Comments on: Bernard Tschumi’s Blue tower opens

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!

By: tommi

tommi — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:54:22 +0000

it only looks good with d’ sky. itz really horrible with its context“`

By: srich

srich — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:29:15 +0000

UGLY! geesus.

If anything, digital technology has given us the ability to really build fluid beauty- what the hell is this chunky-duck? and Tschumi was the father of bringing digital thinking to architecture- this is what it give us?? This whole “its so ugly, its cool, man!” is getting tired- basicallly its a cover up for people who have no ‘elegant touch’. It is very hard to make sensual things…

I think this says it all: Tschumi’s office describes it as a “high-end building with a modest budget,” That is what it looks like- Cheap windows, ugly flooring, 1980s coloured glass panel- sold as “Luxury Condo”. tacky dude.