The Tower for Whom?
I read an online article this morning that I believe ties into our conversation of architecture for whom and politics in architecture. The article was centered around a residential skyscraper at 57th street and Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan. This skyscraper, known as the Tower for Billionaires, due to the costs of a unit starts at $7 million…..The 1,271 feet tall skyscraper seems like the pinnacle of wealthy to those on the outside, but the reality inside the tower gives a stark contrast. Tenets of the tower have begun to share their dissatisfaction of living in it as of 2018, where series of back-to-back leaks created serious water damage. Some leaks even spilled into the elevator, shutting it down for weeks. On top of plumbing issues, the building was not designed with proper acoustic protections, making high winds and garbage shoot noises a constant complaint. Not to mention the high winds that can shut down the elevator all together.
After reading about the reality of the Tower for Billionaires, I stopped to question who this is actually built for. Because on the outside this building (to some) is a profound piece in the New York skyline. But to the actual users of the building, it’s a nightmare. I believe this raises concerns hinted at in De Carlos article about those who interact with the architecture, and our responsibility as architects to value that interaction. Also, were some of the design flaws because of political agendas, like rushing the building process or cutting corners to keep costs down? I'm sure the only people that will know the answer to these questions are the ones who built it, but the results of those decisions are felt by the residents of the tower.
I think you're right in portraying the situation as political. Money will always play a role in these situations, but it shouldn't dominate or become a detriment to the experience of the architecture. Unfortunately, we rely on capitalism to run our projects and so it becomes difficult (but not impossible) to fight those powers. I guess we need to get creative on how we rebalance that scale.
ReplyDeleteAustin, I think this project was an excellent example to bring up in regards to this topic. It definitely seems to be more focused on the image, the 'curb appeal' versus the user's experience. I think this is in direct contrast with the projects we discussed in class today, especially the Lucien Kroll in Brussels. The project gave the users control of the facade, without concern for the image it would present to the public. Instead, it focused solely on the people who would use the building and ended up creating a very successful, interesting project because of it.
ReplyDelete(Although, I must admit, I've seen that second interior image before, and what a view!! A shame the building couldn't live up to it,)