View Full Version : Times Square Tower - 7 Times Square / 42nd @ B'way & 7th Ave - by S.O.M.

Pages : [1] 2

February 3rd, 2002, 01:05 AM
2 February 2002 pictures of Times Square Tower at 7 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/)




February 3rd, 2002, 03:05 AM
Still not much above ground...
Is it where the big BA Concorde used to be ?

February 3rd, 2002, 04:15 AM
Yes, but since it wasn't Air France...no big loss. ;)

February 3rd, 2002, 09:23 AM
Totally agree.
I would have shed a few nervous tears and be mad at NY for at least... 15 minutes probably.

October 7th, 2002, 10:58 PM
The steel beams of the seventh floor of Times Square Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) in front of the Bush Tower. The view from 41st Street on 8 June 2002.


42nd Street side of 7 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) and 5 Times Square on 5 October 2002.


October 12th, 2002, 10:58 PM
Times Square Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) rises above 1 Times Square Building on 12 October 2002. The view from Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/times_square/) along Seventh Avenue.


October 13th, 2002, 06:52 AM
Beautiful picture.
I like the Blade Runner ambiance.
And the progress at Times Square Tower is spectacular too.

October 14th, 2002, 11:34 PM
Looking at Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/times_square/) buildings from New York Passenger Ship Terminal. The 1 Astor Plaza Building, on the left, was erected in 1970. The high-tech skyscraper in the center is Conde Nast (4 Times Square) (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/), it appeared on New York skyline in 1999. The Reuters Building came in 2001. The architect of Reuters and Conde Nast, standing across the street from each other, is Fox & Fowle. The tropical tower with unfinished roof on the right is Westin New York at Times Square Hotel (http://www.wirednewyork.com/hotels/westin_times_square_hotel/) that will soon open its doors to New York visitors. The hotel was built on the site of a stip club, in a effort to make 42nd Street tourist friendly. The glass tower behind the hotel with the logo EY on top is Ernst & Young National Headquarters (5 Times Square); construction nears completion. The steel beams of 7 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/), a.k.a. Times Square Tower, rise between Reuters and Ernst & Young buildings. The pictures was taken on 5 October 2002.


October 15th, 2002, 01:00 AM
Great pictures Edward! *I love how Times Square Tower encloses Times Square and makes 1 Times Square stand out against a new modern skyscraper. *Maybe not great design, okay though, and beneficial in creating a sense of place. *Didn't KPF design 5 Times Square though?

November 15th, 2002, 12:43 AM
Seventh Avenue, The Park Central Hotel, and the construction of 7 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) on 13 November 2002.


November 15th, 2002, 02:01 AM
I like the enclosure that this building will provide, but the architecture leaves something to be desired for. Conde Nast raised the bar, but 5 and 10 Times Square will probably be looked at as designs of our tech obsessed society. 20 years from now, I don't think these will be looked back with the fondness that we show Citicorp or the WFC, but the "blade runner" effect is quite evident in the October 12th pic.

Who designed this building again? Was it David Childs? I'd like to see the view from Jersey of this going up. Something tells me this will be like 5 Times Square in that the view down 7th Ave of it will be much better than the view of it from across the river.

TLOZ Link5
November 15th, 2002, 04:48 PM
I'm really excited about the construction of TSQ Tower, but it'd really be cool if it were a thousand-footer. *Regardless, it's a great design.

November 15th, 2002, 05:44 PM
I agree it's the perfect spot for a thousand footer, but I'll take it.

Rich Battista
November 16th, 2002, 12:15 AM
Whoever stated the informantion about the "bladerunner" effect on the November 12 pic, you are absolutely right. The overcast skies and dementions of the street give it that type of effect.

November 16th, 2002, 06:34 AM
That was me.
I'm so proud! :)

November 18th, 2002, 08:29 PM
The view on Times Square buildings from Tenth Avenue. 17 November 2002.


November 19th, 2002, 10:59 AM
Do you have any pictures of the curtain wall on the Broadway side? *It's very odd.

November 19th, 2002, 02:08 PM
Still no sign of any work on the antenna of the Conde Nast... I thought that was imminent.

November 19th, 2002, 02:57 PM

November 22nd, 2002, 01:41 PM
Awesome View from atop Times Square Tower...

Image from us.news1.yimg.com

A harnessed iron worker pauses on a platform on the upper reaches of Times Square Tower, an office building under construction, in New York, November 20, 2002. When completed in 2003, the 1.2 million square-foot building will rise 47 stories over Times Square (background). The cost of constructing major office buildings in major U.S. cities should come down following the passage of a bill by Congress this week providing government backing for insurers in case of another attack similar to the one on September 11. REUTERS/Peter Morgan

November 22nd, 2002, 03:02 PM
Imagine a future office there. That has to be the best view in the city.

November 22nd, 2002, 03:13 PM
Especially on New Years Eve - the ball falls right there.

November 22nd, 2002, 03:16 PM
In fact, given where One Times Square is in the photo, the ball would be right in the center of this shot. *I wonder if it's possible to get a spot in the carcass of the Tower during new year's eve.

Rich Battista
November 22nd, 2002, 07:55 PM
that would be very cool, what do you mean when someone said before about Conde Nast's antennae needing work?????? *Whats wrong with it, is it not lighting up at night or something??????

November 25th, 2002, 08:59 AM
Rich-see the thread below. They are putting a new 358' antenna on top of Conde Nast....!....


TLOZ Link5
November 25th, 2002, 07:27 PM
that'd bring the total height of the building to about 1170 feet. *Would that count as a thousand-footer, since the antenna would have a function and not be simply an aesthetic structure?

Rich Battista
November 28th, 2002, 01:35 PM
wow, this is great news!!!!!! I hope that the new tower will be lit up and will stand out even more on the NYC skyline than before. Is the tower going to be a straight up pole or will it have kind of a spire look to it????

November 28th, 2002, 02:30 PM
Reflection of 4 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/) in the glass of 7 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/). Thanksgiving day 2002.


November 28th, 2002, 03:42 PM

November 28th, 2002, 04:11 PM
The pattern on the windows is interesting. I wonder what it'll look like on a larger scale.

TLOZ Link5
November 29th, 2002, 03:01 PM
Quote: from Rich Battista on 1:35 pm on Nov. 28, 2002
wow, this is great news!!!!!! I hope that the new tower will be lit up and will stand out even more on the NYC skyline than before. Is the tower going to be a straight up pole or will it have kind of a spire look to it????

I'm guessing that there will be some sort of architectural flair to the transmission mast, and I'm definitely sure that it will be floodlit at night. *I wonder if the construction will include a few added floors to the top of Condé Nast...? *I doubt it, but you never know...

November 29th, 2002, 04:34 PM
We ca hope for some fancy structure at the top only if the building can support the extra weight.

November 29th, 2002, 05:45 PM
I am so glad this feature is included into the TXSQ Tower, so vivid, cutting edge. I forget what book it was, SOM Urban 1995-2000? but it had the sharpest renderings of Times Square Tower. The entire tower was black with these zigzags, a central spire pierced the sky. It was the coolest building I had ever seen, never seen anything like it, from Childs something more futuristic and crisp than anything from the boards of *Foster. It would've been amazing.

December 22nd, 2002, 10:35 PM
Gray winter sky over Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/times_square/) skyscrapers. The steel of 7 Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) going up. The view from New York Passenger Ship Terminal (http://www.wirednewyork.com/piers/nypst/). 21 December 2002.


December 23rd, 2002, 09:48 AM
Is it topped out yet?

TLOZ Link5
December 23rd, 2002, 02:49 PM
Quote: from BrooklynRider on 9:48 am on Dec. 23, 2002
Is it topped out yet?

I'd say that is has about 12 more stories to go. *It's supposed to be taller than Westin TSQ. *A lot taller.

December 25th, 2002, 08:48 AM
It's good to have a peak, even a relative one. The Conde Nast will still be the tallest, but a longer antenna would help. Times Square needs a clearer and more distinct identity on the skyline, and the Times building will not be in the heart but on a margin of the district.

James Kovata
December 25th, 2002, 10:26 AM
I think it's going to look great. *Can't wait to see it when I visit in March.

TLOZ Link5
December 25th, 2002, 01:37 PM
Quote: from Christian Wieland on 8:48 am on Dec. 25, 2002
It's good to have a peak, even a relative one. The Conde Nast will still be the tallest, but a longer antenna would help. Times Square needs a clearer and more distinct identity on the skyline, and the Times building will not be in the heart but on a margin of the district.

But since Condé Nast's new spire will be almost equal to the height of NYT Tower, they will seemingly form a gateway to the district, like with 2IF and Union Square in Hong Kong. *At least, that's how I see it...

December 26th, 2002, 02:43 AM
Edward, love the pic! The new Times Square buildlings really stand out well against the dark sky, and it's the best I've seen Conde Nast and the Westin look; especially now that the Teligent sign has been removed! Wasn't 10 TSQ *supposed to be topped out at 720 ft.?

December 31st, 2002, 04:28 PM
Just saw a shot on Fox News of the buidling behind the building where they drop the ball. It rocked! I can't wait to see this done and what the view of New Year's 2004 will look like from the top of this.

January 12th, 2003, 11:26 PM
Times Square (http://www.wirednewyork.com/times_square/) skyscrapers on a cold January day. The high-tech 4xSq (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/), 3xSq (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/3xsq/), recently opened Westin Times Square Hotel (http://www.wirednewyork.com/hotels/westin_times_square_hotel/), 7xSq (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) under construction, 5xSq (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/5xsq/). 12 January 2003.


January 13th, 2003, 12:43 AM
Pretty new pic Edward! I find it interesting, how 1 Astor Plaza/1515 B'way looks very 60's, while the Times Square cluster looks very sleek and futuristic! I'm pretty sure that I'm going to enjoy 10 xSq. more looking down 7th. Ave, than from the river...just as I do with the Ernst and Young Building.

January 13th, 2003, 02:05 AM
Yum......!!!!! * Thanks, Edward. * I love seeing skyscrapers going up!

TLOZ Link5
January 13th, 2003, 05:04 PM
It looks pretty close to topping out in that photograph. *It's about flush with the advertising displays atop Condé Nast.

January 13th, 2003, 10:07 PM
I don't have a digital camera or a scanner, but if I did, I would take a picture of the construction from Grace plaza on 43rd and Sixth ave. *It's a really neat view and it's going to be gone when One Bryant Park is built.

Rich Battista
January 14th, 2003, 09:20 PM
wow, Times Square is beautiful now in every angle you look at it. It has turned into such a beautiful area.

TLOZ Link5
January 15th, 2003, 10:55 AM
I agree. *The way it looks now has reaffirmed its status as the center of the world.

January 21st, 2003, 03:52 PM
There seems to be work on a skeletal extension that would be unoccupied. 728 feet.

The fascade is taking a long time to finish, it is by far my favorite aspect of this project.

January 21st, 2003, 04:32 PM
If that 728 figure is accurate then it will come to about the height of the top of the signs on Conde Naster. Only the antenna structure will be higher.

January 27th, 2003, 10:23 PM
Times Square Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) under construction, between Bush Tower and Conde Nast Building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/). 26 January 2003.


January 28th, 2003, 10:57 AM
Interesting. *The skin looks almost translucent. *Despite the renderings suggesting otherwise, you don't see that very often.

January 29th, 2003, 04:40 AM
Daily News...

Law lease

After losing Arthur Andersen as its first tenant, Boston Properties has signed another to move into Times Square Tower, its new 47-story building.

O'Melveny & Myers, the Los Angeles-based law firm of former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, has agreed to lease 200,000 square feet in the tower.

O'Melveny will pay rent starting in the $60-per-square foot range, a source said. It will take floors 27 through 32, and the third floor. The rest of the building remains unleased.

Robert Bundy of The Staubach Company represented O'Melveny, while John Powers and Peter Turchin of Insignia/ESG represented the developer. (Boston Properties chairman, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, also is chairman and co-publisher of the Daily News.)

Another lawfirm, Clifford Chance, is considering leasing 400,000 square feet in the building, but also is exploring other sites.

January 29th, 2003, 11:17 AM
Times Square is looking nice. The Conde Nast and the Westin give it a nice element. As soon as they fix the antenna on the Conde Nast and the Times Square Tower is completed Times Square will be one of the best parts of the NYC skyline.

January 29th, 2003, 01:32 PM
Don't forget about 11 times square. *It should start construction once an anchor tenant is signed on.

January 29th, 2003, 02:01 PM
Thanks, Edward.

February 18th, 2003, 12:41 PM
A quick shot from 7th Ave. and 42nd St. - Feb. 15


(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 1:21 pm on Feb. 18, 2003)

(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 2:24 pm on Feb. 18, 2003)

TLOZ Link5
February 18th, 2003, 03:51 PM
Very nice. *Thanks, Knight.

February 18th, 2003, 05:32 PM
I didn't notice the diagonal bracing struts in the building skeleton until I saw this last picture. *I wonder how they are masked in the curtain wall.

March 12th, 2003, 09:46 AM
Seems some were having trouble opening the big pictures on that other thread, so I'll post here.

March 9, 2003

Some shots of the fantastic glass going up on the Times Square Tower


Shiny metal zig-zag pattern on reflective blue glass




Though you can't see it in this shot, the cross-bracing is visible underneath the glass. I wonder if these will be illuminated at all.


Patterns change at every angle.


March 12th, 2003, 10:01 AM
Oh, so pretty! *No offense to those that hate that word.

March 12th, 2003, 10:06 AM
The last picture is best, IMO.

March 12th, 2003, 10:20 AM
I think this is one SOM building that looks better in actuality than the rendering.

March 12th, 2003, 10:41 AM
I know! I had no idea this building would be so cool from the rendering.

March 12th, 2003, 12:55 PM
I agree. Most of the time, the rendering gives a better impression than the reality.
This one is a good surprise.

March 12th, 2003, 01:48 PM
I agree...the facade is fantastic...one of the best especially with the variety of shapes and patterns! *Good news w/ the cross bracing showing through the glass as well.

I also love the color of the green-blue glass especially w/the other buildings around it.

The reality is MUCH better than the renderings...WOW...this is a great addition to TS.

(Edited by diVinci at 1:49 pm on Mar. 12, 2003)

March 12th, 2003, 01:56 PM
Quote: from diVinci on 1:48 pm on Mar. 12, 2003
*Good news w/ the cross bracing showing through the glass as well.

Are you sure ?
I wish it was more visible.

March 12th, 2003, 02:11 PM
Fabb...just responding to NYatKnight's comment about the bracing being visible as a liner note below one of the photos. *

Hopefully it will be very visible...

March 12th, 2003, 03:12 PM
On th 42nd street side of the building, they're in the process of adding exterior elements that echo the cross-bracing underneath the glass.

March 12th, 2003, 03:55 PM
Looks like the skin is going to be quite sophisticated.

March 26th, 2003, 05:22 PM
what happened to this building? is it still around?

March 26th, 2003, 05:34 PM
That's 1 Times Square, now covered entirely by advertisements.

March 26th, 2003, 08:27 PM
And re-clad with travertine in the sixties.

March 26th, 2003, 08:29 PM
wow, it really changed (lol); but does it still have that original skin and if so, why did they ever cover up such beautiful building with bilboards and advertisements?

March 26th, 2003, 08:40 PM
There's photos of it somewhere in this forum.

TLOZ Link5
March 26th, 2003, 09:09 PM
Excerpt from Lost New York on 1 Times Square:

"The Times Tower was begun in 1903 in what was then Longacre Square. *Completed in 1905, it was twenty-five stories high, and New York's second-tallest structure. *It was also known as 'the second Flatiron Building,' because of its shape—both buildings being characteristic of Broadway's acute-angle intersection with avenues. *The New York Times outgrew the building in 1913, but owned it until 1961. *The new owner had it stripped down to bare steel and remodeled by the architectural descendants of the original designers, Cyrus L.W. Eidlitz and Andrew C. McKenzie. *The bland effacement reopened in 1966...What is now at No. 1 Times Square, at the Crossroads of the World, is not an important New York building, but only another piece of outdoor advertising—a junior-executive monument self-dedicated to 'the show business of big business.'"

(Edited by TLOZ Link5 at 9:11 pm on Mar. 26, 2003)

March 27th, 2003, 05:37 PM
They should restore it to its original condition. There's enough room in the area to move current billboards of 1 Times Square to other buildings; if it's imperative that the Times Square remain the "billboard capital of the world." (a hint of sarcasm there)
I'm all for progress and super tall skyscrapers but why mess with history?

March 27th, 2003, 05:44 PM
1 Times Square has its place in history because on New Years Eve that's where THE BALL is. Next Dec. 31 there will be an illuminated building in the background for the first time. I almost think the ball should be relocated to the top of The Times Square Tower because of the way all the new buildings completely overpower little 1 Times Square. Then again, why mess with history...

March 27th, 2003, 06:04 PM
Why not add on to 1 Times Square and make it taller? Especially with the completion of many new tall buildings that surround it. *I'm sure that the new advertising revenue could help pay for some of the construction costs.

March 27th, 2003, 06:16 PM
The issue is not about moving the ball anywhere; it's about appreciating what you’ve got. It’s about creating a homeostasis between the old and the new. It’s about controlling your narcissictic tendencies and whatever screwed up tastes you might have today, while giving a damn about those who came before you.

It’s about progress, but only when that progress is forward; not when it’s one-step forward and two steps backwards. And it’s about creating a trully great city that appreciates its past, not a soulless city for and by beaurocratic multinationals.

March 27th, 2003, 06:34 PM
Too late now. They should raze and replace it with something better.

March 27th, 2003, 06:46 PM
Frank Gehry had plans in 2001.

March 27th, 2003, 07:10 PM
I think I remember them. Maybe I have the wrong one, but was that the giant cheese grater?

March 27th, 2003, 07:36 PM
Im not exactly sure why this one fell through, it was however seriously looked at.


It is however for the best.

March 27th, 2003, 10:10 PM
Oh dear.

March 27th, 2003, 10:24 PM
it's better than what they've got right now

TLOZ Link5
March 28th, 2003, 05:06 PM
Quote: from jack on 10:24 pm on Mar. 27, 2003
it's better than what they've got right now

If only by the slimmest of margins =\

April 13th, 2003, 08:43 PM
Times Square skyscrapers and Times Square Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) under construction. 9 March 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/skyscrapers/times_square_tower/10times_square_waterway_9march03.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/)

April 13th, 2003, 08:47 PM
The Westin is gorgeous, TXSQ Tower proud... Great composition of creative architecture.

May 26th, 2003, 08:41 PM
Times Square Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) under construction. The view from 49th Street and Seventh Avenue. 26 May 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/skyscrapers/times_square_tower/10times_square_49th_26may03.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/)

May 26th, 2003, 11:08 PM
Holy sh*t.

That's one beautiful building.

May 27th, 2003, 12:46 AM
Whats that structure on top of it? I don't remember anything like that from the renderings. It looks permanent.

May 27th, 2003, 06:49 AM
I think it's very similar to the rendering. No big surprise so far :


May 27th, 2003, 10:09 AM
Taken sometime between May 17-21



May 27th, 2003, 10:10 AM
It's even better than the rendering - full of surprises.

May 27th, 2003, 04:37 PM
...full of lovely details.

May 27th, 2003, 06:09 PM
It looks fussy and incoherent. The only things I like about it are its size and the "electric" portion of its skin.

May 27th, 2003, 06:23 PM
well, fabb is excited. And I have to admit this building has an energy.

May 27th, 2003, 06:58 PM
im really happy with this building, the impact it has when youre looking down 7th ave or Bway is immense since its also so narrow on that end, i always felt 1 times sq was too short, this building finishes the job.

May 27th, 2003, 09:02 PM
I'm with Christian on this one.

May 27th, 2003, 09:25 PM
"I'm with Christian on this one."

me too.

May 28th, 2003, 10:15 AM
Fussy an incoherent? *It kind of reminds me of a classic club girl from the 1980's: spandex pants, zebra print shirt, leggings, capezios, head band, gold jewelry and lots of make-up. *The curtain wall seems to express all of those elements in a wrap around kind of way. *

June 10th, 2003, 01:07 PM
I agree, 1 times sq really needed something like the times sq tower to fill up the gap.

Times sq tower is great, i cant wait for it to be finished. The glass and the shape and everything is just so times square!

June 10th, 2003, 05:11 PM
10 Times Square will definitely look good with the skyline. It will also get rid of the gap as well.

June 10th, 2003, 05:13 PM
You mean the Gap ?
I hope it'll still be there.

June 10th, 2003, 05:17 PM
Quote: from Fabb on 4:13 pm on June 10, 2003
You mean the Gap ?
I hope it'll still be there.

Gap as in space between buildings. Not that Gap as in the store :biggrin: :biggrin:.

June 10th, 2003, 05:31 PM
There's one near 10 Times Square, right ?
Otherwise it's just a bad joke that doesn't make any sense.

June 11th, 2003, 12:17 AM
Quote: from Fabb on 4:31 pm on June 10, 2003
There's one near 10 Times Square, right ?
Otherwise it's just a bad joke that doesn't make any sense.

Oh OK. 10 Times Square will certainly complement Times Square.

June 11th, 2003, 07:58 AM
Does anyone think that SOM would be the best firm to work for, because at the moment theve got the CIBC building, Aol time warner, times sq tower and 7 wtc.

Well it would be the firm with the most work, maybe.

June 22nd, 2003, 03:08 PM
Photos taken yesterday (sat)...



June 22nd, 2003, 03:33 PM
The pattern of the façade gives a pleasant visual impression. Almost like a trompe l'œil. (I'm allowed to say that, right ?)

June 22nd, 2003, 05:00 PM
It would help if you translated.

June 22nd, 2003, 05:15 PM
Actually, it's in the Webster's dictionary.
Originally, it's a technique used in painting so as to delude the eye. I don't know if the term can be used in architecture.

Here, I have the impression that the façade is slightly curved, but it's not.

June 25th, 2003, 11:19 AM
I have received an email from Boston Properties saying that Times Square Tower's address is 7 Times Square, not 10 Times Square.

Anyone has a definitive answer to that?

TLOZ Link5
June 25th, 2003, 12:12 PM
Six Times Square is the former Knickerbocker Hotel. *Three through Five are the new headquarters buildings for Conde Nast, Reuters and E&Y. *One Times Square is obvious. *Two Times Square is the signage tower at the opposite end of the bowtie. *And XSqT is now featured on ss.com as 7 XSq.

June 25th, 2003, 12:13 PM
NYPost has it as 7 Times Square too...



Insert billboard here

June 24, 2003 -- WACHOVIA Bank, expanding its consumer presence in the city, is taking its message to the "Crossroads of the World."

Wachovia just signed a short-term lease for a jumbo sign high on the north face of Times Square Tower, aka 7 Times Square - Boston Properties' gleaming new green-glass tower, which is nearing completion on 42nd Street between Broadway and Seventh Avenues.

Boston was repped by Sherwood Outdoor, which is also the agent for sign spaces on 1 and 2 Times Square.

The sign will be mounted from floors 34 to 37 of the 47-story skyscraper as early as August.

Sherwood chairman Jeffrey Katz it will be about 50 feet wide and 40 feet high - an eye-popper even for Times Square.

Looking south from the "bow tie," it will stand above and behind the Discover Card signs at the top of 1 Times Square and be seen by a worldwide TV audience of billions on New Year's Eve.

But Wachovia's lease only extends until the building opens next winter, when Sherwood will have the job of finding a permanent sign tenant.

"Wachovia will get to see what kind of response the temporary sign gets," a Times Square source said.

"Then they can decide whether to commit to the more expensive option of a long-term lease and creating an electrical spectacular."

Terms of the 7 Times Square deal were not disclosed. Supersigns on 2 Times Square, five blocks north, have been reported to run $2.5 million a year for long-term leases. Fleet, HSBC and Chase all have prominent supersigns nearby.

The sleek, trapezoidal 7 Times Square, which cleaves Broadway and Seventh Avenue like a latter-day Flatiron Building, was built for Arthur Andersen. The firm's collapse left Boston with 1.1 million square feet of office space to fill, a task for Insignia/ESG team heavy-hitter John Powers.

Law firm O'Melveny & Myers has already signed on for 200,000 square feet on floors 27 to 34. The sign will overlap some windows on O'Melveny's highest floor - "which they knew when they took it," Powers said.

June 25th, 2003, 02:57 PM
so whats the final height on this building? Is it 696 ft or 720?

June 25th, 2003, 03:07 PM
Between 720 and 730. I think 726.

June 25th, 2003, 08:37 PM
Quote: from Gulcrapek on 3:07 pm on June 25, 2003
Between 720 and 730. I think 726.
726 is what skyscrapers.com shows.

TLOZ Link5
June 26th, 2003, 08:02 PM
This building is certainly a surprise, considering that it's an SOM project. *It would have been nicer if Wachovia had also become an office tenant; but in this economy, beggars can't be choosers.

June 30th, 2003, 09:49 PM
I am going to update all references to Times Square Tower from 10 Times Square to 7 Times Square.

July 1st, 2003, 08:30 PM
TS Tower and neighbors...




July 6th, 2003, 04:25 PM
Looking up, July 5



July 7th, 2003, 03:52 PM
I hate to admit it but the height of a building is part of it's aesthetic and I'm a sucker for anything tall. Still, it would have been nice if it complimented 1840 Bway (my favorite building) a bit.

July 7th, 2003, 04:44 PM
Quote: from Kommissar on 3:52 pm on July 7, 2003
I hate to admit it but the height of a building is part of it's aesthetic and I'm a sucker for anything tall. Still, it would have been nice if it complimented 1840 Bway (my favorite building) a bit. You sure that you don't mean 1540 Bway (Bertelsmann Building)?

July 8th, 2003, 03:01 AM
Doh. 1540. You are correct. I snuck up there right after it was built in the early 90s to check out the interior. It had the tightest high-tech security I've ever seen in an office building (because of the music biz).

July 8th, 2003, 06:53 AM
I have what could be a silly question--why is it that photos of buildings such as this one, and the AOL Time/Warner towers, seem to show a few windows that aren't installed yet? There's always a few panes of glass missing at random. Is that because in any construction process, glass can break or problems can arise, or do they do that on purpose for some reason?

July 8th, 2003, 01:38 PM
Interesting question.
Maybe it's a natural cooling system before the installation of the air conditioning.

TLOZ Link5
July 8th, 2003, 08:58 PM
But the missing windows on TWC are covered with plywood.

July 9th, 2003, 02:16 AM
This happens on all curtainwall construction that I've ever seen. *I really don't know why. *Just a quick anecdote: *

Shortly after the attacks of 2001, I was visiting the Trade Center *site. *The Ritz-Carleton was still under construction at the time. *Its curtain wall was complete, but it had the missing windows and plywood that we've been talking about. *Looking north from Battery Park (which was about as close as you could get at the time), I overheard a man say to his companion (in a mid-western accent, of course), "Look, the force of the blast must have blown out the windows all the way over here." *I didn't say anything.

July 30th, 2003, 02:49 PM
photos taken 7/27/03



July 30th, 2003, 03:47 PM
Looks good. Not sure about that sign though.

July 30th, 2003, 04:08 PM
I don't know what sign you're talking about. But the building looks good for sure.
Its skin is surprising by night.

July 30th, 2003, 04:13 PM
Clarendon Takes 83,000 SF at Times Square Tower
By Barbara Jarvie
Last updated: Jul 29, 2003 *11:31AM

NEW YORK CITY-Clarendon Insurance Group Inc. has taken three full floors comprising 83,000 sf at Boston Properties’ Times Square Tower. The lease, which was brokered by Studley, includes a five-year delayed possession on approximately 27,000 sf of that space. Financial details of the lease were not released, however according to Studley's second quarter office market and space data report, class A office space in Midtown is averaging $55.44 per sf.
Clarendon will nearly double its space when it moves from its present location at 1177 Avenue of the Americas, where the firm occupies multiple floors, into its new Times Square headquarters. The company, a US-based property and casualty insurance company whose parent company is Hannover Re, the fifth largest reinsurer in the world, will take possession of its new facilities in September. According to a Studley spokesperson, Clarendon’s projected growth required a larger facility and being in a new building with increased efficiencies was very desirable.

Clarendon was in the market for approximately one year and during that time briefly considered options Downtown and areas outside of the city, the Studley spokesperson adds. However, many of the firm’s employees live in the tri-state area and, as an employee retention measure, keeping commuting time to a minimum was a key objective. Therefore, the firm decided a Midtown address was the best fit for its needs.

The 47-story, 1.2 million sf skyscraper, which is also known as 7 Times Square, is currently under construction on an entire block bounded by Broadway and Seventh Avenue, between 42nd and 41st Street. It is scheduled to open in 2004. Clarendon joins O'Melveny & Myers LLP, one of the 20th largest law firms in the country, which will occupy 206,958 sf on the third and the 27th through 33rd floors of the tower. The firm inked a deal for the space this past January. The tower is the second Boston Properties project in Times Square. The other is 5 Times Square, a 37-story, 1.1 million-sf office building which opened in May 2002 and is 100% leased to Ernst & Young.

Bruce Rothman, corporate managing director of Studley’s local office, represented Clarendon in the 20-year leasing transaction. Insignia/ESG represented Boston Properties. “Times Square Tower’s exceptional design, state-of-the-art technology, central location and competitive rental rates ideally suited Clarendon’s office space requirements,” explains Rothman. “In addition, the building’s floor plates are much larger than at its present address, which offers significant operational efficiencies.” The building enjoys a special 20-year tax program that offered benefits for Clarendon.

July 30th, 2003, 04:17 PM
Fabb, I was referring to the steel framing around the 34th floor where a permanent advertisement sign will be placed.

July 30th, 2003, 04:24 PM
I see.
Well, you know... this is Times Square.
I hope the complex harmony of the façade won't be ruined by that addition.

July 30th, 2003, 04:33 PM
It'll only add to the cacophony.

July 30th, 2003, 04:36 PM
I wouldnt pass judgement until you actually see the sign. Overall I like the TXSQ Tower, but like you said, the architectural jury is still out for the building, sign and all.

(Edited by Stern at 4:37 pm on July 30, 2003)

TLOZ Link5
July 30th, 2003, 07:27 PM
In regard to our previous discussion about plywood in some of the windows...

I was at Columbus Circle on Monday and obviously took the time to watch the progress and AOL-Time Warner. *I noticed that there are still pieces of plywood in the windows, but also that the cranes that run the height of the building have windbraces which connect them to the building. *The braces connect the building right where the plywood boards are. *Obviously, they wouldn't want to break expensive reflective glass while installing the crane.

August 2nd, 2003, 10:42 PM
The view of Times Square Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/) under construction and Knickerbocker Hotel from Avenue of the Americas. 2 August 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/skyscrapers/times_square_tower/times_square_tower_knickerbocker_hotel_2aug03.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/times-square-tower/)

August 3rd, 2003, 01:50 AM
Another view of the TS Tower, along with the Conde Nast, also taken Aug 2...


August 15th, 2003, 08:13 PM
The whole power outage crisis..... yea...yea. It got me down.

But....today watching TV with the lights and splendor of Times Square and conculding to disregard warnings and blast my A.C. Sleeping off a good but very late last-night perspiring in an irregular sleep with pores clogged with salt water mostly of my own sweat.

And to quit my ramblings. Today on TV news, Timesquare. AC blasting. The Wachovia sign installed on TXSQ Tower and looking great. Feeling horrible, but I already told you'll about that. And I hate sharing my problems. So YEY! new TXSQ signage, rejoice!

August 16th, 2003, 01:25 AM

Anyway the Times Square Tower website is up.
Photo by Jock Pottle of Esto

I don't really care for this tower.

(Edited by Derek2k3 at 1:26 am on Aug. 16, 2003)

August 16th, 2003, 09:24 AM
I think this may be one of the VERY few times the building outdoes the rendering. *

August 17th, 2003, 02:07 AM
There is NO doubt that this building outdoes the rendering! The facade is great and the views down 42nd St or down times square from the north end are nothing short of stunning.

I also feel this way becuse the original rendering was done by Philip Johnson/John Burgee in 1984 as part of the "Times Towers" project. Tacky, kitschy, ugly, and the worst example of Postmodernism in the U.S. after the Portland Building, they were heralded as a corporate way to clean up 42nd Street long before Disney had moved in. There weren't zoning required setbacks either and they could have been placed nearly anywhere in the city.

Times Square got something much better, now that the 4 sites that the orginal towers were supposed to be on, ended up sprouting the Conde Nast, Reuters, Ernst and Young, and Times Square Towers. Nothing against the "current dean of American Architecture", but what we got by Fox and Fowle, KPF, and David Childs was a great improvement!

August 22nd, 2003, 04:53 AM
I think that the complicated skin of the tower is great, if it had any more little random bits on its skin it'd start to look like a circuit board!

September 25th, 2003, 03:59 PM
Its looking sooo good now its crown is the only thing left to finish

any pics?

October 8th, 2003, 04:35 AM

The lobby looks great!

October 8th, 2003, 04:39 AM
Im going to post some veiws from the top:


October 8th, 2003, 04:42 AM

October 8th, 2003, 04:44 AM

October 8th, 2003, 04:46 AM

October 8th, 2003, 10:46 AM
Great views! Especially for the New Years Eve celebration.

TLOZ Link5
October 8th, 2003, 02:52 PM
Emmeka, those pictures are superb. The ESB view is divine!

October 8th, 2003, 03:14 PM
emmeka, how did you get on the top? Are you affiliated with one of the companies working on it? By the way, great pictures.

October 8th, 2003, 06:24 PM


October 10th, 2003, 07:00 AM
lets just say, I have connections.

But what a great place to work right?

October 10th, 2003, 07:10 AM
Ive got some specifications too, but Ive put it in a small font because I dont know if it is copywright or not but if you want me to inlarge it to a readable size then just ask.

:cry: Sorry i took them off, I didnt want to get into trouble :cry:

October 16th, 2003, 09:00 AM
ive noticed that some whiteish panneling is being added to the top, It didnt look like that on the renderings. I hope it dosent stay white.

October 16th, 2003, 02:47 PM
lets just say, I have connections.

But what a great place to work right?

Yeah, but those photos are not yours.

The official website for Times Square Tower is at:


October 16th, 2003, 04:55 PM
Yes, you caught me!

But I do know certain people envloved in the project

Of course, I'm not allowed on site.

October 16th, 2003, 08:15 PM
Why'd you lie about the pictures? What was the point? Here I was thinking you had some special connections... Well, to correct my earlier comment: nice pics---to whoever took them.

NyC MaNiAc
October 16th, 2003, 08:31 PM
Eh-I'm Dissapointed.

October 18th, 2003, 02:59 AM
hey, that's not fair. I did'nt lie. I said 'I have connections', which i do.

I have been on site once but it was about six months ago.

Ive got to say that im a little offended, that you'd call me that. but Im prepared to let it go if you will.

Oh and by the way, the person that took the photos for the website, is my 'connection'

October 18th, 2003, 03:20 PM
wow, those are amazing pics :shock: :shock:

October 21st, 2003, 01:29 PM
The greyish panelling on the crown is coming along nicely and such speed as well!

October 22nd, 2003, 08:17 AM
Go inside KPF's E&Y tower lobby, go to the north east corner of the lobby and take a look at the slot above the entry, the entry itself and the lobby desk in the background.
Now compare it to the proposed lobby design of SOM's Times Square Tower as posted in this forum.
Is SOM being less than original?
Your comments please.

October 22nd, 2003, 11:38 AM
I can see what youre talking about, but you can hardly say that its a copy (i know thats not what you said but thats what you were suggesting), a similar design maybe, but not a copy.

I think that the lobby should have been cut back further into the building with irregulaly shaped mesanine levels for retail use. The mesanines should have steel and glass railings with escalators with clear sides running through the levels, the roof should have something to bring light in like the HSBC building in Hong Kong.

those are my thoughts

November 1st, 2003, 05:25 PM
I was on the Empire State's observation deck today, and I must say the crown is very dull. The grayish panels look much better in the renderings.

November 1st, 2003, 05:27 PM
From ESBcam they look crappy too. Maybe it's meant to highlight the glass slant. Contrast.

November 1st, 2003, 08:05 PM
Took this shot of the TS Tower coming out of the subway today...


November 2nd, 2003, 03:41 AM
Listen folks, dont judge it too quickly ok? I didnt like it at first but then i came to terms with it and now i quite like it.

February 17th, 2004, 11:32 AM
From 18th street corner, looking north up 7th Ave. The tower provides a nice visual anchor...


February 17th, 2004, 01:02 PM
Not fond of the mechanical box... but that's life.

February 17th, 2004, 01:07 PM

What were they thinking, make it white, allow it to dissolve into the sky. If this building ever had a balance the gray top disintintigrates the whole. TXSQ Tower has a nice and energenic east and south facade, it is not however a good building.

February 17th, 2004, 01:07 PM
even for Times Square.

TLOZ Link5
February 17th, 2004, 05:22 PM
I definitely don't like the gray crown. It looks like a concrete hat structure better suited for a '60s skyscraper. Yuck.

February 17th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Walk up Broadway by the time you get to around 37th Street the curtain wall looks spectacular. The zig-zag effect is very effective and the spacing emphasizes it all the more. I can't recall another building in NYC quite like it from this angle.

February 17th, 2004, 06:09 PM
About the crown, I've noticed that when viewed from the east it appears to be transparent/glassy.

February 17th, 2004, 11:06 PM
Transparent, yes. Glassy, no.


TLOZ Link5
February 18th, 2004, 12:29 AM
The building is incredible, ugly transparent and non-glassy crown notwithstanding.

February 18th, 2004, 09:56 AM
I think it is a wind screen for the mechanical units on top.

It is pretty common in modern construction to hide the ugly heat exchangers with a tubular steel framed wind screen.

Ugly, yes, uglier than the HVAC units? No.

March 8th, 2004, 12:11 PM
The building has more bulk than I thought it might.

Taken on 3/7 from the Hudson River Park.


March 8th, 2004, 08:21 PM
It's from that shot that you can also judge the full height of it. Most of the time, all the other buildings hide it. What's also amazing about that photo is all those glass buildings were built in the last 5 or so years. I can't imagine that shot without them.

March 14th, 2004, 12:53 AM
Times Square Tower looks really weird. It looks like a simple building but upon closer examination, its complex.

June 1st, 2004, 11:10 AM

Ann Taylor Chooses Times Square Tower

By Barbara Jarvie
May 28, 2004

NEW YORK CITY-Ann Taylor has chosen Times Square Tower to be its new base of operations. The women’s specialty retailer leaked the choice to its employees in a recent company memo.

Last month, GlobeSt.com exclusively reported that the company was shopping around, with the help of Studley, for approximately 200,000 sf of space and had narrowed the choices down to Boston Properties’ Times Square Tower at 7 Times Square and 340 Madison Ave. Space at Time Square Tower is advertised at a range of $52 to $72 per sf. The retailer anticipates relocating in mid-year 2005. CB Richard Ellis represents Boston Properties at Times Square Tower.

The women’s specialty retailer is currently housed at Metropolitan Tower, 142 West 57th St. In a consolidation effort, the company recently signed on for 42,000 sf of office space in the Crown Corporate Campus in Milford, CT. That 15-year lease arrangement encompasses the entire second floor and a portion of the first floor for the company’s data center and back office operations. Cushman & Wakefield officials who worked on that deal said Ann Taylor will relocate its data center from New York City and its operations group from space in New Haven to the Milford site. Studley represented the company in this transaction as well.

June 2nd, 2004, 07:28 AM
It’s a good prestigious location for a fashion company like Ann Taylor. Strategically its just North of the fashion district and just west of the Grace Building, a mecca of sorts for the fashion industry.

June 14th, 2004, 10:50 PM
Have office tenants physically moved into Times Square Tower yet? How long does it typically take to prepare floors for occupation?

August 4th, 2004, 05:25 PM
Ann Taylor Makes it Official

By Barbara Jarvie
Wednesday, August 4, 2004

NEW YORK CITY-Ann Taylor Stores Corp. closed on lease for 300,000 sf on the fourth through 15th floors at Boston Properties’ 1.2-million-sf Times Square Tower. GlobeSt.com exclusively reported this deal two months ago. Ann Taylor expects to move into its headquarters space next spring.

The retailer will join O'Melveny & Myers, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliff, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Clarendon National Insurance, Pitney Hardin Kipp & Szuch, Condon & Forsyth, and a number of smaller firms in Boston Properties second area project. Its 1.1-million-sf 5 Times Square is the home of Ernst & Young.

Ann Taylor was represented by David Goldstein, executive managing director, Mitchell Steir, chairman and CEO, and Matthew Barlow, executive vice president of Studley. Boston Properties was represented by John Powers, president, tri-state region, Peter Turchin, and Timothy Gibson of CB Richard Ellis.

"Their choice of this building further solidifies Times Square as the business location of choice for firms wanting to be at the forefront of their industry," says Robert Selsam, SVP and manager of the New York region of Boston Properties.

Back in late May, the women’s specialty retailer leaked the choice to its employees in a company memo. The month before GlobeSt.com exclusively reported that the company was shopping around, with the help of Studley, for at least 200,000 sf of space and had narrowed the choices down to Boston Properties’ Times Square Tower and 340 Madison Ave. Space at Time Square Tower is advertised at a range of $52 to $72 per sf.

Ann Taylor is currently housed at Metropolitan Tower, 142 West 57th St. In a consolidation effort, the company is moving its data center and back office operations to Milford, CT.

© 2004 by GlobeSt.com

AnnTaylor signs on for Times Square Tower

August 4, 2004

AnnTaylor Stores Corp. is moving its headquarters to Times Square Tower, according to the building's developer and owner, Boston Properties.

The apparel firm, which will be the building's largest tenant, will occupy 300,000 square feet and plans to move in during the spring of 2005. AnnTaylor's current headquarters are located at 142 W. 57th St. Terms of the lease were not disclosed. Average asking rents for the building are said to be around $52 a square foot. The company was unavailable for immediate comment.

When AnnTaylor moves in, the building, located on 42nd Street, between Broadway and Seventh Avenue, will be 74%-occupied. In 2000, Arthur Andersen signed on to be the anchor tenant of the 1.2 million-square-foot office tower, but after the Enron scandal in 2002, the now-defunct accounting firm pulled out as a tenant.

Other current tenants include law firm O'Melveny & Myers, which occupies about 200,000 square feet, and Clarendon Insurance Group Inc., which takes up 57,000 square feet and will add an additional 26,000 square feet in four years.

Copyright 2004, Crain Communications, Inc

May 29th, 2005, 07:57 PM

http://img173.echo.cx/img173/8535/txsqt5ty.th.jpg (http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=txsqt5ty.jpg)

http://img173.echo.cx/img173/2346/txdist41cs.th.jpg (http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=txdist41cs.jpg)

May 30th, 2005, 08:40 AM
Right there at the "cross roads".... will any other building in NYC be photographed as much as this one? What a lost opportunity....

oh yeah, there are a couple of odd angles...

hella good
May 31st, 2005, 05:11 AM
youre annoying me.

(probably because you keep dissing my favourite buildings)

May 31st, 2005, 06:43 AM
Let me annoy you some more:

Don´t we all want a crown or spire at the top of any building built at this site? It should´ve been obligatory (just as the electric signs were obligatory for construction in TSquare).

A nice jumble like the top of the Conde Nast building (a modern interpretation of the crown) is called for here. Instead we get a perfectly OK building for any nondescript downtown anywhere in the world.

Great though, that Ann Taylor is moving here from 57th street... maintaining some of the fashion industry roots that this area is famous for.

May 31st, 2005, 06:09 PM
Wow, they really moved fast in getting Ann Taylor's logo up on the building. Perhaps that alone was a reason why Ann Taylor wanted to move. That ad space is seen by millions upon millions every year especially during the New Year's broadcast.

hella good
June 1st, 2005, 07:55 AM
fabrizio, im not going to argue with you, i have my opinion and you have yours.

lets leave it at that.

July 24th, 2005, 12:25 AM
Snazzy Sentinels for an Unsafe World



Published: July 24, 2005

IT is crowds. It is color. But most of all, Times Square is chaos, a user-friendly, Toys-"R"-Us kind of chaos that gives these clamorous street corners an excitement that is famous around the world.

But since 9/11, chaos has meant danger. So notice that flowers now grow in big concrete tubs in front of the Reuters building, while juniper shrubs take root in security planters outside Ernst & Young's headquarters.

And then there is the new Times Square Tower at Broadway and 42nd Street. It is surrounded by a weird galaxy of thigh-high concrete models of the world designed to keep true chaos at bay.

Christopher J. Fogarty, an architect who happens to be from London, where terrorists have struck most recently, worked on the building while he was on the staff of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. He struck out on his own, and after the attacks, his firm, Fogarty Finger, of New York, was commissioned to enhance the building's security and keep truck bombers out of the glass lobby.

At first, he thought security planters were his only choice, even though he hated them. "Plants die, and the planters get used as ashtrays," Mr. Fogarty said. "And I can't stand it when dirty barriers are just set around a building. It feels like the barricades at Normandy."

He submitted a plan anyway, and the city's Art Commission rejected it.

So Mr. Fogarty played around with the idea of a long line of orbs encircling the building as though it were the sun. The pieces would also keep a speeding truck out of the building's lobby.

The orbs morphed into precast concrete globes, 63 of them, imprinted with oceans and continents and a shadow line that creeps across the earth's surface, signifying the passage of time at Times Square.

The shadow sequence is supposed to begin at the corner of West 42nd Street and Broadway and move clockwise at hourly intervals around the building through several days. But the first orbs were not numbered at the factory in Wisconsin, and workmen placed them in reverse sequence.

Mr. Fogarty is waiting until all the globes are delivered before asking the building's developer, Boston Properties, for a crew to restore order to his universe.

"It's going to be a logistical nightmare," he conceded.

But worth it, even though he first thought the globes were "a little cheesy." He has actually grown fond of them, and derives impish pleasure from knowing they are not in order. He wonders whether anyone will notice.

Certainly not the oblivious tourists who think it is cool to be photographed sitting atop the world.

"No, sorry," said one tourist when asked about the mistake as he snapped a photo of a friend seated on what roughly would be Berlin. "I am from Czech Republic."

Of course, as Mr. Fogarty strives to impose order on the Crossroads of the World, terrorists are intent on creating chaos in his hometown, half a world away.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

July 24th, 2005, 02:19 PM
MUCH better than ugly planters and such. IMO.

July 24th, 2005, 05:05 PM
I'm still a fan of nice and simple titanium clad steel bollards.

Example: (the bollards surrounding the Time Warner Center. Although I prefer bollards that are lit at the top.


July 24th, 2005, 05:16 PM
Those globes look strangely out of place. As an idea i like them but in fruition they look curiously odd, not a big fan of them.

July 24th, 2005, 05:30 PM
They look militaristic.... designer cannon balls?

July 24th, 2005, 06:45 PM
While perhaps not militaristic, I must say I find the globe bollards to be quite unattractive.

Although I do completley agree with the designer's argument that planters (unless properly maintained like the ones in Midtown by Grand Central Partnership) usually end up being large, ugly, ashtrays and thereby ruin an otherwise visually pleasant stretch of street.

The only thing worse than improperly maintained protective planters are the awful warzone-inspired jersey barriers the City still has spattered about Downtown. If only those would be replaced by something better like titanium bollards or even this Londoner's odd globes.

July 24th, 2005, 06:59 PM
I find the spheres kind of unexpected and whimsical -- and a nice change of pace from some of the more ordinary corporate installations that have been popping up around the city. Plus you can actually sit on them!

July 24th, 2005, 07:05 PM
The best bollards I've seen (I believe them to be more decorative than fuctional) are in front of the Pfizer's World Headquarters at 235 E. 42nd St. They're hollow titanium, drilled with lots of holes and lit from the inside with very deep and rich blue lights, best viewed once the sun is setting. If I ever find myself with excess sums of money, I must find out where I can get one built. Anyone else ever notice these?

July 24th, 2005, 09:03 PM
they should make those blockers into beautifull statues. I like the globe but not there. Maybe at the world financial Center or special financial centers like that. Put statues.

July 24th, 2005, 09:05 PM
at a second look, it reminds me of a bomb. or gettysburg

July 24th, 2005, 09:35 PM
What sort of statues?

July 24th, 2005, 09:41 PM

I don't think this would work.

July 24th, 2005, 10:26 PM
The spheres at the corner of Broadway and 42nd d have silver objects embedded in the top that seem to eerily resemble globes fit over closed circuit cameras (like in banks). Take a look. The latest in surveillance technology?

July 25th, 2005, 08:15 AM
They match quite good with the JVC Globe

July 25th, 2005, 09:30 AM
Perhaps Jim Dine could be convinced to replicate a bunch of these in miniature and set them up somewhere...


July 25th, 2005, 09:35 AM
An idea (thanks to Michael Graves) for bollards to surround the Disney / ABC studios on Broadway...

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/gravesdisney/front.jpg (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/gravesdisney/front.jpg)

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/gravesdisney/dwarfs.jpg (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/gravesdisney/dwarfs.jpg)

July 25th, 2005, 11:38 PM
The best bollards I've seen (I believe them to be more decorative than fuctional) are in front of the Pfizer's World Headquarters at 235 E. 42nd St. They're hollow titanium, drilled with lots of holes and lit from the inside with very deep and rich blue lights, best viewed once the sun is setting. If I ever find myself with excess sums of money, I must find out where I can get one built. Anyone else ever notice these?

I have seen those and I too find them quite cool. Very 90's high tech look to them.

They do appear to be less functional than decorative although I'm sure in this day and age Pfizer was smart enough being the world's largest pharma company to make them impact resistant.

July 25th, 2005, 11:43 PM
In fact I now have proof that the Pfizer "blue, perforated metal, backlit" bollards are functional as well.

I snagged a shot off the net of Pfizer's headquarters a few years ago before the installation of the cool 90's bollards when the headquarters building had ugly concrete jersey barriers in front of the building.

The new bollards must have been a stylish replacement for the raw concrete barriers and for that I thank Pfizer.

Here's a shot of Pfizer before the stylish bollards:


hella good
July 28th, 2005, 11:52 AM
Im so in love with this tower.......

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2613/dscf01437qm.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf01437qm.jpg)

January 21st, 2006, 09:49 AM
I like the enclosure that this building will provide, but the architecture leaves something to be desired for. Conde Nast raised the bar, but 5 and 10 Times Square will probably be looked at as designs of our tech obsessed society. 20 years from now, I don't think these will be looked back with the fondness that we show Citicorp or the WFC, but the "blade runner" effect is quite evident in the October 12th pic.

Who designed this building again? Was it David Childs? I'd like to see the view from Jersey of this going up. Something tells me this will be like 5 Times Square in that the view down 7th Ave of it will be much better than the view of it from across the river.




January 21st, 2006, 09:59 AM

Was Childs a nice guy or a dick?

January 21st, 2006, 03:17 PM
Whoever did this building, be it Childs or Joe Schmoe failed miserably. They had a chance to do something stunningly beautiful here but instead we got a box. This is the most disappointing building to go up in the past 10 years IMO because of this highly prominent location. Anywhere else and I wouldn't even care but this the most visible intersection in the world--we deserve better, much better.

January 21st, 2006, 04:28 PM

January 21st, 2006, 05:59 PM
so why the f do we give all the new jobs to david c.and not kps cp nf

January 22nd, 2006, 03:04 PM
Whoever did this building, be it Childs or Joe Schmoe failed miserably. They had a chance to do something stunningly beautiful here but instead we got a box. This is the most disappointing building to go up in the past 10 years IMO because of this highly prominent location. Anywhere else and I wouldn't even care but this the most visible intersection in the world--we deserve better, much better.

Anyone who's ever designed a tower in NYC knows that zoning, politics and client service lead the process - think about what's currently taking place at ground zero: Childs wanted the job so badly, he proceeded to screw everyone else out of the job without any regards to the fact that "that particular project was doomed from the start" - nothing anyone could ever designed on that site was going to be good enough, regardless - matching the expectations of a city in moarning is virtually impossible (Times Square Tower is no exception - one of the best sites in town virtually designed by a commitee only interested in $$$. In fact it looks pretty damn good for what anyone else was willing to put there. Does anyone even remember what Phillip Johnson wanted to build there?????).

Anyway, Architecture, not unlike all other art forms, will always be bound to be the object of criticism (and this is a great thing; how else would we protect how idiots impact our environment?); however, Architecture is also the only art form constrained by politics and the laws it generates.

I just think it helps to know these things.

January 22nd, 2006, 06:23 PM
Was Childs a nice guy or a dick?


July 2nd, 2007, 10:45 PM
Took these today. More to come soon. The skin on the Verizon makes this skin look spectacular.









July 3rd, 2007, 08:26 AM
Wow, very nice, Derek. Out of all the jazzy new towers to go up in the area in the past ten years, this one is probably my favorite, and these photos remind me why. Thanks.

July 3rd, 2007, 08:47 AM
And then you get to the top.

In that strategic position we want a spire, a crown... symmetry. (at least I do...)

So yeah... super nice skin (interrupted by those tacky tack-on bands that are mostly hidden in these photos.)

Pardon my edit of your as-always beautiful work... but my eye is drawn to the left. All is right with this world:

July 3rd, 2007, 08:53 AM
And then you get to the top.

Yeah, that top... big letdown.

July 3rd, 2007, 10:14 AM
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2613/dscf01437qm.th.jpg (http://img297.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf01437qm.jpg)

Its tacky and poorly designed. One of the worst towers to go up in years. What a shame that it is in such a prominent location. :mad:

July 3rd, 2007, 11:46 AM
For its address, it is another missed opportunity along with BOA, Bear Stearns, TWC, where the sky should have been the limit.

Nice photos though, I always liked the blue color.

July 3rd, 2007, 03:24 PM
Why do we have height limits in places like those? Seems insane.

July 3rd, 2007, 03:26 PM
The site's actually too small to go much higher from an economic standpoint. The whole building would be elevator shafts if it was twice the height.

More often than not this is the exact size of building that is most profitable. Its not often really that zoning is what deters a developer from going higher, at least for office space, its declining returns on adding more floors.

July 3rd, 2007, 03:47 PM
True but what about the other sites mentioned, like TWC or BOA for example?
Some pretty huge sites, aren't they? Or the west side rail yards for that matter. I think if someone wants to build really tall over there, they should be encouraged. Of course I see the reason for height restrictions on certain sites, but I just don't think it makes sense all of the time.

July 3rd, 2007, 04:10 PM
From a zoning standpoint, BOA is just as "big" as the ESB - bigger if you consider its greater floor-to-floor height.

It used up its FAR with a large floorplates, especially the lower third.

July 3rd, 2007, 08:01 PM
BTW, what sites in Manhattan have unlimited FAR?

July 3rd, 2007, 10:02 PM
BTW, what sites in Manhattan have unlimited FAR?

Currently none. Up until around the 1960's if a building only took up a portion of its site it could then rise to any height. There was talk about allowing sites at Hudson Yards have unlimited FAR, but that was squashed. Coincidentally Times Square Tower has one of the highest if not the highest FAR of any building in midtown, its FAR being 47, hence its 47 sheer storeys. The FARS around TXSQ Tower hover around 20, I think the zoning with the TXSQ Tower is a good idea, allowing a higher FAR at a higher development cost that benefits the city coffers, while also at a prime transit location. I believe that areas by Penn Station for instance should have higher FARS than areas on 6th Avenue and sometimes they do, but as already mentioned the reason why so many buildings are built at around 50 storeys is because FAR greatly limits the extent of development.

July 4th, 2007, 01:33 AM
Doesn't 2 Penn plaza have unlimited FAR?

July 4th, 2007, 04:44 PM
Doesn't 2 Penn plaza have unlimited FAR?
Sell it to a consortium from Dubai and let them erect a vanity tower.

Do wonders for the increasingly ho-hum skykine plateau.

July 4th, 2007, 09:15 PM
Considering this building's limited footprint and location over two subway lines, how high could it seriously have gone?

July 4th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Sky's the limit for those with the money.

July 5th, 2007, 11:33 AM
I think it's fairly presumptive to make the argument that developers don't build taller than they do because of diminishing returns above a certain height or number of floors. Do we know what this hypothetical cutoff is? Do we know how much it varies depending on where the building's site is?

As an example, yes - BOA is on the bulky side. But the developer could have just as easily built straight up, without the angled setbacks. Even better, he could have built straight up from that huge base, and we would've gotten something like a big brother to the HBO building across the street.

Same thing goes for the Times Tower, Bloomberg, Bear Stearns, and any other where there's a distinct "tower" portion, rising independently of the base. I think it's safe to say that, since we hear so often about developers purchasing air rights and maxing out a site's FAR, buildings like BOA, Times Square Tower, and the Times Tower would be built substantially taller if it were permitted.

July 6th, 2007, 12:45 AM
But one has to realize that FAR was not chosen arbitrarily out of thin air. Rather it came out of a planning process in conjunction with planners, builders & developers -- all considering various things (shadows, light, air) along with construction costs & engineering realities.

July 6th, 2007, 11:11 AM
The planning process which you speak of was also initiated in a vastly different time, under political and social theories that no longer hold much sway. The result (in reality) is not all that practical.

Maybe it's just me, but when I look at a map of New York's FAR, I see a big, sloppy mess with little rhyme or reason to it.

July 6th, 2007, 11:35 AM
That planning process is on-going ...

FAR specifics are adjusted all the time, and has been recently for Hudson Yards, Eighth Avenue in Clinton and any number of other areas.

July 8th, 2007, 10:45 PM
That planning process is on-going ...

FAR specifics are adjusted all the time...
...and sometimes the adjustments aren't improvements. When combined with height limitations, the result can be deadly. See Derek's post on that (23rd Street area).

Just because people put a lot of study into something doesn't mean they get it right. How much study do you suppose various government agencies put into, say, the eradication of poverty or victory in Iraq?

July 8th, 2007, 11:54 PM
I never said ^^^ the changes are / were an improvement.

But felt the need to clarify what seemed to be a statement that FAR was a number unrelated to anything. However faulty the calculations may be, the numbers come from somewhere. In the case of NYC: from a big mess of planners, politicians, architects, developers, bureaucrats -- and citizens.

October 24th, 2007, 12:48 AM
wallyg on Flickr
February 1, 2007


October 24th, 2007, 07:41 AM
^ ugh! Disgusting. In such a prime spot too.

October 24th, 2007, 11:00 AM
Out of the quartet of newer Times Square towers - Conde, Ernst, Reuters, this one - I actually like this one the best; it's more interesting and focused a composition than the others (although Conde Nast is a very close second, EY is dead last). The black whatever they used to sheath the crown is unfortunate, but IMO the rest of the facade (zig-zags walking up Broadway, cross bracing on 42nd, playful Googie-style crown) makes up for it.

October 24th, 2007, 06:48 PM
They should have done the whole building like the section with exposed cross-bracing -- that would have been slick.

October 24th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Reuters is too short. Ernest & Young is also too short and just a snore.

TS Tower is too boxy and as Trepye said, too damn plain for its prime location.

Ratner's Hilton is atrocious. Thank god for Conde Nast, at least.

And when the hell is Vornado going to build a tower on that Toys-R-Us site?

October 24th, 2007, 06:58 PM
Reuters is too short. Ernest & Young is also too short and not that exciting.

Its unfortunate that Reuters is so short, it is easily my #2 favorite out of the Times Square corporate collection after 4 Times Square. The design and glass quality is superb.

Ratner's Hilton is atrocious

The Hilton is indeed atrocious. Who thought 60's apartment style brick would be a tasteful choice for a Times Square hotel? Although I must say that I had a nice pre-theatre dinner last week at The View restaurant in the Hilton's 21st floor skylobby. Food was surprisingly quite good, and the restaurant afforded a great view of the old New York Times building.

October 29th, 2007, 08:43 AM
wrong thread