PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

pianoman11686
June 8th, 2005, 02:58 PM
I wouldn't mind if it continued to sit there on its own, just spruce it up a bit for heaven's sake. I know they're already upgrading the steel pillars on the upper levels with concrete, and they're opening up a restaurant/bowling place on the southwest corner, with a new facade. Just extend that all around the building, put up some Times Square-esque signs on the exterior, and it'll fit right in.

czsz
June 8th, 2005, 09:23 PM
Ew, do we have to extend the gaudiness of Times Square? I don't want to have to avoid yet more of Manhattan because it's been consumed by that same crass advertising and the consequent gawking tourist hordes. I was hoping with the Times Tower Eighth Avenue would begin to prove an elegant counterpoint to the irreverant but often annoying gusto of Broadway.

fioco
June 8th, 2005, 10:53 PM
cczsz, how often do you frequent Eighth Avenue and/or the Port Authority? It's a rhetorical question, but 'understated elegence' has never come to mind during my walks in this neighborhood. Historically the neighborhood has been brass, seedy yet flashy -- New York's 'tenderloin' district with a seductive if dangerous allure. The real 42nd street was 8th Ave. The Times Tower will be classy but not aloof from the color and humor of the Westin and new towers with brightly lit LCD screens. Even now I am delightfully shocked by the transformation of the Port Authority area. It wasn't that long ago when one needed to exercise extreme caution...Bring on the lights and the gaudy tinsel. A street one block from Broadway, and especially this one, deserves to put on the glam and strut some bling bling!

czsz
June 9th, 2005, 01:08 AM
I've been on Eighth more often then I've cared to...its transformation, however, does seem palpable following the inception of the Times tower, the Hearst building, Columbus Center, plans for both the PA bus terminal and the new Penn Station, not to mention the Wild West Midtown condo boom. Granted, it must surpass the influence and legacy not only of the blinding-diode appeal of Times Square but also of that area's seedier past, but the thrust of change on Eighth seems more in the direction of a Park Avenue than of a continuation of its a backstage rendition of Times Square circa 1985.

Fabrizio
June 9th, 2005, 04:22 AM
"the thrust of change on Eighth seems more in the direction of a Park Avenue than of a continuation of its a backstage rendition of Times Square"

If that´s the case, then the direction is all wrong.

Park Ave. is probably one of the least attractive streets for strolling in Manhattan.... beautiful, elegant yes... but a place for "street life"? No. Park Ave. is best seen from the windows of a cab or a limo.

8th has always been lively. That is it´s history. And indeed, it has served as the theatre world´s "back stage" with it´s bars and restaurants. Clean it up ...yes... but let´s not completely forget or sanitize it´s funky past. It amazes me how up-tight Americans can be... every great city will have a seemy side... a red light district .... a bit of the tawdry. Who wants NY as Salt Lake City?

macreator
June 9th, 2005, 07:45 AM
It is ironic that Park Avenue is arguably New York's only "grand boulevard" with wide sidewalks, a beautiful street median and no truck or bus traffic allowed, yet the street as Fabrizio mentioned doesn't follow through as a grand boulevard for the City because it lacks retail, it lacks restaurants and it lacks activity. While it is a great place to live and a wonderful corporate location for hedge firms and banks and such, it is too bad NY doesn't have a grand boulevard that is more lively. Something like Broadway above 59th street continued Downtown.

NYguy
June 9th, 2005, 09:30 AM
Yes, but they will have more pressure to move to the WTC. Who knows, but the tower should be built above the bus terminal no matter what.


That tower will eventually be built in some form, but we need to get the Milstein (or whoever has it now) tower built at the corner of 8th and 42nd. Then let the march continue accross 8th Ave. I wonder if the PA would consider building a residential tower atop the bus terminal....


http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Derek2k3/PABT_Tower_6_Dbox.jpg

merlyn316
June 9th, 2005, 10:10 AM
Would the PA consider a tower above the Port Authority? I guess anything is possible....

But....does it make sense economically? First, from a developer's persepective...the HVAC and exhaust systems have to be top technology. Ever live above an indian restuarant? you can smell it on the 4th floor. Imagine if you had a million buses leaving and entering below you each day. Could create a ton of problems. Second, from a renter/owner's perspective....would you really pay a premium to live on top of the PA? Who KNOWS where a lobby could be built....even though the area is changing...it still aint gonna be the prettiest spot in the world. As a result, developer's may have a problem leasing it up or selling it out. Especially, with all of the new product coming on line.

TLOZ Link5
June 9th, 2005, 05:13 PM
It is ironic that Park Avenue is arguably New York's only "grand boulevard" with wide sidewalks, a beautiful street median and no truck or bus traffic allowed, yet the street as Fabrizio mentioned doesn't follow through as a grand boulevard for the City because it lacks retail, it lacks restaurants and it lacks activity. While it is a great place to live and a wonderful corporate location for hedge firms and banks and such, it is too bad NY doesn't have a grand boulevard that is more lively. Something like Broadway above 59th street continued Downtown.

Park Avenue, at least aesthetically, was at its best before it became a corporate canyon in the '50s and '60s.

alex ballard
June 9th, 2005, 05:16 PM
/\/\My biggest pipe dream is to move the PA underground. That and the Lincion tunnel approaches should be underground. That frees up a LOT of space...

antinimby
June 9th, 2005, 05:43 PM
As both a pedestrian and driver, everytime I'm on or crossing Park Ave., I'm amazed that there doesn't seem to be traffic lights and crossing signals at certain spots.
How'd we go from discussing NY Times Tower to Park Ave.? ;)

Clarknt67
June 9th, 2005, 05:47 PM
Would the PA consider a tower above the Port Authority? I guess anything is possible....

But....does it make sense economically? from a renter/owner's perspective....would you really pay a premium to live on top of the PA?

My instant reaction to the suggestion was "eeewww... who wants to live over a bus station, especially one as notorious as the Times Square PA."

And really, I'm a pretty brave urban pioneer. But bus stations do attract a certain clientele, and not ones most home-buying people want to rub elbows with.

kliq6
June 9th, 2005, 05:59 PM
The Orion is right next to the Port and that area has a few shady individuals yet its selling like nuts. However the PABT tower is a planned commerical project

macreator
June 9th, 2005, 07:29 PM
As both a pedestrian and driver, everytime I'm on or crossing Park Ave., I'm amazed that there doesn't seem to be traffic lights and crossing signals at certain spots.
How'd we go from discussing NY Times Tower to Park Ave.? ;)

It's funny that you should mention that -- I too have always wondered why Park Avenue below 57th street and above 48th street I believe has only one street light in the median with no crosswalk signals to speak of. Besides being a bit odd to the pedestrian who has to look at the lone 4 way traffic light in the median, the situation is also annoying for drivers who have to rubberneck to see the light if they are on the side of the street with the light.

Anyone know the history behind this?

NYguy
June 9th, 2005, 07:46 PM
Would the PA consider a tower above the Port Authority? I guess anything is possible....

But....does it make sense economically? First, from a developer's persepective...the HVAC and exhaust systems have to be top technology. Ever live above an indian restuarant? you can smell it on the 4th floor. Imagine if you had a million buses leaving and entering below you each day. Could create a ton of problems. Second, from a renter/owner's perspective....would you really pay a premium to live on top of the PA? Who KNOWS where a lobby could be built....even though the area is changing...it still aint gonna be the prettiest spot in the world. As a result, developer's may have a problem leasing it up or selling it out. Especially, with all of the new product coming on line.

Well the PA is going to build a tower up there eventually, I know that. My only question is whether they would try the residential route. Probably not.

But you question would anyone want to live there?

And my answer is, in the crazy real estate market that is New York, people would move into anything. It's not as if you would be living on the ground floor or in the bus station itself.



I'm a pretty brave urban pioneer. But bus stations do attract a certain clientele, and not ones most home-buying people want to rub elbows with.

I happen to use the PA bus terminal a lot, and let me tell you, I'd rather rub elbows with some of the people there than someone with an attitude such as yours. One of the great things about New York is that you rub elbows with all types. You do it on the streets, you do it on the subways. I'm not suggesting that you have to bring these people into your home, but NY is a living city.

NoyokA
June 9th, 2005, 07:55 PM
The Port Authority Bus Terminal is an incredibly valuable piece of real estate, both for commercial and residential. City living is city living, that said this site is on top of subway lines, the commercial core of midtown, and blocks from Riverside and Bryant Parks.

NYguy
June 9th, 2005, 08:01 PM
this site is on top of subway lines, the commercial core of midtown, and blocks from Riverside and Bryant Parks.

It's also important to note that the PA itself is being surrounded by new residential towers...

ASchwarz
June 9th, 2005, 08:07 PM
The PABT basically has the same commuter crowd as other major NY transit terminals. I have no idea what you guys are talking about when you refer to an "undesirable element". You consider NJ Transit commuters from Bergen County to be threatening? The crowd is basically the same as at Penn Station or Grand Central. I know partners in law firms that take the bus from places like Teaneck and Alpine.

The people doing the criticizing have most likely never even visited the PABT. If you consider 42nd and 8th to be an "edgy" environment, I suggest you visit the Hub in the South Bronx or Pitkin Avenue in Brownsville.

czsz
June 9th, 2005, 10:17 PM
Park Avenue, at least aesthetically, was at its best before it became a corporate canyon in the '50s and '60s.

Granted there were some rude intrusions, but I much prefer the elegance of the 1950s glass buildings (especially Lever House) to the sterile monotony of the rest of the avenue's repetitious brick apartment houses.

fioco
June 9th, 2005, 11:18 PM
ASchwarz, I once lived in the neighborhood (10 blocks north between Ninth and Tenth Aves) in the late '80s. Crack addicts, prostitutes, and the homeless made the bus terminal at Port Authority an "only in New York" experience. In addition, the Port Authority was where young runaways were entrapped into the sex industry. My job was in non-profit, pastoral services to the neighborhood. I have many stories from my days living in Hell's Kitchen. I am grateful that there are not nearly so many tragic stories today in the neighborhood, but we have only to open our eyes to see that that world still exists in New York. The cruel and devious still prey upon the weak.

dchui
June 10th, 2005, 12:50 AM
It's funny that you should mention that -- I too have always wondered why Park Avenue below 57th street and above 48th street I believe has only one street light in the median with no crosswalk signals to speak of. Besides being a bit odd to the pedestrian who has to look at the lone 4 way traffic light in the median, the situation is also annoying for drivers who have to rubberneck to see the light if they are on the side of the street with the light.

Anyone know the history behind this?

That stretch of Park Avenue is not built on ground, but rather on a large platform over the many, many Metro-North tracks leading out of Grand Central. There is not enough room under the street/sidewalks and above the tracks to install the normal set of signals at each intersection, only those single lights in the median. By the time you get up past 57th Street there are just the four tracks under the middle of Park Avenue; they don't take up the whole width of the avenue any more and regular signals resume.

macreator
June 10th, 2005, 08:11 AM
That stretch of Park Avenue is not built on ground, but rather on a large platform over the many, many Metro-North tracks leading out of Grand Central. There is not enough room under the street/sidewalks and above the tracks to install the normal set of signals at each intersection, only those single lights in the median. By the time you get up past 57th Street there are just the four tracks under the middle of Park Avenue; they don't take up the whole width of the avenue any more and regular signals resume.

Interesting. Makes sense now that I think about it, you're right that section of Park would indeed be above Grand Central North and station platforms as well. Thanks for the info dchui.

ASchwarz
June 10th, 2005, 11:15 AM
ASchwarz, I once lived in the neighborhood (10 blocks north between Ninth and Tenth Aves) in the late '80s. Crack addicts, prostitutes, and the homeless made the bus terminal at Port Authority an "only in New York" experience. In addition, the Port Authority was where young runaways were entrapped into the sex industry. My job was in non-profit, pastoral services to the neighborhood. I have many stories from my days living in Hell's Kitchen. I am grateful that there are not nearly so many tragic stories today in the neighborhood, but we have only to open our eyes to see that that world still exists in New York. The cruel and devious still prey upon the weak.

Your experiences do not reflect the West Side neighborhood of 2005.

NYatKNIGHT
June 10th, 2005, 12:33 PM
Maybe not nearly as bad as it once was, but the "element" still lingers. Stand next to the Ralph Kramden statue for five minutes. To suggest that there's only Bergen County commuter types loitering there is just as inaccurate.

Fabrizio
June 10th, 2005, 02:10 PM
And so what. It´s NY. It´s the bus terminal Times Square. You´ll always have druggies and prostitutes and winos and investment bankers and doctors and lawyers and the up-and-coming and the down-and out. People live in NY because it´s not like the intolerant red-state burg they left behind. Anyway this isn´t 1975, street crime in NY is at all-time lows. There are people who would have no problem buying above the PA.

The bus fume thing sounds more like a real issue...

kliq6
June 10th, 2005, 02:59 PM
Fab your in Tuscany???

Clarknt67
June 10th, 2005, 03:55 PM
I happen to use the PA bus terminal a lot, and let me tell you, I'd rather rub elbows with some of the people there than someone with an attitude such as yours.

Hey, I was just expressing how OTHER people might feel. I can just imagine a real estate agent leading people past the porno shops across the street, through the homeless and other charactors that congregate around the bus station, and through the thick clouds of diesel smoke, and and convincing them this is a good place to hang their hammock. I just don't see it. It's a serious impediment to property value, location, location, location.

(And yes, I've been the PABT many, many times, and am in the hood several times every week.)

I just don't think residential is the way to go, I think people would feel more comfortable working above a bus station.

Fabrizio
June 10th, 2005, 05:09 PM
Clark : how on earth are they selling those million dollar penthouses on the bowery?

Klig : what about it?

kliq6
June 10th, 2005, 05:09 PM
Fact is that Orion, on the same block is selling like crazy, people just want to own in NYC nothing more to it

Clarknt67
June 10th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Fabrizio: If you're trying to argue there's absolutely no image problem associated with being above a bus station, Fioco, NY@Knight & I obviously disagree. So, be it based on fact or fantasy, the sentiment is out there. I never said people wouldn't buy the units, I just that I--and many other people, especially single women--won't.

NYguy
June 10th, 2005, 07:14 PM
The PABT basically has the same commuter crowd as other major NY transit terminals. I have no idea what you guys are talking about when you refer to an "undesirable element". You consider NJ Transit commuters from Bergen County to be threatening? The crowd is basically the same as at Penn Station or Grand Central. I know partners in law firms that take the bus from places like Teaneck and Alpine.

The people doing the criticizing have most likely never even visited the PABT. If you consider 42nd and 8th to be an "edgy" environment, I suggest you visit the Hub in the South Bronx or Pitkin Avenue in Brownsville.


That's absolutely true. I use the PA bus terminal all the time, and have no problems with it. It's basically a shopping mall with bus gates.

NYguy
June 10th, 2005, 07:16 PM
ASchwarz, I once lived in the neighborhood (10 blocks north between Ninth and Tenth Aves) in the late '80s. Crack addicts, prostitutes, and the homeless made the bus terminal at Port Authority an "only in New York" experience. In addition, the Port Authority was where young runaways were entrapped into the sex industry. My job was in non-profit, pastoral services to the neighborhood. I have many stories from my days living in Hell's Kitchen. I am grateful that there are not nearly so many tragic stories today in the neighborhood, but we have only to open our eyes to see that that world still exists in New York. The cruel and devious still prey upon the weak.

Again, we're not alking about the 80's. We're talking here and now. Times Square itself was different back in the 80's.

NYguy
June 10th, 2005, 07:50 PM
Apartments atop the PA would sell like crazy also kliq6:


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/34970784/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/42190172/large.jpg

BrooklynRider
June 11th, 2005, 12:38 AM
Gosh, you take some stunning photos.

Wait.

Did I just use the word "gosh" in a sentence?

NYguy
June 12th, 2005, 02:40 AM
Thanks all. Back to the topic at hand though, as we begin to see some details fall into place....

http://www.thecityreview.com/timesre4.gif_http://www.thecityreview.com/timesre5.gif

JUNE 11, 2005


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/44671828/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/44671835/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/44671838/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/44671840/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/44671841/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/44671845/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/44671849/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/44671853/large.jpg

BrooklynRider
June 12th, 2005, 03:53 AM
I thought the same thing Wally Cleaver, nice photos. Im not sure if BrookynRider is being sarcastic, but I like them.

Uh, oh. Me thinks me tongue gets me in a bind. I am totally serious. GREAT Photos!

macreator
June 12th, 2005, 10:15 AM
Hey just a quick question -- what is that building that is also on the Times block? Has that been demolished since or were they unable to get that last parcel? Plus, I see that there seems to be an underground passage under 8th avenue from the Times building -- will that connect the building to the PA?

NYguy
June 19th, 2005, 09:38 AM
macreator, the Times building site takes up about a third of the block...


JUNE 18, 2005

Third crane at work...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45005707/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45005661/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45005703/large.jpg

Kolbster
June 19th, 2005, 01:21 PM
It's great to see steel rising. Now I'm guessing that the steel that we see is for the tower because it has two cranes on it, and the little atrium thing next to the tower will soon rise?

macreator
June 19th, 2005, 06:00 PM
Thanks for the answer NYGuy.

pianoman11686
June 22nd, 2005, 07:55 PM
I found this over at skyscrapercity.com:

Picture was taken June 22nd from the Film Center Building

http://home.hetnet.nl/~tdb150881/nytimesupdates/NYtimes.jpg

JonY
June 23rd, 2005, 12:58 PM
I apologise if it has already been posted before, but with just over 550 replies I just couldn't scan them all....

...but I would like to know what is the actual construction company building this fabulous tower?

kliq6
June 23rd, 2005, 01:14 PM
AMEC is the cosntruction manager, it will be there last job in NY as they have decided to close this office.

lofter1
June 23rd, 2005, 08:23 PM
These posts are from 5/29/05:


Several posts ago, I asked if anyone would guesstimate the topping out date. There was only one answer....2006. Given the speed over the past few weeks, would anyone like to be a little more specific than "2006"?


Yes, and here it is.
Topping out date (and time): February 21, 2006 at 10:35:40 AM. :p

Any up-date on this?

It looks like she's now going up at a rate of ~ 1 floor / week, so could that put "Top Out" date around next Memorial Day?

sfenn1117
June 23rd, 2005, 09:28 PM
It sucks to see the empty Times Square Plaza lot STILL empty.

And yeah, it's rising fast. ~6 floors? Since this thing is going to be about 800 feet tall, and 52 floors, how high is each floor going to be? Plus the nice glass panels over the rooftop garden, and that spire. I wish it was over 1,000 feet without the spire though.

pianoman11686
June 24th, 2005, 12:32 AM
This is the Garden part at the bottom right?

No, the garden aspect of the building would be located at the very top left of that picture, to the east of the building construction. I don't believe they've started construction on that part of the building, just the office part so far. I'll get a close look at it tomorrow when I come into the city, and hopefully I'll be able to take some pictures with my cellphone camera. Nice find for the picture, by the way.

hey19932
June 24th, 2005, 12:36 AM
cool...

hey19932
June 24th, 2005, 12:58 AM
isnt there also supposed to be somekind of rooftop garden?

pianoman11686
June 24th, 2005, 02:05 AM
The public garden will be located on the ground floor in a short structure next to the skyscraper, with an atrium. There will also be a small rooftop garden on the 50th floor I believe, but I don't think it will be open to the public.

NYC123
June 25th, 2005, 12:31 AM
I can only imagine the view from the top of this building. Anybody who has an office on a high floor will have an awesome view of Manhattan.

pianoman11686
June 25th, 2005, 12:53 AM
More photos of construction, this time taken by me

June 24, 2005:

http://images.snapfish.com/343%3C89%3A723232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37% 3B%3DXROQDF%3E23238%3C8%3B89843ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/343%3C89%3A723232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37% 3B%3DXROQDF%3E23238%3C8%3B89269ot1lsi

kz1000ps
June 26th, 2005, 12:45 AM
It's been said plenty of times already, but this thing is rising fast. I figure about a floor every 8.5 days (not to get too specific about it). Imagine the day when we first see the sun's reflection on those ceramic tubes....deeeelicious!

BrooklynRider
June 26th, 2005, 01:47 AM
The quick rise of structural steel really is quite exhilarating.

pianoman11686
June 26th, 2005, 01:52 AM
It's even more incredible if you don't get to see progress on a day to day basis, but view the building every 10 or so working days. Then you'll think, "Wow, they've built that much in just two weeks?"

Johnnyboy
June 26th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Thats true. We should post pictures showing the pogress of the building at about every 1 or 2 weeks.

NYguy
June 27th, 2005, 10:18 AM
Thats true. We should post pictures showing the pogress of the building at about every 1 or 2 weeks.

That would show more contrasts for sure. But I don't think anyone who wanted to avoid photos would even bother with this thread. So...


JUNE 26, 2005

There's something uplifting about watching those cranes climb into the sky...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45368971/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/45368988/medium.jpg

lofter1
June 27th, 2005, 09:37 PM
They have reopened the "sidewalk" along the 40th St. side (E. of 8th Ave.) and have graciously cut some small openings (~12" x 18") in the plywood fence so you can look into the site...

Steel has started going up on the lower eastern portion of the building, though it doesn't look as if the entire site has been completely excavated towards the far east edge.

There is a very interesting subterranean concrete structure in this part of the building, probably about 50' x 50' on each side and 15' high. The exterior walls are completely vertical, but the walls at the inner part of the structure slope inward ~45 degrees. Sort of like a big square pool. From renderings I've seen it looks too close to the tower to correspond to the garden area, but perhaps that is what this is for.

Also, does anyone know if the two extension's on the 41st & 40th St. sides are going to cantilever out? Currently both have small support posts from the sidewalk up to the first beam, but they look temporary. On these extensions they have now installed some of the diagonal cross pieces starting on the 2nd floor. It seems as if both of these "bump-outs" will be "free floating", but I can't tell from the renderings I've seen.

Any info appreciated ...

macreator
June 27th, 2005, 11:33 PM
Also, does anyone know if the two extension's on the 41st & 40th St. sides are going to cantilever out? Currently both have small support posts from the sidewalk up to the first beam, but they look temporary. On these extensions they have now installed some of the diagonal cross pieces starting on the 2nd floor. It seems as if both of these "bump-outs" will be "free floating", but I can't tell from the renderings I've seen.

Any info appreciated ...

This may sound stupid but perhaps they are supports for billboards to go on the sides of the building to blend in with Times Square.

NoyokA
June 27th, 2005, 11:43 PM
They have reopened the "sidewalk" along the 40th St. side (E. of 8th Ave.) and have graciously cut some small openings (~12" x 18") in the plywood fence so you can look into the site...

Steel has started going up on the lower eastern portion of the building, though it doesn't look as if the entire site has been completely excavated towards the far east edge.

There is a very interesting subterranean concrete structure in this part of the building, probably about 50' x 50' on each side and 15' high. The exterior walls are completely vertical, but the walls at the inner part of the structure slope inward ~45 degrees. Sort of like a big square pool. From renderings I've seen it looks too close to the tower to correspond to the garden area, but perhaps that is what this is for.

Also, does anyone know if the two extension's on the 41st & 40th St. sides are going to cantilever out? Currently both have small support posts from the sidewalk up to the first beam, but they look temporary. On these extensions they have now installed some of the diagonal cross pieces starting on the 2nd floor. It seems as if both of these "bump-outs" will be "free floating", but I can't tell from the renderings I've seen.

Any info appreciated ...

They are not "free floating" they will be grounded and will rise the entire height of the tower to the uppermost screens.

Coleridge
July 13th, 2005, 07:36 AM
any more construction photos of this tower? how many floors so far

lofter1
July 13th, 2005, 11:55 AM
any more construction photos of this tower? how many floors so far

As of Monday 7.11.05 they had laid the floor up to 7 and steel was rising to hold the floors up to 9. Also, more steel is going up on the low rise eastern portion of the building (at present just a part the initial floor is up).

The external X supports are going up on the side street facades (41st / 40th) as the building rises. Also external Vertical steel supports are rising on the 8th Avenue facade.

This building is going to have great vertical energy -- it's a thrill to watch it go up.

NoyokA
July 13th, 2005, 01:27 PM
When finished this building will compete with the Hearst Tower for my favorite building in NYC.

Imagine too, the same building in place of others at the following locations:

1.) The Trump World Tower.

2.) 60 Wall Street.

angnyc
July 13th, 2005, 02:16 PM
What it looks like of the 60 Wall street?

NoyokA
July 13th, 2005, 02:32 PM
What it looks like of the 60 Wall street?

I meant replace the NYTIMES building with the building currently at 60 Wall Street. I think it would look tremendous there, in its place.

Zoe
July 15th, 2005, 03:01 PM
Here are two shots taken on July 13, 2005
http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/6020/7137qq.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/1860/71321qh.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

kliq6
July 22nd, 2005, 04:19 PM
Steel strike slowed this down a bit

ZippyTheChimp
July 24th, 2005, 05:51 PM
Also, does anyone know if the two extension's on the 41st & 40th St. sides are going to cantilever out?...It seems as if both of these "bump-outs" will be "free floating", but I can't tell from the renderings I've seen.
Perhaps cantilever is the wrong word, because there are no beams installed as cantilevers. But it appears that you are correct, and the "bump outs" will float above the sidewalk.

Instead of cantilevered beams, they are using cables in tension to transfer the vertical load to the square grey columns

lofter1
July 24th, 2005, 06:06 PM
Perhaps cantilever is the wrong word, because there are no beams installed as cantilevers. But it appears that you are correct, and the "bump outs" will float above the sidewalk.

Instead of cantilevered beams, they are using cables in tension to transfer the vertical load to the square grey columns
What made me curious was seeing the small supporting columns under the "bump outs" as you show in your 1st photo. They look to me like temporary supports. If indeed these side sections will float then that will really be fantastic.

Scraperfannyc
July 27th, 2005, 11:19 PM
What's the story with the NY Times tower. I haven't seen them working on it for a while...

lofter1
July 27th, 2005, 11:43 PM
combination of cement workers strike / steel strike = no work

kz1000ps
July 30th, 2005, 11:31 PM
I had an hour layover at Penn Station yesterday so I wandered around, snapped some photos, and eventually got up to this site. I recall seeing one, maybe two men working halfway up the structure. Does this mean a strike, or both, is ending? Or were these some other subcontractors?

Scraperfannyc
July 31st, 2005, 02:59 AM
I hope so.

This building should have been reaching 11 or 13 floors instead of the 7 floors it is now. This was fast rising.

Alonzo-ny
July 31st, 2005, 10:35 PM
Yeah this one got running and tripped up badly, hopefully it will get into flow again soon, i want to see it as high as possible before i leave in september.

kliq6
August 1st, 2005, 12:03 PM
Strikes are still on, those men were subcontractors

sfenn1117
August 1st, 2005, 01:21 PM
How come the strike hasn't affected the Orion, which seems to be growing like a weed? Is it because this one is steel framed?

They better work out an agreement soon. Like someone said this should be about 13 floors.....at least.

kliq6
August 1st, 2005, 02:56 PM
Residential is concrete framed for th emost part while commercial offices are steel, so a steel strike only affects office building, NY Times and BOA

Alonzo-ny
August 1st, 2005, 07:28 PM
This sucks i was loving the fast progress of this tower. Will this affect the boa as someone said steel aint due til 2nd week of august?

TonyO
August 2nd, 2005, 11:43 AM
From Steve Cuozzo's column in the Post:

The Forest City Ratner people are smacking their lips over how to best exploit Annie Leibovitz's series of photos chronicling the rise of the New York Times' new headquarters, where Ratner has 700,000 square feet of $70-and-up space to lease in the top half of the Renzo Piano-designed tower.

As The Post reported on Sunday, Bruce Ratner has hired Vanity Fair celebrity portraitist Leibovitz to photograph the ascent of the architecturally acclaimed project at intervals, in the manner of Lewis Hines' classic photos of the Empire State Building in 1930-31.

Her shots will adorn the construction bridge on Eighth Avenue between 40th-41st streets — a clever way to Hollywood-ize a project across from the Port Authority Bus Terminal.

CB Richard Ellis tristate CEO Mary Ann Tighe, Ratner's leasing agent, said, "My instinct is that some signed and framed originals" will be offered as an incentive to brokers "who show an exceptional interest" and bring in prospective tenants."

Tighe said the tower's marketing will depart somewhat from traditional methods. "We're trying to get away from the same old brochure — most people now go to Web sites."

billyblancoNYC
August 2nd, 2005, 11:58 AM
From Steve Cuozzo's column in the Post...
Could be nice. I just wonder who will rent this space...one massive user, bunches of small ones? Ratner should pay the MTA to plaster billboards (LCD screens) all over the PABT. That would be a huge boost to the NYTT in and of itself.

kliq6
August 2nd, 2005, 12:44 PM
steel strike will affect NTT and BOA, the only steel based buildings rising in Manhattan. AS for the NYT upper tenants, id bet against a second large firms as larger firms want to have naming rights, which they cant on this one

Alonzo-ny
August 2nd, 2005, 07:25 PM
When will this strike end because its pissing me off, i was enjoying being able to watch a tower rise in the flesh, or rather the steel, for once. As i said though will it affect boa as steel isnt due there for another week or so? Could someone explain is it actual construction workers who are striking or at the source of where the steel is produced as if its the former then it shouldnt affect boa unless the strike carries on. Shouldnt this strike be resolved quickly i mean holding up two massive towers in nyc must be costing boa and nyt alot of money

lesterp4
August 2nd, 2005, 11:52 PM
The strike is over. It was the iron workers local 361 who were on strike but they reached an agreement a week ago this past Saturday. The cranes were in action today for the first time since the strike was settled.

ZippyTheChimp
August 3rd, 2005, 08:07 AM
At Times Tower, Great Gray Lady
Gets Less Green


By Matthew Schuerman



The New York Times has repeatedly trumpeted national standards for “going green”—building environmentally friendly buildings.

For its own headquarters, though, The Times is opting for a more cost-efficient option. The Gray Lady, it seems, will keep its color.

The paper of record has chronicled how the new national standards for green-building designation are currently being adopted by the Hearst Corporation, Bank of America tower developer Douglas Durst and Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein.

An Aug. 25, 2004, Business Day article, for instance, said the “group of green building standards” was having a “rapidly expanding influence” on the real-estate world.

But The New York Times and its co-developer, Forest City Ratner Companies, recently decided that it is not worth the cost or the fuss to get certified—and that they can do just as well without them, according to the co-architect on the project, Bruce Fowle.

“It is probably the equivalent of a silver or a gold rating,” said Mr. Fowle, co-founder and senior principal of Fox & Fowle Architects, who is designing the 52-story tower with Italian architect Renzo Piano. “They have decided it is time-consuming and costly, and they are doing so many things that are right and correct, and some of the prerequisites are not that meaningful.”

To help the newspaper-developer duo make its decision, Mr. Fowle’s firm drew up a chart showing the relative costs and merits of achieving certification under the five-year-old program, called the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (or, in industry jargon, LEED). Mr. Fowle called the costs “substantial,” although he would not name a specific price.

Officials at The New York Times and Forest City Ratner would not consent to an interview for this story. But MaryAnn Gilmartin, executive vice president of Forest City, said in a statement, “With respect to the New York Times building, we consulted and incorporated LEED specifications wherever possible throughout the building. However, we wanted the architect to drive the design rather than design to LEED specifications.”

The decision by The Times and Forest City puts Mr. Piano, an acknowledged environmentalist, and even more so Mr. Fowle, a pioneer in sustainable buildings, in an awkward spot. Mr. Fowle’s firm designed the Helena and 4 Times Square, which is widely acknowledged as the city’s first green office building. It was never certified because it went up before the LEED system came into place.

For the Times headquarters, Messrs. Piano and Fowle will place hundreds of ceramic tubes on the outside walls of the building, running horizontally, which will keep sunlight from heating the structure. Computerized louvers will turn up to varying degrees depending on the time of day and angle of the sun, and the building will burn its own natural gas for electricity and use the excess heat to create steam and hot water.

But no longer will contractors be required to keep track of how much of the construction debris is recycled, which is a big component—and hassle—of certification.

“It becomes more of a point scheme as opposed to a means to encourage innovation,” Mr. Fowle said of the LEED specifications. “For all the innovation, we were only going to get a few points. You can create a zero-energy, neutral-climate building, 100 percent off the grid, and only get a few points for it.”

And those points are expensive—which is surely a consideration in the present real-estate environment.

Expected to open in 2007, the New York Times building will be half-occupied by The Times, with the other half leased out by Forest City Ratner. So far, Forest City does not have any leases for its 600,000 square feet, according to a source knowledgeable of the project.

Green-Building Greenbacks

The Times’ decision, made in June, is as much a reflection of the state of green buildings in New York as it is of the financial calculus of a team of developers. LEED standards specify a few prerequisites that developers must follow (clean air, energy-efficiency minimums), and then gives them a menu of items (use renewable energy, recycle storm water, plant a greenhouse on the roof), each worth a point or two, from which they can choose. Twenty-six points gets a new building certified, 33 a silver, 39 a gold, and 52 out of the possible 69 points garners platinum. Building according to LEED standards adds somewhere between 1 percent to 5 percent to the cost, and while some measures may save money in the long run, the main attraction financially has been the marketing pull that an officially green building will bring.

Then again, that marketing pull may not be that strong—or not strong enough to make up for all the headaches that developers and architects privately complain about with the LEED system: namely, that you have to keep track of how much construction debris gets recycled and shop for special materials not knowing if, in the end, you will even get blessed by the green gods who make up the U.S. Green Buildings Council, the nonprofit that runs the program. The council, according to spokesperson Taryn Holowka, has accredited 20,000 professionals that can provide guidance to developers, and their presence on a team earns another point for the project.

“LEED has not taken off as quickly as they anticipate, and the reason for that is it’s costly and time-consuming,” said Lou Mantia, managing director of asset services and a portfolio manager for Cushman & Wakefield, the real-estate services firm. “The majority of tenants are not willing to pay the extra cost for a LEED building. It’s a good tool, but it needs to be tweaked—maybe a little more than tweaked.”

Apartment buildings are the exception: The Solaire, in Battery Park City, and the Helena, on 57th Street, are both LEED-certified buildings whose owners can charge a premium for being green. But there, the same people who will benefit from more fresh air and light are the ones making the decision to rent or buy.

Ashok Gupta, the air and energy program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, defended the LEED standards.

“The question is: How does one independently verify if something that someone is doing is green?” he said. “If you want to do it, my belief is you want people to believe that you did it, and sure, you can go around telling people all that you did, but that will be long and complicated. That’s what LEED is for. It’s shorthand. What we are talking about is market transformation, and the more people who adopt LEED standards, especially in these beginning stages, the better.”

At the same time that LEED is being temporarily abandoned by environmentalists like Mr. Fowle, the rating system is under attack from the right. The old-line vinyl and lumber industries have established a competing certification system called Green Globes and have lobbied municipalities to adopt it as their standard. Bill Walsh, founder of the Healthy Building Network, has called the upstart program “a textbook model of industry green-wash, designed to confuse the market and drive down standards by rewarding minimal efforts with a maximum public-relations bonanza.”

Follow the LEED-er
Still, the complexities of the LEED system have not been enough to scare away the three developers who are competing to erect the first certified green office building in New York City. “Competing” is a bit of exaggeration, though, because, as in a high-school talent show, there is a category for just about everybody.

Larry Silverstein will probably cross the finish line first when his 7 World Trade Center opens next March. But Mr. Silverstein is applying for certification under a new rubric, reserved for buildings created by developers “on spec”—that is, without one majority tenant in mind—and therefore a bit easier to achieve. Anyone following New York real estate does not need to be told that 7 World Trade Center is being built very much on spec—and on faith. Only one company—his own—has committed to leasing space there, and then but a floor. A spokesman would not even confirm a report, first printed last week by Crain’s New York Business (and picked up in The Observer’s own daily real-estate blog, The Real Estate), that an American Express subsidiary would lease 20,000 square feet there.

Other structures at Ground Zero—Mr. Silverstein’s other four towers, the cultural buildings and memorial—will be required either to earn LEED certification or something very much like it. The something very much like it is what has environmentalists furrowing their brows now, but officials at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation argue that their guidelines, now in draft form, will ultimately be stricter than LEED guidelines and will be monitored by a panel of independent consultants.

Coming in second place will be Sir Norman Foster’s bigger and better Hearst Corporation palace uptown at Eighth Avenue and 57th Street. Or make that first place, for the Hearst tower—the original 1928 pediment has been gutted and a 42-story glass pyramid placed on top—will be the first gold-rated LEED-certified building in New York City for an owner-occupied property! Try writing that on the back of a ribbon.

All joking aside, there is plenty for Hearst to be proud of. The side offices have entirely glass exterior walls and glass interior walls also, so that even the lowliest fact-checker, the most poorly paid coffee-fetcher laboring in the central pod, will receive some natural light—and won’t have to bother bringing in that 40-watt high-intensity clip-on job from Target.

That and other environmental features, according to Brian Schwagerl, Hearst’s real-estate director, will save the company $50,000 a year in energy bills and $12,000 in water savings once the building opens next fall. It also qualified Hearst for $5 million in tax credits from the state’s energy program. You do the math.

Coming in third place—no, make that first again!—is the Bank of America tower, at Sixth Avenue and 42nd Street. That 2.1-million-square-foot building won’t open until 2008, but its developer, Douglas Durst, is trying for the city’s first platinum rating for a spec building. (It qualifies as spec because Bank of America is only going to occupy half of it.)

Mr. Durst emphasizes the word trying—it was the condition for his project being awarded $650 million worth of triple-tax-free Liberty Bonds, which were part of the post–Sept. 11 federal relief package for New York City. (Another $2.8 million in tax credits will fall out of the sky when it meets state standards.) But some onlookers doubt whether anybody can achieve platinum in a city like New York, where it is much harder than the suburbs to earn LEED points through elements like a bicycle room.

It’s not that people doubt Mr. Durst’s environmental commitment—he was the one behind 4 Times Square, and as far back as the early 1990’s was retrofitting his buildings to save energy. He got onto his tree-hugging kick as a business proposition.

“It really started with my wife and I,” he told The Observer. “We are avid horse people, and where we live in Westchester county, there is really no place to dispose of the horse manure, so we decided that if we could compost our horse manure and other people would pay us to take away their horse manure and use it to grow vegetables, we would have money coming in from two sources.”

This triangular horse-manure/compost/vegetable-garden trade only occasionally turns a profit—“It hasn’t been the financial windfall we had hoped”—but the tomatoes are said to be mighty fine!

Building green is sort of like that too. Mr. Durst said the green features played absolutely no role in leasing up 4 Times Square, while so far with the Bank of America tower, prospective tenants have responded with uneven interest. “To be honest with you, I don’t think anybody is going to lease in the building because it is platinum. I think the real selling point is that it’s going to increase productivity by 10 to 15 percent,” he said. “Some tenants get it just as some people do and some don’t.”

The New York Times may be one of those that gets it—but don’t bother to give it a ribbon. It doesn’t want one.

—Additional reporting by Sara Levin



http://www.observer.com/images/skinnyblueline.gif

You may reach Matthew Schuerman via email at: mschuerman@observer.com (mschuerman@observer.com) .

This column ran on page 1 in the 8/8/2005 edition of The New York Observer.

michelle1
August 3rd, 2005, 08:33 AM
Good reading Zippy!

BrooklynRider
August 3rd, 2005, 11:31 AM
Here we have a perfect example of how Bruce Ratner works. Promise the moon and deliver a card board cutout with glitter. It is a real cop-out to blame the dropping of LEEDs certification on the tough LEEDs certification process. It's interesting how quickly my enthusiasm for this project has been deflated.

THIS is what we have to look forward to with Ratner's other more controversial projects. Downscaling and cutting corners to save a buck - that SOP at FCR. His reputation not only precedes him - it is reinforced by every action he takes once the construction process begins.

I am equally surprised by Mr. Fowle's comments. Considering that his highest profile projects were all green, this public condemnation of LEEDs certification taints him as well.

NoyokA
August 3rd, 2005, 11:39 AM
Here we have a perfect example of how Bruce Ratner works. Promise the moon and deliver a card board cutout with glitter. It is a real cop-out to blame the dropping of LEEDs certification on the tough LEEDs certification process. It's interesting how quickly my enthusiasm for this project has been deflated.

THIS is what we have to look forward to with Ratner's other more controversial projects. Downscaling and cutting corners to save a buck - that SOP at FCR. His reputation not only precedes him - it is reinforced by every action he takes once the construction process begins.

I am equally surprised by Mr. Fowle's comments. Considering that his highest profile projects were all green, this public condemnation of LEEDs certification taints him as well.

From the article:


For the Times headquarters, Messrs. Piano and Fowle will place hundreds of ceramic tubes on the outside walls of the building, running horizontally, which will keep sunlight from heating the structure. Computerized louvers will turn up to varying degrees depending on the time of day and angle of the sun

Sounds real cheap...
The Times and Ratner are dually cutting corners not on the building’s architecture which is exceptionally expensive but on the more stringent rules of the LEED such as recycling and purchasing certain materials. And not just necessarily because of the costs but because this building has been delayed so many times getting it on the market atleast near schedule requires that these certain time consuming LEED rules be broken.

BrooklynRider
August 3rd, 2005, 12:30 PM
There is nothing in the NYO from a recognized expert of Green technology to certify that these technologies are "green" by definition. They might be unique and they might be new and they might keep the building cool. But, no one is claiming they are green.

Green technology is recognized as being more expensive up front, but produces long-term savings that far outweigh the costs of those investments. The NYO report documents Ratner and Fowle back tracking away from and failing to follow green procedures.

The building sound like it might produce some cost effective ways to keep the buildings climate cooler and more controlled. It might. It might not. The claims now mean nothing because there is no one to independently certify that it does.

FCR is backtracking. I am pointing it out because all the "community agreements" and grand design plans he makes are cited to bolster his image as a dedicated, civic minded developer.

He is not. He is a lying, deceiving, bait and switch artist. And, his buildings get dumbed downed from the get go. I imagine plastic and silk trees will also be less costly in the atrium than real trees and they won't require digging up those live trees - maybe that can be considered "green" too. Guess we'll have to see.

NoyokA
August 3rd, 2005, 12:39 PM
He is not. He is a lying, deceiving, bait and switch artist. And, his buildings get dumbed downed from the get go. I imagine plastic and silk trees will also be less costly in the atrium than real trees and they won't require digging up those live trees - maybe that can be considered "green" too. Guess we'll have to see.

OY! I quoted the computer automated screens because that is one of the most expensive things you can put into a building, I took a tour of an experimental building at Carnegie Mellon which instituted such technology and there the technology is just starting out and is incredibly expensive. There is literally a computer that controls a double layer façade which can open the louvers or close them to create a blind like effect; this has not been done in any skyscraper to date. If you think that they are going to spend millions on an experimentation to turn around and put fake fauna in the public areas, I would say you’re not ignorant but rather you have previous prejudices.

JMGarcia
August 3rd, 2005, 01:59 PM
While hardly an expert in the fields, the whole LEEDS thing needs to be refined IMO. It is hardly in a current state of perfection as being the be all and end all standard.

ablarc
August 3rd, 2005, 02:47 PM
It is a real cop-out to blame the dropping of LEEDs certification on the tough LEEDs certification process...

I am equally surprised by Mr. Fowle's comments. Considering that his highest profile projects were all green, this public condemnation of LEEDs certification taints him as well.
I'm pretty sure you're not right about this one, BrooklynRider. If requirements for LEED certification are anything like the regulations I have to deal with daily, then the LEED certification process is not just tough, but idiotic.

Attaching points to virtues is a fool's quest. Try arriving at the goodness of say, your wife or partner by assigning points to this or that characteristic.

The whole process is intellectually bankrupt, I'm sure; Mr. Fowle's a whole lot more credible in my book than any organization that relies on such hare-brained methods.

ZippyTheChimp
August 3rd, 2005, 02:58 PM
Building according to LEED standards adds somewhere between 1 percent to 5 percent to the cost, and while some measures may save money in the long run, the main attraction financially has been the marketing pull that an officially green building will bring.It is difficult to argue that this is not an economic decision by the NY Times at the expense of enlightened environmental policy. The point is not whether the building's computer operated louvers will meet or exceed LEEDS standards, or whether the LEEDS standards need refinement, but this:


At the same time that LEED is being temporarily abandoned by environmentalists like Mr. Fowle, the rating system is under attack from the right. The old-line vinyl and lumber industries have established a competing certification system called Green Globes and have lobbied municipalities to adopt it as their standard. Bill Walsh, founder of the Healthy Building Network, has called the upstart program “a textbook model of industry green-wash, designed to confuse the market and drive down standards by rewarding minimal efforts with a maximum public-relations bonanza.”

The NY Times has been at the forefront of criticizing the environmental policies of the Bush administration. The more developers adopt these standards in high profile buildings, the greater impact it will have on national environmental policy.

The same weak arguments were made in the 60s and 70s, about the benefit vs cost of the "radical" environmental proposals.

The Times could have stood tall here. Instead, they chose to say nothing.

BrooklynRider
August 3rd, 2005, 03:22 PM
Sorry, Stern, I couldn't help taking a pot shot at Ratner. I think he's earned it.

This whole thing goes to the argument of what is "green"? Just like, what is "organic" when we put lables on food?

Would it be fair to say a building can be energy efficient and at the same time not be a "green" building? By building in efficiencies even if the methods weren't sustainable, would we call the building "green".

And, as difficult as LEEDs might be, what's the alternative?

Edward
August 7th, 2005, 11:58 PM
The cranes of New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/) appear on New York skyline. 6 August 2005.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/images/new_york_times_tower_hudson.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/)

Alonzo-ny
August 8th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Wow i didnt realise the orion would be taller than the mcgraw hill building! I can wait to see this on the skyline, how is construction now the strike is over.

Gulcrapek
August 8th, 2005, 10:06 PM
Steel was up to the ninth floor level today.

NoyokA
August 9th, 2005, 12:35 AM
Sorry, Stern, I couldn't help taking a pot shot at Ratner. I think he's earned it.

This whole thing goes to the argument of what is "green"? Just like, what is "organic" when we put lables on food?

Would it be fair to say a building can be energy efficient and at the same time not be a "green" building? By building in efficiencies even if the methods weren't sustainable, would we call the building "green".

And, as difficult as LEEDs might be, what's the alternative?

Ratner, love him or hate him, if he were around in 1957 the Dodgers never would've left Brooklyn...

BrooklynRider
August 9th, 2005, 08:31 AM
I think he was around in 1957. A part of him was dripping down his mother's inner thigh.

Gulcrapek
August 9th, 2005, 03:18 PM
^BURN



8/08/05 with much washout

http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/5224/nyt8bs.th.jpg (http://img320.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nyt8bs.jpg)

Alonzo-ny
August 9th, 2005, 09:07 PM
Really disgusting post thanks for that.

lofter1
August 10th, 2005, 02:56 AM
The entire first level of steel columns on the eastern portion of the building have now risen and they make a nice forest rising over the construction fence (none of which are visible in the photo posted above).

NYguy
August 14th, 2005, 02:36 PM
AUGUST 13, 2005:

Work on the lowrise wing is moving forward...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/47672721/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/47672776/large.jpg


The new Orion makes a guest appearance...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/47672792/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/47672796/large.jpg

TonyO
August 19th, 2005, 02:16 PM
Village Voice - The Fine Print

'Times' to Commoners: Go Elsewhere

Don't soil our publicly subsidized new HQ with your riff-raff

by Paul Moses
August 16th, 2005 10:29 AM

When The New York Times and Forest City Ratner Companies open their grand new office building on Eighth Avenue, it won't have a Taco Bell, McDonald's, Wendy's, or Nathan's, because they are specifically forbidden under terms of a land deal with the state. But a Starbucks or Cosi would be just fine.

The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility."

In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment."

Lease restrictions that exclude the public may not be unusual in luxury office buildings, but there is an irony in this case. The Pataki administration, acting on behalf of the New York Times Company, condemned the property for a so-called "public purpose." This is the standard the Fifth Amendment sets for the state to invoke the immense power of eminent domain.

At one time, "public purpose" usually meant a highway, bridge, or utility service—something the public was actually allowed to use. But now it's routine for the courts to declare it a "public purpose" for the state to seize privately owned land so that another private owner can erect a very private office building where the public can't even buy an inexpensive taco. In this case, the services many New Yorkers most need—health, education, job placement—are officially locked out of a building that will be heavily subsidized by city taxpayers. And, it should be noted, this is a site with unique public access, located across the street from the Port Authority Bus Terminal and upstairs from the city's subway crossroads.

"Our new building will be an attractive and welcome addition to Times Square for all New Yorkers to enjoy," Times spokesperson Toby Usnik said in an e-mail interview after the company was asked if it had any comment on these provisions in its deal with Forest City and the Empire State Development Corporation. "We have worked with our partner, Forest City Ratner Companies, to define general categories of tenants that will complement our new building, including food and retail establishments with broad appeal. These are common types of establishments that New Yorkers and visitors alike now expect to find when visiting the new Times Square."

Such notions of a "public purpose" could well change as a result of outrage across the political spectrum over the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on June 23 that allowed the city of New London, Connecticut, to seize homes for private development. While the court ruled in favor of condemnation (and in 2003, also declined to hear a case against the Times project), the majority was troubled enough by the apparent unfairness to note that states can restrict the power of eminent domain, and that many have done so.

This has spurred a move across party lines in Albany and other statehouses to limit government's ability to coerce land deals for private developers. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat, proposed a bill, for example, to make condemnations more costly for the private developer and create a commission to review the "public purpose" standard. The bill would provide for displaced renters to be paid one and a half times their annual rent; property owners also would be compensated at one and a half times the market value of their property, according to Jim Malatras, legislative director for Brodsky, who chairs the Assembly's Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions.

It comes too late to help the owners of the 16-story office building, student dormitory, business school, hat shop, and fabric store bulldozed to make way for the Times headquarters. And the Brodsky bill doesn't quite come to grips with the key issue: Exactly what "public purpose" should allow government the right to take your home or the place where you work? But it's a start.

One yardstick for deciding this tricky question can be found in a concurring opinion Justice Anthony Kennedy issued when he cast the swing vote in favor of the bulldozers in the New London case. He wrote that deals "intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits," should be forbidden.

Condemnation of private property for private development in New York City is often done as part of a no-bid deal that favors politically powerful businesses—companies that are major campaign contributors, hire politically connected lobbyists, or in the case of the Times, are media companies with enormous clout.

David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and expert on eminent domain, said some condemnations in New York City might have failed the test Kennedy set in the New London case. "The Kennedy concurrence implies that sweetheart deals made in back rooms might not pass constitutional muster," Reiss said, "and as many development deals in New York are conducted in back rooms, it raises concerns that they would not be constitutional under Kennedy's view."

If Kennedy is to be taken at his word, it follows that special steps should be taken to avoid favoring the politically connected when the state's power is used to condemn land for a private developer. That could mean requiring competitive bidding, timely release of all records, and City Council approval for any condemnation and related tax breaks. That would replace the no-bid deals, secrecy, and "three men in a room" approval process marking such projects as the Times building (which was quietly approved by the Public Authorities Control Board).

In the Times deal, the city and state made a no-bid pact despite prior plans to seek competitive bids for the choice midtown site the newspaper company wanted. The Times also got tens of millions of dollars in city subsidies based on what it said were the high costs of keeping 750 workers based in the city instead of New Jersey—costs that, it was clear at the time, were vastly overestimated by Times executives, as the Voice has reported ("The Paper of Wreckage," June 17, 2002). The Times got these subsidies even though, as previously reported, another developer, Gary Barnett, said he would build a 50-story office tower without heavy tax breaks. Barnett—who made headlines recently by competing with Forest City Ratner Companies to build in downtown Brooklyn—even owned part of the site.

The question remains: Would the Times deal with a favored developer have passed Kennedy's test?

"The Supreme Court was in fact asked to take cert [hear an appeal] in our case and refused," said Usnik, the Times spokesperson.

"Presumably that was because the justices did not see a constitutional problem in the condemnation."

Further, he said in an e-mail, New York courts found that the Times building benefited the public by replacing urban blight in Times Square. These are not the minor or "pretextual" benefits that Kennedy was concerned about, Usnik said. (You weren't aware that booming Times Square is still blighted?)

But is that enough of a "public use" for the state to seize one privately owned office building to replace it with a more exclusive one that someone else owns? Reiss, the Brooklyn Law professor, suggested that the standard should be "substantial use by the general public." It would be interesting to see that applied to an office building that bars all employment offices except for executive-search firms.

But any change in New York's eminent-domain law will have to overcome strong opposition. The Bloomberg administration made New York the only city to come to New London's aid with an amicus brief, arguing that jobs can be created if city officials are free to determine what a "public use" is. What it means is that unless your household employs more people than, say, a basketball arena, you're unprotected.

See you in Starbucks.

BrooklynRider
August 19th, 2005, 02:29 PM
Well, I guess they'll be "no comments" all around from Ratner, The NY Times, Pataki, and Bloomberg.

That's some good reporting.

pianoman11686
August 19th, 2005, 03:15 PM
The article mentions a 16-story building that was demolished to clear the site. I thought there was only a multi-level parking garage there previously. Or was this building mid-block and I never noticed it?

kliq6
August 19th, 2005, 03:34 PM
The garage was Mid-block and along the Eighth Ave street scape was various building

lofter1
August 19th, 2005, 07:07 PM
The article mentions a 16-story building that was demolished to clear the site. I thought there was only a multi-level parking garage there previously. Or was this building mid-block and I never noticed it?
The 16 story building was on W. 40th, just east of 8th Ave.

The student dorm mentioned in the article was on W. 41st, at the western edge of the block-through parking lot.

BrooklynRider
August 21st, 2005, 07:45 PM
Please do not post the above image on Skyscraper City or Skyscraper Page (SSC, or SSP) without permission.

I love it! A Wired New York exclusive.

ablarc
August 21st, 2005, 10:53 PM
That's some good reporting.
Not so good.

How about the way he tries to imply the blight this building addresses is now non-existent Times Square blight, when you know damn well he's aware that the blight in question is Port Authority blight, and real enough?

That's not good reporting; that's sleight-of-hand meant to hoodwink those members of the public that have only a cursory knowledge of the issues.

A real reporter doesn't mislead.

lofter1
August 22nd, 2005, 12:02 AM
It could be that the "blight" mentioned is in regard to sex shops that previously were found on the 8th Avenue block, not to mention a couple of little storefronts on that same block and on 41st & 40th where all sorts of illicit goodies could be found.

The reporter notes that TS still has "blight" -- which again could refer to the sex / drug trade that still exists around PABT.

The terminal is not the cause of these conditions, but is simply the conduit that brings together those who are looking to engage in their own particular brand of commerce.

Interesting to note, despite a higher police presence at PABT now than ever existed before 9/11, that the underground network still thrives.

This simply shows that the complete "clean up" of Times Square could be a pipe dream (many of the businesses have simply moved to side streets or up and down 8th Ave.).

ZippyTheChimp
August 22nd, 2005, 12:28 AM
he's aware that the blight in question is Port Authority blight, and real enough?Property A is the cause of neighborhood blight, so we are going to seize property B across the street.

Times Square blight has long passed, but wait - we now have Milstein blight. I wouldn't mind a little Eminent Domain there.

macreator
August 22nd, 2005, 08:58 AM
Times Square blight has long passed, but wait - we now have Milstein blight. I wouldn't mind a little Eminent Domain there.

Eminent domain to force out Emigrant bank? :D

BrooklynRider
August 22nd, 2005, 11:08 AM
... How about the way he tries to imply the blight this building addresses is now non-existent Times Square blight, when you know damn well he's aware that the blight in question is Port Authority blight, and real enough?

That's not good reporting; that's sleight-of-hand meant to hoodwink those members of the public that have only a cursory knowledge of the issues.

A real reporter doesn't mislead.

You're confusing it's "poor reporting" with poor reading comprehension on your part. The reference that implied that this building was replacing urban blight in "Times Square" was made by a person reiterating the findings of New York courts. The end of that paragraph was a sarcastic remark by the reporter.

Your interpretation of what blight was meant is irrelevant to the report. The COURTS found that this building replaced Times Square blight and that was their reasoning for condemning. And, all of the buildings on the footprint of the NYTimes Tower were not blighted. Only those on the northwest corner of the lot - which were porn shops.

Also, you dismiss the reporting based on this one BRIEF paragrah, when the article's focus is on the discriminatory and exclusionary rules put into effect in a building that was granted land through emminent domain and is being constructed for "public benefit".

Here's the direct reporting froim the article:


... "Further, he said in an e-mail, New York courts found that the Times building benefited the public by replacing urban blight in Times Square. These are not the minor or "pretextual" benefits that Kennedy was concerned about, Usnik said. (You weren't aware that booming Times Square is still blighted?)".

ACTUALLY, it IS very good reporting if one chose to read it word for word.

kliq6
August 22nd, 2005, 11:50 AM
The state should take action on Milstein on failing tolive up to his end of the agreement, he has had his site longer then Tishman had the Westin and Ratner the Times, its time to get a developer that has actually built something since 1989, the last time Milstein built in NY.

Were is that guy that posted on her awhile back saying this site had a Tenant, that was months ago, what gives?

pianoman11686
August 23rd, 2005, 10:03 PM
I got to the site a little late today, when it was "all quiet." It seems that even after the strike finished, the pace is not nearly as heated as it was in May and June. But they are also making progress on the rear portion:

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp54%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A59827%3B6%3Aot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A59827257ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A59827258ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A59827%3B72ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/3447%3A66723232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E234%3A%3D937%3D37%3B %3DXROQDF%3E2323%3A59827259ot1lsi

NYguy
August 28th, 2005, 11:22 AM
August 27, 2005


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/48327541/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/48327550/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/48327559/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/48327562/large.jpg

PHLguy
August 28th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Damn this thing flew up, by spring 06 this could be 30-40 floors tall.


Do construction workers often take it slower during the winter?

lofter1
August 28th, 2005, 03:47 PM
By Spring '06 this baby will be topped out.

BTW: I spoke with one of the workers on Fri. 8/26 and he confirmed that the uprights that are now supporting the "bump-outs" on 41st & 40th Streets are indeed temporary and will come down once the cross-pieces are all installed and the structure is self-supporting.

Edward
August 29th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Contruction of New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/). 27 August 2005.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/images/times_tower.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/)

NewYorkYankee
August 29th, 2005, 11:30 PM
Excellent picture Edward!

NYguy
September 5th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Pics from yesterday:

SEPTEMBER 4, 2005


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/48764874/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/48764877/medium.jpg

hella good
September 6th, 2005, 04:30 AM
"Im movin on up, Im movin on out, Im movin on up, nothing can stop me, yeah"

-sang NYT Tower

kliq6
September 6th, 2005, 05:19 PM
This on is rising nicely, ratner is looking for 90 - 100 per sf on this one and BOA is looking for the same, they will fight over the same tenants, but i think Durst will win. he is a good landlord from what i know, offers tenants much much more

TonyO
September 6th, 2005, 05:35 PM
This on is rising nicely, ratner is looking for 90 - 100 per sf on this one and BOA is looking for the same, they will fight over the same tenants, but i think Durst will win. he is a good landlord from what i know, offers tenants much much more

I hadn't heard the rent for the Times tower was going to be that high. If that's true then BOA will win hands-down...its location is far better.

mgp
September 7th, 2005, 11:12 AM
This on is rising nicely, ratner is looking for 90 - 100 per sf on this one and BOA is looking for the same, they will fight over the same tenants, but i think Durst will win. he is a good landlord from what i know, offers tenants much much more

Ratner is asking $75 - $80 per rsf. That being said - at $15 per foot more Durst may still win because he has the better location.

The space in the Verizon building will have similar pricing and should hit the market around the same time.

macreator
September 7th, 2005, 11:16 AM
So, what is the deal with the Verizon building?

Is Verizon vacating the entire building space and moving downtown?

I hope they are not leaving town.

mgp
September 7th, 2005, 11:35 AM
So, what is the deal with the Verizon building?

Is Verizon vacating the entire building space and moving downtown?

I hope they are not leaving town.

Verizon sold their building to Equity Office. They are vacating the entire building (except for floors 6-12), and relocating to somewhere in Jersey. From what I have heard EOP is renovating the lobby, elevators and possibly the skin. They will have around 1 Million sf available on floors 2-5, 13-41.

lofter1
September 7th, 2005, 11:40 AM
From what I have heard EOP is renovating the lobby, elevators and possibly the skin.
YES! Please, please, please ... this is one of the uglier big buildings in midtown, made worse by its prominent location.

kliq6
September 7th, 2005, 12:02 PM
Verizon is moving there executives into the top five floors of 140 West street, and they will join about 1,000 others already in th ebuilding. AS for the rest of the crew that was at 1095, another 1,500 is moving into Verizons 375 Pearl Street and another 500 are moving to 50 Varick Street. About 500 will be moving to the new verizon Complex in Bedminster, NJ, the old AT+T building

hella good
September 8th, 2005, 03:13 AM
I reckon we'll start seeing some facade soon.

NoyokA
September 17th, 2005, 03:05 PM
http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/

NoyokA
September 17th, 2005, 03:08 PM
http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/img/stacking.gif

lofter1
September 17th, 2005, 04:10 PM
Great link. Thanks, Stern.

One question: Along 40th Street just east of 8th Ave., this seems to show the grates for the subway passage below and is that a new elevator (marked by the X-in-a-box)?


http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/img/groundRetail.gif

lofter1
September 17th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Also, on page 11 of the pdf "Fact Sheet" ( http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/pdf/FactSheet2007.pdf ) the "bump-outs" along 41st & 40th can be seen.

From this rendering it does not not appear that they will be "free-floating" to the extent that I had previously discussed.

TonyO
September 20th, 2005, 06:31 PM
wnbc.com
NY Times Cutting 500 Jobs, 4 Percent Of Work Force

POSTED: 4:49 pm EDT September 20, 2005
UPDATED: 5:21 pm EDT September 20, 2005

NEW YORK -- The New York Times Co. said Tuesday it would cut about 500 jobs, or about 4 percent of its work force, as part of an ongoing effort to reduce costs. The reductions come atop another 200 jobs that were cut earlier this year.

The Times said it expected 250 jobs at its main newspaper group to be affected, which includes the Times, the International Herald Tribune and the online operation of the Times. Of those job cuts, about 45 will come from the Times' newsroom, the company said in a statement.

Another 160 jobs will be cut from the Times' New England operation, which includes The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and Boston.com. The company did not provide a breakdown of those job cuts other than to say that 35 newsroom jobs would be cut at The Boston Globe.

The announcement came on the same day that The Philadelphia Inquirer and its sister newspaper said they would eliminate a combined 100 newsroom jobs because of lower circulation and revenue. The Inquirer plans to cut its editorial staff by 15 percent from 500 to 425, while the Philadelphia Daily News will cut its editorial staff 19 percent, from 130 to 105.

Both newspapers are published by Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., which is owned by Knight Ridder Inc., the nation's second-largest newspaper company.

Newspaper companies have been struggling with slow-growing advertising and a long-term decline in circulation amid changing media habits as more people go to the Internet for news.

Last week, Knight Ridder said its third-quarter earnings would fall about 20 percent because of declining ad sales, as well as higher interest expense and newsprint costs.

Knight Ridder cited weakness in its Philadelphia -- one if its biggest newspaper markets -- as well as Fort Worth, Texas and Kansas City as leading factors behind the profit decline.

The Times said it expects to begin making the staff cuts next month and complete them over the next six to nine months.

The company said in a statement that it plans to "manage the staff reductions in such a way that it continues to provide journalism of the highest quality, to function smoothly on a day-to-day basis and to achieve its long-term strategic goals."

lofter1
September 23rd, 2005, 01:19 AM
As a non-architect / non-engineer some questions (perhaps naive ones) for you professionals:

The steel for the Times tower is now up to the 15th Floor. Today they were pouring concrete on the floorplate at the 7th Floor. Is there some sort of formula that builders use to figure out when a floor should be poured in relation to the building that is going up around it? Is there any additional stability that the poured floor gives to the structure which has to be taken into consideration as the steel continues to rise?

Also, on the Times tower I notice that the external cross-pieces on the lower floors are far more taut than the ones at the upper floors. Do these cross-pieces get manually tightened as the building rises? Or is it the stress of the building itself that causes the cross-pieces to "firm up"?

NoyokA
September 23rd, 2005, 02:52 AM
I passed the NYTIMES Building today and also the renovation which is nearing completion at the Morgan Library. Both designs are very similar in that they are somewhat safe, unlike what Piano has proposed for Columbia. That said I was not impressed at all with the Morgan addition, it's incredibly uninspired, dull, and it looks dated already.

NoyokA
September 23rd, 2005, 02:54 AM
http://194.185.232.3/works/065/pictures/49big.jpg

James Kovata
September 23rd, 2005, 03:24 PM
Jeez....I can't believe how this building has risen! Then again, I haven't really been on since my own city was destroyed.

TLOZ Link5
September 24th, 2005, 11:33 PM
JAMES!!!!! Welcome back! It's really great to know that you're okay.

lofter1
September 27th, 2005, 09:32 AM
I'm re-posting these unanswered questions in the hope that somebody out there can enlighten me ...

As a non-architect / non-engineer some questions (perhaps naive ones) for you professionals:

The steel for the Times tower is now up to the 15th Floor. Today they were pouring concrete on the floorplate at the 7th Floor. Is there some sort of formula that builders use to figure out when a floor should be poured in relation to the building that is going up around it? Is there any additional stability that the poured floor gives to the structure which has to be taken into consideration as the steel continues to rise?

Also, on the Times tower I notice that the external cross-pieces on the lower floors are far more taut than the ones at the upper floors. Do these cross-pieces get manually tightened as the building rises? Or is it the stress of the building itself that causes the cross-pieces to "firm up"?

jsgardinier
September 27th, 2005, 12:13 PM
I'm re-posting these unanswered questions in the hope that somebody out there can enlighten me ...

I will pre-empt my answers by stating that i am no longer a practicing engineer, but have a structural engineering degree and have worked for a couple of large, well known construction companies....

1. Not necessarily a formula for pouring the concrete floors, but as the steel structure rises, it is put together "loosley" to a point, when all the columns and floor girders are squared and bolted tightly and welding of the joints begins. After this "squaring, tightening, and welding" is completed, that portion of the structure is fully square and in its final position -- this is when concrete is poured. The concrete floors give the structure a significant portion of its lateral rigidity - and if they were poured before final squaring was complete, then squaring would be impossible to do and the building could become un-square. Further, the concrete adds significant weight and if it were poured before tightening process, it could cause the structure to shift and become unsquare....

2. You are correct - the cross braces are tightened manually as the building rises as part of the process described in #1....the cross braces add to lateral rigidity (to resist forces such as wind and earthquakes)...

lofter1
September 27th, 2005, 03:33 PM
^^ Thank you, jsgardinier!

NYguy
October 3rd, 2005, 07:24 PM
Sunday, OCTOBER 2, 2005


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/50226896/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/50226899/large.jpg

Jake
October 3rd, 2005, 09:02 PM
WOW WOW WOW

WOW and did I say WOW

This one is coming up FAST

Great pics, look at that poor little red building, he's like "when I was the tallest, those were the days" lol, and check out Sarah Jessica Parker in that ad of Sex and the City on the side of little red.

lofter1
October 3rd, 2005, 09:30 PM
19 Floors so far ...

It'll be interesting to see how long that poor little red building and the row of other low-rise buildings running half-way down that block on 8th Ave. will last.

It's a problematic site: just half the block of 8th Ave and only one building deep onto 40th. The large building on 40th just east of 8th Ave. (at the far right in the top picture) has just been redone, so it will most likely remain for the long haul.

One great thing: as long as these sorry little buildings stay up the more of the Times Tower we'll be able to see.

NYguy
October 6th, 2005, 08:49 PM
19 Floors so far ...

It'll be interesting to see how long that poor little red building and the row of other low-rise buildings running half-way down that block on 8th Ave. will last.

It's a problematic site: just half the block of 8th Ave and only one building deep onto 40th. The large building on 40th just east of 8th Ave. (at the far right in the top picture) has just been redone, so it will most likely remain for the long haul.

One great thing: as long as these sorry little buildings stay up the more of the Times Tower we'll be able to see.


I hope those little buildings somehow manage to survive. It would be a great contrast to the Times tower. We don't see enough of that in Manhattan...

lofter1
October 6th, 2005, 09:34 PM
^ Agreed.

I poked around the site today -- luckily one of the construction gates was open :D .

Standing on the corner of 41st & 8th at the edge of the building and looking up at the tower is awesome. This building has such power and energy.

The workers are fastening the clips onto the exterior girders where the facade material will hang.

At the 14th Floor on the east side of the tower (overlooking the interior garden) the floor is double-height. Don't know if this is for mechanicals or for a fantastic room up there.

The temporary supports have been removed from both the 40th & 41st Street sides where the bump-outs project from the main tower, which gives a great sense of lightness to these portions of the tower, almost as if the building is floating.

Can't wait to see more progress!!!

lofter1
October 6th, 2005, 09:57 PM
^ It was at the end of a work shift, so guys were leaving (they probably thought I had something to do with the project). Plus I was just inside the gate -- not walking around under the beams and all -- though I sure was tempted!!

NoyokA
October 11th, 2005, 11:46 PM
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8805/nytimes3wi.th.jpg (http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes3wi.jpg)

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3411/nytimes28ev.th.jpg (http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes28ev.jpg)

kz1000ps
October 12th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Much thanks Stern. 5 months later and we're a third of the way up! Hopefully the facade stuctures will start to be applied soon - I can't wait to see it in action.

jcrunner66
October 13th, 2005, 04:59 PM
I work for one of the steel fabricators on this job. I was very pleased to find this site. I had only seen one picture of this project until now. Thank you from all of here at the plant for the wonderful pictures and keep them coming. We all enjoy seeing a project we are working on go up. Especially one as prominent as this.

lofter1
October 13th, 2005, 09:32 PM
jcrunner66: Welcome aboard! And greetings to the other workers at your plant :) .

Could you fill us in on the difference (if any) between the steel that has the green coating (the main uprights at the corner junctions) and the plain steel (used throughout)?

jcrunner66
October 14th, 2005, 11:19 AM
The steel that is coated is architecturally exposed. Architecturally exposed steel is steel that is part of the architecture of the building. We are fabricating the architecturally exposed bracing. The green coating is a prime coat and a final coat of paint will be applied at a later date. I'm not sure what color the final coat will be. Much of the rest of the steel will be coated with fire proofing and will be covered by other building components.

ZippyTheChimp
October 14th, 2005, 11:26 AM
Thanks for the reply, but you've brought up another question.

How is the exposed steel fireproofed? Does it already meet code standards for survivability?

mgp
October 14th, 2005, 01:10 PM
Thanks for the reply, but you've brought up another question.

How is the exposed steel fireproofed? Does it already meet code standards for survivability?

I believe (from my limited construction background) that a special 'intumescent paint' fireproofing is applied to steel that will be exposed.

From what I have heard the curtainwall will begin going up in the first couple of weeks in November.

ablarc
October 14th, 2005, 01:29 PM
'intumescent paint'
Swells up to a protective foam when licked by flames.

lofter1
October 14th, 2005, 09:06 PM
Thanks, jcrunner66.

The un-primed steel on the first floor of the tower has been fire-treated and they are now spraying the steel on the second floor.

By "architecturally exposed bracing", I take it you mean the diagonally placed cross-pieces that are primed white and which have the turn-bolts (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67641&postcount=658), yes?

Derek2k3
October 14th, 2005, 10:49 PM
From last Sat. at OHNY.

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50733474.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50733470.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50733471.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50733472.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50733473.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50733526.jpg
The Times will have 3-4 new buildings as company in this 1 view eventually.

Derek2k3
October 14th, 2005, 11:16 PM
http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50735474.jpg
Crazy floodlighting.

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50735475.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50735476.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50735477.jpg

Jake
October 14th, 2005, 11:23 PM
very nice derek, great pics


that is one giant tootpick!

When are the lights going to be finished in this building? Probably many months after the building appears finished.

krulltime
October 14th, 2005, 11:29 PM
Wow great photos Derek2k3 and thanks for the renderings!

NoyokA
October 14th, 2005, 11:44 PM
This building is going to be incandescent at night, I think we all forgot just how great this building is going to be.

lofter1
October 14th, 2005, 11:45 PM
Lets hope the project on the SE corner of 42nd & 8th doesn't go up for many, many years (put in a nice temporary plaza with food & tchochkes). That way we'll all have a fantastic open view of this beauty.

NoyokA
October 14th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Lets hope the project on the SE corner of 42nd & 8th doesn't go up for many, many years (put in a nice temporary plaza with food & tchochkes). That way we'll all have a fantastic open view of this beauty.

I wish the Times had purchased this lot and did just that, put a plaza with food & tchochkes, and transferred the air-rights to add 50 storeys to this beauty.

jcrunner66
October 15th, 2005, 10:31 AM
[quote=lofter1]Thanks, jcrunner66.

The un-primed steel on the first floor of the tower has been fire-treated and they are now spraying the steel on the second floor.

By "architecturally exposed bracing", I take it you mean the diagonally placed cross-pieces that are primed white and which have the turn-bolts (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67641&postcount=658), yes?

[No, lofter1, I mistakenly labeled our architectually exposed steel as bracing. It is actually parapet steel which, I believe is located on the North side of the building running in the vertical direction.]

ablarc
October 15th, 2005, 10:38 AM
Lets hope the project on the SE corner of 42nd & 8th doesn't go up for many, many years...
Maybe let's not.

jcrunner66
October 15th, 2005, 10:50 AM
Derek2k3, great pictures! The guys in the shop thank you.

kz1000ps
October 16th, 2005, 11:25 PM
A couple random ones taken yesterday, and wow was it gorgeous out. Considering I was in town for only a couple of hours, the sun's return from hibernation was perfectly timed. I found out later that day upon returning to Boston that they were not so fortunate...pooh on them.

From Ninth Ave
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3285/dscf000715dp.th.jpg (http://img54.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf000715dp.jpg)

Corner at 8th and 40th
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9921/dscf000819en.th.jpg (http://img443.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf000819en.jpg)

mkeit
October 17th, 2005, 02:30 PM
http://newyork.construction.com/2005/09/01/NY_09_01_2005_p069-01.asp


Some more details on the Times building.

ZippyTheChimp
October 17th, 2005, 05:28 PM
That was a nice read.

The article mentions aspects of the building that give it a sense of lightness. One thing not mentioned is the use of bracing to support the bump-outs on the north and south sides of the tower.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1038&d=1122238234

Although they will be enclosed on the ground floor, the site plan shows this area will be retail, and by shifting the load inward, the need for heavy columns at the corners is eliminated. The same for every floor above.

hella good
October 17th, 2005, 06:56 PM
we should see some cladding really soon!

NYguy
October 17th, 2005, 07:16 PM
http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/50735474.jpg
Crazy floodlighting.

It's great that the building will be lit from top to bottom.

NYguy
October 17th, 2005, 07:20 PM
OCTOBER 15, 2005

The tower gradually makes its appearance on the skyline (center)


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/50865879/original.jpg

evil_synth
October 17th, 2005, 09:25 PM
Everyone knows the good swimming is in the Bronx river, duh.:p

Citytect
October 18th, 2005, 02:12 AM
Wow. The skyline from that perspective looks really junky.

NoyokA
October 18th, 2005, 02:27 AM
Wow. The skyline from that perspective looks really junky.

Cue in Hudson Yards...

MidnightRambler
October 18th, 2005, 11:41 AM
I would just love to go in a swim in the Hudson.

Actually, the lower Hudson is cleaner than it's been in about a hundred years. Clean enough to swim in, actually.

BrooklynRider
October 18th, 2005, 01:13 PM
::bows politely, extends an arm::

After you...

TLOZ Link5
October 18th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Well, I've kayaked in it.

And it's not so much the cleanliness of the water that's an issue, but the swiftness of the current.

Jake
October 18th, 2005, 08:27 PM
It;s true, my friend was in a team of enviromental research divers who went down to the bottom and collected organisms that lived there. There's things like snails and other things that only live in healthy ecosystems and they were found there. The water is murky naturally, do you have any idea how much mud there is in this area, this river is gigantic, it carries all that stuff from upstate and throws it right into NY Harbor.

Back to the topic, do you guys think NYT will actually pay to light this building? I've seen hundreds of pictures from the 1930s showing all the grea NY towers lit up with colors and beacons and just about everything else, it never happened. I'm sure those lights on the sides are an exagerration and the spire is unlikely to have special lights just for it. It will probably look like any other office building, hopefully I'm wrong.

macreator
October 18th, 2005, 10:06 PM
I agree full heartedly with you Jake. Too many new buildings go up in the New York with no thought given for what the building will look like at night.

The Time Warner Center is an example of this. Even though the towers aren't my favorite examples of good architecture, they still would look neat lit up at night, but alas they aren't.

I think New York should take a note from Hong Kong on this matter. In Hong Kong, they passed an ordinance so that certain buildings along the harbor had to be lit up at night, creating a spectacular effect.

This was part of a proposal from the tourism department.

Bob
October 19th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Two U.S. cities that feature/support external building illumination: Dallas and Fort Worth. One of the tallest in Dallas is completely outlined in what appears to be green neon. At 80+ stories, it is spectacular at night.

TLOZ Link5
October 19th, 2005, 12:29 PM
Yes, but it's in Dallas.

krulltime
October 19th, 2005, 06:08 PM
As New HQ Rises, Old Owners Cause Trouble Underfoot


By Matthew Schuerman


The skeleton of the new New York Times building is now about 400 feet high, but the fight over the land beneath it is still not over. In some ways, it hasn’t even begun.

Over three years ago, the state condemned the 11 parcels on the site to make way for the new 52-story building, and at the time paid out $86 million to the former owners.

Now 10 of the landlords who feel they have been ripped off are calling for their day in court—and a bigger check. (The 11th took the money and ran.)

But in a twist that should make even the staunchest rooter for the underdog blanch, every dollar more that these small-time parking-garage magnates win in court will come not from the ledgers of the mammoth corporations, but from the treasuries of the city and state.

That’s because, according to the development agreement that paved the way for the condemnations, the Times Company and Forest City Ratner get to divert every dollar beyond that initial $86 million from the substitute tax payments that they’re making. And the landlords claim that they are owed two or three or even five times what they’ve received so far. In essence, city and state taxpayers—who are already chipping in several millions dollars’ worth of subsidies—will also be helping out if the court appeals are successful.

The Empire State Development Corporation, the state economic-development agency, defends the agreement because the Times Company and Forest City needed to know what their maximum outlay for the buying property would be before agreeing to the deal.

“It’s already paying more property tax by multiples than the previous properties were paying,” said an agency official who requested anonymity, speaking to The Observer. (The state has not, however, done an analysis comparing before-and-after tax revenues.)

The official said that the Empire State Development Corporation was also eagerly awaiting a court date so it could argue its own case. But only one judge hears eminent-domain cases, Martin Schoenfeld, and he has other duties as well, which means that a hearing may be many months away.

Property-rights advocates argue that government regularly undervalues property—it’s what makes eminent domain so attractive to private developers, they say.

“It might put an end to the taking of property, if they had to pay market value,” said Joe Wright, an advisor to community groups fighting eminent domain and a member of the national property-rights group the Castle Coalition. “They wouldn’t have to go through with eminent domain then, because they would get no economic benefit.”

Catherine Mathis, spokeswoman for The New York Times, said that the agreement on acquisition costs was part of a larger deal that would provide amenities to the public.

“The Times and Forest City Ratner Companies entered into a complex arrangement with the city and state to develop this property,” she said in a statement. “There are many components involved in the arrangement, including subway amenities, a publicly accessible auditorium, guarantees to build within set timeframes and make a payment in lieu of taxes.”

Lawsuits over condemning the land for the Times building delayed the construction of the tower by about six months, according to a state official, but they were unsuccessful. (The building itself is more than a year behind schedule and will open sometime in 2007.) Now there’s no stopping the building, but the current appeals demonstrate that while the Constitution permits the government to seize private property for “just compensation,” there’s no easy way to find out what “just” means.

“They gave us 20 cents on the dollar for what the property was worth,” said Sidney Orbach, whose partnership, Three O Realty, owned a 16-story office building on 40th Street. “Their initial offering was $7.2 million, and then they were required to reassess and ended up offering about $8 million. The appraisal we had done was for $35 million, and that’s on the lower side because of the way appraisals are done.”

The state’s appraisal comes to about $83 per square foot of space in his old building. The real-estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield—which isn’t working for either Mr. Orbach or the state on the Eighth Avenue appraisals—told The Observer that a square foot might have gone for between $250 and $300 three years ago.

The sleek, new-fangled New York Times skyscraper, designed by Renzo Piano and Bruce Fowle, is also replacing a student dormitory for nearby colleges, parking garages, a couple of porn stores, a business school—a hodgepodge of low- and middlebrow businesses, largely locally owned, often unattractive and not terribly valuable from a tax point of view. Needless to say, they don’t fit in with the new Times Square.

For a sense of what does fit, read the legal papers—first reported by The Village Voice this August—that established the partnership between the Times Company and Forest City Ratner. The developers—who would not comment for this article—are prohibited from leasing to “a ‘fast food’ restaurant at which food is prepared on-premises … such as, by way of example only, McDonald’s, Nathan’s, Wendy’s, Taco Bell.” But they can rent street-level space to “a specialty eat-in or take out ‘quick food’ establishment that offers higher quality food such as, by way of example only, Cosi, Starbucks and other similar facilities.” Yes to scones; no to Egg McMuffins.

Mr. Orbach thought he was pretty upscale himself, however: Donna Karan rented space from him. In fact, Mr. Orbach’s office building was so prosperous that the Empire State Development Corporation is saying that his rents were above market rate and therefore not a reliable way to calculate the true value of the property. A representative from the state agency wouldn’t elaborate because litigation is pending. Hmmm … if New York real estate isn’t worth whatever you can get for it, then why do we have this thing called capitalism anyway?

Oh, it’s not called capitalism; it’s called economic development. Sometimes the market needs to be nudged along, or else it will be mugged along.


Lawsuits

Mr. Orbach, by contrast, says that those rents, if anything, were forced down in 2001 and 2002 by the threat of condemnation—although he doesn’t deny that his building was prosperous.

“It was very desirable, and there was tremendous competition for space,” said Mr. Orbach. “As soon as the notices came out and word got around that it was going to be condemned, any potential tenants dried out. Some of the brokers went around to the existing tenants and said the building was going to be torn down, ‘Do you want me to find some place other for you?’”

Mr. Orbach tried to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but failed. The court did hear a similar case, Kelo v. New London, however, and in a 5-4 decision this summer came out in favor of government’s right to take private property and turn it over to another private entity, rather than merely for public works. However, property-rights advocates note that the Kelo case differs from the New York Times situation because in New London, a redevelopment agency seized the property first and then sought the best bid from any developer who wanted in.

Also, much of Times Square was redeveloped through an open bidding process. But the Eighth Avenue site was acquired by the state exclusively for use by The Times, which had said it was considering moving 750 jobs to New Jersey in order to save money. The newspaper company worked out a deal with the state: It would retain 3,300 employees and hire 1,148 more in exchange for access to the property and $18.7 million worth of sales tax and energy benefits, according to an analysis by the nonprofit watchdog organization Good Jobs New York. The newspaper will occupy about half of the building; Forest City is seeking tenants for the top half. Maybe Donna Karan can be lured back.


copyright © 2005 the new york observer, L.P.

lofter1
October 19th, 2005, 07:53 PM
...the current appeals demonstrate that while the Constitution permits the government to seize private property for “just compensation,” there’s no easy way to find out what “just” means.

“They gave us 20 cents on the dollar for what the property was worth,” said Sidney Orbach, whose partnership, Three O Realty, owned a 16-story office building on 40th Street. “Their initial offering was $7.2 million, and then they were required to reassess and ended up offering about $8 million. The appraisal we had done was for $35 million, and that’s on the lower side because of the way appraisals are done.”

The state’s appraisal comes to about $83 per square foot of space in his old building. The real-estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield—which isn’t working for either Mr. Orbach or the state on the Eighth Avenue appraisals—told The Observer that a square foot might have gone for between $250 and $300 three years ago.
That is a huge difference. Sounds like this will go to trial.

LeCom
October 26th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Earlier Today

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/196/pict0001nyttucoct05tothesouthl.th.jpg (http://img459.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0001nyttucoct05tothesouthl.jpg) http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/8337/pict00021nyttucoct05tothesouth.th.jpg (http://img459.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict00021nyttucoct05tothesouth.jpg)

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/196/pict0001nyttucoct05tothesouthl.jpg

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/8337/pict00021nyttucoct05tothesouth.jpg

ablarc
October 27th, 2005, 07:44 AM
That adjacent deco building looks pretty nice.

Fabrizio
October 27th, 2005, 08:16 AM
It looks very nice... very sharp looking. Will this section of the Times building be low? ... it creates a nice New Yorky grouping.

ZippyTheChimp
October 27th, 2005, 09:08 AM
I think that section has reached its full height.

BrooklynRider
October 27th, 2005, 12:43 PM
Given its current neighbors, this building is going to look much taller than it is when complete.

czsz
October 27th, 2005, 05:17 PM
I think that section has reached its full height.

Throwing the unity of the street out the window in an act of indulgent self-glorification?

lofter1
October 27th, 2005, 07:39 PM
It will go a bit higher where it butts up against the stepped-back building to the east:

http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/img/stacking.gif

lofter1
October 27th, 2005, 07:41 PM
Given its current neighbors, this building is going to look much taller than it is when complete.
All the more reason that I secretly hope that nothing goes up on the empty lot at 42nd / 8th until the Times Tower is finished.

lofter1
October 27th, 2005, 07:42 PM
Throwing the unity of the street out the window in an act of indulgent self-glorification?
Yep -- a magnificent act, ain't it?

vc10
October 28th, 2005, 04:58 PM
OK, so long as we get something good on that corner---*and* on top of the PA bus terminal.


All the more reason that I secretly hope that nothing goes up on the empty lot at 42nd / 8th until the Times Tower is finished.

Edward
November 2nd, 2005, 12:11 AM
Contruction of New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/) - the view from Top of the Rock - observation deck atop GE building in Rockefeller Center. 29 October 2005.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/images/nytimes_ge.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/)

millertime83
November 2nd, 2005, 12:18 PM
nice picture of Hoboken, too :)

lofter1
November 10th, 2005, 02:55 PM
Something interesting going on here ...

New scaffolding has been erected on the lower floors at both the NW and SW corners of the tower. It estends out beyond the frame of the building and is completely enclosed in protective white plastic (not the same as the protective enclosures being used by the Pitti Bros. for concrete pouring on the floors above).

I'm hoping this is an indication that the first ceramic / glass facade is being installed on those lower floors.

Anyone have any news on this??

Jim Koeleman
November 11th, 2005, 11:30 AM
edit.

lofter1
November 11th, 2005, 11:57 AM
As of Wed. Nov. 9 they were up to Floor # 22 :D

mgp
November 11th, 2005, 03:10 PM
I believe the glazing were scheduled to start at the beginning of this past week (11/7), so lofter - the staging that you see is likely the beggining of the glass. I would look for the first few floors to be covered in the next couple of weeks...

This project is on cruise control right now, and it is really fun to watch. At least it gives me an excuse to go to west 40's...

Citytect
November 12th, 2005, 12:20 AM
Looking back at the rendering for the Times tower, the "spire" is kind of bugging me. Seems like a lot of bulidings are resorting to sticking poles on the roof to increase height. Isn't it kind of cheating? I mean, what we have here on the NYT tower is little more that a long pole. It looks fine, but calling it a spire is a stretch. Am I alone here? Anyone else agree? Shouldn't a spire be a little grander, a little more dramatic?

Jim Koeleman
November 12th, 2005, 06:10 AM
edit.

lofter1
November 12th, 2005, 10:35 AM
The spire is great ... more verticality and in many cases enhances a tower, as can be seen here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72643&postcount=1

City Spire
November 12th, 2005, 11:12 AM
The spire is great ... more verticality and in many cases enhances a tower, as can be seen here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72643&postcount=1

Great page! But I think it´s too many skyscrapers with spires. And I really wonder how the one in Dubai will look.

Phentente
November 16th, 2005, 11:54 PM
More Pics! Man someone needs to put up a few more webcams around Times Square. When I go home in December I'll take a bunch for everyone's viewing pleasure. Pittsburgh's contruction scene just isnt doing it for me.

lofter1
November 18th, 2005, 12:29 AM
A portion of the sidewalk shed along 40th Street has been removed and you can get a clear view of the tower from street level all the way up to the girders going up on the 25th Floor. At street level the temporary supports for the south-facing bump-out have been removed, so that entire section now freely hangs out from the tower. You can also get clear views all the way through the first floor to 41st Street.

This building re-defines AWESOME.

panderson
November 18th, 2005, 02:42 AM
Several posters have mentioned the lot directly north of the new Times tower (bounded by 8 Ave, 42nd & 41st), but does anyone know what's actually supposed to be happening there? I recall that a few months ago there were billboards up at the site advertising some sort of building and listing a developer, but then they vanished. I'm afraid I don't recall any of the specifics. Is there a project planned there that got sidetracked or canceled?

I agree it would be nice for the Times building not to be completely hemmed in by tall neighbors, but neither will it add to the building's aesthetics to have an empty lot next door.

antinimby
November 18th, 2005, 07:39 AM
Panderson, the lot you're talking about is the Milstein's Times Square Plaza aka 11 TS. Its got a long, torturous history.
Read all about it here: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3431
(I feel like the forum's telephone operator) ;)

Johnnyboy
November 18th, 2005, 01:31 PM
can someone please post any new pictures of this building?
Thankiu

LeCom
November 18th, 2005, 10:44 PM
Two days ago

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/11/416831.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/11/416836.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/11/416839.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/11/416837.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/11/416838.jpg

Strattonport
November 18th, 2005, 10:48 PM
Nice shots.

What's the multi-color paned building in the 2nd shot?

Johnnyboy
November 18th, 2005, 11:19 PM
wow. Thanks for the pictures. i have not seen this building scince the last picture posted. i had not gotten the chance to visit the city. this building is growing exelently. you made my day LeCom

LeCom
November 19th, 2005, 12:06 AM
haha, thanks guys. Strat, the building is Westin Hotel on 8th and 42nd.

lofter1
November 19th, 2005, 12:46 AM
And by today (Fri. 11/18) the girders were being raised on an additional two floors up top.

She's just about at the half-way mark ...

jcrunner66
November 19th, 2005, 12:03 PM
Great pictures. You should start to notice a change in the building in the next couple of weeks. they should start erection on the 27th and 28th floors some time between 12/5 and 12/12. Those floors will be different from the others. It will probably take quite a bit longer to erect the 27th through the 29th. There are more pieces to erect and there is quite a bit more welding to do for the erector.

ZippyTheChimp
November 19th, 2005, 12:20 PM
Building equipment floors?

jcrunner66
November 19th, 2005, 12:34 PM
That would be my guess Zippy. The connections on these floors are designed for much heavier loads than the other floors.

mgp
November 19th, 2005, 01:07 PM
That would be my guess Zippy. The connections on these floors are designed for much heavier loads than the other floors.

Yeah - I believe the 28th floor is a double-height floor for building systems and mechanicals. Also - the 27th Floor is the NY Times' last floor.

lofter1
November 19th, 2005, 05:50 PM
The 14th Floor facing East is also a double height floor --

Anyone know what use the NYT folk will have for that area?

Citytect
November 19th, 2005, 06:49 PM
^Cafeteria.

LeCom
November 20th, 2005, 05:55 PM
The 14th Floor facing East is also a double height floor --

Anyone know what use the NYT folk will have for that area?
That's why it took so long for that area; I even thought the construction was stalled.

lofter1
November 20th, 2005, 08:02 PM
Construction was stalled for a few weeks -- steel / concrete workers strike.

NYguy
November 21st, 2005, 05:46 PM
Sunday NOVEMBER 20, 2005


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/52583500/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/52583524.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/52583536.jpg

LeCom
November 21st, 2005, 06:10 PM
Haha, what movie did you go see, NYguy?

NYguy
November 22nd, 2005, 09:29 AM
Haha, what movie did you go see, NYguy?


Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire..(or whatever the name was)

kliq6
November 22nd, 2005, 11:22 AM
14th floor is the main news floor and will be TV studios for live feeds by reporters

NYatKNIGHT
November 22nd, 2005, 11:37 AM
^Cool. More inside scoop please.

Citytect
November 22nd, 2005, 10:28 PM
^Part of the AMC - entrance/ticketing area.

ZippyTheChimp
November 22nd, 2005, 10:55 PM
The facade is part of the Eltinge Theater, built in 1912.

In 1929, Sir Laurence Olivier performed there in the play Murder on the Second Floor.

In 1935, Abbott & Costello debuted at the Eltinge.

In 1998, the theater was jacked up, set on rails, and moved 168 feet west to its present location.

lofter1
November 23rd, 2005, 01:57 AM
^ 25 movie screens (some about as big as a postage stamp, but others humongous) plus cool terraces where you can go out side on the upper levels and view Times Square and environs from above.

NYguy
November 23rd, 2005, 09:11 AM
^ 25 movie screens (some about as big as a postage stamp, but others humongous) plus cool terraces where you can go out side on the upper levels and view Times Square and environs from above.

Its nice. But those exit elevators are a potential deathtrap. And they're enclosing them in now.

lofter1
November 26th, 2005, 07:45 AM
The suspended / enclosed scaffolding that has been erected at the corners of the tower is working its way up the side of the building. This has revealed the work within: all of the exposed steel (uprights, cross-beams & "X" supports) are being painted the same grey color -- a fitting choice for "the old grey lady".

Pallets holding what appear to be panels of the ceramic tubes can be seen sitting on the 2nd floor level at the 40th St. side of the building (described in the article below as "the a twofold solution for the windows that covers the exterior with 185,000 ceramic tubes manufactured by Germany-based Haldenwangere. The tubes dissipate solar light before it enters the offices, while allowing the color of the building to change with the sky.").

The work being performed is described in an article (link previously posted at http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69366&postcount=688 ) :



Gravity Defying

New York Times Building Aims to Be Steel Landmark

(09/01/2005)
By Alex Padalka

The 52-story tower will have large amounts of exposed steel elements supporting an innovative curtain wall, requiring an intensive fabrication and installation effort...

...one of the 52-story building's most striking aspects, already evident at the construction site, is the amount of exposed steel and how the team is accounting for the effect of the elements and the appearance of the final product.

"There is nothing in this building that is not deliberate," said Hussein Ali-Khan, vice president of real estate development for the New York Times.

... The occupants will probably never know the level of precision that the $850 million building's design is requiring for steel erection. Even basic elements such as steel connections became complicated on the portions exposed on the exterior, said Tom Scarangello, project manager at New York-based Thornton Tomasetti, the structural engineer on the project."Normally, when you're working out connection details, you're dealing with things like clearances, but in the end of the day they're going to stick some fireproofing and sheetrock on it, and no one's ever going to see it," he said. "No one cares whether the bolts face this or that way, nobody cares how thick the plate is, nobody cares what wall stage you use. But here, both architects were knee-deep, with us saying 'Which way do we want the bolts to face, and do we want a hex-head bolt or a button-head bolt©' We got this stuff detailed out to the point that the iron worker knows which way the bolt goes."

... The amount of exposed steel elements gave rise to the first technical dilemma: on a building this tall, the steel supporting the façade "grows" with the weather change in the seasons, with the total variation adding up to a floor-cracking four inches. Thornton Tomasetti came up with a system of lateral braces and outriggers that connect the exposed steel to the internal columns and essentially pins the outside steel to the interior.

The exposed steel also required the use of a special fireproofing paint and the significant detailing on each piece that would be visible from the outside.

That process was so unique in New York that Piano's team, led by Serge Drouin, stayed on site to make sure that each weld and bolt was made precisely to specifications.

LeCom
November 26th, 2005, 04:33 PM
Sounds like the project is a pain in the ass, it's surprising how fast it's rising with all those complications.

ablarc
November 26th, 2005, 04:35 PM
Sounds like the project is a pain in the ass, it's surprising how fast it's rising with all those complications.
Conscientious contractor.

Fabrizio
November 26th, 2005, 06:26 PM
And we´re just so used to crappy construction. Imagine the detail work involved 70 + years ago.... fitting stone and carving ornament.

Bravo to Piano & co.

James Kovata
November 27th, 2005, 12:26 AM
What floor has the construction reached?

lofter1
November 27th, 2005, 01:35 AM
^ # 25 !!!!

LeCom
November 27th, 2005, 03:21 PM
And we´re just so used to crappy construction. Imagine the detail work involved 70 + years ago.... fitting stone and carving ornament.

Bravo to Piano & co.
True true. Say, imagine building Woolworth...

antinimby
November 28th, 2005, 08:19 AM
^ # 25 !!!!Yeah, but when's the glass comin'?

From what they say, I'm not so sure I'll like the look of the exposed steel beams.
I mean, won't it look too industrial and raw?

lofter1
November 28th, 2005, 10:33 AM
From what I see it will have the look of a perfectly manufactured piece of machinery -- an engine of sorts, glowing from within :D .

***

NYguy
November 29th, 2005, 09:06 AM
NOVEMBER 26, 2005

Rising into the night....


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/52906877.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/52906881/large.jpg

NYatKNIGHT
November 29th, 2005, 02:33 PM
Nov. 27, 2005:

http://www.pbase.com/image/52899272.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/52899299.jpg

NYguy
November 29th, 2005, 08:36 PM
Not sure if this was posted here, but here it is...

Annie Leibovitz photographs NY Times Building construction


Monday, August 1, 2005


Q: WHAT DO George Bush, Nicole Kidman, and the Renzo Piano-designed tower being built on Eighth Avenue HAVE IN COMMON?

A: All Have Been Photographed By ANNIE LEIBOVITZ

Bruce Ratner announces that the creation of the new home of The New York Times will be documented by the famed photographer; her photos will be the centerpiece of an innovative marketing campaign


New York, NY, Monday, August 1, 2005 – Bruce Ratner, President & CEO of Forest City Ratner Companies, announced today that award-winning photographer Annie Leibovitz is documenting the construction of the new, 52-story, Renzo Piano-designed tower which will be home to The New York Times Company. Ms. Leibovitz began photographing at the site, on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets, in July and is expected to return regularly throughout the next 24 months – during the building’s construction and initial occupancy as the Times Company and companies leasing space in the building settle into their new offices beginning in early 2007.

“It’s a photographer’s dream to document a long-term project like this,” said Annie Leibovitz. “In this age of advanced technology, it is beautiful to see men and women workers still building skyscrapers with their own hands.”

Bruce Ratner said, “The New York Times Building is a remarkable blend of art and commerce. In the course of the next two years, Renzo’s acclaimed design will be transformed into a tower where many prestigious companies will conduct business. We know Annie Leibovitz’s unique artistic sensibility will create legendary images.”

Ms. Leibovitz’s work will become the centerpiece of both a unique public art project and an innovative marketing program launched by Forest City Ratner Companies, developer of The New York Times Building, and its financial partner ING Real Estate, as they set about leasing 700,000 square feet of premiere office space on floors 28 through 50, as well as 20,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space. In the coming months, the project team will release images by Annie Leibovitz personalized for the brokerage community in a variety of nontraditional ways.

The public art component of the project – a sidewalk gallery surrounding the site – will give the estimated quarter of a million people who walk through the area every day ample opportunity to view Ms. Leibovitz’s latest work, with new images unveiled to the public first at the site. Passers-by will not only be able watch the construction through peepholes, they will also be able to see – through the lens of a renowned photographer – the details of the construction as it progresses, along with portraits of the workers.

Ms. Leibovitz will be recording the people and the process involved in the creation of the building, in much the same way that the classic photographs taken by Lewis Hine and Margaret Bourke-White immortalized the construction of the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building, respectively, in the 1930s. Ms. Leibovitz will be following in this photojournalistic tradition. As The New York Times Building rises, she will be climbing the girders, taking spectacular pictures: close-ups of the construction process and panoramic views of the city. Once the construction is complete, these views will be reserved for the fortunate people who work at the companies leasing space on the building’s upper floors. The building is being leased by Mary Ann Tighe, CEO of CB Richard Ellis’s New York Tri-State Region.

While this photography project was inspired by icons of early 20th century architecture, Ms. Leibovitz’s subject is unmistakably a product of the 21st century. Renzo Piano’s design for The New York Times Building, created in partnership with Fox & Fowle Architects, is wrapped in an energy-efficient sheath of ceramic rods – described by Piano as a “lace curtain” – which harnesses light to bounce it deep inside the building, reducing the need for electric lighting and bathing the tower in a shifting palette of colors. These ceramic rods, suspended just outside the glass skin, will cover the walls from the ground up and extend high above the top floor, reaching for the heavens. Ms. Leibovitz’s lens will capture all of the nuances of this remarkable structure – artistic impressions of the kind of details that are normally seen only by architects, developers and construction workers.

About Annie Leibovitz: One of only two living photographers to have had an exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, Annie Leibovitz began her career as a portrait photographer in 1970, a year before she earned her degree from the San Francisco Art Institute. Ms. Leibovitz was named Chief Photographer for Rolling Stone magazine while still in her 20s, and the first Contributing Photographer for Vanity Fair magazine ten years later. Her portrait photography and photojournalism have taken her around the world. In 1987, she created the popular and award-winning “Portraits” campaign for American Express, which was named “Campaign of the Decade” by Advertising Age magazine. She has published four books of photography, including collections devoted to dancers (1992) and portraits of women (1999). Ms. Leibovitz is under contract with Condé Nast for magazine photography, and with Random House for photography books.

About Forest City Ratner Companies: Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC) is an affiliate of Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises – one of the largest mixed-use property owners in the United States. Other noteworthy FCRC projects include MetroTech Center (which recently opened its final building, 330 Jay Street, the state-of-the-art home for Kings County Family Court and New York State Supreme Court Criminal Term, as well as office space); the Hilton Times Square Hotel, Entertainment, and Retail Development; the Harlem Center; 111 Worth Street, which added dozens of units of affordable housing in Lower Manhattan. Projects in development include a residential tower on Beekman Street in Lower Manhattan that will also contain the first New York City public school to be built on privately owned land and Brooklyn Atlantic Yards, a mixed-use development that will include the Brooklyn Arena, future home of the Nets basketball franchise. Both the Beekman Street tower and Brooklyn Atlantic Yards are being designed by noted architect Frank Gehry.

kliq6
November 30th, 2005, 02:51 PM
I hope this spurs the other three corner in that area to be built out

ZippyTheChimp
December 3rd, 2005, 04:20 PM
View from W39th & 11th Ave
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/3014/nytimes01c5fi.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes01c5fi.jpg)

antinimby
December 3rd, 2005, 11:14 PM
Good job Zippy. That's a perspective from a few blocks away, I've wanted to see but people don't do more often enough. Unfortunately the tree/PABT got in the way a bit.
BTW, for those counting, the building's approx. 40% up.

antinimby
December 4th, 2005, 12:35 AM
On a side note, is that lot where the trees are developable?

ZippyTheChimp
December 4th, 2005, 10:54 AM
Sorry for the typo. The view is compressed, from 11th Ave. The Lincoln Tunnel portal is below the flag. The trees line the entrance. The up-ramp further down W39th is beyond 10th Ave, and runs up to the PABT. Almost all of the two square blocks from W39th to W40th and 11th to 9th are tunnel/PABT infrastructure, and not available for development.

There will be a nice view from Bryant Park when the building clears the street wall.
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/8930/nytimes02c6bg.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes02c6bg.jpg)

lofter1
December 7th, 2005, 11:07 AM
Annie Leibovitz photographs NY Times Building construction

The public art component of the project – a sidewalk gallery surrounding the site – will give the estimated quarter of a million people who walk through the area every day ample opportunity to view Ms. Leibovitz’s latest work, with new images unveiled to the public first at the site. Passers-by will not only be able watch the construction through peepholes, they will also be able to see – through the lens of a renowned photographer – the details of the construction as it progresses, along with portraits of the workers.
Annie Leibovitz photographs of New York Times headquarters go on display


DEC 6, 2005

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/ap/NY_People_Leibovitz.html


NEW YORK (AP) -- Dozens of photographer Annie Leibovitz's images documenting the construction of The New York Times's new headquarters go on display around the midtown Manhattan work site beginning Wednesday.

Leibovitz was commissioned by developer Forest City Ratner Cos. to chronicle the rising tower, which will be 52 stories when completed. More than 80 of Leibovitz's images, taken between July and November 2005, will be part of the free public display.

Hundreds of posters will be mounted on the walls lining the site at Eighth Avenue between West 40th and West 41st streets, across from the Port Authority Bus Terminal, and 14 giant banners will be hung above the pedestrian walkway.

Workers were expected to finish installing the images by 6 a.m. Wednesday, Forest City Ratner spokeswoman Jane Pook said.

Tenants are expected to begin moving into the building in early 2007.

The tower now stands at 25 stories, Pook said, and Leibovitz will continue to photograph it until it is occupied.

The ceramic-and-glass skyscraper was designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano. It replaces a row of rundown businesses that included an adult video store, a deli, a barbershop, an electronics store and a tavern.


Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.