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

NoyokA
February 6th, 2007, 09:49 PM
I still think that for a prime site like this, any and all height restrictions should have been removed.

There were no height restrictions, except for the FAA height restriction of 2,000 feet that includes all of America.

pianoman11686
February 6th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Any indication as to why the developer chose the specific dimensions?

ablarc
February 6th, 2007, 09:57 PM
There were no height restrictions, except for the FAA height restriction of 2,000 feet that includes all of America.
What ... Burj Dubai illegal in U.S.?

Fargo antenna too?

NoyokA
February 6th, 2007, 09:59 PM
What ... Burj Dubai illegal in U.S.?

Fargo antenna too?

You need to get special approval from the FAA for any structure over 2,000 feet in America. I'm sure there weren't too many flight risks in North Dakota.

NoyokA
February 6th, 2007, 10:09 PM
Any indication as to why the developer chose the specific dimensions?

The big restriction Durst had was square footage, 2.2 million square feet which is determined by FAR. Its also possible there was a special zoning district with certain laws such as you have to maintain a streetwall at a certain height, but there were no height restrictions for this site, like there were at Columbus Circle. At 2.2 Million Square feet Durst theoretically could have built 100 floors, for instance the Bank of China Tower only has 500,000 square feet of space, or he could have built it at 40 storeys like the configuration at Goldman Sachs. As to why Durst chose 54 floors, I've heard him go on record that around 50 storeys is the optimal height considering cost. Also there was the requirement for trading floors and large floorplates which greatly cut into the allowed square footage.

ZippyTheChimp
February 6th, 2007, 10:20 PM
OH MY GAWD.


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!!! :)I read that a bit differently.

" BofA will have a large retail branch on the avenue:" That's a bank branch.

"and there will be 14,000 square feet of stores to browse." Doesn't state where they will be. On the street or Anita's Way?

jeffpark
February 6th, 2007, 11:00 PM
i dont get it why Douglas has so little Retail space at this new building

jeffpark
February 6th, 2007, 11:19 PM
there is 4 floors still available,


BOA- 2 to 36 & 51 JLL-Peter Riguardi
Marathon Asset- 38 & 39
Durst- 40
Akin Gump- 41 to 46 Washington Realty Group
Elie Tahari- 50 Norman Bobrow

37,47, 48 & 49- FOR LEASE.

ablarc
February 6th, 2007, 11:37 PM
A branch bank and a mall.

pianoman11686
February 6th, 2007, 11:48 PM
The big restriction Durst had was square footage, 2.2 million square feet which is determined by FAR.

Sorry, I should have specified: no restrictions on either height or total square footage.

NoyokA
February 6th, 2007, 11:50 PM
Sorry, I should have specified: no restrictions on either height or total square footage.

Well you wont find that anywhere in New York City.

pianoman11686
February 6th, 2007, 11:56 PM
Wtc?

NoyokA
February 7th, 2007, 12:02 AM
Wtc?

The WTC has/had FAR just like the rest of the city.

pianoman11686
February 7th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Whatever. Just because FAR restrictions exist everywhere doesn't mean it can't be amended in specific situations. I think this should have been one of those situations.

lofter1
February 7th, 2007, 12:24 AM
If they are just pouring slabs, it's not as critical as say a high PSI strength pour in a reinforced concrete column. But they can add chemicals to the mix to keep the concrete from freezing or to make it set faster.

They were pouring slabs today on the upper floors (they're up to #15 there now) at the new building going up at Houston / Ludlow.

Plus they had a big pile of coal-like briquets in the street.

Must get F***ing freezing working in a building like this on a day like today.

I'd last about 20 minutes :o

NYguy
February 7th, 2007, 07:49 AM
A branch bank and a mall.


Making it not so different from the rest of the area. But that block has been a dead zone for a while, even a bank branch would give it some life.

But this is what I want to know...


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.

Where is this spire being built, and when can we at least get a glimpse of it?

ablarc
February 7th, 2007, 08:01 AM
Where is this spire being built ... ?
Taiwan? Luxembourg?

Ninjahedge
February 7th, 2007, 08:54 AM
it's the cold - concrete wont cure propely at temps below freezing (the water freezes too quickly).

Saw a couple of trucks out there this morning, but no pumpers.

REALLY weird seeing the tanks steaming as they are spinning. Don't know if that is from the wash water, or the thermal energy from the last bits of concrete left in there going through curing, but it almost made the tank took hot... ;)

Ninjahedge
February 7th, 2007, 09:01 AM
Oh, added note. Some of those admixtures effect the final yeild strength of the material. Also, slabs are important in modern building because of the newer seismic design requirements (you need a good diaphragm to transfer force from the masses in the building to the lateral resisting elements like shear walls and brace frames.)

But the biggest reason(s) they do not liek admixtures like that is that they cost money. Both in material cost and in what you have to do once you get them (application). There are many effects these mixtures have and some require special construction considerations which ALSO cost money.

So if the choice is delay a few days or pay an extra $$ for admixtures sometimes the former is more desirable than the latter.

finnman69
February 7th, 2007, 10:05 AM
there is 4 floors still available,


BOA- 2 to 36 & 51 JLL-Peter Riguardi
Marathon Asset- 38 & 39
Durst- 40
Akin Gump- 41 to 46 Washington Realty Group
Elie Tahari- 50 Norman Bobrow

37,47, 48 & 49- FOR LEASE.

that would be a great thign for this building and area if so

DarrylStrawberry
February 11th, 2007, 05:24 PM
Bank of America is about to crack the skyline...(the crane is just above the New York Life building)

stache
February 11th, 2007, 05:48 PM
Anybody know how many more floors to go?

DarrylStrawberry
February 11th, 2007, 06:20 PM
^ I don't know for sure, but I think the building is approximately 500-550 feet so far...the roofline is supposed to be 965 and the spire 1200.

I'd guess they're somewhere between 35-40...final number will be 54.

kz1000ps
February 11th, 2007, 06:27 PM
While I don't know the exact floor count, these photos (by SSP member JacKinNYC) show a growth of 4 floors in 21 days:

January 17th
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/JACKinNYC/BofA-1.jpg

February 8th
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/JACKinNYC/BofA20070208.jpg

My very rough estimate per the renderings is that about 13 floors rise past the height of that shortish tower a block north of it (which is 552 ft), pegging its current status at ~40 floors erected thus far.

cysthead30
February 11th, 2007, 07:36 PM
It's gonna look good!

NYguy
February 12th, 2007, 08:03 AM
amny

Going for the 'green' in NYC

By Justin Rocket Silverman
February 9, 2007T

The largest icemaker in Manhattan is being built across the street from Bryant Park.

No, the 300 tons of ice it will make and store won't be used for cocktail parties. The icemaker is part of an innovative cooling system that will keep the 55-story Bank of America Tower chilled all summer, using only a fraction of the energy of traditional air conditioners.

This is just one feature in what is slated to become the most environmentally sustainable skyscraper in the nation when it opens in spring 2008 on the northwest corner of 42nd Street and Sixth Avenue.

As New York struggles to reduce its carbon footprint, the city has become a showcase for "green building" technology, with both Seven World Trade Center and the Hearst Tower qualifying for gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

But even the greenest buildings in the city won't match the technology being installed in the bank tower, which is aiming for platinum certification.

Instead of overheat vents, the builders are employing an under-floor ventilation system, in which air will literally rise from the ground.

Carbon dioxide monitors will automatically inject fresh air into the structure if the offices become too stuffy. Nearly all of the wastewater produced by the building will be recycled, and used for things like watering the rooftop gardens.

"The biggest challenge is that everything is new," said Jordan Barowitz, a spokesman for The Durst Organization, which is building the tower in conjunction with Bank of America. "The easiest way to build is to do exactly what you have done in the past. Here everything is an innovation, nothing has been done before."

While the tower won't be the first platinum-certified high-rise in the country, at 1,200 feet tall and with 2.1 million square feet of floor space, it certainly will be the largest. (There are about 30 platinum-certified buildings nationwide.)

If successful, the $1.3 billion tower could launch a wave of platinum-rated buildings in the city. Research in the past decade shows a clear increase in productivity and fewer sick days among workers in green buildings, giving corporations a tangible, profit-driven incentive to go green.

"This will be the landmark building that marked the tipping point in the market, where green stopped being called alternative, and became instead the preferred commercial standard," said Charles Lockwood, an environmental and real estate consultant.

Lockwood predicted that green technology would soon be seen as essential to a 21st-century building as air conditioning was in the last century.

Boston and Washington D.C. already mandate green features in most new construction. New York City¹s Local Law 86 establishes green standards for energy and water use in publicly funded buildings, but stop short of requiring them in private construction done without public funds.

Still, Debra Taylor of the Department of Buildings said that more private builders are taking the green initiative on their own, both to save money on energy costs and to improve worker performance. Though these buildings initially cost more to construct, proponents argue that the energy-saving features save money in the long run.

"There are still people who are concerned about cost, but cost is proving to be less and less of a concern," Taylor said. "The learning curve is being surmounted."

Tower's 'green' features:

- Floor-to-ceiling windows let in the maximum amount of natural light. - Insulating window glass and double-wall technology retains heat during the winter, and keeps it out during the summer. -Each floor has its own temperature controls for more efficient cooling. -Under-floor ventilation keeps air circulating better than traditional vents. -Carbon dioxide monitors allow injections of fresh air as needed. -Air filters remove 95 percent of particles, making the interior air cleaner than air outside. -Gray-water recycling system reduces burden on city sewers by reusing waste and rainwater within the building. -Rooftop gardens cool building and reduce "heat island" effect that makes all of Manhattan hotter in the summer. -About half the building is made from recycled materials

The tower by the numbers:

-2.1 million square feet
-1,200 feet tall including glass spire
-$1.3B: development and construction cost
-80%: amount of space The Bank of America will occupy in the tower
-$100+: price per square foot paid by tenants such as Akin Gump law firm and Elie Tahari fashion company.

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-02/27866776.jpg


http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-02/27866777.jpg


http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-02/27866707.jpg


http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2007-02/27866714.jpg

Bank of America Tower construction site.
Feb 11, 2007

NYguy
February 12th, 2007, 08:53 AM
FEBRUARY 11, 2007

Good to see this tower making the press more. It's beginning to have that
impact that will make people look up and think "that's tall..."

Unlike most other New York greats, it will never be the tallest in the city, but
it will be second tallest for a little while. That counts for something in
a city with so many skyscrapers...

1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289522/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289534/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289537/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289543/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289545/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289571/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289571/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289603/medium.jpg

NYguy
February 12th, 2007, 08:53 AM
7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289603/large.jpg

8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289604/large.jpg

9.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289605/large.jpg

10.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289607/large.jpg

11.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289610/large.jpg

12.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289634/large.jpg

antinimby
February 12th, 2007, 09:51 AM
That intersection at 42nd and Sixth will soon be green glass hell.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74289603/large.jpg

City Spire
February 12th, 2007, 10:31 AM
I count to 34 floors. I don´t know if the ground-section is one floor or more though.

jeffpark
February 12th, 2007, 10:43 AM
there is 4 floors still available,


BOA- 2 to 37 & 51 JLL-Peter Riguardi
Marathon Asset- 38 & 39 CBRE-Mary Ann
Akin Gump- 41 to 46 Washington Realty Group
Durst- 48th to 49th
Elie Tahari Ltd.- 50 Norman Bobrow

40th & 47th floors are FOR LEASE.

there is, -Four Tower Floors Totaling
68,000. Square Feet Remain Available.

cysthead30
February 12th, 2007, 12:25 PM
When the BOFA is completed, that area of 6th Ave is going to have one of the best skyscraper canyons in the city. :)

p.s. I really wish they would of left the facade of the Verizon building alone. It seems like the money to do that could've been used for something more important.

jeffpark
February 12th, 2007, 12:28 PM
When the BOFA is completed, that area of 6th Ave is going to have one of the best skyscraper canyons in the city. :)

p.s. I really wish they would of left the facade of the Verizon building alone. It seems like the money to do that could've been used for something more important.

dont be worried about SAM ZELLS money

Sado
February 12th, 2007, 12:40 PM
I absolutely love this building! Do you guys think it will top out (floorcount-wise) before May?

H-man
February 12th, 2007, 01:09 PM
Bank of America is about to crack the skyline...(the crane is just above the New York Life building)

are you sure? that crane seems awefully far away from conde nast.

RS085
February 12th, 2007, 02:00 PM
i'd bet on it.

finnman69
February 12th, 2007, 02:38 PM
I absolutely love this building! Do you guys think it will top out (floorcount-wise) before May?

it will be well into the summer

lofter1
February 12th, 2007, 06:24 PM
Hmmm ^^^ Maybe it's time to put some bets on the table ...

I say June 8, 2007 -- not including the spire.

sfenn1117
February 12th, 2007, 06:44 PM
By my count it has 16 more floors, so about 4 more months seems right. The glass screens may be done by Fall along with the spire.

Anyone know when in 2008 it is expected to open? I could see a Spring opening.

NYguy
February 12th, 2007, 06:48 PM
I absolutely love this building! Do you guys think it will top out (floorcount-wise) before May?

Early May, if not the end of April (without the spire).

DarrylStrawberry
February 12th, 2007, 07:08 PM
are you sure? that crane seems awefully far away from conde nast.

Yup...I checked it out with binoculars before I took the photo. It's the crane on the northeast corner of the building.

NYguy
February 14th, 2007, 07:26 AM
Quote from an article in the Observer:

DOUGLAS DURST HAS FOUND A TENANT financially secure enough to afford two more floors in his new tower at One Bryant Park: himself!

The Durst Organization will take the entire 48th and 49th floors, for a total of 61,000 square feet at the Bank of America Tower, a spokesman confirmed.

The move means there are only two floors left for rent in the 54-story building, which opens next spring.

The only available floors left in the very green, LEED-certified budding building include the 40th floor, which has 36,000 square feet, and the 47th floor, with 32,000 square feet, the spokesman said. Asking rents are more than $100 per square foot, according to market reports.

But money isn’t an issue.

Mr. Durst, if anything, has had too many eager tenants knocking at the door to get into Manhattan’s most soaring tower to open next year. As The Observer reported in January, Marathon Asset Management, a hedge fund, and Elie Tahari, the women’s fashion designer, will together take three floors for more than 100,000 square feet.

The building is at the corner of 42nd and Sixth. The leading tenant is Bank of America, which will take 1.6 million square feet

antinimby
February 14th, 2007, 08:21 AM
Mr. Durst, if anything, has had too many eager tenants knocking at the door to get into Manhattan’s most soaring tower to open next year.Even more reason why developers need to get crackin' on building more commercial towers in the city ASAP.

Companies are almost desperate for office space now.

millertime83
February 14th, 2007, 12:47 PM
are you sure? that crane seems awefully far away from conde nast.

it has already broken the skyline. You can see it from Hoboken.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/381292750_4a83785550.jpg

Here it is from Top of the Rock.

NYguy
February 19th, 2007, 09:11 AM
FEBRUARY 18, 2007

Another look at the latest marvel of Manhattan...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572793/medium.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572835/medium.jpg_http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572820/medium.jpg


1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572793/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572801/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572820/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572824/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572835/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/74572849/large.jpg

lofter1
February 19th, 2007, 11:59 AM
Future ski slopes here?

Yesterday (Sunday Feb. 18) W. 44th Street between Broadway / 8th Avenue was closed at mid-day due to ice falling from the Viacom Building on Broadway -- which resulted in the shuttering of the Shubert Theater and the cancellation of the Sunday matinee of "Spamalot".

Given the sloping facade on the upper floors of the new BofA Tower, me wonders what snow / ice will do there ...

Avalanches on 6th Avenue :confused:

NYguy
February 19th, 2007, 07:20 PM
Given the sloping facade on the upper floors of the new BofA Tower, me wonders what snow / ice will do there ...

Avalanches on 6th Avenue :confused:

Adds to the excitement in Midtown...

ramvid01
February 19th, 2007, 08:35 PM
Future ski slopes here?

Yesterday (Sunday Feb. 18) W. 44th Street between Broadway / 8th Avenue was closed at mid-day due to ice falling from the Viacom Building on Broadway -- which resulted in the shuttering of the Shubert Theater and the cancellation of the Sunday matinee of "Spamalot".

Given the sloping facade on the upper floors of the new BofA Tower, me wonders what snow / ice will do there ...

Avalanches on 6th Avenue :confused:

Watch out poconos, here comes BoA

kz1000ps
February 19th, 2007, 08:50 PM
Me and my Salomons are all over it as soon as they build a high-speed lift and make a mogul run!

avm10
February 19th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Those are some fantastic pictures.

I cannot wait to get on site at the beginning of March!

NYguy
February 21st, 2007, 02:56 PM
Too bad another million square feet couldn't be added to this tower...

(globest.com)

BofA Tower Adds Another Tenant to Roster

By Katie Hinderer

Marathon Asset Management LLC, diversified hedge fund and investment management firm, has signed on for 75,792 sf at the 2.1-million-sf One Bryant Park. Under a 10-year lease, Marathon will occupy the entire 37th and 38th floors of the 51-story tower being developed by the Durst Organization and Bank of America.

“Their philosophy of looking beyond the short-term and understanding the long-term impacts of their investments makes them a perfect tenant for the Bank of America Tower,” says Durst co-president Douglas Durst, in a statement. “One Bryant Park’s technological, green and high-performance user innovations will produce the optimal work environment and yield abundant economic and environmental dividends for Marathon.”

The choice to locate at the environmentally friendly One Bryant Park comes after a 10-month search. CB Richard Ellis’ Mary Ann Tighe conducted the search and negotiated the deal on behalf of Marathon.

“Marathon is committed to providing its staff with an ideal work environment, an investment in our future that will add to the firm’s overall productivity as the Bank of America Tower is the most technologically advanced, environmentally friendly, and centrally located building in Manhattan,” says Marathon COO Andrew Rabinowitz.

The first tenants are slated to move in during the first quarter 2008, but a spokesperson for Durst says there is no date set yet for all the tenants to be in and functioning in the building. Several firms have already signed on to lease space. Elie Tahari LTD, a clothing designer, will lease the entire 50th floor. Durst has taken the 48th and 49th floors, while Bank of America will occupy 1.63 million sf on 37 floors. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a law firm, agreed in August to inhabit six floors.

The lease rates for the deals have not been disclosed, but previous estimates put the asking rent north of $100 per square foot. Bank of America expects to occupy the entire building in the future. The spokesperson says only 66,000 sf remain to be filled, putting the building at 97% occupancy.

After the merger of SL Green and Reckson Associates Realty, Marathon backed an investment group of former Reckson executives to purchase $2 billion in non-core assets from SL Green

mgp
February 27th, 2007, 10:15 PM
Just came across this (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_058000829.html) story about the construction workers at One Bryant drinking during their lunch break. From past experience on sites, I'm really not surprised...

I suppose it was nice of the 'reporter' to refer to it as 1111 Avenue of the Americas rather than One Bryant Park though.

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2007, 09:30 AM
MGP, I do agree with you, but I have to throw a few questions into the mix:

1. Has anyone gotten hurt yet? I have not heard about anything.

2. How many do this and how many do they have?


While I disapprove of these guys having a "few" and topping it off with a shot, I see no problem with them having a beer WITH lunch.

Subtle, but important difference.

If these guys are having the executive "liquid lunch" then their manager should have a word with them.

I wonder what Union regulations are for this....

lbjefferies
February 28th, 2007, 10:44 AM
I see no problem with them having a beer WITH lunch.

Subtle, but important difference.

...


You are wrong. There should never ever ever ever ever be any alcohol on a construction site. It's either zero tolerence, or someone eventually dies.

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2007, 11:13 AM
Bull.

I am sorry, but you are making no difference between two things.

Having a beer will not kill anyone.

Having 3 will.

Seperating the two is difficult, so it is easier to forbid than to moderate. It has always been the case.

I am not saying that they should be ALLOWED to do this. The rule is the rule. But I have NEVER IN MY LIFE heard of ANYONE being hurt by one beer.

Have you?


(PS, these guys were not on the construction site with the booze. I know what you mean, but if you want to get literal.... ;))

lbjefferies
February 28th, 2007, 11:19 AM
Bull.

I am sorry, but you are making no difference between two things.

Having a beer will not kill anyone.

Having 3 will.

Seperating the two is difficult, so it is easier to forbid than to moderate. It has always been the case.

I am not saying that they should be ALLOWED to do this. The rule is the rule. But I have NEVER IN MY LIFE heard of ANYONE being hurt by one beer.

Have you?


(PS, these guys were not on the construction site with the booze. I know what you mean, but if you want to get literal.... ;))


Alcohol in moderation is a great thing. If we could trust these guys to have a single beer then yes, I suppose it would be okay. But many people cannot do alcohol in moderation.

MidtownGuy
February 28th, 2007, 11:24 AM
No, it isn't "bull". ibjeffries is right. No boozing on the site. Why should there be any tolerance for drinking alcohol on a dangerous job, whatever the quantity?
You say 'I am not saying that they should be ALLOWED to do this.' Then you make excuses and qualifications.
Are you arguing again, just for the sake of arguing?
One beer or three, it seems like a slippery slope, and I see no reason to drink during a work shift. They can wait until they leave work.

mgp
February 28th, 2007, 11:26 AM
Ninja: I mostly agree with you. When I worked construction, I worked for a GC, so most guys tried to hide their lunchtime drinking from me. As expected, it's much more common on Thursdays and Fridays (when I worked, Thursdays were paydays).

I'm not sure if anyone has been hurt at BofA yet, but I assume there have been some injuries. Construction accidents are still fairly common, and very rarely get reported. I know that at least 1 person was killed during the construction of both 7WTC and 7TS, and it didn't make the news.

The trades get a 30 minute lunch break, so they can't drink all that much!

Also: I'm not advocating drinking during lunch. I'm just saying that it happens.

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Alcohol in moderation is a great thing. If we could trust these guys to have a single beer then yes, I suppose it would be okay. But many people cannot do alcohol in moderation.

Then we are in 100% agreement! ;)

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2007, 11:38 AM
No, it isn't "bull". ibjeffries is right. No boozing on the site. Why should there be any tolerance for drinking alcohol on a dangerous job, whatever the quantity?
You say 'I am not saying that they should be ALLOWED to do this.' Then you make excuses and qualifications.
Are you arguing again, just for the sake of arguing?
One beer or three, it seems like a slippery slope, and I see no reason to drink during a work shift. They can wait until they leave work.

You like to argue, don't you?

Where did I say "boozing" and where did I say "on the site"?

Please find either term for me and get back to me on that! ;)

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2007, 11:44 AM
Ninja: I mostly agree with you. When I worked construction, I worked for a GC, so most guys tried to hide their lunchtime drinking from me. As expected, it's much more common on Thursdays and Fridays (when I worked, Thursdays were paydays).

I'm not sure if anyone has been hurt at BofA yet, but I assume there have been some injuries. Construction accidents are still fairly common, and very rarely get reported. I know that at least 1 person was killed during the construction of both 7WTC and 7TS, and it didn't make the news.

The trades get a 30 minute lunch break, so they can't drink all that much!

Also: I'm not advocating drinking during lunch. I'm just saying that it happens.


I also agree with you on this. I know about the 30 minute lunch. My father is a tradesman himself and sees this kind of thing all the time.

The fact that these guys were caught doing shots of hard shizznit during hours is enough for me to pull the plug on them.

The only thing I was getting at was that there is a major difference between a drink at lunch (1 beer) and knocking back a few in 30 minutes before walking steel again.

The rule is set up to make sure people do not drink too much during hours, and it is hard, as others have mentioned, to moderate something like that. You smell beer on someone, it is hard to tell whether they have had 1 or 3.

I agree with the rule, I just hate it when people get all sorts of blind and angry about a subject!


The question still stands though, if you are Union and are caught drinking on the job, will you lose Union privileges too? There are other issues that may contribute to this, but I was just curious on the surface....

TallGuy
February 28th, 2007, 11:52 AM
Rumour had it at the time that the construction guys working on the LEaning Tower of Pisa were also knocking back a few Chiantis over lunch. :)

kliq6
February 28th, 2007, 11:58 AM
Ninja: I mostly agree with you. When I worked construction, I worked for a GC, so most guys tried to hide their lunchtime drinking from me. As expected, it's much more common on Thursdays and Fridays (when I worked, Thursdays were paydays).

I'm not sure if anyone has been hurt at BofA yet, but I assume there have been some injuries. Construction accidents are still fairly common, and very rarely get reported. I know that at least 1 person was killed during the construction of both 7WTC and 7TS, and it didn't make the news.

The trades get a 30 minute lunch break, so they can't drink all that much!

Also: I'm not advocating drinking during lunch. I'm just saying that it happens.


They shouldnt drink at all but also construction deaths are very low these days compared to the past becuase of many OHSA improvements on how a site is to be run. If one guy died in all of 7 WTC, thats amazing.

kz1000ps
February 28th, 2007, 12:06 PM
JackinNYC's update from his perch today, with Sky House rising in the foreground:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/JACKinNYC/BofA20070228.jpg

Since the last update (2/8), two floors have been added

kz1000ps
February 28th, 2007, 12:12 PM
Binary System of SSP also found these:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/403402538_1c46052b5e_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/403402252_d3cf88fa22_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/droprename/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/404599308_eedc75ce56_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arno-4m/

Ninjahedge
February 28th, 2007, 12:20 PM
Rumour had it at the time that the construction guys working on the LEaning Tower of Pisa were also knocking back a few Chiantis over lunch. :)

That was just the soil surveyors.

Those guys wee LUSHES!!!! ;)

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2007, 06:16 PM
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9053/boa15cig2.th.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa15cig2.jpg) http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4352/boa14ceu7.th.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa14ceu7.jpg)

macreator
March 4th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Anyone know what's up with this 6th avenue building?

kz1000ps
March 5th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Ah, I love Zippy construction updates..

Interesting to note that glass has not risen past the 10th floor mark. I wonder if there's a hold-up of some sorts with the manufacturer.

NoyokA
March 5th, 2007, 01:08 AM
For whatever reason this is one of the most New York photos I've ever seen.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/404599308_eedc75ce56_o.jpg

This just screams New York.

tmac9wr
March 5th, 2007, 10:51 AM
What's up with that building right next to BOA? Is it a new tower or just getting a new facade?

ZippyTheChimp
March 5th, 2007, 11:08 AM
That's the Verizon Building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8212&page=9&highlight=verizon), being reclad.

TallGuy
March 5th, 2007, 11:35 AM
I have to agree. It screams postcard or framed picture. Where was it taken from? I love the snow on the concrete ledge.

ramvid01
March 5th, 2007, 12:02 PM
I have to agree. It screams postcard or framed picture. Where was it taken from? I love the snow on the concrete ledge.

I'm guessing 30 Rock.

NYguy
March 5th, 2007, 12:52 PM
More from New York's hottest new skyscraper...

MARCH 4, 2007

1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75236789/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75236801/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75236810/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75236838/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75236920/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75236964/large.jpg

NYguy
March 5th, 2007, 12:53 PM
7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75237041/large.jpg

8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75237127/large.jpg

9.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75237161/large.jpg

10.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75237222/large.jpg

11.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75237265/large.jpg

12.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75237305/large.jpg

TREPYE
March 5th, 2007, 01:49 PM
7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75237041/large.jpg





Im not digging the green tint on that glass. :(

BrooklynRider
March 5th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Being homebound and missing my city wanderings these photos are extremely exciting and the various angles greatly appreciated. Super job, all of you. :D

Derek2k3
March 9th, 2007, 09:07 PM
http://yrpubs.com/obmag/images/cover.jpg

hella good
March 10th, 2007, 07:05 AM
it looks really great there

ablarc
March 10th, 2007, 07:31 AM
^ Never understood the aesthetic attraction of this building, and don't see it now. To me, it's an overwrought shape, completely ungrounded.

MidtownGuy
March 10th, 2007, 11:13 AM
Overwrought may be an appropriate adjective, but I think people are responding positively to the fact that it is not a flat top with four sides straight up like almost everything else in New York. Perhaps the novelty of the shape is precisely what feels refreshing in a city where we are so starved for a different geometry that toothpick spires and clumsily curved watertower sheds pass for excitement. At least here they tried to break out of the box, no matter how much it leaves to be desired. I welcome this building.

212
March 10th, 2007, 12:01 PM
In the view from 30 Rock, I like that BoA will draw the eye away from the Grace building (which upstages some much better architecture) and up toward the sky with the Empire State.

At least I think/hope that's what'll happen.

TREPYE
March 10th, 2007, 12:13 PM
but I think people are responding positively to the fact that it is not a flat top with four sides straight up like almost everything else in New York. Perhaps the novelty of the shape is precisely what feels refreshing in a city where we are so starved for a different geometry that toothpick spires and clumsily curved watertower sheds pass for excitement. At least here they tried to break out of the box, no matter how much it leaves to be desired. I welcome this building.

Well put MG, exactly my sentiments. In addition, I happen to really like the tower's crystalline form. This is much more on par with progess than most of the stuff we get nowadays. The only issue I have with this tower so far is that 2nd rate glass facade. Hopefully as a whole it wont damage the overall apperance of the builing

Viktorkrum77
March 10th, 2007, 12:31 PM
I missed something, what's up with the building next door? It's covered in a giant cloth and it looks like they're adding on or something at the top. But I've never known an already existing skyscraper to add on more floors.

Derek2k3
March 10th, 2007, 12:49 PM
It's being wiped of its character. "Re-cladding"

antinimby
March 10th, 2007, 01:01 PM
Overwrought may be an appropriate adjective, but I think people are responding positively to the fact that it is not a flat top with four sides straight up like almost everything else in New York. Perhaps the novelty of the shape is precisely what feels refreshing in a city where we are so starved for a different geometry that toothpick spires and clumsily curved watertower sheds pass for excitement. At least here they tried to break out of the box, no matter how much it leaves to be desired.Only the top half of the building. The lower half is just as squared or boxy as the others.

Viktorkrum77
March 10th, 2007, 01:14 PM
It's being wiped of its character. "Re-cladding"

Oh thanks, do you happen to know the name of this building?

ManhattanKnight
March 10th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Originally, the headquarters of New York Telephone Company, most recently the headquarters of Verizon Communcations. Known in between as the NYNEX and Bell Atlantic headquarters. All one company, with numerous name-changes.

MidtownGuy
March 10th, 2007, 01:37 PM
This is the dumbest re-cladding I can imagine. The vertical stripes were good there. Not perfect, but good.
At least they gave upward movement and textural contrast, and you could distinguish the building from every other. If they insist on turning this into another glass curtain wall then at least they could have added some kind of distinguishing details to the fenestration pattern instead of the same orthogonal monotony that dominates the rest of that corner with HBO and BOA!

antinimby
March 10th, 2007, 01:44 PM
^ The same firm is doing the makeover here as well as the base you love so much over at the GM building. :D

Derek2k3
March 10th, 2007, 02:09 PM
and londonlawyers favorite:
http://www.nycityscape.com/macklowe/p2.jpg

...and they just finished the Hippodrome. To think I thought the city had turned a corner in commercial design after BOA, Hearst, and the Times.

ablarc
March 10th, 2007, 02:34 PM
people are responding positively to the fact that it is not a flat top with four sides straight up like almost everything else in New York. Perhaps the novelty of the shape is precisely what feels refreshing in a city where we are so starved for a different geometry that toothpick spires and clumsily curved watertower sheds pass for excitement. At least here they tried to break out of the box, no matter how much it leaves to be desired.
Faint praise. :cool: In a class with Freedom Tower.

Not in a class with Hearst, which also breaks out of the box --but does it with rigor.

Derek2k3
March 10th, 2007, 03:02 PM
I'm sure their is some kind of logic to BOA's shape. The Freedom Tower is in a league of its own. Most neighborhoods in this city don't even allow for anything over 20 stories, yet we have a windowless wall scaling that height. Imagine what the back and sides will look like.

I'm no fan of one-trick designs either, you just knew what Hearst was going to look like from the first set of diagrids. This and to some extent the Times, create the suspense of never knowing what it's going to look like until close to completion.

ablarc
March 10th, 2007, 03:15 PM
This and to some extent the Times, create the suspense of never knowing what it's going to look like until close to completion.
And once you know, you'll gradually get bored with it if it lacks underlying rigor.

How many times can you enjoy a punch line?




This building's shape was determined by the movement of a hand. That doesn't need to be memorialized, because it represents no abiding truth.

lofter1
March 10th, 2007, 05:11 PM
Only the top half of the building. The lower half is just as squared or boxy as the others.

The crystalline shape starts appearing at about floor 20 at the SE corner.

So in reality the top 2/3 of the B of A tower break out of the box -- or in this case multiple boxes, as the lower 1/3 is sequence of inter-connected rectangular spaces and not a mere box.

Viktorkrum77
March 10th, 2007, 05:46 PM
Originally, the headquarters of New York Telephone Company, most recently the headquarters of Verizon Communcations. Known in between as the NYNEX and Bell Atlantic headquarters. All one company, with numerous name-changes.

Oh, now that name rings a bell, I looked at this building as if it was insignificant, but now I remember it! Thanks.

I liked the original façade, it gave it character.

antinimby
March 10th, 2007, 06:03 PM
The crystalline shape starts appearing at about floor 20 at the SE corner.
So in reality the top 2/3 of the B of A tower break out of the box -- or in this case multiple boxes, as the lower 1/3 is sequence of inter-connected rectangular spaces and not a mere box.Unfortunately, the bottom 1/3 is the most important part, too.

This the part of the building most people will see.

lofter1
March 10th, 2007, 06:08 PM
A good portion of which ^^^ will offer an "open" space looking onto Bryant Park. With trees and such. Maybe not your cup of tea, but certainly better than what was built at Madison / 42nd or the Hippodrome or Grace -- better than just about everything going up in the area (save perhaps the NY Times Tower).

antinimby
March 10th, 2007, 06:18 PM
How'd we go from talking about the shape of the building to talking about open space for the view of Bryant Park?

You can have open space for views with a more creative, perhaps non-conventional shape as well, you know.

ManhattanKnight
March 10th, 2007, 06:34 PM
Oh, now that name rings a bell, I looked at this building as if it was insignificant, but now I remember it! Thanks.

I liked the original façade, it gave it character.

I'm not going to burden this thread with a long disgression, but, if you're interested, the defacement now underway at Verizon's old HQ is the ugly side of what's really a nice larger story. The building that New York Telephone Company occupied before moving uptown to 42nd Street, the Barclay-Vesey Building, at the intersection of West and Vesey Streets, was severely damaged on 9/11/2001 by the collapse of 1 World Trade Center. Rather than abandoning it, Verizon carried out a meticulous and hugely expensive restoration and relocated its headquarters there. It then sold its uptown tower to the developer responsible for the current "reclading." The Barclay-Vesey Building was a long-underappreciated gem that now really shines. A rare, and not widely-publicized act of architectural imagination and responsibility by a giant American corporation.

Viktorkrum77
March 10th, 2007, 07:10 PM
I'm not going to burden this thread with a long disgression, but, if you're interested, the defacement now underway at Verizon's old HQ is the ugly side of what's really a nice larger story. The building that New York Telephone Company occupied before moving uptown to 42nd Street, the Barclay-Vesey Building, at the intersection of West and Vesey Streets, was severely damaged on 9/11/2001 by the collapse of 1 World Trade Center. Rather than abandoning it, Verizon carried out a meticulous and hugely expensive restoration and relocated its headquarters there. It then sold its uptown tower to the developer responsible for the current "reclading." The Barclay-Vesey Building was a long-underappreciated gem that now really shines. A rare, and not widely-publicized act of architectural imagination and responsibility by a giant American corporation.

Yea, didn't that remodel cost them so much money they threatened to abandon it but the owner of Verizon insisted they continue?

ManhattanKnight
March 10th, 2007, 07:37 PM
Yea, didn't that remodel cost them so much money they threatened to abandon it but the owner of Verizon insisted they continue?

That wording's unclear. City record show that Verizon, or its predecessor-by-name, New York Telephone Co., has been the owner of the Barclay-Vesey Building since at least 1966 (and that's just as far back as the Department of Finance online database goes). The only "owner[s] of Verizon" are its shareholders.

lofter1
March 10th, 2007, 07:38 PM
How'd we go from talking about the shape of the building to talking about open space for the view of Bryant Park?

You can have open space for views with a more creative, perhaps non-conventional shape as well, you know.
I'm talking about the building being built on that site -- you're theorizing about some unspecified something or other ...

antinimby
March 10th, 2007, 08:03 PM
I was always talking about this building.

Just thought we could've gotten something much more glorious and creative at the base instead of the uninspired design we've got now.

lofter1
March 10th, 2007, 08:09 PM
Such as ????

Viktorkrum77
March 10th, 2007, 08:40 PM
That wording's unclear. City record show that Verizon, or its predecessor-by-name, New York Telephone Co., has been the owner of the Barclay-Vesey Building since at least 1966 (and that's just as far back as the Department of Finance online database goes). The only "owner[s] of Verizon" are its shareholders.

Yea, just word of mouth so it probably is unclear. I do know that the remodel was extremely costly though. Which is where I must've mistaken that the cost had become so much that Verizon wanted to abandon, but that's not true, my bad.

ablarc
March 10th, 2007, 08:55 PM
Such as ????
You don't have to be able to do better to criticize something.

I can't make movies, but I know the difference between a good one and a turkey.

Bet you do too.

antinimby
March 10th, 2007, 09:47 PM
Such as ????Well, since you asked, I went browsing the proposals on another forum and came across quite a few crazy ones.

Some of them are good, some are bad but I picked a couple that are good examples of what I would call a little break from the norm.

Again, I'm not saying this is exactly what I prefer to see at 1BP as they may not necessarily be site appropriate. But nevertheless, this is just to give you an idea of what I mean by something different.

http://archvestnik.ru/new/images/news/274.jpg

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/615/01d9bcd0cr9.jpg

lofter1
March 10th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Interesting ^^^ to a degree ...

I'd give a huge thumbs up for designs akin to those (out of the proverbial "box") in Hudson Yards -- but not at 42nd / 6th.

Alonzo-ny
March 11th, 2007, 09:06 AM
Arent there other buildings to complain about. I hear complaining that the building is 1 third a box, you cant exactly build something on a rectangular site that isnt a box as that doesnt exactly work at street level. Stop complaining, its a interesting design that IS different and ISNT a box. Also the buildings in your second rendering antinimby are more boxes than BOA

Citytect
March 11th, 2007, 01:09 PM
Being able to explain the shape of the building doesn't necessarily make it any better.

antinimby
March 11th, 2007, 03:40 PM
I can see that putting those renderings up were going to cause confusion because that's all people are going to see despite what I clearly said:


Again, I'm not saying this is exactly what I prefer to see at 1BP as they may not necessarily be site appropriate. But nevertheless, this is just to give you an idea of what I mean by something different.

Those renderings were only in reply to lofter's inquiry for examples of what is something different. I DID NOT say this is what should be at 1BP.

With that said, the problem with that whole surrounding intersection from the streetlevel, is that there will be flat, monotonous glass walls all around.

The other two buildings there (Verizon and HBO) were built long ago so there's not much that can be done for those, but I would have liked to see them do something different for 1BP to break up that monotony.

Does that mean they have to do something wild and unusual like the first rendering? NO. This site doesn't require nor is it appropriate to have that sort of flamboyant design.

Sometimes a little chamfer, a bend here or there, a curved corner, a bulge here or a more prominent feature added to the surface or pattern can make a big difference between what we have now (plain, not very interesting) to something different and interesting yet not overly ostentatious.

Before alonzony misunderstands, I am only talking about the lower 1/3 part of the building. Looks like Cook+Fox did this with the upper 2/3.

Alonzo-ny
March 11th, 2007, 04:57 PM
http://www.durst.org/prop/images/1bp/hires/3.jpg

They have tried at least to make it interesting at street level and Id say that it works better than both of your examples.

I suggest in the future if you dont want "misunderstandings" you find appropriate examples of what you are trying to convey to us irrespective of whether you say that you know it might not be appropriate or not. I did fully read and understand your post but both your examples do alot less at street level than BOA, even though they curve and chamfer.

antinimby
March 11th, 2007, 05:28 PM
For the last time, I didn't say those two examples were better or worst than 1BP's. They were just examples of something different that didn't have a square corner.

Still, that doesn't mean what will be there can't be improved upon.

Furthermore, I am not going to dig through the countless renderings for ones that exactly depict what I envision because there is never going to be something exactly like what one has in mind out there.

You're asking for something impossible. What I have in mind or what someone else have in mind will not be shown in a rendering somewhere.

I can't say how exactly something should be done because architecture is really an individual's expression. Everyone has a different one.

All I'm saying is that corner could use something that doesn't necessarily look like the other corners.

And if you don't think they will look too similar, that's fine but I don't think so.

Paoloman
March 12th, 2007, 01:08 PM
For conversation purposes, what would you think of a design like to BOA Tower being part of the new WTC site?

Alonzo-ny
March 12th, 2007, 01:24 PM
Id welcome a design of this caliber to replace Maki's minimalist tower. or at site 5

Paoloman
March 12th, 2007, 03:21 PM
I agree, and I also wonder how it would perform as a stand in for the freedom tower. That would of course be at the 1776' height.

Paoloman

Alonzo-ny
March 12th, 2007, 04:41 PM
I think it looks better than the current 1wtc design but the thing i love about the the 1wtc design is that from certain sides the silhouette will be exactly what the original trade towers were like.

lbjefferies
March 12th, 2007, 08:25 PM
This building's shape was determined by the movement of a hand. That doesn't need to be memorialized, because it represents no abiding truth.



Jackson Pollock would disagree with you.

But otherwise I agree with you about this tower.

Paoloman
March 13th, 2007, 10:22 AM
Yes, I have to agree that 1 WTC is reminiscent of the old towers.

MidtownGuy
March 13th, 2007, 01:13 PM
narcissistic look at me buildings

New York could use some more. At least of the newer variety to complement our older marvels. The Chrysler building says "look at me". What's wrong with a little pizzazz?

NYatKNIGHT
March 15th, 2007, 10:09 AM
I'm not sure anyone wants all the emphasis on one tower, especially at the World Trade Center.

To me, Maki's building says "look at me, I'm plain and NOT conforming to the plan". I'd prefer it if Maki sloped the roof or included diagonal lines like Liebeskind's plan intended for all those buildings. The diagonal lines of BOA might actually help bring the complex together better than Maki's if it stood at the Tower 4 site, though I'd revise the peak and nix the spires since Towers 1 and 3 have them.

kliq6
March 15th, 2007, 10:29 AM
I'm not sure anyone wants all the emphasis on one tower, especially at the World Trade Center.

To me, Maki's building says "look at me, I'm plain and NOT conforming to the plan". I'd prefer it if Maki sloped the roof or included diagonal lines like Liebeskind's plan intended for all those buildings. The diagonal lines of BOA might actually help bring the complex together better than Maki's if it stood at the Tower 4 site, though I'd revise the peak and nix the spires since Towers 1 and 3 have them.

This was designed knowing the PA and agencies would take the whole building so creatvity was held back. 2 and 3 will probally corporate HQ for major firms so design was important

antinimby
March 15th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Lol. Maki doesn't have to work very hard at "holding back" his creativity.

Just check out his other works. He's been doing a lot of restraining.

TREPYE
March 16th, 2007, 12:11 AM
Makis tower would not be so bad if it wasnt 950 feet. At that height and prominence you gotta-must!- gimme something better than that minimalist crap.

NYguy
March 19th, 2007, 04:14 PM
(TomPaine.com)

Wrong Shade Of Green


Sometime in 2008 , Bank of America, the country’s largest commercial bank, will open the doors of its new 52-floor, 2 million-square-foot office building in Midtown Manhattan. No ordinary 945 foot-tall, 1billion-dollar hulk, the Bank of America Tower will be as green as it can be.

According to the bank, “The project incorporates innovative, high-performance technologies to use dramatically less energy, consume less potable water and provide a healthy and productive indoor environment that prioritizes natural light and fresh air.”

Douglas Durst, of the site-developing Durst Organization, put it in stronger terms. “We look forwar to creating not just a spectacular visual experience, but also the most environmentally responsible building possible."

Imagine that! A billion dollars of cutting-edge environmental responsibility. I can suggest, however, a project that uses even less energy, water and air: a vacant lot. New York would make out better, the air will be that much cleaner and the country will benefit from one Bank of America project fewer. Bank of America shows us how green technology, in and of itself, is no answer to environmental woes.

What’s wrong with advancing tall building technology?

What's wrong is to what use the technology is put. And what it costs. And who profits. In this case, it couldn’t be more wrong.

For one thing, there’s the matter of the financing.

Bank of America is the third largest bank in the world, with assets of $1.4 trillion, and annual profits of $21.3 billion. You would think that adding one more office tower to the 20 they have already would be within their budget. But no, they had to squeeze most of the money out of the city and state.

The New York City Industrial Development Agency approved $38.5 million in tax benefits and $3.5 million in energy givebacks. But that was just tip money compared to the $650 million in tax-exempt, low-interest, risk-free Liberty Bonds. These were created by the feds in 2002 to help businesses in New York City—primarily Lower Manhattan—recover from the 9/11 attacks. Admittedly, B of A did lose three employees in the catastrophe, but $650 million seems like a lot to help them over their grief. Moreover, B of A intends to rent out the top half of the building, which will probably cover their Liberty Bond payments, so it sounds like a very convenient deal for the bank.In return for financing a mortgage lender’s building, the city expects something in return. What they get is 3000 new jobs…over the next 25 years. Even if the bank added the 3000 jobs immediately and kept them going for 25 years, the city’s take in income taxes would amount to something like $100 million. Add sales tax, deduct services and it doesn’t seem much like an equitable deal.

Then, there’s the matter of the jobs themselves. Bank of America is one of the country’s top consumer lending organizations, having recently absorbed FleetBoston Financial and credit card giant MBNA (for $35 billion). In fact, B of A gets slightly over half its revenue from credit cards. As Bruce Hammonds, president of Bank of America Card Services, said immodestly:

In the retail world, Bank of America serves more than 52 million consumer relationships— nearly half of all U.S. households. We operate more than 5,700 local banking centers and 17,000 ATMs, in 30 states and the District of Columbia…We are the second largest payment processing provider for small businesses. And, as you may know, we are one of the largest credit card companies in the United States.

I say immodestly because Hammond was speaking from the witness chair at the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Hammond and other bankers on March 7 to explain the extortionate rates they increasingly charge cardholders. Observed Levin unkindly, “The credit card industry thrives on the confusion and powerlessness of consumers to both nickel and dime the average card-holder and to commit highway robbery of anyone who slips up even in the slightest.”

The result of these practices is not beneficial. In 2003, the Federal Reserve calculated that Americans owed $2 trillion in consumer debt, or about $18,000 per household. That amount does not include mortgages, which B of A also sells. Since the Fed also discovered that almost half of all U.S. households spend more than they make, it’s unlikely that Bank of America will see a drop in income any time soon.

B of A plans to house its global consumer credit operation in New York, among several other divisions. So, it’s safe to say that a lot of the new jobs the bank is bringing to New York will be engaged in the process of enticing other working Americans into debts they can’t afford and interest rates that rob them of any chance of ever getting out from under the debt. That, in turn, will prompt more people to work more, using more energy and resources.

So, no, I don’t think that the spanking new glass-and-aluminum, climate-sensitive Bank of America Tower is a step in the right direction—even environmentally. In fact, I think a hole in the ground would do more for America than this monstrosity will. It would certainly be more environmentally friendly.

______________________________________________

LOL, its still the newest marvel of Manhattan!

NYguy
March 19th, 2007, 04:18 PM
Back to the good news...

(BusinessWeek)

Bank of America's Bold Statement in Green"
The bank's Cook+Fox-designed tower will be the second-tallest in New York City and a wonder of environmental responsibility

by Adam Aston

Times Square's claim to fame is its million-watt light show and sky-high electric billboards. As much as the New York City landmark is a celebration of capitalism, it's also a crackling, pulsing symbol of energy excess. But just a block away on the Avenue of the Americas, a new crystalline tower is rising that's turning heads for the opposite reason: its unprecedented efficiency.

Designed by Cook+Fox Architects, and co-developed by Bank of America with the Durst Organization, the 55-story tower will be the most prominent addition to New York's skyline in a generation, as well as being the most energy-efficient, water-saving, and healthful office tower ever built.

Even by the outsize standards of New York real estate deals, Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park is an exercise in superlatives. Budgeted at around $1.3 billion, the building will stand 1,200 feet tall, making it the city's second-highest structure, after the Empire State Building.

The project occupies one of the last remaining large plots adjoining Times Square, a site the Durst family pieced together over 40 years. But in the increasingly eco-aware business of U.S. office construction, it's the tower's green features that are getting all the attention.

Financially Responsible

From the Carolinas to Chicago and L.A., architects are competing on green features as much as they used to over innovative design or building height. And among deep-pocketed developers, anxiety about the prohibitively high up-front costs of building green is waning.

As costs fall, the appealing financial performance of existing green buildings becomes clearer. In a 2006 survey of developers by McGraw-Hill Construction (MHP, MHC is owned by the same corporate parent as BusinessWeek), respondents reported they expected to see occupancy rates for green buildings 3.5% higher than market norms, with rent levels increased by 3%. Operating costs are expected to be 8% to 9% lower, as well.

The economics are straightforward: More rental income minus lower operating costs makes for a more valuable property. Respondents to MHC's survey anticipate green building values will rise by 7.5%, which in turn should improve their return on investment by 6.6%.

These numbers are getting the attention of developers and driving the growth of eco-construction. Nationally, about 2% of today's new, nonresidential construction is considered green, estimates the MHC study. From last year's $3.3 billion, green office and retail construction is expected to surge by up to 10% a year, to $20 billion, by 2010.

Costs Backing Down

Given New York's love affair with tall towers and the unmatched scale of the city's real estate market, it's no surprise that Manhattan is emerging as the epicenter of green high-rise construction. Bank of America's tower will be the greenest of a surge of eco-friendly office buildings sprouting up in midtown and near Wall Street.

First to open was 7 World Trade Center, the start of new construction at Ground Zero. Next was Foster + Partners' stunning addition to Hearst's headquarters in midtown. And nearing completion just a few blocks west of Bank of America Tower on 42nd Street is Renzo Piano's New York Times Building.

The flurry of eco-construction reflects builders' growing confidence that the extra costs of building green are a good investment. The up front costs of building green are still higher than using conventional materials, but that premium is shrinking. Just a few years ago, green construction could cost 10% or more than standard construction.

Today that margin has fallen into the range of single digits. As the market for green materials and design expertise has grown and matured, "the supply of materials and services is going up and the price is coming down," says Taryn Holowka, communications manager at the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).

Waterless Water Closets

To be sure, green projects can still throw up costly delays or surprising snafus. Until recently, for example, New York-area carting companies charged extra to sort and recycle construction debris.

But as haulers have come to recognize the market value of the refuse, they've lowered their prices and become more cooperative. At the Bank of America site, explains Cook+Fox's Lisa Storer, carting companies presorted scrap steel, concrete, and other debris on site for removal. Ultimately some 90% of construction waste was recycled.

Sometimes the latest, greenest technology just isn't approved yet. The first time the Durst Organization proposed waterless urinals for a project, they were nixed as not being up to building code. The urinals are now O.K. under New York City guidelines and are key part of the Bank of America Tower's water-saving technology.

Indeed, with green building systems changing so rapidly, each new project can involve materials and systems that officials, designers, and laborers are working with for the first time, explained Douglas Durst, co-president of the family-run developer, at a recent green building confab. "Each new project is a new learning process."

More Daylight

At Bank of America Tower, going green tacked on 5% in costs, said Durst. At roughly $60 million, that's a serious add-on, yet it's one that the partners expect to recover through energy savings and improved worker productivity in a matter of years, says Mark Nicholls, Bank of America's corporate workplace executive.

Consider the bank's anticipated economics. Bank of America, which is funding half the project, plans to occupy 38 of the tower's 51 occupied floors. The bank estimates energy savings will tally up to about $3 million annually—a nice figure, though nothing substantial.

Bigger gains are expected to come from improvements in productivity. "In a commercial office, energy accounts for about 10% of costs. Employees account for 60% to 70%. That's where the real savings come from," Durst said.

As simple as it sounds, cleaner air and more daylight account for most of these gains. Studies of the benefits of green buildings, such as William Fisk's work at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, show a direct link between indoor air quality and the incidence of illness. And experiences in existing green buildings with air quality standards lower than Bank of America Tower's target suggest that its low-toxin workspaces, superclean air, and abundant natural light will cut down on sick days from allergies, colds, or even "sick building syndrome."

Shiny, Happy People

Incidents of this condition, which is linked to poor ventilation and high concentrations of airborne contaminants, have risen in recent years as buildings have become more tightly sealed. A mere 1% reduction in illness-related absenteeism among the bank's anticipated staff of some 5,000 could deliver a $10 million annual boost in productivity.

Add in gains from more alert, comfortable workers and other improvements not related to illness, and the possible gains soar. "We believe you can get 10% to 15% productivity gains. That's the biggest allure of a green building," says Durst.

When the first tenants walk into the tower, sometime in the first half of 2008, there will be both overt and subtle green touches. In the lobby, plans call for walls lined with recycled leather hides; elsewhere, floors will be made from bamboo, a fast-growing, sustainable material.

The high-tech systems are mostly behind the scenes, explains Cook+Fox's Storer. For example, on hot summer days, the building's air conditioners will get a boost from ice—produced at night when power prices are lower and stored in the basement. Much of the building's heat and power will come from a bus-sized, gas-fired turbine in the building's podium.

On-site generation slashes losses from long-distance transmission of power. The facility will help triple the efficiency of the tower's overall energy systems compared with a conventional grid-connected tower (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/28/07, "A Skyscraper Banking on Green"). Any extra juice the building needs will come from the regular grid.

Some Things Have to Wait

The building will also use water with ingenious economy. It eliminates about 40% of the fresh water a regular building would need, thanks to features that collect nearly every raindrop and that recycle any nontainted water again and again through the building's cooling system. Overall, the building will save 10.3 million gallons of fresh water per year, enough to meet the annual needs of 125 households.

For all of Bank of America Tower's innovations, some green solutions proved technically impossible or just too costly. At first, Cook+Fox hoped to attach a power-generating vertical wind turbine to the building's shorter, second mast. But site studies proved the wind was too volatile, says Storer.

Another nonstarter: a so-called anaerobic digester that would have harvested methane from the building's sewage. Although it's a proven technology, it was too costly even for this ambitious project.

Still, the unprecedented array of green features at Bank of America Tower should qualify it for a Platinum certificate, the highest ever score for an office tower, under the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. Created by USGBC, the LEED standards aim to identify the best practices, materials, and systems for environmentally friendly buildings. The final award of platinum status won't be made until construction is complete.

From its earliest stages, each of the tower's key players pushed the others to go greener. For Durst, the Bank of America project was an evolutionary step from 4 Times Square, the building just next door that was designed by Fox & Fowle Architects (a predecessor to Cook+Fox) and is recognized as one of the first green office towers in the U.S.

Built speculatively in the early 1990s, the tower's eco touches, such as solar panels and improved air quality, are standard fare today but helped it sell out faster than Durst expected. "That really made the value of green click," says Durst spokesman Jordan Barowitz.

Bank of America connected with Durst when, a few years ago, the fast-growing bank decided to consolidate its scattered New York offices into a single new building that would mirror its ambitions. Since BofA had already built a green tower at its headquarters in Charlotte, N.C., executives didn't need to be convinced of the productivity gains and energy savings of green work spaces. "Coming to New York, we wanted to make a very bold statement," says Nicholls, "and it had to be very green."

Aston is Industries editor for BusinessWeek Online in New York.

NYguy
March 19th, 2007, 04:25 PM
MARCH 18, 2007

1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901813/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901857/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901864/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901876/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901886/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901895/large.jpg

7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901897/large.jpg

8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901901/large.jpg

9.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901940/large.jpg

10.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/75901980/large.jpg

ramvid01
March 19th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Thanks for the pic NYguy. We finally get to see how that indent was going to shape up, but it seems to be that a few more floors of glass are needed to really give an opinion of it. Although I'm not too estatic with the glass itself.

Scraperfannyc
March 19th, 2007, 11:31 PM
The roof is 814 feet. You stick a pole on top and call it 1200 feet is ridiculous! It is not the second tallest by any means.

A pole is not a building.

stache
March 20th, 2007, 12:29 AM
I could wear a toilet plunger on top of my head and tell everyone I'm the tallest person in town, but I don't think anyone would believe me.

pianoman11686
March 20th, 2007, 06:21 PM
(TomPaine.com)

Wrong Shade Of Green


B of A plans to house its global consumer credit operation in New York, among several other divisions. So, it’s safe to say that a lot of the new jobs the bank is bringing to New York will be engaged in the process of enticing other working Americans into debts they can’t afford and interest rates that rob them of any chance of ever getting out from under the debt. That, in turn, will prompt more people to work more, using more energy and resources.

So, no, I don’t think that the spanking new glass-and-aluminum, climate-sensitive Bank of America Tower is a step in the right direction—even environmentally. In fact, I think a hole in the ground would do more for America than this monstrosity will. It would certainly be more environmentally friendly.

I don't know how statements like this get into an article on architecture. An exercise in poor taste. (by the author, not NYguy)

On a completely different note, I'm starting to really like the glass on the tower portion. The pinstripe effect looks sharp.

ramvid01
March 20th, 2007, 06:35 PM
I had not read the article, but from what pianoman qouted, talk about ranting about something that has nothing to do with the building. Geez, someone is grumpy.

lofter1
March 20th, 2007, 11:05 PM
The late afternoon light reflecting the Grace Building off the east facade ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_14b.jpg

And the Bertelsman building over in Times Square off the north facade ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_14c.jpg

The facets on the west facade ...

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_14d.jpg

NYguy
March 21st, 2007, 08:45 AM
The roof is 814 feet. You stick a pole on top and call it 1200 feet is ridiculous! It is not the second tallest by any means.

A pole is not a building.

It would be second tallest even without the spire. But in this case, 1,200 ft being the second highest point on the skyline, yes - its second tallest in the City. Case closed.

NYguy
March 21st, 2007, 08:45 AM
I could wear a toilet plunger on top of my head and tell everyone I'm the tallest person in town, but I don't think anyone would believe me.

If it grew out of your head, I would.

stache
March 21st, 2007, 08:48 AM
Like a hairdo?

NYguy
March 21st, 2007, 08:49 AM
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n35/finnman69/architecture/BOA031907_01.jpg


http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n35/finnman69/architecture/BOA031907_05.jpg

I hope all that detail remains visible when the glass covers the tower. Seems like the missing piece of the 6th Ave skyscraper puzzle...

stache
March 21st, 2007, 08:51 AM
Anything that perks up all that midcentury dreck is ok by me!

rogerick1970
March 21st, 2007, 04:21 PM
That is one massive building!!!!:eek:

avm10
March 22nd, 2007, 09:15 PM
View from the 33rd or 34th (I lost count) floor of One Bryant Park taken on 3/6/07

Fantastic views on that day.

Enjoy the pictures

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/wallacej/DSC00061-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/wallacej/DSC00062.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/wallacej/DSC00065.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/wallacej/DSC00064.jpg

TREPYE
March 22nd, 2007, 10:09 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/wallacej/DSC00065.jpg


What a complete view of the ESB! I dont think I have ever seen it unobstructed from top to bottom like this. NICE!:) ;) :D

TimmyG
March 22nd, 2007, 10:16 PM
Great pictures avm. Thanks for sharing.

NoyokA
March 23rd, 2007, 12:11 AM
A big thanks for posting those photos. The ESB has never looked better, or taller for that matter. Look at Tower 31 just to the right and behind the ESB, its 450 feet and would have an impact probably anywhere else.

ramvid01
March 23rd, 2007, 12:36 AM
Wow, those are some beautiful pics. Thanks for posting them. Whoever gets that office is pretty lucky :).

Scraperfannyc
March 23rd, 2007, 01:51 AM
It would be second tallest even without the spire. But in this case, 1,200 ft being the second highest point on the skyline, yes - its second tallest in the City. Case closed.

I suppose on the positive side, it may take only 1 day to finish the last 1/3 of this building.

avm10
March 23rd, 2007, 08:46 AM
Here are some higher res images I didnt have at home last night.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g164/NEBF/Jim%20W/DSC04191.jpg

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g164/NEBF/Jim%20W/DSC04193.jpg

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g164/NEBF/Jim%20W/DSC04194.jpg

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g164/NEBF/Jim%20W/DSC04337.jpg

RandySavage
March 23rd, 2007, 10:51 AM
^ Thanks for the terrific photos.

avm10
March 23rd, 2007, 11:42 AM
No problemo! figured you guys would appreciate some pics from these elevations :cool:

City Spire
March 24th, 2007, 06:17 AM
Yeah, great photos. Thanks for sharing!

ablarc
March 24th, 2007, 10:14 AM
figured you guys would appreciate some pics from these elevations :cool:
All the old buildings are nice.

ramvid01
March 25th, 2007, 08:19 PM
On SSP Carlos took some pics of the building today and it looks like a 4th crane has been put up in the core of the building. Maybe it is replacing the one on the right (43rd street) since the taper will render it pretty far away from the building?

avm10
March 25th, 2007, 08:53 PM
ramvid, there has never intended to be a crane in the tower core and I don't think there will be. When I was up in the tower at the beginning of the month, there was no structural preparation for a tower crane.

ramvid01
March 25th, 2007, 10:08 PM
ramvid, there has never intended to be a crane in the tower core and I don't think there will be. When I was up in the tower at the beginning of the month, there was no structural preparation for a tower crane.

Well I clearly saw a crane being put up that seemed to be coming from the middle of the building.


TowersNYC on SSC

Sunday March 25, 2007

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/CIMG1572.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/CIMG1573.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/CIMG1574.jpg

antinimby
March 26th, 2007, 02:39 AM
It's an illusion.

NoyokA
March 26th, 2007, 02:51 AM
Wow! That is just insane! I have never seen 4 cranes on a building, ever. They really want to get this bad boy done.

Here's two more images I found today on the New York Academy of Science's website...


From midtown south:

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

And a different angle from Bryant Park

http://www.nyas.org/images/eB474_bodyF.jpg

ablarc
March 26th, 2007, 07:10 AM
http://www.nyas.org/images/eB474_bodyF.jpg
I'm sorry, but this building just seems so stupid and ugly...! Can't get over it. I want to like it, but I just can't.

Of course it's better than what was there before...

NYguy
March 26th, 2007, 08:24 AM
More from the (newest) Marvel of Manhattan...

MARCH 25, 2007

1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76201076/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76201077/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76201098/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76201131/large.jpg

5. GLASS CANYONS of MANHATTAN
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76201135/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76201138/large.jpg

7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/76201154/original.jpg

lofter1
March 26th, 2007, 10:22 AM
Anyone know the reason for painting the steel on the Verizon building that new light blue/green color as they strip off the facade?

ZippyTheChimp
March 26th, 2007, 10:42 AM
Contrast?

lesterp4
March 26th, 2007, 02:32 PM
I went by the site today and there is definitely a new crane on top of the building.

macreator
March 26th, 2007, 04:06 PM
Anyone know the reason for painting the steel on the Verizon building that new light blue/green color as they strip off the facade?

Is it possible they're applying new fireproofing to the steel?

BrooklynRider
March 26th, 2007, 05:01 PM
Is it possible that they just want to get the superstructure completed as quick as possible as opposed to any engineering needs for three cranes? Remember, the Durst / Tishman team had that tragic and deadly accident at Conde Nast that shut down Times Square for a week. Building tall buildings is dangerous. Building a tall building on 42nd Street is a double whammy. (See also Turner accident at CIBC / East 42nd Street).

DarrylStrawberry
March 26th, 2007, 06:21 PM
Wow! That is just insane! I have never seen 4 cranes on a building, ever.

http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/%20Year%202006/04-history/0604-04%20911Pix/0604-04WTCconstruction.jpg

stache
March 26th, 2007, 06:28 PM
That picture is so sad -

BrooklynRider
March 26th, 2007, 08:42 PM
http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/%20Year%202006/04-history/0604-04%20911Pix/0604-04WTCconstruction.jpg

Another Tishman Project.

NYC360Guy
April 1st, 2007, 04:57 PM
how i miss the Twin Towers........

USSManhattan
April 1st, 2007, 10:47 PM
Help the ignorant one out and explain what's happening to Verizon, please, someone?

ramvid01
April 1st, 2007, 11:02 PM
Recladding^^

BTW Carlos with another update on SSC, apparently the crane on 43rd street is coming down like I had predicted. :)

Chrysler New Yorker
April 1st, 2007, 11:11 PM
This is my first post, as I just signed up to WiredNY.com tonight. I have been following the constuction updates in the New York region from my other alias on SSC.com and am very pleased with this towers design.

NYguy
April 4th, 2007, 07:29 AM
NY Observer

Developers Say They Can’t Build Green

By Matthew Schuerman

http://www.observer.com/data/articleimages/photoimages/040907_article_schuerman.jpg

Douglas Durst.


Despite the hype about green roofs; despite the rampant branding of luxury residences with names like the Solaire and Tribeca Green; despite the cachet that once-repulsive ideas have now garnered (waterless urinals! recycled rainwater!), technologies that allow buildings to generate at least a portion of their own power in a clean, efficient way are having trouble catching on in Manhattan.

And it is not the developers or tenants or architects who are standing in the way, but instead regulators and the utility company, which cite safety and technical concerns.

In 2005, the city Department of Buildings essentially issued a moratorium against the installation of microturbines, which are minivan-sized generators that provide clean power and hot water in residential buildings. Several buildings around Manhattan that had been planned before the new rules took effect now have these metal boxes at the tops of the buildings, worth between $50,000 and $100,000, completely idle and offline.

Meanwhile, another developer, Douglas Durst, has run into a different kind of resistance from Consolidated Edison while trying to install a much larger clean-power plant in his new office tower in midtown. He suspects that the utility cannot be too thrilled that he is trying to take away some of their business.

“It is a frustrating situation,” said James Cavanaugh, the president of the Battery Park City Authority, a state agency that runs the landfill development on the Lower West Side, where three new apartment buildings are topped with microturbines that they cannot use. “This technology is acceptable in many other parts of the country and has been used in New York prior to this regulatory difficulty. These are very experienced and reputable developers. When you have companies such as Albanese, Related and Millennium standing behind technology, they do not do so lightly.”

MICROTURBINES, WHICH ARE CONTAINED WITHIN metal boxes and could easily pass as just another heating/ventilation/air-conditioning component stuck on a roof, reduce pollution by burning natural gas rather than diesel to generate electricity; and they save energy by capturing the heat thrown off to warm the water that runs through a building’s hot-water system.

The situation is particularly poignant for Battery Park City, a well-groomed 92-acre enclave close to Wall Street, whose owner, the Battery Park City Authority, requires developers to use green-building practices. In 2005, before the Department of Buildings took a position on microturbines, the authority adopted new guidelines that encouraged their use.

Soon afterward, the authority found out that the city was instituting a more onerous procedure, in which the Fire Department would have to review the new specific make and model of any microturbine that would be installed in order to make sure that it did not pose a fire hazard. The Fire Department would not respond to requests for an interview, and it is unclear whether, to date, it has approved any models at all.

By the time the rule came down, three developers had all planned for microturbines, Mr. Cavanaugh said. The generators are all sitting in the buildings, waiting to be hooked up, while the buildings use back-up systems instead. The 275-unit Tribeca Green, by the Related Companies, opened in 2005; the 250-unit Verdesian, by Albanese Development, debuted in 2006; and the 35-story Millennium Tower Residences, by Millennium Partners, started move-ins four months ago.

Martin Dettling, vice president in charge of design and construction oversight at Albanese, said that “the timing could have been better” for the new regulations, although he supports the concept.

“Originally, what we looked at was quite easily approvable, but then different manufacturers came out with different systems, so the city decided to take a close look at these and come up with regulations,” Mr. Dettling said. “I wish the process would go faster, but the most important part is safeguarding the public. That’s of paramount concern, and I believe it is a safe system and they will come to see that.”

The Buildings Department recently considered an agreement that would specify which microturbines would be permissible at Battery Park City, according to authority spokeswoman Leticia Remauro, but “the Fire Department would not sign off on it.”

A Buildings Department spokeswoman, Kate Lindquist, did not comment on the agreement, but said the department had convened a task force last year to come up with a rule governing all microturbines. The task force is still working on it and doesn’t expect to have it complete by the time the City Council votes on a major code revision this spring.

“Microturbines are 15 to 20 years old. Our Building Code, which was written 40 years ago, does not address their use and installation,” Ms. Lindquist said in an e-mail. “The Task Force is working as quickly as it can to develop a new rule to speak to the safe installation of microturbines, not only in industrial, storage and high-hazard buildings but also in residential, commercial, educational and other occupancies.”

The microturbines that fit at or near the top of these residential towers are rather modest. They are sized to provide the amount of hot water that a building would need rather than to cover electrical demand. Since apartment buildings don’t use that much hot water, the amount of power they produce is not great either: maybe 3 or 4 percent of the total power needed in a building.

The specs given by one producer, Ingersoll Rand Industrial Technologies, sound impressive: The microturbines reduce carbon-dioxide emissions in a building by about 133 metric tons a year. That amount turns out to be the equivalent of getting just 20 cars off the road a year, which is about how many drive by on West Street in the blink of an eye.

Still, it’s better than nothing.

“The city has an enormous challenge in terms of providing its future electric supply,” said Mr. Cavanaugh. “It is even more important for the larger picture of what we do here in Battery Park City. We consider ourselves an incubator and a model to demonstrate technologies for use elsewhere.”

Ashok Gupta, the director of the air and water program at the National Resources Defense Council, said that developers could eventually use larger microturbines to cover more of their buildings’ energy needs, and that the technology would have to play a role if the city intends to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 30 percent—the goal that Mayor Michael Bloomberg set in December when he outlined his sustainability initiative.

“I think it is going to be playing a small part, but it’s a portfolio approach,” Mr. Gupta said. “Every little bit is going to help, but most of it is going to be coming from distributed generation, under which microturbines can be an important contributor.”


THE COGNERATION PLANT THAT MR. DURST is installing at 1 Bryant Park, a 52-story office tower under construction at 42nd Street and Avenue of the Americas, however, is much larger. It will produce 5.4 megawatts of electricity—enough to cover 70 percent of the building’s power—and because other technology will allow the plant to cool the building as well as heat water, it will reduce emissions by 50 percent, according to Mr. Durst.

“The resistance from Con Edison to these facilities is overwhelming,” he said at a recent energy panel for Mayor Bloomberg’s upcoming PlaNYC report on the city’s future. “And the reason they are resistant is that they get paid by people using their transmission lines—so when you build on-site generation, Con Edison is losing income.”

Mr. Durst, who also installed fuel cells at 4 Times Square and microturbines at a West 57th Street apartment tower, the Helena (where they, like the ones in Battery Park City, are sitting unused), told The Observer in a follow-up interview that it took a year and a half to gain approval from Con Ed to use the cogeneration plant, but that he expects it will be operating when 1 Bryant Park, also called the Bank of America Tower, opens next year.

He gave up on incorporating certain elements, such as designing the system to operate even after the electrical grid goes down, because it took Con Ed too long to approve it. But Mr. Durst acknowledged that the utility has become more willing to cooperate in conservation measures.

“I think they are better now than they were in 2003,” he said. “The leadership has changed; I think just the basic awareness has grown.”

Joe Petta, a spokesman for Con Ed, said the 1 Bryant Park cogeneration plant had several “technical issues that needed to be addressed in order for their project to safely and reliably interconnect with our system.” He also disputed the idea that the utility didn’t have an incentive to encourage conservation, saying that New York City is basically maxed out on available power produced by existing plants and is an expensive and politically difficult environment in which to build more.

“We need to make significant investments in infrastructure, and we have an active program in demand-side management to slow demand growth and to keep usage down, which helps us defer infrastructure expenditures,” he told The Observer. “We have a targeted reduction of 675 megawatts. That offsets the need for a new power plant.”

Dagrecco82
April 8th, 2007, 09:03 PM
I went to the ESB today. It was so bitterly cold,windy and snowy but the views are as breath-taking as always.


http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/497/img3286le3.jpg

stache
April 9th, 2007, 07:20 AM
Poor little Paramount building in the land of the giants...

NYguy
April 9th, 2007, 08:09 AM
I went to the ESB today. It was so bitterly cold,windy and snowy but the views are as breath-taking as always.


http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/497/img3286le3.jpg

Great shot. Can't wait to see the spire rise on this one.

Dagrecco82
April 9th, 2007, 02:22 PM
So do we have only 10 more floors to go?

ramvid01
April 9th, 2007, 02:45 PM
I think its like 12 floors or so? Since its on 42 or 43 depends on how count it.

dtolman
April 9th, 2007, 03:48 PM
Saw this up-close for the first time in a while yesterday. The glass is quite disappointing - it had an aqua/greenish quality and was very dull (transparent, but not reflective).

NoyokA
April 9th, 2007, 06:04 PM
Maybe someone can correct my concerns but I am not seeing the indentation on the giant shard facing Bryant Park that would allow for the indenation and wedge that would be covered with a double facade. Following the current steel pattern it looks to me like this intendation and wedge has not been allowed, there will not be a double facade, and the prominent shard will be fixed. Basically, its looking like it will be the same form, but there will not be a giant atrium, which provided a great deal to the visual interest of the building as seen below:

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/01/greenskyscrapers/image/1_dods.jpg

Im hoping that somebody can extinguish my concerns.

NoyokA
April 9th, 2007, 06:10 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/CIMG1574.jpg

Looks very flush.

antinimby
April 9th, 2007, 06:34 PM
I see a bit of an indentation that you are talking about, on the top few floors as seen in this photo:

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/497/img3286le3.jpg

ramvid01
April 9th, 2007, 06:40 PM
Maybe they changed the design? At first i figured that prism would be inside the slope, but that would be impossible as the steel would make it look dark and gloomy in there, so I'm thinking it wont look anything like the render, like this building has been so far. :confused:

kz1000ps
April 9th, 2007, 07:00 PM
Antinimby, I believe that "indent" is there simply because neither the steel or decking for that corner has been erected yet.

MidtownGuy
April 9th, 2007, 08:11 PM
I hope they do build the illluminated shard element. What a shame if it was deleted!

Viktorkrum77
April 9th, 2007, 10:11 PM
Can you see the building from the Viacom building? If so I may have to pay my cousin a visit.

ZippyTheChimp
April 10th, 2007, 07:48 AM
I hope they do build the illluminated shard element. What a shame if it was deleted!It looks to me that the space has been filled in by expanding the floorplate.

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Look closely at the renering. The chamfer on the RHS of the building hits a terminus about indent begins on the LHS (corner nearest the park). But it is a much more gradual piece. Draw a horizontal line across the building at the start of the narrow wedge and compare the steel lines to the rendering...

If you look at your first pic stern, you will see the wedge beginning to form.

Is this the chamfer/bevel/wedge you were talking about?

ZippyTheChimp
April 10th, 2007, 10:54 AM
^
What Stern is talking about is the triangular atrium formed by the outer sloped facade and the two interior walls that appear to meet at 90 degrees.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/01/greenskyscrapers/image/1_dods.jpg

The construction pics show the same exterior form, but the atrium is missing.

Bob
April 10th, 2007, 12:05 PM
This building is starting to look mighty short, unlike everything we've been led to believe. Hope I'm wrong!

Deimos
April 10th, 2007, 12:17 PM
It looks like there will be some sort of double facade... the latest 2 floors to go up are being built differently than the others, and there is a gap between the wall and the structure to be built. If someone has access to a camera and can take a shot of it, hopefully it'll make more sense than my ramblings.

Alonzo-ny
April 10th, 2007, 01:35 PM
This building is starting to look mighty short, unlike everything we've been led to believe. Hope I'm wrong!

?? its not even finished yet!

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2007, 02:58 PM
^
What Stern is talking about is the triangular atrium formed by the outer sloped facade and the two interior walls that appear to meet at 90 degrees.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/01/greenskyscrapers/image/1_dods.jpg

The construction pics show the same exterior form, but the atrium is missing.

It looks like a triangle is forming right now zip. The beams we see on the SE corner look to be the exterior of that open air space between the two flat faces. I think we need another angle to get the true nature of the shape here.

Also, a construction view from higher up would also help....

ZippyTheChimp
April 10th, 2007, 05:42 PM
I knew it would take a few pics.

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/4640/boa16cnp2.th.jpg (http://img488.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa16cnp2.jpg)

Zoom
http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/3681/boa17cft4.th.jpg (http://img488.imageshack.us/my.php?image=boa17cft4.jpg)

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2007, 06:12 PM
Hmm.

Looks like that floor line is taking the original exterior facade shape.

I wonder if that will be the same all the way up or if it is just to make it easier to access/maintain than if it were to taper to a point.

It might be an attempt to get more floorspace.....

kz1000ps
April 10th, 2007, 11:23 PM
The floor plate has definitely taken place of that triangular void. We're at floor 40-something with no signs of an opening whereas the rendering shows it starting at around floor 17.

I have no problem with this as it will keep the eye focused on the crystalline mass more, but I worry about that glass. It's just so...mediocre.

MidtownGuy
April 11th, 2007, 01:42 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/247/454965108_afd5dbd1a8_b.jpg

For me, the loss of the more transparent shard "atrium" is a big disappointment. The night rendering shows how it was to be illuminated, which for me was the single most attractive and dramatic feature of the design. I wouldn't say it distracted from the crystalline mass but rather
that it would have complimented it. Even in the daytime rendering, it's transparency was a pleasing contrast to the other more reflective facets.
I'm still thankul for the building' s non orthogonal angles but now, for me, the cake has lost it's icing.

TimmyG
April 11th, 2007, 08:27 AM
Is there no chance that the atrium will be added on later?

ZippyTheChimp
April 11th, 2007, 08:50 AM
^
It looks to me that it wasn't left out because of the expense, but to add square footage.

To "add it on" later would involve the expense of undoing (and losing) the additional office space.

I agree that it's a big deal in the final appearance of the building.

Or...

What a gyp! :mad:

antinimby
April 12th, 2007, 06:54 PM
Wait a minute. How's that even possible, adding additional space that is?

I thought you're allowed a fixed amount and that's what you build according to.

Unless, of course those renderings are not the most current (before everything was finalized).

Maybe they did change the design somewhat and didn't bother releasing new updated renderings?

NoyokA
April 12th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Wait a minute. How's that even possible, adding additional space that is?

I thought you're allowed a fixed amount and that's what you build according to.

Unless, of course those renderings are not the most current (before everything was finalized).

Maybe they did change the design somewhat and didn't bother releasing new updated renderings?

This building is riddled with incentives, I remember when it was first proposed is was supposed to only be 1.5 million square feet.

antinimby
April 12th, 2007, 07:08 PM
I know about those.

My question is that once everything is finalized and construction is underway, can you make still changes to something as major as the square footage of the building?

Is that even possible?

NoyokA
April 12th, 2007, 07:10 PM
I dont know, maybe they shaved a little off another part of the building in order to fill out the shard.

Jasonik
April 12th, 2007, 08:40 PM
I think gross floor area (which is used to calculate FAR) is to the building envelope anyway, so you are penalized for atria and the like.

avm10
April 15th, 2007, 11:16 PM
Gents, it was never intended to be a multi storey void or atrium, the day rendering that is being posted repeatedly is not totally accurate. The SW corner facing Bryant Park is a double wall assembly. There will be an interior partition at the corner with an access door. The room that will be formed at the corner will have concrete slab right up to the c/w. The c/w will meet at the corners. As the you go up, the back interior wall gets a bit longer and widens the space making that triangular prism effect.

Each floor will be lit up in the ceiling space giving the effect seen in the night rendering.

It so much easier to understand in plan or even seeing a c/w section at that location

NoyokA
April 16th, 2007, 03:28 AM
Gents, it was never intended to be a multi storey void or atrium, the day rendering that is being posted repeatedly is not totally accurate. The SW corner facing Bryant Park is a double wall assembly. There will be an interior partition at the corner with an access door. The room that will be formed at the corner will have concrete slab right up to the c/w. The c/w will meet at the corners. As the you go up, the back interior wall gets a bit longer and widens the space making that triangular prism effect.

Each floor will be lit up in the ceiling space giving the effect seen in the night rendering.

It so much easier to understand in plan or even seeing a c/w section at that location


If thats the case, then in the renderings released of the building looking up from Bryant Park they made all the floors of the wedge space transparent. Either case it wont look anything like this:

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/01/greenskyscrapers/image/1_dods.jpg

Alonzo-ny
April 16th, 2007, 07:04 AM
Should look interesting when lit up though!

avm10
April 16th, 2007, 08:42 AM
Stern, I agree, that rendering is not very accurate, and its very misleading. You'd certainly get interesting wind effects in there though.

ZippyTheChimp
April 16th, 2007, 09:57 AM
Even from the inaccurate rendering, I'd always assumed that the top (at the base of the mast) would have a roof.

ramvid01
April 18th, 2007, 05:56 PM
Didn't have my camera, but glass has gone up on the chamfered side, and well it seems to be identical as the one that is already being used. Although I must admit, it was tough to tell because of the glare that it gave from the sunlight and it was a bit overcast mind you.

MidtownGuy
April 18th, 2007, 06:15 PM
So if you're right and the glass is the same, and the floors go all the way to the outer curtain wall, evidently the feature has been omitted.

NYguy
April 22nd, 2007, 04:37 PM
APRIL 21, 2007

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77567112/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77567125/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77567134/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77567153/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77567160/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77567176/large.jpg

ramvid01
April 25th, 2007, 07:43 PM
Pics from today...

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/4184/dsc00086qb0.th.jpg (http://img250.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00086qb0.jpg)
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9523/dsc00088qj3.th.jpg (http://img250.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00088qj3.jpg)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6363/dsc00087gx9.th.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00087gx9.jpg)
Looks like my third picture isnt showing up anymore. Imageshack is so buggy today -_-.

James Kovata
April 25th, 2007, 10:56 PM
Approximately how many more floors before the top?

stache
April 26th, 2007, 01:36 PM
I'm currently liking this building less as it's going up. Very bulky.

lesterp4
April 26th, 2007, 03:05 PM
They are at the 42nd floor.

EugeneNYC
April 26th, 2007, 03:56 PM
I'm currently liking this building less as it's going up. Very bulky.

I think it'll look better once it's covered with glass.

Ninjahedge
April 26th, 2007, 04:05 PM
I think it will look better not only when it is finished, but from a block away.

NYguy
April 26th, 2007, 04:43 PM
I'm currently liking this building less as it's going up. Very bulky.

I always feel like a building that bulky should be taller, lessens the "bulkiness" of it. I'm curious to see what the Goldman Sachs tower will actually look like once it rises. Both could loose a little weight.

I also want a 700 fter on the block below the Verizon. If the park people complain, just demolish that HBO building, and extend that open plaza there. It would be one of the few visually striking areas in Midtown.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77567112/medium.jpg

NYguy
April 29th, 2007, 12:25 PM
APRIL 28, 2007

1. The Times is not the only tower that can play with spires...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77919091/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77919137/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77919181/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77919215/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77919242/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77919247/large.jpg

7. joining the new "shiny" towers down 42nd Street...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77919294/large.jpg

8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/77919313/large.jpg

rmannion
April 30th, 2007, 12:16 AM
http://www.ardiem.org/images/17165.JPG
Close up of glass going up from 4/27.

Alonzo-ny
May 9th, 2007, 08:26 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/489094450_9a28a8ac33_o.jpg

cranes on the skyline

RandySavage
May 9th, 2007, 10:07 AM
^ What a shot!

MikeW
May 9th, 2007, 12:02 PM
Remember that, when it comes down to it, aesthetics are secondary. What counts is how much rentable floor space they can pack into the building, and, both by extenstion and by itself, how much space they can pack on each floor (tenant like to break up their offices across floors as little as possible).

We can sit on the web, and debate aesthetics as much as we want. But these buildings are investments. So, from the developers stanpoint, where aesthetics can be a selling point, they'll give them attention. But were aesthetics and profit work against each other, profit will take precedence.


I'm currently liking this building less as it's going up. Very bulky.

stache
May 9th, 2007, 06:15 PM
we get to be sidewalk superintendents!

tmg
May 9th, 2007, 06:56 PM
The New York Times
Roundabout to Fill a Brand-New 89-Year-Old Theater
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
Published: May 10, 2007

If everything stays on schedule, the number of Broadway theaters will increase by one in the fall of 2008, with the reopening of the 89-year-old Henry Miller’s Theater, a stamp of old Broadway on 43rd Street that will be surrounded by the glass modernity of the new 54-story tall Bank of America Tower.

But enough with the nostalgia. Who’s getting it?

The Roundabout Theater Company is in the final stages of negotiations for a 20-year lease with the Durst Organization and Bank of America, the owners of the theater, which will have around 1,000 seats.

The Shuberts, Nederlanders and the Jujamcyn theater chain all approached the Durst Organization about the theater, some interested in becoming owners or part owners, but were unable to make a deal. As a long-term tenant it was Roundabout that fit the bill, said Douglas Durst, a co-president of the Durst Organization. (It can’t hurt that Mr. Durst sits on the Roundabout’s board.)

Of Todd Haimes, the president of Roundabout, Mr. Durst said: “I’ve watched Todd, both as a part of Times Square and as a board member, and he’s just been so successful at the projects he’s undertaken that we thought the best way to go would be with Roundabout.”

The company already owns or leases two Broadway theaters — the 740-seat American Airlines Theater on 42nd Street and the 920-seat Studio 54 on 54th Street — and has an Off Broadway presence at the 420-seat Laura Pels Theater, part of the Harold and Miriam Steinberg Center for Theater on 46th Street.

Keeping shows in all of these theaters partly explains the company’s $40 million budget.

The idea, Mr. Haimes said, would be to put a popular show for an extended run in one of the three Broadway theaters and use the others for the traditional two- or three-shows-a-year Roundabout schedule.

That extended-run show, as first reported in The New York Post last week, could be a revival of Sam Mendes’s production of “Cabaret,” which, conveniently enough, was the first Broadway show to play Henry Miller’s Theater in 15 years when it opened there in 1998. If the Roundabout had that theater last year, Mr. Haimes said, it would have been a logical home for the popular revival of “The Pajama Game.”

But what is the Roundabout, a nonprofit company whose official mission is to interpret “the masterpieces of the world’s great theatrical heritage” doing looking for a popular hit?

“I have no problem producing something that I think is popular or commercial to make money,” Mr. Haimes said, “as long as the money goes for the not-for-profit purpose.”

“The reality,” he added, “is that the only way we ever sort of get ahead of the game financially is to have some successful shows.”

Neither Mr. Haimes nor Durst officials would give details about finances.

There are risks that come with taking on one more production — in a leased theater, no less — even if that production has all the signs of being a smash. But, Mr. Haimes said, “there’s a risk with everything.”

Henry Miller’s Theater, named for an actor, director and producer has a serious pedigree; Thornton Wilder’s “Our Town” opened there in 1938. But it had been more or less out of the Broadway business when “Cabaret” moved in. In 2003 plans for the Bank of America Tower, between Broadway and the Avenue of the Americas, were announced.

The Georgian facade was protected by landmark status, and, though the insides have been gutted, the developer was bound by state regulations to keep the space a working theater. The $30 million renovation is under way, though for now only a bare intimation of a theater can be made from concrete and scaffolding.

There are no plans to change the theater’s name.

lofter1
May 10th, 2007, 12:34 AM
From that ^^^ NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/theater/10roun.html) article ...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/10/arts/Miller600.jpg
dbox for Cook & Fox Architects
A cutaway depiction of Henry Miller’s Theater on West 43rd Street, in the
Bank of America Tower, scheduled to open in the fall of 2008.

MidtownGuy
May 10th, 2007, 04:55 AM
I wonder when they will top out.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/492289139_04ac32d21c_b.jpg

macreator
May 10th, 2007, 07:00 AM
How many feet are they up to?

Adyton
May 10th, 2007, 07:12 AM
Looks like about 750-775'. The highest occuppied floor space is supposed to be 814' and the roof line (glass curtain) ends at 945'. Conde rises to 808' at the top of the "4" box, which gives you some reference:)

MikeW
May 10th, 2007, 10:52 AM
That's a great shot. From where, Top of the Rock?

MidtownGuy
May 10th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Yes, Top of the Rock. Friends are in town so I'm doing the tourist things this week, and having as much fun as they are.

lesterp4
May 10th, 2007, 11:54 AM
Yesterday I counted 44 floors.

londonlawyer
May 10th, 2007, 12:06 PM
Yesterday I counted 44 floors.

How many total floors does this have? 56 or 59? Therefore, there will be at least 12 more floors, plus the area above that is about 10 more stories.

ManhattanKnight
May 10th, 2007, 12:07 PM
Great photo, MG, but sharp enough, unfortunately, to capture that tacky theEPIC.com sign.

lesterp4
May 10th, 2007, 12:11 PM
That is a god question. I have seen 51, 52 and 54 in different articles. I have not seen 56 or 59.

Jeffreyny
May 13th, 2007, 08:02 PM
Any renderings of how this will peak above the midtown plateau?

stache
May 13th, 2007, 11:55 PM
I'm pretty sure there's something like that earlier in this thread.

NYguy
May 14th, 2007, 08:58 AM
Can't get enough of this one...

MAY 13, 2007

1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758460/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78759785/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758528/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758533/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758537/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758549/large.jpg

NYguy
May 14th, 2007, 08:59 AM
7. My favorite view of the tower, side by side with the Conde Nast

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758572/large.jpg

8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758611/large.jpg

9.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758647/large.jpg

10.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758667/large.jpg

11.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758669/large.jpg

12.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758671/large.jpg

13.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758675/large.jpg

14.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758678/large.jpg

15.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758681/large.jpg

16.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/78758693/large.jpg

lofter1
May 14th, 2007, 07:13 PM
Slice of glass, anyone?

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_16c.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_16e.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_16g.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_16i.jpg

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/Lofter1/1%20Bryant%20Park%20Bank%20America%20Tower/L1BA_16a.jpg

pianoman11686
May 14th, 2007, 07:22 PM
I'm starting to have second thoughts about the west-facing side of this building. The way the curtain wall asymmetrically splits as you move up doesn't seem to work too well. And I don't understand why they'd do it: if it's for square footage, they could have gotten away with going straight up with a sheer wall, given that Conde Nast will obstruct it in the end.

BrooklynRider
May 14th, 2007, 10:19 PM
I think the building is looking more massive and bulky than it apeared to me in the renderings. Perhaps it just needs curtainwall. It not as "edgy" and exciting as it seemed it would be. I guess it is a perfect bookend to the Sixth Ave corporate behemouths.

pianoman11686
May 15th, 2007, 12:35 AM
http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/images/102.4timessquare.JPG

http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/2007/05/high_in_the_sky.php

Alonzo-ny
May 15th, 2007, 07:40 AM
I really wish the esb webcam was still working toward the north, would have been great for updates.

I recommend reaquainting yourselves with the animation on the durst website, ive been unsure about how the building looks at the moment but there is a lot more building to go up.

pianoman11686
May 16th, 2007, 05:21 PM
From Curbed (http://www.curbed.com/archives/2007/05/16/giant_office_tower_twofer_goldman_boa_rising.php#m ore):

http://www.curbed.com/2007_05_boabig.jpg

Ninjahedge
May 17th, 2007, 09:20 AM
I thought it was a wide-angle lens effect going on there until I realized that was the Grace bldg!!!!


With the clouds behind it looks like a classic "Dark thnigs a-brewin'!" kind of shot. All we needed was lightening on the crane arms there!!! ;)

Alonzo-ny
May 17th, 2007, 11:16 AM
I was concerned about the glass but i like what im seeing so far.

NYguy
May 21st, 2007, 09:43 AM
MAY 20, 2007

Either way you cut it, it fits right in the Manhattan canyons...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139769/medium.jpg__http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139804/medium.jpg

1.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139690/large.jpg

2.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139693/large.jpg

3.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139876/large.jpg

4.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139717/large.jpg

5.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139720/large.jpg

6.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139726/large.jpg

7.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139737/large.jpg

8.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139754/large.jpg

NYguy
May 21st, 2007, 09:44 AM
9.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139882/large.jpg

10.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139894/large.jpg

11.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139769/large.jpg

12.
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/79139804/original.jpg

kz1000ps
May 21st, 2007, 06:20 PM
Interesting to note that the glass on the angled "shard" part (visible in NYGuy's last pic) is similar to that used on the bottom 10 floors, in that it has much thinner spandrels. Hopefully this will be more noticeable and dramatic once it's all done.