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

NYguy
December 7th, 2005, 06:49 PM
Sooner than expected. I must have a look.

lofter1
December 7th, 2005, 07:31 PM
I walked by today to check them out -- they're nice.

The photos here are better :) .

Teno
December 7th, 2005, 09:01 PM
^ ....and she's getting paid a lot of money to do it.

LeCom
December 7th, 2005, 11:18 PM
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/3023/pict0017nyttucdec05tothesouthe.jpg

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7750/pict0018nyttucdec05tothesouthe.jpg

antinimby
December 8th, 2005, 12:00 AM
What? No more Chuck Schwab ads?

PHLguy
December 8th, 2005, 03:12 PM
Cool!

mgp
December 8th, 2005, 05:06 PM
I walked by yesterday; in addition to the large photographs on the parapet, which you can see in LeCom's photo, there are probably 50 or so plastered (advertisment style) on the plywood 'fence' surrounding the site. I would recommend walking by, it is pretty cool.

NoyokA
December 9th, 2005, 06:08 PM
http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/4272/nyt2cu.th.jpg (http://img485.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nyt2cu.jpg)

LeCom
December 11th, 2005, 01:12 AM
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/12/420532.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/12/420528.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/12/420521.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/12/420526.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/12/420530.jpg

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2923/pict0021bwsmall6bf.jpg

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/645/pict0021nyttucdec05signsedges7.jpg

ddjiii
December 11th, 2005, 11:26 PM
I walked by yesterday; in addition to the large photographs on the parapet, which you can see in LeCom's photo, there are probably 50 or so plastered (advertisment style) on the plywood 'fence' surrounding the site. I would recommend walking by, it is pretty cool.

It is cool. Along with the photos is some text including a sentence that says of the building (from memory now,) "considered to be the most significant addition to the New York skyline in decades..."

They don't say considered by who, but that's a pretty bold claim. Thing is, it's defensible - they might be right. Here's hoping so.

fioco
December 12th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Photography by Annie Leibovitz AND faux Christo drapery! Only in New York and only with the New York Times. (or so they want you to think). It's entertaining, but so is the Port Authority.

Strattonport
December 12th, 2005, 05:23 PM
Why did the construction crews hang drapes?

lofter1
December 12th, 2005, 06:21 PM
The "drapes" on the higher floors are where the crews from Patti & Sons are spraying fire-proofing on the exposed steel (to be enclosed).

The "drapes" on the lower floors at the corners and on the 8th Ave. facade are enclosures for where they are painting the steel that will remain exposed.

LeCom
December 12th, 2005, 06:24 PM
^ Cool info, thanks. Just curious, how did you learn that?

Strattonport
December 12th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Thanks for the information, lofter1.

lofter1
December 12th, 2005, 07:51 PM
^ Cool info, thanks. Just curious, how did you learn that?
I walk around and look (I'm the guy in the middle of the sidewalk looking up).

Sometimes I sneak up close (love it when the gates are open ;) ).

Plus a previous poster who works for the the steel fabricator (jcrunner66) gave us some good info: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68976&postcount=667

Zoe
December 14th, 2005, 12:23 PM
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/8048/dsc002554zu.th.jpg (http://img104.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc002554zu.jpg) http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/9669/dsc002567dt.th.jpg (http://img386.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc002567dt.jpg)
NY Times peeking out of the skyline

krulltime
December 14th, 2005, 12:34 PM
^ Very cool... thanks! Wow this building is going to look amazing from Jersey!

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2005, 10:32 PM
At floor 27. A double mechanical floor should follow.

From 40th St
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/6281/nytimes03c4ba.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes03c4ba.jpg)


From 41st St
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/4443/nytimes04c7pz.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes04c7pz.jpg)

mgp
December 19th, 2005, 09:08 PM
For those who haven't walked by the site, here is a link to some of the photographs that are on display: http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/leibovitz/

I must say I don't get #5. I guess that is Renzo Piano, but he sure isn't looking at his building...

antinimby
December 20th, 2005, 04:56 AM
Don't angry but I have this bad feeling that this building won't come out looking as good as its renderings. I try to imagine visually the clear glass and the screen on the skeleton we see so far and I just don't feel very good about it. I hope I'm wrong though.

BrooklynRider
December 20th, 2005, 11:45 AM
For those who haven't walked by the site, here is a link to some of the photographs that are on display: http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/leibovitz/

I must say I don't get #5. I guess that is Renzo Piano, but he sure isn't looking at his building...

Black and white makes the photos more dramatic, but I've seen some forum members post photos as good or better. If you are getting paid to sit around a site looking for a good shot - you'll get one eventually. Bravo to Annie for sitting around!

lofter1
December 28th, 2005, 10:06 PM
The first of the panels of ceramic rods have been installed on the facade along the 40th St. side of the Times Tower.

These panels cover the floor plate at the top of the first floor / plate of the second floor. The panel consists of a flat vertical steel plate which extends above and below the plate. Diagonal trusses extend out from this plate, connecting to vertical supports which hold the horizontal ceramic rods out and away from the building.

Now I wish I had a camera!

Edward
January 1st, 2006, 12:55 PM
The panels of ceramic rods. 30 December 2005.

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

Citytect
January 1st, 2006, 02:16 PM
A mock-up? They looked crooked.

NoyokA
January 1st, 2006, 03:06 PM
I don't think they would install a mock up on the building itself, Im sure they'll be adjusted.

Citytect
January 1st, 2006, 04:58 PM
I don't think they would install a mock up on the building itself

I've seen it done before. The reason I ask is because it seems early to me to start installing these seemingly delicate facade elements.

PHLguy
January 1st, 2006, 05:11 PM
I don't think they would install a mock up on the building itself, Im sure they'll be adjusted.



They did it on the comcast plaza in philly.

NoyokA
January 1st, 2006, 05:21 PM
They did it on the comcast plaza in philly.

That buildings structure isn't above streetlevel.

This part of the fascade is attached to the structure and is pernament, albeit incomplete. They aren't going to remove what they already installed to replace it with something different, its there to stay.

Citytect
January 1st, 2006, 11:09 PM
This part of the fascade is attached to the structure and is pernament, albeit incomplete. They aren't going to remove what they already installed to replace it with something different, its there to stay.

I don't doubt that. What I mean is, is this part of the facade just a preview of the detailing on the facade? Or are they actually beginning the process of installing these panels on the entire building before it has even topped out?

Derek2k3
January 1st, 2006, 11:19 PM
Maybe the ceramic screen panels are being installed by workers from the inside, thus the panels will have to be put in before the windows, which usually are installed about this time.

lofter1
January 1st, 2006, 11:42 PM
... it seems early to me to start installing these seemingly delicate facade elements.
Not so delicate; ceramic materials are very strong composites.

I haven't been able to find the name of the manufacturer for the ceramics at the Times Tower (info, anyone?), but a company called Refractron out of Newark, NY has some info on their website:

http://www.refractron.com/


About Ceramics

Ceramics are inorganic, nonmetallic materials, and are typically crystalline in nature. Ceramics are compounded with metallic and nonmetallic elements, such as aluminum or calcium and oxygen or silicon and nitrogen.

While the most common ceramics are whiteware and art ceramics, Refractron manufactures advanced or technical ceramics for industrial applications. Products include porous ceramics for filtration and dense ceramics for structural applications.

The manufacturing process at Refractron involves precision mixing, forming, firing, machining and testing to assure that each product performs flawlessly in our customers' challenging environments.


More info here (including strength chart): http://www.refractron.com/ContentManager/Uploads/Advanced%20Ceramic%20Components.pdf

Arch
January 2nd, 2006, 01:13 PM
I've talked to the company that manufactured the exterior wall for NYTimes (Benson Industries) and those tubes in the end aren't ceramic. They are painted aluminum. The ceramic tubes had a tendency to shatter.

Citytect
January 2nd, 2006, 04:31 PM
Not so delicate; ceramic materials are very strong composites.

I was referring to the panels as a whole, not just the ceramics.

I'm still curious to see if they continue installing these things. How many panels are up? I'll have to go check this out myself sometime soon.

infoshare
January 2nd, 2006, 05:21 PM
Now I wish I had a camera!

HEY, YOUR GOOD NOW.....with a camera you would be almost dangerous!

Suprise you have not got into digital photo yet....well mabe someday.

cheers

ZippyTheChimp
January 2nd, 2006, 05:26 PM
This is how the panels will appear floor to floor.
http://www.glassmagazine.net/images/fea.day2.jpg

I walked by the site late last week, and the panels were being installed at the 2nd floor (there will be no screening at street level).

It was hard to get a good look, but looking up through an opening in the sidewalk shed on 8th Ave, I also saw window panels installed.

ZippyTheChimp
January 2nd, 2006, 08:25 PM
Previously posted in this thread:

A full mockup of a floor section was constructed two years ago.
http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0504/nyt/index.html

NoyokA
January 2nd, 2006, 11:25 PM
I've talked to the company that manufactured the exterior wall for NYTimes (Benson Industries) and those tubes in the end aren't ceramic. They are painted aluminum. The ceramic tubes had a tendency to shatter.

Painted aluminum....I don't like the sound of that. How will the sun reflect the paint? What about the luster and will it chip? I believe ceramics were abandoned more for cost conscious reasons.

lofter1
January 3rd, 2006, 12:26 AM
One of the main points for using ceramic rods is their ability to relect / absorb heat & light.

Odd that they would switch to painted aluminum.

lofter1
January 3rd, 2006, 12:29 AM
I've talked to the company that manufactured the exterior wall for NYTimes (Benson Industries) ...
Is this the compnay: http://www.bensonindustries.com/index.htm ?

ZippyTheChimp
January 3rd, 2006, 12:43 AM
Benson Industries... and those tubes in the end aren't ceramic. They are painted aluminum. The ceramic tubes had a tendency to shatter.
What a crock. :)

If they're made out of the same stuff clay pots are made of, they'll crack. Industrial ceramics are a different animal.
http://www.ceradyne.com/#

Aluminum rods will not have the same look as ceramic rods; and unlike ceramic, which is inert, the finish will wear.

Aluminum is cheaper, though. If this is true, then it's just another example of bait-and-switch from Ratner.

kliq6
January 3rd, 2006, 11:42 AM
AMEC last NYC project is looking great, a good firm that will be missed

TLOZ Link5
January 3rd, 2006, 02:02 PM
I've talked to the company that manufactured the exterior wall for NYTimes (Benson Industries) and those tubes in the end aren't ceramic. They are painted aluminum. The ceramic tubes had a tendency to shatter.

If this is true, I'm going to be really pissed.

Arch
January 3rd, 2006, 09:16 PM
Is this the compnay: http://www.bensonindustries.com/index.htm ?


actually, that must be a related company. The one listed on emporis is Benson Global. But I can't seem to find a website for them though.

ZippyTheChimp
January 3rd, 2006, 09:48 PM
http://www.bensonglobal.com/flash/index.html

They are also installing the facade of 15 CPW.

lofter1
January 4th, 2006, 12:09 AM
Here's some info on the mock-up:

http://www.metropolismag.com/images/images_0504/nyt/B26V0173.jpg
Photography by David Joseph

In the parking lot of its printing plant in Queens,
the New York Times has built a one-story mock-up,
where it is conducting extensive daylighting tests for
its new headquarters in Manhattan.
The 51-story tower will feature a floor-to-ceiling curtain wall
framed in sun-shielding ceramic rods. Inside the mock-up is a
ceiling-mounted radiant heat sensor that measures
temperature gain from direct sunlight.


http://www.metropolismag.com/images/images_0504/nyt/B26V0198_t.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:CenteredWindow('B26V0198.html','popup','475','750 '))

The Times has conducted several tests
for the building’s facade. “At one point,”
Thurm says, “to demystify the curtain wall
for potential bidders we hired four different
firms to engineer and build prototypes.”
In the latest iteration the ceramic rods are
held in place by an aluminum frame.

http://www.metropolismag.com/images/common_images/pixel.gifhttp://www.metropolismag.com/images/common_images/pixel.gif

NYguy
January 4th, 2006, 10:16 AM
JANUARY 2, 2006


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/54348681/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/54348706/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/54348710/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/54348712/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/54348708/large.jpg

NYguy
January 4th, 2006, 10:19 AM
Haven't seen these here before, (from Piano's website)

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/54big.jpg_http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/53big.jpg


http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/50big.jpg

City Spire
January 4th, 2006, 11:22 AM
Wow! I really liked the last pics. I can&#180;t wait to see the pictures from the roof when the building is all done. :o

* And would you please give me the whole link to Piano. Thanks in advance!

Derek2k3
January 4th, 2006, 03:06 PM
Renzo Piano Building Workshop
http://194.185.232.3/index.asp

City Spire
January 4th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Renzo Piano Building Workshop
http://194.185.232.3/index.asp

Thanks a bunch!

lofter1
January 5th, 2006, 01:24 AM
From the Piano website, the mock-up of the ceramic rod screen:

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/34big.jpg

antinimby
January 5th, 2006, 03:51 PM
At this point, I don't care whether it's ceramic, aluminum or cow dung, just as long as they put up the facade already. Seeing nothing but the steel skeleton is getting old.

RS085
January 5th, 2006, 04:52 PM
agreed

TylerFC
January 5th, 2006, 05:50 PM
Is anything wrong with the production of the facade? With that much of the steel skeleton up....for construction timing purposes....you think they would have started to put the dress on the bottom 1/3 of floors at least???

BrooklynRider
January 5th, 2006, 11:57 PM
At this point, I don't care whether it's ceramic, aluminum or cow dung, just as long as they put up the facade already. Seeing nothing but the steel skeleton is getting old.

I understand where you are coming from, but that really is the exact reason why the community review process and all the approval's are important to the process. You call it NIMBYism, but the developer said one thing and presented another. The building was supposed to be "green." The ceramic tubes were not some decorative terracotta work of the 1930's, but rather were to play a specific role in the green technology. The "I don't really care" attitude is exactly what they depend on once they get their approvals and permits. Instead of an ecologically friendly and environental conservationist building, we get another behemouth sucking up the same energy as any other building - exactly what we don't need and shouldn't accept in 2006. The review process, permitting and submitted plans were a sham and there should be penalties for that. Bravo to the NIMBYs who try to nip this kind of stuff in the bud.

NYguy
January 6th, 2006, 12:00 AM
More online photos...
http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/leibovitz/FLASH/slideshow/photographs.htm

Chackett
January 6th, 2006, 08:19 AM
Very cool.

TLOZ Link5
January 8th, 2006, 11:22 PM
The frame for the tubes is going to be aluminum, I know that much. Also, there's a type of industrial ceramic called aluminum silicate. Maybe this is the material they're using for the tubes?

ZippyTheChimp
January 9th, 2006, 01:29 AM
Maybe this "aluminum" thing is a misundertanding. It seems to me that a painted or anodized surface would be a short-sighted cost-savings measure. Imagine having to paint a building full of these thin rods.

Aluminum oxide (common name alumina) is a ceramic material. What is called metalurgical grade alumina is used in the production of aluminum metal.

At temps above 1100 degrees C, the grades are called calcined, and are used in ceramic production.

Ceramic materials (http://www.tqabrasivemachining.com/ceramic_materials.html)

Aluminum Silicate- This material is resistant to chemicals, wear and oxidation, strength both mechanical and dielectrical and lower thermal expansion.

Derek2k3
January 9th, 2006, 02:51 AM
When I went to the open house in October there was no talk of changing to aluminum rods. In fact, the architect presented one of the rods and spoke about the strengths, durability, and testing that went into them. He also mentioned where they are being manufactured but it slipped my mind. However, this was in October, so maybe the change to aluminum is the reason for the slight delay in facade installation??

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/54611028.jpg

antinimby
January 9th, 2006, 03:25 AM
...so maybe the change to aluminum is the reason for the slight delay in facade installation??Doesn't explain the delay in installing the glass, unless there was a problem with that too.

ZippyTheChimp
January 9th, 2006, 09:04 AM
I don't think the building is ready for glass installation. I took these a few days ago.

A grid has been installed on the lower floors. It has not been painted.
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/5060/nytimes05c3yu.th.jpg (http://img384.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes05c3yu.jpg)

Catwalks (that's what I think they are) have been attached to several floors above.
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/1356/nytimes06c0tk.th.jpg (http://img384.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes06c0tk.jpg)

Some glass has been installed at the second floor. Note the beam-end protruding through the panel.
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3987/nytimes07c6ck.th.jpg (http://img384.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes07c6ck.jpg)

lofter1
January 9th, 2006, 09:39 AM
It seems that any "delays" in the facade installation (which was previously stated on the Times Tower website as scheduled to begin in the late fall 2005, i.e. up to 12/21/05) can be attributed to the halt in construction in Aug. / Sept. due to the concrete workers stoppage.

All in all it seems that the work is close to the schedule as originally set down.

And it seems that the confusion regarding the rods may now have een cleared up by the explanation of aluminum v. alumina.

But it would be great to hear from someone on the inside with real knowledge ...

PS: Great to see glass going up :D

lofter1
January 14th, 2006, 10:09 PM
Along the 41st Street facade at the 2nd Floor they have installed glass panels within the area behind the large X braces. The glass has also been installed along the "bump out" part of the tower on the 41st St. facade. The glass looks fantastic. The panels are full floor height, each approximately 5' w x 12' h.

Seeing this go up really made me wish I had a camera.

They have also installed more of the rod screen curtains -- all along the full length of the 41st St. facade at the bottom of the 2nd floor -- as well as another set of panels at the top of the 2nd floor, above the glass panels that were previously noted.

The design and engineering look to be top notch -- and when floor after floor of this simple and elegant treatment are fully installed this building is going to be truly beautiful (at least until the tenants move in ;) ).

antinimby
January 14th, 2006, 11:56 PM
The glass looks fantastic. :)

Strattonport
January 15th, 2006, 12:03 AM
Wow, this building will look pretty.

NoyokA
January 18th, 2006, 11:17 AM
Along the 41st Street facade at the 2nd Floor they have installed glass panels within the area behind the large X braces. The glass has also been installed along the "bump out" part of the tower on the 41st St. facade. The glass looks fantastic. The panels are full floor height, each approximately 5' w x 12' h.

Seeing this go up really made me wish I had a camera.

They have also installed more of the rod screen curtains -- all along the full length of the 41st St. facade at the bottom of the 2nd floor -- as well as another set of panels at the top of the 2nd floor, above the glass panels that were previously noted.

The design and engineering look to be top notch -- and when floor after floor of this simple and elegant treatment are fully installed this building is going to be truly beautiful (at least until the tenants move in ;) ).

Get a camera lofter and you'll become the ultimate member.

krulltime
January 18th, 2006, 11:43 AM
Oh I want to see the glass!!! If it wasn't for the rain I will be there in a heartbeat!

antinimby
January 18th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Oh I want to see the glass!!! If it wasn't for the rain I will be there in a heartbeat!Well, the rain's over. Now you have no excuse! Bring a camera with you.

evil_synth
January 18th, 2006, 08:04 PM
maybe I'll head down there after my exam tomorrow afternoon with my camera, I heard its supposed to be pretty warm too, 60 F.

lofter1
January 18th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Do go ...

There's more glass up along 8th Avenue at the 2nd story and going up higher on the 41st St. side. Some of the glass panels have etched (?) horizontal lines, others are "clear" -- and the glass panels covering the girders are a great deep-stormy night grey.

Also check out the detail on the rod panels -- especially in the parts of those panels where there are no rods (I know that sounds confusing, but when you see them you'll understand).

And the fasteners and bolts on the X supports are fantastic.

Take a look through the construction gate along 8th Ave. (it's often open during work hours) and you'll get a great sense of the openness this building will have at street level.

I love this building ...

evil_synth
January 19th, 2006, 02:09 PM
As promised, here are the pix I snatched today in my first photorun in the city.
Some pix are kind of blurry, but I if you decrease their size they look fine. I particularly like the picture where you can see the reflection of the Westin Hotel on the glass on the tower.
From 41st street and 7th ave:
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20001.jpg
--
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20002.jpg
--
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20005.jpg
--
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20006.jpg
--
From across the street looking up:
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20007.jpg
--
Mad cool:
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20008.jpg
--
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20010.jpg
--
The open doorway on street level:
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20011.jpg

lofter1
January 19th, 2006, 03:52 PM
cool BIG pics!

Thanks ...

hella good
January 19th, 2006, 06:55 PM
this tower is just sex!

Fabrizio
January 19th, 2006, 07:15 PM
Those windows!....this looks soooo finely done...the structure looks like an elegant suspension bridge...oh my...thanks for the pics!

Jake
January 19th, 2006, 07:18 PM
wow, great pics, some of them make my head spin :)

Windows looking good, now top this bastard out! :p

mgp
January 19th, 2006, 08:01 PM
Thanks for the pics e_s. Nicely done.

In the picture titled "from across the street looking up" you can see (what looks like) makeshift staging for the bituminous fireproofing. I'm not aware of a project that has ever had as much exposed steel (both to view and the weather), and I was a little worried about the ability to pull it off. Looks like necessity is the mother of inventions, and the painting isn't too far behind the spray on fireproofing...

NYatKNIGHT
January 24th, 2006, 11:40 AM
Windows:

http://www.pbase.com/image/55257500.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/55257529.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
January 24th, 2006, 11:46 AM
It really looks good. :)

kz1000ps
January 24th, 2006, 01:09 PM
I like this project, but all this grey seems pretty dull. Is it much more lively in person, or were the lighting conditions not favorable? How will this thing look on cloudy days? ..Hopefully not as sterile as Jersey City.

TLOZ Link5
January 24th, 2006, 04:29 PM
http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/32749979/850582

:D

antinimby
January 24th, 2006, 08:32 PM
What floor are they at now?
Are those X's just for architectural purposes or do they really support something?

RS085
January 24th, 2006, 09:14 PM
not sure, how many floors to go??

isnt the roof only like 750 ft, which is also the height of 7wtc? the glass panels will be 100 feet tall right?

lofter1
January 25th, 2006, 01:56 AM
What floor are they at now?
They are putting up the mechanical floors at 25-26 now.

Are those X's just for architectural purposes or do they really support something?
check this out: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13618&postcount=119


The structure overall creates a vocabulary of large and small steel columns extending from the 80,000-sq.-ft. footprint to support the vertical and horizontal loads, growing slimmer as they reach higher into the sky. Rather than taking the smaller columns and fitting them with standard available shapes of beams and floorplates as the tower grows higher, the design team took the reduction in size and choreographed it so that the plate sizes drop off in a controlled manner to help create building’s feeling of lightness.

Similar attention was paid to the diagonal tie rods on the upper floors of the building. The rods control the sway of a high-rise tower and make it more comfortable for the occupants, although they do not support the building structurally.

These braces, which are usually hidden in the façade of the building, were exposed on the exterior walls in keeping with the design philosophy of honesty and additionally were kept extremely slender in order to perpetuate the critical feeling of lightness as one looked up the building.

"All of the exposed shapes were shapes that we designed," Scarangello said. "Every connection and member that we chose had to meet the design intent. It was a challenge but it was an enjoyable process because usually the design gets buried, but it'll be great to be able to see a lot of elements."

antinimby
January 25th, 2006, 02:57 AM
Thanks. Interesting.

They seem to be stuck on those floors for awhile. I know they said mechanical floors take longer to work on but my god, they reached them back in December and we are now a week away from Feb.

NYguy
January 25th, 2006, 08:47 AM
Windows:

http://www.pbase.com/image/55257500.jpg


I prefer the 7 WTC glass, but overall I think this tower will be sexier...

lofter1
January 25th, 2006, 10:37 AM
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
________________
________________
________________ I N E S


SEXY :cool:

kz1000ps
January 25th, 2006, 07:05 PM
Heh, and I thought it was curves that drove me wild.

Fabrizio
January 25th, 2006, 07:09 PM
Grey! It looks beautiful here... although of course we&#180;ll have to wait to see the final effect, but in the meantime: lets remember that many of the great limestone buildings and skyscrapers of NYC are grey... even the Chrysler&#180;s glazed bricks are a beautiful pearl grey.

( And: also the new 15CPW will be ...grey. From the Triplemint site about 15CPW: "This stone will come from the same quarry that supplied the Empire State Building--a bit less yellow than much of the limestone seen now, we're told, with a hint more gray." )

NoyokA
January 25th, 2006, 07:29 PM
Im going to withhold judgement until this building is complete but right now Im unconvinced of the benefits exterior crossbracings, windows with built in blinds and exterior ceramic rods will have for the tenants. Im a staunch advocate for form following function. If theres a form that doesnt apparently serve a function I find such a frill detrimental to the overall design program. Im all for abstract architecture which engages its tenant, for instance if its a sweeping form that is visually entertaining and I support instances when a tenant is actually forced to prolong their own personal program so long that the buildings programs interacts and enhances their's in the long-run. I don't have as much a problem with the exterior cross bracings because it will force the tenant to acknowledge the structure that contains them, but the combination of blinds and rods is wearisome. I have a feeling that this attention to detail is over kill and that the tenant will not reap additional benefits from what will be an otherwise unnecessary cost.

ZippyTheChimp
January 25th, 2006, 09:26 PM
September 2003 NY Construction News

Designing the New York Times Steel Grid Visible Inside and Out

By Amy Choi

At a news organization, truth is the top priority.

The design of a signature, headquarters property for The New York Times Co., one of the most prominent news organizations in the world, required truth as well.

"There are great modern architecture principles of honesty," said Dan Kaplan, senior principal at Fox &amp; Fowle Architects, PC. "It's a celebration of the way things are constructed and turning that into architectural design. For The New York Times, we're putting the structural frame of the building on display."

To execute this vision of honesty, Fox &amp; Fowle worked with world-renowned architect Renzo Piano, who designed the 52-story, 1.54-million-sq.-ft. exposed-steel tower, and the Renzo Piano Building Workshop.

The new development on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets is expected to break ground this fall and be ready for occupancy by summer 2005.

Aesthetically, it will express utility and grace simultaneously. Kaplan likened the exposed-steel idea to a sailboat mast—"It's totally structurally derived, but it's very light and expresses lightness and elegance."

The purity of the material itself was crucial in the design. "The best buildings have a limited palate of materials and systems," said Kaplan. "So in this building, whether it's painted steel, columns on the outside or in the lobby, or a steel storefront, the basic elements (of the building) are all true to the material. Steel becomes one of the integral architectural expressions."

Structural steel is, of course, the most common building material for office buildings in New York City, but it is usually buried by a curtain wall, concrete or façade of some sort. Because each structural piece of steel will be visible in the New York Times building, close attention is being paid to what each member will do and how it appears.

"The main challenge wasn't the steel itself," said Tom Scarangello, managing principal of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers, the structural engineers on the project. "The challenge was the high degree of visibility the steel was going to have."

Steel helped achieve Piano’s primary design expression – the quality of lightness and fading into the sky as one looks to the upper reaches of the tower, joined with the quality of strength and stability anchoring the tower to the ground.

"There was an extra level of scrutiny and awareness that we had to have on the detailing and the proportioning and connecting of the material to make sure that it met with Renzo's and Fox &amp; Fowler's intent," Scarangello said. "The ability to sculpt steel and turn it into an art on the scale of a building like this couldn't have been done with a concrete system in any way.

"Steel was the only material to go with to have something this inviting that lets in light and air because it's got strength and the ability to form and shape into expressions."
Bob Sanna, executive vice president of design, development and construction at Forest City Ratner Cos., the developer of the property with partner ING Real Estate, added: "We have assembled a kind of erector set that you can look into. It is bridge-like in its beauty."

Retaining the beauty of the exposed steel created some obstacles for the design and engineering teams. Some less complex issues included how to abide by New York City fire codes, which require that all of the steel be fireproofed, while still maintaining the aesthetic qualities of the material. As a result, the steel on the Times building had to be finished with a special paint that can take both cosmetic exterior finishes but can also maintain the fire integrity of the beams.

The structure overall creates a vocabulary of large and small steel columns extending from the 80,000-sq.-ft. footprint to support the vertical and horizontal loads, growing slimmer as they reach higher into the sky. Rather than taking the smaller columns and fitting them with standard available shapes of beams and floorplates as the tower grows higher, the design team took the reduction in size and choreographed it so that the plate sizes drop off in a controlled manner to help create building’s feeling of lightness.

Similar attention was paid to the diagonal tie rods on the upper floors of the building. The rods control the sway of a high-rise tower and make it more comfortable for the occupants, although they do not support the building structurally.

These braces, which are usually hidden in the façade of the building, were exposed on the exterior walls in keeping with the design philosophy of honesty and additionally were kept extremely slender in order to perpetuate the critical feeling of lightness as one looked up the building.

"All of the exposed shapes were shapes that we designed," Scarangello said. "Every connection and member that we chose had to meet the design intent. It was a challenge but it was an enjoyable process because usually the design gets buried, but it'll be great to be able to see a lot of elements."

The exposed steel also played a major role in the design of the interior and ground-floor lobby of the building. The storefront of the property is steel, which is unusual in the United States, and the lobby itself has steel cladding and columns.

"The steel was exposed in the building as well as in the lobby, which was a very deliberate attempt to bring these members in," Sanna said. "You see the very strong grid and the elements from within as well as from outside."

NoyokA
January 25th, 2006, 10:02 PM
I've already read that article. Its one thing to hear what the buildings architect says, they would never criticize their unbuilt design, its another to hear an outside perspective. As I said before we'll see upon completion.

Citytect
January 25th, 2006, 10:46 PM
[quote=Stern]Im a staunch advocate for form following function. If theres a form that doesnt apparently serve a function I find such a frill detrimental to the overall design program.[quote]

Hmmm... I don't necessarily agree that frills as you described are always detrimental. Sometimes, yes. But not always. I think that the idea that architectural forms should strictly follow function and be frill-less is past its time. However, I do not like to see forms that completely disregard their function. A balanced approach is necessary in good architecture. I don't see any blatant disregard for function in the Times Tower. I know that isnt precisely what you were criticising, but it's an alternative way to judge the same architectural elements.

Based on your statements here, I would think you'd hate Gehry. But I think I've read you praising or defending his work in another thread. In your opinion, how do many of his more abstract buildings (Bilboa, Disney, etc.) rate in regards to the function/form principles?

ZippyTheChimp
January 25th, 2006, 11:48 PM
I posted that article, not as an overall critique of the architecture, but to address form follows function. The cross-bracing cables are not frills; they provide a functional benefit to the tenants. The utility of the ceramic rods rods have been well documented in this thread. Perhaps I should have highlighted one other passage:
It is bridge-like in its beautyThe ultimate expression of form follows function.

STREETLOVER
January 26th, 2006, 12:50 AM
Everytime I hear an architect or developer prattle on about "honesty" in designing a building, it makes me want to gag. And architects have been gushing about "honesty" as long as I can remember since the 1960s. To me it is always code for putting up a bland structure that has none of that awful, terrible, gasp... ornament. I mean, please, do you think that the magnificent, inspiring ornament and artistry incorporated into early twentieth-century skyscrapers somehow hindered their performance or, conversely, could not be woven into twenty-first century buildings? What hinders those older structures is internal infrastructure (presence of columns, small floor plates, etc). How does "honesty" benefit either the tenant or those of us who have to look at these buildings for the rest of our lives? Oh, it is built out of steel framing! How honest to show us that! I never would have figured! Now I dislike those limestone-covered buildings! They aren't honest!
So go for the googaws, NYT Tower.

lofter1
January 26th, 2006, 01:48 AM
So go for the googaws, NYT Tower.
I love a good googaw myself (check these out: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42690&postcount=15 ), but the Times Tower is not the place to be looking for them.

Fabrizio
January 26th, 2006, 06:06 AM
Although the Seagrams building is my favorite post WWII skyscraper, fortunately "form follows function" is no longer a hard and fast rule in modern architecture ... Ghery (as Greenie mentions) ....Calatrava etc. are prime examples of a return to decorative form. "FFF" was valid...nessesary, as a reaction to all that had come before, but we are again in a new era.

And decoration can serve a great function as Streetlover hints: it can uplift the spirit.

And let´s be honest here, despite what that article says, I bet exposing the streel structure on this building was done ...for the sheer beauty of it.

BTW: funny, but the more I see those close up photos, the more they remind me of the Giorgio Armani shops here in Italy ( not a bad thing at all )... the same grey putty color ( Armani calls it "greige" (grey+beige), the same thin verticle blinds, the same thin painted metal detailing. The whole effect is very familiar looking....

ablarc
January 26th, 2006, 08:36 AM
...fortunately "form follows function" is no longer a hard and fast rule in modern architecture ... Ghery (as Greenie mentions) ....Calatrava etc. are prime examples of a return to decorative form.
Technically, Gehry's more an illustration of your point than Calatrava. Though the willed forms are equally stimulating and innovative, Gehry's derive from the movement of his hand, and Calatrava's are filtered through the mathematics of engineering.

Fabrizio
January 26th, 2006, 09:54 AM
Good point. See Calatravas work in Valencia though... it&#180;s closer to what I mean ( and often accused of being down right kitsch)...although yes, I imagine the starting point is the engineering, as you mention.

NoyokA
January 26th, 2006, 02:50 PM
Hmmm... I don't necessarily agree that frills as you described are always detrimental. Sometimes, yes. But not always. I think that the idea that architectural forms should strictly follow function and be frill-less is past its time. However, I do not like to see forms that completely disregard their function. A balanced approach is necessary in good architecture. I don't see any blatant disregard for function in the Times Tower. I know that isnt precisely what you were criticising, but it's an alternative way to judge the same architectural elements.

Based on your statements here, I would think you'd hate Gehry. But I think I've read you praising or defending his work in another thread. In your opinion, how do many of his more abstract buildings (Bilboa, Disney, etc.) rate in regards to the function/form principles?

Re-read my above comment. I find Gehry's architecture exhilerating because its an infusion of art into an interactive human scale. A window that hinders a tenants view goes against its inherent purpose, clearly form over function. Again, Ill have to wait until the building is occupied, but I already have my concerns...

antinimby
January 26th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Pssst...Gehry has nothing to do with this building. It's Renzo Piano. Don't forget. ;)

Citytect
January 26th, 2006, 06:42 PM
A window that hinders a tenants view goes against its inherent purpose, clearly form over function. Again, Ill have to wait until the building is occupied, but I already have my concerns...

Well, I think there's more to a window's function than to provide views, and from what I've seen in pictures of the mock-up in Queens, the rods and lined glass don't completely obstruct views out of the building. They do seem to effectively manipulate sunlight for task lighting and help with energy-efficiency. But as you say, we should reserve judgement until completion - although I, for one, will never be able to truly judge the window functionality as I won't be working in the building.


Pssst...Gehry has nothing to do with this building. It's Renzo Piano. Don't forget. ;)

We're all aware of this. Gehry is being discussed in comparison to Piano's design. It's not completely off-topic.

NoyokA
January 26th, 2006, 11:52 PM
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2104/nytimes4oi.jpg

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/8760/nytimes29aj.jpg

antinimby
January 27th, 2006, 04:16 AM
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the exposed steel. Kind of takes away from the "elegance" of the building, which to me was the real selling point from the renderings we saw in the beginning. Not to mention the discoloration from weather and the dirt/soot will make it a maintenance challenge in the long term. Just check out the PA bus terminal's facade--not pretty.

lofter1
January 27th, 2006, 12:33 PM
^ The PABT facade looked just great -- strong and industrial -- until the brilliant minds at the MTA slapped up the grid on top of the original XXX of beams in order to hold advertising -- 75 % of which has never been installed / sold.

So now we're left with a compromised building that completely diminishes the visual strength of the prior design.

antinimby
January 27th, 2006, 08:16 PM
The exposed beams will get dirty and grimey very quickly and however good it may look now will matter very little because the filth will be the only thing people will notice.

lofter1
January 28th, 2006, 02:38 AM
filth: one of the great things about NYC

infoshare
January 28th, 2006, 09:44 AM
The exposed beams will get dirty and grimey very quickly and however good it may look now will matter very little because the filth will be the only thing people will notice.

Hey.....Antinimby you make a good point about that fact. The chambers street ped bridge was a gleeming modernist structure that went up only abut 5 years ago: it is now covered with soot, rusting badly and the elevator never works. It looks like a piece of Sh+t, and all you see is the soot, grit, and grime - the modernist archectural forms have receded into something else altother just sooty, and unattractive. It seems the the ROM (Repair requirements, Operation Reqirements, Maintenance Requirements) are not being considered when it comes to nyc toxic, grit, grime, exaust emmissionn, salt, graffittik vandelism, ny typical deferred maintenence standard, ect. In the words of another frequent poster - it looks like crap, a real kick in the nutz (L-o-L) - and so you have a good point on that - we will see in a few years what the NY times towoer looks like.

So, after a recent viewing of that bridge (go see it..interesting) I see what you mean ANimby about how the NYTimes bldg may look in a few years.

The "funk and Grit fans" must love that bridge.

cheers

ZippyTheChimp
January 28th, 2006, 10:27 AM
The Tribeca Bridge is 14 years old. It is in good condition. The elevator problem is the fault of City Hall.

I'm sure the NY Times Company will make sure the elevators are in working condition.

:rolleyes:

NoyokA
January 28th, 2006, 01:00 PM
Infoshare's right:

http://www.nybits.com/images/photo/tribeca_bridge_1.jpg

I dont think NYTIMES Tower will suffer a similar fate only because the building's owner has the budget. In my opinion that still doesn’t excuse the excess ornamentation, this building will require very high maintenance for benefits that aren’t readily perceptible and unquestionably outweighed.

Fabrizio
January 28th, 2006, 01:06 PM
I don&#180;t get this one. Manhattan&#180;s great ornamented architecture gets dirty.... like that&#180;s some kind of news. Pidgeons crap on gargoyles and soot settles on Art-deco Gods.

Good grief.

If things are poorly put together, if cheap materials are used, if maintenance is not up to par then yes...things get ratty... but if there&#180;s quality in the construction, it&#180;ll get a nice patina of age (or the usual 25 yr. cleaning cycle will do the trick).

ZippyTheChimp
January 28th, 2006, 01:13 PM
The bridge has not been painted since it was built, not even after 09/11.

Any building, especially a modern building, will deteriorate without maintenance.

The benefit of the rod facade in deflecting heat while reflecting light up into the floors vs cost remains to be seen,but it is certainly not unquestionably outweighed.

lofter1
January 28th, 2006, 02:22 PM
The Seagrams Building would look like crap too, if they didn't clean it.

They do clean it. So will the Times.

ablarc
January 28th, 2006, 02:27 PM
I don&#180;t get this one. Manhattan&#180;s great ornamented architecture gets dirty.... like that&#180;s some kind of news. Pidgeons crap on gargoyles and soot settles on Art-deco Gods.

Good grief.

If things are poorly put together, if cheap materials are used, if maintenance is not up to par then yes...things get ratty... but if there&#180;s quality in the construction, it&#180;ll get a nice patina of age (or the usual 25 yr. cleaning cycle will do the trick).
Aw, you're just saying that because most of Italy's so run down. ;)

Actually, I agree with you 100%. We have a fetish in this country about things looking brand new. We over-restore our old buildings, our classic cars, our works of art and our movie stars until they're better than new. Sometimes it makes you wish we'd just let something look old...without being ratty and crummy, of course!

ZippyTheChimp
January 28th, 2006, 09:42 PM
The gritty piece of crap over West St

lofter1
January 29th, 2006, 02:02 AM
One of the rod panels on the 2nd floor of the 41st St. facade (on the low-rise portion it is the panel nearest 8th Ave.) appears to have a number of mangled rods, most likely due to a bump during installation.

Interesingly the rods seem to have had the surface chipped away, rather than broken through.

I'm hoping that this is not an indication that the rods are painted metal rather than ceramic (a discussion that took place earlier on this thread: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77700&postcount=801 ).

ablarc
January 29th, 2006, 09:12 AM
I'm hoping that this is not an indication that the rods are painted metal rather than ceramic (a discussion that took place earlier on this thread...
If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?

lofter1
January 30th, 2006, 02:01 AM
After a closer look in the daylight today it appears that the rods are actually a smaller metal (aluminum?) rod encased in ceramic material. Regarding the mangled rods I had described before (first viewed in dim street light at night) it now appears that the ceramic has been partially broken away from some of the metal rods. The three-dimensional thickness of the ceramic can clearly be seen at the broken edges (rather than the "surface chipping" as I had previously described from viewing last night).

Whew !!!

The difference? Ceramic rods have entirely different heat diffusing qualities than do painted aluminum rods. If the rods had been changed from ceramic to aluminum then they would become more decorative rather than functional.

Who cares? Me ....

LeCom
January 30th, 2006, 07:07 PM
January 25, 2006

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/431404.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/431405.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/431406.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/431403.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/431402.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/431401.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
January 30th, 2006, 08:54 PM
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/5465/nytimes08c0ee.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes08c0ee.jpg) http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9716/nytimes09c2oo.th.jpg (http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes09c2oo.jpg)

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/9770/nytimes10c0lr.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes10c0lr.jpg) http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1132/nytimes11c5pi.th.jpg (http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes11c5pi.jpg) http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3874/nytimes12c5dw.th.jpg (http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes12c5dw.jpg)

Click again on images 1, 2 and 4 to get full size, or you will see a moire pattern on the rods.

Jake
January 30th, 2006, 09:18 PM
lol, in 2085 this tower will be converted into a prison. (because of the "bars" on the windows :D)

TLOZ Link5
January 30th, 2006, 09:20 PM
lol, in 2085 this tower will be converted into a prison. (because of the "bars" on the windows :D)

Would the bars need to be vertical in that case? :p

Jake
January 30th, 2006, 09:29 PM
^No, in the future they figure out that horizontal bars are the optimal solution, that way their fung shwei (spelling?) improves the prisoner's feelings and allows him to rejoin society in as little as 60 years (remember, longer lifespans:))

antinimby
January 30th, 2006, 09:52 PM
feng shui

lofter1
January 31st, 2006, 01:17 AM
She's up to 30 or 31 floors now --

Getting so T A L L that it's hard to count!

Here's an enlargement of a section of one of Zip's pics showing the damaged ceramic rods...

lofter1
January 31st, 2006, 01:24 AM
Also am crazy about these brackets (enalarged to the point of blurriness, sorry)...

lofter1
January 31st, 2006, 01:26 AM
Gotta love this combination fo great design & engineering ...

NoyokA
January 31st, 2006, 01:31 AM
Also am crazy about these brackets (enalarged to the point of blurriness, sorry)...

Agree


Gotta love this combination fo great design & engineering ...

And Agree

I love the visible contrast of a structure supporting a refined fascade.

My concerns are not with the buildings appearance, on facevalue there is no question that it is shaping up to be one beautiful fascade.

ZippyTheChimp
January 31st, 2006, 01:40 AM
That's the one I forgot to upload.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/852/nytimes13c9xt.th.jpg (http://img82.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes13c9xt.jpg)

NoyokA
January 31st, 2006, 01:58 AM
I think its safe to say that its aluminum or another alloy rod wrapped with ceramic.

ZippyTheChimp
January 31st, 2006, 09:56 AM
Like a spark plug.

One of those rods looks like it's severed.

TonyO
January 31st, 2006, 09:58 AM
^ That would be ceramic.

TLOZ Link5
January 31st, 2006, 12:59 PM
Do they plan to replace those?

Derek2k3
January 31st, 2006, 03:21 PM
The engineer I spoke with said that wire would be strung through the rods so when they break the whole rode doesn't fall to the ground.

NYguy
February 6th, 2006, 11:53 AM
FEBRUARY 5, 2006


Two future rivals meet...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55771978/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55771991/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55771990/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55771996/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772004/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772007/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772013/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772007/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772013/large.jpg


Slowly but surely, the tower makes its mark...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772028/large.jpg

NYatKNIGHT
February 6th, 2006, 12:11 PM
Thankful that this tower is going up, particularly now, filling the void between Hearst Tower construction and BOA.

evil_synth
February 6th, 2006, 04:59 PM
I've also noticed the slightest hint of the cranes on top of the tower in webcam 3 in recent weeks.

Fabrizio
February 6th, 2006, 05:23 PM
When I see those ceramic tubes I keep imagining myself as kid hanging out with my friends .....armed with sling-shots.

ablarc
February 6th, 2006, 05:42 PM
The engineer I spoke with said that wire would be strung through the rods so when they break the whole rod doesn't fall to the ground.
Not if they break but when they break, eh?

Is this facade going to be stripped off after the 212th tube breaks?

Citytect
February 6th, 2006, 07:04 PM
I was checking in on the building's progress before catching a movie last weekend - not really feeling the ceramic tubes as much as I thought I would. I pictured them looking a lot more elegant than what I'm seeing. But maybe when all is finished and the building is lit everything will come together.

antinimby
February 8th, 2006, 03:21 AM
I certainly hope that they are aware and have a remedy for when ice forms on these rods and then fall off. Additionally, are they strong enough to survive huricane force winds? They seem so delicate and dainty. Imagine sheets of this stuff flying off the 50th floor onto the streets! (God forbid). This could be potentially disastrous.

NoyokA
February 12th, 2006, 03:13 AM
Mostly capturing the fascade in over-cast skies...

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9547/nytimes8zr.jpg

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7465/nytimes29ya.jpg

The ceramic rods extend the building's structure and frame:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3575/nytimes36wx.jpg

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/509/nytimes42ht.jpg

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/933/nytimes59sf.jpg

Detail:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/125/nytimes64tb.jpg

I really like this future exposed stairway feature of the base:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/449/nytimes75zj.jpg

lofter1
February 12th, 2006, 03:29 AM
she looked really great in the snow tonight ... all the rods had a nice bit of icing across the top :)

czsz
February 12th, 2006, 02:05 PM
Those shots make it look like it'll be covered by corrugated tin. Blech.

lofter1
February 12th, 2006, 03:07 PM
^ that's due to pixel distortion ...

czsz
February 12th, 2006, 03:24 PM
Still, I was expecting it to be a bit...brighter, at least. And the overcast conditions can only be blamed for that to a certain extent.

lofter1
February 12th, 2006, 03:59 PM
Once it's finished and the interior lighting is on methinks it will take on a glow ...

antinimby
February 12th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Everything's gray. Disappointing.

kz1000ps
February 12th, 2006, 06:56 PM
Let me toot my own horn for a second....from January the 24th, post #849


I like this project, but all this grey seems pretty dull. Is it much more lively in person, or were the lighting conditions not favorable? How will this thing look on cloudy days? ..Hopefully not as sterile as Jersey City.


The more it goes up the more alienated I feel. The window cuts in the rods are creating quite a horizontal emphasis, not to mention that the proportions of window hole height to "solid wall" makes it look very cheap-industrial and closed off to outside contact; I'm very curious to see its effect on all 52 stories. Here's to hoping we get only sunny days with million dollar sunsets forever more!

transplant
February 16th, 2006, 07:25 PM
greetings, i need some help. i'm doing a structural analysis of the ny times tower. i'm a graduate arch. student in new mexico and am having a hard time locating good pictures of the lateral bracing. if anyone could possibly help with pics. or wants to chat about its structure please respond. thanks.

antinimby
February 16th, 2006, 07:45 PM
Check out Renzo Piano's workshop website. It has a lot of diagrams, drawings and early construction photos.

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures.asp

Don't forget to come back and let us know the results of your analysis.

BPC
February 17th, 2006, 12:28 AM
The ultimate in karma. Long after Herb Muschaump's byline is gone and forgotten from the pages of the Times, the paper will still be stuck in the hideous building that Herb personally selected. Pretty funny.

larven
February 17th, 2006, 09:01 AM
I think its looking pretty stunning and slick although all the grey does seem a little dull at the moment. It would be nice to see some polished aluminium or stainless steel details to lift it a bit and add a bit of "sparkle", maybe that will come at a later stage in construction. I am loving seeing this building rise as well as the rest of the new generation of US 1000ft highrises in NY, Chicago and Philadelphia. They are all big, classy buildings and its nice to see them being built here as opposed to the usual hotspots of recent times...Dubai, Shanghai, HK etc.

lofter1
February 17th, 2006, 11:24 AM
Yesterday (Thursday 2.16) at about 2PM the sun was reflecting the multi-colored panes of the Westin Hotel off of the Times' rod-screen that is going up on the 41st St. side and the effect was really magical -- soft tones of blues, golds and reds playing up and down the facade of the Tower. Also the Tower's shadow on the blank back side of the AMC movie theatre building created some great patterns.

The views through the rod screens where they project beyond the side of the building also create some great visuals.

They've started putting in the windows on the 8th Ave. facade above the 5th floor (below that is where the Times sign will be erected on the exterior of floors) -- these windows project out and over the lower floors (Renzo Piano Workshop Site: http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures.asp ) :

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/28big.jpg

lofter1
February 17th, 2006, 11:28 AM
For all who think tha the facade is a bit dull, check out this shot from the workshop site showing the plan for facade lighting (I guess they can be excused for the Starbucks sign :confused: ) :

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/31big.jpg

lofter1
February 17th, 2006, 11:33 AM
This beauty is now up to floor 32:

BrooklynRider
February 17th, 2006, 01:43 PM
Given the lowrise buildings around it, this building - even at 32 stories to date - looks massive.

finnman69
February 17th, 2006, 02:17 PM
in the battle between the Structuralists:

Renzo Piano with the Times Tower

vs.

Norman Foster with the Hearst Tower


Renzo Piano stomps lFoster's design like Godzilla vs. Bambi.

now if only the biased agenda driven NY Slimes could live up to the level of the tower's design.

MidtownGuy
February 17th, 2006, 02:51 PM
If the Hearst were taller then I say it would trounce Times. There is no question that the renderings for this tower are stunning, but I will reserve judgement on the finished building. Right now, without lighting etc. the small sections of rods I saw while walking by yesterday were nice, not gorgeous. we'll see.

RS085
February 17th, 2006, 05:27 PM
http://rfcgraphics.com/large/ESB%20Pano%20Views%20List.jpg

lookin good. photo has to be very recent.

czsz
February 17th, 2006, 05:32 PM
Even the flat toppiness of the Hearst doesn't look so bad in that view.

I think it's only an issue when you view the top of the tower dead-on.

antinimby
February 17th, 2006, 06:12 PM
lookin good. photo has to be very recent.It is. You can see spots of snow here and there. Must be either yesterday or the day before.

Derek2k3
February 17th, 2006, 06:47 PM
http://rfcgraphics.com/large/ESB%20Pano%20Views%20List.jpg


How many construction sites can we see in this pic..after a quick scan I found...

1 Bryant Park
The Centria
River East Development
United Nations Credit Union Building
East Coast Tower I
Avalon Riverview North
4 West 21st
IAC Headquarters
The Atelier
Two River Place
440 West 42nd
The Orion
NYT Tower
33 West End Avenue

I missed a bunch of the smaller stuff.

antinimby
February 17th, 2006, 07:25 PM
Funny you should mention Gehry's IAC headquarters, I was looking for it but couldn't find it in that picture.

NYguy
February 17th, 2006, 08:05 PM
That panorama is BREATHTAKING...

kz1000ps
February 17th, 2006, 10:16 PM
Off topic, but what was the reason for the construction boom along 7th ave in the 20's and 30's, as they all seem to be from around the 1920s and are pretty consistent in height and bulk. They've always left a memorable impression on myself when going to/coming from Penn Station.

RS085
February 17th, 2006, 10:41 PM
NYT in that pic is about halfway up. roof at 750 and panels another 100 feet roughly. hopefully more buildings go up on the west side, like a louisiana purchase type deal.

BrooklynRider
February 18th, 2006, 12:10 AM
Pretty incredible photo.

Derek2k3
February 18th, 2006, 01:53 PM
Funny you should mention Gehry's IAC headquarters, I was looking for it but couldn't find it in that picture.

Half way between south and west, right below the Chelsea Piers driving range(?).

londonlawyer
February 18th, 2006, 04:45 PM
I walked by the building on Feb 18th and think that the screens look horrible. The screens are basically like slanted eyes through which the glass peeks out. I'm afraid that Renzo's "cute creativity" will result in a retarded looking 750 foot disaster looming over Midtown. At least his 1960's tack-on to the Morgan Library's classical facade is only 3 stories tall, and his horrific windowless metal box (i.e., the Whitney addition) will ruin only one block of the UES. However, a horrible looking skyscraper will be a disaster. The renderings of this building looked awesome; the building appeared to have a sleek, shiny facade. The reality, however, is not looking quite so good in my opinion. It is busy and chaotic. Is he trying to disfigure NYC?

lofter1
February 18th, 2006, 05:38 PM
Funny you should mention Gehry's IAC headquarters, I was looking for it but couldn't find it in that picture.
Here it is ...

londonlawyer
February 18th, 2006, 08:03 PM
I walked by the building on Feb 18th and think that the screens look horrible. The screens are basically like slanted eyes through which the glass peeks out. I'm afraid that Renzo's "cute creativity" will result in a retarded looking 750 foot disaster looming over Midtown. At least his 1960's tack-on to the Morgan Library's classical facade is only 3 stories tall, and his horrific windowless metal box (i.e., the Whitney addition) will ruin only one block of the UES. However, a horrible looking skyscraper will be a disaster. The renderings of this building looked awesome; the building appeared to have a sleek, shiny facade. The reality, however, is not looking quite so good in my opinion. It is busy and chaotic. Is he trying to disfigure NYC?

I walked by the building on Feb 18th and think that the screens look horrible. The screens are basically like slanted eyes through which the glass peeks out. I'm afraid that Renzo's "cute creativity" will result in a retarded looking 750 foot disaster looming over Midtown. At least his 1960's tack-on to the Morgan Library's classical facade is only 3 stories tall, and his horrific windowless metal box (i.e., the Whitney addition) will ruin only one block of the UES. However, a horrible looking skyscraper will be a disaster. The renderings of this building looked awesome; the building appeared to have a sleek, shiny, translucent facade. The reality, however, is not looking quite so good in my opinion. It is busy, chaotic, heavy and reminiscent of a prison cell. Is he trying to disfigure NYC? Everything that he has done in New York is really horrible.

Here are photos of the screens posted by NY Guy:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772013/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772007/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772013/large.jpg

PS: Thinking further, while Renzo's disaster on Madison (the Whitney) will be only 20 stories, it will ruin more than one block since a 20 story building will be so prominent there.

PPS: The NY Times board should come to their senses and stop these screens immediately, as they do not look good in person. For that matter, if this building comes off like an eyesore, Ratner will have a hard time renting the space. The only saving grace will be if a reasonable tall building is constructed on Milstein's land to block this horrible facade.

antinimby
February 18th, 2006, 08:19 PM
I walked by the building on Feb 18th and think that the screens look horrible. The screens are basically like slanted eyes through which the glass peeks out. I'm afraid that Renzo's "cute creativity" will result in a retarded looking 750 foot disaster looming over Midtown. At least his 1960's tack-on to the Morgan Library's classical facade is only 3 stories tall, and his horrific windowless metal box (i.e., the Whitney addition) will ruin only one block of the UES. However, a horrible looking skyscraper will be a disaster. The renderings of this building looked awesome; the building appeared to have a sleek, shiny facade. The reality, however, is not looking quite so good in my opinion. It is busy and chaotic.This was the fear I had very early on, even before the construction started. I was suspicious because almost all the renderings showed the building at night. The problem I think with the screens is that the rods are spaced too close together. Instead of having that light, tranparent feel, it looks heavy and heavily concealed, kind of like a piece of thick cloth versus a silky veil. The irony of this is that from afar, it will actually look good but up close, say within 5 blocks, it will appear very clumsy.



Is he trying to disfigure NYC?Silly. No architect will purposefully try to create something unattractive. Sometimes things just don't come out the same as what it is on paper.

RS085
February 18th, 2006, 08:30 PM
to the roof its 750, but dont forget, the screens go up another 100 feet making it taller. I dont think its that bad, I cant wait for it to top out MEANING 850 ft.

londonlawyer
February 18th, 2006, 08:32 PM
to the roof its 750, but dont forget, the screens go up another 100 feet making it taller. I dont think its that bad, I cant wait for it to top out MEANING 850 ft.

Have you seen the screens in person? They look horrible. When a 750/850 foot wall is covered with them, this "building" will look like a fortress. Ratner should have gone with Gehry. Renzo created a masterpiece for London (i.e., the London Bridge Tower). For New York, he created an unimaginative box with a horrible facade. According to his website, he designed a simple box to fit the NY street grid. That's retarded. If everyone took that attitude, NY would be filled with boxes.

It's so disheartening to see magnificent buildings like The Drake and the townhouses on 56th Street razed and simultaneously to see huge, horrific fortresses like The NY Times rise. The Times' facade will look NOTHING like it does in this rendering:

http://www.fcrc.com/images%5Cprojects%5Cmainnytimesb.jpg

MidtownGuy
February 18th, 2006, 09:23 PM
That's the problem with a lot of these renderings nowadays- the artists do such an impossibly beautiful job of shading and reflection that the actual building doesn't measure up, even under the most ideal light conditions.
I had an idea this would happen with this building- renderings that are so enchanting we all fall head over heels in love, and then reality- in this case a whole LOT of gray, is a different story.

londonlawyer
February 18th, 2006, 10:26 PM
The answer is quite simple: the screens should not be applied to the building. Seeing how terrible they look on the first few floors is reason to stop adding them. It's tough if Piano doesn't like it. If this building is kept as simple glass, it will be nice.

londonlawyer
February 18th, 2006, 11:56 PM
Those shots make it look like it'll be covered by corrugated tin. Blech.

I just read your post, and I concur. This tower will be a hideous monstrosity. Piano has "invented" the worst facade in history.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772007/large.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772013/large.jpg

Glazed blue and white brick looks better. The facade will look like a 50 story metal cocoon. I had wanted the Milstein site to be developed as a plaza so that the Times Tower would be fully visible from 42nd Street! I fully retract that desire!

RS085
February 19th, 2006, 12:18 AM
speaking too soon I think, but hey, what do I know?

londonlawyer
February 19th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Walk by it and see it in person. It looks horrible at this stage, and it looks NOTHING like the renderings. When a 750 foot curtain of steel rods has fully risen, it will look horrific. Gehry must be laughing hard.

Piano really should be banned from NY. I hope that the Whitney -- seeing this disaster -- comes to their senses and fires him before he defiles the Upper East Side with his ridiculous 20 story, windowless, metal box.

ZippyTheChimp
February 19th, 2006, 12:40 AM
I don't know what the final effect will be, but I walked by the building during the week, and it looked fine. The sun was hitting a small patch of the rods, and they were blazing white.

No offense to NYGuy, but those photos are incorrectly sized, causing the interference pattern you see across the surface. It's like strobing on TV.

londonlawyer
February 19th, 2006, 12:48 AM
I am really disappointed with this building. I thought that a tower with translucent, shimmering glass would rise -- not a 750 foot metal cocoon. I really was appalled when I saw it today. The tiny slits (through which the windows peek out of the maze of metal rods) just did not look good to me.

NYguy
February 19th, 2006, 02:08 AM
I am really disappointed with this building. I thought that a tower with translucent, shimmering glass would rise -- not a 750 foot metal cocoon. I really was appalled when I saw it today. The tiny slits (through which the windows peek out of the maze of metal rods) just did not look good to me.

I was looking at the tower and the rods today. I'm not to sure of the overall pattern. But what I'm seeing so far oddly resembles a parking garage. Still, I think it will balance out somehow...

lofter1
February 19th, 2006, 10:23 AM
Have faith ... once it's all up it's going to be fantastic.

CARLOS
February 19th, 2006, 10:33 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01226.jpg

londonlawyer
February 19th, 2006, 10:41 AM
Have faith ... once it's all up it's going to be fantastic.

Lofter, I hate to sound pessimistic, but have you seen it in person? It really looks heavy and chaotic. It will be a huge wall of metal. Piano really perpetrated a fraud with his renderings of a translucent glass tower. It will be a crime if Ratner and The Times let the prison bars rise 50 stories. It might have been tolerable (though still not nice), if the tiny window slots were bigger than they are, but the reality -- in which a narrow "wedge" of windows peeks out behind metal -- looks bad. It's one thing for an architect to be avante garde with a low rise building -- if it looks horrible, then que sera. A 750 foot "avante garde" tower that went awry is a serious disfigurement of the cityscape. After Piano ruins this tower, I really hope that no one hires him again, and I hope that Milstein's tower is at least 750 feet tall to hide this monstrosity.

Ratner: Please fire Piano immediately and hire Robert Stern to design a new facade and save this 750 foot box.

PS: Apart from the horrible facade, not only is the shape boring, but adding a huge spire upon a building with a flat roof is really retarded. Was Piano on drugs when he designed this monstrosity?

transplant
February 19th, 2006, 02:31 PM
there are numerous differnet reason ceramic rods are being used.
www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb-EETD-NYT-building.html (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb-EETD-NYT-building.html)
to imagine another glass tower being built today to continually waste energy is crazy talk.
this building is progressive structurally, sustainablly, and some may agrue aesthetically.

Scraperfannyc
February 19th, 2006, 02:58 PM
It may still look good in a skyline view (hoping). And evening lighting might give it some character. Those close up shots shows that this building looks pretty darn dull and ugly at that vantage point though. I'm not a big fan of boxes myself. And to think classic NYC is being razed for more of these BLAH pieces.

Just think what NYC would look like if the depression never happened! No height restrictions back then, that's for sure.

Fabrizio
February 19th, 2006, 03:21 PM
I can&#180;t say I&#180;ve seen the NYTimes tower in person but in some of these photos it looks good ...in others less so... we&#180;ll see. I was originally under the impression that the rods were to be sandwiched between glass and not on the outside of the building. I can&#180;t tell if the end result will be delicate... ethereal.... or hulking ...like the ground floor of 7wtc. That&#180;s quite an "either/or"

BTW: Aren&#180;t most office buildings "boxes" because of the large continuous floor space needed to house today&#180;s companies?

My biggest concerns with this type of building is how it relates to the street.... what is our experience going to be walking along it&#180;s street front? I&#180;m wary of blank walls, parking garge entrances, useless out-door plazas with tacky street "furniture", indoor atriums instead of street front stores.... that sort of thing. Is it going to bust-up the block or create a nice sense of "place"? Actualy, 1 Bryant Park... and it&#180;s long 42nd street side... concerns me more than this building does. These buildings aren&#180;t on Park... these are heavily trafficed pedestrian areas... we need buildings here that relate well to the street.

RS085
February 19th, 2006, 04:22 PM
I live in Park Slope, ive seen it many times.

NYguy
February 19th, 2006, 04:51 PM
to think classic NYC is being razed for more of these BLAH pieces.


There was nothing classic about what was razed for this tower.

I look at this building all the time, both in person and at the renderings. And yet, I am a little puzzled by the facade. The lower level looks like a parking garage.

But from what I can gather at the moment, it appears as though taking these rods up the full height of the building will change that illusion, and will turn it into something more spectacular. I've always had confidence in this building. Stay tuned.

RS085
February 19th, 2006, 07:25 PM
I concur.

londonlawyer
February 19th, 2006, 07:55 PM
At any rate, I, along with almost everyone else, was expecting a glimmering, translucent facade like the one in the following fraudulent rendering by Renzo:

http://www.fcrc.com/images/projects/mainnytimesb.jpg

Who knows? The final product might not be a horrible, metal cocoon, fortress, but it certainly will not be what most of us expected. Ratner will have a hard time renting this notwithstanding the demand for space (unless he rents it at $45 per sq. foot).

ZippyTheChimp
February 19th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Piano really perpetrated a fraud with his renderings of a translucent glass tower.Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Translucent glass describes a shower door.

If you mean a gauzy effect, then you're going to have to wait for the tower to be complete. Right now, you can't view this building's facade further than a block away, and the backdrop is dark raw construction space.

The effect from the renderings will (or will not) be achieved when the building is viewed from a distance, with finished office space. You will not be able to see the rods, but they will have an effect on how the windows behind them appear to you. Right now, it's anyone's guess.

At any rate, I'm glad they're not putting up another safe glass box.

londonlawyer
February 19th, 2006, 08:15 PM
...You will not be able to see the rods, but they will have an effect on how the windows behind them appear to you. Right now, it's anyone's guess....

I'm not sure what you mean. The facade is nothing but rods with a small strip of window peaking out on each floor.

ZippyTheChimp
February 19th, 2006, 08:28 PM
Resolution. As you move further away, you won't be able to resolve the rods down to distinct objects. They will blur, and you will see the building behind the facade, but the light you see will still be influenced by the facade, like passing through a filter.

Best way I can explain it.

MidtownGuy
February 19th, 2006, 08:30 PM
Yes, but there will be significant reflection peeking between the rods which will create interesting effects.

I'm curious to view the effect from a distance. I agree that we should not get too worked up just yet. The effect will depend on completeness. So far, it looks mediocre, but I am still hoping for the best.

londonlawyer
February 19th, 2006, 08:47 PM
...I agree that we should not get too worked up just yet. The effect will depend on completeness. So far, it looks mediocre, but I am still hoping for the best.

Your comment reflects part of my sentiment. Before this facade started rising, none of us would have described this project as mediocre.

londonlawyer
February 19th, 2006, 09:34 PM
Resolution. As you move further away, you won't be able to resolve the rods down to distinct objects. They will blur, and you will see the building behind the facade, but the light you see will still be influenced by the facade, like passing through a filter.

Best way I can explain it.

I respect your opinion and hope that you're right, but this photo belies your perspective:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01211.jpg

At least there will be clear glass on the side portions where the crossbeams are located. Therefore, it won't look entirely like a prison.

This building reminds me a little of bizarre fashions that designers create for fashion shows; they receive acclaim from critics, but look absurd in reality.

czsz
February 19th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Oh god.

Prison is right.

At least it can't possibly DETRACT from anything nearby. Already it echoes the sublime hideousness of the Port Authority. Were there any nearby NIMBYs, they would certainly be pleased with such sensitive contextuality.

londonlawyer
February 19th, 2006, 10:18 PM
This is a photo of how Renzo disfigured the Morgan Library. It is the worst of 1960's "architecture":

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/model_madison_ave.jpg

For those who have not been by this project, the top two-thirds of Piano's cube are aluminum and the lower third is glass. It's a terrible choice of materials (though better than the rods on the NY Times prison), and the box is an unimaginative addition to the magnificent neoclassical facade that Renzo marred. Can someone revoke his passport and keep him out of NYC before he ruins the Whitney?

At least the fact that Maria Sharapova is in the SI swimsuit edition makes me feel better:

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/features/2006_swimsuit/images/gallery/photos/06_msharapova_01.jpg

JD
February 19th, 2006, 11:13 PM
My goodness, people, a bit of patience, please. It's a construction site. The harsh comments flying around now don't make any sense. You don't peer over a painter's shoulder when he's one-third done and pass judgement on the canvas.

This tower won't look as good as it does in the rendering--but no building ever does. Let's wait till it's finished before making a verdict.

ablarc
February 19th, 2006, 11:47 PM
This is a photo of how Renzo disfigured the Morgan Library. It is the worst of 1960's "architecture"
It does look pretty bad in the model photo. Are we missing something? It should be nearly finished. Photo, anyone?

lofter1
February 19th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Lofter, I hate to sound pessimistic, but have you seen it in person?
I think you like to sound pessimistic ;) at least where this beauty is concerned.

I've seen it almost everyday since the first of the year and am crazy for it. Chaotic -- for sure, but then now it's 60% Steel frame, 10% cladding, no lighting and unfinished street level (which I have no doubt will be glorious).

PS: Where did the rule come from that a flat-topped building shouldn't have a spire?

Scruffy88
February 19th, 2006, 11:55 PM
walked by it today, gotta tell you. I didn't hate it. they only had the north face done up a few floors. going to wait until they have at least 15 done before i take my pics

lofter1
February 19th, 2006, 11:57 PM
The facade is nothing but rods with a small strip of window peaking out on each floor.
You can see between each of the rods -- and light will be visible between them as well. Also the rod placement varies in relation to the open spaces for the windows -- it's not just rods / openings / rods / openings.

As more of the facade goes up there will be a rhythm that plays up the surface of the tower.

BrooklynRider
February 20th, 2006, 12:16 AM
I've seen it a couple of times in the past week. I agree it doesn't have that airy, light feel we anticipated, but I think it is going to be an interesting looking building. It does seem a bit early to call it a failure. The coloring alone makes it fairly unique - I think this building is similar to Hearst Tower in that the daytime image and nighttime image are going to be completely different. Where Hearst looks better in the daytime, this one might look much more interesting at night. If it is ultimately ugly, it HAS to look better in the dark.

lofter1
February 20th, 2006, 12:41 AM
It does look pretty bad in the model photo. Are we missing something?
For one thing: no one will be looking at the real building from the same viewpoint as the photo of the model. Most everyone will view it from the street level. So it's always a good idea when viewing models to get your eyes down to the level from which the building will be seen. It creates a whole different perspective.

212
February 20th, 2006, 01:49 AM
maybe the horizontal banding will give NYT a Citigroup Center look

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/citigroup/images/citicorp_lex.jpg

NYguy
February 20th, 2006, 03:08 AM
My goodness, people, a bit of patience, please. It's a construction site. The harsh comments flying around now don't make any sense. You don't peer over a painter's shoulder when he's one-third done and pass judgement on the canvas.

This tower won't look as good as it does in the rendering--but no building ever does. Let's wait till it's finished before making a verdict.

I stand by my opinion that the tower looks like a parking garage - at present. But that's because the tubing doesn't go much higher than the lowrise portion currently. When the tower reaches its full height, that aspect of the tower won't be so noticeable.

I stared at the tower for a long time today, and this tower just may emerge as a beautiful butterfly. I'm almost certain it will.

londonlawyer
February 20th, 2006, 09:29 AM
I stand by my opinion that the tower looks like a parking garage - at present. But that's because the tubing doesn't go much higher than the lowrise portion currently. When the tower reaches its full height, that aspect of the tower won't be so noticeable....

The tubing will go up 750 feet. It will look terrible. The tower will look like a metal cocoon.

This building could have been very nice if that dope Piano didn't try to be avante garde and cute with the facade. I initially regretted that it was not in a more prominent location (e.g., on 42nd St.). Now, I am elated that it's not.

lofter1
February 20th, 2006, 10:43 AM
The ceramic rods are not mere decoration.

lofter1
February 20th, 2006, 10:47 AM
maybe the horizontal banding will give NYT a Citigroup Center look...
Perhaps, but in contrast to the Citicorp building the visual thrust of the Times tower will be vertical, due in part to the exposed steel rising at the corners from street to top -- as well as the continuous panels of ceramic rods that will rise at the edges (outside the window areas).

BrooklynRider
February 20th, 2006, 12:58 PM
These seems like staring at an egg and talking about what the bird looks like.

NYatKNIGHT
February 20th, 2006, 03:11 PM
I admit I wasn't convinced about the rods when they first started going up, but when I walked by yesterday and saw them on a few more floors I thought it looked a lot better, pretty cool in fact, and certainly original. If that kind of change in opinion happens after only a couple of floors it could easily look dramatically different in time. It really is too early to declare that the entire building will look terrible based on what's there now.

NoyokA
February 20th, 2006, 03:57 PM
I think that it might (look) fine. The complaints Im hearing is that the ceramic rods are too dense. What people are picking up on is an engrained expectation of form following function. If you think the density of the rods inhibits transparency and visibility from the outside, imagine for a second what it would be like on the inside…

Light is a rare and precious commodity in NYC, for this reason apartments with floor to ceiling windows go for the most amount of money, here light is permanently being shut out. People's views will for ever be obscured by bars.

ZippyTheChimp
February 20th, 2006, 04:12 PM
I don't know how the rods will be an impact visually from the inside, but they are not meant ot shut out light, only heat, which they will absorb.
They are designed to reflect the light back into the office space, toward the ceiling. Besides the heat absorbing properties, the other reason ceramics were chosen is that an aluminum rod would have transmitted glare.

NoyokA
February 20th, 2006, 04:32 PM
I don't know how the rods will be an impact visually from the inside, but they are not meant ot shut out light, only heat, which they will absorb.
They are designed to reflect the light back into the office space, toward the ceiling. Besides the heat absorbing properties, the other reason ceramics were chosen is that an aluminum rod would have transmitted glare.

Use your head zippy. They're rods. The horizontal banding of rods will create a view largely obstructed by a horizontal banding of rods. Only you could make an argument out of something that is so plain to see.

ZippyTheChimp
February 20th, 2006, 04:45 PM
Give me a freaking break. I stated plainly that I don't know how they will look from the inside (the view out). That is not the same thing as how much light they will BOUNCE into the office space. This has all been documented.

Did you stop and think that maybe all this was considered during development? Maybe before spending huge amounts of money, and risk lost productivity with an unhappy workforce, that mock ups were tested with humans.

It's a common practice. Before the twin towers were built, a room was constructed that diplicated the sway of the building to determine if it would be upsetting.

MidtownGuy
February 20th, 2006, 04:46 PM
Yes, it seems we have deliberated a great deal on the appearance from the outside, but imagining the view looking out I think Stern's point stands, it'll be like looking through really wide blinds that you can't louvre or pull up- just always there in the way. It'll no doubt look really interesting, the play of light on the rods and in the room, just maybe a bit confining with time.

NoyokA
February 20th, 2006, 04:47 PM
I don't know how the rods will be an impact visually from the inside

The external rods will impact the tenants external view. I drew a little demonstration for you Zippy, I dont know how else to explain it. Its pretty open and shut.

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5048/nyt3kn.jpg

NoyokA
February 20th, 2006, 04:49 PM
Yes, it seems we have deliberated a great deal on the appearance from the outside, but imagining the view looking out I think Stern's point stands, it'll be like looking through really wide blinds that you can't louvre or pull up- just always there in the way. It'll no doubt look really interesting, the play of light on the rods and in the room, just maybe a bit confining with time.

It'll look similar or the same as light through open blinds in your current place of work. The only difference is that these are pernament and external. I for one like having the option of opening my blinds entirely and having an unobstructed view.

londonlawyer
February 20th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Who knows how the building will look ultimately? One thing that is certain though is that we all had very high expectations for this tower and couldn't wait until the glass facade was applied. Now, however, it's clear that the facade is totally different from what we expected, and people are stating: "Let's wait and see. It MIGHT look nice."

It appears that Renzo may have failed us.

TLOZ Link5
February 20th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Has anyone gotten a photo of this building on a day when it WASN'T grey and cloudy outside?

MidtownGuy
February 20th, 2006, 04:51 PM
on second thought, they are leaving bands of unobstructed glass at iintervals, so this probably has a psychological benefit they considered.

MidtownGuy
February 20th, 2006, 04:56 PM
I for one like having the option of opening my blinds entirely and having an unobstructed view

I couldn't agree more- sometimes I just HAVE to pull them all the way up and have only glass to look through , it sort of clears my view and my mind.

londonlawyer
February 20th, 2006, 04:58 PM
But the unobstructed bands of glass sans rods is so narrow. The windows barely peek out.

ZippyTheChimp
February 20th, 2006, 05:01 PM
The external rods will impact the tenants external view. I say it one more time, maybe it will sink it.

When I say I don't know what the view will be, it mean I am not offering an opinion, so I don't know what the hell it is you have to explain. I offered an observation that buildings are tested environmentally, as to their impact on workers.

I commented on your "light is a precious commodity" statement. The rods are not dedigned to block light, only heat.

An outside scene transmitted through a window is not the same thing as how much light (you know, the white stuff that makes things bright) is passed through.

ZippyTheChimp
February 20th, 2006, 05:19 PM
Has anyone gotten a photo of this building on a day when it WASN'T grey and cloudy outside? Not me.

Best photo I have of the windows and rods,
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/9770/nytimes10c0lr.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes10c0lr.jpg)

antinimby
February 20th, 2006, 05:36 PM
Oh, look!
Check out what I said back on December 20, 2005 (pg. 53, post# 789)--well before the glass and screens went up.

Don't [get] angry but I have this bad feeling that this building won't come out looking as good as its renderings. I try to imagine visually the clear glass and the screen on the skeleton we see so far and I just don't feel very good about it. I hope I'm wrong though.

Applause is not necessary but I will take monetary donations...:p

NYatKNIGHT
February 20th, 2006, 05:51 PM
Now, however, it's clear that the facade is totally different from what we expected, and people are stating: "Let's wait and see. It MIGHT look nice."


It appears that Renzo may have failed us.

I don’t know what you were expecting and why, but….

From the very first page of this thread:

Two skins will clad the building: one of transparent glass and another of some 250,000 white ceramic rods, one and five-eighths inches in diameter, arrayed in screens suspended one and a half feet from the exterior wall, spaced at varying intervals to allow people inside to see out — and the other way around.


Stern, how do you know all this? Were you inside or are you ASSUMING?

here light is permanently being shut out. People's views will for ever be obscured by bars.

The horizontal banding of rods will create a view largely obstructed by a horizontal banding of rods.

It'll look similar or the same as light through open blinds in your current place of work.
And can you please explain without sounding condescending?

The photo you used as an example is not what is being installed on the main part of the tower. To me it looks like the rods open up on each floor, maybe not floor to ceiling, but an opening nonetheless. And who cares, we’ll all be looking at it from the outside. I can’t believe all this complaining at this stage of the game.

NoyokA
February 20th, 2006, 06:07 PM
I don’t know what you were expecting and why, but….

From the very first page of this thread:

Two skins will clad the building: one of transparent glass and another of some 250,000 white ceramic rods, one and five-eighths inches in diameter, arrayed in screens suspended one and a half feet from the exterior wall, spaced at varying intervals to allow people inside to see out — and the other way around.


Stern, how do you know all this? Were you inside or are you ASSUMING?



And can you please explain without sounding condescending?

The photo you used as an example is not what is being installed on the main part of the tower. To me it looks like the rods open up on each floor, maybe not floor to ceiling, but an opening nonetheless. And who cares, we’ll all be looking at it from the outside. I can’t believe all this complaining at this stage of the game.

Correct. But views from the north and south faces will be needlessly obstructed. The rods are pernament. There is a small window slot opening on each floor which makes the floor to ceiling windows behind the rods entirely useless. Who cares? The people who have to work 9-5 everyday as well as their employer who will have to dish out around $100 a square foot. If this building was built with small slots for windows I wouldn't care as much. The fact that this building does have floor to ceiling windows and is needlessly yet purposly being conceiled at a very high costly is very irksome.

NYatKNIGHT
February 20th, 2006, 06:36 PM
I know the rods are permanent.

But we don't know what it will look like from the inside - maybe the opening is plenty and the workers will be fine with it. We don't know, we're just guessing. And what I mean by "who cares", I mean none of us will be working there. ;) You're not seriously concerned that the Times isn't getting what they paid for, are you? The Times and everyone knew about these ceramic tiles from the very beginning and signed on to it. If anyone might be irked, it would be them, not us. Besides, the floor to ceiling windows aren't entirely useless, after all, there has to be something there. Better clear glass than whatever else.

Anyway, the complaints were initially about what the exterior looks like, which is valid, but in my opinion, premature.

londonlawyer
February 20th, 2006, 06:44 PM
Not me.

Best photo I have of the windows and rods,
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/9770/nytimes10c0lr.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes10c0lr.jpg)

That photo is of the lowrise portion, and on that part, the rods are evenly spaced, and they're much wider than they are on the tower.

Nonetheless, I looked at this building for 30 minutes after work today and am prepared to do a 180. It's not an instant beauty (i.e., Swiss Re or London Bridge), and it's definitely not what I expected from the renderings. Nonetheless, the longer that one looks at it, the nicer it is. It's kind of like an exotic woman; she might not knock you over at first glance, but the more you look at her, the more that you realize she's hot. This building will be nice.

Citytect
February 20th, 2006, 06:47 PM
Who cares? The people who have to work 9-5 everyday as well as their employer who will have to dish out around $100 a square foot. If this building was built with small slots for windows I wouldn't care as much. The fact that this building does have floor to ceiling windows and is needlessly yet purposly being conceiled at a very high costly is very irksome.

I'm assuming you're not renting space in the building, so why do you care so much? The people who have leased half the building know what they are getting. They've seen the mock-up in Queens. I'm assuming they're very happy with it since they "dishing out" $100/ sq. ft. I trust the people who have money on the line a lot more than your flimsy assumuptions about what the view out will look like. And honestly, I think you're dead wrong about the view out. It will be partially obstructed by the rods, but I think when viewing out from a few feet away from the window the larger picture (that being the cityscape) will dominate what the eye sees. That's my assumption, and it is just that, an assumption. We'll see.

londonlawyer
February 20th, 2006, 06:50 PM
That photo is of the lowrise portion, and on that part, the rods are evenly spaced, and they're much wider than they are on the tower.

Nonetheless, I looked at this building for 30 minutes after work today and am prepared to do a 180. It's not an instant beauty (i.e., Swiss Re or London Bridge), and it's definitely not what I expected from the renderings. Nonetheless, the longer that one looks at it, the nicer it is. It's kind of like an exotic woman; she might not knock you over at first glance, but the more you look at her, the more that you realize she's hot. This building will be nice.

P.S.: I urge everyone to go and look at it for a while in person. It will grow on you. Maybe a group of us could meet this weekend and then have a beer. Is anyone interested?

JD
February 20th, 2006, 07:05 PM
This thread is preposterous. People are getting bent out of shape about the look of a building that is not even halfway finished. And now, as if it isn't enough to argue about whether or not the building is worthy addition to the skyline, there's a debate about whether the workers inside will have a compromised view.

Patience, people, patience. When the building's done, the debate will make sense. And among the thousands of workers inside this tower plenty will have commentary about the view.

ablarc
February 20th, 2006, 07:09 PM
...their employer who will have to dish out around $100 a square foot.
Do you mean $100 per square foot for rods? It can't be the building cost; $100/sq. ft. is impossible for anything in New York and for a high-rise anywhere. Do you mean $1000?

ZippyTheChimp
February 20th, 2006, 07:43 PM
But we don't know what it will look like from the inside - maybe the opening is plenty and the workers will be fine with it. We don't know, we're just guessing.I knew there were extensive tests conducted at the mockup building in Queens; it just took a while to find the link.

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

Click on each image for a time-lapse view

NYatKNIGHT
February 20th, 2006, 07:53 PM
I forgot about those - good find.

So it's more than a small window slot.

CARLOS
February 20th, 2006, 09:23 PM
Monday February 20, 2006
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01285.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01287.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01288.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01289.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01291.jpg











http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01290.jpg

antinimby
February 20th, 2006, 09:28 PM
WOW!
I take it all back. I must say this thing is looking good.
Amazing what a little sunshine and Westin's reflection can do.

lofter1
February 20th, 2006, 09:32 PM
Thanks "carlos" for these new shots ... she's sure a beauty, eh?

and the Westin never looked better than as a refracted reflection over here ...

londonlawyer
February 20th, 2006, 09:41 PM
As I said earlier, I am doing a 180. It is a great tower.

I'm back to wanting the Milstein site as a plaza/park so that this building is visible.

Thnx for the photos, Carlos.

PS: I still think that the Morgan Library addition sucks.

CARLOS
February 20th, 2006, 09:45 PM
^
"Who knows how the building will look ultimately?

It appears that Renzo may have failed us."



:p LOL

londonlawyer
February 20th, 2006, 09:50 PM
^
"Who knows how the building will look ultimately?

It appears that Renzo may have failed us."



:p LOL

I know. I know. I deserve it. It didn't look good when I initially saw it, but it has grown on me. As I said, it's like an exotic woman that grows on you, whereas some buildings (e.g., Swiss Re, Hearst, Chrysler, etc.) are like Maria Sharapova and the first time you see them, you go wild with desire immediately.

Also, whoever stated that the lack of sunlight on days prior to today (Feb. 20th) was right. See below
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9547/nytimes8zr.jpg

versus Carlos' photos from today:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01290.jpg

To me, Swiss Re/Chrysler/Hearst are like Maria Sharapova (i.e., lust at first sight):
http://www.focusmag.gr/id/files/158346/maria_sharapova_008.jpg
http://www.mariaworld.net/offcourt662.jpg
http://www.strangesports.com/images/content/110220.jpg

By contrast, NY Times is like JLo. Initially, she/it did nothing for me, but eventually, she/it grew on me:
http://photo.sing365.com/music/Image.nsf/Jennifer-Lopez-

Funkytown
February 21st, 2006, 12:12 AM
I really don't understand all the negative comments that have been posted previously. This tower has one of the most interesting facades I have ever seen. I think it will grow on everyone once more of the facade is put up. It should look most spectacular at night when it is illuminated from within.;) ;) ;)

londonlawyer
February 21st, 2006, 12:18 AM
That's the concensus now. Seeing it in sunlight makes a huge difference. See these photos versus ones from the other day.

czsz
February 21st, 2006, 12:33 AM
So we have a tower which is, at best, "interesting" on sunny days and, at worst, fugly on cloudy ones?

Didn't anyone else get the impression the tower would be, well, white? The overwhelming greyness still gets to me.

What happened to this?

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/34Big.jpg