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

[lofter1]

Originally Posted by londonlawyer

What categories? I'm interested. Criminal defense lawyers perhaps.

Yes, some of them are on the list.

Also some Estate Planning Attorneys ... plus many who play in the cesspool of Landlord / Tenant Court

Add to that zealots masquerading as Prosecutors / Attorneys General and Lawyers turned Politicos who seem to forget their duty to the law ...

Did I mention Corporate Whores who will try to wiggle through every little wrinkle of the written law while laying waste to the civic good?

I'm sure others could add to the list.

None of which I'm SURE will be residing in the new Times Tower

[Muscatinho]

'Times' Bandits Nearer To Setting Sail
FILE UNDER: New York Times

From an announcement from The New York Times' internal website, a note of architectural interest:

This morning, Thursday, Oct 19th at 7:30 a.m., the second section of the mast at the top of our new building will be raised into position. This is the beginning of a process that will see three more lifts and have the mast completed on Nov. 6th.

The mast, incidentally, is 206 feet tall. Ahoy, Renzo Piano!

[kliq6]

no need to knock potential tenants, the Times themselves in the past few years have done enough to embarrass themself

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by panderson

Some of the early coverage said that the Times was consolidating some of its operations spread around Manhattan at the new tower. I imagine they've realized they can get more dough for space in the new building than they're paying to lease space at these other locations. So, they're keeping the satellite offices where they are and making a profit on renting out the floors they would have occupied. Room for more lawyers!

So in other words, they're getting a little bit into the real estate business.

[Jake]

There have been rumors for some time now that NYT will be taken private on account of its severely declining stock price. The company has been in a total death spiral with the last earnings showing no end in sight.

I don't know what specifically motivated the Times to construct this building but although it is an asset the bill will surely deter prospective buyers.

The Times has in fact been consolidating as well as selling a whole range of subsidiary media ventures.

IMHO in 5 years a crew will be called in to take off the lobby lettering and put on "The Lockheed Martin Tower."

[Gotham]

Some photos from Weds. 10/25/06

Attachment 2805

Attachment 2806

Attachment 2807

[TREPYE]

^ I envy your views.

[Wrightfan]

Originally Posted by Jake

...in 5 years a crew will be called in to take off the lobby lettering and put on "The Lockheed Martin Tower."

You have more confidence in the American aerospace industry than a lot of people.

[Jake]

well let's see, Lockheed is a 40 billion a year in revenues company that has posted a rising earning quarter every quarter since mid 2003.

NYT on the other hand is a 3 billion a year in revenues co that has declined more than 50% in the last 3 years posting only 4 positive quarters during that time. BTW looking at the balance sheet NYT has some 900 million in debt right now.

[Kris]

[macreator]

Originally Posted by Wrightfan

You have more confidence in the American aerospace industry than a lot of people.

Personally I have a hell of a lot more confidence in Boeing and Lockheed than I have in Airbus.

Ironically, the headquarters building which everyone said was a huge waste of money for the Times just a few years ago has proven to be a fantastic investment. The Times could make a hefty profit selling its 50% of the building if they wished to do so.

[kliq6]

Originally Posted by Jake

well let's see, Lockheed is a 40 billion a year in revenues company that has posted a rising earning quarter every quarter since mid 2003.

NYT on the other hand is a 3 billion a year in revenues co that has declined more than 50% in the last 3 years posting only 4 positive quarters during that time. BTW looking at the balance sheet NYT has some 900 million in debt right now.

The problem with the Times is the latest Sulzberger to run the shop has no respect from the papers longtime readers and has taken the paper to far to the left for its more Moderate Democratic key audience likes to be. But in terms of them not keeping the building, its a great access that they can sell and just do a leaseback in the future, Like Hearst did with Tishman Spyer

[Dagrecco82]

Originally Posted by Kris

The transparency is quite evident in that pic.

[lofter1]

That's a fantastic picture, carlos ...

Mine, on the other hand is not so great ... but shows the Times Tower from a different vantage point:

From in front of the Virgin Records in Times Square ...

***

[antinimby]

I do hope they will light up the crown and the spire.