New York Times Tower - 620 Eighth Avenue

[BPC]

52

Floor 51 will also be double-height.

There is a stacking diagram on page 15 of this document:
http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/pdf/FactSheet2007.pdf

The picture on page 11 of your NYT link cracks me up. There is no way the building will look anything like that. It reminds me of the penultimate Freedom Tower design -- a completely fraudulent depiction. The parts of the NYT that are already built appear to be just a collection of dreary gray slabs. Yippee.

[TallGuy]

I'd switch this for 7WTC any day.

[Fabrizio]

Is a grey Armani suit dreary?

[TallGuy]

a Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band or Yankees T-shirt, yes!

[ManhattanKnight]

Dreary Gray?

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9525/tyr0005b8pa.jpg

[johnnypd]

in light of the ceramic bars, will there be a remake of that classic manhattan movie? i can see the name in lights right now "Escape from New York Times Tower"

maybe the bars are actually the grey hairs of an institution that long should've been sent to the Retirement Home?

it doesn't seem to possess much of the lightness and transparency promised. when viewed from below, as in Carlos' photo, you can not distinguish any space between the ceramic tubes once you look more than a couple of floors up. it looks like one entire sheet of cladding. even when you can make out the individual strips, they look like the bog-standard sun louvres you see on the windows of schools and suburban office buildings. hopefully the "crown" will contextualise the surface, give it a sense of "separateness" from the glass and thus a delicate ethereality.

and yes, if you cut off the top of ESB and made it a box, it would be a dreary building as a lot of its "skin" is dreary. place your hand over everything above the first set-back in that picture, and you'll see a mediocre tower. only in its entirety is it a classic, hopefully the same applies to the as yet unfinished NYTT. so i wouldn't judge it just yet.

[Teno]

They are also becoming largely irrelevant in the age of independent news sources.

Are you talking about that bastion of knowledge and truth called blogs?

I think this is a bit dramatic, I still hear many pundants quoting NY Times articles in other media.

As far away as California you see the NY Times being sold next to USA Today and the local paper.

Will this last forever, of course not.....

With the continued work of its website and its ability to generate revenue their is evidence the Times is willing to adapt to the times.

[MidtownGuy]

it doesn't seem to possess much of the lightness and transparency promised

How appropriate. The Times isn't so transparent either, and forget about shedding light on things. Of late, their editorial decisions mystify me, their reporters are shills, and critical stories are nixed or buried on page Q57 in between ads.
I particularly love it when citizens of this city organize large protests in the middle of Manhattan and either the Times gives crappy, marginal coverage that is not issue-oriented, or they completely lowball the attendance figures. Usually they do both.

The Times is good for book reviews or fluffy lifestyle pieces, but hard-hitting, investigative, give-em-hell journalism is mostly missing from its pages. You'll find more teeth on a guppy.

[lofter1]

but the building is great.

pictures only tell part of the story.

all the naysayers will come around once this building is finished.

[RS085]

everyone needs to postpone their bitching and moaning about the tower until it is done. the rods arent even halfway up and people are crying. get yourself some depends then.

[Fabrizio]

"..and yes, if you cut off the top of ESB and made it a box, it would be a dreary building as a lot of its "skin" is dreary. place your hand over everything above the first set-back in that picture, and you'll see a mediocre tower."


No: "YOU`LL" see a mediocre tower.

The perfect proportions, fine art-deco detailing, quality materials, and lush natural color (with it´s elegant patina of age) might be lost on you, but are readily apparent.

[Citytect]

Ok. Ok. It looks like it's not going to be as light or transparent as we thought. Put those expectations aside; is the building elegant, attractive, architecturally interesting? I certainly think so.

[alibrot]

Wait until the building is done and light is eminating from the inside to see how transparant the building is. The primary light right now is reflection of exterior light. I have a feeling the building will appear quite transparant at night with the building lit up.

[lofter1]

Exactly ^^ !! The lighting scheme is what will bring out the magic in this building.

[czsz]

But like I said before, we're still going to have to endure it during the day.

[James Kovata]

Is a grey Armani suit dreary?

No. It's classic.

[finnman69]

Thank you Carlos - exceptional as always. Looking better and better with more rods.I wonder if I would of spaced the rods twice as far apart to increase the transparency of the skin. That probably would have killed the shading effectiveness of the screen, but.......

[panderson]

I have an acquaintance who works at the Times (nobody whose name you'd recognize -- just a "minion," to use his description), but I saw him yesterday and asked some questions about the building. Turns out, he doesn't know anything folks around this board haven't already figured out, but he did confirm that the paper is scheduled to relocate to the new headquarters in the 2nd quarter of next year. I'll post again if I get any news out of him, and he told me he'd be willing to snap some interior pictures once he moves in.

[LeCom]

http://img173.imageshack.us/img173/589/pict0001nyttucapr0612lookingup.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/04/452683.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/04/452677.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/04/452684.jpg

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/396/pict00128jw.jpg

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8870/pict0162nytt0ucapr0619tothewes.jpg

[lofter1]

The Times Tower is looking great from all angles -- from W 32nd / 7th Ave it's rising up and showing itself above and beyond the buildings north of 34th St.

With only ~ 10 more floors to go before the steel is topped off -- and now that the facade has been installed 1/3 of the way up -- the verticality of Piano's tower is really starting to make itself known.

[londonlawyer]

I agree. It really surprised me at first because it is very different from the renderings. However, it is a very interesting building. It reminds me a bit of a printing press and is somewhat reminscent of the Pompideau Centre in which Piano had a hand.

[kz1000ps]

....the verticality of Piano's tower is really starting to make itself known.

I also agree. The corner of exposed glass from the first shot really had my eyes moving up and down...no dwelling on the horizontal slats. But I'm a bit surprised by how little visual weight the X braces are having....are they just as flat in person, or is it the lighting/angles?

[lofter1]

Look at LeCom's 3rd picture from the top: The Times' north facade viewed straight-on from in front of the Westin Hotel on 42nd St.

That's the view (and the similar one approaching up 8th Ave. from the south) where the "X"s have the most presence.

[ramvid01]

...and is somewhat reminscent of the Pompideau Centre in which Piano had a hand.

heh funny, the same thought passed my mind when i saw it last thursday. Also after seeing that the glass is rising im relaly starting to like the combination of the X's and the foggy glass, plus the height and girth are really starting to take shape.

[kz1000ps]

Look at LeCom's 3rd picture from the top: The Times' north facade viewed straight-on from in front of the Westin Hotel on 42nd St.

That's the view (and the similar one approaching up 8th Ave. from the south) where the "X"s have the most presence.

I agree that the north and south facades will naturally be where the "X"s will have the most presence, but I guess I was hoping for them to be a bit bolder, a la the Times Square Tower's X braces going up the north facade. In that 3rd picture the "wing", being covered with the rod panels, visually dominates (in not a great way) over the X's. I guess it's just the result of everything being done in some drab shade of grey.

[lofter1]

That "drab shade of grey" will change with the lighting ...

In this rendering (used in a full page ad in today's Sunday NY Times homage to the ESB) clearly shows flood lights (just above the street-level -- below where the signage shows "The New York Times" name -- and on the 41st St. facade as well) that will shoot light up the facade and transform the face of the tower:

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

http://www.fcrc.com/project_main2.asp?id=27&cc=2&rid=27

[kz1000ps]

True. As has been said before, nighttime will be when this thing (literally) shines at its best.

[czsz]

And once again I will add that the lighting will not make a lick of difference during the day.

[kz1000ps]

I'm no expert on these matters, but what chance do those trees on the roof have for living a decent life? It seems to me the constant winds would stress them out a lot. Or should the question be, do you think those trees will ever get planted?

[macreator]

It seems to me the constant winds would stress them out a lot.

Remember, the garden will be wrapped on 4 sides by 200 foot glass walls that will, I would imagine, block the wind.

[kz1000ps]

First, I thought that the sections extending above the actual building were to be just the rods, no glass. Second, you can see that whatever the materials, it's not a continuous wall - it mimics the area the rods cover (or, if I am right, is just the continuation of them), and at each corner there is a gap of at least 5 feet where wind could easily sweep through.

I can't recall how strong the winds are on top of a skyscraper, but what is a ballpark figure? 20 mph consistently?

[Stern]

That "drab shade of grey" will change with the lighting ...

In this rendering (used in a full page ad in today's Sunday NY Times homage to the ESB) clearly shows flood lights (just above the street-level -- below where the signage shows "The New York Times" name -- and on the 41st St. facade as well) that will shoot light up the facade and transform the face of the tower:

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

http://www.fcrc.com/project_main2.asp?id=27&cc=2&rid=27

Nice rendering of the Times if it were to have a double fascade made of glass. The double fascade however consist of ceramic rods and will look like this most recent night-time rendering...

http://www.amdrendering.com/new/projects/renzo/nytimesb.jpg

[lofter1]

When I've been up on the Top of the Rock the winds were intermittent and nothing that would bother a tree.

The Scholastic Building (the old Rouss building, not the new Rossi) has an exposed garden on the roof and everything is growing quite well -- in fact the cherry trees are in blossom right now. Admittedly it's just 1/4 the height of the Times Tower.

[NYCNY05]

Hmm ill be up soon for top of the rock... At least NYT is finally getting a building it deserves. I mean jeez its one of the most unbiased newspapers. I read it when I can but its so damn expensive.:eek:

[kz1000ps]

I mean jeez its one of the most unbiased newspapers.

No it's not. By nature I lean left, but come on, everyone knows how liberal they are. But I do agree with you on their prices. Try living in the area outside the "NY Metro" and pay $4.50 for their Sunday papers. Not to mention that in Boston you don't get any local/real estate news for that lofty price.

**

Lofter, that's great news. I have a girl/friend/who-the-hell-knows, who is a literal tree hugger, and so this kind of thing is of a certain importance to me.

**

Good to see that "updated" rendering (forgot about it), as it is much more realistic. Macreator you appear to be correct, or by the looks of it about 2/3rds right in your statement about having glass walls surrounding the trees. But apperently the trees will be fine, so that's a moot issue. Design-wise this is probably better, in that it creates an even-more elusive transition from solid to sky.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Trees grow at elevations higher than 1000 ft.

[macreator]

Trees grow at elevations higher than 1000 ft.

Good point

[Ninjahedge]

Question, what's up with the north slat facade damage? I think it happened recently, but I was wondering what may have caused it.... (construction collission, a pack of kamakaze pidgeons....)

[lofter1]

If you're talking about the few broken rods on the north facade of the low-rise portion, those are on some of the first sections to be installed and they were damaged from Day One. Not sure if they've been replaced as of yet.

[LeCom]

Snapped this on my way to The Link and Hearst Tower
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/04/453536.jpg

A shot down 8th Avenue on my way back about fifteen minutes later. During this time they already added three steel beams and technically increased its structural height by a floor
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/04/453538.jpg

[NYatKNIGHT]

April 24

http://www.pbase.com/image/59248185.jpg

[Bob]

Nice building. Is it just me, or does it lean to the left? : )

[Scruffy88]

thats just the earth leaning to the right

[RS085]

so about 6 floors to go. this thing should top out in a few weeks, oh the anticipation.

[lofter1]

PIANO WIRE -- DUCK !

8th Avenue between 42nd / 34th Streets was closed from ~ 3PM > 4PM this afternoon after an object fell from above.

A policeman on the street in front of the PABT was seen holding a piece of metal ~ 4' long and 1" x 1/4" in thickness. The metal was slightly bent, apparently the result of crashing through the sunroof of a car. An ambulance was on scene (more on that below).

A man in an orange vest was seen speaking with a reporter and pointing up towards the higher floors of the Renzo Piano's New York Times Tower.

Falling Debris Injures Two People In Midtown

NY1 (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=59093)
May 02, 2006

Falling debris injured two people, including a young child, near Times Square Tuesday afternoon.

The incident happened on the corner of 41st Street and Eighth Avenue.

It's not known what kind of debris fell or where it came from, but a witness at the scene tells NY1 it looked like a metal rod, and that it fell through the sunroof of a vehicle.

Two people were injured by the debris. They have been taken to St. Clare's Hospital, and their condition is unknown.

Copyright © 2006 NY1 News

[lofter1]

Up-Date ...

Falling Debris Injures Three People In Midtown

NY1 (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=59093)
May 02, 2006

A piece of steel came crashing down on a family's car near Times Square Tuesday, injuring three people, including a child.

City officials say a steel rod fell from a building under construction at the corner of 41st Street and Eighth Avenue, where the new New York Times building is under construction. The rod fell from the 17th floor of the 45-story building.

The Department of Buildings issued four violations to the building’s owner, and issued a stop work order until the repairs are made and the site is re-inspected.

The violations are for missing rails, guards and netting, all issues related to ensuring public safety near high rise constructions.

All three people in the car were treated at a local hospital.

Copyright © 2006 NY1 News

[kz1000ps]

I'm not trying to be a funny guy here, but at least it wasn't an entire scaffolding rig raining down on their sunroof...

[Kris]

May 3, 2006
Pipe Falls at New York Times Construction Site, Injuring 3 in Car
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Three people — two adults and a 2½-year-old boy — were injured yesterday when a steel pipe from a building under construction on Eighth Avenue crashed through the sunroof of their car, the police said.

The police said the pipe, three feet long, fell off The New York Times Company's new building, which is under construction at 625 Eighth Avenue, between 40th and 41st Streets.

The car, a black Honda Accord, was northbound on Eighth Avenue around 3:15 p.m. when the pipe hit the sunroof, the police said.

A law enforcement official said that the driver, Abdelazim Elsayed, 28, of Phoenixville, Pa., was struck on the shoulder, and that his wife, Heather, also 28, was cut on the head.

Their son, Blaze, was in the back seat. He was scratched on the face, said a police spokeswoman, Officer Doris Garcia.They were treated for minor injuries at St. Vincent's Midtown Hospital, Officer Garcia said. They were later released, hospital officials said.

Inspectors issued citations for four violations after the accident and ordered work stopped until repairs were made and the building reinspected, she said.

One violation was for failure to safeguard the public and property during construction, she said. Another was for having improper vertical netting around the edges of an upper floor of the building. Each of the four violations carries a penalty of up to $2,500.

The department issued citations for two similar violations earlier in the year, she said.

The building, opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal, is scheduled to be completed early next year.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[mgp]

I'd say that everyone involved is lucky that this wasn't more serious. According to the Daily News the 'rod' fell from the 43rd floor. That is pretty scary.

Also, not to nit pick (and certainly not to diminish a pretty scary accident), but the Time article is terrible. First of all 625 would be on the west side of the street (odd number). I'm not sure what address the New Tower will use, but it won't be 625. Second of all, based on the pictures in the Post and Daily News it looks like it was rebar not 'pipe.' Below are the links - sorry don't want to post the whole article. You might have to register with the Post to read that article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/414402p-350196c.html
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/67943.htm

[lofter1]

It was neither pipe nor rebar ...
A policeman on the street in front of the PABT was seen holding a piece of metal ~ 4' long and 1" x 1/4" in thickness. The metal was slightly bent, apparently the result of crashing through the sunroof of a car. An ambulance was on scene
I saw the cop holding it and it was long and flat-ish:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/874-tower2.JPG

[lofter1]

...the Time article is terrible. First of all 625 would be on the west side of the street (odd number). I'm not sure what address the New Tower will use, but it won't be 625.
Wow -- The NY Times doesn't even know the address of their very own new headquarters!

So much for credibility over there ...

[kliq6]

hey things happen, the contractor on this job is going out of business, these guys on this job our the last of the firm, dont think they care if accidents happen as anylawsuits wont affect them, just the company that is laying them off the day this job is done

[mgp]

It was neither pipe nor rebar ...

I saw the cop holding it and it was long and flat-ish:


http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/874-tower2.JPG

Hadn't seen that picture. Definitely not rebar. When I first read the headline I thought it was one of the ceramic rods. I can only imagine the uproar that would have caused.

[antinimby]

Also, not to nit pick (and certainly not to diminish a pretty scary accident), but the Time article is terrible. First of all 625 would be on the west side of the street (odd number). I'm not sure what address the New Tower will use, but it won't be 625.Good catch. I just checked the address, and it appears that the Times address is 620 Eighth Ave.
625 is the PABT.

[krulltime]

Wow -- The NY Times doesn't even know the address of their very own new headquarters!

So much for credibility over there ...

Wow just imagine how many errors they make all the time. Scary. I usually take their articles very serious, like word by word.

[Dorkmo]

heyo! so besides the falling metal stuff, hows the building coming along? you guys have put together quiet a collection of photos! im all the way over in dallas ($5 for a sunday times). Its nice to be able to see the progress from affar.

[BrooklynRider]

It's looking great. As it get's taller the design details become stronger. It had kind of a horizontal feel when it only the first few floors had been fitted with the ceramic screens. Now, it really is looking like a bit of a masterpiece.

[hella good]

almost every towers construction has some kind of accident, they always make a big thing out of nothing...ok its dangerous but not unexpected.....im suprised more of the buildiers dont drop more hammers and things over the edge, lol it would hurt if you got a crowbar in your head....

[macreator]

People forget that at the Time Warner Center before it was completed there was a huge fire.

At Bloomberg, a worker died.

[BrooklynRider]

And, let's not forget the accidents at CIBC and Conde Nast.

[CARLOS]

... :)

NY Times tower on a cloudy gray NYC day...
today May 09, 2006

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01484.jpg

:rolleyes:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01485.jpg

[antinimby]

Has work resumed?

It's a shame they had to stop work because they were so close to the finish line, too.
Less than a month away from topping out.

[Dagrecco82]

:confused: Don't know if it's a good indication or not but the cranes have not moved from the same position in a couple of days on webcame 3...
http://www.wirednewyork.com/webcam3/default.htm

[lofter1]

Two days ago there were quite a few workman doing stuff -- at least at the low-rise section.

[ManhattanKnight]

:confused: Don't know if it's a good indication or not but the cranes have not moved from the same position in a couple of days on webcame 3...

WNY Webcam 3 has been frozen since May 1 . . .

[Stern]

Some great images/renderings of the NYTIMES:

http://www.screampoint.com/

Scroll to NYTIMES.

Turns out there were several curtain wall options. The current I believe is first, all the other options would have called for less rods. The third with the least rods I believe is the best. Too bad Ratner didn't insist on cost cutting, sometimes less is more. Judge for yourself.

[Ninjahedge]

From the Post article (I think) with the father there, if the cop is holding the ar, that is too thin to be rebar. It might be some sort of shim, or scrap metal.

The picture lofter gave shows a rod that is also too smooth to be rebar.

I have not seen the cranes move in a while, but I believe they had steel out there being unloaded on Monday, so I do not know that they have stopped construction.

As for the company going out of buisness, it would be interesting to know how/why and what the story is behind that. Did I miss something earlier in this thread?

[MidtownGuy]

I agree. Less rods in the 3rd rendering makes the view looking out much better. I think it would have looked better on the outside too.

[Citytect]

The rods are too far apart in the third rendering. Makes it look like an obvious cost-cutting tactic. Cheap. Plus, with the rods that far apart I would think the energy conserving properties would be greatly effected - making them almost pointless.

Any of the other renderings look fine to me. If the first one is the scheme being applied to the actual building, I think maybe they should have chosen one of the schemes with a wider rod-less portion. I like the second and fourth schemes best. But again, how would those effect the energy efficiency?

[lesterp4]

I walked by the site today and the cranes were moving this morning. They had a bundle of something which I couldn't tell what it was.

[lofter1]

Very cool images ^^

There is a curtain wall option that now has been installed on the east facade at ~15th / 16th Floors (the cafteria floors) that isn't shown on that site: simply two floors of the wider-spaced rods (like what is being installed on the lower portion of each floor) for the entire height of those two floors.

The glazing on the interior courtyard on the lower portion looks to be complete (other than at the street level).

The've also now poured the concrete pads and installed the metal attachments for the glass walls on the sections below the cantilevered bump-outs on both the north & south facade.

Today @ ~ 2PM 40th St. was closed as trucks were unloading some HUGE mechanical equipment (still wrapped in the bright blue plastic).

***

[Geer]

Just for sharing this great pic. From Timo van der Noort. You can see the impact it is having on the midtown skyline.

http://www.tvn-ny.com/e107_plugins/autogallery/Gallery/Gebouwen%20New%20York/IMG_2680.JPG

[JCMAN320]

Wow amazing pic. That tower is looking great. Can't wait till it's complete and hopefully those rods work to the advantage of the building.

[MidtownGuy]

This photo confirms it for me. The impact I see in that photo is not so impressive.
(1) From a skyline point of view, you can see in this photo that it is hardly standing out. The height does not poke above the surrounding plateau of medium height buildings. Flying in on a plane, I daresay the average person will not even notice it.( at least during the daytime- we'll have to see what the planned illumination does for its nightime visibility.)
(2) The shape, another straight up rectangular box, does not distinguish itself either. The facade is different. Oh wow, Big Deal! We can't even agree that the rods are actually a plus. Can you honestly tell me that it has any noticeable impact on the skyline? I mean to normal people, not us forumers who notice everything? Looks OK from the street, but hardly something that will impact the skyline. Just a filler that solidifies the plateau. An average person will not notice it.
Hearst, despite it's lower height, actually does more for the skyline.

[BrooklynRider]

Actually, if you walk along the Hudson River it does have an impact and it stands out very clearly from the Brooklyn Bridge as well. The Atelier also makes a nice (and noticeable) addition to the skyline. But I agree with your observation that it adds to a plateau rather soaring to new heights. I don't think anything unber 1250 feet, at this point, could really qualify as a anything bold and new on the skyline. We're just seeing the Midtown heap seeping outwards.

[MidtownGuy]

I understand what you're saying- I rollerblade along the Hudson quite often and of course you can see the thing, but I guess we just have different definitions of "impact". I meant something that draws the attention and imagination, and stands out from the other things around it. Something that goes boldly where others have not.
All I'm saying is that when I look at the thread on London's projects, or even Moscow for that matter, I see imaginative shapes, interesting forms. I come back to this and it is dissapointing. I'll take a lot of flak for this, but it is my opinion and I'm sticking by it. It's the 21st century, and I'd like some new skyscrapers in this town that show creativity. There are more forms in nature besides the rectangle, unfortunately there is no force in nature ( or at least in NYC) more powerful than human greed, and since a rectangle gives the most "bang for the buck" in space to rent, we'll see a lot more of these before we ever see one like the London Shard or Moscow City Tower.
Our skyline needs diversity, not more of the same 20th century boxes, no matter how nicely clad.

[MidtownGuy]

Not to be misunderstood, I actually like this building. Rereading my post, I see that some might get the wrong idea. It is a perfectly nice building. Impressive in several ways, just not up to the level of projects elsewhere in the world when it comes to excitement.
I'll put on my realist hat now. I don't think what I want in skyscrapers is going to happen in New York anytime soon,(breaking out of the plateau, exploration of other geometric forms, etc.) and I will take pleasure where I can find it, like the Hearst building or the older classics.
This building is good for a newspaper, the grey color with the rods and all that, so symbolic of newsprint and printing, the sobering form, etc.

[lofter1]

Next time you're near the buiding site during the day go to the corner of 41st / 8th Ave: There is a large gate at that corner; it's often open and you can inch your way off the sidewalk. From there look up at the tower ... you'll get a pretty danged thrilling up-close sight of steel -- massive unbroken columns and multiple "X"s -- rising to the sky. Wow!!

[alibrot]

Not to be misunderstood, I actually like this building. Rereading my post, I see that some might get the wrong idea. It is a perfectly nice building. Impressive in several ways, just not up to the level of projects elsewhere in the world when it comes to excitement.
I'll put on my realist hat now. I don't think what I want in skyscrapers is going to happen in New York anytime soon,(breaking out of the plateau, exploration of other geometric forms, etc.) and I will take pleasure where I can find it, like the Hearst building or the older classics.
This building is good for a newspaper, the grey color with the rods and all that, so symbolic of newsprint and printing, the sobering form, etc.

The general form has all right angles, but its not a simple rectange box with the cantilevered north/south, and the creative facade. Most of the building is steel right now - just wait till its done and the glass top rises above the exterior steel beams that travel up the building without interruption. this building will catch plenty of attention. Greed? No way this building was designed with maximizing profit in mind. Easily 8 figures were sacrificed between the design and the environmental efficiency. How creative do you want to get with shapes? When you spend $1B on a building, you also want amazing functionality.

[BrooklynRider]

Actually, I was just thinking... If we could put a big red "X" over all the truly ugly buildings in that picture, the NYTimes wouldn't be in my top ten.

[Citytect]

I have to agree with MidtownGuy. The building is good and you can definately see it in the skyline. But the "impact" on the skyline isn't great.

It's not something I hold against the building though. There's not a lot that can realistically be done to greatly impact the skyline of Midtown at this point. Just add to the plateau. No big deal.

[Deimos]

Has the building topped out yet? If there's still floors to be added, the impact could jump out a little more.

[ablarc]

There's not a lot that can realistically be done to greatly impact the skyline of Midtown at this point. Just add to the plateau.
Anything that poked through the plateau would have a tremendous positive effect.

[alonzo-ny]

This photo confirms it for me. The impact I see in that photo is not so impressive.
(1) From a skyline point of view, you can see in this photo that it is hardly standing out. The height does not poke above the surrounding plateau of medium height buildings. Flying in on a plane, I daresay the average person will not even notice it.( at least during the daytime- we'll have to see what the planned illumination does for its nightime visibility.)
.

How can you comment until it is topped out and who cares how it looks from a plane

[mgp]

Has the building topped out yet? If there's still floors to be added, the impact could jump out a little more.

I was over there on Thursday, and I believe the steel is up to the 47th floor. Including the mechanical floors, they have about 6 more to go. Also, the rod facade will continue another 70 or so feet. With the rod screens, the tower will be roughly the height of the CitySpire Building. With the mast, the buiding will be around the height of the Chrysler Building.

In other words, I think it's a bit early to assess the impact on the skyline.

[MidtownGuy]

How can you comment until it is topped out and who cares how it looks from a plane

From a plane, from Jersey, from Brooklyn, from wherever is far enough to take in a skyline.

How can I comment until it's topped out? I extrapolated.

Look, I know this building is everyone's darling, almost a sacred cow in a forum that has seen dissapointment after dissapointment in recent years when it comes to both height and style in this town... my how sensitive we have become. It almost seems some people on this board don't want to hear ANYTHING negative about this project right now because prospects for other groundreaking NYC architecture look so bleak at the moment.

I like the building. I said that. It doesn't make me shout Hosannah, though, and the height is unimpressive so I don't want to hear about screens and masts and other gimmickry used to push a building's numbers higher, just to almost reach a height that was built in 1930(!) when elsewhere in the world they are building the height we are no longer capable of.

Criticism is healthy. Especially in a falsely complacent city.

[ZippyTheChimp]

46 floors completed. The last full floor is 51, but it is double height. So there are 6 more floors to the roof. Floor 52 is a rooftop structure. The crown appears to be about 5 floors in height.

So 11 floors to the top of the crown?

Graphic on page 15
http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/pdf/FactSheet2007.pdf

[lofter1]

Bad me ... couldn't resist ...

Look, I know this building is everyone's darling, almost a scared cow ...
http://meatless.blogdrive.com/images/scared_cow_web.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

SACRED SACRED SACRED
Not ignorant, just typing too fast.

[lofter1]

I knowed dat ^

but it still made me laugh ...

[JMGarcia]

750 feet is the top average height of buildings in Midtown. The "walls" of the NY Times tower will go up about 100 feet more than that. It'll stand above and out of the midtown skyline about as much as 30 Rock or TWT.

[Stern]

SACRED SACRED SACRED
Not ignorant, just typing too fast.

For me its a scared cow.

[antinimby]

750 feet is the top average height of buildings in Midtown. The "walls" of the NY Times tower will go up about 100 feet more than that. It'll stand above and out of the midtown skyline about as much as 30 Rock or TWT....and don't forget the antenna, for what it's worth.

What is now really irritating me is why they have to go overboard with the rods/screen and completely cover up the rear base portion? It would look so much more open and brighter w/o that cover.
And it's not like sunlight is going to be that big of a problem at street level behind the tower.

[Eugenius]

This building is going up on 8th Ave, so from the New Jersey side, it will look much taller than a similar-sized building on 5th or Park (witness the apparent height of Chrysler relative to WorldWide Plaza). So not to worry, the skyline effect will be present.

[Also, not to be anal or anything, on page 16 of the FactSheet they seem to have mislabeled male and female bathrooms...]

[kliq6]

yeah just coming back into the city a few minutes ago from the Lincoln, it looks great from that side and stands out muh more, as from LIC and Queens, probally wont be able to see it at all

[antinimby]

How can you comment until it is topped out and who cares how it looks from a planePeople in the plane do.;)

Btw, if you've ever had the opportunity to see the city's skyline (esp. at night with buildings all lit up) from a plane going up the Hudson before making a turn to descend on the approach to LaGuardia, you know how simply stunning that is. Normally dozing passengers all sit straight up, wide-eyed, and gazing out the window. Those kind of moments make you so proud to be a New Yorker.:)

[Citytect]

Anything that poked through the plateau would have a tremendous positive effect.

Right, obviously. Not happening though.

[JMGarcia]

Right, obviously. Not happening though.

But it is 100 feet taller than anything in west midtown it so it does poke through the plateau just as 30 Rock does.

[RS085]

wait til its finished, its impact will be known very well. although from downtown, penn plaza is in the way so it blocks the view, although you can see the spire.

[TREPYE]

wait till its finished, its impact will be known very well. although from downtown, penn plaza is in the way so it blocks the view, although you can see the spire.


Please do not refer to that pathetic little stick on top of it as a spire. Call it an antenna, a flag pole, a lightning rod, toothpick, needle, splinter or a very long white thin wind direction indicator (as its creator Renzo Piano puts it); but do not call it a spire cuz it is anything but. I was surprised that the NY times settled for such an insignificant figment on top. :rolleyes:

[lofter1]

It seems to fit the definition (particularly #3) ...

http://www.answers.com/topic/spire

spire 1 http://img.tfd.com/hm/pron.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:play('S0646200')) (sphttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifr)
n.

1. A top part or point that tapers upward; a pinnacle.
2. A structure or formation, such as a steeple, that tapers to a point at the top.
3. A slender, tapering part, such as a newly sprouting blade of grass.

[TREPYE]

It seems to fit the definition (particularly #3) ...

http://www.answers.com/topic/spire

spire 1 http://img.tfd.com/hm/pron.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:play('S0646200')) (sphttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gifr)
n.

1. A top part or point that tapers upward; a pinnacle.
2. A structure or formation, such as a steeple, that tapers to a point at the top.
3. A slender, tapering part, such as a newly sprouting blade of grass.

Hey lofter it doesn't fit the definition because that pole does not taper its just a straight little thin stick.

[Stern]

Hey lofter it doesn't fit the definition because that pole does not taper its just a straight little thin stick.

Not true. The rendering posted at the site shows the spire does in fact taper. I have no problem with the spire, it makes more sense to me than covering almost the entire fascade in a thick overlay of ceramic rods.
http://n.1asphost.com/anstern/NYTIMES9.jpg

[antinimby]

So deceptive that image is.

[TREPYE]

Not true. The rendering posted at the site shows the spire does in fact taper. I have no problem with the spire, it makes more sense to me than covering almost the entire fascade in a thick overlay of ceramic rods.
http://n.1asphost.com/anstern/NYTIMES9.jpg



http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/usa/World_Trade_Center_1a_small_copy.jpg

What is the difference between that and antenna a top world trade center one?? They both look kinda like the same to me to and last I heard WTC1's antenna was not considered a spire that bought up the buildings height to 1700 ft, the official height was always 1300 ft. And even if it does taper would you notice it from a thousand feet away at ground level being that it is so thin? In addition, it is totally discontinuous from the buildings main structure.

The ESB, Chrysler, Metlife, Woolworth buildings have spires the NYtimes tower does not. Just cuz Piano said it was a spire it does not make it one. Maybe the final product may look different from the pole that we see in the pic but I'm not convinced that it will look much different than just a pole on top of the building.

[RS085]

wow, its not an antenna, and its not gonna look anything like WTC1. i got a good laugh.

[MidtownGuy]

Including a toothpick like that when calculating height would be just ridiculous. If I stick a toothpick on my head, I might consider myself six feet...but that wouldn't count, would it.

[Derek2k3]

http://static.flickr.com/56/145401150_b5093be173.jpg

JimmyOK (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jokelly/145401150/in/pool-63028098@N00/)

[antinimby]

Speaking of spires/antennae (I love them btw), can you imagine that picture without Conde Nast's and how boring that would be?
More, more, more!

[BrooklynRider]

I walked by this building Friday as the sun started setting. The ceramic screens reflected the golden-orange of the sun and the building looked fantastic with the areas without the ceramic rods appearing blacked out. It was more beautiful than I'd imagined it could be.

[pianoman11686]

I also observed the building with the late afternoon sun's rays reflecting off of the rods. It has a commanding presence when walking down 8th Avenue, and looks narrower and taller from that perspective. I actually hope that if and when something gets built on the empty lot just to the north, that the building does not exceed 20 stories so as to not obscure the Times Tower. This is a fantastic building.

[CARLOS]

as of today...
may 16th, 2006

from Union city NJ
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01531.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01532.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01533.jpg

bonus
Place 57 (3rd ave and 57th st) not bad....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01534.jpg

[Jake]

Those cranes just remind me how good dual spire buildings look.

[RS085]

is it still delayed?

[TREPYE]

Can anyone tell me why the Gehry/Childs design was not used? Ive read that they withdrew from the competition and thus Piano was selected. If this is the case, why did Gehry/Childs withdraw their proposal? :confused:

Its just a little confusing for me because this seems to be a much better design than the Piano one. :rolleyes:

http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/past_exhibitions/gehry/images/projects/projects_images/ny_times13_lg.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

Nothing with a shape so innovative gets built here. New York is where designs like that come to die.:mad:

[Ninjahedge]

Nothing with a shape so innovative gets built here. New York is where designs like that come to die.:mad:


Innovative?

It looks a lot like his other stuff. He just made another ribbony type facade that would cost a fortune to support and yeild no eal usable functional space.

Some may like his designs, but I have not been a big Gehry fan. A lot of his designs look great from one angle, but sort of like an industrial Dahli nightmare from many others.

[kurokevin]

With Brooklyn getting Ghettyized in addition to 2 downtown projects (WTC theatre, Beekman ST) and the IAC headquarters that is currently rising, I'm certainly glad the Piano design was chosen. It's different, and surpisingly just as controversial judging from the polar responses people have been offering.

Although, with this being Time Square, maybe the over-the-top Ghery design was more appropriate. I guess we'll never know.

[Stern]

Can anyone tell me why the Gehry/Childs design was not used? Ive read that they withdrew from the competition and thus Piano was selected. If this is the case, why did Gehry/Childs withdraw their proposal? :confused:

Its just a little confusing for me because this seems to be a much better design than the Piano one. :rolleyes:

http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/past_exhibitions/gehry/images/projects/projects_images/ny_times13_lg.jpg

You are correct, Gehry and Child's won the competition. Gehry pulled out because he was afraid the Times were going to ask him to stay in the city for the buildings construction. Since the Times didn't ask that from Piano, Gehry later went on record to say that was one of his biggest mistakes.

[MidtownGuy]

Innovative?

It looks a lot like his other stuff. He just made another ribbony type facade that would cost a fortune to support and yeild no eal usable functional space

Innovative, compared to the other structures being built in this city, not to his own body of work, which should have been clear to you based on the context...

[ZippyTheChimp]

The context is the New York Times site.

[Ninjahedge]

Innovative, compared to the other structures being built in this city, not to his own body of work, which should have been clear to you based on the context...


Um, I am not entirely sure what you mean by "clear to me" but whatever.

And innovative compared to a bunch of glass and steel boxes is not hard to do you know.

Just remember that innovative is not always the best. Sometimes innovative just means "different".

[TREPYE]

You are correct, Gehry and Child's won the competition. Gehry pulled out because he was afraid the Times were going to ask him to stay in the city for the buildings construction. Since the Times didn't ask that from Piano, Gehry later went on record to say that was one of his biggest mistakes.

OMG!! Some thing that stupid cost the Times from having a stupendous building. It sounds kind of unbelievable, but I'll take your word for it. Don't get me wrong it just sounds like an absurd circumstance that prevented some great architecture. Sh-t man, Gehry really bailed on NYC hopefully he'll make up for it with Beekman ;). Thanks for the info Stern.

[Peakrate212]

I am not in love with the way its coming out.......it just looks weird - like cement blocks where the windows should be......

I am disappointed

maybe it will look better when completed.

[MidtownGuy]

No Zippy, I know what I meant by the word context. I was referring to the words around "innovative", as in the context of my statement.

[MidtownGuy]

And innovative compared to a bunch of glass and steel boxes is not hard to do you know.

Evidently it is, since it's not happening. Something different than a glass and steel box may not be hard to conceive, but it's hard to actually get built in NY.
I'm through with this silly niggling.

[JMGarcia]

I saw it in person up close for the first time today, both from the street and the 45th floor of 7 Times Sq.

The facade is going to be stunning when the building is complete IMO if they manage to keep it clean.

[ZippyTheChimp]

No Zippy, I know what I meant by the word context. I was referring to the words around "innovative", as in the context of my statement.You don't think the Piano building is innovative?

If you're lamenting the loss of the Gehry building, that should be considered with its replacement, not with crap around the city.

[MidtownGuy]

Nothing with a shape so innovative gets built here.

That is what I said. What isn't clear here??
Certain aspects of the Piano building are innovative. The SHAPE is not one of them. The shape.

If you're lamenting the loss of the Gehry building, that should be considered with its replacement, not with crap around the city.

Not lamenting the loss of one building. Not comparing it to any other one building. Simply making the statement that in New York, most buildings are not built with such unconventional shapes. Do you disagree? If so, fine.

[Ninjahedge]

Evidently it is, since it's not happening. Something different than a glass and steel box may not be hard to conceive, but it's hard to actually get built in NY.
I'm through with this silly niggling.

Evidently, it isn't.

It is just not WORTH it to many developers. You are the one that keeps "niggling" with all of this MTG. We are just beating down every little "niggle". ;)


Hmmm, is it just me or does that not sound right......



Anyway, case and point, one of his latest designs, I believe an office building, utilizes seperate unique pieces of facade glass on at least one face. It is already WAY overbudget and people are just smirking about it.

The question a lot of times is not whether people want to pay a little extra for something unique, but HOW MUCH extra.

Do you think that Gold Rims on your Bentley is really necessary?

[lofter1]

. We are just beating down every little "niggle". ;)

Hmmm, is it just me or does that not sound right......

FreeDictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/niggle) agrees ... seems "niggle" is only a verb:

nig·gle http://img.tfd.com/hm/pron.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:play('N0101200')) (nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifghttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)

intr.v. nig·gled, nig·gling, nig·gles
1. To be preoccupied with trifles or petty details.
2. To find fault constantly and trivially; carp.

See Synonyms at quibble (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quibble).
[Perhaps of Scandinavian origin.]

[Ninjahedge]

You can always act on a verb or descriptive phrase, otherwise how would we "fight terrorism"? ;)

[MidtownGuy]

Niggling is exactly what you did. Since you still haven't shown how my statement was false enough to deserve your response, and you have still failed to grasp the sentiment behind 7 simple words, I will not waste another post on it. So, if you STILL feel abnormally compelled to have the last word, as usual, be my ROYAL GUEST.

It is just not WORTH it to many developers.

Yet it seems more worth it to developers in other cities.

Beyond the obvious desire to use every square inch possible in an expensive place, which means building straight up in most cases if there are no regulations to dictate otherwise, there are also other reasons for the shapes that buildings take. Ego, culture, context, etc.

[JMGarcia]

In many other cities architectural quality is an important component of getting a project approved.

Getting something approved in NY is more a function of massing, height, and give backs by the developer.

[Ninjahedge]

>blah< >blahblah<>insult blah blah<

Midtown, nice that I have to PROVE that my comments were even worth posting here.

You keep asking for everything as if it was a sin that anything was left out. You even admit the building IS innovative, just not AS innovative as you would like it to be. Come on!

Ghery was chosen, he did not want to have to come to NYC so he declined (as far as I am reading this here) and another design was chosen. It is interesting enough, but no real breakthrough.

When I comment about the FISCAL IMPRACTICALIBILITY of the situation, all you do is say "that is not valid".

Come on.


Yet it seems more worth it to developers in other cities.

Listen to yourself for just ONE MINUTE!

IN OTHER CITIES

Are you going to start siting places like Dubai as Trepye (however he spells it.. ;) ) did? NYC is NOT these other places. It does not NEED anything revolutionary to attract buisness and if that money were spent here it would not yeild the same result as it would elsewhere.

Building something like that somewhere else would be more valued to ttract buisness AWAY from NYC than for NYC to just make itself more attractive.

To continue with the car analogy, a porsche in a lot full of hondas gets more notice than in a lot full of BMWs, Mercedes and the like.

Beyond the obvious desire to use every square inch possible in an expensive place, which means building straight up in most cases if there are no regulations to dictate otherwise, there are also other reasons for the shapes that buildings take. Ego, culture, context, etc.

Take a look at the recent buildings proposed, and regected, for the Chelsea highline. Not only do they want to build on every cubic inch of their air-rights, they want to tilt out and over the park as well.

YES these places want to use as much as possible, but they also want to do it as economically as possible. There are certain balance points that are out there, and depending on how much these companies want it, we will see it.

Otherwise, there is no real motivating factor for a developer to come into NYC and build something that will be different enough to be noticed in a town that already has some unique structures.

[MidtownGuy]

You need help.

[LeCom]

Morning of May 18

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/7527/pict0001nyttucmay06tothese4588.jpg

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1732/pict0002nyttucmay06baseworkers.jpg

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1677/pict0003small0as.jpg

Ugly lowrise base - wtf is this supposed to be, a ladder? Facade my ass
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/7295/pict0004nyttucmay06baseladderr.jpg

Good looking building overall tho
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4535/pict0005nyttucmay06lookingupto.jpg

[antinimby]

Ugly lowrise base - wtf is this supposed to be, a ladder? Facade my assThat's the point I made earlier. The portion of the base with the atrium in it does not need a whole wall of rods.
An unnecessarily excessive use of rods.

[TREPYE]

Are you going to start siting places like Dubai as Trepye (however he spells it.. ;) ) did? NYC is NOT these other places. It does not NEED anything revolutionary to attract buisness and if that money were spent here it would not yeild the same result as it would elsewhere.

What are you talking about Ninjahedge?? I never said that NYC has to impress to the level that Dubai does. I was just annoyed about the fact that the FT's size was shrunk from 2000 ft to 1776 ft while other cities (like Dubai) increase the size of their towers.

Oh and by the way, if you are going to bring up spelling why don't you start by spelling "citing", "business" and "yield" correctly ;).

[GLNY]

I'm trying to reserve comment on this until complete, but the facade does bear a striking resemblance to the mid-rise Brooklyn House of Detention.

[kz1000ps]

That's the point I made earlier. The portion of the base with the atrium in it does not need a whole wall of rods.
An unnecessarily excessive use of rods.

That's what I thought when I got to see the building, with parts of the facade on for the first time, last Friday night. I commented to BrooklynRider that it looks no better than a parking garage. What the hell are they all needed for, especially on the north side where you rarely get direct sunlight? Privacy reasons from all those peeking, peering pedestrians maybe.......?

But, as BR posted a couple pages back, the west facade looked sublime with the sun shining off of it -- not as pure firey as that one facade mockup photo shows, but definitely a great improvement over the white-grey they seem to be most of the time.

[lofter1]

Reflected light / heat off of other buildings is a major source of heat in NYC.

The rods serve to disperse heat hitting the building.

[James Kovata]

I take it we're less than ten floors from topping out.

[RS085]

less than 5 is a fair assessment.

[Stern]

As for the fascade "atleast being original"

Here's an ugly parking garage with a familiar face...


http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/8573/nytimescopy7oc.jpg

[antinimby]

Oh my god!
That's probably what Times execs will say if they see that. To be compared to the lowest of the low, a garage! Oh wait, wasn't there a parking garage/lot there prior? Paying homage...

[Stern]

Oh my god!
That's probably what Times execs will say if they see that. To be compared to the lowest of the low, a garage! Oh wait, wasn't there a parking garage/lot there prior? Paying homage...

Talk about irony. To my knowledge there's only a handful of above ground parking garages in Manhattan.

[lofter1]

They ^^ are all over the place in that area -- one is directly across the street on W. 40th. There is another on 39th west of 8th. They are hidden away in old buildings, but there are quite a few of them ll over Manhattan.

[smackfu]

I actually saw this in person for the first time last week. I guess I didn't realize where it was. A shame it's across from the bus station.

Anyways, it was near sunset and the sun looked gorgeous across the taller building. I wish I had a camera with me. (OTOH, the lower part does look like a parking garage or a con-ed building.)

[kliq6]

if site 11 was built as well, this would just compliment this building and move a long way towards maybe cleaning up that area, maybe force the Port Authority to do something with that awful facade

[pianoman11686]

The PA is actually installing a new facade on the terminal's west-facing wall, using big, metallic-looking plates. Does anyone know if this will cover any other walls of the terminal?

[lofter1]

Don't ^^ think so (although that new west facade looks great) ...

They are doing some work on the south wall as well, but seems they are mainly reworking what is already on that facade (excpet for a new metal crown at the top).

The small square grid-work that was laid over the great X Beams on the norht / east facades a couple of years ago should be removed -- it completly ruins what was a terrific bold skeletal facade.

[yanni111]

i was on 10th avenue and 38 st today and you can get a good view of the building from there. Now as the outer skin is getting higher up i noticed that those bars on the skin create a very weird effect when you look at them. They appear to be moving similar to how the McGraw Hill building and its 2 similar neighboors do on 6th avenue and 50th when looked at from a certain angle. This effect actually made me dizzy. Its similar to those black and white pattern designs do if you know what im talking about. It doesnt happen all the time, just if the light is hitting the building the right way. It looks really cool. I want too see that effect when the skin is totally up to the roof. It makes the building look alive. Oh, by the way im a cab driver and a few months ago i was on 8th waiting to pick someone up from the PA and a steel nut about 2 inches in diameter fell off the building and landed on the trunk of my cab and punched a hole through it. It sounded like an explosion. The construction firm paid for the damage. A steel bar fell again a couple of weeks ago and smashed through the sunroof of a car passing and injured the woman driving. I also learned from the construction firm that a few weeks before my cab was hit some metal fell on a police car and smashed its windshield. The cop sitting inside did not see the stuff hit his windsheild but only saw the glass break. He came out of the car with his gun drawn thinking he was being shot at. My point is, I wouldnt walk directly under the building on 8th if i was you. Use the PA awning as protection. This is nothing new though, remember when some plywood fell off the Time Warner Center? watch out people!!

[kurokevin]

Three new designs demonstrate Renzo Piano's brilliance and his limitations.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/skyline/articles/060529crsk_skyline

The following is the portion that mentions the Times building. The article does a more indepth analysis of the lauded Morgan's Library and The Whitney Expansion.

"The drawbacks of Piano’s approach are becoming discernible, however, as his new headquarters for the Times, a fifty-two-story skyscraper, rises rapidly on Eighth Avenue. For skyscrapers, quiet assertiveness isn’t enough; once they get above street level, their job is not to balance other buildings but simply to be. The New York Times Building, which Piano has designed in collaboration with the New York firm of FXFowle, is a glass tower set behind a curtain of thin rods which form a sunscreen all the way up the façade. At seven hundred and forty-eight feet, that is a lot of rods. Up close, the tower has the pristine, tensile quality of Piano’s smaller work, but seen from a few blocks away the rods blur into something that looks like corrugated metal and the building takes on a strange, thin blandness. It’s one thing to design a tower that will play beautifully off the granite of the Whitney, but the Times building has to play off against a whole sky line. If the graceful interweaving of modernism and classicism at the Morgan demonstrates the power that brilliantly conceived, intense pieces of small-scale architecture can possess, the Times building, so far at least, shows the opposite. It comes off as dainty, even flimsy, as if inside this huge tower a little building were struggling to get out."

Think what you will, there seems to be no middle ground on this one. The sign of a true work of art?

I sure think so

[ablarc]

i noticed that those bars on the skin create a very weird effect when you look at them. They appear to be moving...
http://66.230.220.70/images/post/vasarely/9999.jpg

Victor Vasarely: Vonal (Line)

[pianoman11686]

I still think this building shines when exposed to the sun, and I can't wait to see it lit up. I am a little disappointed about the rear portion, which some people associate with a parking garage. Walking down that block today, I can say without much hesitation, that the building blends in well with the street's ambiance. 41st (b/w 7th and 8th) must have some of the ugliest streetwall in all of midtown.

[Dagrecco82]

Great pictures by Sarajevo-City from Skyscrapercity.com




http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9435/times123qy.jpg

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/5025/times233yl.jpg

[kliq6]

Im hearing ESPN is considering taking a large amount of space in this building

[jeffpark]

is that besides the other 330,000 SF thats spoken for?

[TallGuy]

Great photos. I can appreciate the height of the bldg. for the first time. I'm still not sold on those rods, though. Maybe once the top is finished and everything is in context...

[kliq6]

yes besides that space, a ESPN lease would basically fill the building out

[lofter1]

Yesterday with the wind blowing the rods were actually moving ever so slightly; as the sun was shining down the entire south facade was glimmering and twinkling.

IMO the facade when complete will be very lively and not inert as in many towers

[jeffpark]

yes besides that space, a ESPN lease would basically fill the building out

In the NY TIMES TOWER there is aprox 700,000 rsf available from floors
28 thru 50
And the NY Post reports on March 30th that

“The law firm Dechert is in the market for some 200,000 square feet..
And Disney's ESPN is another 200,000 foot tenant seriously considering the 708,000 feet Ratner has available.."

So that’s a total of 400,000
But what’s with the remaining 300,000 rsf. ?

[kliq6]

FCR is in exclusive talk with another tenant, reported awhile back in on of the papers, no names is released as FCR is very good at not leaking, this building, like 1 BP will be completey leased when they open, thus tightening a already tight Midtown region to the point there will almost be zero vacancy

[antinimby]

kliq, please tell me someone's planning a new commercial development right now.
Anything juicy?

As for ESPN, they should move their entire operations to the city. What the hell are they doing in the middle of nowhere in Connecticut, I haven't the slightest clue.

[antinimby]

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/5025/times233yl.jpg

The Times looks kinda short.
Doesn't appear to be that much taller than the Orion, eventhough the Orion is further away in the picture.

[sfenn1117]

By my count it's 47 floors up. The 52nd is double height, so that's 6 more floors to structurally top out. Then the glass screens will rise another 50 feet or so. So in reality, this thing is about ~110-120 feet from topping out.

It's just an illusion that the Orion is nearly as tall currently. Look at the Hilton hotel next door (green/red/weird roof)....it is a 500 footer and it is starting to tower over it.

It's the tallest thing this far west in midtown.....so yes, it's a presence, and will be for some time. Being in NY I guess some just forget how impressive 800 feet is.

[jeffpark]

kliq, please tell me someone's planning a new commercial development right now.
Anything juicy?

As for ESPN, they should move their entire operations to the city. What the hell are they doing in the middle of nowhere in Connecticut, I haven't the slightest clue.

whats with the Milstein site at 42nd and 8th

[antinimby]

Oh god. Don't even bring that one up. Ad nauseum.

[antinimby]

By my count it's 47 floors up. The 52nd is double height, so that's 6 more floors to structurally top out. Then the glass screens will rise another 50 feet or so. So in reality, this thing is about ~110-120 feet from topping out.I think you might be off there. In fact, I think this thing is topping out right about there. The discolored, rusty horizontal beams give it away. Notice the others below were not rusty?

It's the tallest thing this far west in midtown.Wrong again. That would be One Worldwide Plaza.

[PHLguy]

Wrong again. That would be One Worldwide Plaza.


Worldwide plaza = 779 feet

NYTimes Tower = 802 feet, to the top of the crown and 1046 to the point.

[antinimby]

Worldwide plaza = 779 feet
NYTimes Tower = 802 feet, to the top of the crown and 1046 to the point.
Okay Mr. Wiseguy, tell me what is the height of NY Times' roof? Don't give me the top of the screen nonsense and the flag pole thingy.:p

[ZippyTheChimp]

I think you might be off there. In fact, I think this thing is topping out right about there. The discolored, rusty horizontal beams give it away. Notice the others below were not rusty? No.

Floors 47 and 48 are going up now. 120 ft to the top of the crown is a good estimate.

[sfenn1117]

Thanks for the confirmation Zippy. I thought I was right.

A good way to track it is that the 27th (or is it the 26th?) floor is double height. That's what I based it off of.

Personally I think it is looking fantastic, I can't wait til the glass screens are added to the top. I think those will complement the rest of the tower nicely.

[TallGuy]

kliq, please tell me someone's planning a new commercial development right now.
Anything juicy?

As for ESPN, they should move their entire operations to the city. What the hell are they doing in the middle of nowhere in Connecticut, I haven't the slightest clue.


They are in the middle of nowhere in CT (not that CT, smack between NYC and Boston is nowhere) becuase when they started, they were laughed at and given little chance for survival. '24 hour sports? Who would watch that?'

[macreator]

As for ESPN, they should move their entire operations to the city. What the hell are they doing in the middle of nowhere in Connecticut, I haven't the slightest clue.

Cheap space. That's why they're in the middle of nowhere. Same reason why CNBC has their main operations in bland suburban office space across the GWB in Jersey near Tenafly. Same goes for MSNBC elsewhere in Jersey.

[Peteynyc1]

They are in the middle of nowhere in CT (not that CT, smack between NYC and Boston is nowhere) becuase when they started, they were laughed at and given little chance for survival. '24 hour sports? Who would watch that?'

I am from CT originally and I recall some years back ESPN was considering moving out of the state. They were given HUGE additional tax breaks on top of what they were already getting so they would stay.

[GSN]

Entering New York City from the Lincoln Tunnel last week, as I normally do from both business and pleasure trips that conclude at Newark Airport, my eyes and attention were immediately drawn to a concrete, penetentiary-looking building. Wow, I thought. When did New York agree to build a high rise prison near Port Authority? From a distance, I imagined prisoners peering through windows formed by narrow slits in the concrete. As I approached closer, I was aghast to discover it was the New York Times building. I was even more disappointed to observe that the rods convert the the lower (pedestrian scale) floor into a freakish parking-garage wonderland. After the destruction of the original Penn Station (and rise of MSG), this has got to be one of the biggest planning/zoning/designing failures in NYC in recent memory. I know my post is a little dramatic, but I think in substance is true.

[Stern]

Entering New York City from the Lincoln Tunnel last week, as I normally do from both business and pleasure trips that conclude at Newark Airport, my eyes and attention were immediately drawn to a concrete, penetentiary-looking building. Wow, I thought. When did New York agree to build a high rise prison near Port Authority? From a distance, I imagined prisoners peering through windows formed by narrow slits in the concrete. As I approached closer, I was aghast to discover it was the New York Times building. I was even more disappointed to observe that the rods convert the the lower (pedestrian scale) floor into a freakish parking-garage wonderland. After the destruction of the original Penn Station (and rise of MSG), this has got to be one of the biggest planning/zoning/designing failures in NYC in recent memory. I know my post is a little dramatic, but I think in substance is true.

I think tenants will agree with you. Can anyone honestly say they would like to work in an office covered with rods/bars?

[Citytect]

I'd have no problem working in this particular office building covered with rods. What's the big deal aside from potentially obstructed view? I don't even think that's going to be as tramatic as some people are letting on. There won't even be bars at eye level unless you're an NBA player or a midget. Plus there are a lot more important office features than views. Just seems like too much is being made of "obstructed views". And Piano's greatest talent as an architect is his use of light. I suspect the rods and various other design elements will create some really interesting light in the office space.

[kurokevin]

I wonder if the rods will become almost transparant when viewed from the inside. The amount of light, proximity, and that one would be viewing them at a eye level will probably cast a very different effect than what's seen outside at street level

Just an idea.

[antinimby]

...my eyes and attention were immediately drawn to a concrete, penetentiary-looking building. Wow, I thought. When did New York agree to build a high rise prison near Port Authority? From a distance, I imagined prisoners peering through windows formed by narrow slits in the concrete. As I approached closer, I was aghast to discover it was the New York Times building. I was even more disappointed to observe that the rods convert the the lower (pedestrian scale) floor into a freakish parking-garage wonderland.A bitch slap. Ouch! :D

[kliq6]

Sorry to report that i can honestly say besides Freedom Tower and maybe 140 West 42nd street, there is no commercial project of an signifigance on the table right now. As for Milsetin Site, nothing will happen there till the state takes the site or forces him to sell and as we have seen with WTC development, the state is out to lunch and will be till Pataki leaves and starts his failed campaign for President

As for ESPN TALL GUY is right, they are in CT since when they started no NYC landlord they talked to would lease them and space, not believeing in the product. Even if they take space in this building, i dont think there whole operations will move here.

As for CNBC and MSNBC being in Jersey, im sorry to say but that is a long standing idea of GE, they feel they were screwed by NYC in the 70's when they moved out of NY to Ct in the first place and since then have kept very few amounts of there functions in NYC. When they bought NBC they had to keep the main network in NYC because of a deal struck by the previous owners in regards to leasing and sales tax, but i fthey could i be they would have the today show live from Secuacus

[BigMac]

The New Yorker
May 22, 2006

The Sky Line

MOLTO PIANO

Three new designs demonstrate Renzo Piano’s brilliance and his limitations.

by PAUL GOLDBERGER

Renzo Piano comes from a family of builders in Genoa, and his firm is called Renzo Piano Building Workshop, as if he weren’t a superstar architect but just your friendly neighborhood problem solver. Unlike most other architectural stars, Piano has no signature style. Instead, his work is characterized by a genius for balance and context, an ability to establish inventive correspondences between his buildings and those that surround them. Until now, New York hasn’t had a building by Piano, but his expansion of the Morgan Library, which has just reopened as the Morgan Library & Museum, is the beachhead for what may become a significant presence in the city. A skyscraper that will serve as the new headquarters for the Times is nearing completion, and Piano’s addition to the Whitney Museum of American Art is expected to begin construction within the next two years.

Piano’s achievement at the Morgan is to have created a satisfying composition out of three not particularly compatible landmark structures. The old Morgan buildings are awkwardly placed around the intersection of Thirty-sixth Street and Madison Avenue. The best of them, a dazzling Renaissance palazzo that Charles F. McKim designed as J. P. Morgan’s personal library in 1906, is tucked away on Thirty-sixth Street. A dull, classical annex next to it, erected by Benjamin W. Morris when the library was opened to the public, in the nineteen-twenties, has the choice location, on the corner, and north of this is a staid nineteenth-century brownstone. The challenge was to link these disparate buildings while also increasing the institution’s space by half. Piano’s solution is simultaneously subtle and radical. To avoid overwhelming the existing structures, he hid most of the new space underground, sinking storage vaults and a concert hall four stories into the bedrock. At ground level, an elegant glass-and-steel structure weaves between the older buildings and meets the street in two rectilinear façades, one on Madison Avenue and the other on Thirty-sixth Street.

Piano has reorganized everything so that the Madison Avenue façade is the new entrance, but it is from Thirty-sixth Street that you see most clearly how he has both preserved the Morgan and transformed it. The two limestone buildings, McKim’s palazzo and Morris’s annex, formerly tethered by a dreary connecting walkway, had an uncomfortable relationship with each other. Piano replaced the walkway with a compact steel cube painted a color that echoes the limestone. (Inside it is a gallery of medieval religious objects.) The cube is divided into eight ridged panels, to give it scale and texture, and it provides a firm counterweight to the mass of buildings on either side. It suggests that Piano is less concerned with form-making than he is with balancing masses, materials, and scales. I’d always found Morris’s annex bland, but now it seems crisply defined, while McKim’s opulent palazzo has acquired a new solidity, at no cost to its elegance.

Piano does something similar on Madison Avenue, but it is less effective. The limestone buildings on Thirty-sixth Street always had an innate competitive tension, but the austere side wall of the Morris annex and the grand old brownstone are two structures with little to say to each other, and they are separated by a wider gap. Piano fills the gap with an elongated version of his steel cube—which houses a new reading room—but the proportions aren’t as enticing as they are on Thirty-sixth Street. Below the reading room, the new entrance consists of glass doors stretching across the façade, an improvement over the cramped front door in the old annex, but still a little conventional.

Inside, however, the ingenuity of Piano’s conception becomes gloriously apparent. He has essentially created a piazza: a fifty-two-foot-high, glass-covered atrium in the middle of the complex, with access to all parts of the institution, new and old. Too often, when exterior walls of old buildings get turned into interior elements of stylish new spaces, they take on the precious air of stage sets. But Piano’s loose embrace of the other buildings is free of self-consciousness, and the result makes you think of one of those oddly shaped squares in Italian villages that feel so comfortable. He has done nothing to disguise the irregularity of the space, enhancing its casual ambience with a café off to one side and a couple of ficus trees sprouting through openings in the floor.

This is one of the greatest modern rooms in New York, not by virtue of grandeur or scale but because of the subtle links it establishes between the Morgan’s older buildings and the rest of the city. Piano’s piazza is defined by its complex sight lines around the rest of the collection and to the street outside. A glass wall at the east end of the piazza abuts the backs of brick apartment buildings, a jumble of ordinariness that here feels familiar and warm. You are connected to New York in this space, yet magically removed from it, as if in a garden. If you position yourself at the right point, near the center of the room, and look through the glass ceiling, you glimpse the top of the Empire State Building poking above a Madison Avenue office building.

When the Morgan hired Piano, in 2000, it had just rejected the work of the three distinguished architects it had invited to submit plans, each of whom proposed large new structures that risked overwhelming the older buildings. (A disclosure: I was an adviser to the Morgan during this competition.) Two of the schemes proposed towers where Piano has placed his court, and, as it happens, a tower is exactly what Piano has come up with for his redesign of the Whitney Museum, some forty blocks north on Madison. Here, too, he succeeded other distinguished architects—Piano’s ability to take on troubled projects is a testament to his versatile aesthetic—but the Whitney poses a very different set of challenges. Marcel Breuer’s inverted ziggurat is so assertive that nothing marries easily to it. Against its brooding dark granite, a treatment as gentle as Piano’s Morgan project would be all but invisible; conversely, previous proposals, by Michael Graves and, later, by Rem Koolhaas, would have loomed over the building and undermined its monolithic power. Piano’s solution again shows a mastery of balance, but in an entirely different way from the Morgan. He has proposed a squarish tower, sensibly set as far back from the existing structure as the rather tight lot allows. The design doesn’t compete with Breuer’s building, but there’s nothing timid about it. The plans—a nine-story tower sheathed in stainless-steel panels—promise a softly shimmering presence that will be the precise opposite of Breuer’s blunt block. The keynote is quiet assertiveness.

The drawbacks of Piano’s approach are becoming discernible, however, as his new headquarters for the Times, a fifty-two-story skyscraper, rises rapidly on Eighth Avenue. For skyscrapers, quiet assertiveness isn’t enough; once they get above street level, their job is not to balance other buildings but simply to be. The New York Times Building, which Piano has designed in collaboration with the New York firm of FXFowle, is a glass tower set behind a curtain of thin rods which form a sunscreen all the way up the façade. At seven hundred and forty-eight feet, that is a lot of rods. Up close, the tower has the pristine, tensile quality of Piano’s smaller work, but seen from a few blocks away the rods blur into something that looks like corrugated metal and the building takes on a strange, thin blandness. It’s one thing to design a tower that will play beautifully off the granite of the Whitney, but the Times building has to play off against a whole sky line. If the graceful interweaving of modernism and classicism at the Morgan demonstrates the power that brilliantly conceived, intense pieces of small-scale architecture can possess, the Times building, so far at least, shows the opposite. It comes off as dainty, even flimsy, as if inside this huge tower a little building were struggling to get out.

Copyright © CondéNet 2006

[Citytect]

I suppose it's impossible to write an article about Piano in NY without mentioning the NY Times building, but it's seems too early for professional critiques of the building. While I agree with what Goldberger says about the blandness of the Times building in the skyline, I think it's best to wait for the finished product to form definitive opinions about the buildings asthetics (or at least wait to publish them).

Having said that, I can't wait for this building to be finished. Not because I'm a big fan of the design, but because I'm really curious to see which of the many theories regarding the building facade will be proven correct. You've got to give Piano credit for getting people talking - everyone has something to say about this building.

[BigMac]

Photo by jke - May 23, 2006:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4815/523/1600/IMG_0003.jpg

[Scruffy88]

Photo by jke - May 23, 2006:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4815/523/1600/IMG_0003.jpg

From this angle, I love the way all the glassy times sq towers work together on the right side. NYT is messing up that flow a bit. but so did astor place.

[MidtownGuy]

just curious...

http://static.flickr.com/51/153872916_bc6eda2f41_o.jpg

[antinimby]

Oh god no. It actually looks worst than now. Can you finish the top? (good photoshop work btw.)

[MidtownGuy]

I could, but I would need to find an image of the top in a realistic rendering. All of the renderings I've seen show the building floating ethereally in a world of fantasy light sources.

[Jeffreyny]

How close to topping out are they?

[RS085]

you see those Xs?

2 more theyre done.

[RS085]

i cant post pics but there was one from today on ssc done by sarajevo city.

[panderson]

You know, if they finish the tower and Piano and the Times decide that the look of the rods is too oppressive -- either from the outside or the inside or both -- they could always go back and thin the rods out. Say, remove every other one. It would probably be expensive and it would definitely be embarrassing, but as far as exterior renovations go, it would be relatively simple. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, thinner rod schemes were considered during the design phase.

[CARLOS]

As of today May 29, 2006

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01536.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01537.jpg

[James Kovata]

you see those Xs?

2 more theyre done.


The screens will rise above the two more Xs, right? By how much, another 3 Xs in height?

[antinimby]

I'd say three is about right but here, judge for yourself:

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

[infoshare]

:D :D :D As someone pointed out in an earlier post, thinner rod schemes were considered during the design phase.

As the building now reaches completion I give this structure a capitol "A" for ARTchitecture.:D :D :D However, I am not sure I understand how the rods/curtain wall function (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3418&postcount=13): do the rods 'move' or are they fixed in place. I am not sure if the tubes are purely a design element; this is unlike any curtain wall I have ever seen.

Do they move - in a way similar to venetian blinds - to filter/block light under various sunlight conditions?
If they do move; how is the amount of light-screening controlled - automatically/manually?
If anyone has answers to these questions: please post them here on the board - I have not been able to find this information.

[lofter1]

The rods won't "move" in any mechanical way, but are fixed in place.

However I have noticed that there is a liveliness to the rods, particularly on windy days -- more of a subtle vibration (think a visual hummmm) rather than actual movement.

[mgp]

According to today's Wall Street Journal, the first Tenant was neither ESPN nor Dechert.

The New York Times is about to have new neighbors.

Forest City Ratner Cos., which is building the Times's new headquarters on Eighth Avenue in Manhattan, signed its first lease for the space that will go above the Gray Lady's newsroom and corporate offices.

Chicago-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP will take at least three floors in the tower, designed by Renzo Piano, with an option for more space. New York Times (http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=nyt) Co. will own and operate the first 28 floors of the 52-story tower and get its name on the building. The opening is set for early 2007, replacing the 43rd Street building sold to Tishman Speyer Properties in 2004.

Rent terms weren't disclosed. Forest City has marketed the space at $85 a square foot. According to brokers familiar with the building, leases are being negotiated in the $75-a-square-foot range. Both sides were represented by real-estate brokerage CB Richard Ellis.

As for being so close to the prying eyes of journalists? "We'd like to think we are in very good company with them as neighbors. They are an old institution trying to stay with the times and reinvent themselves, something we hope to accomplish as well," says Seyfarth partner Lorie Almon.

[kliq6]

Law firm signs first lease for NYT building
by Julie Satow-Crainsny.com

The law firm Seyfarth Shaw has signed the first lease at the New York Times Co. building under construction at 620 Eighth Ave., at 41st street.

The 17-year lease is for 100,000 square feet on floors 31 through 33. The asking rent in the building is $80 to $100 a square foot.

CB Richard Ellis began marketing the building, designed by Pritzker-Prize winning architect Renzo Piano, last year. It is the first new Class A office tower to be constructed on Eighth Ave. in several years.

"We have a number of other leases out, but Seyfarth Shaw is the first to cross the finish line," said Forest City Ratner Cos. President Bruce Ratner, in a statement.

Forest City Ratner, which owns floors 29 through 52 with its financial partner ING Real Estate, expects it will be open for occupancy by the second quarter of 2007. The New York Times owns floors 2 though 28.

The new lease nearly doubles the space that Sayfarth Shaw now occupies on non-contiguous floors at 1270 Sixth Ave. The 80 lawyers who occupy the Sixth Ave. office will be relocated to the New York Times building.

"We have grown substantially in the past year," said Lorie Almon, a co-managing partner at Sayfarth Shaw. "Our new home complements our commitment to our long-term investment in New York." In the past year, the firm hired 35 new attorneys.

CB Richard Ellis represented both the building owner and the tenant on the transaction.

[stache]

The rods won't "move" in any mechanical way, but are fixed in place.

However I have noticed that there is a liveliness to the rods, particularly on windy days -- more of a subtle vibration (think a visual hummmm) rather than actual movement.

Wouldn't it be funny if this building whistled like Cityspire?

[Peakrate212]

Is is too late for the Sulzberger's to tear this down and start again ? :eek:

[CARLOS]

Today May 31, 2006


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0024.jpg

[CARLOS]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0021.jpg

[BrooklynRider]

Is is too late for the Sulzberger's to tear this down and start again ? :eek:

I think photos are not doing the building's rods much justice. They do not create the rather opaque skin photos portray. They are much more airy (if that makes sense). Also, I think the building will have a dual persona - day and night.

[stache]

Makes it look like a giant inquisitive insect!

[kliq6]

yesterdays news will continues, this as well as Durst building will be 100 leased in my opinion by construction end, thus tightning a already tight midtown market

[pianoman11686]

Kliq, do you know if there is still some kind of organization called "the power 35"? I know it was created before 9/11 to address the need for more office space, but I haven't heard anything about it recently.

[kliq6]

yes and no, the problem is its very hard, since the crash of the late 80's, to have any real development ( over 200,000 sf) built on spec so unless there is lead tenant then nothing gets started. With 9/11 and all focus is on rebuilding LM and not a full scale plan for office space. The city and the EDC are most to blame for lack of vision They have already scaled back office development in Hudson yards and are basically selling out LIC before it has a chance to be built up, thus going forward I am considerably worried about lack of sites for prime development. One area that is angering me is Eighth Ave, a perfect place for Office development since there is a subway line right under it.

NYC based developers have one big problem across the board, they don't reach beyond there circles rarely to convince firms that are not already here to maybe open offices and such, they rely on the status quo and tenants that our within the city. They should take examples from NJ and Westchester that first go after NYC based firms before local firms to build new products.

I welcome all comments as for disclosure i am a commercial broker and it is my job to be focused on Commercial space, however i feel anyone that is a lover o fthis city and wants it to remain the business capital of the world has to be a bit upset about lack of commercial vision.

[BrooklynRider]

Well, it does appear that we are seeing commercial development move forward in lower Manhattan with the WTC. It makes sense to me to cut back the commercual space at Atlantic Yards as Flatbush Avenue is really the only commercial intersection. The city is trying (rather unsuccessfully) to spur economic development in