New York Times Tower - 620 Eighth Avenue @ W. 41st Street - by Renzo Piano

[sfenn1117]

It would be a terrible move by Ratner. Is cost that much of an issue for the glass screens? Is he not making a large enough profit on this project? Give me a break. The screens were an integral componet of the tower as a whole, imo. It will be a lost opportunity.

He might as well nix the spire too, which will now look even more ridiculous.

[ZippyTheChimp]

That quote only states that the garden will be eliminated, but we have already begun to villify Ratner for being a cheapskate in removing the crown and the spire.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I wonder how much a rooftop garden costs.....

[londonlawyer]

That quote only states that the garden will be eliminated, but we have already begun to villify Ratner for being a cheapskate in removing the crown and the spire.

The quote is not clear. Your interpretation is reasonable, and I hope that it's correct.

[Citytect]

It seems to me that the quote is primarily about the rooftop garden. Therefore, the reference to the "extensions of the building's glass curtain wall" is simply there for descriptive value. The author is describing what the garden would have been like not reporting the loss of the building's crown. It would be much more newsworthy if the crown was eliminated. I don't think that information would be hidden in a reference to to the garden.

[RS085]

what i got from the quote was that only the garden is eliminated. not gonna lie, a bit disappointed here. and since were on the subject, will the double floor on top be lit up? ive seen some renderings showing it. big plus if it is.

[RS085]

http://www.levettandbailey.com/images/projects/B-New-York.jpg

[evil_synth]

Just a question on the final height when it is completed: WiredNewYork says it's going to be 1142 ft., and so does emporis (last I checked), and someone on Wikipedia had it as 1042 ft. I corrected it (or so I thought) but a couple days later I was looking through Wikipedia and someone changed it back to 1042 ft. am I missing something on the height?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City

[NoyokA]

Just a question on the final height when it is completed: WiredNewYork says it's going to be 1142 ft., and so does emporis (last I checked), and someone on Wikipedia had it as 1042 ft. I corrected it (or so I thought) but a couple days later I was looking through Wikipedia and someone changed it back to 1042 ft. am I missing something on the height?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City


1,042 is the correct height.

[RS085]

ssp and emporis have it listed at 1,046ft...


and i just clicked those links.......wiki also says 1,046ft.

The transparent glass tower, designed by Renzo Piano, will rise 748 feet (228 m) from the street to its roof, but the exterior curtain wall will extend 92 feet higher to 840 feet (256 m), and a mast will extend up to 1,046 feet (319 m).

[panderson]

If the glass crown had been eliminated, would Forest City Ratner still be featuring renderings WITH the crown on its website (http://www.newyorktimesbuilding.com). I don't think so. And is it possible that cutting the crown would have merited only this one back-handed mention in a single newspaper article? Very doubtful. You're misreading the Times article and, I might add, going to pieces over nothing.

That said, it is too bad the garden was eliminated -- it sounded like it would have been a breath-taking space. But I presume the building's tenants would be the only people allowed up there. If I'm not mistaken, there will be a public garden at ground level, in roughly the center the low-rise portion of the building. From the diagrams it appears it will be accessible from the entrances on 40th and 41st Streets.

[Dagrecco82]

As of June 10th.

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/2586/img08996zb.jpg

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/590/img09331vn.jpg

[kz1000ps]

Hot shots -- definitely right-mouse-click quality.

In the first shot, notice how Times Square Tower's slanted black "crown" breaks the difference in height between NYTimes and Conde Nast near perfectly. I was hoping for one more "X" worth of floors, but it apparently has topped out, and the main body does nothing to stick out from the Midtown Mass.

Add another 6-7 stories of height for the crown and it will peak out enough, but I wonder how transparent it will be. I wonder this because if it is mostly opaque, it will look like a continuation of the building, and thus people will "read" the tower as being taller, above the plateau, than the other possibility. If not, it will add to the clutter of the skyline, e.g., Conde Nast's broadcasting structure -- not good IMO.

I guess it's all up to BOA now. And recalling this image..

http://www.nycityscape.com/images/onebryantpark/thesouth.jpg

..I think it will do the trick.

[RS085]

BOA? of course. Its on its way.

As for the NYTimes, it has topped out technically, based on floors, since the remaining is a double, then the mighty crown. It should stand out enough. Im seeing the double floor on top being completely lit in the renderings.

[Dagrecco82]

Thanks, KZNYC2K. I like the way Madam Tussaud's hand sticks out onto 42nd St. on the 1st pic.

[ablarc]

Empire State Building looks good lording it over a bunch of underlings. Don't understand this fetish about keeping it surrounded by low buildings.

[czsz]

It's really not as majestic if only the crown peeks out. Witness the view from uptown:

http://www.pbase.com/czsz/image/30419473.jpg

Even less conspicuous:

http://www.pbase.com/czsz/image/51657982.jpg

By comparison, a shot across the "lowlands" below 34th St:

http://www.pbase.com/czsz/image/41963952.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/czsz/image/41952394.jpg

It really benefits from the breathing space. It's unfortunate that the encased Chrysler doesn't enjoy the same.

[ablarc]

Those foreground buildings in the first photo are miles from the ESB.

I understand the argument and have never been convinced. ESB has always seemed lonely to me. Wish it had some company.

[stache]

What is this building? I can't place it. Thanks!

[Dagrecco82]

What is this building? I can't place it. Thanks!

Millennium Towers North.

[lofter1]

Isn't that building in question ^^ down around 34th / 7th?

[kz1000ps]

Dagrecco is right. This, along with the Nelson Tower at 34th and 7th (the one Lofter thought it was) are two decent art deco buildings that seem to fly under everyone's radar. Probably because I almost always enter Manhattan by way of Penn Station, I've always admired the Nelson Tower, and it's a personal favorite.

This one, though, is on the bland/forgettable side. Yesteryear's equivalent of a large suburban office building.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=115560

[stache]

I have probably walked by it a thousand times but only looked at the base. One of our great 'background buildings', as the Times would say.

[londonlawyer]

I approached the Times Tower from the east on June 12, 2006 while the sun was setting, and for the first time, I noticed that the east and west facades do shimmer in sunlight as in the renderings. The building looked superb!

[CARLOS]

today june 13, 2006
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0094.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0095.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0096.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0097.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0099.jpg

[ablarc]

Definitely shimmers.

[krulltime]

TIMES TOWER FILLING UP
BIG LAW FIRM IS LATEST PROSPECT, EYES 20-YEAR LEASE


http://www.nypost.com/photos/comm061406036.jpg
LEGAL EAGLES: A second high-profile
law firm is close to inking a lease for
several floors in the Renzo Piano-
designed New York Times tower.


Lois Weiss
June 14, 2006

THE New York Times Building at 620 Eighth Ave. is on a roll and close to landing another big name law firm to its roster.

Covington & Burling is reviewing a lease for about 160,000 feet on floors 39 through 43.

Sources said the 20-year pact will include options for floors 44 and 45.

Studley Chairman Mitch Steir, with David Goldstein, is leading a gaggle of brokers representing Covington & Burling, which would relocate from 1330 Sixth Ave.

A CB Richard Ellis team lead by Tri-State CEO Mary Ann Tighe and Howard Fiddle are representing developer Forest City Ratner.

None of the players would comment on the deal.

Last week, Forest City said it would buy out its partner, ING, for the 700,000 feet above the Times headquarters.

Forest City will then control floors 29 through 52 and the 24,000 feet of ground floor retail.

The law firm Seyfarth Shaw has already grabbed 100,000 feet on floors 31, 32 and 33 for the next 17 years.


Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.

[londonlawyer]

Based upon the stellar activity in this building, 505 5th, and the BofA, it seems that the time is ripe for speculative office construction! Obviously, a bank couldn't lend to any schlep for a spec. project, but with an entity with a proven track record for success (e.g., FCRC, Durst, Zeckendorf, Macklowe, Kipp-Stawski, etc.) it's a no lose proposition.

[lofter1]

And great to see that "Mary Poppins" is moving into the nabe ...

[jeffpark]

in regards to "505 Fifth"
is it the office part 100-fully leased?

[LeCom]

June 14, 2006

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1762/dsc01905nyttucjun06nightoriont.jpg

[RS085]

yo lecom, its spook, nice shot.

this is also my aim name if u wanna hit me up. i gotta head into the city tomorrow so ill get some pics if i can find my cam.

[LeCom]

thanks spook

[lofter1]

They have started to install the exterior lighting ... three small spot lights (now bright yellow) can be seen attached to the cross beams on the lower floors of the "bump-out" section on the 40th St. facade. They are aimed diagonally towards the section with the "X" cross-braces.

Today I asked a workman what they were and he said, "Lights -- they'll be going all the way up".

(Presumably they'll be painted grey.)

[TREPYE]

Looking at that picture the Orion looks as bland as a glass of warm water. What a crappy tower. I wish it were much shorter.





http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1762/dsc01905nyttucjun06nightoriont.jpg

[lofter1]

If that photo had been taken about 30 minutes earlier you would see what a shiny bright presence the Orion has in the sunlight.

[LeCom]

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/06/467918.jpg

[lofter1]

gorgeous ^^

[TonyO]

NY Post

BUILDING HOPE FOR AILING TIMES

By JANET WHITMAN


June 21, 2006 -- As the New York Times continues to struggle amid weak advertising demand, business is looking up in a surprising corner: real estate.
The Gray Lady's much-maligned splurge on a new Midtown headquarters is proving a winning bet, the Times' two top execs boasted yesterday at a conference sponsored by the Newspaper Association of America.

"I'm happy to report - I know this may come as a shock to most of you - the headquarters is actually turning out to be an attractive financial investment," said Len Forman, chief finanical officer of the Times.

The building, located on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets, is slated to open on time and under budget, he said.

Also, with the real estate market heating up, the company now has an investment worth considerably more than the $600 million it plunked down for the first 28 floors of the 52-storey tower.

"We'll be looking at ways to realize the gains once the building is completed," Forman said.

Executives added that a series of layoffs over the past 18 months has freed up at least four floors that the company plans to rent out.

That would amount to more than 125,000 square feet for lease in a "very, very hot Midtown real-estate market," Forman said.

Times Chief Executive Janet Robinson said the property is so hot that About.com staffers will be staying in their less expensive downtown location, rather than moving into the new building.

The Times, which will get its name on the building, will own and operate the bottom floors, while developer Bruce Ratner will own the top floors.

Workers at the Gray Lady are slated to move into the new building in the spring of 2007. The old location on 43rd Street - home to the flagship paper since 1913 - was sold to Tishman Speyer Properties in 2004.

In New York Stock Exchange trading yesterday, shares fell 19 cents to $23.41.

[antinimby]

...an attractive financial investment," said Len Forman, chief finanical officer of the Times.Notice he is only referring to the investment being attractive but not necessarily the building. ;)

[RS085]

took nj transit in yesterday, walkin out onto 7th this thing pops right out.

no camera though. ****

[kliq6]

it sad that this building is the only thing that will make a huge profit for the NY Times, when the sublease that space that will help that quarters result. I always thought that based on what they have on 43rd street that they had taken to many floors.

[RS085]

after seeing this last week, im assuming its topped out. all thats left is the double floor/roof/crown.

[pianoman11686]

For some reason, the ceramic rods are not installed yet on the lower floors. I believe they are not supposed to be on the first floor, but from what I recall, the rods begin on the fifth floor. Maybe they're holding off with the installation until major construction is completed. In any case, the lower floors don't look as good right now.

[krulltime]

Another law firm headed to new Times headquarters;
324,000 square feet of space in tower now leased by lawyers


By Tom Acitelli
June 29, 2006

A Canadian law firm is the latest tenant -- and latest law firm -- to lease space in the new New York Times headquarters at 41st Street and Eighth Avenue. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, a Toronto-based business law firm, agreed on Thursday to take for 15 years 64,000 square feet of space on floors 36 and 37.

Developer Forest City Ratner, which is building the tower with the New York Times Company, announced the lease.

Forest City Ratner owns floors 29 through 52 in the 52-story tower. The Times owns the rest. Occupancy in the tower is expected by the middle of 2007.

The developer has already leased space in the tower to two other law firms. In the last month, Forest City Ratner has signed agreements with international law firm Covington & Burling for 160,000 square feet on five floors and with national law firm Seyfarth Shaw for 100,000 square feet on three floors.

Forest City Ratner was represented in the Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt deal by CB Richard Ellis. Newmark Knight Frank advised the law firm.


Copyright © 2003-2005 The Real Deal

[antinimby]

That shows how dumb these New York developers can be, waiting for the stupid signed tenant before building. Ha!
This damn building doesn't even have all its clothes on yet and they're getting leases left and right.
Hear that Milstein? And that goes for whichever idiot owns the flea market lot next to the Bush Tower as well.

[alibrot]

That shows how dumb these New York developers can be, waiting for the stupid signed tenant before building. Ha!
This damn building doesn't even have all its clothes on yet and they're getting leases left and right.
Hear that Milstein? And that goes for whichever idiot owns the flea market lot next to the Bush Tower as well.

first, i think milstein knows exactly what he's doing. he's gonna make 9 figures flipping the property.

developers are out to maximize profit, and minimize risk. investors want to know the building is viable before they finance it. an anchor tenant lowers that risk. i'm sure a lot of them remember the 80s, when anchor tenants were an afterthought, and this resulted in lenders owning more buildings than they knew what to do with. since it isnt a free for all these days, and experienced developers are building, projects wont fail like that. not sure why things havent changed. maybe its simply minimizing exposure on these super projects. REITs such as Vornado will buy whole neighborhoods (MSG area) but developers dont seem to be interested in that kind of exposure. We'll see what happens if office rents keep climbing.

i am not sure why a massive condo can be built, or huge hotel to condo conversions are done, but office space cannot be built without anchor tenants. maybe it's cause condos are sold off within a couple years of the project.

that said, gary barnett has a 30+ office tower going up on 46th street w/o a tenant.

[RS085]

http://www.tvn-ny.com/e107_plugins/autogallery/Gallery/Gebouwen%20New%20York/IMG_3186.JPG

http://www.tvn-ny.com/e107_plugins/autogallery/Gallery/Gebouwen%20New%20York/IMG_3187.JPG

http://www.tvn-ny.com/e107_plugins/autogallery/Gallery/Gebouwen%20New%20York/IMG_3185.JPG

[pianoman11686]

That's a great angle for the building. It looks slimmer and taller.

[lofter1]

Nice ^^^ In the first one you can see the res. tower going up on W. 31st (to the right of TT).

Pics taken from the FILM Building on 9th Ave.?????????

[lbjefferies]

Nice shots RS. This building looks attractive from afar, especially when juxtaposed against the horrific Hilton hotel behind it. Of course a pile of trash looks good when compared to that building.

But this may be one of the few skyscrapers in the world that looks best when viewed up close. This picture posted by Lecom a few days ago was breathtaking.



https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/06/467918.jpg


Its unfortunate that the light, transparant feeling this building is capable of and that this picture reveals doesn't work quite as well when viewed from a dsitance. Maybe it will come together once the spire is completed.

[antinimby]

first, i think milstein knows exactly what he's doing. he's gonna make 9 figures flipping the property.It could also be dumb luck. The economy might have tanked during that time period and the results would have been very different.


developers are out to maximize profit, and minimize risk. investors want to know the building is viable before they finance it. an anchor tenant lowers that risk. i'm sure a lot of them remember the 80s, when anchor tenants were an afterthought, and this resulted in lenders owning more buildings than they knew what to do with. since it isnt a free for all these days, and experienced developers are building, projects wont fail like that. not sure why things havent changed. maybe its simply minimizing exposure on these super projects. REITs such as Vornado will buy whole neighborhoods (MSG area) but developers dont seem to be interested in that kind of exposure. We'll see what happens if office rents keep climbing.This cautious set of statements could've been said 3 years ago. How much more should the rents climb before it is smart to build speculatively? When it's $ 500/sf, you'd probably be saying let's wait until 600. When it's 600, well, maybe we should wait for 700, you'll say. Your kind of thinking will never get anything done. In economics, there is such a thing as a cost of lost opportunity, this is the cost for not doing anything.


i am not sure why a massive condo can be built, or huge hotel to condo conversions are done, but office space cannot be built without anchor tenants. maybe it's cause condos are sold off within a couple years of the project.You sound like someone who would've told the Wright brothers that human contraptions can never fly because many others before them have tried and failed and so that's how it should be.
505 Fifth Ave. was built speculatively and Kipp-Stawski had no trouble signing up tenants to fill up their building even before it opened.

[Jasonik]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Jasonik/NYTTpano.jpg

[kliq6]

Milstein was not the idiot the NYS EDC was the idiot for selling the rights to a prime spot to a guy that hadnet built anything at that time in 15 years, now its close to 20 years. They should have taken Durst offer, which was just 8.5 million lower.

[alibrot]

You sound like someone who would've told the Wright brothers that human contraptions can never fly because many others before them have tried and failed and so that's how it should be.
505 Fifth Ave. was built speculatively and Kipp-Stawski had no trouble signing up tenants to fill up their building even before it opened.

haha, dont shoot the messanger. i said that i do not understand fully the difference of speculating on massive hotel condo conversions vs speculating on an office building, but that it could be that there is only so much sq ft in a massive office project that one developer wants exposure to. 505 5th is small - 275k sq feet vs anchor tenant projects - 1.5M NYT building and 2.5M BoA. Milstein's is 850k, but i dont think lack of an anchor tenant is all that derailed. he placed a bet on the price of land, and won big.

i am well aware of opportunity costs, but there are many holes in the ground in nyc because developers think the best opportunity has yet to arrive.

[JMGarcia]

It usually isn't the developer but the banks that lend the developer the money to build that have strict lending requirements including pre-leased space.

[GLNY]

Nice pictures, but where's the "shimmer" in this "jewel"? I suppose the photographer was working outside the 20-minute period prior to sundown.

Daylight offers a more forbidding perspective suggesting stacked embrasures in a blockhouse. Brutal.

[pianoman11686]

From www.therealdeal.net:

June 30, 2:05 pm

Topping out of new Times building delayed

The July 5 topping-out ceremony for the new New York Times headquarters at 41st Street and Eighth Avenue has been postponed. Forest City Ratner, the developer building the tower with the New York Times Company, said on Friday afternoon that ongoing labor negotiations with Local 14, the Operating Engineers Union, had caused the postponement. The topping-out will be rescheduled, Forest City Ratner said.

By Tom Acitelli

[jeffpark]

i am sorry Bruce but the building looks like CRAP

[NYguy]

JULY 2, 2006

The tower nears its peak on the skyline...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/62856300/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/62856304/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/62856300/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/62856305/large.jpg


Through the signature of the GE Building...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/62856315/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/62856317/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/62856315/large.jpg

[krulltime]

^ Nice shots! What building where you at?

[stache]

30 Rock, yes?

[NYguy]

30 Rock, yes?

Correct. I was in the area, and the Top of the Rock beckoned...

[ablarc]

That must be the "E" in "GE." What a weak, sorry logo that is, compared with yesterday's commanding R C A .

[lofter1]

so true ^^

[kz1000ps]

I've always about the same with the Pan Am sign versus today's MetLife. The font of Pan Am's was somehow much cooler.

[lofter1]

PAN AM much classier ...

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID030-Pan_Am_Bldg.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/030-metlife.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID030.htm

[lofter1]

Original RCA so much better than the current GE ...

http://www.nycpostcards.net/images/hoperock.jpg

http://www.nycpostcards.net/images/hoperock1.jpg

http://www.nycpostcards.net/hope_postcards_rockefeller_center.htm

[Drexel]

What is the building that is being built directly west of the Empire State Building...it shows up in the previous pictures? It looks like its about 50 stories tall and is under construction.....

[ManhattanKnight]

^You've probably spotted 125 West 31st Street (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3321).

[pianoman11686]

Taken today (7/9/06):

http://images1.snapfish.com/34756%3C%3B66%7Ffp33%3B%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A %3B%3EWSNRCG%3D32338%3B%3B%3A55627nu0mrj

[Dagrecco82]

What a handsome-looking building!

[NYatKNIGHT]

7/3

http://www.pbase.com/image/63109530.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1289/nytimes27c8in.th.jpg (http://img160.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes27c8in.jpg) http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3051/nytimes28c1of.th.jpg (http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes28c1of.jpg) http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3796/nytimes29c6ml.th.jpg (http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes29c6ml.jpg) http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1251/nytimes30c5jx.th.jpg (http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes30c5jx.jpg)

[lofter1]

What the heck is that cinderblock thing in the foreground of the 2nd picture?

A new McSam Hotel development :confused:

[pianoman11686]

GlobeSt.com (http://www.globest.com/news/629_629/newyork/147316-1.html)

Last updated: July 13, 2006 01:04pm

New York Times Tops Tower

By Tom Sosnowski

NEW YORK CITY-The New York Times Building received its final beam today, completing the steel frame of the 52-story, 1.6-million-sf tower under construction at the junction of Eight Avenue and 41st Street. The beam was signed by the construction workers who took part in the building, as well as executives from co-owners Forest City Ratner Cos. and the New York Times.
FCRC owns 700,000 sf of the building, which includes floors 28 though 52 as well as 21,000 sf of ground-floor retail space. The Times owns and occupies the rest of the building, which will serve as its corporate headquarters.

“So far we are about 50% leased right now, with a lot of interest,” MaryAnne Gilmartin, executive VP of commercial and residential development for FCRC, tells GlobeSt.com. She adds that the pricing at the top of the building is in the $95-per-sf range. Key tenants already onboard are law firms Covington & Burling (160,000 sf); Seyfarth Shaw (100,000); and Osler, Hoskins & Hardcourt (64,000 sf).

Copyright © 2006 ALM Properties, Inc.

[sfenn1117]

Still no word on whether the crown has been nixed or not.

[Dagrecco82]

I hope not, the crown will help it push through that plateau.

[Citytect]

The crown will be built. The rooftop garden will not. There propably won't be an article stating 'Yes, NY Times crown is a go' because it's not news. The crown was never in question.

[sfenn1117]

Since the crown is a mere extension of the glass facade, I assume work won't begin on it until the entire tower is fully cladded?

[mgp]

The crown will definitely built. The rooftop garden will likely be built as an amenity to whomever leases the top floor.

[krulltime]

I really hope they do the rooftop garden. That will be nice. It will be visible from the Empire State building. I would bring my binoculars.

[RS085]

courtesy of chad ssc 7/4:

http://static.flickr.com/53/188839312_8ff24687e5_b.jpg

[alibrot]

What the heck is that cinderblock thing in the foreground of the 2nd picture?

A new McSam Hotel development :confused:

lofter, looks like that cinderblock deal an upgraded apartment building thats taking some time, but coming along (the arrow points to it). It's right next to a huge plot on 10th ave between 37th and 38th. Notice the 3 windows in the back. The 3 buildings marked with a X have already been demolished and there will probably be ~500 rentals built on the site.

http://www.adam2000.com/wired/newplot2.jpg

[stache]

Is that the block in the foreground where they have the Portobello flea market?

[alibrot]

the flea market is one block north of the block in the foreground..on 39th street

[lofter1]

... looks like that cinderblock deal an upgraded apartment building thats taking some time, but coming along (the arrow points to it).

DOB (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?passdocnumber=1&passjobnumber=103347870&requestid=3) seems to indicate that it's 446 W. 38th, a lot that's ~ 25' x 98':


Job Description:
FILING FOR ZONING AND CODE APPROVAL OF THREE STORY VERTICAL ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING 5 STORY BUILDING. Building Dimension:

No. Stories: 7
Height: 71
Dwelling Units: 4
Total Gross Area of Building: 11,939 Sq. Ft.

[LeCom]

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/5825/pict0048nyttucjul06tothewestlookingupsmallvv5.jpg

One of the x-beams waiting on the truck
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1954/pict0049nyttucjul06beamssmallhf4.jpg

[alibrot]

DOB (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?passdocnumber=1&passjobnumber=103347870&requestid=3) seems to indicate that it's 446 W. 38th, a lot that's ~ 25' x 98':




Job Description:
FILING FOR ZONING AND CODE APPROVAL OF THREE STORY VERTICAL ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING 5 STORY BUILDING. yep, thats whats going on. the new facade looks great too...once its done and unveiled it will be quite nice. i dont know what they will do with the side, as another building will be adjacent to it eventually.

[pianoman11686]

http://images1.snapfish.com/34763%3C948%7Ffp33%3B%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A%3 B%3EWSNRCG%3D323394%3B478%3A69nu0mrj

[kz1000ps]

^ What a putrid base on that Westin.

Taken by The Cheat (SSP) on the 16th. His original caption was "hot enough for ya?"

http://www.svmetro.com/photos/nyc-2006-07/weehawken-nyt.jpg

Taken by Giovanni Sasso (SSP) also on the 16th

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/391/nycnytuc2ku6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5514/nycnytuc1vs9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^ Impressive

[pianoman11686]

Thanks for including those. I've never seen the Times from that perspective in the 2nd pic. I'm guessing it's from an upper floor on a 6th avenue residential somewhere in the 30's. Also, it's always nice to see it in relation to the Orion to get a sense of how truly massive this building is.

[kz1000ps]

I asked Gio over at SSP where he took them from just a bit ago, so we'll see. But as you said, it is intersting to see it's relation to the Orion. Aerial shots are probably the best thing out there, but shots from this level are almost even more fascinating to take in.

[Dagrecco82]

Is that the double mechanical floor in those pics? So the curtain wall will rise from that floor?

[kz1000ps]

It looks that way.

One more from SSP, again by The Cheat, July 12th.
Hazy humid canyon..

http://www.svmetro.com/photos/nyc-2006-07/nyt-3.jpg

[pianoman11686]

Time for some close-ups. The lowrise portion:

http://images1.snapfish.com/34764%3A496%7Ffp339%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A%3B% 3EWSNRCG%3D3233964756%3B77nu0mrj


http://images1.snapfish.com/34764%3A496%7Ffp339%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A%3B% 3EWSNRCG%3D3233964756%3B78nu0mrj


http://images1.snapfish.com/34764%3A496%7Ffp343%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A%3B% 3EWSNRCG%3D3233964756%3B7%3Anu0mrj


The northwest corner of the tower:

http://images1.snapfish.com/34764%3A496%7Ffp343%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A%3B% 3EWSNRCG%3D323396476%3B827nu0mrj

[Muscatinho]

I was lucky enough to take a tour of the building July 14, 2006 (I know someone who works at the Times).
The first one is of the future lobby (facing Eighth Ave.):
2083
The second faces north from the 52nd floor:
2085
Facing south (duh...):
2086
I love this picture of the Empire State:
2087
The abyss over the edge when they opened the gate. I didn't want to get too close!
2088

2089

The aluminum underfloor on the 52nd floor:
2090

I love the view of the Westin Hotel through the mesh in the elevator going down in the next two pictures.

2091

2092

2084

2085

2086

Hope you enjoy these. I've got plenty more but I've hit my limit for attachments. I've also been taking pictures of the building and the area since 2000 from a rooftop on 39th and Ninth. I'll try to post them as well as soon as I learn how to manage the posting limits.

[kz1000ps]

Yowza - what a great first post! Welcome aboard, Muscatinho. The pics of the Empire State Building and Jersey City have a classy classic vibe to them - very nice.

And what a great 25 hours it's been for photos of this building, in quantity and quality.

[lofter1]

Time for some close-ups. The lowrise portion ...

Nice ...

Those just might stifle the complainers who've said the low-rise section looks like a parking garage.

[lofter1]

I was lucky enough to take a tour of the building ...

More luck to ya ... Thanks for the great pics.

Unfortunate for NY Times how 1 Penn Plaza obliterates downtown.

But that view of the ESB -- mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[kz1000ps]

Those just might stifle the complainers who've said the low-rise section looks like a parking garage.

I don't know. I saw it in person with Brooklyn Rider and we both had the same negative impressions on it..

And what's with the rust?

[Muscatinho]

Now that I understand how the attachments limits work, here are a few more pictures, this time of the interior on the lower floors.

First picture is of the fifth floor, I think:

2093

This is another view of the Westin, this time through the (dirty) window on a lower floor:

2094

This is the fourteenth floor, where the cafeteria will be:

2095

The next four pictures are of the underfloor, which has apparently been the subject of some discussion on this forum. My understanding (but I didn't really focus on the explanation when it was given) is that all plumbing, A/C, is in the underfloor, which is 18-24 inches high (you can see what it looks like in the second picture below). The windows are flush with the underfloor, i.e., visually floor to ceiling.

2096

2097

2098

2100

The last two pictures are from the roof of my apartment building at 39th and Ninth, taken right after the tour on July 14th:

2101

2102

I have a collection of views from that perch dating back to 2000 when the Westin hotel was being built, including monthly (approximately) pictures taken of the NYT building as it's gone up. I'll post a selection if there's an interest.

[lofter1]

How did you find the experience of looking out through the windows / rods?

On the office floors does it feel open? Or does the curtain wall of rods create an enclosed effect?

And how is it looking through the windows that have a completely covered rod-screen?

Finally -- any pics of the views towards the Hudson / NJ from the upper floors?

[NoyokA]

Even if the NYTIMES Building is a stunner from the outside, it'll be form in the face of function as this view is needlessly blocked...

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2094&d=1153281952

[lofter1]

If you look at Moscatinho's 8th & 9th shots (full building shots) it seems that particular "blocked' view is only at the edge of the curtain rod facade on each floor -- and other than what seems to be complete "rod coverage" on the lower mid-block section / (possibly) the tower cafeteria floor there aren't large expanses where the views are similarly obstructed by the rods.

[NoyokA]

If you look at Moscatinho's 8th & 9th shots (full building shots) it seems that particular "blocked' view is only at the edge of the curtain rod facade on each floor -- and other than what seems to be complete "rod coverage" on the lower mid-block section / (possibly) the tower cafeteria floor there aren't large expanses where the views are similarly obstructed by the rods.

Okay... Those shots look just like the renderings, which I can assure you is nothing new to me. I'm not exactly sure what your point is as that wont change the view of the second shot. The only view that seems to be unobstructed by bars (more accurate description) will be the executives corner office.

[Muscatinho]

http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/newyorktimes.htm

Sorry if you've seen this link already but it seems to me that it addresses most of your questions/issues about lighting and functionality.

Check out these images of what the window system looks like (taken from http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID125C.htm):

2103

2104

My experience in the building was that while it wasn't exactly a "floating in the air" experience as would be the case if it were clear glass, it was quite airy. Notwithstanding the single picture I posted which was far from typical (I posted it because I liked the "arty" view of the Westin), there is plenty of clear glass for views.

As the info in my first link indicates, there were many ergonomic and energy saving issues addressed by the system that was ultimately developed for the NYT building. I don't know if they will achieve what they attempted to achieve when the building is finished but I have no reason at this point to doubt it. As for the subjective sensation of the space, I did not experience the rods as constraining in an unpleasant way -- but don't forget the interior is completely unfinished and it's very unfair to come to any conclusions yet.

[Jake]

^I loved the Trade Center dearly but the shitty little windows were unbearable, looks like NYT might be heading in the same direction.

[NoyokA]

^I loved the Trade Center dearly but the shitty little windows were unbearable, looks like NYT might be heading in the same direction.

Excellent observation. The World Trade Center had limited visibility because of structural considerations, the NYTIMES for an expensive climatic experiment.

[lofter1]

... the shitty little windows were unbearable, looks like NYT might be heading in the same direction.

Nothing that Muscatinho wrote after actually being in the Times building backs up your supposition.

[Jake]

^I'm saying that based on the photos. From what I understand about the system is that these "smart blinds" will essentially adjust to the time of day, right? That tells me 2 things, one, that constantly changing rods will take away the "what's ahppening outside while sipping coffee" to the "what are the rods doing" and two, that you will essentially never have a true unobstructed view outside.

Now I thought there for a second that one of the reasons for having a Manhattan skyscraper was the panoramic view outside, which in this case seems sub-par. To add insult to injury you can't even roll them up as you would with conventional blinds.

The Trade Center for example was by far the worst building to work in that I've seen. Disregarding the fact that you had to take multiple elevators to get anywhere there was the simple dreadful interior design of the place. If you go to 30 Hudson they have open space and a great open view out the windows. Even the best offices in the Trade Center had windows that are no larger than my bathroom window which gave the whole place a kind of a "closet" feeling.

It's true that Times has horizontal rods vs vertical at the towers but the basic principle still applies. Buildings with obstructed views are not great places to be in.

We'll see, maybe the Times will indeed get higher worker efficiency and maybe everyone will feel better thanks to this system BUT any skyscraper fan who likes to sneak a peak at the skyline outside every now and then might be in for a big dissapointment.

[lofter1]

The rods don't move ...

There will be internal shades that go up and down.

[Muscatinho]

Jake, ss Lofter just said, the rods don't move. If you read the link I provided (http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/newyorktimes.htm), you'll see the following:
"low-iron, water-white, double-pane spectrally selective glass forms the inner wall of the façade. Placed 1.5 feet off the face of this glazed façade are horizontal exterior ceramic rods spaced at variable center-to-center distances. The rods are 5 feet long and 1-5/8 inches in diameter. They are tightly spaced at the spandrel and open as they rise to eye level. These rods shade the upper and lower portions of the main glazed facade on each floor. A vision portion of the window wall from 2.9 to 6.6 feet above the floor is left open for view for a standing or seated occupant."

I also find it puzzling that people on this forum insist on saying that the views are obstructed. In fact, the goals of the shade design -- NOT the rod design (because the rods only obstruct the top and bottom of the windows are:

"The shades and shade controls scope of work is based upon the philosophy that occupants of commercial office buildings prefer natural light to electric light. The shade system goals for The New York Times Building are:
Maximize natural light
Maximize occupant connectivity with the outdoors, i.e. external views
Intercept sunlight penetration so as to avoid direct solar radiation on the occupants
Maintain a glare free environment
Provide occupant manual override capability
On any given façade the shades are as a general rule expected to be controlled together to the same bottom-of-hem height The overall intent is to keep the shades up as much of the time as is possible without causing thermal or visual discomfort. Thermal comfort is assured by solar tracking and the geometry of the external sun screens. Visual comfort is assured by managing the luminance on the window wall. The manual override system has been specified based upon post occupancy evaluations of office building occupants with automated shade systems. The number one recorded complaint in these studies was the inability of an occupant to operate a shade or group of shades when necessary." (Same source as above).


I currently work on a trading floor with two story high floor to ceiling glass window walls. The views of the outside can be nice (I happen to sit next to the window) but it's a constant hassle with heat, excessive glare from the sun, etc., all the issues that Piano and the Times team tried to address. There's always someone on the floor who wants the shades down while others want them up. I'd trade for an office or a seat on the floor at the NYT building any day.

[lofter1]

Three cheers to you, Muscatinho, for the clarification.

[Ninjahedge]

i was wondering what they were. It seems like they are to try to block and diffuse some of the direct sunlight so it is not like a greenhouse during daylight hours while at the same time not providing 100% occlusion of what it is blocking....

I think the idea is an interesting one, but I do not care for the look.

Personal opinion.

[aural iNK]

The views of the outside can be nice (I happen to sit next to the window) but it's a constant hassle with heat, excessive glare from the sun, etc., all the issues that Piano and the Times team tried to address.

I think you made a good point here and I have to agree. The function of this building is to offer a healthy and enjoyable work environment that will boost morale and productivity amongst employees. It wasn't designed to be a platform to simply take in the skyline. If the design works, then I believe this system is a great solution. A few rods are much better than the drywall that I look at every day, that's for sure.

In my opinion, the adjustable blinds are a nice touch as well. I highly doubt that anyone is constantly adjusting the blinds in most offices to allow the most acceptable amount of light at any given time. In the long run, you'll probably be able to see out more often than if stationary blinds were in place.

[TallGuy]

Kudos to the architects if the rods work. If I worked there though, the bar-effect would make me feel like I was in jail!

Also, How do they intend to clean them and the windows externally?

I wonder if the bars will be subject to birds sitting on them and leaving droppings that will need to be cleaned. At least they should prevent Al-Queda connected birds from flying into the windows.

[TREPYE]

Also, How do they intend to clean them and the windows externally?

I wonder if the bars will be subject to birds sitting on them and leaving droppings that will need to be cleaned.

YIKES!! :eek: I haven't thought of that, good observation TallGuy. I could just see the masses of birds doing their business on these rods. LOL, this thing may end up looking like a giant pigeon bathroom. At least they will have the newspaper nearby to keep them entertained. Walking on street level peds will be like sitting ducks.

[NoyokA]

YIKES!! :eek: I haven't thought of that, good observation TallGuy. I could just see the masses of birds doing their business on these rods. LOL, this thing may end up looking like a giant pigeon bathroom. At least they will have the newspaper nearby to keep them entertained. Walking on street level peds will be like sitting ducks.

It seems like this building is better suited as a concept as its supposed innovations will backfire in a tough New York environment.

[lofter1]

I wonder if the bars will be subject to birds sitting on them ...

Hmmmm ... the only place where there is enough space for a bird to sit will be at the top rod at the lower part of the window openings ...

Could be a very nice effect for those inside ... little birdies lined up in a row.

The potential poop problem is a new twist ;)

[TallGuy]

Hmmmm ... the only place where there is enough space for a bird to sit will be at the top rod at the lower part of the window openings ...

Could be a very nice effect for those inside ... little birdies lined up in a row.

The potential poop problem is a new twist ;)


Not to be gross, but a bird did its' business on the roof of my car 3 years ago while I assume I was doing highway speed. It created a 6 inch streak, and after baking in the sun until I discovered it, became quite baked on. After numerous car washes, scrubbing attemps, rainy days, etc, the darn thing is still visible.

Even if the birds only use the top bars on some of the windows, this stuff can accumulate and be resistant to most cleaning methods. On a normal building you see the cleaning scaffolds, etc. How do you do this efficiently with NYT? Do they remove the bar panels periodically? I would think you would almost have to hand scrub them. This HAD to be considered, you would think.

[lofter1]

It seems like this building is better suited as a concept as its supposed innovations will backfire in a tough New York environment.

You might be right. but extensive testing / modeling was done regarding the design -- although the experts admit that modeling is difficult due to all of the variables ...

An article from a couple of years ago:

CURTAIN WALLS

Glass Facades Go Beyond Skin Deep
Designers stress the importance of integrating with building systems

Construction.com (http://enr.construction.com/features/buildings/archives/030210.asp)
By Joann Gonchar, with Peter Reina
October 10, 2003

Product developers, building owners and designers are taking a new look at high-performance glass facades as key in creating buildings with improved access to daylight, better indoor air quality and improved energy efficiency. But a facade that helps improve a building's interior environment and limits its loss of energy is not enough, say some sources. A building's skin should be a power generator rather than an energy liability.

"Although glass curtain walls are becoming more and more thermally efficient," says Gregory Kiss, a founder of Kiss + Cathcart Architects, Brooklyn, the goal of creating an energy-conserving facade is one of "diminishing returns." His firm has designed a hypothetical 150-story tower to be built in New York City in 2020 with a skin that would be a source of power. The structure, clad entirely in photovoltaic (PV) panels, would generate 60% of the building's electricity requirements. Wind turbines enclosed in PV louvers would supply the rest.

Although the 2020 tower may seem more like a fantastic vision, Kiss maintains that photovoltaic technology "is ready for prime time." Even now, the least-expensive building-integrated panels cost about $12 per sq ft. "There are many more expensive cladding materials," he says. And despite the fact that many recent high-profile projects use PVs to generate only a small portion of their total power requirements, building-integrated photovoltaics could be common-place in three to five years, he predicts.

"The number-one limitation is education," Kiss says.

Scientists and manufacturers are also looking beyond photovoltaics to the next generation of variable materials. These so-called "smart" glazings dynamically respond to exterior conditions to control daylighting and solar heat gain. The most promising of such switchable technologies for use in buildings is electrochromic glazing, which undergoes a reversible change in optical properties when exposed to light, according to Stephen Selkowitz, head of the building technologies department at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif. The lab is currently using room mock-ups to discover how best to optimize lighting levels under various conditions.

But an energy-efficient building envelope isn't just about the materials. "Limiting solar and thermal transfer requires integrating the facade system with the lighting, mechanical, heating and cooling systems," says facade engineer Maurya McClintock, an Arup associate principal in San Francisco. "If designers look solely to curtain walls as a solution for comfort and energy consumption, they will never achieve the synergy that is possible with integrated design," says Stephen Lee, a professor at the Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

LAGTIME

The U.S. lags Europe in the development of advanced building systems and high-performance facades, due in part to lower energy costs.

Curtain wall technology in the U.S. "is about 10 to 15 years behind," says Alistair Lazenby, technical director of curtain wall contractor Schmidlin A.G., Aesch, Switzerland.

http://enr.construction.com/images/030210-26A.jpg
(Rendering courtesy of Kiss + Cathcart Architects)
POWER PLAY The building can be an energy source
instead of a liability.

Recent legislation, aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with commitments to the Kyoto Accord, will likely increase scrutiny of building envelope performance in Europe, says Cameron Johnstone, a lecturer at the Energy Systems Research Unit at Scotland's Strathclyde University. The directive, enacted last month, applies to renovations and new construction and requires governments to introduce standardized methods for calculating building energy use by 2006. With buildings said to account for a third of energy use by European Union countries, immediate and full implementation of the legislation would allow the EU to achieve, within 10 years, its full Kyoto goal of cutting emissions by 8% below 1990 levels, according to some estimates.

Double-skin facades are a popular approach to all-glass building envelopes in Europe, especially in Germany, where regulations mandate that office workers have access to daylight and fresh air, according to John Durbrow, senior vice president of architect Murphy/Jahn. The Chicago-based firm designed a 40-story, double-skin headquarters building for Deutsche Post in Bonn that was occupied in late December.

The building's envelope consists of an outer layer of laminated glass and an interior layer of double-glazed glass with operable windows, separated by a 1.7-meter gap. Blinds between the two layers, controlled by a building management system, provide protection from solar gain. During the cooling season, warm air is drawn into the gap and purged through outlets located every nine stories. Cooler air on the inside of the blinds is drawn into the office space through fan-coil boxes that further lower the air temperature.

Radiant cooling in the floor slab helps lower the room temperature more before the air is exhausted into an atrium space. During the heating season, the system acts as a buffer, tempering the outdoor air before it is drawn into the offices.

Deutsche Post's double-skin system, along with its integrated approach to heating and cooling, could cut energy use by 50% compared to a building with a single facade and central air conditioning, says Matthias Schuler, principal of Transsolar Energietechnik GmbH, the project's Stuttgart-based climate consultant.

Despite the expected effectiveness of this deep double-skin system, it soon could be replaced by one that is less real estate and capital intensive. Murphy/Jahn plans to use a double-skin system that is only 26 cm deep for a speculative 200-m-tall office tower in Frankfurt set to begin construction in 2005. The goal is to achieve "the same efficiency in a thinner package," says Durbrow.

There are signs that such systems have a future in the U.S., even though low energy costs seem to provide little incentive for owners. In Philadelphia, contractors are nearing completion of a $16.5-million building for the University of Pennsylvania's School of Engineering and Applied Science that is clad with a double-skin system that has a 4-in.-wide cavity between an external double-glazed unit and an interior single-glazed unit.

The architects chose the system in order to maximize the penetration of natural light into the 48,000-sq-ft, six-story building located on a tight site surrounded by several existing structures, while maintaining the thermal comfort of the users. "The university didn't want to fry the occupants in the summer or freeze them in the winter," says Richard Maimon, an associate at KieranTimberlake Associates LLP, Philadelphia.

The unitized wall is tied to the building's mechanical system and helps maintain comfort by using the cavity between the inner and outer glazing as a plenum through which return room air is circulated. This keeps the building's perimeter warm in the winter and cool in the summer. The cavity also houses adjustable blinds that keep out solar radiation.

Permasteelisa SpA, Treviso, Italy, the manufacturer and installer of the panels used at the University of Pennsylvania, sees an expanding market in the U.S. The company will start installing a similar panel system later this month at a Skidmore Owings & Merrill-designed 14-story office building in Boston that will serve as the U.S. headquarters for Toronto-based Manulife Financial, says Roberto Bicchiarelli, executive vice president of Permasteelisa Cladding Technologies, Windsor, Conn. Permasteelisa does not expect much demand for this product from developers or speculative builders since it costs about 20% more than a high-quality standard curtain wall system. "The wall system has a medium- to long-term payback," says Bicchiarelli. which works for owners who occupy buildings for many years.

LEEDING THE WAY

One factor nurturing this embryonic interest in high-performance facades is the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design rating system, known as LEED. The performance-based system, devised by the U.S. Green Buildings Council, Washington, D.C., is designed to evaluate the environmental impact of commercial and institutional buildings and provide a standard for what constitutes a sustainable building.

Seattle is one of several municipal and federal owners that require some level of LEED certification. Because of this mandate, convincing city officials to sacrifice the space required for a 30-in.-deep, 12-story, double-skin facade at the recently completed $70-million Seattle Justice Center was not difficult, according to designers. Although it cost roughly $320,000 more than a traditional facade, "it was an easy sell because the city was motivated by LEED," says Seattle-based Rick Zieve, design principal at architecture firm NBBJ. The cavity, which is independent of the building's mechanical system, helps maintain comfortable perimeter temperatures by trapping solar heat and expelling it through louvers at the top of the wall.

Little post-construction data is available to demonstrate how well double-skin facades work in conserving energy.

Anecdotal evidence suggests they work well. In 1999, Telus, a Canadian telecommunications firm, wrapped an existing concrete framed building in downtown Vancouver, B.C., in a new double-glazed facade as part of a $13-million renovation designed by local architecture firm Busby & Associates. The 42-in. gap between the new "jacket" and the existing building acts as a thermal buffer in much the same way as the double-skin facade at the Seattle Justice Center. On one recent 15°F day, air was evacuated from the top of the cavity at 85°F. "We were throwing energy away because we were creating too much," says Doug Green, special projects manager for Telus.

Sources stress the importance of having the curtain wall contractor's input early in a building project. "The supplier will have a good handle on the manufacturing process as well as an understanding of what can and cannot be achieved," says Arup's McClintock. Although she cautions that the contractor should not be considered a substitute for a facade engineer who can provide an impartial view of components and systems.

As the complexity of wall systems escalates, unusual procurement methods intended to help the owner obtain engineering feedback from the curtain wall contractor are becoming more common. For challenging projects, award of the curtain wall contract before hiring the general contractor is not unheard of, says Lou Niles, president of Benson, a Portland, Ore.-based curtain wall contractor.

http://enr.construction.com/images/030210-29B.jpg
(Photo courtesy of Renzo Piano Building Workshop/ Fox & Fowle Architects)

Benson is competing for the 51-story New York Times building. Its skin will include a screen of horizontal 11?-in.-dia ceramic rods that will start at the second floor and extend beyond the top floor. This "veil" is intended to reflect atmospheric conditions but will also act as a shading device, says Dan Kaplan, principal of Fox & Fowle Architects, New York.

http://enr.construction.com/images/030210-29A.jpg
(Photo courtesy of Benson)
ELABORATE SCREEN Mockups of the
New York Times building's ceramic rod "veil"
informed the curtain wall bid documents.

This past summer, the New York Times project team gave four curtain wall contractors a stipend of $50,000 each to build a mockup of the facade. The mockup process allowed designers to incorporate the contractors' knowledge into the bid documents. "It gave us the benefit of a lot of different thinking and made us feel more certain about the budget," says Bob Sanna, executive vice president of Forest City Ratner Cos., the project's developer, along with the New York Times Co. The project team is now evaluating bids and expects to award the contract in March, in advance of selecting the construction manager, says Sanna.

http://enr.construction.com/images/030210-29C.jpg
(Drawing courtesy of Renzo Piano Building Workshop/ Fox & Fowle Architects)

The growing complexity of curtain walls is revealing the limitations of modeling tools used to optimize design and demonstrate code compliance. "It took us one month to show compliance with the energy code," says Gary Pomerantz, senior vice president, Flack & Kurtz, New York City. The firm is mechanical engineer for the New York Times project. "The three-dimensional skin [with its] moving and overlapping shadows made modeling difficult," he says.

Existing tools work well for modeling complex but conventional curtain walls, says Lawrence Berkeley's Selkowitz. In other words, curtain walls with many layers of glass and several coatings, use laminates or gas fills. But the tools do not reliably predict the performance of dynamic materials such as those that transmit or reflect light in a non-linear manner or systems that have between-pane air cavities. "When you introduce a prismatic daylight control layer or an automated venetian blind with a special reflective surface or a double facade with a complex air flow pattern, these systems are more difficult to model," says Selkowitz. His lab, which has developed much of the software that is in the public domain, is working to add these capabilities.

Stricter U.S. building codes could push more high-performance facades. In 1999, the Building Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, known as ASHRAE 90.1, was overhauled for the first time in a decade. It was revised again in 2001. So far, 13 states have adopted energy standards equal to or stricter than the 1999 version, says Joseph Derringer, chair of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc.'s building envelope subcommittee.

For envelope performance, the main difference between the most recent standards and the 1989 version is more rigorous code language, says Derringer. Although some observers believe that adopting the latest versions of 90.1 will discourage construction of glass buildings, he says the tougher standard "should instead mean more buildings with advanced glass systems."

http://enr.construction.com/images/_.gif
© 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies - All Rights Reserved

[pianoman11686]

Well, a smooth surface like ceramic should be easier to clean than, for example, concrete, or even steel. I'll have to look through some of the earlier posts for any information on this. But getting back to the pigeon problem: aren't they mostly ground-dwellers, anyway?

[JMGarcia]

A friend of mine lives across the street from Piano's tower in Berlin at Potsdammer Platz that has a very, very similar facade treatment. Berlin conditions are just as bad as NY's weather wise, air quality wise, and with birds. They seem to have no problems keeping the facade and windows clean. The building is stunning and still looks like new.

The building, much like the NY Times, looks far, far, far better in person than it does in photographs.

http://www.arplus.com/archive/piano/images/berlin/arjan9935ap.jpghttp://www.foto-menges.de/singles/shop/bigpic/B580.jpg

[stache]

The building, much like the NY Times, looks far, far, far better in person than it does in photographs.


That's good news! So the tubes are ceramic?

[aural iNK]

I'd imagine we'd already be seeing initial signs of any potential problems due to birds and weathering as portions of the curtain wall have been assembled for months now. Looks clean to me.

[Outerbanks Lookout]

Sorry guys I am a little new here. Am I to understand that there is an additional 'veil' that is to go over the current facade, or aesthetically, have we arrived at the final product (or at least a little over half-way)???

[lofter1]

"Yep" to "final product" in terms of the ~ 1/2 facade so far erected

[Johnnyboy]

Quote:
From the Article 7 posts before

His firm has designed a hypothetical 150-story tower to be built in New York City in 2020 with a skin that would be a source of power. The structure, clad entirely in photovoltaic (PV) panels, would generate 60% of the building's electricity requirements. Wind turbines enclosed in PV louvers would supply the rest.


Wish construction of such a building does happen in NYC

[evil_synth]

Yes please. Except make it 2010. :)

[pianoman11686]

From Bryant Park:

http://images1.snapfish.com/34769%3C66%3A%7Ffp33%3B%3Enu%3D3247%3E4%3A5%3E9%3A %3B%3EWSNRCG%3D323397853349%3Bnu0mrj

[kz1000ps]

The Verizon Building almost looks art deco-ey in that picture.

[NYguy]

JULY 22, 2006

It has that towering effect...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/64087355/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/64087360/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/64087355/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/64087360/large.jpg

[finnman69]

I thought it was going to be much more white.

[lofter1]

methinks she's GREY ...

[stache]

Yes I vote for grey too.

[lofter1]

As the sun sets she looks a bit rosey, too.

[stache]

Those cross braces do a lot for the building -

[pianoman11686]

It's grey, and those pictures (no offense, NYguy, you don't control the weather) just don't do the building justice. It needs some sun. Then, it really sparkles.

[finnman69]

methinks she's GREY ...

sort of French Grey

I went by it tonight , it was cool how the sunset was passing through the screen. Only thing that bugs me is the screen seems kind of flat. Defintely interesting, not what i expected though.

[lofter1]

The windows are fantastically reflective in the afternoon sun ... but somehow very liquid.

Like up the tower is almost like looking across a lake on a calm day ...

[pianoman11686]

I walked by this morning, and saw some workers getting ready to hoist up this huge metal cylinder thing. I have no idea what it was. All I can think of is that it has something to do with the antenna. It was a big metal cylinder, at least 20 feet tall and probably 8-10 feet in diameter, with square sheets of metal melded on to the top and bottom. Any ideas?

[BrooklynRider]

I think the north and south facades with the cross-bracing and open windows on either side of the ceramic rods in the middle are much more attractive that the front (western facade) of the building. MUCH more attractive.

[RS085]

I walked by this morning, and saw some workers getting ready to hoist up this huge metal cylinder thing. I have no idea what it was. All I can think of is that it has something to do with the antenna. It was a big metal cylinder, at least 20 feet tall and probably 8-10 feet in diameter, with square sheets of metal melded on to the top and bottom. Any ideas?

probably constructing the spire.

[RandySavage]

In NYGUY's photos, is that "tab" at the top of the building (i) the last 4-5 floors being built or (ii) the frame for the crown/screen?

[Jake]

Some pics from Top of the Rock earlier today....NYC smog at its finest...

sorry about the tilt, my photos are always garbage without a tripod

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/JakeW16/PICT0054.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/JakeW16/PICT0055.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/JakeW16/PICT0075.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/JakeW16/PICT0076.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/JakeW16/PICT0077.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/JakeW16/PICT0079.jpg

[pianoman11686]

Thanks for the pics. A little off-topic but, what is that pile of horse dung sitting atop Ratner's Hilton? I've never noticed that before.

[ablarc]

Thanks for the pics. A little off-topic but, what is that pile of horse dung sitting atop Ratner's Hilton? I've never noticed that before.
Gadzooks, indeed! Is that intentional or did it plop from the sky?

[lofter1]

It's an ahtsy-fahtsy attempt to hide the water tank / mechanicals.

(Or someone had dinner with Kondylis and got to talking about ocean liners.)

[pianoman11686]

Oh, no, let's not bring that BS up again.

[lofter1]

They've installed the glass at street-level along the majority of the 8th Avenue side -- it's hidden behind the construction shed / fence but if you look around the gates near the corners you can see it. They've also started to install the framework for the street-level glass at the inset areas between the tower and the low-rise section on both 41st & 40th Sts.

[RS085]

ill be in the city later on, have to check it out.

[RS085]

whats going on at the top? are they gonna finish it once the cladding is done, or whats the deal?

[londonlawyer]

I went by this building at about 8:50 p.m., and the lights were on on the lower floors. IT LOOKS F.....ING AWESOME!!!! The shimmering qualities shown in the rendering must depict the night-time view. WOW!

[sfenn1117]

londonlawyer! you're back!

[pianoman11686]

Good to hear from you again, london. You just reminded me of something I noticed yesterday while passing by: some of the lower floors also looked to be fully furnished. Probably the new base for the construction managers.

[londonlawyer]

londonlawyer! you're back!

Thanks for the hearty welcome! I've been traveling a lot for work lately.

[londonlawyer]

Good to hear from you again, london...

Thanks, Pianoman!

[RS085]

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5100/times2ap8.jpg

[Jake]

^HOLY! wow, photo of the year! Great pic RS085.

May I ask what kind of camera do you use?

[lofter1]

Great shot -- taken from 1515 Broadway?

[kz1000ps]

Awesome shot. There's so many things great about it, but for me I most love Jersey City's skyline back there standing quietly against the sunset.

[Derek2k3]

It does look better in person...but not as great as I expected when I only knew the renderings.
http://static.flickr.com/60/208818208_cfdc2d05e4_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/85/208818213_d74765dc07_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/81/208818215_9d86ecc1fe_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/73/208818219_1794731c92_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/73/208818221_e3a7900489_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/60/208818204_34b06c638e_o.jpg
The Times with its ugly friends, Ivy, Presidential, & Orion.
6/8/06

[Derek2k3]

http://static.flickr.com/85/209275062_d63893310a.jpg

[panderson]

I walked by the building on Wednesday evening and the interior lights were on in two of the lower floors on the 40th Street side. The lights shining through the exterior rods gave the walls a cool three-dimensional texture -- I can't wait to see how it looks with more illumination.

On a related note: somebody posted a while back about the yellow exterior flood lights on the lower floors and wrote that one of the construction workers had said these would be installed all the way up. I don't see any more installed, and you'd think if they were going to install them it would be done in conjunction with the curtain wall installation and not afterwards.

[lofter1]

I posted that info about the exterior spot lights ... I agree that it seems odd that they haven't moved forward on that, but my sense is that there are a lot of tweaks that will be put into effect as this building moves towards completion. It could be that the lights so far installed were test versions and that they are re-evaluating the actual fixtures.

Walking by yesterday I saw that they are now installing the framework for glass on the two "bump-out" sections (on the north and south sides of the tower). Nice sleek high-tech stainless steel.

[lbjefferies]

I walked by the building on Wednesday evening and the interior lights were on in two of the lower floors on the 40th Street side. The lights shining through the exterior rods gave the walls a cool three-dimensional texture -- I can't wait to see how it looks with more illumination.

On a related note: somebody posted a while back about the yellow exterior flood lights on the lower floors and wrote that one of the construction workers had said these would be installed all the way up. I don't see any more installed, and you'd think if they were going to install them it would be done in conjunction with the curtain wall installation and not afterwards.


I walked by yesterday as well and came away with of several thoughts.

First, this building is going to be one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. New or old, lowrise or highrise, this tower will be among the greats in my eyes. I was in absolute awe.

Second, it is in an awful location. The only place to really get a good look at it as a whole (not too far away, not too close) is from the west side of 8th Ave between ~46 and 42. Just a terrible place to try and look at a building. With the porn shops, touristi, and crackheads; my instinct is to get away, not stand around and appreciate architecture. Maybe I could get a better view down a side street. Bad idea. I thought I saw a dead guy on 40th street across from the bus station. Alas, on more careful observation he was breathing :o . If they could move the NYTimes the west side of 6th ave between 39th and 40th, this building would have been even more amazing. Effect on the skyline be damned, this building is best viewed from close to medium distances.

Thirdly, there are spots where the ceramic rods are damaged and your eyes are drawn to these spots effortlessly. I am hoping this is due to wear and tear from the brutality of the construction process, and not an indication that these things are easily damaged. If the rods are easily damaged then thats going to be a major problem.

[Peakrate212]

location is not awful.......the idea is that the new building and investments will spur a revival of the area.

[lbjefferies]

location is not awful.......the idea is that the new building and investments will spur a revival of the area.

The best street-level view of the building comes from one of the busiest pedestrian walkways in the city. Regardless, the view will eventually be blocked by another building so it doesn't even matter.

Secondly, it is across the street from a bus station. A bus station. How much revival is possible with a massive BUS STATION across the street?

As I stated, the location is awful.

[lofter1]

Actually I've found that one of the best views is from the south side of 40th St. -- mid-block towards 7th Ave. -- in the mid to late afternoon when the sunlight is shimmering across the southern facade and you can see the light through the tower on the floors above. From that vantage point you also can see the full expanse of the east facade rising above the lower portion.

[lbjefferies]

Actually I've found that one of the best views is from the south side of 40th St. -- mid-block towards 7th Ave. -- in the mid to late afternoon when the sunlight is shimmering across the southern facade and you can see the light through the tower on the floors above. From that vantage point you also can see the full expanse of the east facade rising above the lower portion.


You are right. That is actually my favorite vantage point. But the building becomes partially obscured once you step back a ways and its tough to get a good look at the whole thing at once. I'm sure it's spectacular from the Hilton.

[GLNY]

Asset managers Legg Mason will take the top six floors and create a roof garden and conference center in Bruce Ratner's New York Times building, currently under construction.

The deal cements architect Renzo Piano's original vision for a lush garden on the top of the skyscraper. Forest City had left the fate of the garden up in the air, pending finding a tenant willing to pay for it.

[NoyokA]

Asset managers Legg Mason will take the top six floors and create a roof garden and conference center in Bruce Ratner's New York Times building, currently under construction.

The deal cements architect Renzo Piano's original vision for a lush garden on the top of the skyscraper. Forest City had left the fate of the garden up in the air, pending finding a tenant willing to pay for it.

Excellent news!

[evil_synth]

Asset managers Legg Mason will take the top six floors and create a roof garden and conference center in Bruce Ratner's New York Times building, currently under construction.

The deal cements architect Renzo Piano's original vision for a lush garden on the top of the skyscraper. Forest City had left the fate of the garden up in the air, pending finding a tenant willing to pay for it.

Definately redeems my opinion of the NY Times tower a bit. Awesome news.

[kz1000ps]

Photos taken by Fish from SSP on the 13th ... some of the best yet.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7591/timessqtower1xj5.jpg

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1117/timessqtower4zn7.jpg

[eddhead]

The best street-level view of the building comes from one of the busiest pedestrian walkways in the city. Regardless, the view will eventually be blocked by another building so it doesn't even matter.

Secondly, it is across the street from a bus station. A bus station. How much revival is possible with a massive BUS STATION across the street?

As I stated, the location is awful.

A lot of people would disagree with that especially in light of just how much the are has improved over the past 5-10 years. True, there is further room for improvement, but there is no reason to think it will not happen. The port authority needs to spruce up, but i keeping the faith!

[kliq6]

Legg Mason signs lease for NY Times building
by David Jones
Legg Mason will become the second-largest tenant in The New York Times building near Times Square when it opens in 2007, after signing a lease with Forest City Ratner Cos. for about 200,000 square feet.

The lease includes Legg Mason subsidiaries ClearBridge Advisors and Western Asset Management Co., which both have office space at 399 Park Ave., where asking rents in the area are $70 a square foot.

Asking rents at the new Times headquarters run anywhere from $80 to $100 a square foot.

Forest City owns 700,000 square feet, which includes floors 28 through 52 plus 21,000 square feet of ground level retail space. With this deal, the property owner has now leased 75% of its space. In May, law firm Seyfarth Shaw became the first tenant for the building at 620 Eighth Ave., at 41st street.

The New York Times owns and occupies the rest of the 1.6 million square foot building.

CB Richard Ellis began marketing the building, designed by Pritzker-Prize winning architect Renzo Piano, last year.

Baltimore-based Legg Mason, Pasadena, Calif,-based Western Asset and New York-based ClearBridge will occupy floors 45 through 50. Mr. Piano will design a rooftop conference center and garden for Western Asset on the 52nd floor.

Forest City Ratner also completed a previously announced deal to buy out its financial partner, ING Real Estate's interest in the building.

Forest City Ratner now owns and operates 35 properties in the New York area, comprising 4.4 million square feet of office space.

[kliq6]

The best street-level view of the building comes from one of the busiest pedestrian walkways in the city. Regardless, the view will eventually be blocked by another building so it doesn't even matter.

Secondly, it is across the street from a bus station. A bus station. How much revival is possible with a massive BUS STATION across the street?

As I stated, the location is awful.

The area will get better when 11 times square is built and the duane reade building/comedy club is redeveloped

[lbjefferies]

The area will get better when 11 times square is built and the duane reade building/comedy club is redeveloped


I agree the area will improve. I just think the hideous structure across eighth ave will be a major limiting factor in whatever revitalization is possible. Get rid of the bus station and put a park there and sky's the limit. Unforunately, that isn't going to happen for a long long time.

Yeah I suppose you could refurbish the station or build on top of it but it will always be a bus station.

[lbjefferies]

Photos taken by Fish from SSP on the 13th ... some of the best yet.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7591/timessqtower1xj5.jpg




That is a fantastic shot.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I agree the area will improve. I just think the hideous structure across eighth ave will be a major limiting factor in whatever revitalization is possible. Get rid of the bus station and put a park there and sky's the limit. Unforunately, that isn't going to happen for a long long time.

Yeah I suppose you could refurbish the station or build on top of it but it will always be a bus station.Where do you propose to put it?

[kliq6]

if they replaced that green wall on the Port with a glass facade and built a tower on top, then it would, in my opinion look much much better. Ive heard PA is again talking about 20 times square coming back

[ZippyTheChimp]

A peek at the street level glass.
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3852/nytimes31cyl5.th.jpg (http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes31cyl5.jpg)

[pianoman11686]

I agree the area will improve. I just think the hideous structure across eighth ave will be a major limiting factor in whatever revitalization is possible. Get rid of the bus station and put a park there and sky's the limit. Unforunately, that isn't going to happen for a long long time.

Yeah I suppose you could refurbish the station or build on top of it but it will always be a bus station.

Explain yourself. How do you get rid of a bus station that brings in tens of thousands of daily commuters to the city? Where do you find a spot in the city that's big enough to build its replacement, that is also strategically located on a big intersection of subway lines? And why in God's name would you want to put a park there? What good would that do?

The bus terminal is being refurbished. The western facade is being completely reclad in metal/stone panels, and will acquire a new bowling alley/restaurant in its southwest corner. Meanwhile, a new semi-upscale dining establishment is near completion in the south terminal of the building, on the 8th Avenue side.

It is getting better. If we only found a way to power busses without fuel, the place would be much less grimy and less rundown-looking. I too have heard about the proposed office tower. I don't know how realistic it is, especially when considering that the northwest corner of 8th & 42nd is primed for a teardown and a new office or mixed-use building.

Meanwhile, the X's that are part of the PA's outer frame are being played off beautifully by those on Piano's tower. I'm really starting to see the beauty in this design.

[eddhead]

I agree the area will improve. I just think the hideous structure across eighth ave will be a major limiting factor in whatever revitalization is possible. Get rid of the bus station and put a park there and sky's the limit. Unforunately, that isn't going to happen for a long long time.

Yeah I suppose you could refurbish the station or build on top of it but it will always be a bus station.

True, but Grand Central is a train station and it is niether an eyesore nor unsafe... Now I know the bus terminal will never be Grand Cental, but the point is if you dress it up, you improve the area, irrespective of what it is.

[eddhead]

Explain yourself. How do you get rid of a bus station that brings in tens of thousands of daily commuters to the city? Where do you find a spot in the city that's big enough to build its replacement, that is also strategically located on a big intersection of subway lines? And why in God's name would you want to put a park there? What good would that do?

The bus terminal is being refurbished. The western facade is being completely reclad in metal/stone panels, and will acquire a new bowling alley/restaurant in its southwest corner. Meanwhile, a new semi-upscale dining establishment is near completion in the south terminal of the building, on the 8th Avenue side.

It is getting better. If we only found a way to power busses without fuel, the place would be much less grimy and less rundown-looking. I too have heard about the proposed office tower. I don't know how realistic it is, especially when considering that the northwest corner of 8th & 42nd is primed for a teardown and a new office or mixed-use building.

Meanwhile, the X's that are part of the PA's outer frame are being played off beautifully by those on Piano's tower. I'm really starting to see the beauty in this design.

Have you heard anything about construction on the NW corner of 42/8? I guess it would be from teh Duane Reade to the parking lot?

[ASchwarz]

True, but Grand Central is a train station and it is niether an eyesore nor unsafe... Now I know the bus terminal will never be Grand Cental, but the point is if you dress it up, you improve the area, irrespective of what it is.

You are aware that the majority of the commuters using the PABT are no different from those at Penn or Grand Central? There are tons of white collar commuters from Jersey that use the terminal every weekday.

The terminal is not that different from rail terminals. I suspect that anyone who claims otherwise has not been in the terminal in recent years.

There is actually a fancy restaurant opening in the terminal very soon. Looks like someone figured out that all those lawyers and bankers heading back to Alpine and Harrington Park are a lucrative potential market.

[ablarc]

I guess it's an artefact of culture: bus stations attract low-lifes.




pianoman, I agree the terminal is as well-placed as can be, but a park in that location would also be nice.

[macreator]

I guess it's an artefact of culture: bus stations attract low-lifes.

While not PC to say, this is true.

But I also believe this can be countered to a certain extent by improving the build environment.

Grand Central used to attract equally shady individuals.

[pianoman11686]

Part of the problem undoubtedly lies in perception. If a terminal looks nice on the exterior, you're less likely to notice a bum sleeping on a bench. If it looks old and rundown, you start looking around and making subconscious connection between the appearance of the place and its occupants.

ASchwarz is correct: the terminal is dominated by white-collar commuters during the morning and afternoon rush hours. If you're there at noon or at midnight, however, you're much more apt to see homeless and poor people, often sleeping on the floor as they wait for their bus. But these are also people that, for the most part, are not commuting to suburban New Jersey. They're going to towns you've never heard of in Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and various parts of New England. They use the bus because probably, there's no other way to get there, and it is the cheapest mode of transportation. Nothing wrong with that, and there's no reason to suggest a change, because then you're advocating economic segregation in a public setting.

It's curious that everything I've just described is usually confined to the lower level of the terminal, which is also the dirtiest and the most in need of a renovation. The PA is redoing some of the gates down there presently, but they have a long way to go. Maybe, in a few years, when everything's nice and new, this perception of the PA as a lower-class institution will change.

[pianoman11686]

pianoman, I agree the terminal is as well-placed as can be, but a park in that location would also be nice.

What kind of park? One that tries to be an oasis of greenery, or something more activity-related?

Two reasons why I think a park here wouldn't work: surroundings are still too grim (who wants to be looking up at Lincoln Tunnel ramps when they're enjoying a free moment?); too much competition from an already well-established park (Bryant) and the soon-to-be-completed Hudson River Park, both within a few blocks. I don't see any reason why people in the area would go there, unless the planners came up with something that's more unique and interesting than fields of green with a brick promenade.

[lbjefferies]

Where do you propose to put it?

I don't propose to put it anywhere else. It is what it is and its at a convenient location for New Jersey commuters. I don't think its going anywhere. I presented a hypothetical without any thought about potential ramifications.

[lbjefferies]

Explain yourself. How do you get rid of a bus station that brings in tens of thousands of daily commuters to the city? Where do you find a spot in the city that's big enough to build its replacement, that is also strategically located on a big intersection of subway lines? And why in God's name would you want to put a park there? What good would that do?

The bus terminal is being refurbished. The western facade is being completely reclad in metal/stone panels, and will acquire a new bowling alley/restaurant in its southwest corner. Meanwhile, a new semi-upscale dining establishment is near completion in the south terminal of the building, on the 8th Avenue side.

It is getting better. If we only found a way to power busses without fuel, the place would be much less grimy and less rundown-looking. I too have heard about the proposed office tower. I don't know how realistic it is, especially when considering that the northwest corner of 8th & 42nd is primed for a teardown and a new office or mixed-use building.

Meanwhile, the X's that are part of the PA's outer frame are being played off beautifully by those on Piano's tower. I'm really starting to see the beauty in this design.

Man you are uptight. Wow!

I think its an ugly structure and will always be an ugly structure, no matter what you throw on top of it. Sure its a vital hub of transportation but that doesn't mean I can't hate it. And as for imagining a park being there instead; I guess I just figured parks are pretty, and this building deserves something pretty next to it (especially with the Westin and Hilton nearby). You can never have too many parks imo. Also, I think this building will be one of the jewels of our skyline and I'd like to be able to sit back on a bench and look at it. Just a fantasy, nothing more.

[lbjefferies]

True, but Grand Central is a train station and it is niether an eyesore nor unsafe... Now I know the bus terminal will never be Grand Cental, but the point is if you dress it up, you improve the area, irrespective of what it is.


You're right eddhead. You do what you can and it will improve, no doubt. I just don't believe you can do very much right around there.

[ablarc]

What kind of park? One that tries to be an oasis of greenery, or something more activity-related?
Oh, Washington Square would be just fine, but for a while with cops.

If you moved the bus station, it would have to be a few blocks south, but still close to the ramps.

[lbjefferies]

Oh, Washington Square would be just fine,

and how...:)

[londonlawyer]

I walked by again on 8/15, and noted that the lights on some of the interior floors were on. When this building is lit up at night, it looks almost as good as Salma Hayek naked (or Brad Pitt -- depending on your orientation).

[alibrot]

Within a few years we'll have 2 world class buildings across the street from the PA. We'll have hotels to the south, condos to the west and north. Right now they are just construction sites - they have yet to breath life, although Orion just took its first step.

Change is coming, and the area will be great. Anyone who doubts this hasnt seen the change in the last 10-15 years.

Grand central changed, Penn stations changed, and PA has been changing. It's no grand central, but what else could compare?

Most of the outside retail space in PA is empty, waiting for change to come with the new towers. I walk by there late night all the time. The people hanging out late night and making the place look bad might number 20-25. Hardly too many to overcome. The rest are buses, cabs, and other people doing legitmate business. The place is NOT a defacto homeless shelter, like Penn used to be.

There is also a homeless problem on the west side of 9th/40th. As the area gets nicer, there will be more calls to eliminate the west side of 9th as a all day hangout for about 30 homeless.

There was a day that building a subway station in your neighborhood was a death sentence since the subway ferried the criminals from one place to another, and attracted other undesireables. Now a subway station is a key amenity. As the city changes, so do the old sterotypes.

It's one thing to be a bus station, and its another thing to be located near some of the most valuable real estate in the world. Something has to give.

[finnman69]

I think the ideal distance to vire this building from is about 2 blocks away when you can really read the skin. It will be even better when the NY Times goes under and someone else takes their space.



Photos taken by Fish from SSP on the 13th ... some of the best yet.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7591/timessqtower1xj5.jpg

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1117/timessqtower4zn7.jpg

[ablarc]

It will be even better when the NY Times goes under and someone else takes their space.
Doubt that'll happen.

[finnman69]

Doubt that'll happen.

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060814roco02

Panic on 43rd Street
By MICHAEL WOLFF
By attacking The New York Times for reporting secret anti-terrorism measures, the White House has evoked the government-defying glory days of the “paper of record.” But even as the Times builds a soaring $850 million headquarters, its newsroom, its leadership, and its business are in a crisis of confidence
It's a different, much less awesome New York Times under attack for its decision to publish secret details of how banks are cooperating with the Bush administration to track terrorist finances. In the past, if you took on the Times, you took on its powerful eastern-establishment base; you took on the media itself. But the base this administration is most concerned with is always its own, and going after the Times—more a label for large parts of the country than a brand, a liberal caricature—seems to thrill it.

During the Bush years, the entire media has been so much easier to threaten because every company is under such relentless shareholder, financial, advertiser, and interest-group pressures—media organizations will do anything not to have politicians and prosecutors sniping at them, too. While the Times—historically, more like a branch of government than a mere commercial enterprise—has often operated as an exception to the rest of the media, it's hard to be a Cadillac in a fading American auto industry, and hard to be even the Times in the imploding newspaper business. The Times's current predicament—its share price has fallen by 50 percent since 2002; almost 30 percent of its shareholders protested the company's slate of directors at the annual meeting this spring—gets closer and closer to that of the Knight-Ridder papers, forced into a sale; the Tribune company, publisher of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, locked in a more or less mortal boardroom war; and Dow Jones, with its worried family members fretting about a sale of The Wall Street Journal. The Bush people cannot be unaware of this. In such a state of play, the Times is also doing that one thing that so often calls attention to a corporation's weaknesses and vulnerabilities and inflated sense of grandeur—a classic precursor to calamity. It's building a fabulous new corporate headquarters on Manhattan's West Side—a Renzo Piano–designed $850 million tribute to itself.

The calculation in the White House may well be that the Times is one of the few organizations that the weakened Bush people are strong enough to go after.

While the administration's anti-Times rants juice its base—made up of people who don't read the Times—the White House appears to be trying, with its drumbeat about treason and banking secrets, to stir up trouble with Times readers too (banking, unlike other hot-button conservative issues, is something that Times readers might get huffy about). The rub is that no one at the Times can be confident this cannot succeed.

The familiar Times reader, the eastern-establishment reader—as dedicated and loyal and homogeneous an audience as few newspapers have ever had—has largely been abandoned by the Times. Or—a supposition the Times may share with the Bush administration—that audience simply may not exist anymore. Or it's just aged out of the economic mainstream. The new Times reader is … well, it's not exactly clear who the new reader is.

Unlike The Washington Post, which has put much of its editorial and business energies into dominating its local market, the Times's strategy—a doomsday scenario, foreseeing a one-newspaper nation, a last-man-standing paper—has been to make the paper national. Hence, The New York Times is no longer principally a metropolitan paper. With a daily circulation of 260,000 in the five boroughs, it's no longer even creditably a New York paper. (Its two tabloid competitors, the Daily News and the New York Post, have far more readers in New York City.) It's an Everyman suburban daily.

Here's the identity crisis: when the president is attacking it with all the media available to him, can the Times count on this new reader, and the advertisers who are courting him, not to doubt it? What beats in the heart of a reader of the St. Paul Pioneer Press whom the Times circulation-promotion campaign has persuaded to read the Times too? (In media-marketing terms, this new reader, the national urban-suburban yuppie type, overloaded on media choices—broadband, digital cable, satellite radio—is among the most fickle.)

Not only are the people at the Times aware of their new readers' likely lack of constancy, they're paranoid about it. In some sense, it's the central obsession at the Times, the driver of the place, this very un-Timesian concern with what people are thinking about it, as the paper increasingly becomes a hot topic in the national court of public opinion. And it's a crazy court. Every politically and emotionally addled information consumer wants to convict the Times of something.

Its two big scandals—the first about Jayson Blair, the reporter who made up an impressive catalogue of vivid stories, and the second involving Judy Miller, who, with the Times urging her on, went to jail for protecting her sources, whom the Times subsequently decided she should not have protected so much—were notable not just for the holes they revealed in the Times's journalistic operation but also for what they revealed about the Times's uncertainty about itself and its tendency to panic under pressure. Howell Raines, the Times executive editor whom the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, appointed to turn the Times into a national paper—it was under Raines's watch that Blair wrote his fabricated stories—had the publisher's absolute support until the day he didn't and was fired. Judy Miller likewise had the publisher's absolute support until it was clear that P.R. considerations and the court of public opinion called for the opposite position.

The imperturbable Times has become ever so thin-skinned. Instead of a simple, traditional "We stand by our story" response to its critics over the banking revelations, the Times has offered a menu of defenses and rationalizations—on its editorial pages, in public letters, in interviews by editor and publisher. Its essential and contradictory defense—that it agrees some things should not be revealed because of national-security considerations, except when, in its own wisdom, it decides they should be—has not exactly helped. Its rather frantic need to explain itself to the Twin Cities reader—to stay in the good graces of both Middle America and an Internet of doubters—is too painfully obvious.

Karl Rove undoubtedly understood he could play on this desperation.

The Court of Arthur
And then there is the Arthur issue.

The Times, famously impersonal, suddenly has a flamboyant, hard-to-control, easy-to-dislike face. The right-wing editorialists at The Wall Street Journal, which also printed the story about the banking secrets, hurried to distance the Journal not so much from the story but from the Times, and particularly from the 54-year-old Sulzberger, by quoting gleefully from a self-aggrandizing commencement speech, delivered this spring at SUNY New Paltz, offering a vapid political message about the glories and disappointments of the 1960s and how they related to the Iraq war: "Sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way."

The vulnerability that the Times critics see here—one that causes people inside the Times to gulp—is that difficult, less-than-humble, not-ready-for-prime-time descendants of 19th-century newspaper owners have been the cause of the decline and fall of a great many newspapers.

At the height of the Judy Miller business, just after he had fired her, after operatically standing behind her, Arthur appeared on The Charlie Rose Show. The most riveting thing about this appearance, more than his relative inarticulateness, was that there was no scenario under which it would be possible to imagine Arthur's father, Punch Sulzberger, the company's chief executive for more than 30 years and the steward of the modern paper, having done this—that is, publicly claiming to be the voice and the exemplar of the Times and its journalism.

The Times has prospered, and maintained its not-a-little loopy tradition of primogeniture, because the family, which holds voting power, has exercised it so lightly. If at all. The Sulzbergers—according to a former Times Company executive who was one of the designers of the Times management and shareholder structure—are supposed to be the British monarchy to the parliamentarians who actually run the show.

But there was Arthur on Charlie Rose—defending his company, his newsroom, his editorial decisions, his team. I remarked to this executive, an eminent and longtime Sulzberger adviser, on the oddity of a member of the Sulzberger family's actively managing the policies and editorial decision-making in the newsroom—in fact, representing the newsroom. My interlocutor drew back and said, "Editorial?… He's running the business side too! This wasn't supposed to happen!"

Arthur, on his own say-so, has accomplished a radical management restructuring of the company. He's consolidated, under his control, executive, shareholder, and editorial power—subverting the traditional autonomy of the Times newsroom. Indeed, executive editor Bill Keller is probably the weakest editor in the history of the paper. A company with a historically diffident management structure, where lines of power were always purposefully obtuse, now has a by-the-book, top-down org chart.

With such a figure—attention-seeking, immature, verbally feckless—at the center of the stage, it's hard to maintain a suspension of disbelief, let alone a straight face, about the rights of the firstborn. (This situation must have some resonance in the Bush White House.) The Times, with the scion insisting on his protean leadership, becomes, like any other corporation, judged by its top executive—it's not stronger than he is. Except, profoundly complicating matters, if he turns out to be weak, you can't easily replace this one.

It's Arthur himself who has most consistently articulated the fragility of the Times—its being-and-nothingness struggle in the changing media world. He seems so willing to embrace the sudden-death possibilities of the Information Age, so willing to disregard the conservative, wait-and-see approach favored by executives in Rust Belt–like businesses, that you wonder if there isn't, just a bit, a Munchausen-syndrome-by-proxy aspect to all of this. He gets to make the crisis; he gets to rescue the paper.

His strategy is to have the company face its core mortality—the inevitable end of a paper world—and then figure out what of its DNA can survive: Arthur is the baby Superman being jettisoned from planet Krypton. In modern management terms, the brand might theoretically be able to grow even if the physical product falls away. The newspaper might shrivel, but the Times can be a free-floating idea, somehow continuing in whatever guise offers itself and by whatever forms of delivery might be available—now or yet to be imagined (as they say in publishing contracts).

His vision of an ideal Times company sounds a lot like—without any sense of irony—Time Warner. (Once, during the boom years, I questioned Arthur about this enthusiasm for everything new-media. If this were the 50s, I asked, would he want the Times to buy a television network? "You bet I would," said Arthur.)

Seeing the Times as an acquisitive, multi-platform media company puts it, of course, in the same, ever compromised world of marketing and politicking as all other media companies. On the eve of the Iraq war—which it covered with a guilelessness that it has since apologized for—the Times, along with every other media giant, was petitioning the Bush F.C.C. to relax media-ownership rules to allow it to greatly add to its portfolio of television stations. (The Times's last annual report points to the television duopoly it owns in Oklahoma as one of its core achievements.)

Before scandal and a falling share price crimped their style, Sulzberger and Raines would talk openly about what they'd like to take over. They wanted the Financial Times or The Wall Street Journal and were looking for cable opportunities. (In 1993, the Times, in some misbegotten futurist idea that the Northeast was going to unite in a gigantic megalopolis, anchored by New York and Boston, bought The Boston Globe, which has performed poorly ever since.) When the chance arose, they snatched—for almost no logical reason, other than that they could—control of the International Herald Tribune (an enterprise with virtually no prospects of being anything more than a sentimental artifact) from The Washington Post, the Times's longtime partner in the paper. They did a convoluted deal with the Discovery network. They bought a piece of the Boston Red Sox.

But at the end of this deal-making spree, the most substantive and possibly transformative deal was the acquisition, for $410 million, of About.com. About.com? It's as unlikely an acquisition for the Times as any could be. About.com may actually establish the baseline for the lowest level of information available on the Web (which is saying a lot): a multi-million-page mishmash of superficial, often out-of-date, dumb, frequently wrong info bits, a place you never go by choice, but only because a search engine has been "optimized" (that is, tricked) to send you there.

Cyberia
The Internet is the great leap forward at the Times—with vastly more disruptive implications for the paper's future than the caviling of politicians.

For two generations, the Times business model has been to adeptly counter-program against more entertaining and technologically efficient ways to get news. It spent a lot (its news budget is among the largest of any news organization's) on deep and broad coverage, serving an elite, need-to-know audience, which, in turn, advertisers were keen on reaching.

Then, gamely, it gave in to the Internet. The premise is that, via the Internet, the Times can more easily deliver the Times. And, indeed, it's created the richest site of any newspaper in the world, a site whose depth and efficiency inevitably undermine the paper itself. At a conference earlier this year, hosted by Google, Arthur gave a talk about "real journalism," saying that the Times would succeed online because its brand had a proven record of probity—that people would always want the real thing. (His talk was accompanied by video clips of lots of older, exhausted-looking white men working in the newsroom.)

But more and more there is the sinking sensation at the Times that the Internet isn't Kansas. It's not just the relentless reductiveness of the new medium—the Times's long version becomes fodder for everybody else's short version. Or that the Internet requires, according to one hollow-eyed reporter, "everyone to do more and more for no more money." Much more unsettling than that: the Internet, once thought of as the ideal vehicle for reaching a targeted audience, is turning into a high-volume business, super-mass-media, dependent on cheap advertising. Success demands vast numbers: tens of millions or hundreds of millions of habituated users.

The Times, in newsprint form, with its daily 1.1 million circulation, and Sunday 1.7 million, makes between $1.5 and $1.7 billion a year (the company does not break out the exact figure). Times.com, with its 40 million unique online users a month, likely makes less than $200 million a year. Cruelly, an online user is worth much less—because his or her value can be so easily measured—than a traditional reader.

To replace its $1.5 to $1.7 billion traditional business with its online business—as it keeps suggesting it will one day do, and as critics have urged it to do on an even faster timetable—the Times might, impossibly, have to increase its online business to 400 or 500 million users a month. Or it will have to remake its content to more accurately reflect its advertisers' interests: oversize-shoe advertisers pay more to be next to a story about oversize shoes than they do to be next to a story about the Iraq war. Or, in another approach, it could look to MySpace: while the Times's 40 million monthly users generated, in May, according to ComScore, 489 million page views—this is the number that interests advertisers—MySpace's 50 million monthly users, deeply entertained by its user-created content, generated 29 billion page views.

The Times as we know it, as a pastiche of its paper self, can't succeed online (the whole idea that an old-time business can morph seamlessly into a huge, speculative entrepreneurial enterprise is a kind of quackery). At best, it might become a specialized Internet player, having to drastically cut its current, $300 million news budget. What it might providentially become, however, is About.com, a low-end, high-volume information producer, warehousing vast amounts of advertiser-targeted data, harnessing the amateurs and hobbyists and fetishists willing to produce for a pittance any amount of schlock to feed the page-view numbers—and already supplying 30 million of the Times's 40 million unique users.

They'd get red in the face disputing this at the Times. They'd say new business models may develop online, possibly paid models, or the price of advertising may increase, or something—because people will always want the Times, won't they? On the other hand, these same managers bought About.com. They know the future is equivocal.

Taking Stock
And then there are the shareholders—much scarier than the Bush people. The owners of the Class B stock—the Sulzberger-Ochs family, who hold voting control—are, in a very real sense, supported by the A shareholders, who own most of the company. It's the A shareholders who maintain the price of the stock. It's the B shareholders—50 or so descendants and spouses—whose daily lives are supported by the dividends produced by the stock.

The traditional assumption is that, for media companies, the market understands and accepts two tiers of stock (Murdoch's News Corp. has two tiers; The Washington Post has two tiers; Viacom has two tiers). If you don't like it, you don't buy it in the first place. But in this new age of shareholder activism, two tiers suddenly become a juicy wedge issue.

The activist shareholders are—not dissimilar to the Bush White House—waging a press campaign against the Times. The dissidents—only Morgan Stanley Asset Management, with 5 percent, has taken a public stand, but Bruce Sherman's Private Capital Management, which forced Knight-Ridder into a sale, is one of the Times's largest shareholders—are claiming that the B shareholders, presiding over scandal, are being reckless with the Times's brand and with their stewardship of a national treasure. (To cut costs and raise revenues, management is trimming the width of the paper by 1.5 inches, reducing news coverage by 5 percent, and selling ads on the front page of the Business section.)

They're characterizing the B shareholders as, in effect, being in it for themselves, pointing to Arthur's ever increasing multi-million-dollar compensation package—$3.2 million in 2005.

They are also using the "governance" word. By challenging the "governance" of a company—the independence and responsibility of its board—you question its integrity and uprightness (i.e., its fundamental Timesness). And, truly, the Times board—controlled by its B shareholders—is a passive and lackluster bunch. Whereas Warren Buffett is on the Washington Post board, the Times board's one corporate star, IBM's former C.E.O. Lou Gerstner, resigned in frustration several years ago.

In any conventional sense, control of the company, as long as the family stays united, is invulnerable. And most people take the fact of that unity as a historic given. But now it's being tested in the face of shareholders whose activism effectively talks down the price of the stock, the point on which management, the board, and the family are most accountable, and does it with the one other thing the Sulzbergers are perhaps most touchy about—bad press.

What will the B shareholders give to make it stop?

The fear in the newsroom is that the first thing to be given up will be bodies—fire enough people and earnings improve and stock creeps up and that takes immediate pressure off management. (It's already begun: "There's no money here," hissed a reporter to me recently in what had been a little gossip about expense accounts.)

But if that's not enough—and it never is enough—then what's next is more independent board members, followed by little changes in the nature of control, and then asset sales, and lots of secret meetings among family members on the subject of what to do about Arthur, and then a plan afoot to take the title of publisher from him, and on and on … until … the powers that be face the dreadful discrepancy between the declining fortunes of business as usual and a more probable upside of dismantling, selling, and letting the market have its certain way.

The form for projecting and maintaining great authority is, most classically, to talk softly. But that's not a modern media idea. The modern idea is to fight it out in the marketplace. All media is big media, rising and falling. Operatic. Building corporate as well as architectural monuments to itself. The Bush administration, as much a media enterprise as a governing one, has gone into the media marketplace to try to upend the Times, which it sees as one of its brand and message competitors—one that it can efficiently take on. This seems to me another Bush miscalculation. Its invective is actually brand enhancement for the Times, recalling the Times's real journalism, and evoking an era before the Times cast its fate with all the players and all the visions and all the clashes of the titans in the great media soup, or, worse, before—despite all its efforts to be something else and to forestall the inevitable—it got caught out as just another newspaper company coming to its natural end.

For a dwindling number of us—over-50 Manhattanites, over-50 Jews, over-50 liberal-minded people, over-50 journalists—that's a "God is dead" sort of statement. It's too big. Too existential. And, anyway, how do you exactly define "end"? You mean NO New York Times? Nada? Darkness?

Well, yes, in effect.

[ablarc]

As I said, doubt that'll happen.

[alibrot]

what may happen is they could vacate parts of the building and lease less expensive space somewhere else.

they have already opted to keep some internet staffers in their current buildings.

instead of this building marking the paper's downfall, the value of the property may just be the saving grace.

their worst investment was about.com, and their best was this building.

[eddhead]

Doubt that'll happen.
say what you want about the times... they certainly have had problems in recent years.. but the paper remains an institution and one of the few bastions of the 4th estate, which is why the bushies are so keen on attacking it. You may not agree with their editorial policy (disclaimer: I do), but an independent free press, not unduly influenced or more to the point, bullied by an executive branch with aspirations toward monarchy, is an important check on government power. It is perhaps the most important differentiator between democracy and totalitarianism.

[pianoman11686]

Man you are uptight. Wow!

Thanks. You're not so bad yourself.


I guess I just figured parks are pretty, and this building deserves something pretty next to it (especially with the Westin and Hilton nearby). You can never have too many parks imo.

Not all of them are pretty, and certainly not in a major urban area. Your last statement is somewhat shortsighted; as an anecdotal example, Harlem and East Harlem have many more parks than, say, Soho or Greenwich Village, yet their parks are somehow unkempt, often deserted, and still somewhat crime-laden, while the latter two have only a couple parks, which thrive, and the surrounding neighborhoods are much better off.

This is not to say that building a park in this particular location would be foolish, as I cannot predict how well it would be used by the neighborhood. But judging by the immediate surroundings, as of now, I would suspect that it would be a haven for lowlifes, and would otherwise not be an attractive respite for nearby residents and office-workers without a good amount of police supervision. Then there's the issue of necessity, and I think a bus terminal easily wins in that category.

So, if you want me to lighten up, I will, and I won't think of your original post as anything more than wishful thinking.

[eddhead]

I would suspect that it would be a haven for lowlifes, and would otherwise not be an attractive respite for nearby residents and office-workers without a good amount of police supervision. Then there's the issue of necessity, and I think a bus terminal easily wins in that category

Lowlifes!!!? Hey, I resemble that comment!!

[lbjefferies]

So, if you want me to lighten up, I will, and I won't think of your original post as anything more than wishful thinking

sounds good :)

[TREPYE]

That is a fantastic shot.
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7591/timessqtower1xj5.jpg


TOTALLY!!;) I wasn't sure at first, but this scraper looks like its gonna be a real looker just by looking at the finished aspects of it. Still waiting to see how that mast will look on top of it.

[TREPYE]

BTW The New York Times is the paper of record whether people like it or not. Sure they have had their issues but most importantly they (mostly in their editorials) have exposed this current administration to the public as what they are and that is incompetent and shameless scoundrels lead by some spoiled brat imbecile that cannot think for himself.

[lbjefferies]

BTW The New York Times is the paper of record whether people like it or not. Sure they have had their issues but most importantly they (mostly in their editorials) have exposed this current administration to the public as what they are and that is incompetent and shameless scoundrels lead by some spoiled brat imbecile that cannot think for himself.


I know exposing one's political beliefs in these settings is usually a bad idea...but I couldn't resist;

hear hear Trepeye

[ZippyTheChimp]

I know exposing one's political beliefs in these settings is usually a bad idea
Not really.

It's the framework of how you view everything else - including architecture.

Just a bad idea to get into long debates about it on these threads.

[kliq6]

BTW The New York Times is the paper of record whether people like it or not. Sure they have had their issues but most importantly they (mostly in their editorials) have exposed this current administration to the public as what they are and that is incompetent and shameless scoundrels lead by some spoiled brat imbecile that cannot think for himself.

its the paper of record for Blue States not Red

[TREPYE]

its the paper of record for Blue States not Red

Oh ok let me amend that: The New York Times is not the paper of record for the red states but it is the paper of record of the blue states and the rest of the world.

[TonyO]

its the paper of record for Blue States not Red

The Times had the same troubles with the right wing during the late 60's and early 70's. Get over it, the Times is the US newspaper for substantive news and will be for a long time.

[panderson]

So an angry article by Michael Wolff is supposed to prove the Times is on the verge of collapse? If every media outlet Wolff has ever attacked went out of business, there wouldn't be much media left.

The fact that the Times gets picked on so much is proof that it's still got power, and that the right wing feels threatened by it. You could argue newspapers will die out -- I don't happen to think so -- but even if they do the Times is going to be one of the last to go. They've got the third biggest circulation in America after USA Today and Wall St. Journal.

At any rate, if you like the building, I think you need to give the Times credit, not say it would be better with them gone. After all, didn't the Times pick the architect and provide the commitment to get the tower in the ground?

[Jake]

UPDATE 1-Legg Mason to become big tenant in NY Times bldg

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:48pm EThttp://i.today.reuters.com/images/spacer.gif

NEW YORK, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Legg Mason Inc. (LM.N: Quote (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/overview.aspx?symbol=LM.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Profile (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/CompanyProfile.aspx?symbol=LM.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Research (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/ResearchReports.aspx?symbol=LM.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1)), one of the biggest U.S. money managers, will lease six floors in the New York Times building being built near Times Square, becoming the 52-story tower's largest outside tenant, developer Forest City Enterprises Inc. (FCEa.N: Quote (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/overview.aspx?symbol=FCEa.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Profile (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/CompanyProfile.aspx?symbol=FCEa.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Research (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/ResearchReports.aspx?symbol=FCEa.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1)) (FCEb.N: Quote (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/overview.aspx?symbol=FCEb.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Profile (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/CompanyProfile.aspx?symbol=FCEb.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Research (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/ResearchReports.aspx?symbol=FCEb.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1)) said on Thursday.


Baltimore-based Legg Mason will lease about 200,000 square feet, Cleveland-based Forest City said. Legg Mason will occupy the 45th through 50th floors, and agreed to the design and construction of a rooftop conference center and landscaped garden on the 52nd floor.


New York Times Co. (NYT.N: Quote (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/overview.aspx?symbol=NYT.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Profile (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/CompanyProfile.aspx?symbol=NYT.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Research (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/ResearchReports.aspx?symbol=NYT.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1)), the newspaper publisher, will occupy 800,000 of the building's 1.5 million square feet, which will be its headquarters. Forest City Ratner Cos., a Forest City affiliate that owns the 28th through 52nd floors, has leased more than 75 percent of the remaining space.



The building, located at 8th Avenue and 41st Street, is expected to be finished next spring. Legg Mason is expected to take occupancy in the fall of 2007. Other large tenants include three law firms: Covington & Burling; Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Canadian firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.


Legg Mason ended June with about $855 billion of assets under management. Assets more than doubled in late 2005 when the company swapped its securities brokerage and capital markets business for Citigroup Inc.'s (C.N: Quote (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/overview.aspx?symbol=C.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Profile (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/CompanyProfile.aspx?symbol=C.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Research (http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/ResearchReports.aspx?symbol=C.N&WTmodLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1)) aset management arm.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

[TREPYE]

UPDATE 1-Legg Mason to become big tenant in NY Times bldg

Legg Mason will occupy the 45th through 50th floors, and agreed to the design and construction of a rooftop conference center and landscaped garden on the 52nd floor.


Awesome! :D

[eddhead]

The Times had the same troubles with the right wing during the late 60's and early 70's. Get over it, the Times is the US newspaper for substantive news and will be for a long time.

Agreed. As I mentioned in a previous thread, they are a bastion of the 4th estate and an important check on an executive branch bent on achieving absolute power. That's what makes them such a target. This administration bristles at the thought of anybody or anything challanging the drivel that passes for policy or, questioning the "double-speak" they pass along as fact which is why the Times is such a target for them.

[lofter1]

This administration will soon be but a bad memory and the NY Times will carry on ...

[LeCom]

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/790/pict0002nyttucaug06lookinguptothewestsmallac5.jpg

[NYatKNIGHT]

LeCom, another excellent shot. Any chance we'll still get to enjoy your photos and building updates after you leave for Philly?

[finnman69]

[QUOTE=LeCom;116225][QUOTE]

cool shot

I still think the screen might have been better if they left off every other tube and increased the transparency. At certain angles and lighting conditions it really does read as solid.

I'm nervously curious how the top will end up compared to the renderings.

[GSN]

I agree with finnman's take on Lecon's photo (which is a great photo). The photo reveals the fatal flaw of the curtain. Depending on your perspective, the rods somewhat accomplish the translucense intended by the design. From that same vantage point, one's eyes are drawn uop (as any respectable skyscraper would do) only to the translucense disappear (completely) and replace with what appears like concrete (or whatever, certainly not glass-ceramic rods)! It's a strange mix and therefore a visually jarring (and somewhat unpleasant) experience.

At this stage of the project, we should all be gobsmacked about the building's beauty (it's really almost done), and frankly, very few are (the views of this board which I regularly update prove my point, I think). It's a shame. This building is a lesson for all designers, scale and perspective are key.

[lofter1]

It has been said many times, but is worth stating again:

This building is all about reflectivity and light ...

Once the lighting is installed and operable (interior and exterior) the appearance of this building will change entirely. Light shining from inside the building through the floor to ceiling glass will wrap around the rods outside -- and they will take on a three-dimensional appearance that is not now apparent. What now seems solid and impenetrable will have visual variations ...

Plus, now all of the facade elements are grimy and dirty -- not the best condition for reflectivity.

Give it time -- I have no doubt that it will be a stunner when complete.

[Muscatinho]

Enjoy.

[kz1000ps]

^ Any way we can see that at about twice the size?

Once again I'm yoinking photos from SSP. This one's by Giovanni Sasso, taken Friday.

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/7209/nyttower230fifthhl1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[tmac9wr]

This building is looking great, I can't wait for it to be finished. When my buddy and me were driving back to South Carolina for school we had the good fortune of getting caught in traffic in New Jersey, which of course wasn't too fun but it gave us an extended period of time to look at the skyline, and it's really looking great. It's making a great impact on the skyline.

[kurokevin]

It has been said many times, but is worth stating again:

This building is all about reflectivity and light ...

Once the lighting is installed and operable (interior and exterior) the appearance of this building will change entirely. Light shining from inside the building through the floor to ceiling glass will wrap around the rods outside -- and they will take on a three-dimensional appearance that is not now apparent. What now seems solid and impenetrable will have visual variations ...

Plus, now all of the facade elements are grimy and dirty -- not the best condition for reflectivity.

Give it time -- I have no doubt that it will be a stunner when complete.

What about those people like me who love this building already??? I find it so unique, bold, and strong - quintessential New York - and controversial to boot. Thank you Piano!

[lbjefferies]

...At this stage of the project, we should all be gobsmacked about the building's beauty (it's really almost done), and frankly, very few are....

Count me among the few. This building makes me ache the same way a seeing a gorgeous woman makes me ache. It really is that beautiful.



Give it time -- I have no doubt that it will be a stunner when complete.


Yep.

[lofter1]

Muscatinho: Great shot :cool:

A few months back all the talk was about how the horizontals of the window openings were overwhelming the verticality of the structure -- seemingly those concerns have been laid to rest ...

[londonlawyer]

The framework to which the glass screens on the crown will be attached is rising on the northern facade as of 8/25!

[lofter1]

I saw that this afternoon -- that crown is going to look incredible :D

So far, four huge uprights have been erected across the top of the north bump-out (at the left on the rendering below) -- they must be 60' tall each! They appear narrow when looking at the building from the north. Each appears to be directly upright on the outer edge; on the inside edge they taper from a wider point near the top of the building to a narrower point at the top of each upright.

There are now 2 uprights on each side of the bump out with a wide open space between them.

It seems it will look pretty much exactly like this:

http://a.1asphost.com/guide/nytimesscreens.jpg

They've also installed interior lighting on the ceilings at the 5th / 6th / 7th Floors and you can now see the effect of light through the rods. The lighting was on when I walked past the building today around 3 PM and still on around 7 PM.

Glorious!!!!!

This ain't your father's minimalist box ;)

[JMGarcia]

For all the complaints about this building I think it is going to end up being brilliant when its completed. I can see were looking at small parts of it can appear unattractive and it does not photograph particularly well because of lack of resolution, but when it done and lit inside it will be a completely different building from what we've seen so far.

[londonlawyer]

I saw that this afternoon -- that crown is going to look incredible :D

So far, four huge uprights have been erected across the top of the north bump-out (at the left on the rendering below) -- they must be 60' tall each! They appear narrow when looking at the building from the north. Each appears to be directly upright on the outer edge; on the inside edge they taper from a wider point near the top of the building to a narrower point at the top of each upright.

There are now 2 uprights on each side of the bump out with a wide open space between them.

It seems it will look pretty much exactly like this:

http://a.1asphost.com/guide/nytimesscreens.jpg

They've also installed interior lighting on the ceilings at the 5th / 6th / 7th Floors and you can now see the effect of light through the rods. The lighting was on when I walked past the building today around 3 PM and still on around 7 PM.

Glorious!!!!!

This ain't your father's minimalist box ;)

I agree. It looks f...ing awesome!!

By the way, I saw the shades move on the eastern facade. Someone mentioned that the shades are inside of the glass between 2 panes. I wonder if that's accurate.

[Citytect]

I don't think that's accurate. The shades aren't between panes of glass.

[lofter1]

window / shade info HERE (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=110206&postcount=1626) and HERE (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=84068&postcount=1008)

[lofter1]

Another rendering showing the area where the uprights for the crown have been erected (the sections immediately to the left and right of the spire are what have been installed so far):

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/mid-nyt14.jpg

[aural iNK]

9-3-06:

http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/09-02-06-001.jpg

http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/09-02-06-003.jpg

http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/09-02-06-002.jpg

[kz1000ps]

That crown framing reminds me of the waffle french fries I had for dinner.. yum yum!

[aural iNK]

Here's an idea of the finished product, although I don't think the crown will be quite this opaque.

http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/nyt-render.jpg

[Vengineer]

Woah, awesome... you're really good at this stuff.

[sfenn1117]

Seriously...nice work.

[TonyO]

That is really convincing. I had been on vacation a week and just thought it had finished quickly!

[pianoman11686]

That crown will really add a shot of verticality to this tower. Thanks for the preview, aural!

For anyone out there who's still disturbed by the accounting of spires within building heights: would you consider this crown, which is essentially just a group of smaller spires stacked around the roof of the tower, to be part of the height? Or does it end at the roof?

Or, who out there thinks that any structure reaching above the building roof (like the Times' pencil-thin spire) should be part of the total height, thus pushing this building above 1,000 feet?

[lesterp4]

I for one am now convinved that the crown and the spire is definitely part of the building and should be included in the total height.

[NYguy]

I for one am now convinved that the crown and the spire is definitely part of the building and should be included in the total height.

It will be the best part of the tower, the same way the Chrysler and Empire State spires are. Without it (spire and crown), it would be just an ugly, grey hulk.

[City Spire]

That crown will really add a shot of verticality to this tower. Thanks for the preview, aural!

For anyone out there who's still disturbed by the accounting of spires within building heights: would you consider this crown, which is essentially just a group of smaller spires stacked around the roof of the tower, to be part of the height? Or does it end at the roof?

Or, who out there thinks that any structure reaching above the building roof (like the Times' pencil-thin spire) should be part of the total height, thus pushing this building above 1,000 feet?

I´m actually still not sure what to think. Sure, the building wouldn´t look as good as it does without the spire and the crown, but that doesn´t mean that you necessarily should count the spire within building heights. If it really turns out to be a spire (like Chrysler) and not just a mast (like Condé Nast), I think it will make it easier for me to count that as the actual height of the building.

[RS085]

I'd vouch for a shorter spire, or maybe two short ones (ie:the antennas on Hancock). The spire planned for this looks silly.

[Citytect]

The way I'd characterize my feelings about spires (including antennae) and building height is this: if the spire is fully incorporated into the building's design and removing the spire would result in a substantially different design, I count the spire as part of the building's height. If, however, the spire can be removed without significantly changing the design, I don't think it should count toward the building's height.

The NY Times tower seems to fall into the latter category. The spire is not essential to the design. I actually think the building would look just as good without it, maybe even better. I find it a little awkward myself. But note that I'm talking about the spire only, not the "crown" (the rods that extend about the roof). I consider the crown essential to the design and would include it in the height of the tower.

[ablarc]

The way I'd characterize my feelings about spires (including antennae) and building height is this: if the spire is fully incorporated into the building's design and removing the spire would result in a substantially different design, I count the spire as part of the building's height. If, however, the spire can be removed without significantly changing the design, I don't think it should count toward the building's height.
Well put.