PDA

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



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

ablarc
November 19th, 2006, 05:41 PM
the microwave antennas once they're attached?
How will these look?

Xemu
November 20th, 2006, 07:11 PM
http://www.mwrf.com/Files/30/8086/Figure_07.jpg
Here's what, as the caption says, a "typical high-performance microwave antenna" looks like. Hopefully they'll find an inconspicuous way to mount them... though I can't imagine how...

antinimby
November 20th, 2006, 07:15 PM
Renzo Piano has been quoted in the past (feel free to skim through the first few thousand posts in this thread if you'd like) as saying that the spire will not serve any function other than "swaying in the wind."

Xemu
November 20th, 2006, 07:17 PM
Oh good... I though I had read there would be antennas attached.

NoyokA
November 20th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Oh good... I though I had read there would be antennas attached.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=131101&postcount=2000

ZippyTheChimp
November 21st, 2006, 06:50 PM
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1294/nytimes39cxi9.th.jpg (http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nytimes39cxi9.jpg).

TREPYE
November 22nd, 2006, 01:10 AM
Renzo Piano has been quoted in the past (feel free to skim through the first few thousand posts in this thread if you'd like) as saying that the spire will not serve any function other than "swaying in the wind."

Actually as per an earlier post....


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

kz1000ps
November 22nd, 2006, 01:13 AM
I was in the city Sunday through today (saw Chick Corea at the Blue Note.. unbelievable!), and I took a LOT of pictures so be prepared.

This tower looks better in person than in photos, but I'm still a little bit disappointed.

11/20
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4654/dscf0001di2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3714/dscf0002zf5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8911/dscf0003lb2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9355/dscf0005oe9.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/7356/dscf0006hl3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

antinimby
November 22nd, 2006, 08:20 PM
Actually as per an earlier post....I still stand by my assertion that that is what he had said.

Now, things might have changed since then and they decided to put the thing to use after all.

I might even guess that spire can serve as a lightning rod as well.

lofter1
November 22nd, 2006, 09:22 PM
Piano might not have any choice in the matter ...

Xemu
November 23rd, 2006, 12:16 AM
Well if they do put them up there let's hope they do a better job of hiding them then they did hiding the dishes on the TWC.http://www.wirednewyork.com/aol/images/time_warner_observatory.jpg
My fear about microwave dishes in particular is that I think they need to be in line of site with another dish to work. That would make them pretty hard to hide I imagine.

NoyokA
November 23rd, 2006, 02:27 PM
Well if they do put them up there let's hope they do a better job of hiding them then they did hiding the dishes on the TWC.http://www.wirednewyork.com/aol/images/time_warner_observatory.jpg
My fear about microwave dishes in particular is that I think they need to be in line of site with another dish to work. That would make them pretty hard to hide I imagine.

I know alot of people don't like the exposed dishes at TWC, but I actually do, I like how the cutout shows that behind a pretty face a skyscraper is still a machine. That said I don't think I would like the look of dishes on the spire at NYTIMES. I'm not a big fan of antennae's. I don't like the antennae on Bloomberg Tower or Conde Nast. I like the antennae on the ESB though, the antennae looks like it belongs there, an antennae does not belong on the NYTimesTower.

Derek2k3
November 23rd, 2006, 03:18 PM
I disagree with you here. That cut-out on TWC looks like some afterthought, if they wanted to show the building's mechanistic functions they should've integrated it in the overall design...Conde' Nast does this well, though it's still pretty ugly.

With the logic of sattelite dishes expressing mechanical functions of the building, wouldn't antennas fit the bill too. Why are sattelite dishes on the side of TWC okay but antennas tacked on the roof of the NYTB not?

ablarc
November 23rd, 2006, 03:35 PM
Why are sattelite dishes on the side of TWC okay but antennas tacked on the roof of the NYTB not?
It's not rational, it's visual.

NoyokA
November 23rd, 2006, 04:04 PM
I disagree with you here. That cut-out on TWC looks like some afterthought, if they wanted to show the building's mechanistic functions they should've integrated it in the overall design...Conde' Nast does this well, though it's still pretty ugly.

With the logic of sattelite dishes expressing mechanical functions of the building, wouldn't antennas fit the bill too. Why are sattelite dishes on the side of TWC okay but antennas tacked on the roof of the NYTB not?

Personal taste. I like a building to express some of its inherent purpose, that is what allows it to function as a skyscraper, but it needs to be done in a visually satisfying way. Like I said I have no problem with the ESB antennae or TWC, visually it doesn't irk me, it provides visual interest IMO. Kind of in the same way the window washing equipment is an integral part of Foster's HSBC Tower in Hong Kong. For NYTTIMES, Conde Nast, and Bloomberg, I don't like the antennaes, especially the barnacle looking appendages that are attached to them. You can tell that even Pelli doesn't like the antennae on his building since he photoshopped it out in all the images on his website.

Xemu
November 23rd, 2006, 08:28 PM
Stern, I'm with you on the ESB antenna. However, I really don't like the little rectangular antennas (they look like they're maybe cell phone antennas) that jut from the sides of the spire. I think they really ruin the building's silhouette.

Derek2k3
November 24th, 2006, 01:19 AM
http://static.flickr.com/107/303135939_86690b578d_b.jpg
11-19-06
snowdog101 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/snowdog101/303135939/)

TomAuch
November 24th, 2006, 02:01 AM
This has been such a disappointing building. I still like its shape, but its facade is just dreary gray.

ZippyTheChimp
November 24th, 2006, 07:46 AM
All those ugly grey New York buildings. Should have been a nice color, like the Orion.

Fabrizio
November 24th, 2006, 08:19 AM
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/484bg.jpg

TREPYE
November 24th, 2006, 03:03 PM
All those ugly grey New York buildings. Should have been a nice color, like the Orion.


You know what, Zip's right, this buildings grey color is not that far off from other critically acclaimed masterpieces. Towers like the Flatiron, Municipal Building, and San Remo are not that far off in color. They all even contain a deeper level of detail that most building don't have; with the main difference being that the NYTimes Tower has more structural detail rather than sculptural.
Great point Zippy.

Can one of you people who get suicidal by looking at this Towers' "dreary" color explain to me what makes this so different than some of those early 20th century buildings.


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

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

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5004/flatironbuilding6mk0.jpg


http://www.aviewoncities.com/img/nyc/kveus0660b.jpg

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5647/municipalbuildingetunitedstatescourthouse2wx9.jpg

ablarc
November 24th, 2006, 04:54 PM
It's not the color of NYT that makes it dreary. It's a certain greyness of spirit. All that bleak uniformity and lack of detail...

stache
November 24th, 2006, 04:56 PM
The buildings you cite are the natural color of their exterior. Times bldg. is paint and glass, could have been about any color in the spectrum.

TREPYE
November 24th, 2006, 05:05 PM
All that bleak uniformity and lack of detail...

I respectfully disagree. If anything this tower has a lot more detail than what we get nowadays. If you wanna make the case that the the detail fades with the distances then fine, but so do those other buildings. I find that this tower has a refreshing level of detail.

Bleak uniformity? How bout the Hearst, isnt that a staunch collection of uniform diamonds? If you wanna make the case that in this case it is not as bad because there is a variety of colors that assemble this uniformity then fine I'd accept that as an improvement from the NYTimes Tower. I still don't consider it "bleak" though.

ZippyTheChimp
November 24th, 2006, 08:46 PM
I thought a prime complaint was that the facade was too busy. Now it seems it's too plain.

Fabrizio
November 25th, 2006, 07:02 AM
I think whether one likes this building or not depends on cultural references. Bars over windows, the raw metal grey color, industrial, mechanical... many will find this down right ugly. Others will find poetry.

Modern Italian architects have never gotten over brutalism. They absolutely SHUN easy "beauty"....prettiness.

The MetLife building in NYC is a VERY Italian building... and the NYTimes Tower IMO is similair in certain ways (or am I crazy?).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edstern/85265767/

Take a look at the gothic-y brutalist Torre Velasca in Milan:
http://static.flickr.com/19/102348233_e21b56c4b5_o.jpg
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_Vecchio

Renzo Piano comes from that school. And no surprise he worked years together with Louis Kahn.

And look at the details of his Centre Pomidou:
http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Accueil.nsf/tunnel?OpenForm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22833071@N00/89886719/

Brutalisim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

Note the phrase: "...even when they had large budgets, as they appreciated the 'honesty', the sculptural qualities and perhaps the uncompromising, anti-bourgeois, nature of the style. It has been suggested that the style was subconsciously based on the austere German gun turrets left littered along beaches after World War II."

Ive never studied so perhaps Ablarc can comment further on this and make it clearer?

So especialy for those of you younger... try to put what you see into a cultural context. The design of this building didn't appear out of thin air. I see Gothic, brutalism, references to the Gothic revival bridges of NYC, references to the original NYT tower in Times square....

We all have our personal tastes and we'll stick by them and I can see where some will just not like this building...but we should also try to understand the bigger picture of what we see around us.

--------

ablarc
November 25th, 2006, 08:26 AM
I thought a prime complaint was that the facade was too busy. Now it seems it's too plain.
Maybe it manages to be both simultaneously. The very same complaints were made simultaneously about 2 Columbus Circle.

The center section of both buildings: featureless. The fringe: busy.

ablarc
November 25th, 2006, 08:35 AM
Modern Italian architects have never gotten over brutalism. They absolutely SHUN easy "beauty"....prettiness.

The MetLife building in NYC is a VERY Italian building... and the NYTimes Tower IMO is similair in certain ways (or am I crazy?).
Once again, enlightening points, Fabrizio; I'd never seen it in terms of its Italianness, but of course it's so. You can add to your list of shunners of easy beauty: the hard-to-like Romaldo Giurgola (former Dean at Columbia) and disturbingly featureless Aldo Rossi, as well as the Pirelli Building, closely resembling MetLife. And how about all those uncompromisingly stripped train stations: Rome, Venice, Florence?

Never knew Rogers worked for Kahn; that's an eye-opener too.

ZippyTheChimp
November 25th, 2006, 09:17 AM
Maybe it manages to be both simultaneously. The very same complaints were made simultaneously about 2 Columbus Circle.Is that your ctitique of 2CC? I thought you liked the building.


The center section of both buildings: featureless. That can be said of most skyscrapers.

ablarc
November 25th, 2006, 10:38 AM
Is that your ctitique of 2CC? I thought you liked the building.
It's a bone-dry fact. There's no detail in the middle. Some complained of that, some complained of the ornament around the edges. Personally, I thought the contrast of the two was delicious, like Plateresque architecture inside out.


That can be said of most skyscrapers.
It can --and when you don't like the building you cast that fact as a fault. :)

Dagrecco82
November 25th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Last Night
[/URL][URL="http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2862mr0.jpg"]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5270/img2862mr0.th.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/%5BURL=http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2862mr0.jpg%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5270/img2862mr0.th.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D)

lofter1
November 25th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Nice ^^^

Could almost get you in the holiday spirit, all those glittering green, red & white lights :cool:

ramvid01
November 25th, 2006, 10:19 PM
Glowing. Great pic. :)

pianoman11686
November 25th, 2006, 10:59 PM
This building was anything but dreary today. Late-afternoon, southern sun gave it more of a whitish hue, and the ceramic rods were doing their thing, reflecting a lot of light.

From Bryant Park:

http://static.flickr.com/107/306183720_8618961462.jpg

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/6892/newyorkthanksgiving017em4.jpg

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2374/newyorkthanksgiving018ny2.jpg

While I wouldn't mind if it were taller, I think Piano got the proportions right:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/823/newyorkthanksgiving019ao3.jpg

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6289/newyorkthanksgiving020kt2.jpg

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8753/newyorkthanksgiving021ji4.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5605/newyorkthanksgiving022lj7.jpg

Dreary? I think muscular, elegant, and soaring come to mind with a picture like this:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7696/newyorkthanksgiving024ln9.jpg

After seeing it today, I think I've made up my mind: I like this building a lot. If I had to qualify it, I'd put it a notch below Hearst Tower. Still, an A- isn't bad.

pianoman11686
November 25th, 2006, 11:02 PM
Some facade details:

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/117/newyorkthanksgiving025ys5.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7196/newyorkthanksgiving026ti4.jpg

And my sad attempt at a skyline shot (from inside a moving vehicle):

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9256/newyorkthanksgiving027zg1.jpg

ablarc
November 25th, 2006, 11:29 PM
This building was anything but dreary today. Late-afternoon, southern sun gave it more of a whitish hue, and the ceramic rods were doing their thing, reflecting a lot of light.
"Well, OK," he admitted grudgingly, "it looks pretty good in those photos."

sfenn1117
November 25th, 2006, 11:44 PM
Thanks. It's definitely looking better and better. I think all those who continuously slam this tower are way too premature; at least wait for a completely finished product, crown and all.

I would like to see a pic from dagreco's vantage point after the crown is floodlit....should look great. This tower is top notch.

lofter1
November 25th, 2006, 11:58 PM
And has been pointed out, photos really don't do it justice ...

I love it.

Dagrecco82
November 26th, 2006, 11:20 AM
A different vantage point.

[/URL][URL="http://img451.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2903oc8.jpg"]http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4968/img2903oc8.th.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/%5BURL=http://img451.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2903oc8.jpg%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4968/img2903oc8.th.jpg%5B/IMG%5D%5B/URL%5D)

TREPYE
November 26th, 2006, 03:27 PM
This picture is the one that sold me on the qualities of this tower's facade. Look at how the opacity of the rods tame the reflectiveness and how this reflectiveness accentuates the opacity. Two different visual effects merged into one that regulates each others extreme effect. Someone who did not know about the components of this tower might even say that it is reflective granite. This double skin stuff is really nice, I'm really impressed with Piano on this one.:)

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

pianoman11686
November 26th, 2006, 03:36 PM
I think all those who continuously slam this tower are way too premature; at least wait for a completely finished product, crown and all.

That's a given. But then what would be the point of construction updates? ;)

ZippyTheChimp
November 26th, 2006, 04:17 PM
The ceramics sure are lightning rods for debate.

I think some feel betrayed that the product does not look like the renderings. How would we know? All the renderings were night or twilight views; we haven't seen that yet.

And complaints about the grey color. Someone at SSP actually described it as French Grey. Good eye. Battleship grey? Which navy? Canada's ships are sort of greenish - that may fit.

Was it an error in thinking the devil Piano is French? Or maybe his work on Pompidou? It could be we're still in Freedom Fries mode.

Actually, as has already been noted,

Up close the rods look white to me. The overall grey look is the glass/reflection seen in between.
the rods aren't grey. The effect is the same as looking at a bar code from a distance. And increasing the spacing between the rods would just make the building darker. Look at the photo Derek 2k3 posted. What's dark, and what's light?

Ruminations on Grey (http://wehavethemostfun.blogspot.com/2006/02/thousand-shades-of-grey.html)

Fabrizio
November 26th, 2006, 04:30 PM
French grey?

Nope, its MARTHA’s grey:

http://happymundane.blogspot.com/2006/08/marthas-gray.html

Its funny BTW, Im doing my home ...and the rooms, including bathrooms and kitchen are all done in shades of grey. I told my wall guy that the home had to be a dreary day in Venice.

THATs how happy I am.

Fabrizio
November 26th, 2006, 04:47 PM
Besides the buildings chic grey color, look how Piano has found a way to add decoration without making the building looking stupid.

Look at it next to the buidling to the right in the photo above. The TimesTower looks just as jazzy and adorned.... but Piano has done it in a modern vocabulary.

Doesnt it make the "moderne" touches on the Time Warner look lame?

stache
November 26th, 2006, 05:22 PM
So far I still prefer the Nelson bldg. over the new Times tower.

NYguy
November 27th, 2006, 09:20 AM
The ceramics sure are lightning rods for debate.

I think some feel betrayed that the product does not look like the renderings. How would we know? All the renderings were night or twilight views; we haven't seen that yet.

Please. If its even a decent looking building, the time of day won't matter. So far, from what I've seen, (and I see it far too often) the building is best seen at night. It's an eyesore of a tower, plain and simple.

ZippyTheChimp
November 27th, 2006, 09:25 AM
Did you actually read what I said?

lofter1
November 27th, 2006, 09:57 AM
Late yesterday afternoon I took a stroll down 9th Avenue ...

From 57th Street moving south the Times Tower looks magnificent: All upward thrust as it soars above and beyond the 4- and 5-story brick buildings along the east side of 9th. A new interpretation of a Gothic Cathedral looming in the distance -- oddly frightening and yet beautiful. The newly-installed roof-top could be both crown and palisade. In the late afternoon light the spire simply seems to disappear as it reaches for the sky -- and the entire tower somehow seems to evaporate into the blue above.

A+++++

ablarc
November 27th, 2006, 10:12 AM
^ I hear a Rhapsody...

Fabrizio
November 27th, 2006, 10:25 AM
Baby, its "I hear a SYMPHONY".

( I PROMISE I wont click over to Youtube...)

lofter1
November 27th, 2006, 10:51 AM
It makes my heart sing (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4tSMs23hrpw) ... :o

Fabrizio
November 27th, 2006, 10:54 AM
My older brothers had their own version of that. Something about "you make my thing swing..."

H-man
November 27th, 2006, 03:45 PM
i saw it from the whitestone yesterday at dusk it was a bit difficult but you can point it out, spire is nice from out there

Alonzo-ny
November 27th, 2006, 05:13 PM
a bit old but anyway, from september

ablarc
November 27th, 2006, 05:25 PM
Baby, its "I hear a SYMPHONY".
That depends! ... http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/I-Hear-a-Rhapsody-lyrics-Frank-Sinatra/EC7BB90F852864454825691F0009C5E5

ManhattanKnight
December 2nd, 2006, 09:57 AM
A recentlly-constructed derrick is now being used to remove the crane.

Kris
December 6th, 2006, 01:04 PM
Renzo Piano talks about the New York Times building, future projects, and his procured inspirations.

You just came back from touring the New York Times building, which will be completed next year. At this stage, what kind of things are you looking at?

It’s very emotional because you spend years designing a piece and you simulate everything. You make models, prototypes, but one thing you will never simulate is truth, reality. This is only possible when the building is up, because buildings are about scale and presence. It’s one of the reasons why architecture is a cultural pursuit but not the same as art or sculpture. There is a sculptural quality about architecture, but it’s not sculpture because architecture takes place in cities where presence is crucial. In some way, this is a special moment when your dreams become reality and you begin to discover the atmosphere that is impossible to design. So now it’s more about space, scale and feeling than physical beings.

Because of the façade, the building has really changed character during construction. Do you think the ceramic rods will make the structure appear lighter than a typical 52-story tower?

I think so. When the ceramic goes above the roofline, it will become more readable. The other important thing is the way the building touches the ground. Here we’re trying to do it a completely different way. From 40th Street, you can see 43rd Street. From 8th Avenue, you see it through the entire depth of the building, and from the depths of it you can see the traffic on 8th Avenue. This sense of transparency is part of the story. It’s about the art of telling the story by using form. And the idea that the Times is a building and institution where the relationship with the city is more open, more permeable.

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2440

finnman69
December 8th, 2006, 09:40 AM
The T-rex of the dinosaur media, the NY Times shuffles another step towards oblivion......"what's that bright light in the sky coming closer?"
http://www.changbi.com/file_img/webzine/dinosaur02_02.jpg



http://www.nypost.com/seven/12082006/business/ign_of_the_times__this_tower_for_rent_business_jan et_whitman.htm

Times are so tough at the New York Times that the publishing giant can't afford to move many of its staffers into its glitzy new Eighth Avenue headquarters.

With office rental rates soaring in Midtown, Times chief Janet Robinson and head bean-counter Len Forman said this week that the company is actively looking to rent out even more than the five floors it had marked for other tenants earlier this year. The Times had originally planned to put its employees in all 28 of its floors in the 52-storey skyscraper, set to open this spring.

Some of that space was freed up after the Times cut 750 jobs beginning in 2005.

But the company also has moved some departments into lower-cost office space to conserve cash, Times executives told investors at two Manhattan media conferences this week.

The five floors currently on the market - 155,000 square feet on the 23rd through 27th floors - represent one-sixth of the Times' total square footage in the office tower.

"We're looking at ways to increase this number further," Forman said.

The floors are expected to bring in annual rent of between $10 million and $12 million for the Times, which has seen its profits slide over the past couple of years as advertising demand at its newspapers sputters.

As reported by The Post in June, staffers at About.com, the Web portal acquired by the Times last year, will be staying in their less expensive downtown location. Times auditors among other staffers also won't make the move to the new office tower on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets.

The plan to rent out floors highlights how much the fortunes of the Times, like many other large newspaper companies, have soured over the past few years.

It's not unusual for a company to offer up space for lease in it headquarters, but when the Gray Lady originally worked out a deal for the building it had the option to expand into the top half of the building owned by developer Bruce Ratner.

Nevertheless, the Times much-disparaged indulgence is now looking to be one of the company's most profitable bets over the past few years.

Soaring office rents in Midtown have made the investment worth much more than the $600 million the Times plunked down for the building.

The company is considering mortgaging all or part of its stake in the building to cash in on its investment, CFO Forman said.

finnman69
December 8th, 2006, 10:00 AM
This has been such a disappointing building. I still like its shape, but its facade is just dreary gray.

Just like the renderings and models. The building would have been brilliant. Really a monumental mistake. Also, the ceramic rods should have been half as dense, spaced twice as far apart to achieve a visible measure of transparency from the distance ofa half mile or more.

BigMac
December 8th, 2006, 11:25 AM
Curbed
December 7, 2006

Renzo's Symphony Update: More Floors for Rent

by Scott

http://www.curbed.com/2006_12_nytimes4-thumb.jpg

The Post fires a potshot at its rival, saying the NYTimes is looking to rent out even more than the five floors of its Renzo Piano-designed new headquarters (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/11/03/renzos_symphony_update_diaphahuh_.php) than it had planned. With the commercial market so hot (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/12/07/selling_666_fifth_tishman_speyer_breaks_another_re cord.php) and the news business hurting, the Times has moved some employees into lower priced office space to get the extra revenue from renting out floors.

If you missed the link at the end o' day yesterday, do tune in to the starchitect's recent Metropolis interview to hear Renzo waxing rhapsodic about viewing his creation: "In some way, this is a special moment when your dreams become reality and you begin to discover the atmosphere that is impossible to design. So now it's more about space, scale and feeling than physical beings." Oh, exactly.

· Sign Of The Times: This Tower For Rent (http://www.nypost.com/seven/12082006/business/ign_of_the_times__this_tower_for_rent_business_jan et_whitman.htm) [NYPost]
· Mixing the Sacred and the Profane (http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2440) [Metropolis]
· Renzo's Symphony Update: Diapha-huh? (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/11/03/renzos_symphony_update_diaphahuh_.php) [Curbed]

Copyright © 2006 Curbed

kliq6
December 8th, 2006, 11:58 AM
They should just stay in there current building which seems to be the size they need and sublease the rest of this new tower and make a fortune. With the way print is going, there is no need for this huge new "newsroom"

Eugenious
December 8th, 2006, 12:03 PM
They should just stay in there current building which seems to be the size they need and sublease the rest of this new tower and make a fortune. With the way print is going, there is no need for this huge new "newsroom"

They should forget about moving the new building, in fact they should just lease out half the current building and buy laptops for all their staff writers so they could write blogs from home. The way it's going people are going to be reading blogs on their way to work on their phones-cum-pdas-cum-blackberrys instead of buying newspapers pretty soon.

NYguy
December 8th, 2006, 05:20 PM
Curbed
December 7, 2006

Renzo's Symphony Update: More Floors for Rent

by Scott

http://www.curbed.com/2006_12_nytimes4-thumb.jpg



Love the way those rods disappear at night.

finnman69
December 8th, 2006, 05:33 PM
They should forget about moving the new building, in fact they should just lease out half the current building and buy laptops for all their staff writers so they could write blogs from home. The way it's going people are going to be reading blogs on their way to work on their phones-cum-pdas-cum-blackberrys instead of buying newspapers pretty soon.

It it really necessary to have a Perfume Critic for instance? Then again, a great deal of the Times is fluff.

NoyokA
December 8th, 2006, 11:17 PM
This sense of transparency is part of the story.

It must be a work of fiction seeing how the NYTTIMES Building is anything but transparent, it being only slightly more transparent than perhaps the ATT Long Lines Building. Metropolis continues to praise Piano and the NYTTIMES Building even when Piano continues to falsify his claim of transparency, they are to my knowledge the only architectural review that has given a positive review since the NYTimes started construction, whereas the Hearst Tower recieved numerous positive reviews throughout the course of its construction and continuing after completion.

finnman69
December 9th, 2006, 05:55 PM
Love the way those rods disappear at night.

not a real photgraph

londonlawyer
December 10th, 2006, 01:48 PM
Although the day-time appearance of this building is extremely different than the renderings (which seem to depict it at night), it is still superb. I think that I was the first person to post something about the rods when they first started going up. While it's not what we expected (and I wrote some scathing comments), this tower has turned out beautifully. It's also quite unique.

BrooklynRider
December 11th, 2006, 11:39 AM
I was by there yesterday. The rods won't go down as far as that that NYTimes Logo/Sign. If you look at the top left corner, you can actually see along the corner edge of the building where the rods stop above the sign.

ZippyTheChimp
December 11th, 2006, 01:43 PM
^
I think what you are referring to in the rendering
http://www.curbed.com/2006_12_nytimes4-thumb.jpg

are not the rods, but the corner windows.
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/117/newyorkthanksgiving025ys5.jpg

The 8th Ave face overhangs the lower section where the sign is. I doubt all that metalwork is there to support the sign.

lofter1
December 11th, 2006, 08:12 PM
My understanding is that the NY Times sign will also be a ceramic rod screen -- covering that entire lower expanse along 8th Avenue

Derek2k3
December 26th, 2006, 09:53 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/332393531_5c358855fd.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=332393531&context=pool-35034350743@N01&size=o
Mr Inky (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandbeaver/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/331416230_0a403d6650.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=331416230&size=o
citybumpkin (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29445298@N00/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/316592607_02712fe5b4.jpg
plemeljr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plemeljr/)

Pathetic spire in comparison.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/310655322_956fa3c6d1.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=310655322&size=l
Swanky Feline (http://www.flickr.com/photos/swankyfeline/)

NoyokA
December 26th, 2006, 11:18 PM
I looked at that above photo you posted Derek and I only saw the word pathetic. The NYTTIMES spire is not only pathetic in comparison to the Chrysler Building, but its curtain wall is pathetic compared to the United Nations. The United Nations glass face shimmers and shines. The south wall is all stone, which controls sun exposure, since the sun is always to the south in New York City. The north face is also all stone, but since it’s so slender this stylistic element isn’t superfluous. The East and West faces are all glass and offer tremendous views and light and air, an appropriate treatment for the modern ideology the United Nations is supposed to champion. The United Nations has its problems, but for a building built in 1952, it is set far apart from the NYTTIMES Building, and in addition I have never once taken a bad picture of the UN.

Derek2k3
December 27th, 2006, 12:57 AM
I wouldn’t say pathetic, just not great. Pathetic only considering the expense of the system vs. its aesthetic appeal. I don't feel it’s any more monotonous than CIT Tower or many other new Midtown towers.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/115/293382138_ffd325d7de.jpg
mpeng (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=293382138&size=o)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/100/293382167_870adc641e.jpg
mpeng (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=293382167&size=o)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/132145155_cacbe14682_b.jpg
allie.weinstein (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=132145153&size=l)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/110642649_8f03126e73.jpg
emily geoff (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilygeoff/)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/110642393_b402f4c63d.jpg
emily geoff (http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilygeoff/)

TREPYE
December 27th, 2006, 01:38 AM
I looked at that above photo you posted Derek and I only saw the word pathetic. The NYTTIMES spire is not only pathetic in comparison to the Chrysler Building, but its curtain wall is pathetic compared to the United Nations.

Well yeah, of course compared to the Chrysler its pathetic. Pretty much all contemporary buildings are. Besides, this tower does not poses a spire but rather a mast. When you read Pianos descriptions of it he mostly refers to it as a mast not a spire and rightfully so. That seems to be the trend nowadays, as per FT, 1BP, and this tower and that is to add some pseudo height to the building via a long slender structure or that is either decorative or serves as an antenna.

As far as comparing it to the Secretariat, well it may not be as revolutionary I give you that, but it does invoke a little more imagination IMO. I mean, one of the most impressive things about this tower is how it has an appealing amount of detail and how the ceramic rods/glass give it a texture that we haven't really seen before in a scraper. Thus, comparing it to some of stuff we get today I must say that so far (pending the execution of the crown) this is a pretty impressive tower.

ablarc
December 27th, 2006, 08:22 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/132145155_cacbe14682_b.jpg
allie.weinstein (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=132145153&size=l)
All those rods...

Could this be the biggest waste of money in skyscraper history?

MidtownGuy
December 27th, 2006, 10:46 AM
I'll answer that. YeSSS!
The aesthetic effect is ugly during the day and negligible at night. The rods are dumb.
The building has no effect on the skyline to anyone but us fanatics, and then only when we're squinting our eyes to find it amidst the plateau.
The mast, or spire, or whatever the heck they want to call it, is OK but to tell you the truth, it's a pathetic attempt at poetry and we've so many of these superfluous toothpicks showing up in recent designs that it can only be called a gimmick.
I've never seen so much fuss kicked up over a big nothing. Somehow, I don't imagine many everyday people looking up a this thing and finding anything inspirational or remarkabe whatsoever.
Just my opinion, which I will continue to restate as many times as others continue to sing the glories of this big gray folly.
And look at that interior shot. I certainly wouldn't want to work in that birdcage, where my spirit would feel imprisoned. God this building sucks.

infoshare
December 27th, 2006, 11:03 AM
All those rods...

Could this be the biggest waste of money in skyscraper history?

A read a quote somewhere - "first we shape our buildings then our buildings begin to shape us."


Question - What will the NY times building shape us into.?
Answer - A "grey lady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Lady)' behind bars.

lofter1
December 27th, 2006, 11:16 AM
From the Hudson River Park along the west side the Times Tower looks fantastic ...

Check it out using the in-place telescopes at the end of Pier 84 -- you can get a great view of the roof-top mechanicals with its group of wooden water towers set within the framework of the crown.

BrooklynRider
December 27th, 2006, 01:50 PM
...The mast, or spire, or whatever the heck they want to call it, is OK but to tell you the truth, it's a pathetic attempt at poetry and we've so many of these superfluous toothpicks showing up in recent designs that it can only be called a gimmick...

I have to agree wit this point.

It is really hard not to compare anything new to Hearst Tower. It does what great architecture should - grab your attention, pull you in and, for skyscrapers, draw your eye upward.

I've never seen anyone walk past Hearst without looking up at the building. The Times, although a decent addition to the neighborhood it is in, does not have the same "WOW!" effect.

BrooklynRider
December 27th, 2006, 01:53 PM
The mast, or spire, or whatever the heck they want to call it, is OK but to tell you the truth, it's a pathetic attempt at poetry and we've so many of these superfluous toothpicks showing up in recent designs that it can only be called a gimmick.


I have to agree with this point.

It is really hard not to compare anything new to Hearst Tower. It does what great skyscraper architecture should - grab your attention and draw your eye upward.

I've never seen anyone walk past Hearst without looking up at the building. The Times, although a decent addition to the neighborhood it is in, does not have the same "WOW!" effect.

TallGuy
December 27th, 2006, 02:38 PM
The rods, while perhaps serving a 'green' purpose, are hideous. They must appear very oppressive to anyone inside the building for long periods of time. Driving on the NJ Turnpike over this past weekend I had to struggle to spot the building (and still driving within my lane). It really adds nothing exceptional to the skyline for me, and as NY skyscrapers go, I'll be you that in ten years time it makes the top 10 list of forgettable buildings in NY. I'll also bet you that someday, once the building inevitably changes hands as these things do, that a future owner has the bars removed during some future renovation.

MidtownGuy
December 27th, 2006, 04:01 PM
I'll bet you're right. There are other ways to achieve energy efficiency.

JMGarcia
December 27th, 2006, 04:01 PM
I think this image really shows what the rods do for the interior of the building. Look at the shadows on the floor. It is significantly less bright where the rods are.

As anyone who has ever worked in an office building knows, more often than not shades are drawn to stop glare and too much sunlight in general from entering the building. The view is usually completely sacrificed. It looks like the rods may help significantly in that respect.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/132145155_cacbe14682_b.jpg

TallGuy
December 27th, 2006, 04:35 PM
Fortunately I've reached the lofty stage in my career where I control my own blind! No doors though, but I am considering Less Nessman-like masking tape to mark where my walls should go.

Look at the window on the left; is that with a blind? It looks like squares for a view. Imagine looking at that the morning after downing a few too many at Heartland Brewery!

Fabrizio
December 27th, 2006, 04:41 PM
THAT is the number one most sexy interior Ive ever seen in an office building... everyone is going to look beautiful and mysterious. Expect a heavy-duty Vogue fashion spread, very soon.:

http://cinepad.com/filmnoir/blinds.htm

http://cinepad.com/filmnoir/windwvm.jpg

infoshare
December 27th, 2006, 06:43 PM
Thanks, that (http://cinepad.com/filmnoir/dark_room.htm) was funny. :D


excerpt
"the walls are closing in
like a big steel trap snapping shut in slow motion.
paranoia and dread hang heavily in the air..."

macreator
December 27th, 2006, 06:54 PM
I've got to say, the interior looks a lot better than I thought it would.

lbjefferies
December 28th, 2006, 05:58 PM
All those rods...

Could this be the biggest waste of money in skyscraper history?

Corbusier might have said the same thing about all the steel on the Chrysler Building. Of course Corbusier had an eye on the future. You have an eye on the past.

lofter1
December 28th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Gotta love those open gates ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_25a.jpg

Looks good from down the block, too ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_25b.jpg

Derek2k3
December 31st, 2006, 03:35 AM
Officially the second tallest building in our city and the only 1,000'+ building in our skyline built in the last 75 years. Just look at the impact...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/339105357_461b4e4610_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/339103839_3c8104ab6d_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/339096467_a61b0481a0_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/339101529_eee57b3158_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/339101617_527c3886e2_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/339103547_1bf3846f44_o.jpg
scubapup (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scubapup/)
12-30-06

Derek2k3
December 31st, 2006, 04:09 AM
Another round of find that red bulb.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/310306818_1598358343.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/320461948_e8d4ca19b0.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/312312948_5992f1dc05.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/329228869_ca83caab61.jpg
nicoatridge (http://www.flickr.com/photos/95247732@N00/)


Somewhat old, so no light bulb.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/308611562_7eb71fe135_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/310847586_1e8cc2648f_o.jpg
Christopher Chan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chanc/)

stache
December 31st, 2006, 08:06 AM
In my own mind I can't include that idotic toothpick on top of this building as making it the second tallest. By mass Citicorp is much taller. I've always felt the same way about Petronas. Sears is clearly the taller of the two.

ablarc
December 31st, 2006, 09:24 AM
Conde-Nast's antenna is more integral to its design. (It's ugly, though.)

Derek, you're right: hardly any impact.

.

sfenn1117
December 31st, 2006, 11:12 AM
I definitely agree that there is minimal impact, although looking north while you're on 8th it's pretty impressive. But surely you did not expect more than what we got. It is as advertised.

It's great that we're getting all these new towers and office demand is very high, it just sucks that these towers are 700-850 feet high. Even Bank of America is just slightly over 800 to the roof. The combo of zoning and economics.

We're spoiled to complain over towers of this size though. Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, heck even LA would be thrilled with this or BOA. If we're patient I don't think we'll be disappointed with what replaces MSG.

MidtownGuy
December 31st, 2006, 11:27 AM
Something, at some point, needs to push through that plateau. Midtown is a tabletop.

Derek2k3
December 31st, 2006, 01:19 PM
But surely you did not expect more than what we got. It is as advertised.

Yea, exactly. I'm not disappointed in the building's height, just the fact we can't build higher in general.

lbjefferies
December 31st, 2006, 01:52 PM
How much of an impact can one expect from an unfinished building set against the dark of night? I would imagine there will be some type of lighting for the rods that make up the crown, and the antenna as well. Count on this building making a much bigger impact once it's complete. Do I wish it were a little taller? Sure. Yet I have little doubt people will notice this jewel.

londonlawyer
December 31st, 2006, 05:20 PM
I recently walked by this building during the daytime, and some interior lights were on. When the lights are on -- even during the day -- the facade is luminscent. When this building is occupied, and the lights are always on, the predict that the naysayers will change their minds. I regard this to be a superb building although I initially had doubts. My doubts, moreover, probably were prompted by the fact that the facade is so unique and different. Nonetheless, I am a fan.

P.S.: This great photo was posted by Fish on SSC:

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2931/nytimes4vw4.jpg

JMGarcia
December 31st, 2006, 06:37 PM
....When the lights are on -- even during the day -- the facade is luminscent. When this building is occupied, and the lights are always on, the predict that the naysayers will change their minds....

I agree completely. I've been saying something quite similar. Once completed and when seen in person it will be stunning. Again, I've seen Potsdammer Platz in Berlin in person with a very similar facade treatment and it is fantastic.

Yes, it is different. Its not all glassy and shiny and reflective but I still think it will be a success when completed.

NYguy
January 1st, 2007, 02:12 AM
Once completed and when seen in person it will be stunning.

It certainly will be stunning. As in how stunning it is that such an awful design could win a competition. AS in how stunningly awful this tower turned out to be, something that really couldn't be predicted.


That being said, what this tower really contributes to is the skyline, with its much needed peaks. The design will thankfully be lost in the sea of skyscrapers, but the spire stands out (even if hard to see at times). Just waiting on that BofA spire now...


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/312312948_5992f1dc05.jpg

Add a spire or two to the MSG site, and you get skyline supreme...

NYguy
January 1st, 2007, 07:39 AM
LA Times

New York's corridor of media power gets denser
Publishing and broadcasting giants are defying the notion that they'd flee high rents and are moving into or building up in Midtown.

By Thomas S. Mulligan
January 1, 2007


NEW YORK — Newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst wanted to make a splash with his New York headquarters in 1926, so he hired Joseph Urban, an Austrian emigre with a flair for the theatrical.

The veteran set designer had worked for the Metropolitan Opera, the Ziegfeld Follies and Hearst's Cosmopolitan Productions movie studio. The result was the International Magazine Building, an imposing limestone box on 8th Avenue that might have been mistaken for a bank save for the telltale sculptures representing tragedy, industry, music and printing — and gigantic, bedpost-like columns rising from the sixth story.

It's the kind of audacious style that's still in vogue in Midtown today, and for good reason. The area is the nerve center for the nation's media business, a place where buildings aim for boldness to mirror the creativity taking place inside. A 40-block swath on Manhattan's West Side, the corridor houses the headquarters of eight of the nation's largest media and entertainment companies, key subsidiaries of others and — not coincidentally — the theater district and Times Square.

Clustering the nation's media so close together means paying the price for elite office space. Newer space can command rents of $80 to $100 per square foot, making it some of the most expensive commercial real estate in Manhattan and the nation. But being there also means having quick access to talent, transportation and lunches with allies or competitors.

"In a high-return business like media that relies on intellectual capital, the last thing they'll mention is low rent," said Daniel L. Doctoroff, New York's deputy mayor for economic development.

The so-called Media Corridor runs between 8th Avenue and Avenue of the Americas (6th Avenue), and roughly from Columbus Circle south to 40th Street. It has long been home to major TV and radio networks, many of the biggest magazine and book publishers and the advertising industry that grew up with them.

But with the world increasingly turning digital, there were predictions that the city's media constellation would fragment. Why pay Manhattan rents, the theory went, when you can do the work from anywhere and, when necessary, electronically?

"That's proven to be a complete fallacy," Doctoroff said. "People want to do things face to face."

Instead of shrinking, the media cluster has grown denser.

Some of New York's most exciting new buildings are in the Media Corridor, housing such companies as Time Warner Inc., Conde Nast Publications, Hearst Corp. and — in a dramatic Renzo Piano tower set to open in the spring — New York Times Co. Bloomberg's much talked-about new headquarters is something of an outlier, at the site of a former department store on the Upper East Side, spectacularly repurposed by architect Cesar Pelli.

Besides being wired for digital communication from the ground up, "new buildings are more conducive to creative activity," said Mitchell L. Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University who has mapped the expansion of the Media Corridor.

Hearst — corporate parent of such magazines as Cosmopolitan and Esquire, newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle and 28 TV stations — in some ways best exemplifies the corridor's evolution. Not only did the company stay put in New York, but it also used the International Magazine Building as a base for the new, 46-story Hearst Tower designed by the British architect Norman Foster.

From inside the lower floors of the glass-and-steel tower, Urban's surrounding limestone facade does indeed resemble a stage set.

Paul J. Luthringer, a Hearst spokesman, said the proximity of media planners and advertising firms made staying in New York a necessity, but the amenities of the building were a plus. Situating the elevator well against a back wall instead of in the central core made it possible to provide spectacular views for nearly all 2,000 employees.

Looking a few blocks north to Columbus Circle from certain upper floors, one can spy on Time Warner Chief Executive Richard D. Parsons as he ducks onto the garden terrace outside his office to smoke a cigar.

When the Time Warner Center, designed by David Childs, opened nearly three years ago, Parsons called the mixed-use complex "both a showcase and a workplace." It also helps to enhance the brand of both the corporation and cable-news subsidiary CNN, whose studio there has become a tourist attraction.

The broadcast networks also are alive to the branding opportunities of the high-traffic corridor. ABC, CBS and NBC all produce their live morning shows from street-level studios that allow the public to look on and sometimes interact. News Corp.'s Fox News runs a giant electronic news ticker along the facade of the company's headquarters at Avenue of the Americas and 48th Street. News service Reuters does the same at its nearby headquarters in the heart of Times Square.

One media space that generates buzz without electronics is the Conde Nast cafeteria, designed by Frank Gehry, that opened in 2000. With its blue titanium walls, rippling glass dividers and leather banquettes, it is "perhaps the most desirable corporate cafeteria in the world," as Moss puts it. Diners on a budget might prefer the Bloomberg building, where free snacks are available to employees and their guests around the clock.

City government helped set the stage for the Media Corridor's development by cleaning up some of the seedier aspects of Times Square without robbing it of its glitz, according to Robert D. Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Assn., a nonprofit research and advocacy group. In fact, Yaro noted, a city ordinance requires buildings in Times Square to devote much of their facades to billboard space.

Foreign media companies such as Bertelsmann, Sony Corp. and Reuters Group made big commitments to the Times Square area, and local companies such as Time Warner, New York Times and Hearst later made plans to expand. Part of the draw to the West Side was that it was relatively underdeveloped. Needing new buildings, companies gravitated to the one place in Midtown Manhattan where a lot of space was available.

Much more commercial space is in the pipeline. Last month Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced an initiative to help the city prepare for what looks to be a boom that will take New York's population past the 9-million mark by 2025.

A rezoning of the far West Side near the Hudson River will unlock 24 million square feet of office space — about half as much as now exists in Boston, according to Saul Shapiro, a specialist in the media, entertainment and telecommunications industries at the city's Economic Development Corp. The area is to be served by a new subway line, financed by $2 billion in bonds that the city floated several weeks ago.

Big media may gravitate to the corridor without further encouragement from the city, but officials want to make sure that fledgling media companies also have a place to roost in New York.

To that end, the city is trying to attract smaller companies to more-affordable areas such as Long Island City in Queens and downtown Brooklyn.

Doctoroff may be correct that rental rates aren't big media's chief concern, but that doesn't mean they're not a factor.

Although Viacom Inc. is widely expected to keep its top New York-based executives in Times Square when leases come up for renewal in 2007 and 2008, the company is considering moving some of its New York operations to Long Island City, spokesman Carl Folta said.

Dan Fasulo, director of market analysis at Real Capital Analytics in New York, said city subsidies could bring rates in Long Island City to less than half the $80 per square foot that Viacom might have to pay for renewal in Times Square.

New York Times Co., meanwhile, has been increasing the number of floors in its new 52-story home that are available for lease to outside tenants.

"There's interesting tenant activity in these new buildings," Fasulo said.

"I'm sure the CFOs are saying, 'There's a lot of money to be made renting out rather than occupying.' "

JMGarcia
January 1st, 2007, 11:22 AM
It certainly will be stunning. As in how stunning it is that such an awful design could win a competition. AS in how stunningly awful this tower turned out to be, something that really couldn't be predicted.

I've seen a very similar building in person. Its very, very interesting and aesthetically pleasing.

What can I say. I think you have bad taste. ;)

TREPYE
January 1st, 2007, 11:27 AM
All those rods...

Could this be the biggest waste of money in skyscraper history?


I'll answer that. YeSSS!
The aesthetic effect is ugly during the day and negligible at night. The rods are dumb.

This mentality is why NYC architecture has gone to a repetitive rerun of glass box style architecture. God-forbid someone should do something DIFFERENT and try something new.

For some reason some people thought that when this tower was finished you would need sunglasses to loot at it due to the intense glare coming from the whiteness. :rolleyes: Inane claims of how "grey" it is have been made meanwhile other buildings that we revere are the same color.

As for the rods- please ok- first of all, this office space has been selling like hotcakes at an exorbitant price so obviously the rods are not deterring anybody due to a "prison" feel. Fact is that this is something that has never been tried in NYC and its imaginative nature should be commended not criticized for its financial ramifications (on money that is not even yours may I add).

Is it better than the Heart, perhaps not. It will be interesting to see the finished product with the garden addition in the roof.

Take a step back from perception and do the side by side comparison to most of the new stuff that we get. At least this tower has some level of detail which we never get. What did you guys want, yet another all glass box???

Perception has really sold this tower short.

infoshare
January 1st, 2007, 12:04 PM
Is it better than the Heart, perhaps not.

Perception has really sold this tower short.

I would concede that the NYT building is good architectural design: but the hearst building is exemplary. The Hearst building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=126135&postcount=705) is different , yet it is also "just another" a glass tower.

ManhattanKnight
January 1st, 2007, 12:04 PM
It will be interesting to see the finished product with the garden addition in the roof.



I believe that the garden was scrapped before this building was even out of the ground. As for the ceramic rods, I have two questions:


1. How much weight can each rod bear before snapping? This building, with its ladder-like facade, is going to attract multitudes of climbers. Are the rods strong enough to support the weight of one adult climber? Two climbers ascending in tandem?

2. How often will it be necessary to close the surrounding sidewalks to prevent injury or death from falling ice that builds up on the rods during most winters? Of course, the beneficial effects of global warming will ameliorate this danger over time.

NYguy
January 1st, 2007, 12:05 PM
Take a step back from perception and do the side by side comparison to most of the new stuff that we get. At least this tower has some level of detail which we never get. What did you guys want, yet another all glass box??? Perception has really sold this tower short.

Where did all this negativity on "glass" skyscrapers come from? Usually what you hear is "NY's skyscrapers are too old, dull, and boring....not enough glass", yet the minute a new tower comes out, its "oh, gee, not another glass box...". But look around folks, that's the way skyscrapers are built today - glass. And it aint just New York.

But back to the Times tower, I've got news for everyone - its a box draped in rods (with one extra, long rod placed on top for good measure). And that's not based so much on my perception as it is on what I see with my own two eyes. Maybe if it were broken up in groups or sections so that the rods only covered 50% of the tower. Maybe. Either way, that lowrise addition has got to be a crime somewhere. The New York skyscraper gods are not happy.

NYguy
January 1st, 2007, 12:08 PM
1. How much weight can each rod bear before snapping? This building, with its ladder-like facade, is going to attract multitudes of climbers. Are the rods strong enough to support the weight of one adult climber? Two climbers ascending in tandem?

Hmmm....is this a hint that you're planning something big?.....

infoshare
January 1st, 2007, 12:15 PM
I've got news for everyone - its a box draped in rods (with one extra, long rod placed on top for good measure). The New York skyscraper gods are not happy.

The "New" NYTimes motto (http://www.teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/newyorktimestour.asp) - "All the rods that fit, we mount". :)

ZippyTheChimp
January 1st, 2007, 12:24 PM
And that's not based so much on my perception as it is on what I see with my own two eyes.Huh?

TREPYE
January 1st, 2007, 12:45 PM
I would concede that the NYT building is good architectural design: but the hearst building is exemplary. The Hearst building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=126135&postcount=705) is different , yet it is also "just another" a glass tower.

Not it is not just another glass box as I mentioned.


I believe that the garden was scrapped before this building was even out of the ground.

Actually the garden plans were added on. Ratner gave one of the tenants on the top floors the option of reinstating the garden as long as they finance it which they did.


Where did all this negativity on "glass" skyscrapers come from? Usually what you hear is "NY's skyscrapers are too old, dull, and boring....not enough glass", yet the minute a new tower comes out, its "oh, gee, not another glass box...". But look around folks, that's the way skyscrapers are built today - glass. And it aint just New York.

I should emphasize the word box as that is what contributes to these monolithic designs.


But back to the Times tower, I've got news for everyone - its a box draped in rods (with one extra, long rod placed on top for good measure). And that's not based so much on my perception as it is on what I see with my own two eyes. Maybe if it were broken up in groups or sections so that the rods only covered 50% of the tower. Maybe. Either way, that lowrise addition has got to be a crime somewhere. The New York skyscraper gods are not happy.

Let me amend what I said and change it to bad perception. Yes, it is an assembly of rods covering a glass facade. But while for some reason some folks see prison bars I see the rods as an element that serves as functional purpose of ceramic insulation and aesthetic purpose that in concert with glass produces a fascinating visual effect of reflective opacity; which is something we haven't seen before in a NYC tower. Kinda combining the effects of the older granite/limestone/terra cota buildings with the newer glass towers, with its own flare of structural detail.

To me it is a tower that the more I think about it the more I like it.

lofter1
January 1st, 2007, 02:19 PM
... This building, with its ladder-like facade, is going to attract multitudes of climbers. Are the rods strong enough to support the weight of one adult climber? Two climbers ascending in tandem?


This is, of course, a HUGE problem in NYC where we have had innumerable such instances on a regular basis -- the number of deaths, let alone injuries, due to reckless climbers scaling skyscraper facades is one of the sad facts of life in the big city [ ;) ] .

On the other hand, due to the overhang of the building the rods as ladders to the sky will be very difficult to access. The rods start at a good height above street level and it seems that there is no point where they are situated in a way where someone could just be given a leg-up and start climbing.

Even if someone were able to do that: the rods themselves are on cables; the cables are attached to a framework (undoubtedly in such a way that the cables can be un-attached to allow for rod replacement). My guess would be that downward force of the weight of a full human body would cause a rod to break, leaving only the cable for support. In essence one would then be climbing a kind of rope ladder up the facade.

But have no fear -- with security cameras & new post 9/11 laws in place I'd bet that a trespasser would be apprehended -- or rendered immobile and perhaps splattered across the sidewalk -- before they were able to rise too far.

Unless, perhaps, you're David Blaine ...

ManhattanKnight
January 1st, 2007, 03:02 PM
On the other hand, due to the overhang of the building the rods as ladders to the sky will be very difficult to access. The rods start at a good height above street level and it seems that there is no point where they are situated in a way where someone could just be given a leg-up and start climbing.



http://www.he-man.org/cartoon/cmotu-pop/universe/he-mans-grappling-hook-b.jpg

lbjefferies
January 1st, 2007, 05:56 PM
It certainly will be stunning. As in how stunning it is that such an awful design could win a competition. AS in how stunningly awful this tower turned out to be...

A silly post. Good only for a laugh.

Derek2k3
January 1st, 2007, 10:05 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/313484220_c7e8c634bf_b.jpg
sushibeau (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sushibeau/)

NoyokA
January 1st, 2007, 11:41 PM
What a great setting! The Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building's are stunning, the Westin has some allure too for such a relatively short building. NYTTIMES blends in with all the other dull faces, Orion, Conde Nast, TSXQ Tower.

Xemu
January 2nd, 2007, 02:35 PM
From ENR.com's images of the year:
http://enr.construction.com/photoContest/2006/imgs/22.jpg
Callow, an engineer with Thornton Tomasetti Inc., caught ironworkers bolting the field splices of the upper 100 ft of a 300-ft-tall steel mast that sits on the 52-story New York Times Building in Manhattan. Callow gave up his Saturday to witness and record the Nov. 11 topping out of the giant taper, which is 8 ft in diameter at its base and 8 in. at its tip.

antinimby
January 2nd, 2007, 06:50 PM
^ I could never do that sort of stuff.

Fear of heights. :)

Derek2k3
January 4th, 2007, 01:47 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/345640435_5ad9811248_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/345640443_6e1eb1d8ed_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/345640448_15c53a184c_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/345640449_5d45d32559_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/345648503_20460582b8_o.jpg

Derek2k3
January 4th, 2007, 01:48 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/345639009_2009beb82e_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/345639010_cd5152389d_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/345639012_80b888a082_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/345639013_e8d6578af9_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/345639016_9127c12873_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/345640423_8bbdbb8505_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/345640430_f291b96073_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/345648508_c46714be2e_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/345648511_8d7839b6d7_o.jpg

stache
January 4th, 2007, 02:22 PM
The horizonal lines on the east/west sides of the building are the weak point. This building would look much better if it faced a park.

pianoman11686
January 4th, 2007, 02:25 PM
Agreed. I sometimes wish Renzo could have applied the north/south facade pattern to all four sides.

That part of the skyline still needs some serious work.

stache
January 4th, 2007, 02:30 PM
I recollect Renzo originally wanted to do some kind of exposed fire escape detail, which NYT decided was too expensive. I don't recall seeing any of those renderings and if it would have helped the east/west problem.

Kalitechne
January 4th, 2007, 07:02 PM
This building looks like a very tall prison. It's a brownish gray cage that sets a terrible example for new construction on 8th Avenue. I really think that paying more attention to the aesthetic beauty of the building, instead of its preposterous facade, would have rewarded us with a handsome building fit for 21st century New York.

Jake
January 4th, 2007, 09:24 PM
it looks like it will blend in and be forgotten quickly

antinimby
January 4th, 2007, 10:23 PM
In Hong Kong, this thing would look pale in comparison and I'm not talking about height either.

stache
January 4th, 2007, 11:17 PM
it looks like it will blend in and be forgotten quickly

I wonder if that's the Times obective. I remember them being bullish from an editorial standpoint about the importance of 'background buildings' to a cityscape.

krulltime
January 4th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Hey Derek2k3 I guess we were taken photos close by today! ;)

I actually like this building! The more I see it in person the more I like it. :)


http://www.pbase.com/image/72610851.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/72610824.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/72610885.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/72610945.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/72610867.jpg

Jake
January 5th, 2007, 09:34 PM
I wonder if that's the Times obective. I remember them being bullish from an editorial standpoint about the importance of 'background buildings' to a cityscape.

well they're certainly doing their part.

As a side note the Times just sold a $500 million broadcast group which is big considering they're only a $3 billion company.

The company is in really bad shape and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this building was sold or rented entirely.

At current earnings the Times will not be able to keep the lights on beyond 2010.

S&P's computer model currently has the company overvalued by some 50%.

Derek2k3
January 6th, 2007, 01:44 AM
Hey Derek2k3 I guess we were taken photos close by today! ;)


Well I went on Tuesday. I still felt your pressence even if you were there a day after ;)

Nice photos, though nothing beats seeing it in person.

pianoman11686
January 6th, 2007, 10:26 PM
The effect of the interior lighting really transforms this building. Even in dreary weather, it photographs well:

http://images20.fotki.com/v374/fileKg0y/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary001.jpg

http://images14.fotki.com/v379/fileRW6H/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary002.jpg

http://images5.fotki.com/v85/fileVJJV/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary003.jpg

http://images20.fotki.com/v380/fileFmIH/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary004.jpg

And, in better weather:

http://images14.fotki.com/v363/fileNmvg/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary096.jpg

http://images1.fotki.com/v314/filecLC0/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary100.jpg

http://images20.fotki.com/v373/fileibu1/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary101.jpg

chris
January 8th, 2007, 03:15 PM
I recollect Renzo originally wanted to do some kind of exposed fire escape detail, which NYT decided was too expensive. I don't recall seeing any of those renderings and if it would have helped the east/west problem.

They were gorgeous spiral staircases twirling up glass tubes in all four corners. The building is but a shadow of what it was designed to be.

I still love the building, but what bothers me about it is that it appears to bew a primer gray color, when all the renderings appeared gleaming and glossy white.

antinimby
January 8th, 2007, 09:44 PM
Oi, don't even talk about the staircases.

The ones they have now are totally out-of-place in an office environment.

From the pics, they look like gray metal staircases found in aircraft carriers.

How inappropriate is that?

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8508/nytimes9mc8.jpg

I was picturing they might do something luxurious and plush, you know, with wood trim and such but instead we get clanky metal...

antinimby
January 8th, 2007, 10:07 PM
^ Plus, look how narrow they are.

Aircraft carrier indeed.

Jake
January 8th, 2007, 10:16 PM
it really looks a lot like First Canadian Place in Toronto

from Emporis:

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2006/09/489892.jpg

infoshare
January 8th, 2007, 10:40 PM
A look-back to when this was nutin but a hole in the ground. Some great foundation photos here (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43164&postcount=378).

Derek2k3
January 9th, 2007, 11:43 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/351787389_0d2f9a6344_o.jpg


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/351787391_7e1e28dbfa_o.jpg
Arte-Factory

Visit Arte-Factory's website for larger.
http://www.arte-factory.com

ablarc
January 9th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Will this building have big Times-Square-style electric signs at and just above street level? If not, how did they get around the zoning?

ManhattanKnight
January 9th, 2007, 07:12 PM
^Outside the zone, perhaps?

lofter1
January 9th, 2007, 07:36 PM
Looks like they are getting close to installing the big NY TIMES sign above 8th Avenue -- the framework there now has been almost completely repainted.

And along 41st Street the plywood fence has started to come down, revealing the street-level glass & steel facade along the sidewalk ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_27a.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_27b.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_27c.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_27d.jpg

The doors were wide open into "The Times Center" so I tried to sneek a shot of the lobby area (had to hurry and get my butt out of there before a workman busted me, hence the blurriness) ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_27e.jpg

antinimby
January 9th, 2007, 11:33 PM
^ Wouldn't those exposed steel columns be vulnerable to bomb blasts?

Hey, you never know if someone has a vendetta against the Times.


If not, how did they get around the zoning?By asking for an exemption? ;)

LeCom
January 10th, 2007, 09:53 PM
January 9, 2006

It may be the worst cheater among 1000-footers, it may barely break Midtown's height plateau, but you gotta admit this thing is freaking tall

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9853/pict0019nyttucjan07lookeg4.jpg

Workers by the garage-like lowrise base on 41st Street

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1774/pict0022nyttucjan07basevx0.jpg

The facade, by different accounts, is questionable, yet it is definitely one of the most intricate in the city

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7589/pict0023nyttucjan07facagm8.jpg

lofter1
January 10th, 2007, 10:30 PM
Once that sidewalk shed / scaffolding comes down methinks y'all will stop referring to it as the "garage" ...




Workers by the garage-like lowrise base on 41st Street

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1774/pict0022nyttucjan07basevx0.jpg

JMGarcia
January 10th, 2007, 11:47 PM
Once that sidewalk shed / scaffolding comes down methinks y'all will stop referring to it as the "garage" ...

I'll add to that that once its not empty and dark inside y'all will stop referring to it as the "garage".

antinimby
January 11th, 2007, 12:46 AM
So it'll just be a well-lit parking garage then. :p

We already have a glimpse of what the bright parking garage will look like:

http://i5.pbase.com/o6/55/435155/1/72846434.vbyRcYgW.11TimesSquareBig.jpg

LeCom
January 11th, 2007, 01:04 AM
I'll add to that that once its not empty and dark inside y'all will stop referring to it as the "garage".
Fine, prison, or whatever a building with dense bars on all of its windosw may suffice as.

JMGarcia
January 11th, 2007, 09:47 AM
I'm surprised at how many people are such traditionalists that they can't find any aesthetic value and interest in something the least bit unusual that doesn't fall into the "shiny glass and/or stone" category.

londonlawyer
January 11th, 2007, 09:53 AM
I'm surprised at how many people are such traditionalists that they can't find any aesthetic value and interest in something the least bit unusual that doesn't fall into the "shiny glass and/or stone" category.

I agree. Moreover, we've been looking at this building without interior lights on until recently. However, when the lights are on in the daytime and nighttime, the building's facade is translucent. It's a magnificent tower, and when occupied (and constantly lit), the naysayers will be swayed.

NoyokA
January 11th, 2007, 11:48 AM
I'm surprised at how many people are such traditionalists that they can't find any aesthetic value and interest in something the least bit unusual that doesn't fall into the "shiny glass and/or stone" category.

On the contrary. The reason I hate the New York Times Building is because I'm a modernist. The New York Times Building is not a true modern building. Its parody on form following function that is so obviously false that I have no other choice but to loathe this building. There is absolutly no functional need in the modernist ideology for there to be a double fascade that obstructs views on the bottom floors as posted above, in fact there is no need what so ever for that frivolous treatments on that entire side of the building. Modernism is not about wastefulness. This building to me is best described as overbearing and ominous, in other words traditional.

lofter1
January 11th, 2007, 12:18 PM
Stern, Stern, Stern ... Wrong, Wrong, Wrong ...

The rods are anything but "frivolous" -- as you must understand by now being a follower of this thread.

You may not like them, aesthetically speaking, but the "form" of the rods on the building is directly related to its overall function.

LeCom
January 11th, 2007, 04:21 PM
I'm surprised at how many people are such traditionalists that they can't find any aesthetic value and interest in something the least bit unusual that doesn't fall into the "shiny glass and/or stone" category.
I am not one of those who despises how the tower portion was carried out. As I have previously pointed out, the facade system is very intricate and one of the city's most unique. However, the lowrise portion, with its unbroken continuous strips of glorified window bars, is uninspiring and adds nothing to the already somewhat dull streetscapes on 40th and 41st streets in that area.

finnman69
January 11th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Stern, Stern, Stern ... Wrong, Wrong, Wrong ...

The rods are anything but "frivolous" -- as you must understand by now being a follower of this thread.

You may not like them, aesthetically speaking, but the "form" of the rods on the building is directly related to its overall function.

They keep the occupants from being able to see out, or the public being able to see in.

lofter1
January 11th, 2007, 06:31 PM
... the lowrise portion, with its unbroken continuous strips of glorified window bars, is uninspiring and adds nothing to the already somewhat dull streetscapes on 40th and 41st streets in that area.

The low rise section on the upper floors will be focused on the interior glass-enclosed garden at the center of that part of the building ...

At street level (where there are NO rods) the view will be through the building and into the garden ...

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/mid-nyt15.jpg

NoyokA
January 12th, 2007, 04:09 AM
They keep the occupants from being able to see out, or the public being able to see in.

Thankyou!

lofter1
January 12th, 2007, 09:31 AM
It cracks me up that y'all keep trotting out that ^^^ dis-information ...

All sorts of info has been posted regarding the studies that have been done pre-construction on the sight-lines through the rods / openings.

If you don't like the design, fine. But ...

NYatKNIGHT
January 12th, 2007, 10:47 AM
You can see out just fine, as JMGarcia already demostrated with the photo below from post #2102. I'm not sure why the inability for the public to see in is a complaint about the overall appearance of the building, though you certainly can see inside with the lights on.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/132145155_cacbe14682_b.jpg

NoyokA
January 12th, 2007, 12:29 PM
You can see out just fine, as JMGarcia already demostrated with the photo below from post #2102. I'm not sure why the inability for the public to see in is a complaint about the overall appearance of the building, though you certainly can see inside with the lights on.


I'd say in that photo that you posted which is dominated by floor to ceiling windows that full visibility is about 50%. Without the bars, it goes without saying visibility would be 100%. A savings of thousands a year in energy for the millions the bars cost to construct and in turn obstruct views, is wasteful, surely not form following function.

NYatKNIGHT
January 12th, 2007, 03:19 PM
I'd say in that photo that you posted which is dominated by floor to ceiling windows that full visibility is about 50%. Without the bars, it goes without saying visibility would be 100%. A savings of thousands a year in energy for the millions the bars cost to construct and in turn obstruct views, is wasteful, surely not form following function.You'd say that visibility is 50%? Well, I'd say that's a terrible estimation. The whole mid-section has no rods at all. The thousands/millions comparison sounds exaggerated as well. I think you're trying to prove that the building isn't your modernist fantasy, which may be true, but I can't figure out how that makes it loathsome.

JMGarcia
January 12th, 2007, 03:28 PM
I suppose if you're going to get into "form follows function" theoretical debates then one could say the function is to lessen the glare and brightness for those using the interior and therefore its form does follow its function. I would think, in fact, that the function of reducing glare in the workspace should take priority over the function of giving floor to ceiling views to workers.

finnman69
January 12th, 2007, 03:58 PM
I'd say in that photo that you posted which is dominated by floor to ceiling windows that full visibility is about 50%. Without the bars, it goes without saying visibility would be 100%. A savings of thousands a year in energy for the millions the bars cost to construct and in turn obstruct views, is wasteful, surely not form following function.

With glass today and the amazing spectrally selective low-e coatings out there, you can have almost competely clear glass and block the majority of the infra red light that causes heat gain. And at a fraction of the cost to add the rods.

At 7WTC they have a gradated frit on the top 12" to reduce heat gain and glare. for all intents and purposes its paint. Combined with a slightly reflective coating or a tint to reduce glare and you have very high performing glass. Energy wise it accomlishes the same thing the rods do.

The rods are a very expensive way of accomplishing something that could have been done with glass only

Citytect
January 12th, 2007, 04:21 PM
Déjà vu anyone?

I wouldn't call visibility, in the sense of seeing out or in, a windows inherent function anyway. Windows have different functions. The primary one I think is light. Views are another, as well as air circulation and others.
The windows and rods seem to function well as a means of lighting the interior with daylight. And they still provide more than adequate views, in my opinion.

But it's beside the point, because a building can be good architecture without being "form follows function" Modernism. And do we want every new building to have completely unobstructed floor to ceiling windows anyway? Don't we have enough of those? What a bore!

Citytect
January 12th, 2007, 04:26 PM
The rods are a very expensive way of accomplishing something that could have been done with glass only

So, then, you think because glass alone can do the job (which I'd have to see to believe), it is unacceptable to do it any other way? And you think that because glass alone can do it, that this makes the rods ability to do the same thing garbage?

Derek2k3
January 12th, 2007, 04:28 PM
Regardless of what anyone thinks, the building is successful. It's almost fully leased and would companies be paying $85+ sq. ft. on 8th Ave. for a building that didn't function well?

finnman69
January 12th, 2007, 05:24 PM
So, then, you think because glass alone can do the job (which I'd have to see to believe), it is unacceptable to do it any other way? And you think that because glass alone can do it, that this makes the rods ability to do the same thing garbage?

Glass technology is amazing today. State of the art coatings, let visible light through, block the infra red.

I did not say it was unacceptable to do it this way, merely that it was a very expensive and inefficient way to accomplish that goal. really though, Renzo Piano put the rods up because they look kind of cool. That's all. I just wish they had used half as many (spaced them twice as far apart. It would have made the building so much better (and kept it bright white, not french grey).

I wish they had done this:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n35/finnman69/architecture/NYTimeshalfscreen.jpg
instead of this:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n35/finnman69/architecture/NYTimesscreen.jpg

finnman69
January 12th, 2007, 05:37 PM
Déjà vu anyone?

I wouldn't call visibility, in the sense of seeing out or in, a windows inherent function anyway.

You really think views from Manhattan office buildings have no function? It's one of the most valuable parts of the the building in NYC.

Execs, VPs and managing directors constantly squabble over who get the best views from their office. Even normal workers much rather have a view to the outside than be cube bound.

Additionally, being able to see the outside is psychologicaly vital to a healthy work environment. You get 1 point in the LEED Green Building rating (credit 8.2 Daylight and Views: Views for 90% of spaces) system for allowing 90% of interior spaces to have outside views (glazing from 2'6" to 7'6" above the floor).

Show me a cube bound worker with no outside views and a worker with a big window to the outside and I guarantee you the worker with the view is a happier more productive worker.

Citytect
January 12th, 2007, 07:42 PM
You really think views from Manhattan office buildings have no function? It's one of the most valuable parts of the the building in NYC.

Well if you bothered to read the rest of the post, you would know the answer to this question.


I wouldn't call visibility, in the sense of seeing out or in, a windows inherent function anyway. Windows have different functions. The primary one I think is light. Views are another, as well as air circulation and others.

The point was that views aren't the sole function of windows.

The Times building will have views.

finnman69
January 12th, 2007, 08:21 PM
Well if you bothered to read the rest of the post, you would know the answer to this question.



The point was that views aren't the sole function of windows.

The Times building will have views.


Most office buildings do not have operable windows. And electric light could eliminate the need for windows entirely. So why do we have them in the 21st century. Because human need to be able to see the outside their workspace to function normally.

ZippyTheChimp
January 12th, 2007, 08:28 PM
I just wish they had used half as many (spaced them twice as far apart. It would have made the building so much better (and kept it bright white, not french grey).As has already been explained several times in this thread, the dark spaces between the rods are what gives the overall grey appearance. Removing every other rod would darken the building, not lighten it.


I could show you the energy calculationsDo these calculations show the effects of low-e glass over standard glass (which is pointless in this discussion), or low-e glass vs the ceramic rod screen?

It is my understanding that the glass curtain wall of the building is low-e, in which case you are saying that the rods have no effect at all.

And there is also the savings from less artificial lighting to be considered. In an open floor plan, those workers close to the windows experience glare from the sun. They lower window shades which denies light to those deeper within the space. As was shown in the image, the rods block direct glare from the sun, but soft light is reflected from their surface into the office space, reducing the need for artificial light.

Anyone who doesn't like the way the building looks can use their eyes as evidence, but anyone who says the system does not work is just saying that because they don't like the way the building looks.

It may come to pass that the system is ineffective, but not until data can be gathered on energy use.

ZippyTheChimp
January 12th, 2007, 08:35 PM
Additionally, being able to see the outside is psychologicaly vital to a healthy work environment. You get 1 point in the LEED Green Building rating (credit 8.2 Daylight and Views: Views for 90% of spaces) system for allowing 90% of interior spaces to have outside views (glazing from 2'6" to 7'6" above the floor).

Show me a cube bound worker with no outside views and a worker with a big window to the outside and I guarantee you the worker with the view is a happier more productive worker.Has this been lost on the tenants who are going to pay premium rent to put their employees into a non-productive environment?

lofter1
January 12th, 2007, 09:42 PM
Some shots from mid-afternoon along 40th Street today where the scaffolding has come down ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_28b.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_28c.jpg

And the north facade reflecting the colors of the Westin across 42nd Street ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_28d.jpg

ramvid01
January 12th, 2007, 09:59 PM
Nice reflection. Too bad that base just looks horrible with the ceramic rods. Seems like they extend further than they should on that part of the building.

stache
January 13th, 2007, 03:50 AM
It looks like a giant prison.

Fabrizio
January 13th, 2007, 04:40 AM
Lofter: having been there, up close, what is your impression of those lower floors? Sleek refined elegance or prison?

lofter1
January 13th, 2007, 10:17 AM
I think it's pretty clear I LOVE this building ...

No way for me does it give the impression of a prison of any sort (but if this is what a prison looks like and I had a chance of being incarcerated there then I just might reconsider some life choices ;) ).

The materials and detail here are fantastic -- I hoped to get some close-up shots of the stainless steel supports at street level, but lots of it is still braced by wooden packing material -- and they are preparing to lay the sidewalk up against the building wall so they've blocked off up-close access to the building with some low sidewalk barricades / orange hazard fencing. Those pics will have to wait :cool: .

As many of us know: Once the building is complete and the interior lighting is operating the illumination will bounce off the ceramic rods and create a fantastic setting that is not now apparent. Think of how a piece of glazed pottery looks sitting on semi-dark shelf as compared to how it looks when artfully lit -- the light bounces off the glazed surface giving it dimension that just can't be seen otherwise.

It also seems that the upper levels of the low-rise section along 41st / 40th Streets will be open areas rather than office / work space (correct me if I'm wrong on this) -- so that those spaces will also be "backlit" from the open interior space where the garden will be. It's my impression that one will be able to see quite well from the street and up into those spaces -- as if looking in through partially-opened venetian blinds.

The penchant for fully-open glass walls on lower floors that are popping up all over NYC (witness the Onyx and some other mis-guided residential buildings now under construction) is, IMHO, awkward -- and if I were someone who spent time inside those spaces located so close to the street level I think I'd feel too exposed. Sure, if one wants one can pull the blinds -- but Piano has done away with the need to do so, while at the same time creating a terrific looking building.

I only hope that the retail spaces that go in at street level are as artfully designed as the rest of the building -- it's my guess that they will be.

I'm really looking forward to the completion of this building -- and can't wait to walk through the open passageway at mid-building between 40th / 41st, and (fingers crossed) enjoy a cup of coffee in the garden (not sure how accessible it will be).

ZippyTheChimp
January 13th, 2007, 10:38 AM
When both are complete, it will be interesting to compare the street level treatment of the Times and BOA.

pianoman11686
January 13th, 2007, 01:27 PM
While I'm not as enthusiastically receptive of the building as lofter is, I definitely like it, and don't think it's a prison-in-the-sky. These pics are from last week, and hopefully they show some of the effects of the lighting that lofter's talking about. (Also, if people are seeing red X's on these, please let me know, because I've been wanting to upload a ton of photos from last week, and haven't found a reliable photosharing website yet.)

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary001.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary002.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary003.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary004.jpg

MidtownGuy
January 13th, 2007, 02:06 PM
Thanks for sharing those photos. It certainly does look better with the lights on, a bit less like the "Ministry of Truth". I kind of love it and hate it at the same time. Maybe that makes it great, I dunno.
Still, that battleship grey color is unpleasing to me. I deal with colors all day, every day in my work, coping with metamerism, Pantone tabs up the wazoo, and I just think the steel could have, should have, been a lighter grey that would sing regardless of the time of day.

gradvmedusa
January 13th, 2007, 02:17 PM
I like the color of this building...It's nice to add some variety to the NYC Construction Scene...not everything needs to be shiny and clean. A little industrialized grittiness can actually be quite beautiful and refreshing.

londonlawyer
January 13th, 2007, 03:54 PM
...http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary002.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary003.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary004.jpg

This is a great building and it is luminescent when the lights are on during the day and at night.

lofter1
January 13th, 2007, 04:00 PM
And we haven't even seen the exterior lighting yet ...

Fabrizio
January 13th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Just looking at those photos, the tower part is the best looking skyscraper since the Seagrams, the CBS, the old WTC... it is at that level of greatness. Dull? Heavy? With those lights on its light and positively gauzey. There is a lot of art here. I just hope the street level is as interesting.

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

lbjefferies
January 13th, 2007, 06:33 PM
Just looking at those photos, the tower part is the best looking skyscraper since the Seagrams, the CBS, the old WTC... it is at that level of greatness. Dull? Heavy? With those lights on its light and positively gauzey. There is a lot of art here. I just hope the street level is as interesting.

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


I couldn't agree more. In my mind this is the greatest tower to go up since Foster's HSBC building in Hong Kong. It is beautiful, powerful, sexy, and yet inaccesible to many. In other words, very italian. Think Antonioni at his best.

londonlawyer
January 13th, 2007, 11:47 PM
And we haven't even seen the exterior lighting yet ...

I didn't know that there will be exterior lighting. That will be great.

antinimby
January 14th, 2007, 01:20 AM
When both are complete, it will be interesting to compare the street level treatment of the Times and BOA.I can tell you right now that the Times will be better simply because it will have retail and shops.

The BOA will be just one huge squeeky clean and pretty but uninteresting investment banking lobby.

antinimby
January 14th, 2007, 01:26 AM
I just think the steel could have, should have, been a lighter grey that would sing regardless of the time of day.You said it.

I know the Times' nickname has become the "gray lady" but still...that doesn't mean they have to take it so literally.

Maybe a lighter shade would have done wonders.

Fabrizio
January 14th, 2007, 06:18 AM
Cant you guys see the beauty a bit of grimness add to this?


--

JMGarcia
January 14th, 2007, 10:30 AM
While I'm not as enthusiastically receptive of the building as lofter is, I definitely like it, and don't think it's a prison-in-the-sky. These pics are from last week, and hopefully they show some of the effects of the lighting that lofter's talking about. (Also, if people are seeing red X's on these, please let me know, because I've been wanting to upload a ton of photos from last week, and haven't found a reliable photosharing website yet.)

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary001.jpg



http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary003.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary004.jpg

It so interesting that the floors with the lights on inside appear to have significantly bigger "window" openings than those with out.

ablarc
January 14th, 2007, 10:42 AM
Definitely better with lights on.

Agree with MidtownGuy: a whiter shade of pale.

pianoman11686
January 14th, 2007, 01:23 PM
JM: I think you're seeing the earlier predictions of the rods "dissolving" when the lights come on. I think it's pretty cool. Anyway, here are a couple more random shots from last Saturday:

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary096.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary100.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary101.jpg

TREPYE
January 14th, 2007, 02:47 PM
Just looking at those photos, the tower part is the best looking skyscraper since the Seagrams, the CBS, the old WTC... it is at that level of greatness. Dull? Heavy? With those lights on its light and positively gauzey. There is a lot of art here. I just hope the street level is as interesting.

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

Seagram's and CBS etc. may have been it predecessors and revered by many but they do not provoke the same amount of thought and analysis that this tower does. The early versions of modernism are too 2 dimensional. This tower has an extra level of depth that I wish more towers exhibited. Those rods over glass and structural detail really give it a very intricate appearance and in concert they give the look of a very complex and sophisticated structure.

Fabrizio
January 14th, 2007, 04:42 PM
treype: Seagrams? thought and analysis? There is probably NO other post WW2 skyscraper that has had so much written about... that has been so studied and picked apart. There WAS a time when modern skyscrapers were actually national news. The Times tower hasnt even had its debut yet, but one thing I will guarantee you, no matter how much we like it (and I sure do), it will not have the cultural impact that the Seagrams did... nor will Renzo Piano.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Seagram_Building.html

3-dimensionality achieved without monkey-business:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Seagram_Building.html/cid_2921866.html

http://www.masck.com/arch/seagram.html

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

http://www.miesbcn.com/en/foundation.html

----

macreator
January 14th, 2007, 05:08 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/334819802_d127597da1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ravenzachary/334819802/in/set-72157594364557911/)

Kind of an interesting shot of the Times Building I found while browsing Flickr.

Shot by Flickr user Raven Zachary (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ravenzachary/)

TREPYE
January 14th, 2007, 11:21 PM
treype: Seagrams? thought and analysis? There is probably NO other post WW2 skyscraper that has had so much written about... that has been so studied and picked apart. There WAS a time when modern skyscrapers were actually national news. The Times tower hasnt even had its debut yet, but one thing I will guarantee you, no matter how much we like it (and I sure do), it will not have the cultural impact that the Seagrams did... nor will Renzo Piano.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Seagram_Building.html

3-dimensionality achieved without monkey-business:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Seagram_Building.html/cid_2921866.html

http://www.masck.com/arch/seagram.html

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

http://www.miesbcn.com/en/foundation.html

----

Thank you for the information Fabrizio. :) But I was talking about the virtues of the NYTimes tower in a more personal sense. To me the NYTimes tower provokes my curiosity and pleases me a lot more to look at than the Seagram's does. And due to the inevitable variability of taste I cannot see the Seagram's in the same light as a lot of others. To me it represents the beginning of a movement that drowned the NYC skyline- modernism. It was definitely a pioneer. But due to its virtues (mostly financial practicality IMO) it led to an era in which many have tried to emulate it and an opportunity to exhibit architectural variety was lost.

NYguy
January 15th, 2007, 09:21 AM
JANUARY 14, 2007

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101785/medium.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101788/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101785/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101788/large.jpg

Fabrizio
January 15th, 2007, 11:13 AM
treype: if I bust your nutz: you have to remember I am one of the oldsters here (at least compared to some of you)... I want to provoke some thought and research.

finnman69
January 16th, 2007, 12:13 AM
It's from this distance when the building works and looks it best. From the distance of 1 to 5 blocks away. You can see through the screens at this distance and it works. Move 1/2 a mile away and you cant see through them.

I wonder if the tenants on all of the floors have to use the same lighting, simialr to the Seagram building.



While I'm not as enthusiastically receptive of the building as lofter is, I definitely like it, and don't think it's a prison-in-the-sky. These pics are from last week, and hopefully they show some of the effects of the lighting that lofter's talking about. (Also, if people are seeing red X's on these, please let me know, because I've been wanting to upload a ton of photos from last week, and haven't found a reliable photosharing website yet.)

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary001.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary002.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary003.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary004.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
January 16th, 2007, 11:03 AM
The building is a warm grey color, because it's painted with warm gray paint, not because of the gaps between the rods.

Also, if they removed every other rod, it would not darken the building (it would let more light to the glass behind it), but it would increase the transparency, thereby emphasizing the depth of the double wall, which adds a great deal of richness to the facade.
http://static.flickr.com/107/303135939_86690b578d_b.jpg

There are no rods at all on the X-braced part of the building. To my eye, it's darker.

If the rods were more oblong, they could bounce more light into the space and provide greater shading while providing less visual obstruction from the interior. My issue with the rods is when they are viewed from a distance of 1/2 a mile or more away and the screen takes on a solid appearance. At that distance, I do not like the 'window' gaps in the screen which then dominate the facade. yhey appear as giant razor blades hung on the building.
That observation is correct, but at 1/2 mile, your eyes would still not be able to resolve the rods into individual components. If they were spaced twice as far apart; the wall would still appear solid, but more of the darker glass component would be shown, darkening the overall tone. I'm sure you've seen the building close-up. Don't the individual rods appear much lighter than the entire wall at a distance?


Will the rods reduce glare into the interior, absolutely. Will they bounce light into the interior? Maybe. Will they block light into the interior? Without a doubt. Does 40% of the office space facade have no rod screening? Yes.But we still can't know if they work.


But c'mon, the ceramic screen is there mainly because it looks cool and creates a semi-diaphonous layer, not because it really works as a sunscreen.
I'm not about to get into Piano's head, but given this project was Ratner's first foray into more than mundane architecture, I don't think Piano would have sold him on the added expense based on aesthetics alone.

I'm not going to say anything about the Hearst building, and risk a spillover debate. It should have been one unit (8 floors) taller.
Jeez, said it anyway. :)

ZippyTheChimp
January 16th, 2007, 11:42 AM
We're going to have to agree to disagree on the shading.

I agree that a polarizing design is beneficial to architectural discussion. No one debates 55 Water.

NYatKNIGHT
January 17th, 2007, 10:31 AM
I hear what you are saying finnman, you wish the rods looked whiter. But I think it's important to note that the rods are white when viewed up close, not french gray. Being cylindrical, they spread the light and shadows they reflect, doing what they are supposed to do. The rods in our retinas serve the same purpose.

lofter1
January 17th, 2007, 12:30 PM
Yesterday they were using external pulley-system scaffolding to do repair work on the rod curtain at the north facade (replacing rods damaged during construction, etc.).

It seems to me that the rod curtain now appears to be a lighter shade and contrasts more sharply with the darker grey of the steel of the tower -- so perhaps they've been cleaning the construction grit off the rods as well :confused:

ramvid01
January 17th, 2007, 05:39 PM
Curious. A window washing rig cannot fit between the rods and the glazing, it looks to be just under 24" deep. Same goes for cleaning the rods. Was the rig hung from davits or from some type of built in adjustable crane arm system? Does a rig ride outboard of the rods and someone reaches around the rods to clean the glass?

Just wait till it rains, or a nice wind comes along. :D

lofter1
January 17th, 2007, 06:09 PM
Curious. A window washing rig cannot fit between the rods and the glazing, it looks to be just under 24" deep. Same goes for cleaning the rods. Was the rig hung from davits or from some type of built in adjustable crane arm system? Does a rig ride outboard of the rods and someone reaches around the rods to clean the glass?

Not sure where the rig was hung from -- it was riding outboard -- and there were ropes going way up.

Maybe they were using these (I find they word great on venetian blinds ;) ) ...

http://www.business-supply.com/product_images/image/EB053784_swifter-duster-refills-10-bx.gif

millertime83
January 17th, 2007, 06:43 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/361009696_1726dd918b.jpg

Sunday was a cloudy day. It made the building look nice. This is the corner of 41st and 8th.

krulltime
January 17th, 2007, 06:47 PM
^ So Gotham! This building deffenetly screams 'NYC.'

antinimby
January 17th, 2007, 11:31 PM
They've got a shorter one in Toronto also.

I guess it screams 'Toronto' as well. :D

NoyokA
January 17th, 2007, 11:36 PM
Just my opinion but I think it would be a better fit in Detroit or Buffalo.

Jake
January 18th, 2007, 12:33 PM
They've got a shorter one in Toronto also.

I guess it screams 'Toronto' as well. :D

Actually First Canadian Place is almost a thousand feet at the roof and well over 1100 with the spire/antenna while the Times is only 750 at the roof. The CN Tower horribly depresses the real height of the Toronto skyline.

First Canadian Place is a pretty nice building, very nice lobby, the only thing the Times has that's better is the so far unfinished crown.

Jasonik
January 18th, 2007, 12:58 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/First_Canadian_Place.JPG

The planar quality of the facade is less articulated but marginally similar.

NoyokA
January 18th, 2007, 04:29 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/First_Canadian_Place.JPG

The planar quality of the facade is less articulated but marginally similar.

Visually Stunning, Groundbreaking, Earth-shattering, intricate geometrical geometries. Oh wait, Piano didn't design this one....I meant to say boring, mundane, dreary, ordinary.

lbjefferies
January 18th, 2007, 04:56 PM
Visually Stunning, Groundbreaking, Earth-shattering, intricate geometrical geometries. Oh wait, Piano didn't design this one....I meant to say boring, mundane, dreary, ordinary.


If you can't see any differences between this building and the Times Tower, then I feel very sorry for you.

NoyokA
January 18th, 2007, 04:57 PM
If you can't see any differences between this building and the Times Tower, then I feel very sorry for you.

I feel sorry that you don't understand sarcasm. The point is that people are blinded by the celebrity that Piano is.

lbjefferies
January 18th, 2007, 05:09 PM
I feel sorry that you don't understand sarcasm. The point is that people are blinded by the celebrity that Piano is.


I understood your silly atempt at sarcasm. And I even understood your point as to why I am so foolish as to like this building. And I think you are being incredibly stupid. :)

I am not saying you are stupid, you're just acting stupid right now.

NoyokA
January 18th, 2007, 05:13 PM
I understood your silly atempt at sarcasm. And I even understood your point as to why I am so foolish as to like this building. And I think you are being incredibly stupid. :)

I am not saying you are stupid, you're just acting stupid right now.

Thanks for the disclaimer that doesn't disclaim anything. Noone is being stupid for expressing an opinion, this is an open forum. I never called you stupid, first I don't insult other members, second its juvenile and I wouldnt stoop to that. What I am saying is that insults aren't allowed and that you have recieved an infraction.

kz1000ps
January 18th, 2007, 05:57 PM
Just my opinion but I think it would be a better fit in Detroit or Buffalo.

Never thought of it that way, but I agree. Imagine if it was the design proposed for Buffalo's new tallest instead of the fat blob they're getting.. it'd be a perfect fit.

Kalitechne
January 18th, 2007, 10:47 PM
Stern is absolutely right.

That building in Toronto is a classic design, which shouldn't come as a surprise because it was built in the 1970s. Back then, an impressive building that was easy on the eyes was more than enough to satisfy a city.

Today, however, it seems that if a building doesn't have a ridiculous and unnecessary component, like the horror of bars outside of windows, then the design lacks vision and edge.

I think that the real reason people seem to love this building is the fact that it has a spire, albeit, one that is too large for the building's height. This fact, distorts the reality that this is a monstrous, gray, and dreary prison in the sky that looks like it belongs in Tokyo, along with many other boring and predictable designs.

Reducing the number of bars on the facade by half and lightening their color might have saved this effort from mediocrity.

NoyokA
January 18th, 2007, 11:09 PM
As a modernist I have no problem with First Canadian Place. Sure it’s a little boring and not very innovative but it’s based on solid modernist principles, chief among them form following function. The facade restricts about the same amount of sunlight and allows the same amount of visibility but it does so through ribbon windows and aluminum horizontal spandrels. I don’t have the exact figures but there is no question that a repetitive pattern of aluminum and glass is enormously less expensive than an entire facade of floor to ceiling glass and then an entirely other concealing facade or ceramic rods. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself, but the reason I don’t like the NYTIMES Building is because it is to me, a modernist, so conspicuously false. Taking First Canadian Place as an example you get the same purpose and in the end an even similar look for something that cost considerably less. For the excess in money and frills that they invested in the NYTIMES building I would expect something much more, something better.

lbjefferies
January 18th, 2007, 11:17 PM
Today, however, it seems that if a building doesn't have a ridiculous and unnecessary component, like the horror of bars outside of windows,....

This fact, distorts the reality that this is a monstrous, gray, and dreary prison


Show me a single prison in the world that remotely resembles this building and I might consider taking your point seriously. Until then, ease off the hyperbole.

londonlawyer
January 19th, 2007, 05:19 PM
Does anyone know how tall this building is at the top of the screens? I've heard some people say 800 and some say 850. It appears to be the latter, as it is quite tall.

TREPYE
January 20th, 2007, 11:07 AM
I think that the real reason people seem to love this building is the fact that it has a spire, albeit, one that is too large for the building's height. This fact, distorts the reality that this is a monstrous, gray, and dreary prison in the sky that looks like it belongs in Tokyo, along with many other boring and predictable designs.

Reducing the number of bars on the facade by half and lightening their color might have saved this effort from mediocrity.

Again with this color nonsense?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why is it that this opaque gray color looks dreary on the times tower but yet it is basically the same color as other towers that people love (such as the flatiron, San remo)? One of you dopey NYtimes tower critics have yet to give me a good reason for this towers dreariness due to its color meanwhile there are other great towers that have very similar color. And dont tell me the bars because they add to the tower's texture and allow it to be a multifaceted tower. Besides the people who will be shelling out 100 bucks per square foot dont seem to think of it as a prison.




Can one of you people who get suicidal by looking at this Towers' "dreary" color explain to me what makes this so different than some of those early 20th century buildings.


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

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

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5004/flatironbuilding6mk0.jpg


http://www.aviewoncities.com/img/nyc/kveus0660b.jpg

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5647/municipalbuildingetunitedstatescourthouse2wx9.jpg


And NO this tower does NOT have a spire it has a mast. One that accentuates the theme of the towers dissolving effect up top. Its starts with the screens moving farther apart in the crown and then becoming a beam that dissolves to point.

stache
January 20th, 2007, 12:18 PM
You are trying to compare stone, which has a natural warmth, to enamel, which does not.

lofter1
January 20th, 2007, 03:17 PM
Actually the Rods are covered with a Ceramic Glaze, not an enamel ...

CERAMIC GLAZE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_glaze) is akin to GLASS and is termed an AMORPHOUS SOLID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous)

MidtownGuy
January 20th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Stone is completely different. A dopey, non-sensical comparison.

MidtownGuy
January 20th, 2007, 03:31 PM
Plus that top photo, and many others on the thread, have horribly inaccurate color balance. Look how blue everything is in that photo, including the grey. It has a much less saturated hue in reality than what you're asking us to base a comparison on.

lbjefferies
January 20th, 2007, 10:50 PM
They had to shut down 40th street because glass was falling down from the tower today. FYI

antinimby
January 20th, 2007, 11:07 PM
Glass or ice?

It could very well be ice.

lofter1
January 20th, 2007, 11:52 PM
They had to shut down 40th street because glass was falling down from the tower today. FYI


Part of the price of living in the big city ;)

NoyokA
January 21st, 2007, 12:47 PM
I sincerely hope its glass. NYC hasn't experienced much of a freeze this year, if the building has a problem with ice it could be a nightmare. Take the Bloomberg Tower as an example and how its been years and the subway entrance there to my knowledge still hasn't opened.

stache
January 21st, 2007, 02:08 PM
Bloomberg Tower is using the ice problem as a ruse.

lbjefferies
January 21st, 2007, 04:28 PM
For what it's worth, the copper who stopped me said it was glass. It must have been a decent amount of glass because there were like five fire trucks and at least as many police cars.

TREPYE
January 21st, 2007, 06:41 PM
Stone is completely different. A dopey, non-sensical comparison.

I am not comparing materials used I am comparing color. When I read some of you guys comments (with figurative violins playing in the background) about the dreariness of the tower you are usually talking about its color, not the material that its made from. As for the pictures; I used 2 different pics to demonstrate multiple shades the facade produces.

lofter1
January 21st, 2007, 06:49 PM
The low rise section along W. 40th with lights on ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_29a.jpg

They've re-aligned the pedestrian passageway at the corner of 40th / 8th Avenue so that you now pass under the building --

And they are seriously digging up that corner for the subway entrance ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/NY%20Times%20Tower/L1NYT_29b.jpg

stache
January 21st, 2007, 07:33 PM
That's a new entrance, yes?

jeffpark
January 21st, 2007, 08:01 PM
is the building %100 leased yet.?

lofter1
January 21st, 2007, 08:34 PM
That's a new entrance, yes?

I think there was one here before -- but memory can play tricks.

There's a staircase across 40th on the southside of the street -- and two on either side of 40th on the west side of 8th Ave.

finnman69
January 22nd, 2007, 03:35 PM
Again with this color nonsense?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why is it that this opaque gray color looks dreary on the times tower but yet it is basically the same color as other towers that people love (such as the flatiron, San remo)?


But it does go beyond the material itself. The Times building is a high tech building, Renzo Piano is a high tech architect. The gray tone to me and likely others seems low tech and tired. When I think high tech I think of crisp shiny clean materials. that you can look at the rods from far away and equate or mistake them with traditional stone buildings is a huge problem IMO.

Wrightfan
January 22nd, 2007, 06:10 PM
Bloomberg Tower is using the ice problem as a ruse.It's the MTA refusing to open. Not the tower owners.

Kris
February 1st, 2007, 07:16 AM
http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/nyc07/nyc07_8.jpg

http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/nyc07/nyc07_9.jpg

http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/nyc07/nyc07_10.jpg

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124705

lofter1
February 1st, 2007, 09:18 AM
The rods are looking very light-toned in those pics ^^^ ;)

TallGuy
February 1st, 2007, 09:31 AM
Shame on you for not turning off 'all portable electronics' :)

I'd taken similar shots with my old 3.2 MP (I fly cross country frquently) but haven't since I upgraded to an 8 MP camera. Looking at your pictures meakes me want to pack my camera again, especially since I'll be flying into LaGuardia next month.

stache
February 1st, 2007, 07:07 PM
It looks massive coming in to the GW bridge on 80 East.

Bob
February 1st, 2007, 07:10 PM
Thy rod and thy staff comfort me.

Peakrate212
February 1st, 2007, 08:57 PM
Do we like it? Jury is still out with me......

macreator
February 1st, 2007, 09:57 PM
For me I won't know until the exterior glass extension on the roof is complete. But for now, it doesn't do it for me.

finnman69
February 3rd, 2007, 02:45 PM
For me I won't know until the exterior glass extension on the roof is complete. But for now, it doesn't do it for me.


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

NoyokA
February 3rd, 2007, 03:12 PM
To clarify the roof extension will be all rods, there will be no glass.

CARLOS
February 3rd, 2007, 04:10 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/CIMG1294.jpg

finnman69
February 4th, 2007, 09:41 PM
To clarify the roof extension will be all rods, there will be no glass.


you are right

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

NYguy
February 5th, 2007, 08:18 AM
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2235664.ece

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

05 February 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TonyO
February 5th, 2007, 09:26 AM
The New York Times group admitted last week it had plunged into the red at the end of 2006 because it had to write off $814m of its investment in the Globe and other New England papers.

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


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

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

MidtownGuy
February 5th, 2007, 12:07 PM
When engineers craned into place the final section of the 300ft steel mast atop the New York Times tower last November, the 52-storey skyscraper became Manhattan's third-tallest building.

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

lofter1
February 8th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Framework for the awning over the entrance to the Tower on W. 40th Street ...

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