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

lofter1
September 21st, 2006, 08:03 PM
They've reached the 15th Floor all around on the tower.

Plus the walkway along 6th Avenue has now been moved to the interior of the building to allow for more work on the subway entrance area at the corner of 42nd St. / 6th Avenue. The walkway is open to that part of the site, eparated only by netting and you can see the new steel that has been installed below grade for the subway entrance and station below.

With the shed / scaffolding now down at that corner you get a good idea of how open this corner of the building will be at street level. The overhang is standing free and the expanse of space there will be a big plus.

Across the street the 6-story brown brick POS (the "Times Square Payment Center" just to the west of the Verizon building plaza) has a sign on it that says:


Court Ordered
Real Estate Auction

October 16, 2006

A sidewalk shed / scaffolding has gone up around the Verizon building on 42nd & 6th AVe (but not in the plaza or along 41st).

lofter1
September 22nd, 2006, 10:36 AM
Where this building stood one year ago: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=66407&postcount=978

lofter1
September 22nd, 2006, 10:45 AM
And 6 Months Ago (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89481&postcount=1231) (before the tower portion had started to rise) :

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

lofter1
September 22nd, 2006, 11:29 AM
It seems they are now going up at ~ 1 floor / week.

They've now reached the 15th Floor and have 39 more to go to reach 54.

That would put the topping out sometime around the end of June 2007.

They've reached the point where the faceted parts of the tower will soon be going up ...

***

Ninjahedge
September 22nd, 2006, 11:55 AM
That sounds like a pour schedule there. 7 days until the concrete can support working load.....

londonlawyer
September 22nd, 2006, 12:04 PM
....
***

This building is a masterpiece. I drool when I watch the animated film clip on Durst's website.

antinimby
September 22nd, 2006, 03:06 PM
Don't like the look of the glass that's gone up on 42nd so far.
Not as sleek and clear as I had been led to expect by the renderings.
Looks cheap and almost plastic-like.

sfenn1117
September 22nd, 2006, 03:08 PM
^ I agree. But, the glass on the tower portion is going to be different. It'll be much smoother, without the horizontal lines. So no need to fear.

londonlawyer
September 22nd, 2006, 03:09 PM
^ I agree. But, the glass on the tower portion is going to be different. It'll be much smoother, without the horizontal lines. So no need to fear.

Are you sure or are you basing that statement on the renderings? I can't tell from the renderings if it will be the same or different. I think the glass looks fine anyway.

sfenn1117
September 22nd, 2006, 03:53 PM
Basing it off renderings.....if you look at the huge images on Durst's website, it shows this.

The glass so far looks alright, but I don't like the layered look, or all the lines on the glass. Seamless glass is better....less is more.

http://www.durst.org/prop/images/1bp/print/3.jpg

pianoman11686
September 23rd, 2006, 06:22 PM
I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the glass will look much better when construction is finished and the windows are cleaned. Right now there's a lot of dust, which makes the glass seem dull. That being said, I still think it was a good decision to go with a relatively clear, color-neutral glass, as opposed to something more reflective or wavy(a la Time Warner).

BigMac
September 28th, 2006, 03:15 PM
Gothamist
September 28, 2006

Building One Bryant Park One Stud at a Time

Posted by Jill Priluck

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments/jen/2006_09_bota1.JPG

When we arrived at the One Bryant Park (http://www.durst.org/i_bp_env.asp) construction site on 42nd between Sixth and Broadway, our guide seemed miffed. "I told you to wear tough shoes," he said, looking down at the pointy red flats we recently purchased at Beacon's Closet. "I'd hate to see what your dainty ones look like." The teasing didn't end there. He mocked our so-called small head (requiring hard hat adjustments) and our camera, but we won't continue to bore you with the details.

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments/jen/2006_09_rendering.jpg

So why One Bryant Park? One, it's being co-developed by Durst, an early adopter of green building technologies. Two, it's next to Durst's Condé Nast Building at 4 Times Square, which, built in the pre-LEED certification era, essentially sparked the city's green high-rise craze. Three, when finished, it will be one of the city's tallest. Four, like its neighbor, it has radio repeater responders (http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/06/01/conde_nast_buil.php)! Five, it will be the new home of the Henry Miller Theater with its original Neo-Georgian 1917-18 facade. Six, an underground walkway will link the B, D, F trains to Times Square (ah, the little things)!

Designed by Cook + Fox (http://www.cookplusfox.com/) in the glass and steel style of the 1853 New York Crystal Palace, the crystalline skyscraper is being touted for its LEED Platinum certification, which means it's more green than most green buildings now being certified (less energy and water consumption, for example). In case you haven't heard, like many of its counterparts, it features high-performance glass, floor-to-ceiling "windows" and reusable rainwater (which saves 10.3 million gallons of water per year). It also boasts double wall technology that, supposedly, dissipates the sun's heat and a 5.1 megawatt on-site power plant. The pricetag? $100 per square foot.

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments/jen/2006_09_bota3.JPG

So what did we see? Fuel tanks, rebar, metal studs, steel piping, scaffolding, what will be a BoA trading floor, some iron workers, some distressed (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/nyregion/20conde.html) Condé Nast staffers ogling the site from above and one foreman. In other words, it was a (mostly) typical construction site -- except for the clean elevator view to Grand Central.

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments/jen/2006_09_bota2.jpg

Really, what's most salient about the BoA Tower (and other such high rises) is that developers and architects actually are quibbling over whose structure is the most green, an unthinkable notion just a decade ago. To even greener green buildings.

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments/jen/2006_09_bota4.jpg

2003-2006 Gothamist LLC.

lofter1
September 28th, 2006, 03:46 PM
What's up here: Cook + Fox (http://www.cookplusfox.com/) ???

Not much to see :(

MikeW
October 3rd, 2006, 05:44 PM
Does it seem like the tower is going up more slowly then one would expect?

lofter1
October 3rd, 2006, 09:49 PM
Ooops ... all these posts about the POS should probably go into the Verizon building thread :o :o :o

NYatKNIGHT
October 4th, 2006, 10:26 AM
You're right, I moved them there (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8212&page=7).

kliq6
October 12th, 2006, 09:47 AM
this is slower then NY Times because of the trading floors and the special needs associated with them. Also i stopped in Bush Tower, flea market is done and one can hope the extesion will occur soon. Then coupled with 11 TS, 42nd street will be busy

antinimby
October 12th, 2006, 03:35 PM
That doesn't explain why the steel is going up veeerrrry sloooowly in the tower portion.

I'm guessing the concrete core might also have something to do with it as well.

londonlawyer
October 12th, 2006, 04:56 PM
this is slower then NY Times because of the trading floors and the special needs associated with them. Also i stopped in Bush Tower, flea market is done and one can hope the extesion will occur soon. Then coupled with 11 TS, 42nd street will be busy

I wonder if the Bush extension with replace the flea market or if the people from Dubai bought the plot in order not to have a POS next to their new 5 star hotel.

lofter1
October 12th, 2006, 06:41 PM
They're up to Floor 17 all around now -- that's 2 floors in the past 3 weeks, so it looks like things are picking up ...

kliq6
October 13th, 2006, 10:21 AM
I wonder if the Bush extension with replace the flea market or if the people from Dubai bought the plot in order not to have a POS next to their new 5 star hotel.

Could be anything, id rather nothing then that market with those stupid electronic dogs on the sidwalk they hawk off to people

antinimby
October 13th, 2006, 03:13 PM
^ A Scrooge? :D

lofter1
October 16th, 2006, 10:03 PM
Some pics from today ...

The 1st & 2nd show the fretted glass that has gone up in the area between Conde Nast & B of A.

The 3rd shows the concrete core from the sidewalk on 42nd west of 6th Avenue ...

The 4th shows the work being done on the subway along 6th Avenue north of 42nd ...

***

pianoman11686
October 16th, 2006, 10:18 PM
Lofter...you have a camera?! :D

ablarc
October 16th, 2006, 11:29 PM
Lofter...you have a camera?! :D
Don't tell me...?!

lofter1
October 16th, 2006, 11:38 PM
a camera? let me put it this way ...

it was time to renew my cell phone contract and I opted for (a low end) phone with a cam. got the unlimited "send pix" option from verizon (otherwise they want to charge you 25 cents per pic :eek: ).

so now I can chronicle the installation of fretted glass and the rising of mcsams throughout nyc.

pianoman11686
October 16th, 2006, 11:43 PM
Hey, it's a step in the right direction...http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

sfenn1117
October 16th, 2006, 11:44 PM
Those pics are very high quality for a camera phone. I'm satisfied.

lofter1
October 20th, 2006, 06:29 PM
Some shots from today of the glass that has gone up over the facade of Henry Miller's Theatre on 43rd St.:

***

panderson
October 21st, 2006, 03:08 AM
I dislike the fretted glass. The application here is a less garish than on the InterActiveCorp building, but it still looks cheap and gimmicky to me. I hope this isn't becoming a wider trend.

lofter1
October 26th, 2006, 06:43 PM
The facet that will run up the facade at the SE corner (facing Bryant Park) has started to appear ... seems like they're up to Floor 19 at this corner ...

***

lofter1
October 30th, 2006, 03:09 PM
GLASS has started to go up on the east facade of the B of A Tower facing 6th Avenue ..

These shots are from lunchtime today -- corner of 6th Ave. / 43rd Street ...

***

TREPYE
October 30th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Oh boy.... I dont want to jump the gun just yet with the concerns but that glass is making me nervous.

ablarc
October 30th, 2006, 05:24 PM
Seems they can't get the fret line even.

lofter1
October 30th, 2006, 07:20 PM
to be fair -- the glass that just went up is filthy dirty ...

RS085
October 30th, 2006, 08:20 PM
uh, im no 'window expert', so ill wait until the facade is finished to pass any judgement.

lofter1
November 1st, 2006, 07:46 PM
More Glass installed along 6th Avenue ...

You can see in the first shot (sort of ;) -- lousy picture) that they are washing the glass as it goes up (maybe they read ablarc's post about the uneven fret line :cool: ).

In the last shot you can see the rising moon reflected in the glass (2nd panel from the right) ...

***

ramvid01
November 1st, 2006, 09:45 PM
Thanks for the pics Lofter. I passed by the building at around 3:30ish, they did seem to be cleaner then from the prior pictures of the glass. It seems to be slightly different from the 42st glass, but it seems subtle, then again there needs to be more put up to really get of taste of what it will look like.

Vengineer
November 1st, 2006, 11:25 PM
Judging from those pictures, the glass seems unique like nothing I've seen before. It is seemingly transparent but is highly reflective. I like.

investordude
November 1st, 2006, 11:56 PM
I think they did something to the glass so that away from eye level, it is less transparent but more insulating. I read that anyway, though I'm not sure if its true and I don't remeber the source. This might explain the look.

lofter1
November 2nd, 2006, 12:19 AM
When you move along the sidewalk across the street from the tower you can see that there is a double reflection in the galss -- this was especially apparent when looking at the moon, which appeared from some angles as two distinct images in the window -- one larger and one much smaller.

All that might change when there is light within the buildling ...

michelle1
November 2nd, 2006, 03:27 PM
I walked by the building today and yes, the glass is highly transparent and reflective too, very unusual glass

lofter1
November 3rd, 2006, 10:21 PM
More glass, now wrapping around the corner of 6th Avenue / 42nd St.

The reflections in the late afternoon light are fairly awesome. As you move up 6th Avenue the B of A already reflects buildings to the south and east, notably the Radiator Building and ESB ...

***

Vengineer
November 3rd, 2006, 11:36 PM
Looks top quality.

kz1000ps
November 4th, 2006, 02:05 AM
While my opinion on fritted glass has soured lately (aesthetically speaking), I really like the literal reflections to the glass here. It's shaping up to be on par with 7WTC in that respect.

ZippyTheChimp
November 6th, 2006, 08:36 AM
Those annoying rings are not from the camera. Depends on the sun and angle of view.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7899/boa12cbz5.th.jpg (http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa12cbz5.jpg) http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1570/boa13cem9.th.jpg (http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa13cem9.jpg)

ablarc
November 6th, 2006, 08:40 AM
^ Curtain wall may turn out to be a flop.

MidtownGuy
November 6th, 2006, 09:58 AM
Walked by the other day. Don't like the frit.

ablarc
November 6th, 2006, 01:07 PM
^ Might require the judgment of a Gehry to know when the formal context supports fritted glass (billowing curves) and when the formal context fights it (crisp, flat planes).

TREPYE
November 6th, 2006, 03:54 PM
I figure that dark glass works better with this tower (a la Hearst, TWC). It would accentuate the towers angles a lot better.

Citytect
November 6th, 2006, 06:01 PM
I like the frit, but that circular effect is really irritating.

lofter1
November 6th, 2006, 08:01 PM
This one is starting to pop up above the NYPL -- visible from the 40th St. side of Mid Manhattan Branch.

antinimby
November 7th, 2006, 06:10 PM
I hate to say it but the glass on this one is a major disappointment.

While both have fritted glass, the one on Gehry's IAC building is infinitely better.

ZippyTheChimp
November 7th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Let's compare to the renderings to what's being installed:

http://www.durst.org/prop/images/1bp/hires/2.jpg

http://www.durst.org/prop/images/1bp/hires/3.jpg

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1570/boa13cem9.th.jpg (http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa13cem9.jpg)

If you ignore the glare of the sunlight in the renderings, the glass looks the same.

The only thing I don't like, that is not distinct in the rendering, is the clapboard pattern on the base along W42nd.

And those rings.

pianoman11686
November 7th, 2006, 07:29 PM
You're right Zip - so far, so good. We're just beginning to see the contrast between the glass which has gone up on the northeast corner of the building, and the less-fritted glass that is only now being installed on the southeast corner.

One thing we have to keep in mind, when comparing the renderings to what is currently there, is the wide range of different glass that will be used for the facade. In the renderings, it looks fairly dynamic; we won't see that effect on the final product until it's been clad all the way around.

Patience, my friends. ;)

MidtownGuy
November 10th, 2006, 01:14 PM
Well put, ablarc. I also think the degradé in the frit pattern could be more gradual.

MidtownGuy
November 10th, 2006, 01:19 PM
After comparing, I disagree that the appearance of the glass is the same. The shading that the frit pattern produces is much more soft and pleasing in the renderings. In reality, there is a more abrubt shift from white to dark, and the dark areas are much deeper in the photo.

I think with a more subtle and gradual frit transition from solid to clear, it would have looked better, and more like the renderings.

lofter1
November 10th, 2006, 01:22 PM
Note that in the rendering they show interior rolling shades -- which aren't yet up -- and which soften the transition between fritted / clear glass.

Interior lighting will also change the appearance of that transition.

Gotham
November 10th, 2006, 01:34 PM
You can't get the whole effect from a couple of levels of glass....

as noted above.....Patience! This will be magnificient when finished. :)

kz1000ps
November 10th, 2006, 01:56 PM
This reminds me of the tizzy we worked ourselves into (and Curbed commented on) after a couple floors worth of cladding went up on the New York Times tower. And while I don't want to contribute to it this time around, I'm not liking the heavy horizontal emphasis this frit job is giving the tower, and I really hope this won't end up looking like a 54 story version of the IAC building.

finnman69
November 11th, 2006, 02:11 PM
This reminds me of the tizzy we worked ourselves into (and Curbed commented on) after a couple floors worth of cladding went up on the New York Times tower. And while I don't want to contribute to it this time around, I'm not liking the heavy horizontal emphasis this frit job is giving the tower, and I really hope this won't end up looking like a 54 story version of the IAC building.


horizontal stripes on a vertical building are not exactly graceful

Citytect
November 11th, 2006, 04:34 PM
Um. The tower will have different glass - without the frit.

antinimby
November 11th, 2006, 11:25 PM
How do you know that? Why would they put fritted glass on only the bottom floors and not the rest of the tower?

I think that would look even more awkward.

stache
November 12th, 2006, 12:07 AM
Stay tuned...

kz1000ps
November 12th, 2006, 01:38 AM
How do you know that? Why would they put fritted glass on only the bottom floors and not the rest of the tower?

Look at the renderings Zippy reposted halfway up the page -- the glass on the southern half fronting on 6th Ave has no frit, except for what ever finish is used on the spandrels. How the differences are resolved as the tower rises is anyone's guess at this point, and for that we need to heed Stache's words.

lofter1
November 12th, 2006, 09:17 AM
The base is segmented into (at least ) 3 differently styled blocks -- along 42nd Street, at the corner of 6th / 42nd and again at the corner of 6th / 43rd ...

The tower that rises above has its own design distinctions, including a difference in the look of the glass used there.

NYguy
November 13th, 2006, 10:21 AM
November 12, 2006

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157446/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157462/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157484/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157492/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157490/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157530/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157484/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157490/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70157492/large.jpg

michelle1
November 13th, 2006, 04:56 PM
great photos NY

Vengineer
November 13th, 2006, 06:54 PM
The curtain wall looks nice and neat. The glass seems to be highly reflective but I will hold all judgement until I have seen it in person.

Fabrizio
November 13th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Reflective, but the shading and detailing seem to give it depth. The glass looks nice and flat ... without ugly ripples and bowing.

Those who have seen it up close....whats the verdict?

londonlawyer
November 13th, 2006, 07:07 PM
I like the glass. Also, this building's shape is as voluptious and appealing as Salma Hayek's rubenesque body. Therefore, it is VERY appealing. (I assume that this does not violate the forum rules of conduct since no foul language was used and no photos of Salma were posted.)

ramvid01
November 13th, 2006, 07:25 PM
I saw the glass the other day in person and I thought it was spectacular. It seems to be more reflective than the glass on the 42nd st side.

Vengineer
November 13th, 2006, 07:33 PM
This building DOES have many feminine features. The Salma Hayek analogy was brilliant.

xsnobored
November 13th, 2006, 09:17 PM
Does anyone know when the tower is supposed to be completed? I heard Fall 2008, any more specifics?

Fabrizio
November 14th, 2006, 03:36 AM
London: if this building is Salma Hayek, then you can be sure you'll never get inside.

londonlawyer
November 14th, 2006, 08:28 AM
London: if this building is Salma Hayek, then you can be sure you'll never get inside.

Good one! :D

ZippyTheChimp
November 14th, 2006, 08:56 AM
Ergo, I believe that it fully comports with this forum's rules.You are incorrect. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3711)

londonlawyer
November 14th, 2006, 10:35 AM
You are incorrect. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3711)

I which case, I retract my statement.

antinimby
November 14th, 2006, 04:34 PM
...but surely london can get in through the "rear door," can't he?

Fabrizio
November 14th, 2006, 04:36 PM
Its Selma Hayek....not Ted Haggard.

ZippyTheChimp
November 14th, 2006, 04:44 PM
The rule violated is Numero Uno, the Prime Directive.

Now, there's a little Captain Kirk in all of us, but he violates the Prime Directive to have sex, something none of us are going to do with Selma.

So...back on topic.

antinimby
November 14th, 2006, 08:27 PM
http://www.curbed.com/2006_11_boanov14.jpg

curbed.com

Jake
November 14th, 2006, 08:53 PM
lol at first glance I thought that image on the left was taken with a wideangle lens, hehe

kz1000ps
November 14th, 2006, 10:36 PM
Wow, I thought the exact same thing, Jake. I didn't even realize it wasn't until I read your post..

londonlawyer
November 14th, 2006, 10:52 PM
http://www.curbed.com/2006_11_boanov14.jpg

curbed.com

I love this building, but they should have used the glass on the southeast corner on the whole facade. It's nicer than the glass on the south side and on the northwest corner.

ZippyTheChimp
November 15th, 2006, 06:33 AM
^
Maybe two types of glass were chosen to lessen the impression of bulk.

antinimby
November 15th, 2006, 06:18 PM
Maybe but I don't get the placement of each type of glass.

Shouldn't the fritted ones be placed where the non-fritted ones are.

I mean, that part of the building (SE corner, 42nd/6th) is the part that gets the most sun exposure.

The parts with the frit (42nd, NE corner) actually gets the least sun, if any.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

ZippyTheChimp
November 15th, 2006, 06:50 PM
^
That made me think about the sun on the rest of the building, which brougt me to the renderings, where I noticed that the type of glass installed on the SE corner stops at about the 10th floor.

You can see it clearly here:
http://durst.org/prop/images/1bp/print/1.jpg

antinimby
November 15th, 2006, 06:51 PM
So it reverts back to frit after that?

ZippyTheChimp
November 15th, 2006, 06:54 PM
It appears that way on the rendering.

pianoman11686
November 18th, 2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by fish at SkyscraperCity:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/385/boa6cs2.jpg

More pictures here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10451884&postcount=230)

Xemu
November 18th, 2006, 11:15 PM
^Is that crane cantilevered all the way out over the sidewalk? Scary...

lofter1
November 19th, 2006, 12:31 AM
The cantilevered part hangs over what will be the sidewalk -- now that is a construction area where the the subway tunnel /entrance is being rebuilt. Presently pedestrians pass beneath the crane support near where it is attached to the steel uprights at the edge of the building.

kz1000ps
November 19th, 2006, 11:25 AM
I'm liking those pinstripe mullions, and they should only start to look better as they grow higher.

lofter1
November 19th, 2006, 11:39 AM
The first glass has gone up on the main tower section -- it differs somewhat from the 3 previously-installed styles of glass [ 1) 42nd Street low-rise; 2) 42nd / 6th Ave. corner section; 3) glass surrounding the 42nd / 6th Ave. corner section ] and can be seen at top-center in this shot ( also from fish at ssc (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10451884&postcount=230) -- I took some pics with my cell cam, but this shot is much better ) ...

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/9750/boa9cv1.jpg

lofter1
November 19th, 2006, 11:51 AM
fish (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10544050&postcount=254) at ssc posted some new pics today, 11/19 ...

The glass panel (center left) on the tower section:

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8411/boa4uf4.jpg

As the tower rises the cut of the facet becomes more apparent at the SE corner (facing Bryant Park) :

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/5664/boa8wa9.jpg

gradvmedusa
November 19th, 2006, 03:27 PM
For a second I thought that Citibank ad was a large banner on the building and I thought "well that's odd"

Bob
November 20th, 2006, 08:30 PM
I was at this location this past weekend, and was trying to get a feel for how high this building will be, as compared to its neighbors. Will Bank of America tower over Conde Nast, or will it be just another building along the west side of 6th Avenue, lined up at roughly the same height as the X Y Z buildings?

To put it another way, if Bank of America will be at least as tall as the top of the Conde Nast antenna, then we're cooking with gas. If it's substantially LESS than that, then I think all of us are in for a disappointment.

lofter1
November 20th, 2006, 09:18 PM
It's gonna be a good deal taller than both Conde Nast and the former Verizon building across 42nd Street :D ...

It's up to floor 23 now ...

The facets of the facade are now starting to appear on both the SW corner and the NE corner (along with the previously mentioned SE corner).

And glass has started to go up along the 43rd Street side just west of 6th Avenue.

macreator
November 21st, 2006, 12:14 AM
The roofline of this baby is going to hit over 900 feet and its tallest spire will reach 1200 feet.

ZippyTheChimp
November 21st, 2006, 08:16 AM
I was at this location this past weekend, and was trying to get a feel for how high this building will be, as compared to its neighbors.
http://durst.org/master.htm

Renderings and Animations. Run the video clip.

kz1000ps
November 22nd, 2006, 01:18 AM
11/20

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8829/dscf0026fw3.jpg

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3778/dscf0035am7.jpg

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/6389/dscf0036yd3.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1560/dscf0038xb8.jpg

a crane extension arriving

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2755/dscf0040ef9.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8607/dscf0039cn0.jpg

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9995/dscf0050tw6.jpg

the idea was to get both the NYT and the BOA, but it didn't turn out so well

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5019/dscf0049ip5.jpg

BrooklynRider
November 25th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Man, this recuperation is keeping me from wandering like I used to. This building is really moving. I can't wait to get up there and check it out.

infoshare
November 25th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Renderings and Animations. Run the video clip.


Nice link; thanks ............ the 360 degree animation of this building is a great preview.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1598/4ek3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

pianoman11686
November 25th, 2006, 10:29 PM
Beautiful weather for pictures today. Took a lot of this one.

http://static.flickr.com/110/306180700_6b0078f97a.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/106/306180702_3e87f27327.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/108/306180705_1be749b518.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/116/306180709_30b3ce48a7.jpg

The west-facing facade of the lowrise section:

http://static.flickr.com/108/306180711_1568a6c44d.jpg

43rd Street

http://static.flickr.com/111/306180712_685c780abe.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/106/306183713_ccf9b24640.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/120/306183714_8f80d17eb7.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/120/306183718_b28ea2067e.jpg

ablarc
November 25th, 2006, 10:39 PM
Glass wall on 42nd Street is too sheer. As bad as its neighbor across 6th Avenue.

pianoman11686
November 25th, 2006, 10:44 PM
Yeah. If there's one complaint I have about this building, it's that lowrise portion. If they had managed to just build the tower portion, and perhaps insert a plaza between it and Conde Nast, the deadening effect of that facade would be much less.

antinimby
November 27th, 2006, 12:58 AM
Glass wall on 42nd Street is too sheer. As bad as its neighbor across 6th Avenue.
That plus the glass itself is just not that impressive at all.

I could live with the uniformity, if it had...say...7WTC's glass instead.

But nope.

ZippyTheChimp
November 27th, 2006, 07:51 AM
Since this building is so massive, I would rather the Verizon building remain as is, than renovate to a similar facade.

NYguy
November 27th, 2006, 09:26 AM
And still it rises...

NOVEMBER 26

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858687/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858698/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858700/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858709/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858698/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858700/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70858709/large.jpg

lofter1
November 27th, 2006, 10:01 AM
The facets on the corners are really starting to reveal themselves ... :D

finnman69
December 4th, 2006, 03:44 PM
Since this building is so massive, I would rather the Verizon building remain as is, than renovate to a similar facade.

You are going to have 3 flat glass curtainwalls all facing each other. You have the HBO building, the new curtainwall for the Verizon building, and BOA. No relation between any of them. The 4th corner is Bryant Park.

It's a bizarre colelction of urban architecture to begin with, but I'm not how it will feel when both the Verizon and BOA are completed.

antinimby
December 4th, 2006, 08:46 PM
Too much of the same thing--flat glass, boxiness.

Not enough contrast between the three buildings in terms material, color and the their shape.

I've also felt the corner of 1BP facing Bryant Park should have a rounded corner also, at least on the lower levels.

The HBO building should have never been re-cladded.

Will we say the same about 1095 Ave. of Americas in the future?

finnman69
December 5th, 2006, 04:06 PM
Too much of the same thing--flat glass, boxiness.

Not enough contrast between the three buildings in terms material, color and the their shape.

I've also felt the corner of 1BP facing Bryant Park should have a rounded corner also, at least on the lower levels.

The HBO building should have never been re-cladded.

Will we say the same about 1095 Ave. of Americas in the future?

Moed de Armas Shannon ruined the GM building with the ugly proportioned horizontal panels, and it's same time period as the Verizon building. Personally I think 1095 may be better as it is now than after a recladding. Imagine the Hippodrome recladding but now 50 stories.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2755/dscf0040ef9.jpg

macreator
December 5th, 2006, 09:08 PM
Hippodrome's a bad example -- it's was truly awful pre-reclad. The Verizon building...I could live with in its present form.

Hippodrome actually turned out great -- the glass looks wonderful. Meanwhile, the GM building's base uses very unsatisfying glass.

TREPYE
December 6th, 2006, 12:53 AM
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2755/dscf0040ef9.jpg

Dont like the base at all on that picture.

antinimby
December 6th, 2006, 05:20 PM
I had forgotten all about the Hippodrome.

Now in that two block area, we have nothing but boxy buildings with lots of flat glass.

ramvid01
December 6th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Had not really noticed it until now, but the side facing the Conde Nast Building is starting to slope in and is probably more noticable than the other two corners.

pianoman11686
December 6th, 2006, 05:51 PM
It's a good thing that intersection has Bryant Park at one corner to break up the monotony. Otherwise it would just be glass reflecting glass reflecting glass - all the way around in a continuous circle.

That reminds me. There's a building on the west side of 6th, either between 44th and 45th or up one more block. It's a postmodern highrise, maybe 45 stories, and I've always liked it a lot. I don't think it's ever been mentioned on this forum.

londonlawyer
December 6th, 2006, 06:01 PM
Is it this one (which looks a little like 30 Rock)? It's really nice. I think it's called the Americas Tower.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/54348237/medium.jpg

http://img51.photobucket.com/albums/v156/AtlanticaC5/am2.jpg

pianoman11686
December 6th, 2006, 06:24 PM
Yeah, good find london. I didn't know the building had a real name, just a street address. It's really quite a standout among the slabtacular 6th Avenue crowd.

antinimby
December 6th, 2006, 06:51 PM
There were some controversy with that building when it was constructed.

Too lazy to go on further with the story though.

I'm sure the historians among us will elaborate.

lofter1
December 6th, 2006, 08:07 PM
The street-level collonaded arcade of the Americas Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=americastower-newyorkcity-ny-usa) had a lot of detractors when it went up (1989 - 1992) ...

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2003/05/191873.jpg

(c) Scott Murphy


The blunt black box one block to the south at 1155 6th Avenue (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1155avenuenueofstreetamericas-newyorkcity-ny-usa) (Emory Roth & Sons; 1984) is my least favorite along that stretch ...

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2004/04/261490.jpg

(c) Mike Bull

macreator
December 6th, 2006, 08:42 PM
An underrated building. With its warm marble at its base, it's like an oasis among the white marble slabs of Sixth Avenue and it dares to peak above the Sixth Avenue pleateau roofline.

The street level design is wonderful, and truly engages the pedestrian. A relative of mine used to have his office there when I believe Price Waterhouse (?) inhabited most of the building. The lobby was classy and he had a great view of the Morgan Stanley building and Times Square to the West.

sfenn1117
December 6th, 2006, 08:46 PM
Definitely post-modernism done right. It's always been one of my underrated favorites.

kz1000ps
December 7th, 2006, 12:59 AM
I completely agree that this is Po-mo done right. If you're going to be derivative, then you can hardly go wrong with apeing the art deco style.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7151/nycamericastower6thavenn8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

ablarc
December 7th, 2006, 08:33 AM
^ Too bad they ever gave it up. You can thank Mies for that.

Fabrizio
December 7th, 2006, 08:50 AM
We can thank Corbusier, we can thank the 1939 Worlds Fair, we can thank Robert Moses and the greedy developers who pushed for the 1961 zoning code, eliminating required set-backs.

(as well as a general, popular, post-war desire for the "new").

Hey, isnt this 6th avenue?:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/0486253325/ref=dp_image_0/026-4688182-1248447?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books

----------

1939 Worlds Fair vision of 1960.

They got it right:

http://morrischia.com/david/portfolio/boozy/research/futurama.html

( hey, whats Fosters Park-Bernet Madison Avenue tower doing there?. Yikes!!)

--------

londonlawyer
December 7th, 2006, 10:22 AM
The street-level collonaded arcade of the Americas Tower (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=americastower-newyorkcity-ny-usa) had a lot of detractors when it went up (1989 - 1992) ...

What did this building replace? Times Sq. and this portion of 6th were still somewhat dreary in 1989, so unless this building replaced a magnificent structure, anyone who opposed it had serious chutzpah.

lofter1
December 7th, 2006, 10:30 AM
Foggy memory on what was there before this one went up (most likely POS like what is found today at the initersection on the west side of 6th at 47th) ...

I think the objection was to a covered arcade -- which is something that isn't found too often in NYC -- and there were concerns about what such an area protected from the elements would attract ...

There was also some snafu with the developer and the construction came to a halt mid-way for a period during '89 - '91 ...

kz1000ps
December 7th, 2006, 12:30 PM
^ Too bad they ever gave it up. You can thank Mies for that.

You could go back even further and say Wright caused it. He was the first one to heavily emphasize horizontals, and that general look, which directly usurped our beloved art deco, was popular with the masses from the 30s (streamline moderne) all the way on through to the 60s (ubiquitous ranch houses).

pianoman11686
December 7th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Well, what do you know. I make a brief mention of this building, and find a lot of forumers agree that's a great, underrated po-mo. Sort of like last decade's Bear Stearns.

A brief note on zoning and setbacks: the result of the change was starkly different (lots of plazas and plain boxes) but the motivation was the same - to allow light & air to reach down to the street. But at the time, everyone knew that was the better way to go, right...?

londonlawyer
December 7th, 2006, 02:37 PM
This building is a tribute to NY's skyscraper supremacy. This would be the signature building in 99% of the world's cities, and yet, it is lost in Manhattan's sea of skyscrapers.

Fabrizio
December 7th, 2006, 02:40 PM
Pianoman: The motivation was to maximize floor plates and allow for easier construction....hence profit.

kznyc: remember that Wright was a humanist.

Corbusiers vision, way back in 1922:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Città_per_tre_milioni_di_abitanti.jpg

Ninjahedge
December 7th, 2006, 02:45 PM
That is rather scary Fab... :eek:

pianoman11686
December 7th, 2006, 02:51 PM
That may be, Fabrizio, but I was talking specifically about the fact that the new zoning code produced tens (hundreds?) of buildings that were set back from the street, and sat next to all those dreary plazas. I thought that was a generally denounced result on this forum.

Plus, we can't underestimate the influence of outside forces, namely the prevailing architectural trends, on design.

Fabrizio
December 7th, 2006, 02:52 PM
Ninja: Well, he WAS a visionary:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/miika/90520201/

Piano: "Plus, we can't underestimate the influence of outside forces, namely the prevailing architectural trends, on design."

Yes, in fact the square clean boxes WERE also popular with the general public... and represented moderninity.

Ninjahedge
December 7th, 2006, 04:29 PM
I know. ANd many a clean square box was constructed before they discovered things like:

a) They really were plain and ugly ;)
b) The flat-roof was a VERY dumb idea (Especially for schools and such)


I never liked over-cubism. I liked the ones that took the cubes and did that one little quirk that made you look twice. The hole through it, the chamfer or groove, the skewed perspective.

I am an engineer. I have seen enough rectilinear design!!! ;)

finnman69
December 7th, 2006, 05:28 PM
Hippodrome's a bad example -- it's was truly awful pre-reclad. The Verizon building...I could live with in its present form.

Hippodrome actually turned out great -- the glass looks wonderful. Meanwhile, the GM building's base uses very unsatisfying glass.

same detailing, same spandrel treatments, propbably almost the same glass.

Not sure how well it will work on a 50 story building like 1095.

I agree Hippodrome looks better than its old self.

lofter1
December 7th, 2006, 09:54 PM
B of A is up to 25th Floor (and up to 27th on the corner of 6th & 43rd).

The facets are really starting to take shape ...

The big slope high on the west facade:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_09h.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_09f.jpg

And the cuts of the facets on the east facade:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_09a.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_09b.jpg

***

ramvid01
December 7th, 2006, 10:10 PM
Great pics lofter. Seems like in the next few weeks the facets of this building will really start to show :).

lofter1
December 7th, 2006, 10:27 PM
The facets show up much better in person than they do on my lousy little cell cam :( .

Check out the slope on the west facade -- the uprights between floors at the perimeter there (I think they're temporary) are really sloping in towards the building --- has a taste of those crazy concrete columns at Gehry's IAC building.

I forgot to mention that some new glass has gone up along 43rd Street, just east of Henry Miller's Theater ...

ramvid01
December 7th, 2006, 11:04 PM
Yea i passed by on Wednesday and noticed the the slope on the western facade for the first time, looked really cool. And those uprights seem to be temporary like the ones on the 43rd st corner. This really isnt just your typical box, its just that the slope is only starting to make its appearance.

BigMac
December 11th, 2006, 11:25 AM
New York Post
December 4, 2006

GREEN 'HOUSE'

BANK BUILDING TO SET STANDARD FOR ENERGY SAVINGS

By BILL SANDERSON

Money isn't the only green thing New Yorkers can associate with the Bank of America.

The bank's crystalline tower going up at the corner of West 42nd Street and Sixth Avenue in Midtown will be the city's greenest office building when it opens in 2008 - with energy-efficient heating and air conditioning, and pollution-reducing plumbing and drainage.

Amazing new technology makes being environmentally friendly very economical, said Douglas Durst, co-president of the Durst Organization, which is leading the $1.2 billion project.

"It's slightly more expensive to build," Durst said. "But if you build a better building and you are careful, these systems pay for themselves very quickly."

Many of the environmentally advanced features of the 945-foot, 64-story building - such as its reuse of rainwater and waste water in its toilets - required special variances from city building rules.

"It's been easy to grant the variances, but it ended up being another step for them," said Department of Buildings spokeswoman Jennifer Givner.

A revamping of New York's building code now underway will make it easier for developers to construct environmentally friendly structures in the future, Givner said.

Many of Manhattan's newest skyscrapers are environmentally efficient - the Hearst Tower on 57th Street and Eighth Avenue has coated glass designed to keep the sun's heat at bay, and the Condé Nast building in Times Square, also built by the Dursts, has energy-efficient air chillers.

But they'll be topped by the Bank of America building's features, which are expected to make it the first skyscraper to earn a "platinum" rating from the U.S. Green Building Council.

* The building's toilets will be flushed with rainwater drained from the roofs and wastewater filtered from the plumbing system.

* Urinals will be filled with an oil that is lighter than water. Urine will sink below the oil and be odorlessly flushed away without any water.

* Air conditioning vents will be on the floor instead of the ceiling. When cooled air is piped in through the ceiling, it has to be chilled at about 55 degrees. But when it comes from the floor, it only has to be 65 degrees.

* Floor-to-ceiling windows are being designed to let sunlight in while dissipating the sun's heat.

* A cogeneration plant will produce electricity during the day and be used to make ice for the building cooling system over night.

* About 40 percent of the materials in the building are recycled - and about half of the construction material will come from within 500 miles of New York, saving on shipping costs.

Durst said the building's environmentally-friendly features will make it a more comfortable place to work.

"All these things make the occupants a lot more productive," he said. "You won't feel at the end of the day like you are ready to take a nap."

Copyright 2006NYP Holdings, Inc.

MidtownGuy
December 11th, 2006, 11:46 AM
Not only do we get a beautifully deigned building, but we also get one to inspire the city and the rest of America with it's tremendously green technology. Something to be very, very proud of.

TimmyG
December 11th, 2006, 12:32 PM
* Urinals will be filled with an oil that is lighter than water. Urine will sink below the oil and be odorlessly flushed away without any water.I'm curious to see what this looks like.

stache
December 11th, 2006, 03:48 PM
Probably in the yellow range!

Ninjahedge
December 11th, 2006, 03:56 PM
Um... EW!!!


Also, I am sorry to say, but urinal water has never really been the #1 reason for water wastage in the city. I think that while the oil may be an interesting idea, it has not really been run through the rigors and may make for some interesting problems.

Backsplash is one of them (ew!) and general cleaning is another. Oil may not be mixable with water, but it is emulsifiable, and I wonder how many chemicals can be absorbed by the oil in time......

ablarc
December 11th, 2006, 03:59 PM
Gross.

TREPYE
December 11th, 2006, 04:00 PM
Are you an analytical chemist by any chance? :p

Ninjahedge
December 11th, 2006, 05:17 PM
No, but I play one on TV... ;)

Jake
December 11th, 2006, 06:44 PM
haha, yeah this is a great idea because urinals waste, what, three seconds worth of running the faucet?

I'll bet you $20 that they don't have that kind of crap in the women's toilet! :D

Bob
December 11th, 2006, 06:57 PM
I was going to say something really juvenile and silly, here, but since I already provide enough of that on Wired New York, I figured I would let this opportunity slide on by. I know all of you are really upset about this, but I'm sure you'll get over it.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2006, 07:50 PM
"I'll bet you $20 that they don't have that kind of crap in the women's toilet!"

Well, the year’s ending, and I think we’ve found WiredNY’s most memorable line for 2006.

NYguy
December 12th, 2006, 08:09 AM
Charlotte Observer

Bank Tower, green power
BofA using latest environmental technology

http://www.charlotte.com/images/charlotte/charlotte/16221/263122316111.jpg

Bank of America's new skyscraper in Manhattan is now a little less than half complete at 23 stories.

RICK ROTHACKER


NEW YORK - When Bank of America Corp.'s new skyscraper in Manhattan is complete in 2008, the top floor will offer views of Central Park, the George Washington Bridge, both airports and the Atlantic Ocean.

For now, the building rises 23 stories above the cacophony of Midtown, a little less than halfway to its full 54-floor height. Workers are starting to attach patches of glass skin, and inside they're putting in the infrastructure needed to support six trading floors. The tower also incorporates state-of-the-art environmental features.

"The biggest challenge is how complicated the building is," developer Douglas Durst said in an interview in his New York office last week.

In August of 2004, Bank of America broke ground on the $1.3 billion tower in the midst of warnings of terrorist threats against financial institutions. Now the building is emerging as a symbol of Bank of America's growing presence in the world's financial capital. Set against the backdrop of nearby Bryant Park and Times Square, the crystalline structure should reach its peak this spring.

In the bank's hometown of Charlotte, the project has stirred concerns the No. 2 U.S. bank by assets could someday move its headquarters to the Big Apple. But Chief Executive Ken Lewis has worked to stifle those rumors. Last month, while announcing a new office/hotel complex in Charlotte, he said he wouldn't move the company during his tenure and was making it tough for his eventual successor.

The bank says the Manhattan tower will be its New York headquarters, occupied primarily by its corporate and investment banking unit, which provides Wall Street-style services such as stock and bond offerings. Some consumer and potentially wealth and investment management workers also will move there.

The bank is constructing the 2.1 million square-feet building in partnership with The Durst Organization. The bank will occupy about 80 percent of the space, including the 51st floor (52-54 are mechanical). The bank hasn't determined final plans for the top story, but it could be used for conference and meeting rooms.

The rest of the tower is mostly leased. A law firm has taken six floors, Durst will occupy up to two floors and the developer is negotiating with other parties for most of the remaining space.

The real estate is some of the priciest in New York, leasing for more than $100 a square foot. In contrast, office space in uptown Charlotte costs about $23 a square foot, according to Karnes Research Co.

Beside its prime Midtown location, Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park has gained attention for features designed to conserve energy and water. It was the first high-rise office building to seek "platinum" designation from the U.S. Green Building Council.

Among its environmentally friendly highlights, the building will have under-the-floor air conditioning that requires less cold air to be pumped through the tower and individual temperature controls at each workstation. The building also will save millions of gallons of water each year with waterless urinals and by capturing rainwater for use in the tower.

"We wanted to create something that others would want to copy," said architect Bob Fox, partner in Cook + Fox Architects. "We wanted it to make good sense for the environment and good financial sense."

[u]To keep the building on track, the bank, developer, architects and others have held a number of retreats to coordinate the complex construction project, Durst said. Even as contractors are still erecting the frame, the bank is building out trading floors in the two-acre base. So far, the meetings have fostered a strong partnership, he said.

"A lot of things can go wrong," Durst said. "The idea is to prevent finger pointing and figure out how to work together."

___________________________________________

Bank of America's New York Tower

• Name: Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park

• Height: 54 stories (945 feet)

• Square feet: 2.1 million

• Location: West side of 6th Avenue, between 42nd and 43rd streets

• Opening: 2008

• Cost: $1.3 billion

• Notable: The building will incorporate a number of environmental features designed to conserve energy and water. The building will house a reconstructed Henry Miller Theater.

antinimby
December 12th, 2006, 06:10 PM
In the bank's hometown of Charlotte, the project has stirred concerns the No. 2 U.S. bank by assets could someday move its headquarters to the Big Apple. But Chief Executive Ken Lewis has worked to stifle those rumors. Last month, while announcing a new office/hotel complex in Charlotte, he said he wouldn't move the company during his tenure and was making it tough for his eventual successor.
I wonder what he's doing to make it tough for his successor to move BofA to NY.

What a jerk.

lofter1
December 12th, 2006, 06:59 PM
B of A moved from SF to Charlotte just a short while back.

Nothing is forever (although a couple of weeks in Charlotte sure does feel like forever ;) )

ablarc
December 12th, 2006, 07:49 PM
(although a couple of weeks in Charlotte sure does feel like forever)
Just think how a couple of YEARS feels!

lofter1
December 12th, 2006, 10:15 PM
Sorry, my friend ... I can't even begin to imagine.

Although when one moves to a new place and puts down roots and starts to discover the rhythm of a place it often reveals things that would never be apparent during a short stay such as mine.

It was mainly the Downtown --or don't y'all say "Uptown"?? -- of Charlotte (where I had to spend a lot of time) that I found so deadly.

Ed007Toronto
December 13th, 2006, 02:27 PM
B of A moved from SF to Charlotte just a short while back.

Actually Charlotte based Nationsbank bought San Francisco based BofA in 1998. Nationsbank was then renamed BofA.

And you won't see BofA leave Charlotte anytime soon. The folks running it, along with those running Wachovia, are all very much pro-Charlotte. Part of the reason Charlotte is now the number 2 banking centre in the US after New York. An interesting article on this:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06176/701039-28.stm

lofter1
December 13th, 2006, 03:17 PM
Thanks for the correction ^^^

Still doesn't alter the fact that as time passes things change ...

As the article states:


... one out of every five people in the region now has a finance-related job ...
That is one of the reasons Charlotte was hit hard during the economic downswing @ 2000.

What goes up ...

Derek2k3
December 14th, 2006, 12:37 AM
http://static.flickr.com/128/321932396_bfbc94770b_o.jpg
Took this last Saturday.

antinimby
December 14th, 2006, 04:46 AM
Brilliant!

I don't remember anyone taking a shot from that vantage point before.

Updates on all three sites in one photo.

Geer
December 14th, 2006, 06:43 AM
A pretty recent update by Fish on SSC.
Although I like the shape of the building very much the cladding does nog do it for me. I know there has been some discussion on this point but in my opinion this building could have been better with a more uitspoken cladding in color and/or material.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4497/boa6hw5.jpg

ablarc
December 14th, 2006, 07:02 AM
^ Brrrr.

lofter1
December 14th, 2006, 10:04 AM
Anyone know if the (sorta) little HBO building across 6th Avenue at 42nd is maxed out on FAR -- or is that site gonna be built up some day in the future?

lofter1
December 14th, 2006, 10:16 AM
^ Brrrr.

What we have \/ to look forward to :confused:

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050417/superman2ricdvdscreencap27.jpg

http://www.sevensixfive.net/GIANT_ROBOT/superman%20solitude.jpg

MidtownGuy
December 14th, 2006, 10:46 AM
I like frit as much as the next guy, but I'm not seeing it applied tastefully or with a proper degradé in recent projects, here or in the IAC building.

My favorite frit in the city is the application at the Louis Vuitton store on 5th and 57th. It's mesmerizing and has depth, unlike these stripes. The spacing between the frit dots, as well as their sizes, make a big difference in perception so it really has to be finessed. Unless you want zebra stripes to overpower everything.

Ironically, across the street -where stripes actually work- they're getting ready to take them out and give us more relentless glass.:confused:

Jasonik
December 14th, 2006, 11:53 AM
My favorite frit in the city is the application at the Louis Vuitton store on 5th and 57th.

http://www.aokijun.com/works/images/042/01.jpg (http://www.aokijun.com/ja/works/042)

pianoman11686
December 14th, 2006, 01:19 PM
http://static.flickr.com/138/320574900_7563bc7f0e.jpg

Stu_Jo's photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15937237@N00/)

finnman69
December 14th, 2006, 04:00 PM
A pretty recent update by Fish on SSC.
Although I like the shape of the building very much the cladding does nog do it for me. I know there has been some discussion on this point but in my opinion this building could have been better with a more uitspoken cladding in color and/or material.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4497/boa6hw5.jpg

I can now see the glass is pretty straight forward, and is less special when viewed from more than a block away. The horizontal spandels are a LOT more pronounced than we were led to believe in the renderings.

finnman69
December 14th, 2006, 04:37 PM
1 Bryant Park is a lot flatter...almost deadly flat compared to this:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=133049&postcount=167

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/11/502130.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/11/502130.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/11/502141.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/11/502132.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2006/11/502135.jpg

If Foster's Madison avenue tower had detailing similar I might be intrigued.

ramvid01
December 14th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Lighting has a lot to do with how glass can look. The pictures of BoA were taken on a cloudy morning, and also, the amount of sunlight that reaches the bottom portion of the tower can be limited (especially at certain times of the day). The BoA was just not having a photogenic day, it is reflective, but obviously not as reflective as the Trump tower (albeit, Trump has less buildings blocking it's sunlight, especially if it's on the river side).

antinimby
December 15th, 2006, 12:46 AM
So New York buildings now can only look good at a certain time of the day?

The Times building looks good only at night.

1BP on the other hand needs to be in sunshine.

The problem with 1BP is not the lack of sunlight shining on it.

We have seen it in full sun and it doesn't look any better.

I'd say it looks worst in bright sunshine.

Why?

The problem is the vertical separators between each panel of glass are white on 1BP, whereas the ones on Trump Chicago is silver and stands out less.

These make it look more cage-like. Not a good thing.

TREPYE
December 15th, 2006, 05:15 AM
So far, as far as the base and the glass goes I dont like what I see. The base is too bland and the glass for some reason really leaves alot to be desired in terms of appeal; perhaps my preconception that Towers with angles should have dark glass facades.

That glass looks like a pair of some old pajamas that I had.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4497/boa6hw5.jpg

This is what the glass for this tower should have been:

http://gutter.curbed.com/archives/alamogwath.jpg

lofter1
December 15th, 2006, 09:45 AM
^^^ Bite your tongue :p

finnman69
December 15th, 2006, 03:23 PM
So New York buildings now can only look good at a certain time of the day?

The Times building looks good only at night.

1BP on the other hand needs to be in sunshine.

The problem with 1BP is not the lack of sunlight shining on it.

We have seen it in full sun and it doesn't look any better.

I'd say it looks worst in bright sunshine.

Why?

The problem is the vertical separators between each panel of glass are white on 1BP, whereas the ones on Trump Chicago is silver and stands out less.

These make it look more cage-like. Not a good thing.

I am not seeing much visual difference (other than the color) between it and the 60's-70's stick built curtainwalls in NYC.

http://www.ny-photos.com/images/park/277_park_3913_550wm.jpg

Gotham
December 21st, 2006, 02:12 PM
These were taken yesterday 12/20 at about 3:15pm..... notice on the first 4, the Iron Workers are installing one of the corner pieces of glass...


3235

3236

3237

3238

3239

3240

3241

kz1000ps
December 22nd, 2006, 02:03 PM
The glass looks great having a blue sky to reflect..

Derek2k3
December 26th, 2006, 11:57 PM
Building of the decade?
I wonder if they're also going to clad the solid white portion on the west side of Verizon in green glass.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/321530849_cbb1d7d3c7_b.jpg

Dug up this quick thing I did a few years ago.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/334757704_e06f789d25.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=334757704&size=o

finnman69
January 3rd, 2007, 02:52 PM
These were taken yesterday 12/20 at about 3:15pm..... notice on the first 4, the Iron Workers are installing one of the corner pieces of glass...

I saw it today in direct sunlight and it looks much better that way. I think as the glass goes up and you view the high floor glass obliquely, it will catch more sky reflections and look better in the sky. This building will loook much better from a distance or looking up. Just like 7WTC, it has the same glass specification .

Looking directly at it, it's very flat.The gradated frits read like solid spandels, im not sure which glass pattern goes all the way up as there are two distinctive fenestration types (3 if you include the horizontal bands on 42nd). The vertical mullions give it a nice A B A rythm.

I now see that the renderings were way way off, (by Screampoint). More architecture porn renderings sexed up to look hyper real, but in reality dont look like the real thing. Too many exaggerated refelctions, and glass depicted as being far more transparent than possible.

http://www.durst.org/prop/images/1bp/hires/3.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4497/boa6hw5.jpg

Derek2k3
January 4th, 2007, 02:38 AM
This thing is almost halfway up now, ~450'.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/345141993_62257f5c05_o.jpg
Goodbye Condi, Bush will always be across the street for you.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/345141990_7ee71eadae_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/345141994_b07948b1ca_o.jpg

pianoman11686
January 6th, 2007, 10:34 PM
They were still working pretty late on this one yesterday...

http://images20.fotki.com/v380/filerO53/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary006.jpg

http://images20.fotki.com/v374/fileIZXc/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary007.jpg

http://images14.fotki.com/v377/fileZddi/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary008.jpg

I'm really starting to like the crisp pinstripe effect of the curtainwall, especially on the facades that have less glazing.

http://images20.fotki.com/v364/file4aRw/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary009.jpg

http://images6.fotki.com/v97/fileur6w/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary010.jpg

http://images14.fotki.com/v377/fileo46B/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary011.jpg

http://images20.fotki.com/v373/filegMgB/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary012.jpg

http://images20.fotki.com/v380/fileGRVh/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary013.jpg

http://images20.fotki.com/v374/fileos3R/4d522/1/1072585/4470849/NewYorkJanuary014.jpg

antinimby
January 6th, 2007, 11:13 PM
I'm starting to have second thoughts on the color selection of the glass.

It's one thing to add frit but that dull, grey-ish green hue is not attractive at all.

Derek2k3
January 9th, 2007, 04:35 PM
http://www.nyas.org/images/eB474_bodyF.jpg
Informative article about 1 Bryant Park's greeness. There's also an animated movie.
http://www.nyas.org/ebrief/miniEB.asp?ebriefID=474

http://www.nyas.org/ebriefreps/ebrief/000474/images/foxcook4.jpg

lofter1
January 9th, 2007, 08:31 PM
With each newly-added floor the slopes / facets here are really starting to show ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_10b.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_10d.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_10e.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_09g.jpg

antinimby
January 10th, 2007, 12:48 AM
Informative article about 1 Bryant Park's greeness. There's also an animated movie.
http://www.nyas.org/ebrief/miniEB.asp?ebriefID=474
That animation is superb, although you know it was done by a firm in another city because we all know NY cabs don't have black bumpers like they do elsewhere. ;)

antinimby
January 11th, 2007, 02:31 AM
1 Bryant Park Nears Full


By JOHN KOBLIN

The budding 54-story 1 Bryant Park is still a year from opening, but recent negotiations have moved the tower toward 100 percent occupancy.

The Durst-developed building is on the verge of two new leases: one with the hedge fund Marathon Asset Management for two floors with a total of 75,000 square feet, said a source familiar with the deal; and the other with the fashion firm Elie Tahari, which is close to a lease for one floor, said a different source.

The hedge fund is expected to take the 38th and 39th floors, and to pay rents of $115 per square foot, according to another source.

Marathon Asset already has offices at 461 Fifth Avenue, as well as in London and Hong Kong.

The fact that Marathon Asset is interested in a building that has been well received in the real-estate world isn’t entirely surprising, since the firm is in close contact with brokers already: The hedge fund is involved in a deal to purchase SL Green’s suburban New York properties for $2.1 billion.

Meanwhile, Elie Tahari, the women’s clothing boutique with stores in Soho and in East Hampton, is in the midst of strong negotiations for commercial space on the 50th floor of 1 Bryant Park, said a source.

If both leases are signed, the 2.1-million-square-foot tower will only have four more floors up for lease; floors 37, 47, 48 and 49 would still be available.

One Bryant Park remains notable for two features: its draw among eager and deep-pocketed tenants, and the developer’s commitment to making it a truly green building, with largely recyclable materials used during construction.

Of equal importance, 1 Bryant Park will be, when it opens in 2008, a rarity in Manhattan commercial real estate: a new top-tier tower.

Bank of America is the largest tenant, with 1.6 million square feet and naming rights to the building. The law firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld is another major leaseholder at 203,000 square feet.

Asking rents for the few remaining floors are a little steeper at $125 a foot, according to a market report.

A spokesman from the Durst Organization declined to comment, but did say that the building is currently 90 percent leased.

This column ran on page 14 in the 1/15/2007 (http://www.observer.com/20070115/20070115_John_Koblin_finance_commercialbreaks.asp) edition of The New York Observer.

copyright © 2006 the new york observer, LLC

NYatKNIGHT
January 11th, 2007, 08:29 AM
In other words, they could have built it taller and it would have been no problem to fill. No surprise, but it's a bigger shame in these areas where there is no opposition to height. Well at least this one goes a little higher than the plateau.

Ninjahedge
January 11th, 2007, 09:42 AM
Thing is, that corner was a sweet spot for a tower. Lots of good things (including the park) within walking distance. You go a few blocks away, you might find it harder to fill the place if teh only thing that makes it different is its height and not a short walk to a great place to sit and have lunch....at 11:00 before everyone ELSE does!!! ;)

NoyokA
January 11th, 2007, 11:34 AM
In other words, they could have built it taller and it would have been no problem to fill. No surprise, but it's a bigger shame in these areas where there is no opposition to height. Well at least this one goes a little higher than the plateau.

The fact that the building is filled up is not an indication that it should've been built taller. Zoning permits only so many square-feet on a particular site. This building entirely fills its building envelope. If it was upto Durst I'm sure this building would have 3 million square feet instead of the allowed 2 million and would probably rise another 20 storeys.

Derek2k3
January 11th, 2007, 03:40 PM
^Yup, exactly. I don't think I've ever heard a developer not maxing out the sq. ft. of a site at their own will. If these FAR restrictions didn't exist, we'd have huge towers. They were going to do this for a few sites on the West Side, but was voted down by the city council.

That animation is superb, although you know it was done by a firm in another city because we all know NY cabs don't have black bumpers like they do elsewhere. ;)
heh, yea Screampoint is headquartered in San Francisco. They also did some of those WTC fly-throughs.

http://www.screampoint.com

antinimby
January 11th, 2007, 09:11 PM
If I remember correctly, Durst is already building larger than the zoning for the site allowed due to a bonus for the subway station rehabilitation.

Imagine how much smaller this building might be if not for that.

The city should have allowed it to be even larger given its location in the middle of Manhattan and access to so many subway lines.

pianoman11686
January 11th, 2007, 11:46 PM
Just another example of the inadequacy of our current zoning system.

ablarc
January 11th, 2007, 11:52 PM
God, this building is boring.

NYatKNIGHT
January 12th, 2007, 12:10 AM
The city should have allowed it to be even larger given its location in the middle of Manhattan and access to so many subway lines.This was my point. Sorry if I didn't make it clearer. Why is this city letting such prime locations, without nimby complaints, go underdeveloped - restating that age old complaint on this forum.
The fact that the building is filled up is not an indication that it should've been built taller.See, I think it is.

TREPYE
January 14th, 2007, 12:08 PM
God, this building is boring.

In terms of shape this is as good as they come nowadays. Uhmmm.... what would you have done to make it more enthralling??

ablarc
January 14th, 2007, 12:48 PM
In terms of shape this is as good as they come nowadays. Uhmmm.... what would you have done to make it more enthralling??
The shape is idiotic. The curtain wall is dull. The ground floor gives nothing to the passerby.

The chief virtue of this building is its newness and the fact that it replaces crap.

pianoman11686
January 14th, 2007, 01:25 PM
These are from last week. Note about the conditions at the time: it was late afternoon on a very overcast day.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary006.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary005.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary007.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary008.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary009.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary010.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary011.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary012.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary013.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/pianoman11686/NewYorkJanuary014.jpg

lbjefferies
January 14th, 2007, 01:44 PM
The shape is idiotic. The curtain wall is dull. The ground floor gives nothing to the passerby.

The chief virtue of this building is its newness and the fact that it replaces crap.

It's not that bad, but it sure is a shame this building can't switch places with the NYTT. Much more than BOA, the Times Tower truly deserves this spectacular setting.

ablarc
January 14th, 2007, 01:54 PM
... it sure is a shame this building can't switch places with the NYTT. Much more than BOA, the Times Tower truly deserves this spectacular setting.
Good point.

NoyokA
January 14th, 2007, 02:42 PM
If I remember correctly, Durst is already building larger than the zoning for the site allowed due to a bonus for the subway station rehabilitation.

Imagine how much smaller this building might be if not for that.

The city should have allowed it to be even larger given its location in the middle of Manhattan and access to so many subway lines.

Paul Goldberger made the same point, that the city should have taller buildings in order to make the skyline more dramatic and that perhaps they should be located at transportation points. He then reasoned that it was impossible because it was unfair to other property owners. Its one of the disadvantages to the democratic city.

ablarc
January 14th, 2007, 04:30 PM
^ ALL zoning restrictions are in some way unfair to property owners.

TREPYE
January 14th, 2007, 11:30 PM
The shape is idiotic. The curtain wall is dull. The ground floor gives nothing to the passerby.

The chief virtue of this building is its newness and the fact that it replaces crap.

Well I agree with you about the curtain wall it does suck. The ground floor I don't know about yet. But the shape....idiotic?? :rolleyes:

Wasn't it supposed to represent a crystalline form. I guess its a matter of taste but I happen to enjoy a tower that looks more like a crystal more so than a box. With those angles it definitely s going to give some spectacular reflections at sunset.

pianoman11686
January 15th, 2007, 01:09 AM
Paul Goldberger made the same point, that the city should have taller buildings in order to make the skyline more dramatic and that perhaps they should be located at transportation points. He then reasoned that it was impossible because it was unfair to other property owners. Its one of the disadvantages to the democratic city.

As long as the transportation points are publicly-owned property, the city (or state) can basically do anything they want with them. If you're the one telling other people what can and can't be built on their property, certainly it shouldn't stop you from doing what you want with yours.

stache
January 15th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Some neighborhoods have zoning codes where you can build much taller if the property is next to a subway entrance/exit. The city is trying to minimize pedestrian gridlock.

producer
January 15th, 2007, 02:41 AM
[quote=ablarc;141029]The shape is idiotic. The curtain wall is dull. The ground floor gives nothing to the passerby.


The first 2 are opinions which time will test, but the ground floor has a 35ft tall 7000sqft through block passage, widened sidewalks on 42 and 43, and a public indoor space on 6th avenue in addition to a subway connection from 6th to 7th avenue.:D

antinimby
January 15th, 2007, 05:47 AM
About that underground subway walkway, are they working on that right now and will it also be completed at the same time as the rest of the tower?

lofter1
January 15th, 2007, 09:27 AM
As of a couple of days ago they were just laying the re-bar for two new sets of steps going down into the subway on 6th Avenue just north of 42nd. It looks as if all the structural work (steel, etc.) for the subway station rehab at the corner is complete.

NYguy
January 15th, 2007, 09:34 AM
JANUARY 14, 2007

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101758/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101760/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101763/medium.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101758/large.jpg


Notice the way nature tries to hide the Times building in the background...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101760/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101762/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101763/large.jpg

lofter1
January 15th, 2007, 11:03 AM
Now the fun part begins as the upper floors go up ...

http://www.pbase.com/image/24382832/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/73101758/large.jpg

londonlawyer
January 15th, 2007, 11:49 AM
This building's shape is awesome. It is best appreciated from the animation shown on Durst's website.

finnman69
January 15th, 2007, 02:33 PM
As long as the transportation points are publicly-owned property, the city (or state) can basically do anything they want with them. If you're the one telling other people what can and can't be built on their property, certainly it shouldn't stop you from doing what you want with yours.

There should be a 25% increase in FAR across the board. for the entire city. You want sunlight and open space? Don't like tallbuildings? Move to Kansas NIMBY. It would do wonders for the cost of housing.

pianoman11686
January 15th, 2007, 02:50 PM
Interesting, finnman. You realize that goes against 90 years of New York zoning history, right? In your version, would buildings require setbacks, as the original zoning code did?

Also, why 25%?

finnman69
January 16th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Interesting, finnman. You realize that goes against 90 years of New York zoning history, right? In your version, would buildings require setbacks, as the original zoning code did?

Also, why 25%?


Even in some landmarked areas, the density is far too low for a city like NYC.. I think 25% is a substantial number but not ridiculous. NYC needs more buildable space, plus it would bring down the cost of housing. I would bump up the typical setbacks from 150' to 250', and increase the slope of the sky exposure planes.

The visual change would be minimal from the street.

kz1000ps
January 16th, 2007, 01:34 AM
Progress as of 1/14, going by NYGuy's latest photos.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/1210/engbryantpark730bj7.jpg

NYguy
January 16th, 2007, 08:05 AM
There should be a 25% increase in FAR across the board. for the entire city. You want sunlight and open space? Don't like tallbuildings? Move to Kansas NIMBY. It would do wonders for the cost of housing.

Yeah, where else is Bloomberg's extra million people gonna go?....:)

And the NIMBYs who flock to Kansas will only create more room.

RandySavage
January 16th, 2007, 09:52 AM
^^ From that rendering it looks like the glass wall facing the park (from ~floor 20 to the top) is separated from the main wall of the building, forming a 40 floor chasm between the two glass walls.

Is that the case? I thought the interior went up against the southeast corner facade... disappointing if it doesn't.

Ninjahedge
January 16th, 2007, 10:11 AM
The change would be significant. Simple standoff distances are not the total solution to this, as it will only make it so we have more isolated, fortress-like construction.

Agreed we do not want to get rid of stand-off distances, but you make it so that the building is 50' from the street, you get large, and sometimes dead, plazas leading up to uniform faced businesses on the ground floor of the building (minus their obligatory grandiose lobby space).

Jersey City Business District has a bit f that, and although they try, it still feels rather antiseptic when compared to NYC.

So, a blending of setback and facade slope make for a more open viaduct.


Also, I can see where this building will look great from across the park, it is already getting there, but I still do not know how its rather plain facade will be that welcoming at street level.... (From what I have been seeing so far, NOT the renderings...)

lofter1
January 16th, 2007, 10:28 AM
From that rendering it looks like the glass wall facing the park (from ~floor 20 to the top) is separated from the main wall of the building, forming a 40 floor chasm between the two glass walls.

Is that the case? I thought the interior went up against the southeast corner facade... disappointing if it doesn't.

The shadow in the rendering is somewhat deceptive ...

There is a bump-out between the southern section / northern section of the 6th Avenue facade. Above the base the northern section is actually closer to the street than the southern section -- and what appears to be a "chasm" is really a narrow southern-facing vertical part of the 6th Avenue facade (and which joins the north / south sections).

As the building rises and the facets cut away at the overall rectangularity of the building that narrow section gets whittled away until the north / south sections meet at one point (about 10 floors higher than where the building has now risen). Above that the northern section of the 6th Avenue facade will then continue to slope up, while the southern section will rise straight to the highest point of the tower. This will create a vertical northern face for the southern section which will meet the rising slope of the northern section at an angle -- and which will be visible when viewing the building from the NE.

Hope that's clear -- must have been crazy to design. Thank God for computers, eh?

ZippyTheChimp
January 16th, 2007, 11:59 AM
^
I thought RandySavage meant the enclosed wedge on the SE corner.

lofter1
January 16th, 2007, 01:23 PM
Doh -- You're ^^^ right ... stupid me.

Won't even try to write a description of what happens there :cool:

ablarc
January 16th, 2007, 01:31 PM
Doh ... Won't even try to write a description of what happens there :cool:
That's what I mean by the building's shape being idiotic. It's so (needlessly) complicated that you can't describe it or even really grasp it --nor is it rewarding enough to even try.

Not worth the effort. There's no art here.

avm10
January 16th, 2007, 01:35 PM
Hey wirednewyork!

Forgive my "newbieness", but that 40 storey "chasm" is actually a double wall assembly that get wider and slightly deeper on each floor as you go up the tower, starting on level 21. The interior doesnt go right up the corner, but its pretty close. The intent is to have it lit.

In general the curtain wall system is a design marvel, to be appreciated as it gets closer to being complete.

stache
January 16th, 2007, 01:46 PM
Welcome avm!

Citytect
January 16th, 2007, 10:38 PM
That's what I mean by the building's shape being idiotic. It's so (needlessly) complicated that you can't describe it or even really grasp it --nor is it rewarding enough to even try.

The shape's not all that complicated: Two long boxes set on end, with the corners sliced at weird angles. Arbitrary, perhaps.

antinimby
January 16th, 2007, 11:08 PM
^ Exactly.

The only thing this building has going for it is the cuts and angles up top.

From the midsection on down, everything's square-cornered and no different than the countless other NY buildings.

The glass so far is as exciting as day old bread.

TREPYE
January 16th, 2007, 11:55 PM
That's what I mean by the building's shape being idiotic. It's so (needlessly) complicated that you can't describe it or even really grasp it --nor is it rewarding enough to even try.

Not worth the effort. There's no art here.

Now its "complicated".
The building's design pays homage to the old Crystal Palace that was built there along time ago. So basically, the building is shaped like a crystal....a real brain twister there I tell you. :p

bak
January 17th, 2007, 12:49 AM
While perhaps too early to really tell, the through-block passageway looks promising. Right now, it's just steel, but the proportions seem enticing and give a good sense of enclosure (or at least it looked that way in the dark).

On 42nd, the streetwall continues to be troubling. Can anything be done to relieve the monotony?

Ninjahedge
January 17th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Walking by it on the way to work in the morning or back from work, it just does not inspire me. I have to be a block away from it before I go "hey! That's starting to look pretty neat!"

I don't say "neat" but you get the point.

Actually, I do not "say" anything, but that is even further off the subject.... ;)

What I am wondering is if they can get that open space and sheer facade at ground level to be engaging. Even in the renderings look a bit sterile, especially when you considr things like the trees are out at the street-line.

I do not think the setback will be enough to have a decent break-space (seating area, etc).

It is not as if many other buildings have a great street-level presence, but it is just dissapointing that they don't.

RandySavage
January 17th, 2007, 12:04 PM
So there will be an empty, glass-encased, inverted wedge on the Southeast corner running almost the entire height of the building. Interesting.

MidtownGuy
January 17th, 2007, 12:13 PM
During the night, the wedge feature will look amazing from the park when illuminated from within! The rendering at the website shows it completely glowing.

avm10
January 17th, 2007, 01:35 PM
So there will be an empty, glass-encased, inverted wedge on the Southeast corner running almost the entire height of the building. Interesting.

It gets wider as you go up the building. Imagine a glass trapezoid getting wider at each level. At Level 52 up the double wall is open to the elements with a series of catwalks and screens.

BrooklynRider
January 17th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Thanks for that rendering and showing where we are to date. It is truly massive.

NYguy
January 17th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Bloomberg

Elie Tahari Takes Floor Near Top of Manhattan Tower

By David M. Levitt

Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Fashion design company Elie Tahari Ltd. will lease the entire 50th floor of One Bryant Park, a 51- story Midtown Manhattan skyscraper slated for completion in 2008, its developer said.

Tahari Ltd., the vehicle of designer Elie Tahari, will use the 29,674-square-foot space as its headquarters and showroom, landlord Durst Organization said in a press release. The lease runs for 15 years, said Durst, which didn't disclose the rent.

One Bryant Park will hold 2.1 million square feet of offices, a block from Times Square and overlooking Bryant Park, behind the main branch of the New York Public Library. Tents erected in the park are home to New York's Fashion Week where the world's top designers exhibit twice a year.

"It is important to me that our headquarters are both inspiring and beautiful,'' said Tahari in the statement. Citing the building's carbon dioxide monitors, rainwater capturing and other environmental innovations, he said "it's even more important to me that we will be doing our part in protecting the environment.''

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, will occupy 37 floors of the building. Law firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP will rent six floors at a reported rent of over $100 a square foot.

kz1000ps
January 17th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Just reposting a couple-year-old rendering showing it at various times in the day. I believe they are 9am, 12, 3 and 6pm, although I might be wrong. Whenever they are they're spaced out by every three hours.

The large size rendering I used above is second from the left.
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4889/nyconebryantpark2px5.jpg

antinimby
January 17th, 2007, 05:56 PM
The top is hollow.

kz1000ps
January 17th, 2007, 06:05 PM
Like I said on SkyscraperPage, my guess (and worry) is that instead of breaking the plateau, that open crown is only going to add to the clutter of the skyline.

A great Photoshop by JaCKinNYC on SSP:
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/JACKinNYC/BofA.jpg

And a picture by JaCK
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/JACKinNYC/BofA-1.jpg

producer
January 17th, 2007, 11:10 PM
Please, someone take a photo and post it from this location on a sunny day, I'm guessing it's fairly early 9-10am ish. judging from the sun angle.


Im curious to get a feeling on how the building is really going to look. I think the reflections will be far less pronounced and the difference between the spandrels and vision glass to be much more apparent.

Since the trees are in bloom, the sun must be at a higher elevation, more importantly, the glass is dirty and the interior is dark.

yanni111
January 19th, 2007, 12:05 AM
For everyone who is complaining about the glass. Do you realize that the glass you see now is not going to continue past the highest floor its on right now at the south east corner? The type of glass will change to a different type for the rest of the building. Look at the renderings of the south east corner and how exactly 7 floors below where that indentation starts, the glass is different. Its sort of sticking out of the building. Thats why those columns are bending at the corner above the highest current piece of glass.
Either that or the rendering was exagerated just to show off the way that corner is notched.

Ninjahedge
January 19th, 2007, 08:58 AM
I, for one, realize this.

But it still does not change the first 100 feet or so which will be the majority of what I see when I walk past it on the way to work in the morning.

Far = nice
Close = Wall of Glass and Steel (just like the others).


Whatevah.

ZippyTheChimp
January 19th, 2007, 09:07 AM
Jury is still out for me.

When I first saw the renderings, I thought it looked chunky. Viewing the animation changed my opinion. Now I'm not so sure.

Whatever the result, I'll never like that view down 42nd.

lofter1
February 2nd, 2007, 02:06 AM
Just north of the corner of 6th Avenue / W 42nd ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_12a.jpg

Inside the Escalators are going in ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_12g.jpg

The North facade ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_11a.jpg

Concrete being pumped in near Henry Miller's Theater ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_12c.jpg

The pumping arm rising between the B of A tower and Conde Nast ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_12d.jpg

The Pumper ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_12e.jpg

NYguy
February 6th, 2007, 07:37 AM
NY Post

VIEW FROM THE TOWER
BOFA'S SKYSCRAPER IS SYMBOL OF PROSPERITY

http://www.nypost.com/img/cols/stevecuozzo.jpg

February 6, 2007

TOURING the skeletal innards of Bank of America Tower at 1 Bryant Park, the fast-rising 54-story skyscraper at Sixth Avenue and 42nd Street, is to witness Manhattan's post-9/11 renaissance in bloom.

The primary evidence is the skyscraper itself, a joint venture of the Durst Organization and BofA and owned by both: a striking, multi-faceted, environmentally-advanced edifice brimming with public amenities.

A mere 100,000 square feet of office space remain unclaimed of a total 2.1 million square feet.

Yesterday, Douglas Durst inked a deal with Marathon Asset Management for 66,000 square feet.

It follows recent signings with law firm Akin Gump and fashion company Elie Tahari; both are paying well over $100 a square foot.

Ever-growing BofA will occupy 80 percent of the office floors, including 300,000 square feet of trading floors.

The view from the 29th floor - now a jungle-gym of exposed steel, piping and concrete-pouring forms - takes in a neighboring symbol of prosperity: the former Verizon building across the street, now being completely redesigned and reclad.

The Durst/BofA project will open in April 2008.

Designed by Cook + Fox Architects, it will be one of the city's tallest towers, rising 965 feet to the roof. An ornamental vertical spire will soar to 1,200 feet, taller than the Chrysler Building's 1,048 feet.

"The spire is being built as we speak," Durst said.

In addition to a $1.3 billion development cost shared by Durst and BofA, the bank will spend an undisclosed amount on infrastructure build-out for what bank Senior VP John G. Saclarides calls "a building within the building."

The project is larger and much more complex than 4 Times Square next door, the pioneering 42nd Street tower Durst built in the 1990s.

Besides state-of-the-art electronics and security systems and "green features" that have earned rare LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) "platinum" certification, it also boasts numerous humanizing features.

A wide, indoor pedestrian walkway between 42nd and 43rd Street is to be named "Anita's Way" after Durst's performance-artist daughter, Anita.

Durst is creating a new Sixth Avenue subway entrance outside the building and an underground pedestrian passageway to link the Sixth/42nd Station with the Times Square station one block west.

An "urban garden" inside the lobby will have ivy planting and seating.

BofA will have a large retail branch on the avenue and there will be 14,000 square feet of stores to browse.

On the tower's 43rd Street side, Durst has sunk the 1,050 seats of the Henry Miller Theater below ground. The restored venue will be leased to a theatrical operator. A 10,000 square-foot restaurant will stand on two levels behind the theater's landmarked façade.

Ninjahedge
February 6th, 2007, 09:18 AM
I don't know if it is because of scheduling or the cold, but there were no concrete trucks out yesterday or today (nothing, no trucks, pumps, nada).

I would like to say it is the temp (It is really hard to keep conrete warm in this weather. You do NOT want it to freeze!) but it could just be that they are not at that stage for the floors they are on....

Who knows, but it is kind of weird having that much space to walk on 42nd.....

James Kovata
February 6th, 2007, 02:54 PM
When is the building likely to top out?

Fahzee
February 6th, 2007, 03:59 PM
it's the cold - concrete wont cure propely at temps below freezing (the water freezes too quickly).

antinimby
February 6th, 2007, 09:42 PM
BofA will have a large retail branch on the avenue and there will be 14,000 square feet of stores to browse.OH MY GAWD.

That is fantastic news!

And all this time I was unhappy about how that entire stretch of 42nd St. would just be one huge dull corporate lobby.

We're gonna get stores!!! :)

Btw, I can't wait to go in and check out that new subway entrance and the underground passageway.

NoyokA
February 6th, 2007, 09:44 PM
Hopefully this becomes the Citicorp Center of the 21st century.

pianoman11686
February 6th, 2007, 09:48 PM
I still think that for a prime site like this, any and all height restrictions should have been removed.