BLUE Update: Get Ready for Move-In!
Tuesday, September 26, 2006, by Scott
The last time we checked in with our Lower East Side friend BLUE, construction crews were halfway done installing that distinctive glass. Now, an informed tipster passed along a note from the Corcoran team to buyers in the building. An excerpt:
The building has been "topped off" and the beautiful Blue glass is now up to the 16 th floor with exterior work near completion. At the same time we have been hard at work on the elevators and interiors. We are cautiously optimistic that BLUE will be ready for you to call home by the end of 2006.
Adds our tipster, "Offering plan went effective a couple weeks ago, with 24 out of 31 units sold." (Natefind's got the
metalistings, include a 766 square foot 1BR for
$835,000). N.B. invitation-only welcome party tomorrow night on the common outdoor space; rumor has it Team Curbed may be in the house.
·
Listings: BLUE [Natefind]
·
BLUE Update: It Really Is Going to Look Like That [Curbed]
PRICECHOP UPDATE: An alert reader points out that the $835,000 apartment noted above (and found here at Corcoran) used to be priced at a more princely $880,000. Choppah!
Every time I look at this building my jaw drops at what a 'mistake' it looks like. It's just a gash in the side of LES.... a horrible, oozing, blue gash.
I love this building. Its rare to see an innovative building in NYC where plain crap is the norm. Its really a gem. Something that will be appreciated for decades to come.
what would have been better? a costas building? i'm don't completely like it, but i'd rather see this then 99% of the junk that gets built in this city
Mostly known as the giant blue turd, actually.
just drove by it yesterday. love the building, hate the location. not that i hate the les, but this building doesn't belong there. not only does it overwhelm the neighborhood, the location just doesn't do the building justice. a piece of architecture like this should be on display on park avenue (instead of the new crap being built), not where it is.
Its going to be amazing! It only looks funny right now because some of the other buildings in the near vincinity are not finished. With 1 Ten 3rd, the near by New Musuem and the hotel on Orchard (combined with Thor come to think of it) soon that whole neighborhood will be completely different: in a good way. We NEED innovative residences and buildings in NYC and with Blue, the Calatrava building, the NY Times building, Hearst tower etc we are on our way!
I've talked to the window manufacturer and there are already prospective buyers walking away because of the color.
you know, you really gotta love blue, inside and out.
the interiors are all blue...literally.
how depressing.
not much at crate and barrel that will go with blue..
I call bullshit on #8. The interiors are not blue.
The windows look like cheap plexiglass.
This thing is horrible.
Oh, it's so "innovative".
Give me a break. It's like you guys forgot the architectural mistakes of the the last 50 years.
I am all for innovative architecture but I agree with #11 - the glass looks quite cheap and ugly. Guess we should be happy that it's not just another ugly brown box w/ FEDDER AC slots under each window....
#7--
You do realize that 110 Third is 17 blocks away from Blue, right?
what are the architectural mistakes of the last 50 years? I forgot.
The "Calatrava" building (80 South Street, I assume) will never get built.
And I would like to hear about some architectural
"mistakes" of the past 50 years.
Prices are going down. Buyers and more importantly investors just woke up, took out the calculators and realized that one of those internet savings accounts will yield a better, safer, more predicatble yield than real estate in this city. From a technical perspective the market has not even begun to correct itself. Watch are you no interest mortgage holders, the bottom will be especially painful for you.
the glass will look at least slightly better once construction is finished and the building is given a final wash down/cleaning. there's a lot of dust on them now...
And I thought the Arquitectonica designed hotel in Times Square was ugly.... UGH.
the blue light infiltrating your space will set the mood well when you are facing foreclosure with no equity on an option arm (plus unable to rent it out in the recession). bear-tastic.
Somebody please explain to me why this is so innovative. I've read a little about it and it seems like a million projects wrapped in a new, bluer package. While it's more striking that the glass-and-tan condos going everywhere, what is so great about it that gets everyone fired up?
Gradual change of floorplans to fit zoning? Looks like some of the conceptual sketches done in the 20s to show what could be built under the new laws. Integration into the community architecturally?
A new direction or a signature building? The city side is uninteresting and lacks the features Tschumi is touting.
The cantilevered side? Been done before, even overhangs onto sidewalks, like in DC rowhouses.
The blue pixellated sides? What is the point in the color of the envelope and why is this innovative and the Westin so universally derided?
Bernard Tschumi has never done anything good in the United States.
#10
you can call bullshit, but i spoke to him...
it is blue....
do you not think the light would transmit the color...
there is a reason no one uses dark tints...
blame the energy code and dumb ass columbia professors for this one...
#21 The building looks cool in person, check it out.
As for innovative, I guess all is relative, but if you pay even remotest attention to developments in this town, this building is radical. Its not a box, is colorful, is not made out of orange brick, not a Fedder in sight. By NYC standards this is groundbreaking. It looks much better in person that the Westin in Times Square which I agree failed in its final execution.
Hmmm, I actually like the Westin in Times Square, but I can't stand BLUE. Even more so, even when I don't like a building, I can understand why someone else would ( I understand why people don't like the westin, even though it makes me smile)) but not this one. I can't understand how anyone whould not find this thing repulsive.
Oh and for those of you complaining about blue light in the apartments, you should speak to some architects. It very possible to have tinting on the outside of windows which will not be visible from the inside. In fact it happens all the time in office buildings.
This design, whether you like it or not, is going to look VERY dated at some point, and not in the cool old brownstone way. It will look 'Brady Bunch" dated....It's just not a design that will age well.
I don't get why there are always so many whiners and complainers about "bad designs" and "ugly buildings"
NYC is no Paris. There are so many ugly buildings virtually everywhere in the city. Lower East Side is replete with ugliness - from dirty projects to grey 4-5 story apartment buildings with ugly fire escapes. I would think that any kind of modern and visually attractive building would be welcome in this area.
Hmmmm... only 77% percent sold? If this were located in Harlem or dumbo, all hell would break loose and this building and location would be ripped apart by certain readers... I wonder, why doesn't LES get the same harse treatment as harlem and brooklyn when it comes to evaluating the market and neighborhoods? Just curious? I'm not partial to any of the aforementioned hoods...
Leo - I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that just because there are plenty of old ugly buildings in NYC that we shouldn't be upset about new ugly buildings? Because if that's your point then that would have to be just about the stupidest argument anyone has ever made on Curbed, and that's saying alot.
Davey: My point, mr Genius, is that you cannot expect regular buildings designed and geared toward upper middle class to have some kind of outstanding, breathtaking, out of this world design. Compare to the 90% buildings you see on the Lower East Side, this Blue condo is masterpiece. "Ugly" is a relative term. Since we don't have any architectural standards body in this city that would approve or reject a particular design, it's up to the developer and the perspective customers. Considering the cost of land in Manhattan, those buildings that have really outstanding design are usually very very expensive, like 15 Central Park West where apartments go for 3K/sq foot.
The Blue condo cetainly stands out in this rather unattractive neighborhood. It seems like no matter what gets built, there are herds of people like Davey that whine and complain.
Leo,
Now I think you misunderstand me (and the other folks who are deriding this building). I don't think we're demanding that all new buildings be architectural masterpieces. I think we all get that that could get expensive. We just want new buildings that don't make us want to throw up when we look at them - unlike blue. At the end of the day, it still comes down to an aesthetic argument - I think it's ugly, you think it's stunning. Don't try to paint it as anything else. I'm not anti new buildings - I actually work for a developer who puts up new buildings (and none of them are architectural masterpieces either). THis is not about progressives versus reactionaries. We don't hate it because it's new, we hate it because it's ugly.
love the gesture. dont hate the player hate the game. Bernard rocks.....he's trying to make poetry in a game of cavemen/bloodsuckers.
Still waiting on an explanation on why this is such a hot topic. 21, if you want to say it's cool, which it is kinda, then I'm just going to go ahead and say that it's ugly. I will admit that it looks a lot better in person than in that rendering, but still there is something not quite satisfying. It's a whole different kind of mediocrity than the Ariel East, but still mediocre. It really reminds me of a dorm at Carnegie-Mellon known as the "fish tank."
a giant herpe on the cock of the lower east side
#19, i agree, its even uglier than the times square westin.
this building is atrocious
I think it's a fabulous building, despite its somewhat inappropriate stature and location. Definitely better than that godawful wavy thingy in Astor Place and the "Miami Vice meets Bauhaus" Richard Meier accidents. But for all of the hating going on in here, can someone cite an example of a "beautiful," newer residential tower in Manhattan or Brooklyn? Is there such a thing?
The biggest issue for me is how outrageously out of context this building is. If it were an office building screaming 'look at me, look at me' smack dab in the center of Times Square, would anyone give it more than 5 seconds of air time?
When I see it entering the LES from the W'Burg bridge, I can't help but stare at it like a car-crash... maybe it'll grown on us.
Remember the Huntington Hartford Museum !!!
the building will look much better and fit into the context of the neighborhood when we have finished bulldozing everything else on the les in about a year and a half from now. in two years this place will be shorter than most of the structures around it and the undesirable minority types will no longer congregate in the area. until then. cheers.
reminds me of when snakes eat a big animal and you can see the lump on it.
It's amazing that we are all talking about the same building. Personally I think Blue is an interesting looking building and a welcome addition to a neighborhood that could use a little architectural diversity. I haven't spoken to anyone yet who thinks otherwise. Perhaps some--not all--people who are opposed to the gentrification of the neighborhood, which developments like Blue represent, take out their frustration by criticizing Blue.
The anti-Blue passion reminds me of the way Yankee fans talk about the Mets and visa versa--like they just can't admit that both are good teams. At the very least Blue is a brand new building that looks quite different than most large new developments that I've seen get built on the LES in recent years. I'm tired of seeing some squat boring building like Avalon Bay or Crossroads or worse yet, some developer adding a few additional stories on top of some old tenement.
I suppose that this is all human nature. Perhaps marketing Blue as such a ground breaking building was a "red" flag to most people who criticize this structure on this website. It's sort of like "W" saying, "bring it on." I recall that when the World Trade Center was first built, most people thought those buildings looked ugly too.
Full content feed
