Комментарии:
Amazing work as always. Missed the tour unfortunately.
ОтветитьLooks great, but I think you could have done more with precast stone on the crown.
Ответить✨✨✨✨✨✨
ОтветитьAn anemic pastiche with nice views.
ОтветитьLooks good. I hope the creators of soulless glass & steel skyscrapers take notice.
ОтветитьI love the fact that the glass boxes are beginning to give way to a new generation of classical buildings using real stone and Beau Arts/Federal design. This building could have been even more enhanced, but budgets are tight. None the less, it is a beautiful synchronization which blends very well with the surrounding late 19th and early 20th century quality that has been missing in modern architecture for 80 years. Bravo!
ОтветитьGreat architecture is not dead!
ОтветитьThey should start reviving old architecture, this is just the start of it
ОтветитьWow! I have been a huge fan of RAMSA for a long time. It is thrilling to me that this looks like it has always been there. I get it that the tradition vs. new debate is an unresolved one. I would move into this place in a heartbeat. Thank you for making this segment available. Wow. 😊❤
ОтветитьI wish all new buildings followed more classical or other styles of the past. Ideally how architecture looked before the 1950s.
ОтветитьI would guess that the ghost of Frank Lloyd Wright is rolling over in his grave -- re: this very "handsome" (indeed) total hodgepodge of borrowed and tacked-on "ornamentation." Always have to laugh at the tsunami of "elegant" and "articulate" ARCHITECT-SPEAK so sublimely justifying this . . . structure. Thanks for a good laugh.
ОтветитьThese compromises never work. This is neither a beautiful modern building nor a beautiful gothic building. It's an ugly building that achieves none of these well. Seven minutes of intellectual interpretations will not change that.
ОтветитьNot gothic enough!
ОтветитьWell done
ОтветитьThis is pretty great! Not super great, but pretty great! I love the brick, and the sense that it fits with the surrounding buildings, but it looks like it was done on the cheap.
The windows, especially, look really boring - especially compared with the original, older buildings below. I'm not familiar with the vernacular, but it reminds me of how the Tesla Model 3 and Y are similar to the S and X, but...less. Cheap versions with a lot of corners cut, which is a shame.
It's a lot better than what could have easily been there instead, but it didn't go nearly far enough for whatever reason ($$).
A missed opportunity, but I still give it a 6 out of 10.
They should have just moved to New Jersey. It competes with the church tower. It’s really a strange use of materials and styles
ОтветитьI love it. Revival architecture is stunning. Wish every building would be recreated from the 1890-1940 time periods.
ОтветитьWat mij betreft had het gotische nog iets meer benadrukt mogen worden. Nu is de kroonlijst van de flat gelijk aan de grondverdieping van een galerij van een klooster. De ramen zijn veel te breed en zouden de verhouding van de kathedraal moeten aanhouden; erg smal.
ОтветитьMr Architect congratulations and thankful for explantions given a question the windows with arcades given added value to the building in power the number of windows with arcades 🥇 😆😆😆is that correct or just amateur comment 🙃🙃🙃🙃🙃
Ответитьwith your pencil today autocad and designer softweare 😆😆you are major actors concepting realizing landscapes of cities not only you have more life esperancy by yours masterpieces 😁😁😁 i told to my architect Sir don't forget to grave your initials on the façade 😁😁😁 he asked me why ? For the coming generations maybe 3 or 4 hundreds years 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
ОтветитьI hate that they built such a huge building in this location and I hate that is dwarf's the Riverside Church tower. Just brings the whole neighborhood down a few notches. The new tower is ugly as can be and the brick does not mirror the stone building. This video is just a bunch of double speak, and comparing it to the Empire State Building is a sacrilege.. And spare me the serious music. This is not a serious building, it is a money grab eyesore. Get real, people!
ОтветитьI assumed that this tower was built no earlier than the 1930's because in my eyes it looks so beautiful.
ОтветитьThank you for sharing this beautiful building.
ОтветитьNice interiors but there's too much asymmetry and boxiness that erodes and obscures the gothic details. It doesn’t conplement the church and surroundings well imho.
ОтветитьI think a more minimalist volume with a mirrored facade would have been the better choice for this location. This kinda looks like Vegas/Disneyland architecture.
ОтветитьThe intent of being more of a background tower was definitely achieved and the massing is perfect, from a distance the building is great. But the detailing and window depth, are very weak for RAMSA's standards and up close the whole thing kinda falls apart.
This would have been a perfect opportunity for neo gothic ornament using terracotta or pre cast concrete. This lack of ornament is very clear in the crown. And the brick doesn't work well up close too .
But overall it's nice, espcially when compared to other high rises being done today or even ultra high end luxury glass boxes with bigger budgets.
Faculty housing! Hell of a perk for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to live there. Was it all tax exempt too?
ОтветитьAcademic feel . Barf .
ОтветитьBeautiful 🎉
ОтветитьThis is such a satisfying look on midtown manhattan from that view so nice
ОтветитьBeautiful, the world needs more buildings that are not basic glass or post modern nonsense!
ОтветитьI had no idea this exists! Very glad to see skyscrapers built in traditional architectural vernacular again! Well done!
ОтветитьI will add I do wish they leaned into the gothic architecture more, but the massing is good. Overall a good addition and far superior to anything modernist!
ОтветитьI hope this is only the first in a long line of actually beautiful skyscrapers.
Ответить