City Shortens Nouvel’s 53rd Street Tower
Jean Nouvel
A few weeks ago, we shared Jean Nouvel’s design for 53 West 53rd Street, a 1,250 foot project that would dominate the site. Reactions to the project were different across the board as some felt the tower would push New York forward in the architectural world, whereas others did not agree with the scale or aesthetic of the project. As we previously mentioned, Nouvel’s project had a long way to go before construction, and this week, as Nicolai Ouroussoff reported for the New York Times, it seems that the City Planning Department has decided to shorten the proposed tower by 200 feet.
More about the City Planning Department’s decision after the break.
New York Times
Conceived as a giant spire, the tower’s sleek silhouette and proportions, “particularly the exaggerated relationship between its small footprint and enormous height” would have certainly left an impression on the Midtown skyline. The top of the tower, with its three uneven peaks, seems to have caused most of the problem. Ms. Amanda Burden, the city planning commissioner, said that the top did not meet the aesthetic standards of a building that would compete in height with the city’s most famous towers. Ms. Burden explained, ”Members of the commission had to make a decision based on what was in front of them,” she said. “The development team had to show us that they were creating something as great or even greater than the Empire State Building and the design they showed us was unresolved.”
The project was not fully developed, as the “three peaks were too symmetrical, which gave them a slightly static appearance.” Nouvel would have needed to clearly address such design issues, yet some argue that the Pritzker winner is fully capable of doing so. The new height restriction will also account for a loss of 150,000 square feet. This loss of space could lead to “cuts in the design budget, which could mean cheaper materials and more cramped interiors.”
The project is still getting a lot of attention in New York, and across the architectural world as some are bitterly against the project whereas others are in support of it. As Nicolai Ouroussoff concluded, “…now, one of the most enchanting skyscraper designs of recent memory, may well be lost because some people worry that nothing in our current age can measure up to the past. It is a mentality that, once it takes hold, risks transforming a living city into an urban mausoleum.”
a big loss for ny!
the city planning department should be cut down, to create space for the city to grow better than around ground zero….
bravo well commented!
p.s the name “Burden” doesn’t need any other explanation….
Things like that is why the US is not the World power it used to be, they keep on putting restrictions on their own growth. Nouvel, go to China or Saudi Arabia… the will like it.
It’s the beginning of New York’s evolution into a city of the past: a city like Paris or Rome. When the fear of disrupting the status quo out guns the energy to create and explore, it means the air is out of that balloon.
Usually I’m not found of mr Nouvel works. But this time I think it’s great and totally fits with NY spirit. The MoMa is also one of the top sites in NY. everyone is heading there and putting some significant peak in NY sky would be a great thing. obviously they don’t think the same…
Ms Burden opened the hearing (where she and the commissioners are supposed to be listening equally to proponents and opponents of the project) with her emphatic endorsement of it. She was biased towards approving the project before hearing any testimony. It is an exciting concept for a building. No one disputes that, but it is on the wrong site. The dispute should be focused on the manipulation of the zoning law by the developer. Hines is seeking special permits to allow a giant lot merger and the sale of air rights to allow a building twice as tall as any near it on the midblock of a narrow side street. The developer reached the height by purchasing air rights from St Thomas Church and the University Club. The developer was able to do this by manipulating the landmark law which allows the transfer of these rights. But are the financial benefits to accrue to the two institutions that have a roster of very rich members supposed to come out of the hide of the residents and owners of businesses and workers in the surrounding area? The Nouvel project is 500 feet at least from either landmark. MoMA, which is not the developer but rather will lease 40-50,000 sq ft in the Tower for gallery space regardless of how tall it is, acts at all hearings as if they are part of this development deal and the only arbiters of taste. (This is the same amount of sq ft they gained in gallery space in their recent expansion.) They may have influence over the architectural community and Ms Burden because they are a cultural institution, but in fact that influence has nothing to do with whether or not the special permits for the lot merger and transfer of the air rights should be allowed. So far, the MoMA name and the developer’s lawyers have intimidated almost everyone that is involved in the ULURP process to vote to allow these mergers and transfers. Community Board 5, made up of people who think very clearly and care a lot about the Midtown North neighborhood (which has been designated a Special Preservation Subdistrict), has voted to deny the permits for the lot merger and transfer of air rights. The residents and the people who work in the neighborhood, like the president of CBS have expressed concern that the project is too big for the site and too tall for a midblock. Even at the lower height, it still casts a shadow on the Rockefeller Apartments, also a landmark, and into Central Park. I am tired of hearing that if the project is made lower, it will look like a box. The 38 story CBS building, also a landmark, is a very nice building. So is Frank Gehry’s design for IAC in Chelsea near the West Side highway. A building does not have to touch the clouds to be significant. Lastly, it seems like the design that was first submitted to City Planning last November is the one that Ms Burden is requesting that the developer goes back to so that’s not really much of a concession. They had to know that was coming-they must be thrilled that that’s the worst that seems to have happened. But this is not over yet.
Nouvel rocks NY plain and simple.
City planners and commissioners and city building codes and examiners and zoning resolutions; are slowly but steady destroying our profession. In a moment where projects like this are a 911 for New York, a city where hundreds of our colleagues are starving for any kind of work. I have seen ten’s of my friends out of work for 6 months +.
This a great moment to think about it. Our profession is in crisis but our law makers are totally going in the wrong direction.
If I take a simple job for approval, this approval could go for months, and every day I learn of a new law governing. It is a wake up call for all we love the craftsmanship of architecture.
I support this projects 100%. Just because of the fact that hopefully will create more jobs for architects, interior designers, contractors, consultants, etc.
Instead of 1250 ft lets give them 1500 ft, just because we will have a larger team of PA and PM and designers involve.
Stop insanity support our profession and the few creative ones that are still out there generating some work!!!!
If the “crown” was the problem, then allow Nouvel to redesign & resubmit, give him a chance to listen & respond. Don’t just “lop off” the crown. Now you have a shorter stubby top building instead of a taller stubby top building.
Review, comment revise, resubmit & resolve the issue…move forward & upward!
This is why Architects need to gain more power & go into politics & law!
I wonder if the comments made by the committee purly looked at the building design proposed by Nouvel. In a sense that his works in Europe is more based on much more pure geometry, other formal disciplines than this NYC project. This said I recall his projects always produced sensation also in Europe. I would rather hope that Nouvel take this challenge made by the commitee and make another project that is even more provocative.
As “Big Nick” rightly points out, this sets a very dangerous precedent for the NYC skyline by capping the height of future height of buildings below the Empire State Bldg. This is retro at its worst.
It reminds me of worries that Foster’s Hearst Building would disrupt the midtown skyline as seen from Central Park. How wrong they were, it much improves that skyline.
It is depressing to think where NYC stands now in terms of ability to build cutting edge architecture, particularly above 42nd St. It is inconceivable that the Guggenheim or Whitney or even the Chrysler building could be built today; the skepticism against modern architecture and change runs too deep. Just look at the Whitney’s failure to expand, what could have been 2 great additions (OMA, Renzo Piano) were thrown out because it might tamper with 2 brownstones. Anything interesting only happens below 34th St these days.
The saddest part of this trend is that developers have carte blanche to build mediocre buildings (any Trump building, Columbus Circle) yet when it comes to great modern buildings the city planning commission and particularly its head Amanda Burden throw up these ridcilous barriers in the name of “context”. That should be no surprise when your planning commissioner’s vision of an ideal urban development is Battery Park City. Just look at the new Long Island City, it’s BPC part II.
Oau! I want to hear more about this !
I’m not sure if NY need another oversize sculpture? I agree that match to local quality, but very local. I think NY need to be refreshed. That’s the biggest skyscrapers museum and it’s good but new proposals should cut themselves from old architecture that is worth to preserve. It would be easer in my opinion if architects would try to do smth. like Libeskinds proposal for “Madison 1″. Novels project is great, but its quality is blending to much with rest of Manhattan. Just try to imagine it much shorter. Nobody would notice it.
Someone tell me what that oversized spiderwebish thingy is doing next to MoMA?
Don’t build this, you WILL regret it…. 5 years (MAX) and it’s out of style…