PDA

View Full Version : The Bank of America Tower a.k.a. One Bryant Park - by Cook + Fox Architects



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

TLOZ Link5
October 21st, 2005, 03:13 PM
A spire is a decorative, structural element that serves no purpose other than to look pretty. The ESB's full structural height and roof are at 1,250 feet, but the radio antenna that tops it serves a function, was not part of the original plan, and is not decorative.

This is the same argument that was posed in 1998 when the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur were completed: their decorative spires, at something like 1,488 feet, were higher than the roof of the Sears Tower, but their roofs were much lower than the Sears Tower's roof. Regardless, they are considered taller than the Sears Tower.

A similar argument was posed back in 1930, when the vertex of William Van Allen's Chrysler Building topped it off at 1,049 feet, making it the WTB. However, the 927-foot Bank of Manhattan Building, which was designed by Van Allen's rival H. Craig Severance, also claimed the title of WTB, because its flagpole was slightly higher than the Chrysler without the vertex, and its highest occupied floor was likewise higher than that of the Chrysler's.

Dagrecco82
October 21st, 2005, 03:48 PM
I'm guesing this debate always pops-up. Thanks for the info. TLOZ Link5.

sfenn1117
October 21st, 2005, 03:59 PM
Emporis also changed the height of the Freedom tower to 1,368 feet, instead of the symbolic 1,776 feet. So it is a double standard.

Arch
October 21st, 2005, 08:24 PM
Not really a double standard because the spire at the ft is a radio tower.

evil_synth
October 21st, 2005, 08:55 PM
Yeah, but the spire is part of the original design, so it should be counted 1776 ft and not 1368 ft. Besides, does the FT's spire even look like its a radio antenna?

TLOZ Link5
October 21st, 2005, 10:08 PM
Emporis also changed the height of the Freedom tower to 1,368 feet, instead of the symbolic 1,776 feet. So it is a double standard.

Ouch. You speak the truth.

Well, at least there's no potential skyline cap anymore. Any other building in the city can go as high as it wants.

mikeee
October 21st, 2005, 10:54 PM
I take it the side which has the iron sticking out like 6 inchs from the cond nest building is going to be the lower level side of the structure? Does anyone have any new pics im away for a few months and would like to keep an eye on this..

Arch
October 27th, 2005, 06:27 PM
New pic taken today - standing on planter in Plaza across the street. Looks like some of the beams for the second floor are going up, and some sort of truss near the existing wall.

mikeee
October 31st, 2005, 05:24 PM
Looks like they will be losing there view in a few week huh?

TLOZ Link5
October 31st, 2005, 05:56 PM
I forget; what, if anything, will be going in the space between Condé Nast and BOA?

Citytect
October 31st, 2005, 06:30 PM
There will be a low-rise portion of the BOA building there with a through-block passage and some lame "Broadway Wall of Fame".

lofter1
October 31st, 2005, 09:27 PM
^ Plus a fully re-built Henry Miller Theatre (1200 seats).

mikeee
November 3rd, 2005, 05:22 PM
Anyone look at it recently im still away and have heard from my brother the floors are over the board out front and that there was alot of activity today more then twice the people working there?

kliq6
November 4th, 2005, 11:38 AM
Steel crews have increased so yes more workers on board

mikeee
November 5th, 2005, 03:52 PM
Can anyone get some good pictures up and does anyone know if theres a webcam near the site? Thanks mikeee

Derek2k3
November 5th, 2005, 08:26 PM
From last Saturday.

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51826150.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51826149.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51826148.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/archit_kderek2k3/image/51826151.jpg
10-30-05

macreator
November 5th, 2005, 10:34 PM
This thing seems to be taking forever to get going.

I realize the crains are there and that we have some steel poking through but I would love to see some real stories going up like what we've seen at the Times site.

LeCom
November 5th, 2005, 10:38 PM
Well at least it's rising now. The pit ws there for like a year or something. Remember, at one point this building and NYTT were on the same level. Look at em now.

lofter1
November 5th, 2005, 11:57 PM
That Manhattan schist is hard rock -- lots more to break through and dig out for the foundation on this site than at the NY Times site.

BrooklynRider
November 6th, 2005, 03:02 PM
I remember Dan Tishman gave a speech to NYC construction business leaders and talked about the building of 745 Seventh Ave (at 49th Street) vs. Conde Nast and Reuters (at 42nd & 7th /Brodway). Simply stated, he said building 745 Seventh was like constructing a building in a country pasture compared to building at Times Square / 42nd Street.

lugdus
November 8th, 2005, 05:52 PM
There will be a low-rise portion of the BOA building there with a through-block passage and some lame "Broadway Wall of Fame".
how do you know it will be lame?

czsz
November 8th, 2005, 06:27 PM
Come on, there's no way that won't be a tourist trap, no way that its developers don't know this, and no way it won't consequentially be stupid yet still charge a significant entry fee.

Citytect
November 8th, 2005, 06:44 PM
how do you know it will be lame?

I asked my Magic 8 Ball.

millertime83
November 8th, 2005, 09:10 PM
more of nothing really going on:

http://www.cornerpocketproductions.com/images/MOMA001.jpg

lofter1
November 9th, 2005, 02:00 PM
Today they are installing the massive beams between the "X" shaped up-rights seen above -- this will be the superstructure for the fly-space in the Henry Miller Theatre.

The ironworkders have spray painted in bright acid green "Ironworkers Local -- The Best Show on Broadway" on one of the east-facing uprights near the facade of the original Henry Miller (you can see this in the last of Derek2k3's pictures at the top of this page).

The loading dock at the far west side of the site (entry on 43rd St.) is taking shape and the Load-In door to the Henry Miller can be clearly discerned at the far end of the loading dock (looking in from 43rd to 42nd).

The first upright in the basement section of the tower part of the site has gone up (NW corner of the tower). Currently the workers are constructing what looks to be protective platforms over the "core section" where the elevator pits have been poured.

Tower should start going up soon :)

NewYorkYankee
November 9th, 2005, 02:44 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but a theatre will be included in the building?

Citytect
November 9th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Post #891 (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=58577&postcount=891)


Cook+Fox Architects will restore and reconstruct the historic Henry Miller Theater on the site, to create a state-of-the-art Broadway playhouse with the intimacy and proportions of the original 1918 Allen, Ingalls & Hoffman Theater.

michelle1
November 9th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Top ten banking groups in the world ranked by tier-one capital in 2004

Citigroup — 73 billion
JP Morgan Chase — 69 billion
HSBC — 67 billion
Bank of America — 64 billion
Credit Agricole Group — 63 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland — 43 billion
Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group — 40 billion
Mizuho Financial Group — 39 billion
HBOS — 36 billion
BNP Paribas — 35 billion

Alonzo-ny
November 10th, 2005, 10:22 AM
Top ten banking groups in the world ranked by tier-one capital in 2004

Citigroup — 73 billion
JP Morgan Chase — 69 billion
HSBC — 67 billion
Bank of America — 64 billion
Credit Agricole Group — 63 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland — 43 billion
Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group — 40 billion
Mizuho Financial Group — 39 billion
HBOS — 36 billion
BNP Paribas — 35 billion

Royal Bank of Scotland 6th in the world, not bad for a country population 5 million

antinimby
November 10th, 2005, 12:37 PM
Don't know the exact figure but roughly, Bill Gates is worth more than half of those institutions. :eek:

ablarc
November 10th, 2005, 12:51 PM
Don't know the exact figure but roughly, Bill Gates is worth more than half of those institutions. :eek:
Wouldn't it be nice if someone could interest him in urban issues?

With his billions, he could have a more positive impact than Prince Charles.

Jim Koeleman
November 11th, 2005, 10:32 AM
edit.

RandySavage
November 11th, 2005, 03:25 PM
To measure a company, like Citigroup, against an individual like Bill Gates, you'd look at market cap, not revenues. The company itself is worth over $250 Billion; it has assets of $1.5 Trillion (and massive liabilities (over $1 Trillion) too, in the form of loans). Citibank pulls almost double Bill Gates net worth every year in revenues.

Jake
November 11th, 2005, 09:26 PM
you're exactly right


keep in mind also that's much of Gates's worth is Microsoft stock so it's not what he HAS, it's what he's WORTH if he liquidated his shares. Microsoft is huge so you should compare Microsoft to Citibank and not their major shareholders.

also keep in mind that HSBC is the largest bank in Europe where BoA is non-existant


LOL, ALSO keep in mind that Citigroup has a big insurance division so placing it in "Banking" is a little unfair to those who don't have insurance divisions such as HSBC, some of these institutions also have brokarage arms while others do not. It's simply not as simple as a chart.

anyway back to topic, one of these banks should put up a huge tower in NYC, it would really bring exposure to their business

Jim Koeleman
November 12th, 2005, 05:16 AM
edit.

Jake
November 12th, 2005, 12:37 PM
Yeah I guess it it, but the more the merrier :D

Citytect
November 12th, 2005, 04:50 PM
There will be a low-rise portion of the BOA building there with a through-block passage and some lame "Broadway Wall of Fame".


how do you know it will be lame?

ludgus, I noticed that you have the Durst website as your homepage. Are you working on this project?

kliq6
November 15th, 2005, 09:01 AM
From therealdeal.net

Bank of America, already one of the city's biggest commercial leaseholders with about 2 million square feet in Midtown, is on the hunt for more space. After its 900,000-square-foot lease at 9 West 57th Street expires at the end of 2008, the banking behemoth plans a move into 1.1 million square feet at One Bryant Park. Still, Bank of America reportedly wants more new space beyond that, and it's looking at 1166 Sixth Avenue and 1095 Sixth Avenue.

NYatKNIGHT
November 15th, 2005, 10:30 AM
Amazing this building isn't big enough for BOA - and few locations are better suited for an even taller tower.

Johnnyboy
November 15th, 2005, 12:39 PM
this does not make sence to me. why not just make the under construction one bryant park taller so all of bank of america offices in New york can be in one office building. that tower is on exelent property. New York has limited property of the same wealth as that in Bryant park area. Its less expensive for bank of america, more convinient, and we get a taller more magnificent tower in midtown.They also won't take more property that can be used for other companies. They should do like sears did in chicago with the sears tower only that Bank of america's growth and size can hold such a building not like Sears corp.

Derek2k3
November 15th, 2005, 12:47 PM
I'm sure One Bryant Park is built out to its max. square footage. Anyway BofA has only leased half of the building so they could lease more if they wanted. This article hints they will.

BOFA HAS BIG PLANS IN N.Y.
By STEVE CUOZZO
http://www.nypost.com/realestate/comm/57444.htm

JMGarcia
November 15th, 2005, 04:39 PM
I'm sure BOA wants multiple locations for disaster recovery purposes. Virtually every major financial institution in the city works this way.

Jake
November 15th, 2005, 06:12 PM
that's part of it, also there is no point in bringing people like customer service to your expensive Manhattan property. This tower will likely be for services completely unrelated to the "Bank" you see on the street, it will likely house BoA's NYSE specialists, the capital markets division, insurance, and such.

krulltime
November 15th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Here is the NYPOST story...


BOFA HAS BIG PLANS IN N.Y.


By STEVE CUOZZO
November 15, 2005

BANK of America is one of the city's largest commercial users with roughly 2 million square feet in Midtown. As the bank pursues its strategy to grow and relocate big-time over the next few years, it's on the prowl for more space even before it sets up shop at One Bryant Park.

In early 2009, BofA will move out of 900,000 square feet at Sheldon Solow's 9 W. 57th St. and into 1.1 million feet at One Bryant Park, the skyscraper Douglas Durst is building in a joint venture with the bank at Sixth Avenue and 42nd Street.

But BofA has expanded rapidly since it acquired Fleet Financial in 2004. It will need even more space when its lease at 9 W. 57th expires at the end of 2008 and likely before that.

The bank intends to stay in Midtown, and sources say it's considering taking even more space at One Bryant Park — up to 400,000 additional feet.

If that happens, BofA might pay higher than $100 a square foot, which Durst is asking for the tower's as-yet unleased top half. But since the bank is Durst's partner, it would be on the receiving end of the uber-rent, too.

Meanwhile, sources say BofA is looking at taking space sooner than that in the former Verizon building at 1095 Sixth Ave., where Equity Office will have more than 1 million square feet available next year. It's also looking at a chunk at 1166 Sixth Ave.

BofA's broker, Jones Lang LaSalle honcho Peter Riguardi, could not be reached.


Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc.

krulltime
November 15th, 2005, 07:30 PM
So maybe is the $100 a square foot that they are afraid to take in the whole tower? But then again they are Durst friends. I don't get it.

Law & Order
November 15th, 2005, 07:42 PM
I don't get it.

They probably dont either.

macreator
November 15th, 2005, 09:48 PM
that's part of it, also there is no point in bringing people like customer service to your expensive Manhattan property. This tower will likely be for services completely unrelated to the "Bank" you see on the street, it will likely house BoA's NYSE specialists, the capital markets division, insurance, and such.

The Bryant Park Tower will become the headquarters of Banc of America Securities, the trading arm of Bank of America, which is currently based at 9 West 57th Street.

A friend of mine use to work in the 9 West 57th offices and said the views were spectacular.

Anyhow, I assume Bank of America will also be putting some additional NY-based staff in the new building as well and nearby buildings as they expand their New York presence for operations beyond Securities.

antinimby
November 16th, 2005, 12:18 AM
That's all very nice but what are the chances that they'll ever make NY their WORLD headquarters?

Bank of America, I'm sure Charlotte is very nice and all, but--come on now--what better or more prestigious city to call your home than New York, a world-renowned international capital. You should be headquartered in a city that befits your status as one of the top financial institutions on the planet.;)

lofter1
November 16th, 2005, 12:43 AM
Since the economic downtown Charlotte has suffered greatly. It is now a half-empty corporate mall.

If BA left Charlotte it would be in tatters.

kliq6
November 16th, 2005, 10:58 AM
Nc gave BOA a ton of reasons to move from California years back, however anything can happen. Mr. Bloomberg, who as Mayor has a 0% job growth number should get the EDC and others involved.

Jake
November 16th, 2005, 11:54 AM
the only reason BoA has any presence here is because of the Fleet Boston acquisition a few years back. I think if BoA was to buy another local bank, such as North Fork, it could establish itslef here enough to have its world HQ here.

vc10
November 16th, 2005, 06:43 PM
The only reason BofA has any *retail* presence here is because of purchasing Fleet. BofA has always a significant *wholesale* presence in the city (BofA's investment bank).

BofA's presence in the 1 Bryant Park building will be almost entirely it's I-bank, I imagine, though I'd guess it will have a "flagship" retail branch on the first floor.


the only reason BoA has any presence here is because of the Fleet Boston acquisition a few years back. I think if BoA was to buy another local bank, such as North Fork, it could establish itslef here enough to have its world HQ here.

Jake
November 16th, 2005, 08:15 PM
The only reason BofA has any *retail* presence here is because of purchasing Fleet. BofA has always a significant *wholesale* presence in the city (BofA's investment bank).

BofA's presence in the 1 Bryant Park building will be almost entirely it's I-bank, I imagine, though I'd guess it will have a "flagship" retail branch on the first floor.

Right, I undestand that, and like macreator said this will be the HQ for BoA securities. I'm just saying that BoA isn't a bank that's, one could say, "recognizable" by NYers so it would not make much sense for them to have a bank HQ here unless they had a larger presence. Before fleet there was no or hardly any BoA presence in the banking of the average NYer. Investment banks are naturally near the stock exchange and I'm sure most world banks have investment divisions here without having a single branch for thousands of miles. If BoA could increase its business here to actually rival Citibank (BoA is slowly getting there) I'd like BoA to build a banking world HQ here as well, preferably downtown. In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea if they leased out space form one of the future WTC towers and built it there. At $100 per square foot, space in One Bryant will be limited to top-tier divisions.

Phentente
November 16th, 2005, 10:51 PM
At $100 per square foot, space in One Bryant will be limited to top-tier divisions.

This is assuming BoA doesn't buy out the Dursts' share after construction is complete, which is a very real possibility if the bank continues to expand in NYC. Being the complete owner of the most environmentally friendly skyscraper in the world (and with 2 million and change square feet to boot), a building whose value is only certain to increase in the years to come would surely be a worthy $500,000,000+ investment. I think such a possibility would be all the better since that amount of cash in the Dursts' pockets would only encourage another big project somewhere else in the city. I imagine the BoA tower might sell for 5 billion in 20 years.

mikeee
November 17th, 2005, 05:54 PM
I hear that they have changed the top of the buildings design and they have the plans approved a friend of mine works for a company who bid on work on the roof and they just called him and told him the bid not good and they need to place a new one because they have new plans? any ideas he didnt see the plan. Anyone with new pictures?

NoyokA
November 17th, 2005, 05:59 PM
Interesting. I hope they enclosed the sloped roof ala Citicorp...

Jake
November 17th, 2005, 10:46 PM
That would be a little to obvious, don't you think? BoA is such a Ciiticorp wannabe.

NoyokA
November 17th, 2005, 10:54 PM
I want something with a little more enclosure or something more deconstructive. Right now I'm unfullfilled with the current roof and its integration with the "spires".

Jake
November 17th, 2005, 11:50 PM
I agree, to me the building looks sort of like a milk carton with the top opened up....oh these crude analogies....priceless.


I fear that it will end up like the Ritz-Carlton with a GREAT idea for a sloped roof that ended up only OK

vc10
November 18th, 2005, 01:39 PM
But operating from North Carolina is always likely to be more cost efficient. NYC is very expensive---there's no particular reason for BofA to have anything other than its securities division HQ'd here, anymore so than North Fork, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, etc. Heck, UBS has even shown that you can operate the HQ of a securities division outside of Manhattan (the vast bulk of UBS's NY-area operations are actually in Stamford, CT, which houses the world's largest trading floor---and UBS is the biggest trader of stock in the US).


If BoA could increase its business here to actually rival Citibank (BoA is slowly getting there) I'd like BoA to build a banking world HQ here as well, preferably downtown. In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea if they leased out space form one of the future WTC towers and built it there. At $100 per square foot, space in One Bryant will be limited to top-tier divisions.

Jake
November 18th, 2005, 08:39 PM
Right, it's cost efficient in the sense of cost (lol, confusing myself here) but not in terms of prestige. I imagine a NYC building brings a firm more visibility thus increasing its business in future years. But still, Wilimington DE or whereever there's big companies enjoy success but they don't attract that much attention, be it from customers or talented workers.

As far as UBS goes, you're right again but I do believe NASDAQ's servers are in CT as well while NASDAQ itself maintains its "HQ" in ny. UBS has if I'm not mistaken of the address (i've been to this building many times) 1285 Ave of the Americas, as its most important building. I think it doesn't really matter where the bulk of the operations is but every financial business that hopes to achieve true worth needs a flagship NYC location. BTW, UBS could build a building too, :)

vc10
November 20th, 2005, 10:35 AM
UBS has a number of buildings around the New York area, the two main ones in Manhattan being 1285 AoA and 299 Park. The point is that UBS has the bulk of its front office functions outside of Manhattan, unlike say Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley.

So, almost all equity and fixed income trading is done in Stamford, whereas at Goldman and Morgan Stanley, the same functions are done in Manhattan. UBS has shown that it can be done outside of the city (interestingly, a lot of the traders, especially the younger ones, actually live in Manhattan and drive or take the train to Stamford).




Right, it's cost efficient in the sense of cost (lol, confusing myself here) but not in terms of prestige. I imagine a NYC building brings a firm more visibility thus increasing its business in future years. But still, Wilimington DE or whereever there's big companies enjoy success but they don't attract that much attention, be it from customers or talented workers.

As far as UBS goes, you're right again but I do believe NASDAQ's servers are in CT as well while NASDAQ itself maintains its "HQ" in ny. UBS has if I'm not mistaken of the address (i've been to this building many times) 1285 Ave of the Americas, as its most important building. I think it doesn't really matter where the bulk of the operations is but every financial business that hopes to achieve true worth needs a flagship NYC location. BTW, UBS could build a building too, :)

vc10
November 20th, 2005, 10:35 AM
UBS has a number of buildings around the New York area, the two main ones in Manhattan being 1285 AoA and 299 Park. The point is that UBS has the bulk of its front office functions outside of Manhattan, unlike say Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley.

So, almost all equity and fixed income trading is done in Stamford, whereas at Goldman and Morgan Stanley, the same functions are done in Manhattan. UBS has shown that it can be done outside of the city (interestingly, a lot of the traders, especially the younger ones, actually live in Manhattan and drive or take the train to Stamford).




Right, it's cost efficient in the sense of cost (lol, confusing myself here) but not in terms of prestige. I imagine a NYC building brings a firm more visibility thus increasing its business in future years. But still, Wilimington DE or whereever there's big companies enjoy success but they don't attract that much attention, be it from customers or talented workers.

As far as UBS goes, you're right again but I do believe NASDAQ's servers are in CT as well while NASDAQ itself maintains its "HQ" in ny. UBS has if I'm not mistaken of the address (i've been to this building many times) 1285 Ave of the Americas, as its most important building. I think it doesn't really matter where the bulk of the operations is but every financial business that hopes to achieve true worth needs a flagship NYC location. BTW, UBS could build a building too, :)

NYguy
November 21st, 2005, 04:43 PM
Sunday NOVEMBER 20, 2005


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/52583592/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/52583613/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/52583622/large.jpg

Johnnyboy
November 21st, 2005, 09:04 PM
first floor above ground is up. now we really see this rise

lofter1
November 21st, 2005, 11:29 PM
The photos show the section that's only rising to six floors.

The tower portion has no steel in the basement level as of yet (for now they're working on some sort of temporary scaffolding structure in the area of the elevator pits).

Johnnyboy
November 22nd, 2005, 12:25 PM
its a start

krulltime
November 22nd, 2005, 12:54 PM
Oh you can see it above the street level! How exciting!!! :)

LeCom
November 22nd, 2005, 06:04 PM
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/11/417786.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/11/417795.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/11/417797.jpg

evil_synth
November 22nd, 2005, 08:20 PM
Popular Science just named One Bryant Park the Best Engineering of What's New in 2005 for its being "The Most Amibitious Eco-Friendly SkyScraper" in its December edition.
The building will be providing 70% of its own energy and it gathers all of its toliet water and other things.
The heating and cooling system is very efficient as well.

Bob
November 22nd, 2005, 09:00 PM
From Top of the Rock, views of the Conde Nast Building are terrific, and really gives you a sense of how big (and tall) that structure really is. When I was at Top of the Rock last Thursday, I tried to imagine just how tall One Bryant Park would be, by comparison to Conde Nast, and what the view of these buildings would look like upon completion of the former. The best I can figure, it's going to be absolutely phenomenal. If there's anybody out there who might care to do a photoshop of the view, that would be one heckuva project.

Alonzo-ny
November 23rd, 2005, 09:43 AM
Here you go

antinimby
November 29th, 2005, 03:18 AM
Does anybody else find the official height for this building a bit misleading?
I mean, the number we often hear is 945 ft. to the roof but in reality that's really just the highest point (tip) of one side of the facade.
If you look carefully, you'll see that the roof is much lower than this and the highest occupied floor may well be lower still at what? 780 or at the most 800ft?
To me this is the real height of the building.
Sorry to burst your bubble height fans.
I guess you'll just have to wait until Gehry's Beekman tower to get a really, really tall building, or will it also be a cheater?

ablarc
November 29th, 2005, 07:30 AM
Does anybody else find the official height for this building a bit misleading?
I've never even been able to grasp the shape of this building. Does it have one?

NYguy
November 29th, 2005, 08:17 AM
Does anybody else find the official height for this building a bit misleading?
I mean, the number we often hear is 945 ft. to the roof but in reality that's really just the highest point (tip) of one side of the facade.
If you look carefully, you'll see that the roof is much lower than this and the highest occupied floor may well be lower still at what? 780 or at the most 800ft?
To me this is the real height of the building.
Sorry to burst your bubble height fans.
I guess you'll just have to wait until Gehry's Beekman tower to get a really, really tall building, or will it also be a cheater?


I don't have a problem with it. The Empire State Building is above 1,200 ft thanks to its spire, which is a little bit of a stretch when compared to the rest of the building. And that's including the observation deck. As far as BofA goes, if what you see on the skyline is the top facade, then that's part of the building to me. I couldn't care less where the workers were. No bubbles bursts here.

ZippyTheChimp
November 29th, 2005, 08:38 AM
I've never even been able to grasp the shape of this building. Does it have one?
http://www.durst.org/i_prop.asp?propertyid=12

Click on Renderings/Animations.

The animation has a good 360 degree view.

Alonzo-ny
November 29th, 2005, 09:02 AM
Does anybody else find the official height for this building a bit misleading?
I mean, the number we often hear is 945 ft. to the roof but in reality that's really just the highest point (tip) of one side of the facade.
If you look carefully, you'll see that the roof is much lower than this and the highest occupied floor may well be lower still at what? 780 or at the most 800ft?
To me this is the real height of the building.
Sorry to burst your bubble height fans.
I guess you'll just have to wait until Gehry's Beekman tower to get a really, really tall building, or will it also be a cheater?

your not bursting anyones bubble believe me

ZippyTheChimp
November 29th, 2005, 09:37 AM
Maybe a cheating building should build a little office at the very tip, and hire someone to just sit there, like the flagpole sitters during the Depression.

We'll all be able to sleep better knowing the building is occupied to its full height.

TallGuy
November 29th, 2005, 10:09 AM
I nominate my soon-to-be ex-wife.

NoyokA
November 29th, 2005, 12:09 PM
Does anybody else find the official height for this building a bit misleading?
I mean, the number we often hear is 945 ft. to the roof but in reality that's really just the highest point (tip) of one side of the facade.
If you look carefully, you'll see that the roof is much lower than this and the highest occupied floor may well be lower still at what? 780 or at the most 800ft?
To me this is the real height of the building.
Sorry to burst your bubble height fans.
I guess you'll just have to wait until Gehry's Beekman tower to get a really, really tall building, or will it also be a cheater?

Its 850 feet to the top office floor.

macreator
November 29th, 2005, 04:38 PM
I nominate my soon-to-be ex-wife.

LOL :D

RandySavage
December 1st, 2005, 08:18 PM
BofA is in the same wonderful class as the massively tall and impressive Citicorp Center, both with a decorative, unoccupied crown:

http://www.slpschools.org/cm/differentdimensions/dddavid/citicorpcenter_files/image002.jpg

Jake
December 1st, 2005, 08:48 PM
BofA is in the same wonderful class as the massively tall and impressive Citicorp Center, both with a decorative, unoccupied crown:

http://www.slpschools.org/cm/differentdimensions/dddavid/citicorpcenter_files/image002.jpg

Love the top, but IMO probably the worst base of any skyscraper I've ever seen.

antinimby
December 1st, 2005, 09:26 PM
BofA is in the same wonderful class as the massively tall and impressive Citicorp Center, both with a decorative, unoccupied crown...Not quite the same. Citigroup's top is enclosed whereas BofA's is open and appears to be nothing more than just a transparent screen, very much like NY Times'.




Love the top, but IMO probably the worst base of any skyscraper I've ever seen.I disagree. The base of Citigroup is probably the most interesting aspect of the building. If you're talking about BofA, the base does have that International style look to it, but otherwise it's not awful.
I think buildings that have terrible bases are those with no retail and nothing else but a blank wall.

Jake
December 1st, 2005, 10:58 PM
I disagree. The base of Citigroup is probably the most interesting aspect of the building. If you're talking about BofA, the base does have that International style look to it, but otherwise it's not awful.
I think buildings that have terrible bases are those with no retail and nothing else but a blank wall.

I hate to get off topic but I'll just say I don't like citicorp's base because it makes the building look "weak" I like broad strong bases that make the building look really stable, ie ESB. I know it was different technology back then but I'd still prefer buildings with wider bases. I don't know, Citicorp's base just doesn't do it for me.

BoA is OK but there is something that's been bothering me for a long time- WINDOW WASHERS, the WTC robot was the most stylish efficient solution to the problem and while I know the whole "rail" thing won't work on other buildings I wish they also came up with some high tech solution.

BoA has that animation of the crane reaching all sides of the building and it's all very nice but you still have 2 guys scrubbing this skyscraper. Very 19th centrury.

mikeee
December 3rd, 2005, 09:24 AM
Have they got alot done here? I havent seen it since last month anyone have new pictures?

kliq6
December 3rd, 2005, 01:50 PM
moving slow, foundation work near sixth ave is not done, tower is rising closer to 7th ave

ZippyTheChimp
December 3rd, 2005, 04:09 PM
Dec 03, 2005
http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/105/boa01c5bh.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa01c5bh.jpg) http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/7840/boa02c6md.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa02c6md.jpg) http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/6083/boa03c2vr.th.jpg (http://img500.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa03c2vr.jpg)

TonyO
December 7th, 2005, 10:22 PM
Building Design and Construction

New York skyscraper will function as a 55-story air filter

Dave Barista, assistant managing editor -- 11/18/2005 12:49:00 PM


It’s safe to say that when the 4,300 employees of Bank of America’s New York operations move into their new home at One Bryant Park in 2008, they will be breathing some of the cleanest air in any office environment.


Developed jointly by BOA and The Durst Organization, the 55-story Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park will be fitted with high-efficiency air-filtration systems commonly found in clean-room environments that will extract 95% of particulate matter, as well as ozone and volatile organic compounds, from the outside air. In comparison, typical building mechanical systems filter about 35-50% of particulates and extract very few VOCs or ozone matter.

The robust air-delivery system will not only maintain a “near clean-room” environment inside the 2.2 million-sf structure, but it will also help clean the atmosphere immediately around the skyscraper, according to Robert Fox, Jr., partner with local design architect Cook + Fox Architects.

“The air that is eventually exhausted from the building will be much cleaner than the air that came in,” says Fox. As a result, the building will effectively function as a “giant air filter” for the city. It’s a novel concept that, if applied to a great number of buildings within a city or region, could make a noticeable difference in the fight against pollution.

Outdoor air will enter the building at two locations—at the upper level of the podium (about 150 feet above grade) and at roof level (about 850 feet)—and will be filtered through MERV 15-rated air filters to remove particulate matter as small as 2.5 microns in diameter. (MERV, or minimum efficiency reporting value, measures the efficiency of air filters on a scale of 1 to 16, with 16 being the most efficient.) A second filter, called an “activated carbon” filter, will remove VOCs, ozone, and other pollutants, according to Scott Frank, partner with Jaros Baum & Bolles, New York, mechanical engineer on the project.

“This is not done in a typical class A office building,” says Frank. MERV 10 filters are the industry standard for buildings like Bank of America Tower, and air intakes are commonly placed near grade level. “With the air intakes located high up in the building, they’ll be removed from major sources of air pollution, like vehicle exhaust.”

“My hope is that building systems like this will become the norm,” says Fox. “And that it will become common for potential tenants and brokers to ask building owners about the type of filters they have on their air-delivery systems.”

Can the design of buildings actually improve the atmosphere?
“Certainly,” says Fox. “But there’s other factors at work here, namely vehicles and power plants.” Once those are under control, then buildings like Bank of America Tower can truly make an impact.

LeCom
December 7th, 2005, 10:59 PM
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/1562/pict0025bofaucdec05tothenorthe.jpg

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/3316/pict0028bofaucdec05tothenorthe.jpg

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/955/pict0030bofaucdec05tothenorthw.jpg

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/1739/pict0034bofaucdec05condenastto.jpg

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/444/pict0037bofaucdec05tothenorthw.jpg

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/4460/pict0041bofaucdec05tothesouthw.jpg

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/371/pict0046bofaucdec05tothewestsm.jpg

http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/7606/pict0048bofaucdec05tothewestcr.jpg

lofter1
December 8th, 2005, 01:45 AM
^ That crane is postioned in the middle of the "fly-space" (the area behind the stage where the scenery moves up and down) for the new Henry Miller Theatre. The steel decking for the seating on the orchestra level and balconies is already in place (to the right of the crane in the last two pictures). Street level doors will lead into the balcony area; orchestra seating is below grade.

NYguy
December 8th, 2005, 07:55 AM
The battle over Liberty Bonds and the WTC touches here...

DAILY NEWS

His midtown plan got a federal boost


To some, Douglas Durst's project at One Bryant Park is a symbol of post-Sept. 11 largess gone awry.

The 54-story headquarters, currently under construction for Bank of America smack in the middle of midtown, received $650 million in 9/11 Liberty Bond financing.

The building benefited from other tax incentives. And, through the process of eminent domain, the state Economic Development Corp. moved to take the property of owners who wouldn't sell to Durst.

Yet Durst had been openly planning the project, bordered by W. 42nd and W. 43rd Sts. and by Sixth and Seventh Aves., since the 1990s.

In 1999, he hung a banner on one of his 42nd St. buildings that read: "The Durst Organization is pleased to announce that the construction of One Bryant Park will begin in the 21st Century."

"One Bryant Park was just wrong in every way," said Bettina Damiani, director of Good Jobs New York, a group that monitors how the government spends money to encourage development.

But a spokesman said Durst had abandoned plans for the site after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that the project didn't gain steam again until he signed Bank of America as a tenant in late 2002.

"One Bryant Park would not have been built without Liberty Bonds," said Mortimer Matz, Durst's spokesman. "It would not have been economically feasible."

One company that fought losing its property through eminent domain, Triline Trading, also objected to the Liberty Bond award to Durst's company.

"We thought it was a perversion of the Liberty Bonds, which were meant to reinvigorate downtown Manhattan," said Joel Sachs, a lawyer who represented Triline. "It was just allowing developers who really did not need the additional financial assistance to take advantage of this whole program."

Many saw the condemnation proceedings as the state taking care of a favored developer; Durst has been a huge contributor to the campaigns of Gov. Pataki. In 2002, he gave Pataki $100,000 on a single day in the name of 20 corporate entities he controls. Since 1999, he has given $548,500 to Pataki and the Republican housekeeping committees that the governor controls.

Congress allotted $2 billion in Liberty Bonds to commercial projects outside lower Manhattan. But not only was Durst's project far from the damaged areas, it was in direct competition with downtown commercial real estate owners, who have for decades lost tenants to midtown.

The Durst Liberty Bond award, issued by the city Industrial Development Agency, also was opposed by many downtown residents and politicians.

"When the Liberty Bond financing came about it was very clear that this was a way to help lower Manhattan, not other neighborhoods," said Julie Menin, chairwoman of downtown's Community Board 1. "That [the Durst project] was something that our community board and our community as a whole were adamantly opposed to."

lofter1
December 8th, 2005, 09:46 AM
The battle over Liberty Bonds and the WTC touches here...

"We thought it was a perversion of the Liberty Bonds, which were meant to reinvigorate downtown Manhattan," ...

Congress allotted $2 billion in Liberty Bonds to commercial projects outside lower Manhattan.

"When the Liberty Bond financing came about it was very clear that this was a way to help lower Manhattan, not other neighborhoods," said Julie Menin, chairwoman of downtown's Community Board 1.
Liberty Bonds were clearly outlined as OK for NYC neighborhoods outside of the WTC area.

Agree with that or not, the use of Liberty bonds for BA Tower (or similar projects) can hardly be called a "perversion" when the original "Program Principles" ( http://www.newyorkbiz.com/WorldTradeCenter/GrantsInfo/LibertyBondProgramAnswers.html ) expressly state:



Program Principles

To fulfill the vision of Lower Manhattan as a 24/7, mixed-use, diversified community and support the City’s broader revitalization, the program seeks to:

Repair and replace damaged and destroyed commercial space and improve lower quality commercial space
Create additional multifamily residential rental and complementary retail development in Lower Manhattan
Provide modern office space for displaced and decentralizing businesses and facilitate new investment in central business districts throughout the City
Attract new residents and employers to New York City
Encourage environmentally responsible design and construction.

kliq6
December 8th, 2005, 10:03 AM
BOA is a major employer here, HQ or not, this tower was needed for them to expand. word is they may take up to 250,000 sf more in this tower on top of what they already have

NYguy
December 8th, 2005, 04:23 PM
BOA is a major employer here, HQ or not, this tower was needed for them to expand. word is they may take up to 250,000 sf more in this tower on top of what they already have


This tower was planned before 9/11. I could see how someone could have a problem with that...

RandySavage
December 8th, 2005, 04:28 PM
If anyone can find the latest issue of On Earth, the magazine of the NRDC, there is a pretty cool two-page rendering of the BoA Tower that highlights its many environmentally-friendly features (both above and below grade).

Phentente
December 9th, 2005, 12:03 AM
while looking for the above article I found this:

http://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts05/abstracts/merguerian-ophiolites.htm

sure to be one of those forgotten stories of skyscraper construction

lofter1
December 9th, 2005, 10:15 AM
^ Just a wee bit from the above link:

... Because of the symmetrical zones of mica-rich rocks sheared around the core of massive serpentinite, the geology of the One Bryant Park serpentinite most resembles alpine-type ultramafic rocks found elsewhere along the core zone of the Appalachian belt. The serpentinite shows no evidence for cumulate layering or igneous textures of any kind, lacked internal igneous contacts, and did not produce obvious contact metamorphism or growth of porphyroblasts in the surrounding amphibolite. There are no satellitic mafic plutons in the vicinity. No xenoliths or cognate xenoliths were found nor was there any evidence for cross-cutting intrusive relationships typical of igneous rocks. For these reasons, the serpentinite of the One Bryant Park site is interpreted to be a scrap of dismembered ophiolite (a).

As described above, all of the serpentinites of NYC and vicinity are within the Hartland Terrane, a vast sequence of sheared aluminous schist, granofels, and amphibolite that presumably represent metamorphosed deep-water shale, graywacke, and basaltic oceanic crust of a former oceanic basin. Regional considerations on the timing of mountain building and deformation of the metamorphic rocks of the Manhattan Prong suggest that the main pulse of deformation occurred during the Taconic orogeny of medial Ordovician age (roughly 450 million years ago) when a volcanic arc off eastern North America collided with the passive continental shelf edge of North America (Figure 5). Because the serpentinites of NYC and vicinity appear to be associated with sheared eugeosynclinal rocks and ductile faults, they are interpreted as dismembered slivers of 450 Ma (or older) mantle formerly situated between a colliding Taconian volcanic arc and the stable shelf edge of proto North America (Merguerian 1983).



http://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts05/abstracts/merguerian-ophiolites_files/image005.jpg


Figure 5 - Plate-tectonic "cartoon" showing inferred reconstruction at beginning of Medial Ordovician time. This interpretation shows the former ocean floor and volcanic island arc moving against North America, with a seaward-dipping subduction zone beneath the island arc. (Y. W. Isachsen, 1980, fig. 4, p. 7.)


Modern studies of orogenic belts indicate that the occurrence of serpentinite along the internal, deformed core zones of mountain ranges has resulted from physical injection of partly solidified masses of mantle as tectonic slivers (slices) during compression that accompanies convergent mountain building. In the Hartland Terrane throughout New England, occurrences of serpentinite, amphibolite (± deformed pillow lava), and mica schist with stratabound metalliferous deposits, represent layers of the ophiolite trinity (Merguerian 1981). An example would be the Forge Hill ophiolite in Massachusetts (Emerson 1898). In deeply eroded terrains, such as the Appalachians, where significant deep-seated shearing, metamorphism, and imbrication of rock units have taken place, complete three-layer ophiolite sequences are seldom recognized (Merguerian 1979). In fact, given the enormity of shearing in such former convergent margin settings, metamorphosed dismembered ophiolite is the expected norm rather than the exception. In NYC and vicinity, the association of serpentinite and the Hartland Formation allows the interpretative view that they are slivers of dismembered ophiolite preserved in a sheared eugeosynclinal matrix.

NYatKNIGHT
December 9th, 2005, 01:03 PM
No wonder it's taking them so long.

NoyokA
December 9th, 2005, 05:05 PM
No wonder it's taking them so long.

That's for sure. The steel we see poking above the street...

http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/4605/bofa8ob.th.jpg (http://img445.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bofa8ob.jpg)

Is misleading because foundations are still be layed for the tower portion:

http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/6008/bofa25uh.th.jpg (http://img445.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bofa25uh.jpg)

mikeee
December 10th, 2005, 08:43 PM
GREAT pics stern how you find those holes lol, That is a huge foundation much deeper then I thought it was going to be...

ddjiii
December 11th, 2005, 10:16 PM
...No xenoliths or cognate xenoliths were found nor was there any evidence for cross-cutting intrusive relationships typical of igneous rocks. For these reasons, the serpentinite of the One Bryant Park site is interpreted to be a scrap of dismembered ophiolite...

Hell, I could've told them that...

Jake
December 11th, 2005, 11:58 PM
lol

I read that over 5 times now and still don't really get it:p

lofter1
December 12th, 2005, 06:36 PM
...the latest issue of On Earth, the magazine of the NRDC, there is a pretty cool two-page rendering of the BoA Tower that highlights its many environmentally-friendly features (both above and below grade).
The Winter 2005 issue is not yet on-line, but in part it reads:


LET IT RAIN The roof above Broadway's historic Henry Miller's Theater, partially covered with grass, is one of several roof surfaces that will collect storm runoff -- rain and snow -- and send it to storage tanks. There it will be used to water plantings and flush toilets (the urinals, however, are waterless), slashing potable water consumption by half and eliminating the building's storm-water contribution to the city's overtaxed sewer system. Placing tanks throughout the tower minimizes the energy required to pump water to higher floors.

lofter1
December 12th, 2005, 06:43 PM
And another bit of cost-saving and environmentally-friendly technology:


HOT AND COLD Set below the water table, the foundation of the building is the deepest in midtown, which means there's quite a bit of groundwater seeping in. Other buildings dump the seepage into the city sewer system, but here it's put to use as geothermal energy. Groundwater has a constant temperature of about 55 degrees, so by installing a heat exchanger, which works on the same principle as your car radiator, the water will be used to cool the air in the summer and heat it in the winter. When it's hot out, for example, warm water will be pumped down to the basement, mixed with the cooler groundwater, and pumped back up to offset air-conditioning costs in the ground-floor bank. Afterward, the water will be pumped into the building's storm-water collection tanks and used to flush toilets.

antinimby
December 21st, 2005, 12:19 AM
Strike Inflicts Broad Economic Pain

By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: December 21, 2005

And at a Midtown spot near Bryant Park where a 52-story office tower is being built, barely half the construction workers made it to the job, and those who did were slowed by delays in getting building materials delivered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read the rest of the article (unrelated to 1BP) go to:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/21business.html?ei=5094&en=fa58925676d2f99b&hp=&ex=1135227600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1135142007-TVHiYnoG5CmjqePnfOseVA

mikeee
January 16th, 2006, 09:26 PM
anyone have new pics or know what it looks like havent been near it since dec?

NYatKNIGHT
January 17th, 2006, 11:17 AM
There is new steel rising above street level just east of the portion already built, though nothing new along 6th Ave.

evil_synth
January 19th, 2006, 01:13 PM
Some pix I took today (Jan 18 2006), in addition to my NYTimes Tower pix:
An Open door way on 42nd street:
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20013.jpg
--
Another:
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20014.jpg
--
Something going on beneath the sidewalk on 42nd street:
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20015.jpg
--
From 43rd street:
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20016.jpg
--
http://ionicdomain.com/images/nyc/Picture%20017.jpg
--

phillymatt
January 19th, 2006, 06:56 PM
Thanks for the pics. Been a while since I've seen some BOFA pics. Looks like work on the tower still hasn't started yet.

americasroof
January 19th, 2006, 08:59 PM
And look who's keeping an eye on it across the street on 43rd Street...
http://static.flickr.com/38/85823758_0a9d777ed3.jpg

macreator
January 20th, 2006, 02:38 PM
Good 'ol Ché, always on the watch for capitalism! :D

NYguy
January 23rd, 2006, 07:14 PM
JANUARY 22, 2006


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55229205/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55229208/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55229210/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55229212/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55229216/large.jpg

NoyokA
January 25th, 2006, 05:56 PM
I walked by the site today and asked a construction worker why the tower portion was taking so long to rise, his response was that they were digging a big hole. Whatever. He did however tell me we'll start to see steel rising in three months.

lofter1
January 26th, 2006, 12:39 AM
The tower hole is dug-out and foundation poured.

Now they are doing something with temporary scaffolding being erected around the elevator pits ...

Anyone know what that is about?

LeCom
January 30th, 2006, 05:59 PM
January 25, 2006

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432287.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432289.jpg

West crane - looking north from 42nd Street
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432296.jpg

East crane - looking northeast from 42nd Street
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432298.jpg

Just like in the old days
https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432294.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/01/432297.jpg

Scruffy88
February 1st, 2006, 03:59 PM
ive totally forgotten to look for updates on this tower. I rarely go to that intersection anymore. Its fantastic that the tower finally broke street level. really exciting really. This tower is the most impressive of the big ones under construction right now.

NoyokA
February 1st, 2006, 05:34 PM
ive totally forgotten to look for updates on this tower. I rarely go to that intersection anymore. Its fantastic that the tower finally broke street level. really exciting really. This tower is the most impressive of the big ones under construction right now.

The tower hasn't broken street level yet. As I said before it'll be a number of months before we see steel for the tower.

tmac9wr
February 1st, 2006, 07:50 PM
Doesn't the fact that we can see the tower now and it seems to be about 2 stories up mean that it has broken street level? Or am I looking at this the wrong way

NoyokA
February 1st, 2006, 07:53 PM
Doesn't the fact that we can see the tower now and it seems to be about 2 stories up mean that it has broken street level? Or am I looking at this the wrong way

The steel is rising on the eastern, low-rise portion of the site. Steel is not rising yet for the tower. I was told a week ago that steel for the tower is three months away.

NYguy
February 6th, 2006, 10:30 AM
Lowrise or highrise, its all the part of the building to me. The NY Times tower
went up the opposite way, the lowrise came later...

FEBRUARY 5, 2006


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772179/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772182/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772179/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772182/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772185/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772185/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772187/large.jpg


The northeast corner of the tower...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772188/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/55772188/large.jpg

lofter1
February 6th, 2006, 11:40 AM
Anyone know the purpose of all that scaffolding ^^^ ?

It's below street level in the area of the elevator pits of the tower section -- as shown in the last two pics.

hella good
February 6th, 2006, 11:58 AM
CHRIST! thats fast progress!!!!!

i wonder if that scaffolding is the beggining of shuttering for a concrete core. do we know if it will have a concrete core?

ZippyTheChimp
February 6th, 2006, 12:51 PM
The building will have a concrete core containing "all vertical transportation." :)

According to the following article, core construction will follow steel.
http://construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20040726e.asp

antinimby
February 8th, 2006, 02:05 AM
If that is the size of the concrete core, then what is left for the office space?
And btw, can those beams look any more rusty?

Phentente
February 8th, 2006, 04:45 PM
First of all, remember this building is a heavyweight. At the Eighth floor, where the tower first separates from the base, the floor dimensions are something like 220 feet (along 42nd street) by 180 feet. Based on that the photos show collumns that should definitly be rising beyond the base. I get the feeling the last collumns for the tower will be installed in three months; not all of them at that time. Those big box collumns look like they'll be supporting more weight than just some measly 7 story podium. In a building of 2 million square feet rising this high the collumns tell the story. In the basement each one will be supporting millions of pounds.
BTW, regarding the rust: I might be wrong, but I think the manufacturers intentionally rust the steel a millimeter or so in a very short period of time to prevent even more corrosion. I remember reading something like that a LONG time ago, so somebody should check me on this.

ddjiii
February 8th, 2006, 05:26 PM
BTW, regarding the rust: I might be wrong, but I think the manufacturers intentionally rust the steel a millimeter or so in a very short period of time to prevent even more corrosion. I remember reading something like that a LONG time ago, so somebody should check me on this.

I know there is steel which is intended to rust a mm and then stop, and have seen it in various exposed places. But that stuff is a nice even rust color all over, it actually looks quite good. The steel in the picture is steel colored except for big rust spots all over; it looks different to me. But I don't really know much about it.

ZippyTheChimp
February 8th, 2006, 07:00 PM
I'm probably completely wrong about this, but what the hell.

The initial rust coating is called a passive layer, and isolates the metal from the environment, and protects it. In an ideal situation, the steel would last a very long time without further rusting.

The problem is that the coating is alkaline (high ph) and the modern environment is acidic (low ph). This breaks down the coating, exposing the metal to further corrosion.

The reason steel rebar in concrete lasts so long is that the concrete is alkaline. So I'll guess that if the beams are treated, it is some sort of alkaline solution to slow down the chemical reaction, but I don't think they are treated at all.

RS085
February 8th, 2006, 07:15 PM
so this tower will have a concrete core similar to comcast?

Edward
February 15th, 2006, 01:03 AM
Snow in Bryant Park (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/../parks/bryant_park/default.htm). 12 February 2006.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/one_bryant/one_bryant_park_snow.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/1bryant_park.htm)

krulltime
February 17th, 2006, 01:01 PM
February 16, 2006:


http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/56185377.IMG_7519.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/56185380.IMG_7523.jpg

smackfu
February 17th, 2006, 03:53 PM
I walked by this yesterday. What is the point of the columns and excavation that are between the street and the pedestrian walkway on 42nd? They're only 12" or so columns and they seem pretty far from anything else that's on the site.

BrooklynRider
February 17th, 2006, 11:24 PM
These pictures don't quite convery how absolutely MASSIVE this structure is right now. Up close, it also seems like alot more steel than a typical building. It looks like a frame for a fortress. Could just be the sheer size and the column after column depth and expanse.

americasroof
February 17th, 2006, 11:53 PM
These pictures don't quite convery how absolutely MASSIVE this structure is right now. Up close, it also seems like alot more steel than a typical building. It looks like a frame for a fortress. Could just be the sheer size and the column after column depth and expanse.

I too am astounded at the massive size at its base. It takes up nearly a full long block. Off hand the only existing buildings at its base I can think that could compare are 30 Rock and the new Time Warner building and of course the Javits Center if you want to go the base route. This building at its base even looks bigger than the Empire State.

The snow pix is my favorite thus far.

antinimby
February 18th, 2006, 12:44 AM
The World's Coolest Skyscraper

In the heart of New York City, the Bank of America's towering headquarters will be greener than a hundred dollar bill.

From your sun-drenched room, gaze at the Manhattan skyline through floor-to-ceiling windows, adjust the temperature to suit your mood, breathe air that's cleaner than what's outside: Sounds more like a posh New York hotel than an office tower. But such features will make the Bank of America Tower the most environmentally friendly skyscraper ever built when it opens in 2008. The architectural firm Cook+Fox plans to outfit the gleaming, glass-sheathed structure with resource-saving measures from the deepest reaches of the basement to the roof of the tower's 54th floor. The building's eco-friendly features add up to less than $6 million -- not even one percent of the project's $1 billion price tag. Federal energy-efficiency tax credits more than cover the difference, so in the end, the tower will cost less than a traditional skyscraper. And by using 40 percent less water and 40 percent less energy, tenants will reap savings for many years to come.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/Phobos.europe/imagemBofA.jpg


LET IT RAIN

The roof (6) above Broadway's historic Henry Miller's Theater (9), partially covered with grass, is one of several roof surfaces (1)(8) that will collect storm runoff -- rain and snow -- and send it to storage tanks (4)(10). There it will be used to water plantings and flush toilets (the urinals, however, are waterless), slashing potable water consumption by half and eliminating the building's storm-water contribution to the city's overtaxed sewer system. Placing tanks throughout the tower (4) minimizes the energy required to pump water to higher floors.


LESS IS MORE

Designed with the prevailing winds in mind, the building's canted exterior surfaces (2) allow powerful air currents to flow smoothly around its upper floors. As a result, less steel will be needed to reinforce the tower walls than would be required by a standard box-shaped skyscraper. The tower will use less concrete, too. Blast furnace slag -- the concrete-like remnant of steelmaking -- will be substituted for nearly half the building's concrete needs. Not only does that mean using what would otherwise be a waste product, it also spares the atmosphere 56,250 tons of CO2. (Manufacturing cement, an essential component of concrete, makes up 7 percent of man-made carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.) What's more, 40 percent of the construction materials will be produced within a 500-mile radius of Manhattan, reducing the energy required to transport them to the site.


FOCUS ON PEOPLE

Traditional air-conditioning systems blast cold air from vents in the ceiling, mixing it through the room and cooling the entire space. Here (3), purified air will flow through ducts under the floor and each workstation will be equipped with a vent beneath the desk that can be adjusted to alter the flow of cool air into the office. People and office equipment generate heat, and hot air rises, so the setup naturally draws air from the floor toward the ceiling. Energy will be conserved by cooling only where the people are, not empty space near the ceiling. Another bonus: Office health gets a boost as germy sneezes are lofted up and out of the room, and back through central air filters.


ENOUGH TO SEE BUT NO UV

The building will be sheathed in a specially designed and coated glass (5) that allows visible light to pass through while reflecting ultraviolet rays, reducing the need for artificial light and cutting down on air-conditioning demand at the same time. Even though those warming rays could reduce heating costs in the winter, minimizing the greenhouse effect during summer months saves more energy and money.


ON-SITE POWER

The tower will be the first commercial office building in the city to have a co-generator (7), in this case, a 5.1-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant that will recycle waste heat as an additional source of power. The co-generator works most efficiently when it operates around the clock, so during the day it will be used to meet basic needs like running elevators and lights. When nobody's around, the power will be used to make ice in the basement (13). Sounds primitive, but as the ice melts the following day, cold water will be piped through copper coils in the air-conditioning system, cooling the air and reducing the building's peak energy demand. That will lessen strain on the city's heavily burdened grid and will save tenants about $100,000 a year on utility bills.


HOT AND COLD

Set below the water table, the foundation of the building is the deepest in midtown, which means there's quite a bit of groundwater seeping in (12). Other buildings dump the seepage into the city sewer system, but here it's put to use as geothermal energy. Groundwater has a constant temperature of about 55 degrees, so by installing a heat exchanger (11), which works on the same principle as your car radiator, the water will be used to cool the air in the summer and heat it in the winter. When it's hot out, for example, warm water will be pumped down to the basement, mixed with the cooler groundwater, and pumped back up to offset air-conditioning costs in the ground-floor bank. Afterward, the water will be pumped into the building's storm-water collection tanks (10) and used to flush toilets.

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/06win/livgreen.asp

vc10
February 18th, 2006, 12:32 PM
An alternative would be to sell co-gen power to Con-ed at night. Presumably they've done the calculation and it's more cost effective to make ice (?)

JCMAN320
February 18th, 2006, 04:03 PM
This is awesome more buildings in the US should be more eco-friendly. Here in Jersey City the Goldman Sachs building has recieved numerous awards for being eco-friendly and currently is the tallest "green-building" in the United States. Great design by the way!!! I love this building!!!!

NYguy
February 19th, 2006, 01:12 AM
I always assumed that they would put up a rendering of the tower (like they have at the Times site). Too many people pass this site daily without actually knowing one of the tallest towers in the city rises. Maybe they don't want it to be confused with the Freedom Tower.

lesterp4
February 19th, 2006, 10:54 PM
I walked by the site this weekend and they were erecting another crane on the corner of 6th ave and 43rd. I asked one of the workers about the crane and he said steel is going to start going up for the tower portion as soon as the crane is finished!

Funkytown
February 20th, 2006, 06:05 AM
Great to hear:)

CARLOS
February 20th, 2006, 08:31 PM
Monday February 20, 2006

The tower section will NOT rise for another month or so.... :confused:


this is the lower part of the building....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01293.jpg






http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01294.jpg









http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01295.jpg









http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01298.jpg

Fabrizio
February 20th, 2006, 08:51 PM
Is this block of 42nd going to be a nice walk ....or a windy dead zone lined with walls?

lofter1
February 21st, 2006, 01:06 AM
Missing Tad's Steak House already?

Fabrizio
February 21st, 2006, 05:14 AM
Nothing like a Tadburger after the peeps.

ablarc
February 21st, 2006, 07:34 AM
Missing Tad's Steak House already?

Nothing like a Tadburger after the peeps.
Seems like we can have fine-grained, varied little businesses in londonlawyer-crap single-story buildings, or we can have soulless mega chain stores in glossy skyscraper upscale retail malls. What would be wrong with Tad’s in the BOA Center –besides that they probably couldn’t afford the rent?

There's often a proportion of city-mandated affordable housing. Why not a portion of city-mandated affordable retail?

Fabrizio
February 21st, 2006, 08:17 AM
Wonderful idea.

How about zoning skyscrapers in this area to have street front shops? Small retail spaces? Sidewalk cafes? Maybe a few cues from Europe?

Scroll up 4 photos. 1 Bryant butting up to Conde Nast. I´ll bet you anything that side of the block will be an urban disaster.

ZippyTheChimp
February 21st, 2006, 08:42 AM
The Conde Nast side is already a disaster. Right off Broadway, and completely dead. Now it will extend to 6th Ave. The pedestrian passage between the two buildings will be an isolated space.

vc10
February 21st, 2006, 10:07 AM
Ridiculous. Let the market sort it out. If there's enough demand to support all the bank branches that have popped up, all the chain stores, etc, then that's presumably the way it should be. If, as I suspect, there's not quite enough demand to support all the WaMus, North Forks, Wachovias, BofAs, etc, then some of that will revert to other retail (I'll note in passing that at least the new bank branches tend to upgrade the retail sites that they occupy, which benefit will presumably remain after they move on).

Personally I'm glad that the big boxes and chain stores are finally moving into New York. It raises the standard of retail. For instance, independent Manhattan hardware stores, in my experience, are generally dingy, cluttered and ripoff-priced. So I could only cheer when Home Depot came to Chelsea. From now on, anyone who has an independent hardware store needs to somehow offer something better (along some dimension) than Home Depot, or go out of business. The death of nasty little neighborhood hardware stores is a reason to rejoice, not mourn.

Protecting independent retail is just a way of ensuring a proportion of horrible independent retail. This is New York, baby, if you can't stand the heat you shouldn't be here. I have no problem with it taking something extraordinary on the part of retailers to survive. That creates great retail.




There's often a proportion of city-mandated affordable housing. Why not a portion of city-mandated affordable retail?

lofter1
February 21st, 2006, 10:34 AM
Personally I'm glad that the big boxes and chain stores are finally moving into New York. It raises the standard of retail. For instance, independent Manhattan hardware stores ... anyone who has an independent hardware store needs to somehow offer something better ... The death of nasty little neighborhood hardware stores is a reason to rejoice, not mourn.

This is New York, baby, if you can't stand the heat you shouldn't be here.
Conversely (and somewhat in jest): If you go into one of these classic NYC Hardware Stores and you don't know what you're looking for then you're just getting in the way and slowing down commerce.

The high level of disdain expressed by the workers / proprietors in NYC Hardware Stores serves to raise the Hardware IQ of NYC shoppers by forcing them to do a little research before daring to venture inside.

Besides where else but an independently owned NYC Hardware Store can you spend 30 minutes looking for the exact unlabeled-nut to match that mis-matched bolt you've been carrying around in your pocket?

Like you said if you can't stand the heat (or the ridicule) then stay out of the Independently Owned NYC Hardware Store.

smackfu
February 21st, 2006, 11:18 AM
Missing Tad's Steak House already?I miss the place on the corner. That was usually the only open restaurant walking back to GCT too late in the night.

Fabrizio
February 21st, 2006, 11:55 AM
VC10,

"If, as I suspect, there's not quite enough demand to support all the WaMus, North Forks, Wachovias, BofAs, etc, then some of that will revert to other retail"

Do you really think that those bank branches (and Duane Reades for that matter) are all over the place because of demand? What a quaint notion. Having a "presence" in certain high-prohile areas is often times just another marketing strategy.... and it matters little if the particular space is making a profit. A little creative thinking....encouraging a MIX of retail and sevices... big and small.... among these huge devolpments might not be such a bad idea. In any case, this north side stretch of 42nd shown above looks like the like it´s going to be a wall....and it´s wrong for the area.

ZippyTheChimp
February 21st, 2006, 12:31 PM
Do you really think that those bank branches (and Duane Reades for that matter) are all over the place because of demand?
Related

MrSpice
February 21st, 2006, 01:01 PM
Ridiculous. Let the market sort it out.

Exactly - all those complaints about large stores, tall buildings and other ills incurred by development are ridiculous. I have no doubt that the small cafes will spring up in order to feed all these new BofA employees at lunch and in the evening when many of them will have to work late. You see that happening everywhere new tall buildings get built. There are so many small cafes in Midtown around 6th Ave, for example, even though no zoning has required them to be there. There's no need for zoning changes or any government directives. Let the market work and don't worry - it's going to be OK.

I don't think New York had any real zoning rules at the end of last century and in the 20s and 30s when so many of New York's greatest buildings were built.

ZippyTheChimp
February 21st, 2006, 01:14 PM
NYC Zoning Resolution - 1916

vc10
February 21st, 2006, 02:20 PM
Reference, please?


VC10,

"If, as I suspect, there's not quite enough demand to support all the WaMus, North Forks, Wachovias, BofAs, etc, then some of that will revert to other retail"

Do you really think that those bank branches (and Duane Reades for that matter) are all over the place because of demand? What a quaint notion. Having a "presence" in certain high-prohile areas is often times just another marketing strategy.... and it matters little if the particular space is making a profit. A little creative thinking....encouraging a MIX of retail and sevices... big and small.... among these huge devolpments might not be such a bad idea. In any case, this north side stretch of 42nd shown above looks like the like it´s going to be a wall....and it´s wrong for the area.

Fabrizio
February 21st, 2006, 05:32 PM
Mr Spice: Agreed. My post however was in reference to a specific block.... a stretch of 42nd street. And read my post carefully I say:"How about zoning SKYSCRAPERS in this area to have street front shops? (etc.)". Hardly against big development. Remember: zoning and usage laws were used on 42nd street further west. There is nothing new about having developers follow such laws. In the 1980´s, I remember the developer of one of the new buildings in TSquare balking about the lighted signs that they were newly required BY LAW to have plastered to the facade of their building ("serious corporations will not want to locate here! etc.") Of course now we see that those laws were a big sucess.

"I don't think New York had any real zoning rules at the end of last century and in the 20s and 30s when so many of New York's greatest buildings were built."

Mr Spice.... read carefully:

The "New" Times square was a result of planning:

http://home.luna.nl/~xino/times2/ts07.htm

And please note that the original Phillip Johnson plan for the "crossroads" was turned down because it was considerednot in the spirit of TSquare.

Midtown: I don´t understand your "reference please". More specific?

lofter1
February 21st, 2006, 05:45 PM
... please note that the original Phillip Johnson plan for the "crossroads" was turned down because it was considerednot in the spirit of TSquare.
And how lucky we all are that Johnson's 4 tombstones were not built.

However, I do miss this little sweety that used to stand on the NW corner of 42nd / 7th Ave.:

http://home.luna.nl/~xino/times2/pix/sternmtt.jpg

Fabrizio
February 21st, 2006, 06:01 PM
Lofter: Notice how the new skyscraper in it´s place recalls the art-deco window design.... a small touch, but a nice nod to the corners history.

antinimby
February 21st, 2006, 06:14 PM
There's often a proportion of city-mandated affordable housing. Why not a portion of city-mandated affordable retail?That's a very good idea. The developer should make these concessions, even if they don't stand to make a profit. Just like the bonus developers get for having a subway entrance in their building or in the case of residentials, including affordable units, they should get bonuses for bringing back the small but successful retailers that were originally displaced. Notice I said "successful"; we don't necessarily want every failing mom and pop back just for charity.

BTW, this subject is hardly new because I was the only one at the time to have the foresight to have this concern:
(4/30/2005, p. 55, post#825)

Here are my gripes with BofA:
1) No retail space (am I mistaken?)...
To which I got this reply:

1. It will have public space on the ground level... which is just as good as retail space...
To which I replied:

My observation of public spaces is that they're used mostly during lunchtime by workers AND only during good weather (open air plazas). After hours, it becomes empty pretty fast. Would be nice if they could fit in an Apple Bee's or something...True, but why can't we just have a tiny, teeny, weeny little sign on either the 42nd or 43rd St. sides closer to 7th Ave. This way the building won't seem so cold and lifeless at night.
But all this talk is useless now since the city department in charge of zoning and developments still haven't reach that point of sophistication yet.

lofter1
February 21st, 2006, 07:59 PM
Re: Phillip Johnson plan for the "crossroads"

And how lucky we all are that Johnson's 4 tombstones were not built.
Anyone have a photo or link to photos of the Johnson / Burgee Times Square plan from the 80's?

It would be good for a laugh.

I've googled and searched, but it seems that before Johnson left this plane he had all sites scoured of any shots showing what was clearly the lowest point in a long career.

Fabrizio
February 21st, 2006, 08:28 PM
Strange that photos are not available. I remember the towers being grouped at the cross-road corners. They were in a retro-style with gothic mansard roofs... the feel was similiar to another building he had done around the same time ( Houston? Pittsburg?). All of the buildings were exactly the same... it was frightening. The propsal was shown with the Alied Chemical building torn down and replaced with a huge sculpture of an apple!

ZippyTheChimp
February 21st, 2006, 08:52 PM
All I could find was this. Not much.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2040235185-5221.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1&end_page=37

Scroll down to the article on pg 15. There's a b&w copy of the rendering I remember when the plan was proposed. There are some elevations on the following page.

Fabrizio
February 21st, 2006, 09:36 PM
Yes, that´s it. I remember seeing photos of the plastic models at the time. It was going to be called "Times Square Center". There were no electric signs on these buildings...Times Square would´ve been dark. And 1 Times Square would´ve been torn down and replaced with an apple sculpture (that was the brilliant idea of Micheal Graves... if I remember correctly).

TLOZ Link5
February 21st, 2006, 09:39 PM
Another design:

http://www.parktowergroup.com/bldgs4/Tsc_pro4.JPG

Citytect
February 21st, 2006, 11:19 PM
That proposal wasn't terrible. It was completely average, and I think what we have now is completely average too (besides the flashy signage). So I don't think we're all that much better off with what we got. Throw up some neon at the base of the Johnson towers and it would probably have looked a LOT like what Times Square looks like today.

lofter1
February 21st, 2006, 11:38 PM
Found some !!

Here they are -- so you can see how dreadfully banal the design was:

Elevation (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.urbanresidue.com/thesis_files/image015.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.urbanresidue.com/visual_order.html&h=163&w=256&sz=5&tbnid=rQ0tijkHLyyVrM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=107&hl=en&start=7&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djohnson%2Bburgee%2Btimes%2Bsquare%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG ):

http://www.urbanresidue.com/thesis_files/image015.jpg
Figure 7: The designs by Johnson and Burgee for
four large office buildings with mansard roofs,
recalling old theaters in the area, were widely
criticized as visually inconsistent with Times Square
and a threat to its identity.

The "avant" version:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/EEI/HISTORY/timesq2t.jpg

And another (shades of Pelli's WFC?):

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/EEI/HISTORY/timesq1.jpg

Fabrizio
February 22nd, 2006, 12:00 AM
Highly kitsch. Mussolini in Paris. Perhaps one of these towers might have been ok ( the center one gets my vote) .... but as group it would have meant turning the cross-roads at Times Square into a straight-laced uniform office-park setting. Note BTW, that those mansard roofs were actually reflective glass... it was very 80´s post modernism. This end of Times Square would´ve been like having a group of 4 Sony buildings. Note the similarities at street level:

http://www.thecityreview.com/sonyatt.html

212
February 22nd, 2006, 01:10 AM
How about zoning skyscrapers in this area to have street front shops? Small retail spaces? Sidewalk cafes? Maybe a few cues from Europe?




What would you think of a small FAR bonus for new buildings that preserve a portion of the smaller buildings they replace, and keep the retail uses --especially along major retail corridors like 42nd Street?

I'd guess that more than the facades would need to be preserved, though I'm not sure what the right formula would be. I think the Hearst Tower shows that this approach could have some exciting results. (Does anyone really think it would have been better if Foster had removed the base and extended the diagrid to the street?)

BOA got it right in preserving the theater facade on 43rd -- but the 42nd Street side is even more important.

ablarc
February 22nd, 2006, 07:28 AM
What would you think of a small FAR bonus for new buildings that preserve a portion of the smaller buildings they replace, and keep the retail uses --especially along major retail corridors like 42nd Street?
Sounds promising with some fine-tuning.

antinimby
February 23rd, 2006, 09:48 PM
I am totally unhappy with the time it's taking to build this project. The site was being demolished back in 2004 (or was it 2003?). The project won't be complete and fully functional until well into 2008. That's at least 4 years (possibly closer to 5!) that we're stuck with a depressing construction site and on top of that, we've gone without retail and services on nearly an entire block in the middle of Manhattan. That's much too long.

macreator
February 24th, 2006, 06:53 AM
...we've gone without retail and services on nearly an entire block in the middle of Manhattan...

Nearly an entire block? Try a gigantic block. I mean we haven't made the slightest dent at all into the site in 5 years....it's a disgrace if you ask me...

antinimby
February 24th, 2006, 05:39 PM
Exactly.
Say what you will and make all the jokes you want about the McDonald's and Tad's Steakhouses but at least they gave the block some activity and life.
Now, we've got nothing but a pit and some rusty beams sticking out the ground and we're supposed to be impressed?

I know people will say that the building is big and that the foundation was deep and you've got subways running nearby and on and on...but 5 years?

macreator
February 25th, 2006, 12:30 AM
While obviously these build times aren't realistic today -- or for this site -- I can't help but say that we could have built 3 and 1/3 Empire State Buildings by now :D

At 18 months a pop, we'd be well underway on the last 2/3 of our 4th ESB by now :D

Arch
February 28th, 2006, 06:57 PM
I walked by the site today and all three cranes were working away at putting up steel. I looked down into the site and saw that they have erected at least one full level of steel and are starting on the next level now. Spoke to one of the construction supers who said that they should be at or above ground in about 3 weeks. This is going to start shooting up soon.

you can also see the first two floors have curtain wall anchors already installed on 42nd street and concrete trucks are backed up all along the street.

mgp
March 1st, 2006, 06:45 PM
As mentioned previously in this thread, it appears that B of A is going to sign an amendment for an additional 600k square feet in One Bryant.

Sorry. I didn't mean to break up the retail conversation.

NYguy
March 1st, 2006, 09:10 PM
I am totally unhappy with the time it's taking to build this project. The site was being demolished back in 2004 (or was it 2003?). The project won't be complete and fully functional until well into 2008. That's at least 4 years (possibly closer to 5!) that we're stuck with a depressing construction site and on top of that, we've gone without retail and services on nearly an entire block in the middle of Manhattan. That's much too long.

It's not as bad as all that. You've got the ESPN Zone down at the other end, a 24 hr drug store, etc. Its not as if that area is lacking in streetlife or services. I'm around there all the time. When this tower is open, there won't be much change, except that there will be more pedestrians.

I think the Milstein site further down 42nd is a much larger disgrace.

krulltime
March 1st, 2006, 09:35 PM
From the top of the Empire State Building.

March 1, 2006:


http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/56704566.7.JPG

http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/56704568.8.JPG

londonlawyer
March 1st, 2006, 09:43 PM
This building will be magnificent.

PS: Since this site is being redeveloped and since the Hippodrome was re-skinned, there are two more crap sites on 6th Ave. that I'd like to see developed.

The first is the Diamond Center building on the northeaster corner of 6th and 47th Street. The DC is currently for sale, and it could be razed and replaced with a boutique hotel.

The other shoddy site is on the northeast corner of 6th and 44th. There are three buildings on 44th and 6th, the northernmost two are pre-WWII and are nice, the southernmost is post-WWII and is crap. I'd like to see that one razed and replaced with a hotel too. A hotel would be very appropriate there since 44th Street is lined with hotels.

czsz
March 1st, 2006, 10:01 PM
Shouldn't hotels be going up in DIFFERENT parts of the city/neighbourhood?

macreator
March 1st, 2006, 10:18 PM
Shouldn't hotels be going up in DIFFERENT parts of the city/neighbourhood?

We can never have enough boutique hotels ;)

In all truth though I am happy to see more hotels going up -- the City is in dire need of more rooms.

londonlawyer
March 1st, 2006, 10:42 PM
Shouldn't hotels be going up in DIFFERENT parts of the city/neighbourhood?

Hotels should be built throughout the city. However, according to all reports that I've read, there's an acute shortage in Midtown notwithstanding the fact that that's where business and leisure travelers want to stay the most.

ddjiii
March 3rd, 2006, 04:54 PM
I am totally unhappy with the time it's taking to build this project. The site was being demolished back in 2004 (or was it 2003?). The project won't be complete and fully functional until well into 2008. That's at least 4 years (possibly closer to 5!) that we're stuck with a depressing construction site and on top of that, we've gone without retail and services on nearly an entire block in the middle of Manhattan. That's much too long.

There aren't going to be any additional retail or services (except an indoor park/winter garden) when the building's done - that's one of the few flaws of this project. So get used to it! :-)

And does anyone on this forum really find construction sites depressing? I walk by the site practically every day and I find it exciting and fascinating. Despite the timetable, BTW, you can see progress every day. It looks to me like they're flying.

ddjiii
March 3rd, 2006, 04:56 PM
The Conde Nast side is already a disaster. Right off Broadway, and completely dead. Now it will extend to 6th Ave. The pedestrian passage between the two buildings will be an isolated space.

No! That side has the main entrance to the building, and it gets a lot of foot traffic. There's no retail, true, but it's hardly dead.

You're probably right about the pedestrian passage, though.

londonlawyer
March 3rd, 2006, 06:31 PM
No! That side has the main entrance to the building, and it gets a lot of foot traffic. There's no retail, true, but it's hardly dead....

42nd Street in front of Conde Naste is far from dead (at least from the perspective of a heterosexual man). There are always EXTREMELY HOT chicks that work for Conde Naste milling around by that entrance. Those tasty birds belong on a menu!

lofter1
March 4th, 2006, 12:09 AM
^ you crack me up!!

The pedestrian passageway in the B/A tower should be lively -- IF they get a hit show in the new theatre.

londonlawyer
March 4th, 2006, 12:22 AM
^ you crack me up!!

I'm serious. I'm a married dude, and yet, whenever I walk by there and see all of the tasty tang, my mouth waters like the Pavlovian dog that I am!

sfenn1117
March 4th, 2006, 12:57 AM
Yeah, so when I walked by today with my aunt, she was shocked when I told her this would be the third tallest in the city. And she lives in Manhattan.

People are going to be surprised with this. I mean, not only is it tall, it is a massive building. Even the low rise portion is huge!

londonlawyer
March 4th, 2006, 01:01 AM
Not only will it be tall, but the architecture is utterly magnificent. If anyone has not seen the video on Durst's website, I urge you to do so. It reveals angles of this tower that are not evident in photos. This tower will be spectacular.

ddjiii
March 5th, 2006, 12:40 PM
42nd Street in front of Conde Naste is far from dead (at least from the perspective of a heterosexual man). There are always EXTREMELY HOT chicks that work for Conde Naste milling around by that entrance. Those tasty birds belong on a menu!

It's all those writer babes who work for the New Yorker. Delish.

czsz
March 5th, 2006, 12:57 PM
I don't know if this has been posted yet:

http://www.durst.org/prop/images/1bp/hires/5.jpg

alibrot
March 5th, 2006, 01:08 PM
What would it take to turn the woodstock "hotel" on 43 btw 6/bway into a real hotel? I chatted with a guy who lives there, and is pissed that they were building the BoA tower, since it would block his sunlight. He pays $200-$500 a month for 1 bedroom apartment (the daily price for a nyc hotel room), depending on his income that month, AND he has a car parked in the garage next door (i didnt get his discounted price).

He told me the Woodstock management is on the take from the drug dealers that operate from the building, but who knows how reliable he is, since he told me he wrote a letter to Jimmy Carter to stop construction of the BoA tower.

By the way, he was leaving in a week to vacation in France...again! You can't make it up - this city has some real perverse economic subsidies.

czsz
March 5th, 2006, 01:14 PM
Yeah, you wouldn't believe where many SROs are left...relics from another era. Only the UES seems devoid of them (predictably).

There are quite a few on the UWS in the low 100s near where the Ariels are going up. Every time I walk by something crazy is going on...guys sipping 40s from brown paper bags watching guys in wife-beaters destroying an old TV with baseball bats...on Broadway!

BigMac
March 6th, 2006, 11:25 AM
PRNewswire
March 6, 2006

Bank of America Expands Tenancy at Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park by 522,000 RSF

NEW YORK, March 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Bank of America signed a lease today for an additional 522,000 square feet of ground floor and office space, including 13 full floors, at the Bank of America Tower now under construction at One Bryant Park. The new deal expands the Bank's occupancy to over three-quarters (77 percent) of the $1 billion, 51-story skyscraper, a co-development by The Durst Organization and Bank of America, up from the original 53%.

The iconic 2.1 million-square-foot crystalline tower, designed to be the world's most environmentally responsible office building, will serve as headquarters for Bank of America's operations in New York City and house associates from several businesses including Global Corporate and Investment Banking, Global Wealth and Investment Management and Global Consumer and Small Business Banking.

"New York is a critical market for Bank of America and we are committed to growing all our business lines here," said Alan Rappaport, New York Market President for Bank of America. "A key element of that growth is our Global Corporate and Investment Banking group and this additional space will accommodate the expected expansion of that unit."

Bank of America will now be leasing a total of 1.63 million square feet of space in Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park, expected to be completed February 2008, including floors 2-36 and 51, the top floor. The building's unique footprint will enable Bank of America to operate six major trading floors ranging in size from 43,000 to 99,000 square feet.

"By providing an opportunity for one of the world's foremost financial service institutions to increase its commitment to New York," said Douglas Durst, Co-President of The Durst Organization, "the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park is making an important contribution to New York and demonstrates to the world the vitality of our city."

"This further commitment by Bank of America," adds Durst," is also a tribute to Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg and the state and city officials and agencies that had the vision that made this project feasible and a reality."

Designed by Cook+Fox Architects, the state-of-the-art glass, steel and aluminum skyscraper will rise adjacent to The Durst Organization's flagship tower, the Conde Nast Building at Four Times Square, itself a pioneer in environmentally responsible development.

Going for the Green

"The Bank of America Tower is the first high-rise office building in the world to strive for the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design [LEED] Platinum designation," according to Jonathan Durst, Co-President of The Durst Organization. "It will use dramatically less energy, consume considerably less potable water and provide a healthy and productive environment with abundant natural light and fresh air."

Of the space at Bank of America Tower not leased by Bank of America, Thomas Bow, Senior Vice President of Leasing for The Durst Organization said, "with 450,000 square feet still available at the top of this iconic tower on the 37th to 50th floors, featuring unobstructed views, there remains an unparalleled opportunity for discerning midsize companies to secure a long term home in this headquarters-quality building."

Bank of America was represented by Jones Lang LaSalle. Attorneys for Bank of America were Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. The Landlord, One Bryant Park LLC, was represented by The Durst Organization and the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

The latest chapter in the revitalization of Bryant Park and vicinity, Bank of America Tower, in addition to housing Bank of America's New York headquarters, will provide a home for the historic, reconstructed Henry Miller Theater, plus new subway entrances and an underground pedestrian walkway between the Sixth and Seventh Ave. subways lines.

About Bank of America

Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small and middle market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk-management products and services. The company provides unmatched convenience in the United States, serving more than 38million consumer and small business relationships with more than 5,800 retail banking offices, more than 16,700 ATMs and award-winning online banking with more than 14 million active users. Bank of America is the No. 1 overall Small Business Administration (SBA) lender in the United States and the No. 1 SBA lender to minority-owned small businesses. The company serves clients in 150 countries and has relationships with 97 percent of the U.S. Fortune 500 companies and 79 percent of the Global Fortune 500. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

About The Durst Organization

Founded in 1915, The Durst Organization is one of New York's oldest and largest privately owned real estate firms. Durst is widely recognized as a world leader in the development of technologically advanced and environmentally responsible commercial property. Its flagship tower at 4 Times Square was recognized as the first "green" high-rise office building in the United States, and has been praised by international environmentalists. In addition to its office properties, Durst developed The Helena, an environmentally responsible 600-unit apartment residence on West 57th Street at 11th Avenue, which opened in early 2005.

Copyright © 1996-2006 PR Newswire Association LLC.

macreator
March 6th, 2006, 04:11 PM
This is fantastic news! It further demonstrates the strength of the Midtown office market. I wonder what other companies will snap up the rest of the space.

Man, would I love to be the Bank of America employee who has a corner office on the 51st floor of this baby.

Deimos
March 6th, 2006, 04:15 PM
Man, would I love to be the Bank of America employee who has a corner office on the 51st floor of this baby.

I wonder if they'd be too high up for a good view into Bryant Park.

michelle1
March 6th, 2006, 04:58 PM
G r e a t n e w s !

londonlawyer
March 6th, 2006, 06:50 PM
New York Rules!

antinimby
March 6th, 2006, 07:02 PM
...until Jersey City lures them away one day.

Isn't funny how the city works hard to bring 'em in, only to lose them to NJ eventually?

londonlawyer
March 6th, 2006, 08:22 PM
Since this tower is filling and NY needs more space, I hope that new construction will occur in Midtown. The crap buildings between 43rd and 44th on the west side of 3rd desperately need to be razed as do a few low rise sites on Lex.

MidtownGuy
March 6th, 2006, 09:13 PM
I would instead like to see the developers concentrate on expanding Midtown to the West. 3rd and lex have plenty of towers. A few low-rise sites mixed in is a good thing IMO, plus we can't take any more duane reades over here.

ablarc
March 6th, 2006, 09:24 PM
You can never have too many Duane Reades.

MidtownGuy
March 6th, 2006, 09:38 PM
Or bank branches.

vc10
March 7th, 2006, 10:05 AM
Yet another reason to abolish all such subsidies, all such rent control, all such rent stabilization. If we're going to give people subsidies, make it explicit via direct payments from the city to those who benefit so we can see how much this is costing us.


What would it take to turn the woodstock "hotel" on 43 btw 6/bway into a real hotel? I chatted with a guy who lives there, and is pissed that they were building the BoA tower, since it would block his sunlight. He pays $200-$500 a month for 1 bedroom apartment (the daily price for a nyc hotel room), depending on his income that month, AND he has a car parked in the garage next door (i didnt get his discounted price).

He told me the Woodstock management is on the take from the drug dealers that operate from the building, but who knows how reliable he is, since he told me he wrote a letter to Jimmy Carter to stop construction of the BoA tower.

By the way, he was leaving in a week to vacation in France...again! You can't make it up - this city has some real perverse economic subsidies.

lofter1
March 7th, 2006, 11:15 AM
^ I agree! Clear Manhattan of anyone who doesn't earn $100,000 / year!! Damned Freeloaders !!!!! ;)

MrSpice
March 7th, 2006, 11:20 AM
...until Jersey City lures them away one day.

Isn't funny how the city works hard to bring 'em in, only to lose them to NJ eventually?

Jersey City does not have that many large buildings left to accomodate so many employees and there's not that much space there left to build.

antinimby
March 7th, 2006, 12:51 PM
Jersey City does not have that many large buildings left to accomodate so many employees and there's not that much space there left to build.You know, I hope you're right. But knowing NJ, I think they'll find a way (demolition, new construction) somehow to accomodate NYC companies looking to move across the river. Dumb NYS/NYC will always lend an unwitting helping hand to usher them out.

czsz
March 7th, 2006, 04:23 PM
I have this theory that smaller states (given the same basic regional circumstances) have more efficient governments. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware all seem far more prosperous and efficient than New York State or Pennsylvania.

JMGarcia
March 7th, 2006, 10:28 PM
MA and CT seem to. NJ is very questionable. It is in some ways worse than NY or PA. I can't really comment on DE or MD.

antinimby
March 8th, 2006, 03:34 AM
MA seems like it's well-run simply because it has become successful on its own, whereas CT and particularly NJ owes much of their success on their proximity to NYC. Yes, just like leeches living off its host. Ask yourself, would NJ or CT be as successful if they were to switch places geographically with DE?

macreator
March 8th, 2006, 07:26 AM
NJ may do some things right in terms of trying to bring in business, but in many ways state government there is much worse than New York in terms of just pure corruption. Not saying we don't have it, but just not as bad currently.

ddjiii
March 11th, 2006, 12:52 AM
I walked by today and there is steel above ground on the tower section. Just a few columns, but it was at 9:00 am so there might be more now. Exciting!

michelle1
March 11th, 2006, 06:13 AM
I walked by OBP yesterday as well and you’re right, steel is above ground :@) FAS

NYguy
March 13th, 2006, 09:44 AM
MARCH 12, 2006

Rainy day in the city...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203285/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203287/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203289/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203290/medium.jpg


Steel slowly marches to 6th Ave...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203293/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203296/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203306/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203285/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57203290/large.jpg

Jake
March 13th, 2006, 08:29 PM
Very nice, though the whole site seems a bit "plain" as if it was just another mid height box rising.

NYguy
March 14th, 2006, 07:45 AM
(ny post)

BOFA GETS NEW LEASE

http://www.nypost.com/photos/comm031406037.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/img/cols/stevecuozzo.jpg
March 14, 2006 -- Realty Check


INSATIABLE Bank of America just scooped up three more floors at Douglas Durst's 1133 Sixth Ave., across the road from where Durst's and BofA's joint-venture One Bryant Park is rising on the avenue between 42d-43d streets.

The new, 67,000 square-foot lease, signed within the past few days, seems a drop in the bucket compared to the 522,000-foot chunk the bank recently took at its new, $1 billion headquarters, on top of 1.1 million feet it had earlier pre-leased.

But while the new building won't open until 2008, BofA plans to move immediately into the extra floors at 1133 Sixth.

"They already had two floors there, 39 and 40, which they inherited from Fleet," said Durst leasing chief Tom Bow. "Now they've signed for 17, 42 and 43 as well."

Online database mrofficespace.com lists the asking rent on the 17th floor as $58 a foot, and, in the tower-topping 42nd and 43rd, $70 a foot.

But how much is BofA paying at One Bryant Park, which it will jointly own with Durst?

After the bank originally signed for floors 2-24 - the deal that got the long-planned skyscraper out of the ground - Durst said he expected rents of $100 and up for the remaining, higher floors. Two weeks ago, the bank added floors 25-36 and 51, the top. Asked about rent, Bow would say only, "the whole deal is very complicated," adding, "BofA did take the top of One Bryant Park. Rest assured we easily achieved Doug's objective."

Since BofA is a part owner of the tower, whatever it's paying is being paid partly to itself.

BofA was repped by Jones Lang LaSalle's John Ryan III along with JLL regional president Peter Riguardi.

BofA currently has around 2 million square feet in Midtown, including blocks at 9 W. 57th St., 40 W. 57th, 1673 Broadway and 1185 Sixth.

Meanwhile, work is speeding up on 1 Bryant Park. Its western half is going up first because "that's where BofA's mission-critical facilities will be, their trading operations," Bow said.

NYguy
March 17th, 2006, 07:25 PM
MARCH 17, 2007

The rise on 6th Avenue continues...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57383278/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57383281/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57383282/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57383283/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57383287/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57383282/large.jpg

Alonzo-ny
March 20th, 2006, 09:40 AM
Sweet!

BrooklynRider
March 22nd, 2006, 02:58 PM
I was by this site over the weekend. The tower portion is now rising - HUGE beams.

antinimby
March 22nd, 2006, 10:45 PM
Did you see a concrete core going up as well?

Bob
March 25th, 2006, 07:52 AM
Anybody know the source(s) of the steel being used in this building? US? Canada? China?

NYguy
March 26th, 2006, 02:33 AM
MARCH 24, 2006

Starting to look like one of New York's tallest rising...


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57743317/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57743322/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57743332/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57743374/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57745556/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57743329/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57743349/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57743374/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57745556/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/57743317/large.jpg

antinimby
March 26th, 2006, 02:53 AM
No concrete core in sight. :(

ablarc
March 26th, 2006, 09:56 AM
The tower portion is now rising - HUGE beams.
That's what happens when the building's shape isn't structurally derived. If Calatrava had designed this one, it would be at least equally great-looking --with half the steel.

.

NoyokA
March 26th, 2006, 12:27 PM
That's what happens when the building's shape isn't structurally derived. If Calatrava had designed this one, it would be at least equally great-looking --with half the steel.

.

MAN! We totally see Calatrava in different lights. If I could name one architect that wastes steel in a matter that doesnt serve a function it would be Calatrava.

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Calatrava-tenerife_opera_house_04.jpg

http://www.uwm.edu/People/bendiner/ut/calatravA.jpg

http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2005-07/18698071.jpg

Fabrizio
March 26th, 2006, 01:56 PM
Ya know, if you hold it against your ear you can hear the sea.

Edward
April 7th, 2006, 11:22 AM
Excerpt from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05name.html
What's in a Building's Name? More Than Meets the Eye
By ALISON GREGOR
Published: April 5, 2006

For both owners and tenants, deciding what the name of a building is worth can be an important strategic and competitive decision. A landlord must decide whether to name a building or hand over those rights to a tenant. Typically, companies that have a stake in developing a building or that have leased a huge amount of space may negotiate the naming rights.

One highly publicized building under construction in Manhattan is the product of a joint venture of the Durst Organization, a commercial developer, and Bank of America, one of the nation's largest consumer banks. When it was first announced, the 54-story skyscraper, going up diagonally across the Avenue of the Americas and 42nd Street from Bryant Park, was referred to as One Bryant Park, suggesting that this building was so important and so well placed, it did not need a real mailing address.

Lately, the developers have been using a different name: the Bank of America Tower.

"It's a statement to the world that we are a major player in one of the world's biggest financial markets," said John Saclarides, a real estate executive with Bank of America.

Sometimes it's hard to put a price tag on naming rights, as they are often negotiated as part of a package leasing deal, but commercial real estate brokers say they are not cheap.

CARLOS
April 8th, 2006, 11:00 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01430.jpg

CARLOS
April 8th, 2006, 11:01 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01434.jpg

CARLOS
April 8th, 2006, 11:15 AM
The more things change the more the stay the same !!!
Here's a photo of workers unloading steel beams in 1931 for the Empire State Building...
http://images.nypl.org/?id=79844&t=w

NOW !!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01366.jpg

ablarc
April 8th, 2006, 11:34 AM
In 1931 they didn't wear hard hats.

And the truck tires weren't pneumatic.

antinimby
April 8th, 2006, 06:17 PM
In 1931 they didn't wear hard hats.Not that it would help if a beam fell on you.;)
Anyway, as CARLOS pointed out, except for some improvements, the general practice of skyscraper construction has not changed that much.

ablarc
April 8th, 2006, 06:23 PM
^ That's right; biggest change is welds in place of rivets.

antinimby
April 8th, 2006, 06:32 PM
That would be the evolutionary improvement I was talking about but not quite the revolutionary change that would, let's say, make a worker back then be completely amazed in disbelief if he were brought forward in time to today. He'd be impressed but not quite in shock.

antinimby
April 8th, 2006, 06:38 PM
^ That's right; biggest change is welds in place of rivets.Btw, that brings up a good question. Could this mean that the ESB is less structurally sound than later skyscrapers employing welding techniques or have they gone back and welded the joints? The slanted-roof Citigroup building went through the same thing.

ablarc
April 8th, 2006, 06:40 PM
No; rivets are just as good. Welding costs less.

ZippyTheChimp
April 8th, 2006, 07:11 PM
I think bolts are the more common replacement for rivets.

Easier, more consistent installation.

ablarc
April 8th, 2006, 07:16 PM
^ Yeah, that's right.

lofter1
April 8th, 2006, 08:05 PM
RIVETS are back at THIS (http://www.josephpelllombardi.com/projects/101_111greene2.html) recently constructed bulding in SoHo:


http://www.josephpelllombardi.com/projects/IMAGES/greenefacade.gif

ablarc
April 8th, 2006, 08:22 PM
Those look like decorative rivets.

mdw46
April 9th, 2006, 07:12 AM
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4725/picture0033wk.th.jpg (http://img108.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture0033wk.jpg)


http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/3250/littlecrane3if.th.jpg (http://img108.imageshack.us/my.php?image=littlecrane3if.jpg)

Bob
April 9th, 2006, 08:09 AM
Recent episode of "Modern Marvels" specifically addressed this issue. Bolts are now considered superior to rivets, as a bolt can be torqued to a known specification, whereas rivets are...well, rivets. Apparently over time due to expansion/contraction and building movement, a rivet can snap off. As I recall, all the rivets on the Golden Gate Bridge are being replaced with bolts.

mdw46
April 9th, 2006, 09:30 AM
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8204/litttle1cd.jpg



http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/258/big9bq.jpg

antinimby
April 9th, 2006, 05:20 PM
Could that be the dismantling and removal of the crane for the western portion of the base / theatre section? That section appears to be topped out so the crane is no longer needed.

Alonzo-ny
April 10th, 2006, 11:16 AM
Recent episode of "Modern Marvels" specifically addressed this issue. Bolts are now considered superior to rivets, as a bolt can be torqued to a known specification, whereas rivets are...well, rivets. Apparently over time due to expansion/contraction and building movement, a rivet can snap off. As I recall, all the rivets on the Golden Gate Bridge are being replaced with bolts.

The same with scotlands nightmare forth road bridge

SilentPandaesq
April 10th, 2006, 11:11 PM
went by the site today. took some pics with my nifty new digi cam

lofter1
April 11th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Great ^^

keep 'em comin'

Derek2k3
April 11th, 2006, 01:29 AM
Nice pics...congrats on the cam.

RS085
April 11th, 2006, 02:07 AM
this building kicks ass. one of the best going up in the world, its gonna do so much for midtown.

CARLOS
April 11th, 2006, 04:50 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01445.jpg




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01446.jpg




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01447.jpg




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2006/DSC01444.jpg

lofter1
April 11th, 2006, 08:46 AM
Aaaaahhh -- gettin' some springtime rays in midtown ^ !!