m asking you to define your version of this concept. I don’t have trouble with it.
I don't feel like getting into a discussion with you because it goes nowhere. It would be a waste of my time. Ask someone else.
The reason I keep ranting on about this stuff is because I see it as a middle finger to the social/cultural/political/and economic context, and therefore a middle finger to the art itself. I also see it as a scapegoat for our lack of imagination. This leftist mentality has damaged academia, maybe beyond repair, in my opinion. The social justice narrative is identical in its megastructural aspirations to the utopian fantasies that came out of groups like Archigram decades prior. The megastructures of today however don’t rely on heavy material scaffolding, but instead heavy political scaffolding. Government megastructures propping up what appear to be light handed architectures. Same shit different shovel. Rather than bitch about the excesses of the rich, or long for a commie dystopia, we need to find solutions to problems within the constraints of our political/cultural/and economic context. If we cannot, it’s out failure, not society’s.
Politics follows culture. Remember when Popular Mechanics, National Geographic and TIME magazine gave the population a much more tangible grasp of the world of architecture. That was an enlightened culture formed around community and common sense. Now our culture is completely toxic. Just read any popular media outlet -- from NYTimes to Brietbart etc.
Yes! “Politics is downstream of culture”.
Politics follows money. Culture follows money. Architecture follows money. Money follows money.
It is a crisis of values. Money is the only measure.
I agree that we have crisis of values. Values cannot be mandated or else they aren’t really values they are obedience. I happen to think our goal should be to appeal to this somehow. To tap into this deeper place and inspire people to be better, rather than try to engineer society via social justice initiatives. Art and architecture are/should be about moving forwards the intellectual, cultural, and spiritual dial of culture.
Within the constraints of whatever context it manifests. We cannot change context. The tabula-rasa aspirations of the 20th century prove that true. As Bruce Lee said “be like water.”
I expected more thunderdome from you. Where's that libertarian survival of the fittest spirit?
Pete, morality in the absence of the liberty is like good temperament under anesthesia.
and liberty without morality is like a hangover on crystal meth.
True, but that’s better than soma.
why
Because soma (brave new world) masks truth, and humans are seekers of truth.
Red pill or blue pill argument I guess.
crystal meth is better than soma because some movie, ok.
btw, I read brave new world in 1977, 9th grade.
That’s not what I said.
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.