Is 5 Beekman the New William Beaver House?

5 Beekman Street
Comments (10)
  1. David says:

    Your criticized is so hot (I like), I’m looking out to the tower and bear concrete should be decorated.

  2. Dan Chadly says:

    Had to put the elevators and egress stair somewhere!

  3. Frank says:

    To make matters worse there is the half-hearted, cynical attempt to “contextually relate” to the twin-peaked roofline of the truly splendid existing Victorian red-brick building adjacent (to which this number appears to be an “addition”) by the outre and totally lame ‘mimicking’ of the two ‘peaks’ below by a sad configuration in steel framing plunked perplexingly atop the roofline. Who designed this thing? A 12 year old boy? Somebody’s wife? This sort of amateurism and lack of competence in design is lamentable in a project that in the right hands could have achieved true landmark distinction.

  4. Carl says:

    This windowless South-facing facade is an eyesore for the neighborhood. But it also makes no sense for people living in the building, their other views will be partially obstructed by new building while the South one will not (smaller Lara building next to it) and South is always the best view for most buildings thanks to the sun exposure, yet no windows there!. What was the developer thinking? In the mean time I hope they find a way to turn this facade into something that is somewhat bearable to the eye: cover it with stone or even glass, anything would be better. And yes these parapet/steeples at the top are bizarre and just tacky, the pairing with the original building underneath does NOT work at all. At least William Beaver was coherent in its design….

  5. tim says:

    The only thing that could, sort of redeem this building is if they painted one giant mural on the blank wall.

    “the city’s denizens must, unfortunately, accept the good with the bad.” Presumably you meant to say, “…must, unfortunately, accept the bad with the good.”

  6. Joe A says:

    That this 70-story Brutalist “parking garage” with its lame, skeletal ornamentation was ever conceived, approved, financed and built – amidst so many beautiful, historically significant, neighboring buildings, including City Hall – speaks volumes to the reality of money and cynicism over thoughtful, contextual design. While some buildings inspire and others impose, this homage to poured concrete never equivocates in its blunt nod to soulless Soviet-era design. What a wasted opportunity to add something positively inspiring to the City’s skyline.

  7. Steve says:

    The stairs and elevators are tucked up against that wall. With such a small foot print, where else would you put them?

    I wont hold my breath waiting for an answer..

  8. Not the Owner says:

    So what, all buildings have stairwells and elevators. This building is an blight on the skyline. It’s farcically ugly.

  9. Demi says:

    don’t sweat it….in 100 years we hope this one is demolished. Unfortunately nothing beautiful is respected and still demolished lets hope the developers 100 years from now have risen in aesthetic beauty and take this one down.

  10. Johnny Casden says:

    Agreed with Mr. Yimby here. While I fully support new, even tall, developments in the city’s historic core, developers have an inherent responsibility but not requirement, to create attractive looking structures. This one’s a joke.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *