New York Times Tower - 620 Eighth Avenue

[lbjefferies]

http://imageigloo.com/thumbs/7157DSC00607.JPG (http://imageigloo.com/viewer.php?id=7157DSC00607.JPG)


Heres a photo I took a while back of NYTT with a couple of alternate floors illuminated.

[NYguy]

September 3, 2006


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284380/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284399/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284435/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284457/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284380/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284399/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284418/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284435/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284457/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66284466/large.jpg

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/3564/nytimes32cii1.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes32cii1.jpg).

[NYatKNIGHT]

Excellent zoom photo, ZtC - I couldn't make out the details that clearly until I saw this. The building lurched skyward in just a few days, it's been exciting to watch.

[pianoman11686]

Lawyers head west in Times Square

Three deals in NYT tower move corporate "Mason-Dixon line" farther west

By Janice Fioravante

You might call them leasing eagles instead of legal eagles.

Law firms have signed deals for more than 450,000 square feet in the Times Square area during the first seven months of 2006.

It's part of a continuing westward trend. The "Mason-Dixon line" for law firms used to be the Avenue of the Americas; that changed six years ago, with the move of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom to Times Square, said Lewis Miller, vice chairman at CB Richard Ellis. He noted that when Skadden took space in the then-new Conde Nast building at 4 Times Square, it legitimized that "Crossroads of the World" for other legal offices.

The drift of law firms west built with last month's announcement that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP had leased 203,000 square feet in the new Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park. The firm, currently based at 590 Madison Avenue, will move to the 51-story, 2.1-million-square-foot tower at Sixth Avenue and 42nd Street when it opens in 2008.

Akin Gump reportedly paid the highest amount ever shelled out for a block of space that size in New York -- more than $100 per square foot for floors 41 to 46 of the building, which is a joint venture of the Durst Organization and Bank of America. (The Cushman & Wakefield numbers don't include August's Akin Gump deal.)

At 620 Eighth Avenue at 41st Street, site of the new headquarters for the New York Times, 320,000 square feet of the 700,000 square feet available in the building has been leased to law firms Covington & Burling, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt and Seyfarth Shaw, and occupancy is expected next spring.

Besides the three leases at 620 Eighth Avenue, six other major deals involved law firms leasing in Times Square. As a submarket, it's clear the area has been targeted by the legal services industry in 2006, and activity is moving more to the once run-down western reaches of Times Square.

"The traditional Midtown grid has shifted west with a steady migration to Broadway, Times Square and Eighth Avenue," said Richard Goldstein, executive managing director of commercial brokerage Studley, which represented Covington & Burling.

The firm, which currently has more than 100 lawyers at 1330 Avenue of the Americas, is leasing 160,000 square feet on five floors in the New York Times building. The digs come with a 20-year lease with an option to grow at an asking price of $85 a foot.

Goldstein points out the new Hearst Tower and Times building, just completed and under construction, respectively, and Worldwide Plaza, home to Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, all bring world-class architecture to New York. "The bulk of new product is here on the West Side," he said.

In the recent deals, Skadden, Arps added to its Times Square presence with a 10-year sublease for 36,000 square feet at 1440 Broadway at 40th Street, two blocks from its headquarters at the Conde Nast building. Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels signed a 27,000-square-foot lease at Seven Times Square and Duane Morris LLP signed an 82,000-square-foot lease at 1540 Broadway, moving from 43,000 square feet at 380 Lexington Avenue, part of an expansion by the Philadelphia-based firm in New York.

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, which is taking a 15-year lease for 64,000 square feet on two floors in the new Times building, is currently at 1221 Avenue of the Americas.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP was the first tenant to sign on in the new Times building, completing a 17-year lease for floors 31, 32 and 33 -- almost 100,000 square feet of space. The law firm is currently in 50,000 square feet at 1270 Avenue of the Americas. Seyfarth, which is headquartered in Chicago, has eight other offices in such cities as Boston, Washington, D.C., Sacramento, Calif., and Brussels. It specializes in labor and employment, employee benefits, business services, government and education.

"In Seyfarth's case, it's growing very rapidly and expects that the number of lawyers in its New York office will increase from 70 now to 125 over the next two-to-three years," said Miller, part of a CBRE team that represented the law firm in the deal.

And just next door, Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street is in for a new building.

"Just to the north of the Times Building, SJP Properties is planning another building to open around 2011," Miller said. "There's tremendous interest in it already."


Why lawyers argued in favor of Times building

What about the new New York Times building attracted law firm Seyfarth Shaw? "It's spectacular," said Lewis Miller, vice chairman at CB Richard Ellis, which represented the firm in lease negotiations. "The scale of the lobby, with wood floors, ceiling heights of 13-and-a-half feet and finished ceiling heights of more than 10 feet, and an open-air garden."

"And the real estate taxes are a draw as well," he added. "For 15 to 20 years, tenants won't have to worry about escalations in rent."

Richard Goldstein, executive managing director of commercial brokerage Studley, which represented D.C.-based Covington & Burling in their lease in the building, added that it's a pilot program. "The taxes are known for a significant portion of the lease terms, which means certainty -- you know your increases."

Other amenities that particularly attracted the firms included column-free floors measuring 32,000 square feet; as Goldstein put it, "you can fit a lot of lawyers." Miller added that there are six corner offices and plenty of interior space for support staff.

The large floor plate size allows for efficiency in recruiting attorneys and clients as well. "This location is close to the fray of Times Square, but out of the traffic," said Miller. The 40th Street side of the building will accommodate the Town Cars that wait for attorneys, a special deal that couldn't happen right in Times Square. Not only can drivers idle while the lawyers are working late, but a subway entrance is being built right on the grounds of the building.

Seyfarth will also get signage outside the building and that will help with recruiting, too, said Miller. (The fact that Washington, D.C.-based Covington & Burling is leasing such a large block of space -- 160,000 square feet -- means that signage is available to this firm as well.) As MaryAnne Gilmartin, executive vice president at Forest City Ratner, the developer of the Times building, notes: "There will be three entrances to the building and two signages per entrance are available."

Miller said the Seyfarth deal happened quickly because the law firm was well aware of the tightening office market. "In a market that's moving very quickly, I give them a lot of credit for moving quickly -- it took just under a month from term sheet to a lease. Usually, it takes six months."

Asking rates for the building were $70 to $80 per square foot, said Miller. Seyfarth looked seriously at 10 to 12 buildings before committing, he said.

Copyright 2003-2005 The Real Deal.

[NYguy]

Lawyers head west in Times Square

What about the new New York Times building attracted law firm Seyfarth Shaw? "It's spectacular," said Lewis Miller, vice chairman at CB Richard Ellis, which represented the firm in lease negotiations. "The scale of the lobby, with wood floors, ceiling heights of 13-and-a-half feet and finished ceiling heights of more than 10 feet, and an open-air garden."

"And the real estate taxes are a draw as well," he added. "For 15 to 20 years, tenants won't have to worry about escalations in rent."

Yes. Can't beat that open-air garden!

[TallGuy]

Looking at the support beams for the mast going up, you can see the bullet we dodged for 1WTC/FT. I have no objection for them on this tower and the purpose they are serving; it is a rather nice top two the building. But looking at the mast under construction, you can mentally project what the equivalent 0f 30-40 floors worth of this lattice would look like nder the earlier proposals of 1WTC/FT. Yuck!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Those aren't support beams for the mast. They're part of the curtain wall screen that extends up past the roof.

[TallGuy]

Those aren't support beams for the mast. They're part of the curtain wall screen that extends up past the roof.

To quote my dad: 'listen to what I mean, not what I say!' which is to say I meant what you are saying above.

[lofter1]

More of the large uprights for the "crown" have been erected at the north edge of both the east & west facing facades.

And glass has been installed at street level along pretty much the full length of 41st St.

Have no fear: The low-rise section ain't gonna look like no parking garage (as some had earlier predicted).

[Jaffster]

They took down one of the cranes already. It must be topping off soon.

[ablarc]

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/newyorktimes/0459.JPG

[NYguy]

September 9, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66633711/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66633761/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66633711/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66633761/large.jpg

[lofter1]

nice --

thar she glows ;)

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9489/nytimes33cvf5.th.jpg (http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes33cvf5.jpg).

[ramvid01]

Oh shes gonna be a beauty at night.:)

[Citytect]

September 9, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66633711/medium.jpg



Nice pics NYguy! Big difference and improvement with the lights on inside. You can really get an idea of how much the lighting will transform this tower in this photo.

[stache]

The Great Grey Lady.

[Dagrecco82]

Some shots from Hamilton Park.


http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/819/img2015oe0.jpg


Overcast Midtown

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6461/img2020ma2.jpg

[Dagrecco82]

I wish I would have had my tripod but here's some more....


http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3192/img2026nd6.jpg

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1889/img2021anv0.jpg

Some eye candy....

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8537/img2022wf9.jpg

[Dagrecco82]

Hope everyone enjoyed.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4604/img2018bi1.th.jpg (http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2018bi1.jpg)

[lofter1]

Me likes how the Times Tower is stealing some of Conde Nast's thunder as it becomes the dominant tower along the 42nd corridor when viewed from the west.

[stache]

Zebra bldg. looks less weird now that other structures are starting to surround it -

[pianoman11686]

Beautiful pics, dagrecco. Thanks!

Anyone else notice how deceptively tall the Atelier looks from that perspective?

[sfenn1117]

Very nice, thanks.

Riverplace 2 is going to block much of the Times Tower soon enough, and there's also the Atelier's fat, slanted sister coming.

[Dagrecco82]

Anytime, guys.

[Wall Street]

Any new leases signed.

[Edward]

New York Times Tower and New York skyline.

http://static.flickr.com/81/246028628_e29a400f4d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sudentas/246028628/)

[TREPYE]

^That box on top of the atlier looks so freaking tasteless, ugh. Thankfully, the NYtimes crown is coming along nicely. Very curious to see how that mast plays off those screens once it is all assembled

[antinimby]

I am despising how the rear, lowrise base looks.
So dull, so parking lot-ish.
Yuck.

[NYguy]

I am despising how the rear, lowrise base looks.
So dull, so parking lot-ish.
Yuck.

That's the worst part of the tower. But from a distance, we won't see it. That's the good part.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Nice photo, Edward.

[lofter1]

I don't know where you park your car, but if it looks like this then count your lucky stars ...

[LeCom]

I am despising how the rear, lowrise base looks.
So dull, so parking lot-ish.
Yuck.
Right on.

[RS085]

was in the city alot this past week, i think theres only 4 or 5 more X's to be clad. it seemed pretty damn high.

[Derek2k3]

http://static.flickr.com/83/248266290_38af45df8e_o.jpg
9-20-06
gillianleigh's photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glc315/)

[lofter1]

Next time you're on this block poke your head inside the gates (the ones on 8th Ave. near 40th and on 41st just east of 8th Ave. are, for the most part, open during the daytime): Crane your neck and take a look up between the vertical steel -- the entire guts of the building appear to be suspended between the rising steel --

Amazing and beautiful.

[lofter1]

NY Times Tower Exhibit at AIA ...

They were setting this up today ... One HUGE model, lots of small section models plus lots of other cool stuff ...


Project Showcase: The New York Times Building

AIA / 536 La Guardia Place
September 26–December 16, 2006
www.aiany.org/centerforarchitecture/exhibitions.php (http://www.aiany.org/centerforarchitecture/exhibitions.php)

http://www.aiany.org/centerforarchitecture/images/nytimes.jpg
Annie Leibovitz for Forest City Ratner Companies


Galleries: Street Gallery, Public Resource Center

The Center for Architecture presents a preview of the new 52-story New York Times Building currently being constructed on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets. Models, drawings, and material samples describe the innovation and design process, with photography by Annie Leibovitz documenting the urban context of this spectacular new skyscraper.

Special emphasis is placed on the sustainable features and technique in creating this remarkable new tower for Times Square. Find out why architect Renzo Piano calls the design—a collaboration with FXFOWLE Architects—"An Expression of Love" for New York City.

Organized by: AIA New York Chapter in partnership with Renzo Piano Building Workshop and FXFOWLE Architects

Exhibition Design: Renzo Piano Building Workshop (http://www.rpbw.com/)

Graphic Design: Pentagram (http://www.pentagram.com/)

Underwriter:
MechoShade Systems

Sponsors:
Flack + Kurtz; Duggal; FJ Sciame Construction

Supporters:
Clarett Group; Gardiner + Theobald; The Thornton Tomasetti Group; Zumtobel Lighting

Special thanks to: The New York Times Company; Forest City Ratner Companies; Annie Leibovitz

[NYguy]

September 22-23, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514711/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514739/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514782/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514786/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514810/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514711/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514739/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514818/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67514856/large.jpg

[Muscatinho]

Some before and after pictures of the Times Square skyline.

[TREPYE]

I walked past there the other day and I saw something very unfortunate. Someone had mentioned it before but I had to see it for myself. Many of the ceramic rods are already beginning to break and crack. Needless to say that this severely hampers the towers appearance. The building is not even finished and already the rods are beginning to break. Whats up with that oversight?? Either the NY times is gonna pay exorbitant amount of money to replace these rods routinely or this tower is gonna end up looking pretty crappy in a few years (maybe even months after its finished). :(

Why would they use something that is so non-durable?:confused:

[aural iNK]

Are you sure it wasn't construction related damage? They may be just fine when it comes to everyday wear and tear, time will tell.

[lofter1]

No doubt the few broken rods were banged and broken by all those big things they've been craning up and trucking onto the site.

You don't think windows get broken during construction?

They'll be taken care of.

And to all you folks who keep moaning about the lo-rise side looking like a parking structure: I suggest you get yerselves over to AIA and check out the models -- yeah I know, they ain't the real thing, but you'll see how this beauty is going to look at street level ...

All Glass All Around .. Vistas into the interior garden.

Parking structure my arse :cool:

[NYatKNIGHT]

If only parking structures looked that good.

[NYguy]

It seems night time will hide many of the ills of this building...

September 30, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67809580/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67809585/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67809580/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67809585/large.jpg

[lbjefferies]

It seems night time will hide many of the ills of this building...



And what are those again?

[lofter1]

An ad in today's Sunday NY Times promotes the Conference Center consisting of (1) the "Stage" situated on the ground level and looking into the Garden at mid-building and (2) the "Hall" situated below the Stage and with flexible seating :

www.thetimescenter.com (http://www.thetimescenter.com)

Pics attached below ...

***

[Derek2k3]

And what are those again?
I was wondering too.
Maybe it's the lack of reflective glass. ::roll eyes::

[NYguy]

And what are those again?

Everything visible up to this point. I'm hoping the crown and spire will change that, but its a longshot.

[lofter1]

Once they give her a good wash down you might come around ...

[lbjefferies]

Everything visible up to this point. I'm hoping the crown and spire will change that, but its a longshot.

Fascinating. Hmmm......I wonder......so do you think Heidi Klum is butt ugly?

[antinimby]

Fascinating. Hmmm......I wonder......so do you think Heidi Klum is butt ugly?^ Straw man.


Derek, it has nothing to do with reflective glass.

The building is just too gray, too many rods/bars, too covered up.

That's also the reason why many people prefer it at night, when all of that is not as visible.

As for that parking structure there in the back, don't even get me started...

[NYguy]

Once they give her a good wash down you might come around ...


LOL

[NYguy]

The building is just too gray, too many rods/bars, too covered up.

That's also the reason why many people prefer it at night, when all of that is not as visible.

As for that parking structure there in the back, don't even get me started...

Exactly. The Chrysler and Empire State are two beautiful towers, and they have no reflecting glass either. Those rods are terrible. And the lowrise portion of the tower looks exactly like a parking structure.

But nighttime does seem to hide some of that, so there is hope for this tower...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/67809580/medium.jpg

[lbjefferies]

^ Straw man....


Nope, simply a joke.

[macreator]

Gotta say, I'm disappointed with the building. If they had used just half the number of rods I believe the building would have come out feeling so much more airy.

[lofter1]

NY Times Tower Exhibit at AIA ...

Project Showcase: The New York Times Building

AIA / 536 La Guardia Place
September 26–December 16, 2006
www.aiany.org/centerforarchitecture/exhibitions.php (http://www.aiany.org/centerforarchitecture/exhibitions.php)


I had a great 30 minutes at this exhibit today ...

First ...

THE SPIRE is going to be awesome ... it's about 10' in diameter at the base.

The tallest of the screens surrounding it rises 75' -- and the spire looks to be about 3+ x that height :eek: (see the attached image below).

There are a set of construction plans that you can look at for details of the spire -- and of all aspects of the building (it's about 3" thick -- page after page of architectural drawings -- the copy there was used for pricing something or other).

Second ...

The RODS take on a whole different aspect when you see the ceramic material. They have a rod on display and you can see that the ceramic has a mottled surface that catches and bounces light in a gazillion different ways.

Something like this (though not so glossy):

http://www.laurelauction.com/0407ds%2010%20Art%20Glass%20Mother%20Of%20Pearl%20 Plates.JPG combined with this ... http://www.easycart.net/MosaicBasics/images/HKAPE70FX.jpg

I have no doubt that when the building is cleaned after construction that this is going to be stunning.

Also, it becomes apparent when looking at the various models on display that looking through the rods from the inside is a whole different experience than looking into the building through the rods. From inside the rods become much less present. Given all the research and testing that they've done on the rod screens (which also allow the use of a very clear non-colored / non-reflective glass) it seems that the sense from the interior of the building will be an experience like few others.

Third ...

The GARDEN at the center of the low-rise section will be visible from just about every angle from the streets outside -- and even visible through the upper floors of the low-rise section (see below).

You have to get down on all fours to check it out, but looking through the ground floor of the large model of the entire building on display you see that the building really has a sense of floating.

One of the books on display has a quote from Piano talking about how the building is all about GRAVITY -- in more ways than one. That same book has some renderings of previous incarnations of the building, including some from the initial competition when the entire top of the low-rise section wrapped around the tower and was covered by a "water feature' -- seemingly a reflective pond / roof :D Wild!

It also shows a later rendering of the tower as asymetrical -- with the east side having a step-up and a garden on that rooftop.

Also on display are some of the structural metal cross braces and fasteners -- each not so large, but heavy as all get out.

Yep -- I love this building -- and know I'll love it even more when its complete.

Some new images of the Times Tower at the Piano Workshop website: http://www.rpbw.com/

***

[Stern]

I would be interested in seeing some of the earlier versions that you mentioned.

[aural iNK]

Nice rundown of the exhibit, Lofter. I too was impressed by the glossy ceramic bar they had on display. I haven't had a close look at the bars installed on the building itself, but I hope you are correct in that their dull appearance is just a case of being dirty.

Here's the model on display:

http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-01.jpg

Click for larger images:

http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-02t.jpg (http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-02.jpg) http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-03t.jpg (http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-03.jpg) http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-04t.jpg (http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-04.jpg) http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-05t.jpg (http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-05.jpg)

[antinimby]

Misleading. The rods are spaced much closer together than shown in those models.

[ablarc]

Are those screens above the roof structurally sound in a hurricane, or will glass come merrily cascading down? What are these screens for anyhow?

Low rise portion does look like a parking garage.

Hope lofter's right about the ceramic rods. After seeing the Morgan I'm not too hopeful about this guy's work.

[lofter1]

Low rise portion does look like a parking garage.

Next person that says that ^^^ gets added to the mail list from the gang at "young school girls want to ..." (which means you'll get endless aggravating emails) :mad: :cool:

[lofter1]

btw: how many parking garages do you know that have a full fledged garden growing in the center??????????????

[pianoman11686]

I don't think so, anti. Click on either of those first 2 attachments that aural posted. You can clearly see rods closely packed together, then becoming more spaced out as you go up until the next section starts. Looks very realistic to me.

[antinimby]

I do think so, piano. The second photo does look closer to the actual but the others are not even close.

[pianoman11686]

3 & 4 don't show the tower portion, which is why I didn't mention them.

Picture 1 shows the contrast perfectly: tightly packed rods, gradually becoming further spread out as you move up. Then a pause. And the progression starts anew.

Is there another forumer that can confirm this before this becomes a senseless back-and-forth? As of right now, one of us might be blind, and I'm hoping it's not me. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif

[antinimby]

We don't need another forumer to tell us that the model is misleading as hell.
I see perfectly well, so who's blind again?

[pianoman11686]

Well, I do wear glasses, but they tell me that brings my vision up to about 20/20...

By the way, when I say "Picture 1", I mean the first smaller photo, not the one of the entire model.

[aural iNK]

It does appear that only half the ceramic bars are modeled:

http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-06t.jpg (http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-06.jpg)

[antinimby]

Well, I do wear glasses, but they tell me that brings my vision up to about 20/20...
By the way, when I say "Picture 1", I mean the first smaller photo, not the one of the entire model.

That one is actually the worst offender.

Notice how almost tranlucent the rods appear in that one. You can see right through them into the building.
No way is that the case with the real thing.

[antinimby]

It does appear that only half the ceramic bars are modeled:Ah ha! I thought so. Thank you aural.

[lofter1]

What's the argument?

Is somebody trying to say that the working plans and models are all bogus?

On the west facade starting above the base the rods at begin as tightly spaced and then have more space between them as they reach the wide open "window" spaces. Above the "window" they again are tightly spaced, repeating this configuration up the entire tower (see below).

Once variant is the screen over the mechanicals floors at mid-tower, where the rods are tightly spaced over that expanse.

Another variant is that the rods on both sides of entire screen of the west facade are tightly and evenly spaced all the way up (as in a frame).

The rods on the low-rise section are all even spaced throughout.

***

[lbjefferies]

Right now, uncleaned and unfinished, it makes my short list of the most beautiful recent buildings in America. It is better than anything planned for the wtc (injcluding the sublime 2wtc), much better than BOA, and vastly better than anything going up in Chicago right now. Only Gehry's LA theater and Holl's addition to Kansas City's art museum come close to rivaling this masterpiece.

[lofter1]

More images showing the spacing of the rods ...

***

[lofter1]

It does appear that only half the ceramic bars are modeled:

http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-06t.jpg (http://www.graffitibiz.com/construction/nytimes/aic-06.jpg)

My reading of that ^^^ image is that in the gold image the section directly below the "window" opening shows ~ 5 rods; in the grey image are shown ~ 8 rods in that same area.

[aural iNK]

I agree with that count. Furthermore, 33 opening-to-opening on the real building (grey) compared to 22 on the model. Close enough for me, though it does make a difference in the transparency of the model's curtain wall.

[lofter1]

... 33 opening-to-opening on the real building (grey) compared to 22 on the model.

The blue section rendering seems to show the same 33 rods from opening-to-opening.

[pianoman11686]

I think we're on the same page, lofter. I also counted 33 rods in that section.

It's 2-2. Who's gonna be the tiebreaker?

[aural iNK]

I thought we were talking about the model being a little deceiving, which with only 22 rods may be. I agree that everything else matches up with the real thing.

[lofter1]

Not so much deceptive as practical -- just try cutting & measuring all those little pieces and gluing them together to make such a model ;) .

No doubt there were various studious using different rod spacings to test the effect, all of which generated renderings that have been used in relation to promoting the Times Tower.

Ultimately we're talking about some really smart people who are working on this project. It seems there is nothing arbitrary about the way the ceramic rods have been incorporated -- their prime purpose is in regards to the way the building deals with sunlight, both in terms of light & heat.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Even if the building doesn't exactly match the rendering, how many do? And why would that dissimilarity make it necessarily ugly, even if you prefer the rendering? Shame on anybody for believing a building would turn out exactly as it appears in a rendering.

The building is superb. Right now it may come across as a little lackluster because it literally lacks luster. Give it a chance to be cleaned, I wholeheartedly agree that it will look even better when complete.

[Citytect]

I don't know guys... I don't think cleaning the building will make all that much difference - and I already like the building. What we see now of the nearly completed lower facade is pretty much as good as it gets, I think. Washing it will help a little, no doubt, but not that much. And buildings get dirty anyway. The sheen will wear off in no time. Cleaning the tower probably isn't going to influence many people's opinions of it's appearance. The completion of the uppermost facade, the crown, and the spire might sway some opinions, but I doubt washing it down will.

I think it looks good myself. I do agree with the complaints about the spacing of the rods, but I don't think its a deal-breaker. Wider spacing would have been better. The tight spacing is a bit too heavy looking, too solid. However, the tower still looks pretty damn good and is a nice change from all the unadorned glass towers in town. I'm curious to see how the crown will look. I wonder if the rods will look better without the curtain wall behind them.

[lofter1]

If you look at the building from across 8th Avenue there are areas of the rod-screen that you can see through -- with sky / skyline behind them. Most notably the westernmost edges of the north and south bump-out facades. When looking through the screen that way (rather than into the building) the screen very much "melts" away ...

It seems that this will be more of the experience one will have when inside the building looking out (and what I experienced when looking at the various models at AIA exhibit).

[Kris]

Good Times
By resisting easy temptations Renzo Piano has accomplished something rare: unstrained symbolism.

By Philip Nobel
Posted October 11, 2006

When Renzo Piano won the invited competition to design a new building for the New York Times Company, the air was full of invective. Frank Gehry had been the front-runner—indeed some said the project had been promised to him before a mysterious conflict led him to withdraw—and the selection of his Italian rival was seen as a safe choice: the Times at its most stolid. No one doubted that the building would be decent—has Piano ever designed a bad one?—but hopes for a masterpiece were kept well in check.

That was exactly six years ago. And now after significant delay—attributable to financing woes and post-September 11 nerves—Piano’s 52-story tower is topped out and its distinctive exterior substantially complete. It rises over a difficult stretch of Eighth Avenue with all the taut propriety of the newspaper that will make a home in it. Bravo, Renzo.

Still, after all this time some doubting, mumpish pro-Gehry chatter remains. Was the nation’s paper of record too timid to build the design offered up by the reigning genius of American architecture, then in the full flush of his post-Bilbao stardom? Remember that Gehry tower-that-might-have-been. And if you can’t, call to mind his more recent New York work: “Miss Brooklyn” (the signature focal point for his mammoth Atlantic Yards project) or the mixed-use skyscraper planned for Beekman Street, in downtown Manhattan. With the exception of some pinstripes and the presence of an enormous Gothic-type NYT logo at its crown, the design he produced for the Times was much the same: a conventional skyscraper with a funny skin. Herbert Muschamp, who advised the selection committee, wrote that he liked the concept Piano developed with what was then Fox & Fowle—he declared it rational and classic, his second choice in a field that included Norman Foster and Cesar Pelli—but he was madly in love with the Gehry. The Times went with rational, and Piano has delivered a classic with grace, in a graceless corner of the city.

Lying just outside the particular zone of the Times Square business improvement district—where the public face of buildings must, by code as well as convention, speak loudly of the fun to be had within—that stretch of Eighth Avenue has come into the new century with all the pregentrified grit so much of Manhattan boasted in the last. Though there are a few new luxury residential towers stitched in among the ramps to the Lincoln Tunnel a few blocks west, and the new Penn Station in the old post office will likely lead to a general spruce-up of the area just to the south, very little of New York’s new spirit can be seen in the immediate vicinity of the Times tower, around the corner and a block south of the nonstop faux carnival of 42nd Street.

Piano’s building faces off against the brutish Port Authority bus terminal, directly opposite. The upper garage levels of that infamous street-spanning megastructure are distinguished by steel-beam crossbracing, a series of giant Xs marching up the avenue. As if in sympathy—and to resist the wind—the new tower uses the same motif on every floor of its side-street facades, elegantly rendered in steel cables that anchor into the main columns on alternate floors. Along with the much touted and elegantly realized ceramic-tube sun-breaks that rise to screen the full height of the building (diminishing in density at regular intervals to allow views out), the wind bracing gives the newspaper’s new home exactly the right airs to suit the earnest but forward- looking Times: it is businesslike without being boring, stable but not too staid.

The building also brings a quiet dignity to its lowly surroundings without importing to them the pixel-thin effects of Times Square. This is no place for that sort of gaiety, however easy it might be to reproduce, and Piano and his patrons were wise to buck local convention and find another way. People forget that the “Times” in Times Square is the New York Times. The paper preceded the square as we know it—and as it exists now, legislated into 24/7 celebration of itself. That history certainly gives the Times the right, if not the responsibility, to dig deeper than the glib for architectural expression. And in Piano it found one of the few architects working today who could pull it off.

Gehry’s much bemoaned design would have taken the easier course. His building was itself a sign, a tower seemingly enfolded in newsprint, with that cheeky Times logo on high to ram the point home. The architect might have proposed it for any site—so all-consuming and evolution averse is his personal vision—but here, a short hot-dog toss from the faux bawdy of 42nd Street, it would have looked a lot like the path of least resistance. While retaining all the familiar tics of his style, Gehry tried to say “New York Times” in the new language of the New Times Square: in signs and symbols, loudly but only on the surface. In contrast, the Piano design employs the very stuff of architecture—the same steel that makes the building stand, the glass that shields it—to create a whole that says, with appropriate rigor, the New York Times resides here, if you please.

The tension between applied symbolic and what might be called integral expression has been raging within the profession since Venturi et al decided that the frippery and marquees of the Las Vegas strip might serve as a universal model for American building. Buildings have to speak at times—clients and the public demand it—but decorating sheds has always seemed to me a simple and cynical way to meet that need. The sheds of 42nd Street, housing their revenue-generating wax museums and Applebee’s behind blinding signs, are no-brainers, in the worst sense, and should be corralled where they are. Arquitectonica’s spirited attempt to bring that formula up into the skyline in its Westin hotel, the Times tower’s nearest neighbor to the north, is famously botched—by broad consensus the ugliest new building in town.

The other way to express the purpose and aspirations of a structure—the way towers as distinct as Eero Saarinen’s Black Rock or the Empire State Building have done it—is devilishly hard. How, after all, does one make the necessary skin and bones of a building—already so busy meeting the needs of climate and gravity, function and budget—combine to create a palpable effect that will reliably communicate something as dimly understood as a feeling? An aspect? An idea? The triumph of Piano’s new Times tower is that he pulled off that neat, rare trick: he gave it an appropriate reading, specific to the nature of its tenant, without recourse to symbols of any sort. And he did it in the very heart of sham.

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2328

[GSN]

that the rods are not working with the scale of the building. Scale, scale, scale and perspective; Piano's curtain-design is not working with the enormity of the building and it is rare to find a perspective (especially during the day) that is flattering for the building. Frankly, I've said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes, the rods look like concrete (as proven by the photo accompanying the article you can read by clicking on the previous post's link). It looks like a high rise prison going up across the Port Authority Bus Terminal. It's very sad.

[ablarc]

Piano's curtain-design is not working with the enormity of the building and it is rare to find a perspective (especially during the day) that is flattering for the building. Frankly, I've said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes, the rods look like concrete (as proven by the photo accompanying the article you can read by clicking on the previous post's link). It looks like a high rise prison going up across the Port Authority Bus Terminal. It's very sad.
I saw it on a fairly gray day, but my impression squares with yours.

Does Piano wear the emperor's clothes?

[lofter1]

The frame for the roof-top screen is almost completely installed.

A couple of questions about the SPIRE ...

Anyone know how it will be erected?

And any info as to when it will go up?

[Wrightfan]

...the rods are not working with the scale of the building. Scale, scale, scale and perspective; Piano's curtain-design is not working with the enormity of the building and it is rare to find a perspective (especially during the day) that is flattering for the building...Yep, the rods are far too small a feature for such an enormous facade.

[lofter1]

Just a couple of more floors and the entire rod curtain will be up.

For those who continue to claim that the rods create to "solid" a skin and that the low-rise section looks like a parking garage some pics from today ...

Notice in the first shot how the flags down low in the pic are both clearly visible -- the one on the left is seen through the rods.

***

[Jake]

the lower portion looks a lot like the parking structure at the exit of hte BBT in BPC.

[ramvid01]

I think the building gives off mixed feelings depending on the distance angle you look at it. From afar it just does not look very impressive but at a closer distance the rods give it a nice touch, although it seems to look better at a higher elevation then from street level.

[panderson]

A couple of questions about the SPIRE ...

Anyone know how it will be erected?

And any info as to when it will go up?

I am told that it will be lifted into place in sections over the next two weeks -- that's why the one remaining crane is still up there.

[antinimby]

^Psst . . . it has started already.


Thanks to JACKinNYC over at ssp for posting this pic from today.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/JACKinNYC/Times.jpg

[lofter1]

Oh my Gurrr ^^^ fantastic :D

[Vengineer]

How do you get that last crane off the roof? I don't suppose you can just shove it down to the sidewalk and hope it doesn't kill anyone. Perhaps by a heavy-lift helicopter? Any CM experts here?

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
The exact opposite of how it got up there.

The segment of the mast directly under the crane is called a top climber.

Hydraulic jacks lift the crane up, and the top segment of mast is unbolted, and lowered to the ground. The crane is then lowered to the next segment, and the process is repeated.

When the crane gets close to street level, other cranes take it apart.

http://www.industryplayer.com/images/licrespic/crane%206.jpg http://www.industryplayer.com/images/licrespic/crane%207.jpg



Wait a minute.

It's an internal lifting crane, within the building perimeter. I guess some sort of derrick is going to be erected on the roof to lower the pieces to the ground.

[aural iNK]

I vaguely remember seeing the construction crane above the Hearst tower being lowered to the ground by the permanent utility crane that was installed there. They may have a similar system in place here.

Edit - It appears there was a derrick erected to bring it down:
http://www.hearstcorp.com/tower/images/gallery/image78.jpg

[lofter1]

For all of those who hate the rod screen facade, here's what the Times Tower would look like after Architect Peter Poon (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121567&postcount=321) gets ahold of it and slaps some of those metal studs across the facade ;) ...

***

[Stern]

And if Piano designed the building posted above, it would be pure, utter genius!

[Vengineer]

I vaguely remember seeing the construction crane above the Hearst tower being lowered to the ground by the permanent utility crane that was installed there. They may have a similar system in place here.

Edit - It appears there was a derrick erected to bring it down:


That'll be an event to behold. I would definitely love to be there to see that happen to NY Times Tower.

[antinimby]

Edit - It appears there was a derrick erected to bring it down:But then, what's going to bring the derrick down?

[ramvid01]

It's dismantled and brought down in peices using the service elevator i believe.

[Vengineer]

It's dismantled and brought down in peices using the service elevator i believe.

Can't be. The cabin itself and the main truss is way too big to fit into the service elevator. This is an enigma.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
I think ramvid01 is correct.

The booms are bolted together from peices that can fit in a freight elevator. The same for the external power plant.

There is no cabin.

[finnman69]

BWAHAHAHA

I knew it. As much as I like the building, the best thing about it is it's expensive rents will help bring down the NY Times.

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?id=15070

NYT backs off space at its new headquarters
by Julie Satow
October 24, 2006
The New York Times Co. is giving up five floors at its new corporate headquarters before it has even moved in.

The publishing company, which reported a 39% drop in third-quarter profit, is on the hunt for a tenant to occupy 155,000 square feet on the 23rd through 27th floors at 620 Eighth Ave. -- the brand spanking new skyscraper that is under construction between West 40th and West 41st streets.

The Times partnered with Forest City Ratner to develop the 52-story building, designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Renzo Piano. The publisher of The New York Times had planned to occupy the first 29 floors, with Ratner leasing the remainder of the building. So far, Ratner has signed leases for nearly half of its 700,000 square feet.

CB Richard Ellis, which is handling the leasing for Ratner, has been hired to lease out the New York Times space. While no official asking rent has been set, it is estimated at $85 a square foot.

[kliq6]

Times gives up five floors in new HQ
October 24, 2:39 pm

The new Times headquarters under construction earlier this year. The New York Times Company won't occupy as many floors in its new headquarters building as originally planned. The company will now take 23 of the first 29 floors in the 52-story tower going up on Eighth Avenue near the Port Authority Bus Terminal.

[finnman69]

^ Straw man.


Derek, it has nothing to do with reflective glass.

The building is just too gray, too many rods/bars, too covered up.

That's also the reason why many people prefer it at night, when all of that is not as visible.



To improve it, he should have left off every other rod, and made everything pure white, as the models and renderings originally depicted. the French grey is too dark and flat. Too late now though.

[finnman69]

It seems it will look pretty much exactly like this:

http://a.1asphost.com/guide/nytimesscreens.jpg



the support spars for the screen at the top are not the light elegant trusses in the rendering, but are far more heavy solid angled tubes. Also, note that the transparency of the tubular screens is totally different than the light veil depicted in the renderings. And they changed the color from white to beige. It looks like a different building.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/JACKinNYC/Times.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

Looks NOTHING like the renderings. The diaphanous quality is totally absent.
It really leaves me cold. The gray is dull and lifeless. Who cares about what it looks like at night if during the day it looks like a high-rise garage or jail.
The rod placement is wrong. I don't like the proportion of the bands of "openings" either. From a distance, everything gets worse. What's to love??
The top, which may have been a redeeming feature, doesn't look promising either at this point. Doubtful that the trees will even be visible as in that rendering.
This building is....un-gorgeous.

[Citytect]

The renderings were wrong, but I still think it looks good the way it is turning out. However, as more and more of the facade is completed, I'm beginning to agree with those who think the rods are too densely spaced. It would have been better without so many.

[Wrightfan]

Apparently the Times is scaling back their occupancy...

NYT backs off space at its new headquarters
by Julie Satow

The New York Times Co. is giving up five floors at its new corporate headquarters before it has even moved in.

The publishing company, which reported a 39% drop in third-quarter profit, is on the hunt for a tenant to occupy 155,000 square feet on the 23rd through 27th floors at 620 Eighth Ave. -- the brand spanking new skyscraper that is under construction between West 40th and West 41st streets.

The Times partnered with Forest City Ratner to develop the 52-story building, designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Renzo Piano. The publisher of The New York Times had planned to occupy the first 29 floors, with Ratner leasing the remainder of the building. So far, Ratner has signed leases for more than 75% of its 700,000 square feet.

CB Richard Ellis, which is handling the leasing for Ratner, has been hired to lease out the New York Times space. While no official asking rent has been set, it is estimated at $85 a square foot.

http://newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?newsId=15070 (http://newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?newsId=15070)

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/9682/nytimes35ckp3.th.jpg (http://img284.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes35ckp3.jpg).

[JMGarcia]

That's an excellent shot Zip but it never ceases to amaze me how badly this building photographs compared to seeing it in person.

[ZippyTheChimp]

A digital image of the building is prone to moire (http://www.digitalkb.com/digital_photography/knowledge_base/moire/).

Resizing the image improperly can cause aliasing (http://www.tech-recipes.com/entertainment_tips419.html)

[panderson]

The New York Times Co. is giving up five floors at its new corporate headquarters before it has even moved in.

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

[lofter1]

Room for more lawyers!

I thought they were trying to clean up Times Square :confused:

[londonlawyer]

I thought they were trying to clean up Times Square :confused:

Lawyers who handle personal injury cases are scummy, and with limited exceptions, they couldn't afford space in the NY Times Tower. The rest of US are businessmen who perform a function that is essential to the proper functioning of commerce.

[lofter1]

I could add a couple of other categories of lawyers to that one ^^^

Of course I exclude you, londonlawyer ;)

[londonlawyer]

I could add a couple of other categories of lawyers to that one ^^^

Of course I exclude you, londonlawyer ;)

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

[JMGarcia]

A digital image of the building is prone to moire (http://www.digitalkb.com/digital_photography/knowledge_base/moire/).

Resizing the image improperly can cause aliasing (http://www.tech-recipes.com/entertainment_tips419.html)

These sort of things of course, but I thinks it more simply a size issue. In a small photo at typical screen resolution the rods blur into a solid. I don't think pics of the building pic up the subtle details that you can see with the naked eye.

[finnman69]

These sort of things of course, but I thinks it more simply a size issue. In a small photo at typical screen resolution the rods blur into a solid. I don't think pics of the building pic up the subtle details that you can see with the naked eye.

That's when the screens read like screens. Move a few blocks away and the transparency totally disappears.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The renderings were wrongI have not seen any cityscape renderings that depict the building in natural light. All I have come across show it at night or twilight, artificially lit from within or by accent lighting on the building. We do have a few preliminary photos at night, and the screens are transparent.

These sort of things of course, but I thinks it more simply a size issue. In a small photo at typical screen resolution the rods blur into a solid. I don't think pics of the building pic up the subtle details that you can see with the naked eye.That's true about the size of the posted image, but even in a raw original from relatively close, I can see a difference from what is viewed by the eye. When cameras remove moire, the image is softened. Photoshopping sharpness back in to the image sometimes makes it look unnatural.

Cameras are becoming better at eliminating this problem, but this building remains difficult to photograph.

[kurokevin]

On Monday night the bottom 7-10 floor were lit from the inside. I don't know how many people on this board have had the opportunity to see this in person, but my god was it stunning! I approached from 34th and 8th with my mouth dragging on the curb the entire six block stretch. The screens are only slightly visible, adding a subtle, horizontal pattern with the rods.

It was beautiful, and will fully live up to people's expectations.

[SilentPandaesq]

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

I was never a fan of Domestic and Marital relations lawyers (or the law therein). In law school they were always hippie communists. Always talking about how people were entitled to stuff... but did not earn it.

Lofter - I happen to think that I am an extremely valuable asset to the city and the nation as a whole. At least that is what my mom tells me...and that I am handsom too.

[TREPYE]

^lol!

[lofter1]

What categories? I'm interested. Criminal defense lawyers perhaps.
Yes, some of them are on the list.

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

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

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

I'm sure others could add to the list.

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

[Muscatinho]

'Times' Bandits Nearer To Setting Sail
FILE UNDER: New York Times (http://themediamob.observer.com/new_york_times/)

From an announcement from The New York Times' internal website, a note of architectural interest: This morning, Thursday, Oct 19th at 7:30 a.m., the second section of the mast at the top of our new building will be raised into position. This is the beginning of a process that will see three more lifts and have the mast completed on Nov. 6th.The mast, incidentally, is 206 feet tall. Ahoy, Renzo Piano!

[kliq6]

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

[antinimby]

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

[Jake]

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

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

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

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

[Gotham]

Some photos from Weds. 10/25/06

2805

2806

2807

[TREPYE]

^ I envy your views. ;)

[Wrightfan]

...in 5 years a crew will be called in to take off the lobby lettering and put on "The Lockheed Martin Tower."You have more confidence in the American aerospace industry than a lot of people.

[Jake]

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

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

[Kris]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0469.jpg

[macreator]

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

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

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

[kliq6]

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

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

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

[Dagrecco82]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/CIMG0469.jpg


The transparency is quite evident in that pic.

[lofter1]

That's a fantastic picture, carlos ...

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

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

***

[antinimby]

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

[Wrightfan]

Ironically, the headquarters building which everyone said was a huge waste of money for the Times just a few years ago has proven to be a fantastic investment. The Times could make a hefty profit selling its 50% of the building if they wished to do so.Well sure- if you get NYS to condemn the properties through eminent domain and avoid paying full market value, then of course you are going to make out like a bandit.

[nyck]

I got a new Canon this month (a710IS) and am trying to get the hang of it. Here are some pics from the Rock, this past weekend.

Lots to learn about twilight photography. The middle pic is from indoors (it was cold up there).

[Vengineer]

Nice camera.

[macreator]

Well sure- if you get NYS to condemn the properties through eminent domain and avoid paying full market value, then of course you are going to make out like a bandit.

Hey, I'm not justifying it -- just pointing out how well they've done financially with the building.

[ld876]

Seems the spire/antenna is finally going up, you can see the circular column towards the edge in the first/second picture, more centered in the third/fourth (all taken from W42, looking east)...the last picture is from my office on w39th/7th, you can't really see the spire in the third, but still a nice profile.

[Jake]

so when are they gonna put the grapes on that lattice there? :D

[RS085]

'Times' Bandits Nearer To Setting Sail
FILE UNDER: New York Times (http://themediamob.observer.com/new_york_times/)

From an announcement from The New York Times' internal website, a note of architectural interest: [INDENT]This morning, Thursday, Oct 19th at 7:30 a.m., the second section of the mast at the top of our new building will be raised into position. This is the beginning of a process that will see three more lifts and have the mast completed on Nov. 6th.

False

[Kris]

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1386/nyt102806eric1132ct9.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8070/nytimes1ck1.jpg

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/7479/nytimes4qw0.jpg

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/7505/nytimes8hw7.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4576/nytimes10vf2.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3496/nytimes12nw4.jpg

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/38/nytimes14gt3.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9665/nytimes16zr9.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8946/nytimes2wj8.jpg

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=46738&page=78

[Dagrecco82]

Those are beautful.

[ablarc]

Putting the lights on inside the building makes a huge difference. Makes it gossamer.

[schwenko]

When is it expected that the building will "open"?
Will there be any public amenities?

[James Kovata]

So...just when will the spire be complete?

[lofter1]

Some "details" viewed through open gates today ...

1) The street-level Auditorium through the construction zone

2, 3) The entrance between the tower and the low-rise section on 40th Street

4, 5) Framework for glass wall on the SW corner "bump-out" (40th Street)

***

[antinimby]

So...just when will the spire be complete?Well, we all thought it would happen quickly when it went up last week, but nothing's happen since then.

[finnman69]

536 LaGuardia Place

beautiful models , some renderings, and detail drawings of the Times Tower

[ManhattanKnight]

One more piece of the spire was installed this morning:

[Citytect]

How big is the flag going to be?

[James Kovata]

How big is the flag going to be?

Flag? I don't think it's a flag pole.

[Citytect]

I was joking.

[sfenn1117]

The spire looks good in the skyline...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maspiazu/294118803/

http://i10.tinypic.com/48fadlh.jpg

[Zoe]

Ahh, views from the shipyard... You must have taken that picture 10 feet in front of the apartment I moved out of 11 days ago

[sfenn1117]

I didn't take it....never even been to Hoboken. You had some view then.

[Derek2k3]

Cool pic, counted 18 new towers in that picture alone.

Nice how it slightly breaks the table-top. Wish the building was as white as its pole though.

[lesterp4]

The spire is completely up. Gorgeous!!!!!!!!!!!

[antinimby]

Are you saying they've put the tip of the spire up since that last picture was taken?

[antinimby]

Cool pic, counted 18 new towers in that picture alone.Yeah, but quite a few of those are ugly, red brick apartment towers on 42nd. Better off not having them instead.

[lesterp4]

Yes. It was today, because last nite it was half as tall. There is a red light at the tip of the spire.

[lofter1]

Can't wait to see that ^^^ ...

Some pics of the model from the exhibition at AIA on La Guardia:

***

[ManhattanKnight]

There is a red light at the tip of the spire.

Hmm. The only red (aircraft warning) light that I can see up there is at the top of the crane, not the spire. Since the crane was raised quite a bit last Friday afternoon, after it hoisted the most recent part of the spire that morning, I suspect that it has some more spire-lifting to do.

[lesterp4]

I know for a fact that the additional section was done Saturday and there is a red light at the top of the spire not the crane.

[NYguy]

November 12, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70156747/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70156756/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70156794/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70156811/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70156843/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70156811/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70156843/large.jpg

[stache]

Gotham city!

[Dagrecco82]

I know for a fact that the additional section was done Saturday and there is a red light at the top of the spire not the crane.
I agree, I saw the same thing on Saturday around 6pmish.

[TREPYE]

I saw the red light thingy on top of the NYTimes Tower mast from the Top of the Rock observation deck; its right in between the Conde Nast antenna and One Astor Plaza.

[antinimby]

Gotham city!Looks more like London.

[Bob]

NYT looks more like something from Blade Runner. If you want Gotham City, check out 20 Exchange Place.

[alonzo-ny]

Looks more like London.
london 2100 maybe

[antinimby]

Was talking about the fog.

[mgp]

I'm not sure about the rules about posting other people's photographs, but there are some shots of the spire over at skycrapercity.com: Link. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=407654)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Was talking about the fog.
I think Stache was too.

Gotham City from Batman
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/Gotham_skyline.JPG

[stache]

As usual, Zippy has been reading my mind!

[lofter1]

Looks like it's up ... (thanks to fish (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/member.php?u=42763) at skyscrapercity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10451993&postcount=18)):

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/8708/nytimes4xk6.jpg

[finnman69]

That bright white color is what they should have used on the screens

[macreator]

That bright white color is what they should have used on the screens

Agreed.

[Vengineer]

Couldn't agree more. The white spire totally conflicts with the dreary and melancholy grey theme of this tower.

[kz1000ps]

dreary and melancholy

Add suffocating and monotonous to that list.

[TREPYE]

Come on dudes its not THAT bad. IMO there is a lot more worse garbage going up in the city (i.e.: Goldman Sachs Tower, Times Square Tower, The Orion, The Link, WTC4) that I lament ever more.

[kz1000ps]

But the overall impression of this tower (from the street level) is one of a massively dull grey tower. At least with the Times Square Tower, I delight in walking up Broadway from Herald Square and seeing that funky zig-zag line mess with my eyes. Even if the rest of the design is crap (which I wouldn't argue with), that one detail saves it for me.

With this tower, the only thing that saves it is the spire, and that is hardly visible from the most important viewpoints.

[ablarc]

This building sure gets mixed reviews. When I saw it my impression was of greyness.

[NYguy]

With this tower, the only thing that saves it is the spire, and that is hardly visible from the most important viewpoints.

I hate to say it, but this is turning out to be one of the worst towers built in recent (NY) history, especially considering the high hopes I had for this one.

[Vengineer]

Perhaps the sunshade rods are detachable and will come off upon the tower's completion. Piano is known to be the prankster amongst his colleagues... isn't he? Ahh, good one Renzo, you almost had us there.

[TREPYE]

With this tower, the only thing that saves it is the spire, and that is hardly visible from the most important viewpoints.

Thats is something that has been a real disappointment for me. The mast is way too thin. Its long and it tapers nicely and all but you can barely see the thing from the Wired NY webcam. Should have been given a lot more girth.

[kz1000ps]

I was implying that for the people who must put up with the building day in, day out (such as those using the bus terminal), they'll never see the spire because of how close they are, and from that proximity the only thing they can take in is the grey.

But girth-wise, the spire seems to be appropriately proportioned, although I'm waiting for a contextual picture from Jersey or elsewhere with the spire complete before I say much more.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I think this building is going to have an interesting appearance from the surrounding area.

From SSP
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=120027

[MidtownGuy]

The lit portion looks great at night in the pics at the above link.

In daytime it's the definition of dreary. Also, they should have left the rods off the low-rise portion.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Your opinion... not the definition.

[lofter1]

I'm somewhat surprised that the discussion continues to mention the ceramic rods as if they are a mere superficial "design" choice, rather than an essential part of the building's mechanics regarding its energy efficiency.

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but when seen "in person" during the daytime hours the floors where the interior lighting is up and running have a far more open effect than what is related in photographs.

[MidtownGuy]

Your opinion... not the definition.
Obviously it's my opinion. We give them all the time around here.

*Picayune: definition: petty and worthless*
(as in, criticism.)
You must (a) love busting my balls over unimportant word choices...
or (b) have nothing better to do.

It's just an expression, for cryin' out loud. Lighten up a bit.

[MidtownGuy]

I'm somewhat surprised that the discussion continues to mention the ceramic rods as if they are a mere superficial "design" choice, rather than an essential part of the building's mechanics regarding its energy efficiency.

My comment pertained to the lower portion of the building- the part that will receive only a portion of the sunlight that the tower will receive. Omitting the bars from the lower portion would not have negated the efficiency gained from the rods on the tower, the vast majority of the building. It IS a design choice, balanced against the other factors, just like the treatment at the corners of the tower where rods were left out.

[ZippyTheChimp]

You must (a) love busting my balls over unimportant word choices...
or (b) have nothing better to do.If you consider my post busting your balls, then maybe you should get over yourself.

I indicated that there are other opinions of the building; some really like it.

Sorry if you didn't get it.

[MidtownGuy]

then maybe you should get over yourself.

Hmm...that's exactly the point I was trying to make to you.

I indicated that there are other opinions of the building

I know some "really like it". It seems those are the people who dislike hearing a negative word about it. You say you were indicating that there were other opinions, well... duh.

[lbjefferies]

Easily the best skyscraper in New York since the Seagram building. Remember, people hated the Eiffel Tower too. It was just too different and too monochromatic. Hideous they said. And people hated the Chrysler building. And Picasso's Les Demoiselle D'Avignon. And............

[ZippyTheChimp]

I know some "really like it". It seems those are the people who dislike hearing a negative word about it.
At any point did I express displeasure at negative comments? You will find that over the past several months that I've hardly engaged in any debate on this tower, other than observations relating to photos.

You say you were indicating that there were other opinions, well... duh.Duh indeed.

[antinimby]

This building sure gets mixed reviews.I find most things in life are. It's hard to please everyone.

Anyway, this thing is just too gray (or is it grey, difference?).

The rods from a distance looks no different than a blank wall with thin slits for windows.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Up close the rods look white to me. The overall grey look is the glass/reflection seen in between.

[lofter1]

I was implying that for the people who must put up with the building day in, day out (such as those using the bus terminal), they'll never see the spire because of how close they are ...

Take a look up next time you're in the neighborhood ...

From the north you can see the top of spire from the NE corner of 42nd / 8th. On the west side of 8th Avenue you can clearly see it -- and it's visible as far south as the SW corner of 8th / 42nd --right at the PABT.

From the south you can see it from mid-block on the east side of 8th below 39th and on the west side of 8th it's visible at 40th St. (and even a bit north of that).

Along the west side of 8th Avenue on the blocks north and south of those cited above the spire is clearly visible -- and it makes a very strong impression.

[Fabrizio]

I can only judge from those photos, but what I see is soooo Gothic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_buttress

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gaspi/35844230/

http://youtube.com/watch?v=otYxAlEhSho

Gothic just like the Times masthead. She is the "Grey Lady" isnt she?

I love the way this thing sits so nicely with the old buildings on 8th.

In the fog, its even greyer.... you want black mac raincoats for everyone.... black umbrellas. Grey flannel suits. If only there were still yellow Checker cabs.

For me? This building is my taste. I cant wait to see it.

-------------

Renzo has culture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gaspi/36805157/in/set-171367/

[kz1000ps]

Take a look up next time you're in the neighborhood ...

Ahh, I'll be in the neighborhood Sunday and Monday. I suppose I should've kept my mouth shut 'til then :D

[Citytect]

Well, I like grey. And I like this building. It's a building that I might not notice at first, but it gradually draws my attention - a detail here, a detail there - until I pause to take it all in. It says quiet sophistication to me. A far cry from the noisy neighbors. I think time will be kind to this one. No gimmicks. The rods had the potential to be gimmicky, but they clearly aren't. I think all the criticism about their dull, blank appearance speaks for this better than anything. There are no novelties that scream for your attention.

I'm sure some people will forever dislike the building, but I think they're mostly folks who had expectations of something different based on the renderings. As more and more people see the building, people who didn't follow the development from the beginning, people without expectations, I think the overall impression will be positive.

[stache]

And people hated the Chrysler building.

I never heard about this before -

[JMGarcia]

I may be one of the few hear that has seen a "rodded" building once its completed - Piano's building in Potsdammer Platz in Berlin - and its terrific.

The NY Times tower does not photograph well. It loses the finesse of its details and patterns. Also, once the building is occuppied and the lights are on, even during the day, it will have a completely different look.

I can understand its not everyone's favorite style, but personally I think its excellent architecture. Trust me it will look far superior once done and occuppied.

[TREPYE]

It's a building that I might not notice at first, but it gradually draws my attention - a detail here, a detail there - until I pause to take it all in. It says quiet sophistication to me.

Well put. Up close it definitely has an aspect of detail you dont see in contemporary buildings (which are usualy all glass), which I like and appreciate.

[Scraperfannyc]

I have always frowned looking at this building, even though I kept trying to be inspired by it. It looks like a war ship without any shape. Instead of being stuck in mud, it is stuck in bedrock.

[Fabrizio]

"It looks like a war ship without any shape."

Actually the buildings shape is crisp...well defined.

Now take out a pen and try to draw the new Bank of America Tower: you cant do it.

---

The inspiration for the spire:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Italian_battleship_Dante_Alighieri.jpg

[ablarc]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Italian_battleship_Dante_Alighieri.jpg
Why name a battleship after a poet?

[lofter1]

Instead of being stuck in mud, it is stuck in bedrock.

Once the scaffolding / sidewalk shed is down and the building is revealed I think you'll see that the building will appear to "float" ...

Almost the entire street-level structure will be glass with little to no facing, and is set back from the mass of the building rising above (both at the tower & low-rise sections) ...

[Fabrizio]

Ablarc: "Why name a battleship after a poet?"

Hey, this is Italy.

And c'mon, wouldn't it be cool if the US went into battle with the Emily Dickinson?

[RS085]

from ssc:

http://static.flickr.com/111/294952237_d2ce90fc62_b.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/120/294949682_e13284415d_b.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/111/294947619_110683f787_b.jpg

[TREPYE]

^^ My gosh! That mast is soooo thin!

[gradvmedusa]

Its growing on me more and more every day, while I never hated it I am almost starting to really like it. I love the sharpness of the mast, looks piercing.

[antinimby]

There should be no more need for the crane now.

Expect it to come down in the next few days. Yay!

[lbjefferies]

from ssc:

http://static.flickr.com/111/294947619_110683f787_b.jpg


Sick. Absolutely sick.

[Citytect]

^Is sick bad or good?

[ablarc]

Besides visually, what does the spire do?

[Jake]

does anyone else feel that lately spires/antennas on buildings have horrible building/spire ratios? It simply doesn't look aesthetically pleasing when a building has these giant antenna (like Conde Nast).

[Vengineer]

WOW RS, those shots were stunning. Did you camp out on top of the Rock or something? The spire does have a rather significant presence despite its lack of girth.

[Vengineer]

I am befuddled once again. The spire seems CONSIDERABLY taller than the reach of the tower crane depicted on those photos. Is it because the crane shrunk since having reached its acme? Even then, that is incredible to think the crane could have stretched that high.

[ablarc]

It simply doesn't look aesthetically pleasing when a building has these giant antenna (like Conde Nast).
Agreed. (Especially Conde Nast)

[LeCom]

The lit portion looks great at night in the pics at the above link.

In daytime it's the definition of dreary. Also, they should have left the rods off the low-rise portion.
Except the daytime comment, you got it all right.

[BrooklynRider]

I can't recall if the top will be glass enclosed, but walking by the site (as it currently is without glass) I kind of like the steel spikey top. Something kind of steel-gothic about it. If they just turn the steel into glass screen it might be nice, but it looks very interesting at this stage.

[TREPYE]

Besides visually, what does the spire do?

Actually, according to this video that I dug out of Forest City Enterprises The mast will be used to support the microwaves and satellite dishes that are used by the NYTimes. So its not just aesthetic I guess it seems to have some functionality.

http://www.forestcity.net/PROPERTIES/new-york-times-building.asp

[lbjefferies]

^Is sick bad or good?


Sorry. Its the good "sick."

[ZippyTheChimp]

I can't recall if the top will be glass enclosed, but walking by the site (as it currently is without glass) I kind of like the steel spikey top. Something kind of steel-gothic about it. If they just turn the steel into glass screen it might be nice, but it looks very interesting at this stage.The design of the supports was changed from the rendering, but it looks like only the rods will continue past the roof, gradually thinning out, except for the X braced bumpouts.

A solid glass wall would add a lot of wind load.

http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/pdf/FactSheet2007.pdf
Page 12 for a closeup.

[NYatKNIGHT]

does anyone else feel that lately spires/antennas on buildings have horrible building/spire ratios? It simply doesn't look aesthetically pleasing when a building has these giant antenna (like Conde Nast).The only one I can think of is Conde Nast, and that actually looks pretty cool when you're up close.

Times tower's spire is very thin and more ornamental. It's tall, but I think it will look good, though I'll reserve final judgement when finished. The bigger aesthetic concern is the concentration of all these spires together on the skyline (along with the future BOA spires).

[NYguy]

http://static.flickr.com/111/294947619_110683f787_b.jpg

The building itself is dull, but there's no denying that the spire, along with the
spire of the Bank of America tower, and even the Conde Naste antenna will go a long way
towards reclaiming the classic Manhattan skyline. Too many flat roofs now.

[posterboy]

i kinda like the idea of NY being the city of spires. i don't have anything against spires in general. i just wish they were a little more substantial, a little more like the ESB and Chrysler spires, except more modern and maybe less bulky. not that that would have worked on the NYT tower, ya know, something with a little more heft might have been nice, IMO.

[TREPYE]

i kinda like the idea of NY being the city of spires. i don't have anything against spires in general. i just wish they were a little more substantial, a little more like the ESB and Chrysler spires, except more modern and maybe less bulky. not that that would have worked on the NYT tower, ya know, something with a little more heft might have been nice, IMO.

I'm sorry, but now that I see it live and in living color -and I know alot of people are going to disagree with me- I have a real hard time considering this thing a "spire". It is sooo not a spire. Mast is a more appropriate description IMO. (any real architects that can comment on this observation?)

The structure on its own is nicely done though. In spite of its significant thinness it is tapers kinda nicely and looks well done. Perhaps a bit too long as it seems out of proportion with the rest of the towers' size but its not big deal. They should leave the tips of the spikes on the crown exposed (thus devoid of the ceramic rods) because they go well with the mast.

http://static.flickr.com/111/294947619_110683f787_b.jpg

[Fabrizio]

It is a mast and not at all a spire.

And its proportions are perfect for this building.... in keeping with its gothic tradition. In an earlier time this would hold a flag.

Piano knows exactly what he is doing:

http://raffee.bol.ucla.edu/london-pictures/London_Westminster_Bridge_and_Houses_of_Parliament .jpg

[ManhattanKnight]

In an earlier time this would hold a flag.


http://www.lileks.com/NYC/timessquare/longacre.jpg

[lbjefferies]

It is a mast and not at all a spire.

And its proportions are perfect for this building.... in keeping with its gothic tradition. In an earlier time this would hold a flag.

Piano knows exactly what he is doing:

http://raffee.bol.ucla.edu/london-pictures/London_Westminster_Bridge_and_Houses_of_Parliament .jpg

Right on point.

[Fabrizio]

Note too in the above illustration, the building at the "cross-roads" was the original NYTimes building (horribly butchered in the 1960s):

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID104.htm

THAT building was inspired by Giottos campanile in Florence.... complete with mast:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallsfamily/26372871/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17487381@N00/52878902/<