Comments on: Bernard Tschumi’s Blue tower opens

By: Merkwurdichliebe

Merkwurdichliebe — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:29:24 +0000

No, it’s not the most profound project around, but it is also not a developer’s building. Tschumi attempts to formalize a project–high-rise residential–that normally wouldn’t allow for much design. It is unique and iconic and as a marketing item, successfl. There is a sense of design / architecture rather than a facile attempt at constructing a building. I was able to view the two0level penthouse in “Blue” and it is fairly well done. I love all of you who are so quick to criticize; everyone is so clever these days. How many unique–and designed–buildings do we see in Manhattan? Would you rather a Jersey City-style high-rise by SLCE perhaps? I’m just curious to know what would be acceptable?

By: Anabel

Anabel — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:20:33 +0000

Finally!!

And answer that’s good.
It’s a wonderful building. I’ll love to live there to.
The windows in differnt colors give it an special personality.
It’s a shame, that those who call themselves open minded, can’t see the beauty of this contemporary construction.

By: Alan

Alan — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:13:10 +0000

Wow -I’d love to live in this building – the spaces are amazing.
I don’t think it’s awful at all – it’s time for the lower ea0st side to start growing upward!

By: openminds

openminds — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:51:55 +0000

after all the form/image discussions in architecture lately… is this the answer of bernard tschumi?
well… its neither a identity-generating “big” form nor a contextual building…

By: James

James — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:56:35 +0000

This building is a perfect example of a poorly executed, purely formalist idea that fails to move past a diagram and become a design. The verbiage that accompanies the design clearly attempts to compensate for everything the building is not – contextual, original, elegant. To call it cumbersome would be complementary. I am continuously disappointed by Tschumi’s inability to attract real talent. For another example of the same problem (and perhaps the same designer) take a look at the University of Cincinnati Athletic Center, also by Tschumi. It looks particularly awful in the shadow of Thom Mayne’s Recreation Center.

By: Cheri

Cheri — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:48:47 +0000

The Lower East Side is ruined FOREVER. Too bad.

By: jane

jane — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:26:07 +0000

“The building’s signature pixelated façade reflects a mosaic of the diverse community around it” – until other horrendous eye-sores such as this go up and nothing more is reflected than the cold alienation of gentrification…

By: Manuel

Manuel — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:16:01 +0000

That building looks like someonelse’s hand, not bernard’s, looks cheap and vague

By: DanArch

DanArch — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:35:13 +0000

Too much fondling with this one. I can understand the attempt, but it lacks refinement. After all, some design ideas simply cost a lot of money to become convincing. This one is such. Too much money is spent on the form and the so called random panelling, the variation in both is lost making it look clumsy and really eighties-like. Could’ve better designed a clear rectangular, more opaque building, would be more contextual and cheaper in basics, leaving money for the details.

By: wowowowo

wowowowo — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:40:40 +0000

Tschumi!
waaaazup bro???!!!
You’re going down man! This looks horrible!