Jump to content

Recommended Posts

J'ai eu cette idée de ssc.com.

 

Quelle tour qui est présentement en contruction (ou recemment complétée) n'importe ou dans le monde, aimerais tu voir à Montréal?

 

N'oubliez pas les photos!

 

je commence le MoMa à NYC!!! Vraiment incroyable! NYC n'a vraiment pas peur de construire à l'avant garde. Il ne s'inquiètes pas des osties de NIMBY's!!!

 

85dasr9.jpg

 

New York Times

November 15, 2007

 

ARCHITECTURE

 

Next to MoMA, a Tower Will Reach for the Stars

 

By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF

 

moma190.jpg

 

A rendering of the Jean Nouvel-designed tower to be built adjacent to the Museum of Modern Art.

 

191.jpg

 

The interior of Jean Nouvel’s building, which is to include a hotel and luxury apartments.

 

1115-web-MOMA.jpg

 

Cass Gilbert’s Woolworth Building, William Van Alen’s Chrysler Building, Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building.

 

If New Yorkers once saw their skyline as the great citadel of capitalism, who could blame them? We had the best toys of all.

 

But for the last few decades or so, that honor has shifted to places like Singapore, Beijing and Dubai, while Manhattan settled for the predictable.

 

Perhaps that’s about to change.

 

A new 75-story tower designed by the architect Jean Nouvel for a site next to the Museum of Modern Art in Midtown promises to be the most exhilarating addition to the skyline in a generation. Its faceted exterior, tapering to a series of crystalline peaks, suggests an atavistic preoccupation with celestial heights. It brings to mind John Ruskin’s praise for the irrationality of Gothic architecture: “It not only dared, but delighted in, the infringement of every servile principle.”

 

Commissioned by Hines, an international real estate developer, the tower will house a hotel, luxury apartments and three floors that will be used by MoMA to expand its exhibition space. The melding of cultural and commercial worlds offers further proof, if any were needed, that Mr. Nouvel is a master at balancing conflicting urban forces.

 

Yet the building raises a question: How did a profit-driven developer become more adventurous architecturally than MoMA, which has tended to make cautious choices in recent years?

 

Like many of Manhattan’s major architectural accomplishments, the tower is the result of a Byzantine real estate deal. Although MoMA completed an $858 million expansion three years ago, it sold the Midtown lot to Hines for $125 million earlier this year as part of an elaborate plan to grow still further.

 

Hines would benefit from the museum’s prestige; MoMA would get roughly 40,000 square feet of additional gallery space in the new tower, which will connect to its second-, fourth- and fifth-floor galleries just to the east. The $125 million would go toward its endowment.

 

To its credit the Modern pressed for a talented architect, insisting on veto power over the selection. Still, the sale seems shortsighted on the museum’s part. A 17,000-square-foot vacant lot next door to a renowned institution and tourist draw in Midtown is a rarity. And who knows what expansion needs MoMA may have in the distant future?

 

By contrast the developer seems remarkably astute. Hines asked Mr. Nouvel to come up with two possible designs for the site. A decade ago anyone who was about to invest hundreds of millions on a building would inevitably have chosen the more conservative of the two. But times have changed. Architecture is a form of marketing now, and Hines made the bolder choice.

 

Set on a narrow lot where the old City Athletic Club and some brownstones once stood, the soaring tower is rooted in the mythology of New York, in particular the work of Hugh Ferriss, whose dark, haunting renderings of an imaginary Manhattan helped define its dreamlike image as the early-20th-century metropolis.

 

But if Ferriss’s designs were expressionistic, Mr. Nouvel’s contorted forms are driven by their own peculiar logic. By pushing the structural frame to the exterior, for example, he was able to create big open floor plates for the museum’s second-, fourth- and fifth-floor galleries. The tower’s form slopes back on one side to yield views past the residential Museum Tower; its northeast corner is cut away to conform to zoning regulations.

 

The irregular structural pattern is intended to bear the strains of the tower’s contortions. Mr. Nouvel echoes the pattern of crisscrossing beams on the building’s facade, giving the skin a taut, muscular look. A secondary system of mullions housing the ventilation system adds richness to the facade.

 

Mr. Nouvel anchors these soaring forms in Manhattan bedrock. The restaurant and lounge are submerged one level below ground, with the top sheathed entirely in glass so that pedestrians can peer downward into the belly of the building. A bridge on one side of the lobby links the 53rd and 54th Street entrances. Big concrete columns crisscross the spaces, their tilted forms rooting the structure deep into the ground.

 

As you ascend through the building, the floor plates shrink in size, which should give the upper stories an increasingly precarious feel. The top-floor apartment is arranged around such a massive elevator core that its inhabitants will feel pressed up against the glass exterior walls. (Mr. Nouvel compared the apartment to the pied-à-terre at the top of the Eiffel Tower from which Gustave Eiffel used to survey his handiwork below.)

 

The building’s brash forms are a sly commentary on the rationalist geometries of Edward Durell Stone and Philip L. Goodwin’s 1939 building for the Museum of Modern Art and Yoshio Taniguchi’s 2004 addition. Like many contemporary architects Mr. Nouvel sees the modern grid as confining and dogmatic. His tower’s contorted forms are a scream for freedom.

 

And what of the Modern? For some, the appearance of yet another luxury tower stamped with the museum’s imprimatur will induce wincing. But the more immediate issue is how it will affect the organization of the Modern’s vast collections.

 

The museum is only now beginning to come to grips with the strengths and weaknesses of Mr. Taniguchi’s addition. Many feel that the arrangement of the fourth- and fifth-floor galleries housing the permanent collection is confusing, and that the double-height second-floor galleries for contemporary art are too unwieldy. The architecture galleries, by comparison, are small and inflexible. There is no room for the medium-size exhibitions that were a staple of the architecture and design department in its heyday.

 

The additional gallery space is a chance for MoMA to rethink many of these spaces, by reordering the sequence of its permanent collection, for example, or considering how it might resituate the contemporary galleries in the new tower and gain more space for architecture shows in the old.

 

But to embark on such an ambitious undertaking the museum would first have to acknowledge that its Taniguchi-designed complex has posed new challenges. In short, it would have to embrace a fearlessness that it hasn’t shown in decades.

 

MoMA would do well to take a cue from Ruskin, who wrote that great art, whether expressed in “words, colors or stones, does not say the same thing over and over again.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tianjin World Financial Center

 

TJWFC7.jpg

 

76 floors, something that would stand out in the Montreal skyline, but it's not too tall for our city. Just right in my view!

 

Architecturely, it's modern and sharp looking but not too crazy; it would fit pretty well with Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about 76 floors of residential/hotel or office floors?

 

I know that the Nouvel building at the MoMA in NYC will be approx the same height as the Chrysler building, approx. 280-290 meters.

 

That might be too tall for Montreal, but a scaled down version of the same thing with 65 floors and 250 meters would fit perfectly! Even though the tower would exceed Mont-Royal, it's tapered upper floors would make it less bulky and cumbersome and would appear to "hide" less of the "mountain".

 

The same applies to the Tianjin World Financial Center!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about 76 floors of residential/hotel or office floors?

 

I know that the Nouvel building at the MoMA in NYC will be approx the same height as the Chrysler building, approx. 280-290 meters.

 

That might be too tall for Montreal, but a scaled down version of the same thing with 65 floors and 250 meters would fit perfectly! Even though the tower would exceed Mont-Royal, it's tapered upper floors would make it less bulky and cumbersome and would appear to "hide" less of the "mountain".

 

The same applies to the Tianjin World Financial Center!

 

Haha, well i am a little insane when it comes to skyscrapers, so maybe 76 office floors is pushing it, but you get the idea. Scale it down slightly to 60-65.

 

Still, Montreal has a collection of towers at, or nearing, 200m. We need one in the 230-260m range to break from the pack!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's officially called Tour de Verre. And it is indefinitely put on hold. Though it was approved, it faced SERIOUS opposition from NIMBY's for its height believe it or not.

 

This is exactly the kind of tall tower Montreal could accommodate - the top portion, 10 floors or more, is part of the structure as a mast. It is very creative in reaching its height.

 

The lot is TINY. Cathcart at University??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

habsfan... le building dont tu parles n'est ni en construction ni complété. En fait, il ne sera probablement jamais construit, ou pas avant très longtemps.

 

Ce dont tu parles restera probablement toujours dans la catégorie 'Visions'.

 

De plus, de nombreux NYMBYs ont chialé contre ce projet situé dans un secteur relativement peu dense de NY.

 

Quote from the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/ar...gn/21ouro.html

 

It Was Fun Till the Money Ran Out

 

By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF

December 19, 2008

 

Now that high-end bubble has popped, and it is unlikely to return anytime soon. Jean Nouvel’s 75-story residential tower adjoining the Museum of Modern Art has been delayed indefinitely. And developers now seem loath to undertake similar projects. Even if the economy turns around, the public’s tolerance for outsize architectural statements that serve the rich and self-absorbed has already been pretty much exhausted.

 

This is not all good news. A lot of wonderful architecture is being thrown out with the bad. Although most of Mr. Nouvel’s MoMA tower would have been devoted to luxury apartments, for instance, it would have allowed the museum next door to expand its gallery space significantly. It would also have been one of the most spectacular additions to the Manhattan skyline since the Chrysler Building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New-York avec Chicago sont les villes qui ont littéralement inventé le gratte-ciel. Ceux-çi ont toujours été audacieux. Parfois de façon tout à fait génial (Woolworth, Chrysler) ou parfois moins (AT&T -aujourd'hui Sony avec son couronnement Chippendale :eek:) mais chose certaine toujours audacieusement.

Aucun des gratte-ciel de Montréal n'est profondémment remarquable -à part le 1250 René-Lévesque qui se permet un tout petit peu de fantaisie. Il serait temps que les commanditaires montréalais sortent de leur timidité.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
adblock_message_value
adblock_accept_btn_value