New York Times Tower - 620 Eighth Avenue

[finnman69]

For me I won't know until the exterior glass extension on the roof is complete. But for now, it doesn't do it for me.


The glass on top will be interesting. It don't think it will be as transparent as the renderings suggested, but it could make or break the top.
I think it will be magic at night.

[Stern]

To clarify the roof extension will be all rods, there will be no glass.

[CARLOS]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/CIMG1294.jpg

[finnman69]

To clarify the roof extension will be all rods, there will be no glass.


you are right

a very interesting view of the building is from CPW looking south. You see the 'blade' of one facade on edge.

[NYguy]

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2235664.ece

The New York Times: Battle of 8th Avenue
Still recovering from the assault on its reputation for journalistic excellence, 'The New York Times' now faces a set of financial problems that is throwing its future ownership into question. Stephen Foley reports from Manhattan

05 February 2007

When engineers craned into place the final section of the 300ft steel mast atop the New York Times tower last November, the 52-storey skyscraper became Manhattan's third-tallest building.

Designed by Renzo Piano, the man behind the Pompidou Centre in Paris, the exterior is almost wholly made up of floor-to-ceiling windows, all curtained by a trellis of ceramic tubes that will reflect light and shift colour during the day. Modest, it is not.

When the New York Times journalists take to their new desks on 8th Avenue in the spring, the building will be a topic of contention not just among the architecturally aware. The opening coincides with, and looks sure to inflame, a vicious showdown between Wall Street and the Ochs-Sulzberger family, whose 111-year control of the company is under threat as never before.

Some shareholders have been incensed that the Times should have poured $500m (£254m) into the development at a time when print journalism is in a nerve-racking transition to a digital era, when the Times's own revenues are stagnating and when the share price has been sliding away.

Today, a new "trophy headquarters" would look extravagant for any newspaper group - even one whose achievements tower above those of all but an elite handful of the world's media.

The broadsheet, under its legend, "All the news that's fit to print" and reflecting the glory of 94 Pulitzer prizes, has the best claim to be the paper of record of the United States, probably of the world. It is a bastion of serious journalism and a beacon of liberal politics. And its heavyweight content fans out across the globe through its sister paper, the International Herald Tribune, and a syndication operation that net tens of millions of dollars a year. It was with the New York Times syndicate that Mikhail Gorbachev, former Soviet leader, agreed a return to the world stage as a columnist this month - answering queries on weapons of mass destruction and poverty, as a sort of agony uncle.

The Times is an "international newspaper", says Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr, publisher and chairman of the company. He is determined to resist gathering fury on Wall Street, convinced that capitulation would mean the Times has to sacrifice the quality of its domestic and foreign bureaux in favour of short-term profits. In the face of falling readership in New York, the Times has kept its circulation above one million by expanding distribution across the US, and topped up advertising by selling space on the website, which attracts up to 22 million visitors a month. All this would be at risk if dramatic cost cuts ruined the Times's image, he says.

In a telling move, the paper last week hired Dean Baquet to head its Washington bureau. Baquet became a folk hero among journalists last year when he was fired as editor of the Los Angeles Times for refusing to implement cost cuts in the newsroom.

The Times' rebel shareholders say they are just as determined to maintain quality journalism and expansive foreign coverage. Indeed, they say this is what is under threat from the family-controlled board, which has already mismanaged the other assets in the company's portfolio - including The Boston Globe, where revenues are sharply deteriorating, and which has just been forced to close its foreign bureaux. The New York Times group admitted last week it had plunged into the red at the end of 2006 because it had to write off $814m of its investment in the Globe and other New England papers.

"Without independent action by the board, further strategic missteps, capital misallocation, franchise abuse and overly generous compensation are inevitable," wrote Hassan Elmasry, fund manager at Morgan Stanley, which holds 7 per cent of the company's shares. "We are concerned that the sharp deterioration at The Boston Globe may well be a preview of what will happen at The New York Times."

Morgan Stanley's anger has been simmering since Sulzberger inherited the chairmanship from his father "Punch" Sulzberger in 1997. The junior Sulzberger has been nicknamed "Pinch".

Throughout the Times's twin debacles of the past few years - the Jayson Blair scandal, when a young hack was exposed as a serial fabricator of stories and sources, and the Judith Miller affair, when the senior Washington journalist was accused of too-close links to the Bush administration - Sulzberger has jumped to the defence of his journalists and editors, but many have complained he did not prove himself weighty enough as it became necessary to shore up the Times's public reputation.

Elmasry wants the Sulzbergers to cede control, giving up special voting shares that allow them to dominate the board with placemen, even while they own less than a fifth of the company. He also wants Sulzberger to give up some of his power. As publisher and chairman, he essentially reports to himself, while influencing the remuneration of the rest of the board. That is too cosy in an era when "corporate governance" tops of Wall Street's agenda.

On the business front, Morgan Stanley is not alone in its criticisms of Sulzberger's internet strategy, which has failed to generate the subscriber numbers seen by rivals, or of the pay and perks enjoyed by directors. Wall Street believes a dynastic management cannot be a dynamic one, but the dual structure is an article of faith for the Ochs-Sulzbergers. When the company went public in 1969, it did so in a way that gave the family the best of both worlds - by means of shares it could use for acquisitions, without having to bow to holders of those shares.

"Why change it?" Sulzberger asked, in the American Journalism Review. "It gives you the protection so critical to ensure that our journalism is kept at the forefront of all that we do."

Having been refused his request for a vote on the dual-ownership structure, Elmasry is trying to round up supporters for an even bigger protest against directors at the next annual meeting, in April. If he succeeds, it may not be possible for Sulzberger to ignore no-confidence vote. But whether that would force him to give up one or both of his jobs, or corner the Ochs-Sulzbergers into buying out other shareholders, The New York Times will continue to be under intense scrutiny.

[TonyO]

The New York Times group admitted last week it had plunged into the red at the end of 2006 because it had to write off $814m of its investment in the Globe and other New England papers.

A one-time accounting charge that doesn't affect true valuation.

"Why change it?" Sulzberger asked, in the American Journalism Review. "It gives you the protection so critical to ensure that our journalism is kept at the forefront of all that we do."

Its an absolute necessity to have the Times as independent as possible. Although, it's not clear that Sulzberger being in control is the only way to have this.

[MidtownGuy]

When engineers craned into place the final section of the 300ft steel mast atop the New York Times tower last November, the 52-storey skyscraper became Manhattan's third-tallest building.

Gosh that doeesn't seem deserved at all. The mast is so thin, and by it's design I don't think it should count. It's presence on the skyline certainly isn't that pronounced.

[lofter1]

Framework for the awning over the entrance to the Tower on W. 40th Street ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_32b.jpg

[antinimby]

Funny, I don't ever recall seeing them in the renderings before.

I'd bet they'll be clear glass.

A nice touch nonetheless - could shield passerbys from possible falling ice, if there should be any.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'm not sure I'll like this detail.

I thought the office entrance was the indented space between the tower and low-rise part of the building.

[lofter1]

You can see it on the model (lower left -- looks like they plan to have lights for the facade along the edge):

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/NYTMod_01b.jpg

This is what has gone up at the indented "nooks", near where the tower meets the low rise section:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_19b.jpg

[lofter1]

I thought the office entrance was the indented space between the tower and low-rise part of the building.

Iin the photo of the model above you can see a clear passageway through the building from the indented space on W. 41st to the indented space on W. 40th. I'm hoping those side entrances will also allow the public access to the interior garden area (but perhaps I'm too optimistic on that one :cool: ).

Another shot of that area on the model:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/MYTMod_01a.jpg

The street-level spaces at the western-most part of the tower on both 41st & 40th at 8th Avenue have been, for the most part, fully enclosed & are now separated from the lobby -- that's where the structure for the awning has gone up. I believe that those spaces will be for retail facing those side streets and (from a bit of a distance due to the notches at the corners) 8th Avenue. The larger center section of the tower at street level facing 8th is the main lobby entrance (and it looks to be close to completion); it goes through to the elevator core and beyond that meets the passageway.

The model also shows an awning of sorts will go up there along 8th Avenue:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/NYTMod_01d.jpg

[finnman69]

Anyone seen or taken a pic of the tower today after all of the ice and snow?

[NYguy]

The best thing I can say for the Times Tower at this point is that it's one
of the buildings that will return the skyline to its glory days when spires were
the exclamation point, the classic skyline shot that many cities these days try to emulate.

FEBRUARY 18, 2007

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572597/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572615/medium.jpg


1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572594/original.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572597/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572615/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572617/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572623/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572624/large.jpg

[NYguy]

7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572678/large.jpg

8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572702/large.jpg

9.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572728/large.jpg

10.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572766/large.jpg

[MikeW]

The building will be done just in time for the Times to go under.

[MidtownGuy]

I'm not sure I agree when it's said that the spire on the NY Times Tower is doing much for the skyline, or restoring glory in any way. It's more like a mast than a spire, just plopped on there without being gracefully proportioned or substantial enough to affect the skyline. The best thing about the Chrysler spire is that it grows so beautifully out of the shapes below it. NY Times Tower doesn't come close, it stumbled at mediocre. Just a flattop with some sideburns and a toothpick.

[kz1000ps]

I agree. This whole "the a-spire-ing return of the glamorous skyline" thing is a bit hollow since none of the towers that we've seen so far naturally shrink down to an appropriate size to complement and glorify a slender spire, which is what the old towers did best. And especially with this building, nothing about it shouts "glorious!" IMO. Don't get me wrong it's nice, but not glorious.

Once this gets consumed by the inevitable westward expansion of the midtown plateau, it will, when viewed from a distance such as from across the Hudson, be difficult to tell what tower that spire emanates from, whereas with a building with sculpting like the Chrysler, you'll always know where it originated from. I'd say this is already happening to the Conde Nast.

[NYguy]

I'm not sure I agree when it's said that the spire on the NY Times Tower is doing much for the skyline, or restoring glory in any way. It's more like a mast than a spire, just plopped on there without being gracefully proportioned or substantial enough to affect the skyline.

It helps the skyline overall, even the Conde Naste antenna does that.

[NYguy]

This whole "the a-spire-ing return of the glamorous skyline" thing is a bit hollow since none of the towers that we've seen so far naturally shrink down to an appropriate size to complement and glorify a slender spire, which is what the old towers did best. And especially with this building, nothing about it shouts "glorious!"

It may not be "glorious", but it does make its mark on the skyline, unlike so many of Manhattan's latest towers. It could have been a little bigger, but then again, the entire tower could have been better.


Once this gets consumed by the inevitable westward expansion of the midtown plateau, it will, when viewed from a distance such as from across the Hudson, be difficult to tell what tower that spire emanates from, whereas with a building with sculpting like the Chrysler, you'll always know where it originated from. I'd say this is already happening to the Conde Nast.

With a skyline as massive as Manhattan's, it's the peak that's important, not where it originates from. And every spire doesn't have to be the same. You've got the Chrysler, the BofA, even the Empire State. Hopefully there will be a few more added to Midtown. The Freedom Tower will restore some spire glory Downtown.

[Peakrate212]

The building......what can I say,,,,,,but, it's a big disappointment......

The top looks unfinished --- is it ?

The antenae reminds me of the one formerly on one of the World Trade Center towers.

What should be interesting is how the New York Times architectural critic will review the building..... Does he have the nerve (balls) to give it an honest assessment, as if it was built for another tenant.... lets wait and see..

[Stern]

It's no Hearst Tower, that's for sure.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/art/art06/0406feat3a.jpg

[212]

The best thing I can say for the Times Tower at this point is that it's one
of the buildings that will return the skyline to its glory days when spires were
the exclamation point, the classic skyline shot that many cities these days try to emulate.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572597/medium.jpg_



Look at that amazing stone mountain range of a skyline along Eighth Avenue between 34th and 39th! The Empire City lives.

[lofter1]

What should be interesting is how the New York Times architectural critic will review the building..... Does he have the nerve (balls) to give it an honest assessment ...

You seem to be assuming that every one should find the Time Tower a failure. However ...

If I were the architectural critic for the NY Times I would give Paino's building (even in it's unfinished state) a glowing review and label it the most glorious building to go up in NYC in years.

Yes, better than Hearst (which, even with all its great points, is too short and stubby -- as nearly everyone acknowledges). Besides, the Hearst is a self-enclosed corporate structure that only the public only a winking glimpse of the great interior spaces there. At the Times Tower those spaces will be on view for all to see.

It's definitely better than TWC.

Better than Gehry's IAC (when will Gehry figure out how to do doorways?).

B of A will give the Times Tower a run for its money -- but as many have noted the interaction with 42nd Street could be deadly.

Until the Hudson Yards get built out (and God only knows when that might happen -- seeing as how the MTA seems to be killing all hope of an extension of the 7-Line any time soon) the Times Tower will be, next to the ESB, the most prominent tower for those viewing Manhattan from the west.

Times Tower is Tops in my book.

[Stern]

You seem to be assuming that every one should find the Time Tower a failure. However ...

If I were the architectural critic for the NY Times I would give Paino's building (even in it's unfinished state) a glowing review and label it the most glorious building to go up in NYC in years.

That would make you the second architecture critic to give the NYTIMES Building a positive review, following the start of its construction, the only other positive review so far being from Metropolis Magazine. The Hearst Tower on the other hand has recieved countless positive architectural reviews, it seemed like atleast one positive review was written every week during its construction phase.

[lofter1]

The Hearst Tower on the other hand has recieved countless positive architectural reviews, it seemed like atleast one positive review was written every week during its construction phase.

I acknowledge the Hearst Tower's positive points.

But there is no getting around that it wants to be taller and that its truest form has been squashed -- something that is apparent from almost any point more than two blocks away from 57th + Eighth.

[Stern]

I acknowledge the Hearst Tower's positive points.

But there is no getting around that it wants to be taller and that its truest form has been squashed -- something that is apparent from almost any point more than two blocks away from 57th + Eighth.

Hearst has a 850,000 square foot envelope and the NYTIMES has a 1,500,000 square foot envelope, the opportunity for extra height is nearly double, that is the fault of the site and NYC zoning, it has nothing to do with the architects.

[lofter1]

I don't blame Foster for the awkwardness of the Hearst Tower's height.

No doubt he knows that, in a perfect world, it should have been taller.

Hearst made a business decision to build what we see. For a price additional air rights would have been possible.

All that aside it is a terrific building.

IMO the Times Tower surpasses it.

[JMGarcia]

I like the Heart Tower quite a lot.

That being said, it could be argued that Foster should have done a different design that would have fit better into the height restrictions of the site.

[Citytect]

I'd agree with that argument. The Hearst tower is a nice dress, but it was designed for a super model not that squatty lady on Eighth Ave.

[Xemu]

A slideshow of Annie Leibobitz construction photos:
http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/leibovitz/FLASH/slideshow/photographs.htm
There's a nice closeup of the bars in there (#6) where they look very white.

[Derek2k3]

The form of BofA costs millions more than a box, is that a failure also? Does the expensive form of BofA even have a functional purpose? The usage of the rods is not only functional but was to somehow make the building, for better or worse, iconic (as is the form of BofA). Whether it's pleasing or not to you is your problem.

Only in New York has the curtain wall been limited to mullions and tinted glass. Check out a book on curtain walls and see the numerous variations with double, even triple skinned systems that make the Times look timid. You don't realize how cheap New York/ U.S. architecture is until you see what's being built elsewhere.

7 WTC is not a standard curtain wall either, it is quite a bit more expensive than the usual. You need to face the fact that there are different methods for addressing different issues. Shall all our buildings be tinted glass boxes since they are so far the most efficient?

Though New York Times doesn't derive far enough from the standard, it is nice to see something other than a glazed box. I thought it was a good thing when someone spends more money on architecture.

Bare modernism is over and boring, creativity and innovation is where architecture is going. Whether the innovation is aesthetically pleasing or not is another story, and will probably factor in whether or not it will be used again. In the case of the Times' rods, they function fine but are too monotnous. Perhaps they should have gone farther and have a direct ratio between the density of rods vs. solar heat gain.

I would be cool with your argument if you just flat out said the rods were ugly and weren't worth the cost.

[Stern]

The form of BofA costs millions more than a box, is that a failure also? Does the expensive form of BofA even have a functional purpose? The usage of the rods is not only functional but was to somehow make the building, for better or worse, iconic (as is the form of BofA). Whether it's pleasing or not to you is your problem.


Part of the reason Frank Gehry is my favorite architect is that his architecture engages its inhabitant tenants, it forces those inside and outside of his buildings to interact with their surroundings, the sloping facades of BOFA will work in the same way, it will force the inhabitant to take notice of their unique environment and in turn have pride in their setting. The rods on the NYTIMES will force the inhabitant tenants to take notice, notice that they cannot touch or control their environment, and wish that they had unparallel views and light like tenants in most every new building in NYC have, such as the BOFA Tower, sloping wall or not will have.


Only in New York has the curtain wall been limited to mullions and tinted glass. Check out a book on curtain walls and see the numerous variations with double, even triple skinned systems that make the Times look timid. You don't realize how cheap New York/ U.S. architecture is until you see what's being built elsewhere.

7 WTC is not a standard curtain wall either, it is quite a bit more expensive than the usual. You need to face the fact that there are different methods for addressing different issues. Shall all our buildings be tinted glass boxes since they are so far the most efficient?

Though New York Times doesn't derive far enough from the standard, it is nice to see something other than a glazed box. I thought it was a good thing when someone spends more money on architecture.

Bare modernism is over and boring, creativity and innovation is where architecture is going. Whether the innovation is aesthetically pleasing or not is another story, and will probably factor in whether or not it will be used again. In the case of the Times' rods, they function fine but are too monotnous. Perhaps they should have gone farther and have a direct ratio between the density of rods vs. solar heat gain.

There are a number of signature buildings in the United States, but the NYTIMES Building is the only one with an entire double facade of rods, furthermore there are only a handful of “rodded” buildings throughout the world whereas there are hundreds more signature buildings. Here you are inadvertently proving my point, if the benefits of these types of buildings were so inherently and obviously apparent, there would already be a plethora of such structures, what developer wouldn’t want a signature design feature (such as a double fascade) that also has intrinsic cost benefits?

I would be cool with your argument if you just flat out said the rods were ugly and weren't worth the cost.

It doesn't help that the NYTTIMES Building is rather ugly, but my problem is and remains that it advertises itself as a modernist building when it is to me so obviously false. I think the cause of my perspective is that I'm majoring in Real Estate Development and Architecture in College so I see things with a different eye.

[BigMac]

i'mjustsayin on Flickr
February 11, 2007

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/391623696_1499af2a0f_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/391623831_fbd0e40d7e_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/391622376_63526a43ef_o.jpg

[NYatKNIGHT]

Nice photos.

It doesn't help that the NYTTIMES Building is infact rather ugly, but my problem is and remains that it advertises itself as a modernist building when it is to me so obviously false. I think the cause of my perspective is that I'm majoring in Real Estate Development and Architecture in College so I see things with a different eye.
The building is infact ugly? Stupid me, I thought it was an attractive building.

Also, I missed it when it advertized itself as a modernist building. The nerve!

[lofter1]

... the NYTIMES Building is the only one with an entire double facade of rods ...

Ummm, what?

There is only a single facade of rods outside the glass curtain wall.

[Stern]

Ummm, what?

There is only a single facade of rods outside the glass curtain wall.

Um yeah that would be the very defintion of a double fascade.

[lofter1]

your pic ^^^ is asking for a sign-in to a mac thing ... :(

[Stern]

Nice photos.


The building is infact ugly? Stupid me, I thought it was an attractive building.

Also, I missed it when it advertized itself as a modernist building. The nerve!

No ones stupid unless they misinterpret an opinion as something other than what it is, an opinion.

[mgp]

your pic ^^^ is asking for a sign-in to a mac thing ... :(

Sorry about that. I'm mostly computer illiterate. I'll try to post it again.

[stache]

This building screams 'fortress', which is probably what they were going after.

[mgp]

As I mentioned, I had a chance to tour the building a few weeks back, and I was surprised by how little the rods affected the experience. They really don't negatively impact the views, and the floors seemed VERY bright to me.

See below (apologies for the poor photography). I hope this works, as mentioned above I have a tumultuous relationship with computers...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/399296779_5255d95aec_d.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/399296770_65d0ae2db8_d.jpg

[Stern]

Great views! Your shots only prove to me how much better the views would be though if there were no rods, the construction worker chose to look out the unobstructed window for a reason.

[lofter1]

Um yeah that would be the very defintion of a double fascade.

Aha -- now you're changing what you wrote -- can't get out of it that easily ...

You said "double facade of rods" ...

NOT ;)

[Stern]

I don't understand what you're saying at all.

The rods are the double fascade.

1(the glass which runs the entire height of the building) + 1(the rods which runs the entire height of the building) = 2

Double fascade.

[lofter1]

Your shots only prove to me how much better the views would be though if there were no rods, the construction worker chose to look out the unobstructed window for a reason.

Just admit you think it's ugly and leave it at that -- you refuse to accept any validity behind the design principles of the rods.

Which is fine if you want to play that way.

Your subjective response.

[stache]

Great views! Your shots only prove to me how much better the views would be though if there were no rods, the construction worker chose to look out the unobstructed window for a reason.

The lack of rods will make the corner offices that much more exclusive.

[Stern]

you refuse to accept any validity behind the design principles of the rods.

That is correct. And that is why, as a modernist I feel the building is "ugly"

[Stern]

The lack of rods will make the corner offices that much more exclusive.

Very possible and we all know who the corner offices are reserved for, there very well might be some workplace ecology behind it.

[lofter1]

I don't understand what you're saying at all.

The rods are the double fascade.

1(the glass which runs the entire height of the building) + 1(the rods which runs the entire height of the building) = 2

Double fascade.
The way you play with language is amazing.

There is indeed a double facade -- one of glass and one of rods.

But there is NOT a "double facade of rods" as you originally phrased it.

Perhaps a second facade of rods.

I'm done ;)

[Stern]

The way you play with language is amazing.

There is indeed a double facade -- one of glass and one of rods.

But there is NOT a "double facade of rods" as you originally phrased it.

Perhaps a second facade of rods.

I'm done ;)

You got me lofter, my lack of a comma made my statement confusing. Petty.

[Scraperfannyc]

I have to disagree with the opinion from the inside. I think these rods look ugly on the inside, like a set of giant shades you can never open up.

[Citytect]

Also, I missed it when it advertized itself as a modernist building. The nerve!

I missed that too.

Where did all this modernist bs come from? Makes me cringe. Sounds like a cult.

[Stern]

I missed that too.

Where did all this modernist bs come from? Makes me cringe.

I think the NYTTIMES Building is a failed modernist building, so in that sense its not a modernist building. Most sources credit Piano as a modern architect. I am curious as to what you classify Piano, postmodern?

[lofter1]

He's an architect. He builds things.

[infresig]

As I mentioned, I had a chance to tour the building a few weeks back, and I was surprised by how little the rods affected the experience. They really don't negatively impact the views, and the floors seemed VERY bright to me.

See below (apologies for the poor photography). I hope this works, as mentioned above I have a tumultuous relationship with computers...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/399296779_5255d95aec_d.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/399296770_65d0ae2db8_d.jpg

would you mind telling us from which floor(s) these pictures were taken?

[Bojangleman]

An engineering professor of mine (I'm a student at NYU) last semester is the president of Thornton-Tomasetti, one of the structural engineering firms working on this building. He took us to the roof of the building. Most breathtaking views I've ever seen. Much better than the ESB or the Top of the Rock. Looking downtown is especially amazing.

A very nice building, from what I could tell.

[RS085]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/399296779_5255d95aec_d.jpg


thats a wonderful view of downtown. wait a minute....

[stache]

Too funny!

[NYatKNIGHT]

No ones stupid unless they misinterpret an opinion as something other than what it is, an opinion.You used "in fact" to state an opinion. Your words.

The building didn't "advertize itself as a modernist building". That's just silly.

If these dubious phrases are going to be propped up using the credibility of an architectural student, then I'm going to call you out on them, okay? Because some of them are "infact" ridiculous.

[mgp]

would you mind telling us from which floor(s) these pictures were taken?

I think we were on the 46th floor.

As I mentioned, I understand the mixed feelings about this building, and I think it makes things more interesting. It would be a pretty boring conversation if everyone loved the building.

The rods seem like a blind to some, which makes sense, because that is their function. Also, these pictures really don't do the floors justice. Try to keep in mind that the curtainwall panels are around 11 feet tall, and the gap in the rods is roughly 4 feet.

[mgp]

thats a wonderful view of downtown. wait a minute....

And hopefully in the near future the view south is even more obstructed...

[Bojangleman]

Well ok, a wonderful view of downtown minus that one little technicality :P

[mgp]

Well ok, a wonderful view of downtown minus that one little technicality :P

Also, in your defense, if I was on 46, and you were on the roof (another 95+ feet up) you may have cleared 1 Penn Plaza...

[Stern]

You used "in fact" to state an opinion. Your words.

The building didn't "advertize itself as a modernist building". That's just silly.

If these dubious phrases are going to be propped up using the credibility of an architectural student, then I'm going to call you out on them, okay? Because some of them are "infact" ridiculous.

I was writing about the architecture of the building, it can be nothing other than an opinion, regardless of figures of speech; I don’t put down other people’s opinions or play the age card, besides your attempted call-out is failed unless you hold an architecture degree yourself, I would wager my years in college going for an architecture degree do actually give me a decidedly greater architectural eye and knowledge.

That said I changed my post not to include the figure of speech “infact” which was appropriate FYI, its use means that “I” as a matter of fact, in answering a question, thought that it was ugly, not that it is ugly, as is the nature of opinions. I do not enjoy responding to petty arguments about figures of speech, if you have an argument of merit I would be more than happy to respond to it, otherwise please don't waste my time.

[RS085]

I dont think Stern is actually his name, its just how he is. Everywhere I look this guy is in some sort of debate with someone, whether its on here, SSP or SSC.

[Stern]

I dont think Stern is actually his name, its just how he is. Everywhere I look this guy is in some sort of debate with someone, whether its on here, SSP or SSC.

That's funny I dont post at SSC.

[kliq6]

thats a wonderful view of downtown. wait a minute....

is that 1 penn?

[finnman69]

I think the NYTTIMES Building is a failed modernist building, so in that sense its not a modernist building. Most sources credit Piano as a modern architect. I am curious as to what you classify Piano, postmodern?

not a true modern building and the pics above verify for me they should have used half as many rods

[TonyO]

thats a wonderful view of downtown. wait a minute....

If you were in the building, you would rarely be looking out except from up close to the window (think WTC towers, ESB, most any tall building without floor-to-ceiling glass).

[lbjefferies]

I was writing about the architecture of the building, it can be nothing other than an opinion, regardless of figures of speech; I don’t put down other people’s opinions or play the age card, besides your attempted call-out is failed unless you hold an architecture degree yourself, I would wager my years in college going for an architecture degree do actually give me a decidedly greater architectural eye and knowledge.


Oookay, and in what textbook does it say every building needs unobstructed floor to ceiling windows so workers might enjoy the view better? And isn't saying you're a strict modernist like a painter saying he's devout cubist? Rohe, much like Braque, was a long long time ago.

[lbjefferies]

not a true modern building and the pics above verify for me they should have used half as many rods

Would have been equally as expensive, not nearly as energy efficient, and in my opinion much less attractive.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I was writing about the architecture of the building, it can be nothing other than an opinion, regardless of figures of speech; I don’t put down other people’s opinions or play the age card, besides your attempted call-out is failed unless you hold an architecture degree yourself, I would wager my years in college going for an architecture degree do actually give me a decidedly greater architectural eye and knowledge.

That said I changed my post not to include the figure of speech “infact” which was appropriate FYI, its use means that “I” as a matter of fact, in answering a question, thought that it was ugly, not that it is ugly, as is the nature of opinions. I do not enjoy responding to petty arguments about figures of speech, if you have an argument of merit I would be more than happy to respond to it, otherwise please don't waste my time.Stern, if you don’t enjoy arguments about figures of speech then maybe you should use better speech. It's not petty to take someone at their word and I know I'm not the only one who hasn't caught your apparent meaning from time to time. (By the way, “in fact” is two words. THAT'S petty.)

Here’s something that has everything to do with this thread and topic: nobody’s counter argument automatically fails because they don’t hold an architecture degree, and just because you are an architecture student doesn’t necessarily mean your arguments or opinions have any more merit than anyone else’s. It should, perhaps, but it clearly doesn’t always. There are architects and other professionals on this board whom I gladly defer to, but you don’t need an architecture degree to spot nonsense.

[lofter1]

I've been mulling over these comments from different posts -- and I still end up confused.

Gehry's architectural style and modernism as it is termed in architecture seem about as disparate as one could ask for.

But maybe I'm missing something.



Part of the reason Frank Gehry is my favorite architect ...




... that is why, as a modernist I feel the building is "ugly"

[Stern]

I've been mulling over these comments from different posts -- and I still end up confused.

Gehry's architectural style and modernism as it is termed in architecture seem about as disparate as one could ask for.

But maybe I'm missing something.

My biggest thing is form following function, which is why I like so many modernist buildings. With Gehry the function of his buildings is pure indulgence, which is fine for me also because there are no allusions as to his buildings being anything else, his buildings engage a captive audience and encourage both those inside and outside of his buildings to interact and experience their environment and in turn have pride in their place.

[Stern]

Oookay, and in what textbook does it say every building needs unobstructed floor to ceiling windows so workers might enjoy the view better? And isn't saying you're a strict modernist like a painter saying he's devout cubist? Rohe, much like Braque, was a long long time ago.

I never said that. The fact is that the NYTIMES does have floor to ceiling windows and the fact that they are covered with a double fascade I feel is wasteful and frivolous, the view. I'm not a strict modernist, but I do value form following function above all else as mentioned in my preceding post and many more posts littered throughout the forum.

[BrooklynRider]

Isn't the NYT Tower really just International syle with ceramic rods?

[kz1000ps]

I'm inclined to say "yes" to that, BR. And you could also ask/say the same about the BOA tower, substituting "ceramic rods" for "random angles."

[finnman69]

Would have been equally as expensive, not nearly as energy efficient, and in my opinion much less attractive.

most of the energy savings in the exteriors skin is accomplished with the glazing and the low-E spectrally selective coatings. The rods block glare, but as for reducing infra-red solar heat gain, I bet they actually contribute extra heatgain as when they heatup in the sun, that infra red right outside the window radiates into the space.

I disagree about the appearance. Rather than look solid from a distance, it would tend to make the building more transparent as the original renderings suggested.

[finnman69]

With Gehry the function of his buildings is pure indulgence, which is fine for me also because there are no allusions as to his buildings being anything else, his buildings engage a captive audience and encourage both those inside and outside of his buildings to interact and experience their environment and in turn have pride in their place.

Most of his buildings have really poor interior spaces. Mostly it's program organized in dumb blocks with a facade draped over it. It's a result of a design process that does just that. His 'architecture', is more sculpture than anything else. Skin and surface, no space, no spatial organization. It's only very late in his career that he is starting to control his designs.

A rare exception of good Gehry interior that is well designed is the Disney theater. Most of that was determined by acoustic design however.

[Stern]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, I'll just leave the topic with this, what I wish the NYTTIMES would have looked like as a more conventional building:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=183231

To think this beauty was built in Atlanta of all places.

[Citytect]

I am curious as to what you classify Piano, postmodern?

I agree with Lofter: Piano is simply an architect. I don't find it useful to label architects with terms that, to me, are more effective at describing a building's style (ie Modern, Postmodern). There's no need to "classify" architects.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Form follows function becomes a catchall phrase when you expand the scope of function.

[JMGarcia]

I agree with Lofter: Piano is simply an architect. I don't find it useful to label architects with terms that, to me, are more effective at describing a building's style (ie Modern, Postmodern). There's no need to "classify" architects.

I've got to agree, classifying an architect as a "style" is a mistake.

A bigger mistake, and I say this with all do respect to Stern, is classifying yourself as a style. Statements like "I'm a modernist" and "form must follow function" is ultimately a mistake made by first year architectural students trying to define themselves. It is ultimately self-limiting in the extreme.

[Citytect]

A bigger mistake, and I say this with all do respect to Stern, is classifying yourself as a style. Statements like "I'm a modernist" and "form must follow function" is ultimately a mistake made by first year architectural students trying to define themselves. It is ultimately self-limiting in the extreme.


I was too afraid to say it, but I was thinking the same.

[Stern]

A bigger mistake, and I say this with all do respect to Stern, is classifying yourself as a style. Statements like "I'm a modernist" and "form must follow function" is ultimately a mistake made by first year architectural students trying to define themselves. It is ultimately self-limiting in the extreme.

First off I'm not a first year student.

That said, don't blanket describe me, I've always had my perspective.

[JMGarcia]

Stern, I wasn't directing this specifically at you but was making a more general point. I only added the "with all due respect" in because I knew you were an architecture student and didn't want to think I was singling you out. :)

In any case, we've both been around these boards long enough that I certainly know you aren't one dimensional.

[Eugenious]

http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/nyt_roller-shades.html

Shades and Shade Controls

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.

[Edward]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/401479426_39b049cef0_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sudentas/401479426/in/set-72157594321543729/)

[evil_synth]

awesome photograph, you wouldn't happen to have a higher resolution version(than 1200x675), would you?

[lofter1]

Great shot -- It seems 11 Times Square Tower when built might do some damage to the view of the ESB from there :(

[kz1000ps]

As it stands now, the tower looks like it's in serious need of a haircut.

[lofter1]

Better that ^^^ than the "decapitated" look of so many others.

[TimmyG]

As it stands now, the tower looks like it's in serious need of a haircut.

Is the very top finished, or are the vertical bars going to be made all the same heights?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
The rods have yet to be installed on the crown.

See page 12:
http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/pdf/FactSheet2007.pdf

Scaffolding is going up now.

[kz1000ps]

Better that ^^^ than the "decapitated" look of so many others.

Very true. I kind of like the current look; it reminds me of a frazzled old professor who rarely takes the time to run a comb through his hair, let alone take a look in the mirror... it's the Einstein of the skyline :p

(well, until the rods go up)

[Derek2k3]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/391623696_1499af2a0f_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/391622376_63526a43ef_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/391623242_9b6c709e7f_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/391623087_1fce3b432e_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/391623477_2be161313f_o.jpg
More pics by i'mjustsayin (http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjustsayin/)

[Stern]

I'm not so sure that spire's a spire, I think those apendages are serving a technical function.

[stache]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/391623242_9b6c709e7f_o.jpg



I still prefer the garment district buildings, even if they're not as tall.

[JMGarcia]

Having been by the building in person again yesterday, it strikes me how black the glass is without the interior lights being on. The few floors that were lit change not only the glass from black to clear but the rods for a solid appearance to a translucent one. This building is going to look stunning when lit, day or night.

[Spoon]

I agree I recently saw the building in person and I've never seen a building that looks so completely different with the lights on vs. off. I think the building is dull and boring with the lights off but comes alive with the lights on. I think b/c the glass is so clear all the light just shines through. Also, they installed these massive lights on the interior that are right smack against the glass which just illuminates the panes. Looks great.

[tdp]

I cannot comment on a view with the naked eye (how I wish I could!) But from the excellent updates and photographs posted here, I like the appearance of the NY Times Tower and look forward to the next few weeks and those last few hundred ceramic bars being put in position (I assume that will happen in the next few weeks?)

The mast is a little ‘featureless’ though – it could do with a few bits & bobs welded on to it!

It’s fascinating to hear the various views on the appearance of this (and other new buildings around NYC). New Yorkers are so lucky that you have this kind of construction work to keep your eyes on – there’s not a lot of high-rise in the UK. :(

[JMGarcia]

Having been by the building in person again yesterday, it strikes me how black the glass is without the interior lights being on. The few floors that were lit change not only the glass from black to clear but the rods for a solid appearance to a translucent one. This building is going to look stunning when lit, day or night.

A fab pic by Carlos at SSP showing what I witnessed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/CIMG1368.jpg

[Jasonik]

Way to go Carlos!

[Eugenious]

A fab pic by Carlos at SSP showing what I witnessed.




I would kill to work in that building. Soooo pretty...

[yanni111]

it looks really amazing from 8th avenue and 14th street as hudson curves up and becomes 8th avenue. At that point it looks really powerful. Once the rods go up all the way the needle will look alot more appropriate since its bottom half will be covered up and the rods will make the "top" of the building look taller than where the top floor is.

[alonzo-ny]

what is the hold up with the final rods?
Top and Bottom

[lofter1]

Not sure that there is any "hold up" ...

This week they were installing the last set of rods on the south facade (below the crown).

The rods that will go up on the lower section of the west facade (opposite the Port Authority) will also spell out "The New York Times" -- they've been painting and doing finishing touches on the supports there for the past few weeks.

[kz1000ps]

It's also worth it to note that these exterior areas are customarily the last to be finished: the top (crown) because it's only function is decoration; and the bottom because you still have tons of workers trafficking there, and putting it off means fewer punch list items to deal with at the very end.

[finnman69]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, I'll just leave the topic with this, what I wish the NYTTIMES would have looked like as a more conventional building:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=183231

To think this beauty was built in Atlanta of all places.


Never seen it before. I love that curtainwall. Crisp, clean, elegant, not too fussy. I wish BofA had a facade like this.

[Muscatinho]

In the wide picture, you're looking at the hotel going up on 40th St. with the New York Times building in the background (looking east). Port Authority bus terminal to the left and Times Square in the background.

In the tall picture, you can also see the Westin Hotel on Times Square to the left as well as the Port Authority to the left.

Note the construction workers on the roof of the hotel in both pictures.

[stache]

The Paramount building RULES!

[TonyO]

The Real Deal
3/5/7

Times tower's first retail lease

A rendering of the New York Times tower. Japanese clothing and houseware retailer Muji has signed the first lease for retail space at the under-construction New York Times tower. The 5,000-square-foot space will be Muji's first outpost in the United States. The company has 387 stores in Asia and Europe.

The Renzo Piano-designed New York Times tower on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets will have 21,000 square feet of retail space owned by Forest City Ratner, the building's developer. The 52-story skyscraper will be completed in the fall.

According to Julie Hendricks, a spokesperson for Forest City Ratner, negotiations are currently under way for four other retail spaces in the building. Forest City Ratner declined to provide the terms of the Muji lease.

Japanese interior design architect Takashi Sugimoto will design the Muji store. The retailer is known for selling recycled and environmentally friendly goods.

Muji was represented by Naomi Okada of the New York City-based Okada International in the lease negotiations, and Forest City Ratner represented itself. TRD

[lofter1]

Japanese clothing and houseware retailer Muji has signed the first lease for retail space at the under-construction New York Times tower. The 5,000-square-foot space will be Muji's first outpost in the United States.

Muji: The Un-Brand

http://www.bytelevel.com/blog/archives/muji.jpg

CORANTE Going Global (http://goingglobal.corante.com/archives/2005/08/11/muji_the_unbrand.php)
Posted by John Yunker
August 11, 2005

Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/id20050811_388618.htm) features an article about the "secret" brand that is Muji (http://www.muji.net/). According to the article, "Muji is short for mujirushi ryohin, which translates roughly to 'no label, quality goods,' and its mission is to provide well designed, useful products at affordable prices." Muji currently has 285 stores in Japan with 61 others in the UK, France, and China. And it is contemplating setting up shop in the US. I believe it already has some products at MOMA.

Anyway, here are a few pics from my pilgrimmage to Muji back in January. These are from the main Kyoto location.

I really wanted this bike.

http://www.corante.com/goingglobal/archives/PICT0017_1.jpg

The cafe was reasonably priced and had lots of great take out snacks.
For some reason the Muji bottled water just tasted better than other brands.

http://www.corante.com/goingglobal/archives/PICT0018_1.jpg

The clothes didn't fit my non-localized body.
But I did buy a pair of glasses.
They had these mix-and-match stations set up and I really enjoyed building my own specs.

http://www.corante.com/goingglobal/archives/PICT0021_1.jpg

And one more shot before I left ...

http://www.corante.com/goingglobal/archives/PICT0022_1.jpg

What I most liked about Muji is how uncluttered the place felt. And I realize now that it was because you didn't have all these little products everywhere screaming out at you with their unique logos and color schemes and oddball shapes. At Muji, because they make and "unbrand" all their products, the color schemes, the labeling, the layouts are all very simple, consistent and serene.

I miss Muji.

[LeCom]

A streamlined, even if somewhat simple, Modernist store in a streamlined, even if simple from some angles, Modernist building, eh.

[MidtownGuy]

Something different from what we have already...this is what I love to see.
Hooray!:)
I hope the other retail will also be interesting.

[Stern]

I would expect a store like this to open in Soho, it'll be a welcome addition.

[lofter1]

The MoMA store on Spring Street sells a lot of Muji stuff.

Muji office supplies / stationary are very cool.

[lofter1]

They've taken down the scaffolding / sidewalk shed in front of the tower section on W. 40th -- metal grates have been installed and it looks like they're getting ready to pour the new sidewalk there ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_37a.jpg

Being Sunday with few workers around one could navigate up close ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_38f.jpg

Standing within the inset area there and looking up the side of the tower through the frame work of the awning (still under construction) could get you dizzy ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_38d.jpg

The retail space at the SW corner (Muji's new home?) has been cleared out ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_38a.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_38b.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_38c.jpg

The detailing is very high tech and way cool ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_38e.jpg

me likes it more and more :cool:

[macreator]

Any street trees? I feel like with every new development we lose a dozen street trees. I guess developers are just lazy or don't want to block the view of their precious retail space. It's not like the trees are expensive relative to the cost of the constructing a building. In fact, I believe the City will plant one for free. It's those little street-level amenities that are lacking with new construction. With an absence of trees and the new emphasis on huge double height first floor retail spaces, things can feel pretty dehumanizing.

[ZippyTheChimp]

There were never trees there.

Sometimes the reason is hidden - hollow sidewalks.

[lofter1]

There will be trees inside the enclosed garden in the low-rise section :D

[stache]

Put 'em in a tree museum!

[Derek2k3]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/401212860_22b741c982.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/393410285_3e99150c0f.jpg
NJ Photographer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/njphotographer/393421749/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/418177929_c336e05077_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/408251418_16ef2ff22b_b.jpg

The skyline is still a mound.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/416359939_4c43ee3353_b.jpg
pmarella (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/)

[sfenn1117]

http://flickr.com/photos/23437487@N00/421447768/

http://i18.tinypic.com/42lstx0.jpg

A shame it was hazy yesterday....but snow tomorrow :eek:

[BrooklynRider]

I hate the way the top of the building came out. It looks like they ran over budget and just stopped building. I'm not a fan of its rather bland entry into the skyline.

[JCMAN320]

Wasn't it suppose to be glass going up to finish those 4 panels??

[BrooklynRider]

That's what I thought, but I think Zippy pointed out that the design changed to leave it skeletal in an effort to evoke some crappy abstract goth look.

Zippy?

Anyone?

[ZippyTheChimp]

It's not finished.

[ZippyTheChimp]

That's what I thought, but I think Zippy pointed out that the design changed to leave it skeletal in an effort to evoke some crappy abstract goth look.Not me.

As far as I know, the design is the same. Rods (without glass) to the top.

[ablarc]

Conde Nast makes the whole skyline look like machine parts.

[MidtownGuy]

I wish it had a real crown, and a real spire. Let's hope for some interesting lighting effects at night.

[kz1000ps]

Conde Nast makes the whole skyline look like machine parts.

That's it!! Thank you for putting it into words. Imagine how much better the nascent BOA-NYT peak would be without the Conde Nast there to junkify the skyline.

[MidtownGuy]

Yeah, what a cockamamy contraption! Makes Conde Nast one of our ugliest.

[TREPYE]

I for one like the Conde Nast, it has a very futuristic look to me. I also like the lit square outline at night gives it some character as no other tower has anything even similar to it. The one thing that is obviously wrong with it is that out of proportion antenna, but I understand why its needed so it doesn't bother me too much. Conde Nast contributes to the skyline unlike something like the Metlife or TWT all they do is flatten the skyline out with that abject mundane flatness.

BTW NYTimes Tower is gonna look pretty phat at night and I cant wait till its lit up.

[JCMAN320]

Thanks for clarrification Zippy. I like the Conde Nast building myself. I think it's unique and stands out and is one of the better additions to the skyline IMO.

[kz1000ps]

To clarify, I like the Conde Nast as a singular building, but as an element on the skyline it sucks big time.

[Derek2k3]

I for one like the Conde Nast, it has a very futuristic look to me. I also like the lit square outline at night gives it some character as no other tower has anything even similar to it. The one thing that is obviously wrong with it is that out of proportion antenna, but I understand why its needed so it doesn't bother me too much. Conde Nast contributes to the skyline unlike something like the Metlife or TWT all they do is flatten the skyline out with that abject mundane flatness.

BTW NYTimes Tower is gonna look pretty phat at night and I cant wait till its lit up.

Totally agree, Conde Nast is so futuristically refreshing.

[lbjefferies]

The rods are going up on the east side of the crown. Sorry I don't have pics, but I'll try and get some tomorrow. It looks good.

[JCMAN320]

Good to hear Jefferies I'll go down to Waterfront today and check it out myself. Can't wait to see those pics.

[Muscatinho]

Too bad it was so cloudy...

[Derek2k3]

^ Thanks

And Our First Runner-Up Is...? Second-Tallest Building Remains Unclear

http://imnotsayin.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-our-first-runner-up-is.html

...still very much in doubt. Yesterday, the folks at FX Fowle Architects weighed in on the burning question: "Who is number two?" - what's the second-tallest building in New York (for now)?

They were kind enough to send over an actual CAD elevation (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/416581369_469b1c5e19_b.jpg) (we've linked to a lower-res jpeg), showing the under-construction (but already-topped-out) New York Times Building at 41st Street and 8th Avenue in exquisite detail. According to the blueprint, its non-functional mast reaches 1,046 feet from the sidewalk. However, on very close inspection, a 3.3 foot-tall safety beacon assembly pushes the overall height - in our opinion - to just over 1,049 feet.

Unfortunately, we don't have that level of detail for the venerable Chrysler building, but most online sources agree that she maxes out at 1,046 feet - a dead-heat with the Times building, if you don't count "non-architectural features" such as safety beacons. This is where the debate heats up among skyscraper geeks, and where most folks lose interest and go back to their conversation about last night's episode of Lost.

Interestingly, the topping-out of the Chrysler building back in 1930 had its own drama: it was part of a "height race" with the Bank of Manhattan building to be the world's tallest building. During construction, its entire metallic spire had been concealed from the public and built inside the building's fire shaft. The now-iconic pinnacle was hoisted into place in one piece, suddenly eclipsing both the bank building and the Eiffel Tower in a dramatic reveal that kinda makes you wish it were 1930 again (except for the Great Depression thing)...

And so the question remains, until 1 Bryant Park tops-out at 1,200 feet sometime later this year.

[lofter1]

Too bad it was so cloudy...

The Lam hotels (two side by side) on W 40th can be seen rising at the bottom of that picture in that post.

Just behind it on the lots on W. 30th they've just installed the crane for the McSam trio ...

[finnman69]

To clarify, I like the Conde Nast as a singular building, but as an element on the skyline it sucks big time.

A failed experimentation in over-deconstruction of the facades, too confused, too many styles, it's not sure what it wants to be. But at least it has a presence when seen from miles away.

And it's far superior to it's bastard orphan POS, the Reuters Building across the street. Up until the Times building (and maybe until the BOA building gets built) it's the best of the new Times Square office towers, better than SOMs and KPFs tower (Ernsy & Young), but that's not saying much.

the Times tower at night will be incredible. Keeping my fingers crossed. My biggest worry about the Times at night is thta the different tenants will have very different interior lighting schemes ruining the diaphonous effect of the rods.

[lofter1]

Gotta get me a zoom lens (gotta get me a camera :o ) ...

But you can make out the newly-iinstalled rods at the crown (north side of the east facade) ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_39b.jpg

[antinimby]

^ Hey, the crown might just turn out very nicely, ethereal even.

[panderson]

Video clip from inside the tower. Doesn't reveal much, but apparently the walls are red...
http://gawker.com/news/new-york-times/inside-the-new-nyt-headquarters-renzo-red-245723.php

[krulltime]

Gotta get me a zoom lens (gotta get me a camera :o ) ...

But you can make out the newly-iinstalled rods at the crown (north side of the east facade) ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_39b.jpg

Cool. I got to go see this to believe it!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Latest pics.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9436/nytimes41cdm5.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes41cdm5.jpg) http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/4020/nytimes40com2.th.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes40com2.jpg) http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7656/nytimes42cwv6.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes42cwv6.jpg) http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/8829/nytimes43cuw6.th.jpg (http://img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes43cuw6.jpg)

Glass panels
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/1125/nytimes44cfk3.th.jpg (http://img265.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes44cfk3.jpg)


http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4991/nytimes45cqf9.th.jpg (http://img265.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes45cqf9.jpg) http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8678/nytimes46cgg6.th.jpg (http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes46cgg6.jpg) http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3347/nytimes47cmq7.th.jpg (http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes47cmq7.jpg) http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3554/nytimes48cim5.th.jpg (http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes48cim5.jpg)

[BrooklynRider]

God, is that crown UGLY.

[ablarc]

^ Not yet finished ... right?

[lbjefferies]

^ Not yet finished ... right?

Far from it. I think it's coming along nicely.

[Vengineer]

Oooh, not bad. Looks nice.

[Fahzee]

Far from it. I think it's coming along nicely.

still - they seem to be taking their sweet time to complete the crown. i feel like nothing's changed since before xmas

[lofter1]

You need to get over to the site and take a look -- lots is happening in and around the retail spaces -- sidewalks are getting ready to be poured -- trim and detail are going in on the low rise section -- NY Times floors are being fitted out -- Times Center is being finished -- lots of pieces coming together.

[sfenn1117]

When is the projected completion/opening? If I had to guess I'd say they could be ready by June.

[Deimos]

I wish I had a camera to get the shot.... but this past Friday I was heading out via the Lincoln tunnel and saw the NYT building from the far side of the Hudson. The first 1/5 or so (if memory serves) of the building has all the lighting installed and looks absolutely amazing at night. When the entire building has lights installed and turned on, it is going to be a sight to see, and really have a positive impact on the skyline!

[Scraperfannyc]

Latest pics.


Hmm, perhaps that roof is meant to serve the function of overflow space when the prison population gets too high?

[stache]

Exercise pen!

[kliq6]

When is the projected completion/opening? If I had to guess I'd say they could be ready by June.

Times staff move in in August

[Fahzee]

You need to get over to the site and take a look -- lots is happening in and around the retail spaces -- sidewalks are getting ready to be poured -- trim and detail are going in on the low rise section -- NY Times floors are being fitted out -- Times Center is being finished -- lots of pieces coming together.

You're right - I stand corrected. I walked by today and was very pleasently surprised about the progress on the lower half. I wish I had brought my camera.

The more I look at this building, the more I like it

[Eugenious]

Times staff move in in August

What's taking so long?

[Vengineer]

What's taking so long?

The building merely stands at this point... now they need to make it run.

[bluesky10E29]

I have been in this building a number of times and up to the tower floors in the construction freight. The outside louvers installed to eliminate the window tinting did nothing for me but a lot of people like them. The entire building will be leased (with the exception of 2 option floors to a law firm) in the next 30 days. The atrium that will look into the NYT double height circulation / news room floor will be amazing I think.

Besides 11 Times square that is breaking ground next door soon, Vornado is also supposedly moving ahead with 20 Times square across the street from NYT atop the Port Authority. A lot of construction plans in the coming 1 - 5 years in this area.

[infresig]

any idea when the other tenants will move in? the official website gave the spring of this year as the move-in date.

[panderson]

Times staff move in in August

False. I know someone who works at the NYT and he told me last week that the move will be staggered among departments, beginning in late April (yes April!) and concluding in June.

[kliq6]

okay thats even better, only problem is turner has barely started interior office fit-out ( i know the interior division president) so i doubt April maybe May

[Vengineer]

I find it annoying that Turner takes credit for NYT when all they're contracted to build is the interior.

[kliq6]

National law firm Goodwin Procter LLP will lease more than 216,000 square feet on seven floors at the under-construction New York Times tower on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets. The transaction's lease rates were not disclosed. The building's office space is now nearly fully leased. The Renzo Piano-designed skyscraper will open this fall.

As for Turner, since AMEC the builder is pulling out of the US market, Turner will be the only firm that can market its presence in the building for there RFP submission

[panderson]

okay thats even better, only problem is turner has barely started interior office fit-out ( i know the interior division president) so i doubt April maybe May

I'm simply relaying what I heard from my acquaintance. According to him, a moving schedule has been distributed to NYT employees and it begins in April. Would they lie to their own workers?

Obviously it's difficult to tell from street level, but some of the lower floors (like in the 4-10 range) appear to have reached a nearly habitable state. However, the lobby looks like it needs a lot more work yet. And the subway entrance at 40th & Eighth is nothing but a rubble-filled hole.

Maybe the first wave of workers to move in will be required to wear hard hats at their desks.

[lesterp4]

Speaking of that, yesterday I saw a group of Times workers wearing hard hats on their way yo the new building. Also, last nite many of the lower floors appear to have boxes and file cabinets visible from the outside. there was also new lights on in one of the upper floors.

[kliq6]

I'm simply relaying what I heard from my acquaintance. According to him, a moving schedule has been distributed to NYT employees and it begins in April. Would they lie to their own workers?

Obviously it's difficult to tell from street level, but some of the lower floors (like in the 4-10 range) appear to have reached a nearly habitable state. However, the lobby looks like it needs a lot more work yet. And the subway entrance at 40th & Eighth is nothing but a rubble-filled hole.

Maybe the first wave of workers to move in will be required to wear hard hats at their desks.

Your line about " would they lie to there own workers" well Id have to say probally since there paper has been known to print a few false stories and lies recently

[BrooklynRider]

I find it annoying that Turner takes credit for NYT when all they're contracted to build is the interior.


My understanding is that Structuretone landed the NYTimes interiors contract.

[kliq6]

My understanding is that Structuretone landed the NYTimes interiors contract.


Now im really confused, as i heard turner.

[Vengineer]

Perhaps Structure Tone is doing the fit-out for the other non-anchor tenants.

[infresig]

http://enr.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=enr_document&item_id=0271-38395&format_id=XML

also describes the window-cleaning process

[panderson]

http://enr.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/comsite5.pl?page=enr_document&item_id=0271-38395&format_id=XML

also describes the window-cleaning process

Here's an interesting line from that article:

"Flack + Kurtz spent much time with Piano testing the limits of the ceramic rod spacing. Piano wanted big spaces to achieve his vision of transparency; F+K wanted closely spaced rods to limit heat gain."

Unfortunately, it doesn't elaborate any further. It would be interesting to know how the compromise worked itself out.

[jeffpark]

Now im really confused, as i heard turner.

Plaza Construction Corp- is the GC

[BrooklynRider]

Perhaps Structure Tone is doing the fit-out for the other non-anchor tenants.

Nope. They got the NY Times portion.

[lofter1]

Good article ...

Here's the section on the rods ...

... Perhaps the happiest subcontractor is the curtain wall supplier. “It turned out to be a great project, even with all the engineering challenges,” says Lou Niles, president and CEO of Benson Industries LLC, Portland, Ore.

The sun screen blocks half the heat gain, allowing the building to meet the New York state energy code and still use ultra-transparent glass. The irony, agree sources, is that the ceramic rods bounce sunlight into the building at certain times of day, increasing glare. Consequently, window shades are needed. The sunscreen solved one problem and created another, says Daniel H. Nall, F+K’s director of advanced technologies.

The shop-assembled, pressure-equalized, thermally broken unitized curtain wall consists of 9,600 units. Most have an adapter to support the ceramic rods some 20 in. outside the window glass.

http://enr.construction.com/images2/2007/03/070326-28a.jpg
Benson Industries
Rod spacing became
a tug of war between
architect and engineer.

Nearly 1,150 units are different. There are 170,000 rods, typically 4 ft 10 in. wide. The 5-ft-wide, story-tall units come in four types: a glass unit with an armature and ceramic rods; a ceramic-fritted glass-only unit for the notches; a glass-only unit for the exposed beam that penetrates the curtain wall and a sun-screen-only unit. Rod spacing varies, but is typically 3 to 4 in. except in the rod-free zones at eye level and other places.

For the rods, the architect switched from terra cotta to a stronger alumina silicate composite ceramic. The material is able to take the weight of a person. Still, broken rods dot the curtain wall.

Each rod is actually a sleeve over an aluminum reinforcing spline. Around the ends of each spline is an injection-molded silicone washer that isolates the rod from the spline, preventing rattling and serving as a buffer. The rods’ outside diameter is 15⁄8 in.

Aluminum combs, water-cut from extrusions using computer numerically controlled equipment, support the rods. Combs are connected to the glass unit through aluminum armatures at the unit’s ends. All outdoor fasteners are custom-made from high-grade stainless steel with a sandblasted matte finish, because “Renzo didn’t want them to be highly reflective,” says Jeremy W. Mucha, Benson’s vice president of engineering. Each unit has about 500 fasteners, when 50 to 60 is the norm.

http://enr.construction.com/images2/2007/03/070326-30A.gif
Benson Industries
Cladding unit, with rods, has 20-in. depth.

Every 30 ft, the screens have a concealed track for maintenance equipment.

For window cleaning, crews are going to reach between the rods, says Mucha. Each unit has two, painted aluminum, diagonal sag rods, one at each end. They allow the assembly to move with the floor-to-floor live load deflection and the window washing swing stage lateral load.

The rods also needed to survive manufacture and service. They couldn’t provide perches for birds, either.

Then there were concerns about ice loads. Rods are designed to accommodate 1.6 in. of ice buildup. “That’s almost a solid sheet of ice,” says Mucha.

http://enr.construction.com/images2/2007/03/070326-30B.gif
Benson Industries

http://enr.construction.com/images2/2007/03/070326-30C.gif
Benson Industries

At the notched corners, the curtain wall installation was made more difficult because the units had to be dropped into the cavity in front of the slab and behind the exposed steel. In addition, there are 840 violations of the envelope. Each has potential for air and water infiltration, and thermal transfer. At the beam penetrations, crews first installed a silicone boot. Units went in next, minus the head rail, spandrel glass and back pan. They went in last.

Flack + Kurtz spent much time with Piano testing the limits of the ceramic rod spacing. Piano wanted big spaces to achieve his vision of transparency; F+K wanted closely spaced rods to limit heat gain. In the end, F+K specified one 30,000-cfm-capacity, factory-built air handling unit per floor. Two units would eat up leasable space and a larger unit would have had to be field-assembled, according to union rules. That was too costly.

The exoskeleton also complicated F+K’s work. During cold weather, beam penetrations become a thermal bridge, potentially causing condensation. To minimize the effect in very cold weather, the engineer developed a control protocol to stop humidifying the space for a few hours.

http://enr.construction.com/images2/2007/03/070326-30d.jpg
Benson Industries
Workers slid glass units between
the slab and exoskeleton.
Beam penetrations had
special details (top).

F+K also engineered a 1.4-Mw cogeneration facility that serves the Times’ mission-critical power requirements, instead of a standby powerplant. The cogen plant generates 250 tons of cooling from waste heat.

“Intelligent” building controls in the Times’ space allow the building to respond to a utility emergency by allowing predetermined compromises of thermal and visual comfort to reduce electrical demand by 25%, says Nall.

The Times is the first multitenant building in New York City to have underfloor air displacement ventilation. UAD spreads fewer germs among occupants.

Though the building is designed to be 10 to 13% more energy efficient than the norm, it will have no LEED rating. The Times’ rationale is that certification would have distracted the team from creating a better work environment.

With the Times move-in about to begin and building completion set for the fall, AMEC’s Muldoon is looking ahead. Without revealing any post-Times job offers, he says that in the future he would shy away from a competitive GMP process. “If you force a CM into that tight a contract, there is more tension between the CM and the owner,” he says. “In the end, a negotiated GMP is better for everyone.”

© 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

[lofter1]

Gorgeous as the sun goes down ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_41a.jpg

[ablarc]

^ Open form.

[TREPYE]

As beautiful as this tower looks the one thing that I am concerned with is its durability, specifically the rods. They are a marvelous and creative idea but they seem to be very fragile and may need constant attention as the tower becomes older and weathers the elements. I know the article describes some of its durable characteristics but I am somewhat unconvinced. Time will tell I guess.

[infresig]

I wonder if they're going to replace the rods already broken.

[NYC360Guy]

Nice Looking Tower

[NYguy]

Observer

The Times Machine
Hot Off the Non-Presses! As Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. Packs Up Paper to Futuristic, Transparent Tower, Times Becomes Out-of-Body News: Hello, Sewell Chan!

http://www.observer.com/data/articleimages/photoimages/040907_article_otr1.jpg

Transmitting live from Eighth Avenue: The New York Times.

By Michael Calderone


“Some day we’ll all be reading our papers electronically,” said Arthur Gelb, who started his career at The New York Times in 1944 and served as the paper’s managing editor from 1986 to 1990. “That’s just the way. Am I happy about it? No, because I lived my life with the wonderful past of the printed newspaper. It can’t be stopped.”

Mr. Gelb, who chronicled his life at The Times in the book City Room, offered his reflection on the future of newsprint in the context of what might otherwise appear to be an unrelated topic: The Times’ move this year from its century-old headquarters at 229 West 43rd Street to the gleaming new 52-story tower on Seventh and Eighth avenues, between 40th and 41st streets.

But nobody at The Times seems to be able to talk about the new building without talking about the future of the newspaper—or rather, the future of the news organization. Amid harangues from rogue shareholders that the newspaper isn’t making enough money, and amid dire predictions for the future of the “dead-tree” media industry, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. is moving his company into a building that will demand the kinds of changes he has been trumpeting for more than a decade.

The old building at 229 West 43rd Street—the noisy, hulking bricks-and-mortar newspaper factory chronicled by Mr. Gelb—is still essentially an industrial building; the new one is an airy, transparent embodiment of Mr. Sulzberger’s post-newspaper newspapering plans for The Times.

Cascading style sheets replace plates; pixels stand in for ink, the virtual for the physical.

The move to the new building will force a change in the newspaper’s basic DNA. The product of The New York Times is no longer a newspaper but the news itself, in whatever form it takes.

On April 17, 10 employees of The New York Times’ Web division will be the first to move into the new Times Building, the futuristic, Renzo Piano–designed skyscraper looming over the Port Authority bus terminal.

“The new building, in terms of architecture today, and the kind of new skyscrapers being built, is magnificent,” said Mr. Gelb. “But I have no idea how The Times will function in that building.”

IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE NEW BUILDING will be comfortable. By every account, the building is very All Mod Cons, right down to the forward-thinking and ergonomically sound Knoll desk chairs at every reporter’s desk. Rather, it’s a question of how the essential function of the company will change in an environment that was built to force that change.

By April 23, roughly 40 staffers will be situated in the Web newsroom on the tower’s ninth floor, according to Fiona Spruill, the department’s editor.

By mid-June, when construction is completed on the new high-tech newsroom—located in floors two through four of a pedestal-like lower wing of the building—several Web producers will head downstairs, integrating with their fellow print reporters.

Instead of reporters sitting next to the people whose bylines will be adjacent to theirs in print, they’ll be sitting next to people producing content for several different platforms at once.

“We’re doing the best we can so the distinction between the platforms is reduced,” said Jonathan Landman, deputy managing editor. “The idea is simply to try and get the people who work together as close as you can.”

At West 43rd Street, it was difficult to shift some veteran (read: cranky) Times reporters around—but the new building and floor plan offer a clean slate.

For instance, Times staffers who work on the DealBook Web site, currently scattered throughout the business section, will now be clustered together.

“We’re trying to figure out how to reorganize the newsroom to serve this multi-platform world,” said Mr. Landman. “We have an organization that was set up by the rhythms of a printing-plant schedule. The rhythm of the newspaper had to do with how you get to the readers’ front door. That determines how copy editors worked, and so on.”

The directive is already different for reporters like Andrew Ross Sorkin, the 30-year-old business reporter and DealBook creator (whose first byline ran in The Times while he was still in high school), and for another young Timesman, Sewell Chan, who will be running his own Web-focused site.

On March 28, Mr. Chan, the prolific metro reporter, left City Hall to embark on his new assignment: bureau chief of City Room, an online desk at The Times.

City Room will be politically oriented, but it has also been compared to Gothamist.com by the tech people in-house, according to a Times staffer familiar with the prototype. Although currently in a rudimentary state, the Web site is expected to provide tabs for politics, public transportation, crime, courts, schools and neighborhoods.

That afternoon, Mr. Chan held a farewell party (with chocolate cupcakes!) in Room 9, according to a source, which was attended by fellow reporters and a few guests—including Mayor Bloomberg’s press secretary, Stu Loeser.

Mr. Chan’s City Room will not be a room, but a URL on the Internet. Call it Room 9.0. Two weeks before his mid-day cupcake soirée, the 29-year reporter was named as the first bureau chief of the Web site, “the most audacious online venture the Metro desk has so far conceived and committed to,” according to a staff memo sent by metro editor Joe Sexton.

So far, details have been scarce. The memo noted that there will be “breaking news and human interest, updates and follow-ups, local history and color, Q&A’s with newsmakers and our reporters, photos, audio and Web links to other New York sites.”

“Joe Sexton asked a group of editors and Web producers to propose new ways of presenting local news on nytimes.com,” said deputy metro editor Patrick LaForge, in an e-mail to The Observer. “After a basic idea had been sketched out, Sewell was asked to join the planning group. After the final proposal was approved, he was offered the job and accepted it.”

Mr. LaForge, who will serve as Mr. Chan’s editor, said that he expects the Empire Zone blog to be folded into the Web venture. Although Mr. LaForge said that he would like to have City Room up and running before the newsroom move, there is still “a lot of design, planning and technical work” that remains.

“It was not that long ago that we hired Sewell to be an old-fashioned ink-stained wretch on our metro desk,” said managing editor Jill Abramson at a recent Columbia Journalism Review panel. “He’s about to embark on reinventing himself as pretty much a 100 percent Web—focused on metro news—animal. It feels like some of the most vibrant ventures we have going are on the Web.”

“In the past two years, I have seen the mindset of our reporting staff change,” said Ms. Abramson later in a phone interview. “The biorhythms were set to the newspaper. What everyone thought about first, and sometimes thought about only, was the Platonic ideal for a newspaper story.”

“We want to build the new newsroom and put integration into the DNA of everyone here,” said business editor Larry Ingrassia, “so that we are thinking about what we are doing on the Web from the start.”

Mr. Ingrassia addressed interested Times staffers on March 29, in the page-one conference room, for a one-hour talk titled “The BizDay Pilot: What’s Going On Over There?”

And what is going on?

There are two major goals for BizDay’s newsroom reinvention, according to Mr. Ingrassia: breaking more news, and adding multimedia components to stories.

And the Times-reinvention guinea pig has already exhibited the strength of multi-platforms, according to Mr. Ingrassia, with coverage of February’s stock-market drop.

Ms. Abramson noticed, too.

“The newly integrated business desk, in the midst of our reinventing initiative, fed a steady stream of great stories to all our platforms, throughout the wee morning hours, the day and last night, into today,” she wrote in a Feb. 28 staff memo.

On Feb. 27, the coverage began with David Barboza’s report from Shanghai, and continued throughout the next two days with at least a dozen updates or additions. There were several updated versions of a story (with new tops), a column David Leonhardt, an audio interview with Floyd Norris, a slide show and a sidebar.

But won’t the multi-platform approach mean more work for reporters?

“It’s more a state of mind than changing what people do,” said Mr. Ingrassia. “If you’re going to go on an interview, tape it so there can be outtakes on the Web.

“We know that things aren’t going to hold as long, so why not get it right out?”

But while Times staffers are getting more out on the Web, they’re keeping a bit for themselves, too.

For instance, in covering the 2008 Presidential election, Times reporters will have a new tool at their disposal, kept hidden on the newspaper’s internal Web site: a politics wiki.

Like the most commonly known wiki—Wikipedia, the user-generated encyclopedia—the Times politics wiki is based on collaboration, with staffers adding and editing content.

On March 26, The Times’ Conrad Mulcahy—a 29-year old assistant to assistant managing editors Rick Berke and Craig Whitney, and the person who maintains the politics wiki—first alerted the newsroom about it.

“This is meant to be an agile resource that grows and changes at the speed of political news,” Mr. Mulcahy wrote in a staff memo. But since the wiki “lives behind the firewall,” in Mr. Mulcahy’s words, what’s actually there?

So far, the wiki includes a staff directory, calendar, internal memos about polling and statistics, links to news sites, archives of stories on candidates, and an explanation of the new political desk, according to political editor Dick Stevenson.

But it’s meant to be more expansive—like one giant collaborative reporter’s notebook for the political staff.

Mr. Stevenson said that the wiki is just one part of the broader changes to the politics desk, which he described as a “cross-platform, unified approach to covering politics.”

Again with the platforms!

But in the competitive political-reporting world, might even journalists on the same team be reluctant to offer up their resources?

“At least right now, with our team of political reporters, I don’t think that happens at all,” said reporter Adam Nagourney. “I think people are very cooperative.”

Mr. Nagourney said that he might be wary about adding very sensitive information to the wiki—such as a source’s cell-phone number.

While Mr. Mulcahy and Mr. Chan (both in their late 20’s) take on new Web-focused roles, Mr. Sorkin continues DealBook online—but with a print twist.

Displaying that Web and print integration that Times reporters are so fond of talking about, the first-ever special section of DealBook is slated to be published in the April 4 issue of The Times.

THIS MONTH, AS NYTIMES.COM EMPLOYEES START moving their monitors into the shiny new tower, and the West 43rd Street staffers continue packing dusty reporters’ pads into orange-plastic containers, they’ll be presented with a parting gift.

Reporter David Dunlap, a 32-year Times veteran, is creating a 64-page tabloid-sized magazine with a floor-by-floor tour of the West 43rd Street building, headquarters from 1913 through the present. He began the project about a month ago, and is being assisted by art director John Cayea and a few colleagues.

“I’m drawing principally from the photo archives that The Times maintains in its morgue,” said Mr. Dunlap. Also, he has obtained images from the “separate, discreet” archives maintained by the Times Company.

“Having seen our new newsroom in its unfinished state in January, I’m excited about the move,” said Mr. Dunlap, “though I can’t help but confess a bit of ambivalence.”

“Anyone who joined The Times in the past 10 years has never known this building when it trembled from the power of the presses as they began their nightly run,” he added. “Part of our decision to use this format was to evoke the paper’s industrial heritage.

“This ought to be on newsprint.”

[NYC360Guy]

Interesting