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

NYguy
February 25th, 2003, 08:42 AM
NY Post...

B OF A LIKELY BANKING ON N.Y. TOWER

By STEVE CUOZZO

February 25, 2003 -- THERE is a ray of hope for Larry Silverstein and others wondering when they'll next see a tenant big enough to support development of a large new office tower.

Multiple sources tell us that Bank of America is quietly testing the waters for a signature, 1990s-style headquarters project like those of AOL Time Warner, Bear Stearns or Bloomberg L.P.

Nothing would happen for several years. But BofA's lease at 9 W. 57th St., where it has about 700,000 square feet, is up in 2008 - more than enough time to strike a deal. Manhattan has a half-dozen potential development sites, starting of course with Ground Zero.

BofA is the rare financial company that is growing rather than shrinking. It expanded in Manhattan last summer, adding 150,000 square feet at the Lefrak organization's 40 W. 57th St., across the street from 9 W. 57th.

Intriguingly, sources say, the bank's lease at 40 W. 57th contains an "escape clause" that gives it the option of bailing out there when its lease expires at 9 W. 57th - a way of holding the door open to a jumbo consolidation elsewhere.

We put the scenario to BofA's broker, Jones Lang LaSalle New York president Peter Riguardi. He would say only: "They are obviously one of the leading financial institutions. Like any leading financial institution, they are always strategically looking at their real estate options, particularly in a market like New York City."

billyblancoNYC
February 25th, 2003, 11:26 AM
I guess they would go Midtown, but it would be sweet if they wanted to build a mil+ sq. ft. tower downtown.

They should, it seems the B of A tower is always the tallest (or prominent) tower in other cities. *

NyC MaNiAc
February 25th, 2003, 06:47 PM
Yes, B of A probably has the most skyscrapers in America and possibly the World.

Eugenius
February 27th, 2003, 02:36 PM
It is possible that Citigroup has more towers. *I know of at least four in New York - Citicorp in Manhattan, Citybank in Queens, a little known skyscraper on Park and 53rd that recently changed hands for $1BN, and the old Travelers umbrella building on Greenwich St.
Given that it is the largest finance company in America (Bigger than BofA), they probably have more buildings.

TLOZ Link5
February 27th, 2003, 08:14 PM
Citicorp isn't just the largest bank in America. *It's the largest bank in the world. *Assets-wise, that is.

Eugenius
March 1st, 2003, 12:18 AM
I think that Deutsche Banc has a larger asset base than Citigroup. *Additionally, some Japanese banks (I believe IBJ) have asset bases over $1 Trillion.
But Citigroup is definitely the most profitable of all of them. *In fact, it's probably more profitable than the three biggest banks combined.

TonyO
March 1st, 2003, 12:23 AM
This is great news. *The Bank of America building in Seattle is a sleek black tower. *The tallest in the city :-)

Another interesting scenario could be the NYSE building that was supposed to be built that got canned right after 911. *Anyone know about where this is at?

dbhstockton
March 1st, 2003, 01:07 AM
Pics?

TonyO
March 1st, 2003, 01:35 AM
http://www.automatedbuildings.com/news/mar00/articles/alt/alt.htm

Anonymous
March 1st, 2003, 07:05 AM
CitiBank is definitly not the world's largest bank. *There are a number of european and Japanese banks that are much larger. *Of course, those countries do not have the same number of banks per capita as the US does.

TLOZ Link5
March 1st, 2003, 01:42 PM
Quote: from James_Kovata on 6:05 am on Mar. 1, 2003
CitiBank is definitly not the world's largest bank. *There are a number of european and Japanese banks that are much larger. *Of course, those countries do not have the same number of banks per capita as the US does.

CitiBank definitely isn't. *CitiBank is just one corporation in Citicorp, which as an umbrella organization has more assets than any other bank in the world.

TLOZ Link5
March 1st, 2003, 02:12 PM
Quote: from James_Kovata on 6:05 am on Mar. 1, 2003
CitiBank is definitly not the world's largest bank. *There are a number of european and Japanese banks that are much larger. *Of course, those countries do not have the same number of banks per capita as the US does.

CitiBank definitely isn't. *CitiBank is just one corporation in Citicorp, which as an umbrella organization has more assets than any other bank in the world.

VeritecF
March 2nd, 2003, 06:09 AM
Hey guys, i'm new to the board but i've read it for a while and just wanted to clarify some things here. *The international institution you want to refer to is called CITIGROUP and it is NOT the worlds largest banking institution. *That title belongs to *Mizuho Financial Group based in Tokyo, which has well over a 100 billion dollars more in total assets than CITIGROUP. *But CITIGROUP is number two, and it happens to be number one in tier one assets, if that makes you happy. *Bank of America is the second largest bank in the U.S. behind CITIGROUP, and ranks number two in tier one assets, and is in the top ten overall.

Also, although i don't know who technically has more skyscrapers, i can tell you that Bank of America has towers throughout the south and the west, including the tallest towers in many cities. *In addition to Seattle, Bank of America Plaza in Dallas is the tallest in the city at 921 ft. *And Bank of America Plaza in Atlanta is the tallest building in the southeastern United States and stands 1,023 ft. *Both of which i believe top over Citicorp Center's 915 ft.

TLOZ Link5
March 2nd, 2003, 01:48 PM
::shrug:: *OK, so I was misinformed. *Sorry about that =\

Isn't BOA Plaza in Atlanta taller than any other building in the US outside of New York and Chicago? *I'm sure that Library Tower in Los Angeles is actually a few feet shorter.

And there's also BOA Corporate Center in Charlotte, which IMHO is one of the most gorgeous postmodern buildings in the world. *Its massing, and particularly its absolutely wild crown, reminds me of 570 Lexington here in New York. *I wouldn't be surprised if that's where Cesar Pelli drew his inspiration.

So this BOA Tower...considering that they're considering a headquarters building along the lines of AOL-TW and Bloomberg, as the article said, do you think it's a strong possibility that they would propose some sort of mixed-use project?

amigo32
March 12th, 2003, 02:51 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/nyregion/12DEVE.html

Bank of America Is Scouting Midtown as New Headquarters
By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Bank of America is working on tentative plans for a new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, possibly on 42nd Street, New York's boulevard of dreams. The prospect is causing enthusiasm bordering on giddiness among developers and state and city officials.

The bank, which has thousands of employees at several Manhattan locations, has been meeting in recent weeks with developers like Douglas Durst of the Durst Organization and Richard Clark of Brookfield Financial Properties, as well as public officials, to discuss its search for a new one-million-square-foot home.

But the prospect of a new skyscraper is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise gloomy picture, with companies shedding employees and the vacancy rate more than doubling in the last two years. Analysts say that New York clearly remains an important international capital but that the weak state of the real estate market throws dark shadows over the city's plans for commercial development downtown and on the far west side of Manhattan.

"They're betting on a demand that just isn't there," said Emanuel Tobier, a professor of economics and urban planning at New York University. "It's excessively rosy. We don't want to end up with a bunch of white elephants."

In recent weeks, the city has been stung by news that New York Life, the insurance company, is moving 1,000 employees to Westchester from Madison Avenue, as part of a trend to disperse corporate offices in the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center. In a cost-cutting move, Philip Morris USA is relocating its longtime headquarters and 682 jobs from Park Avenue to Richmond, Va.

AIG, the insurance giant, is moving 800 jobs to Jersey City from Lower Manhattan, where it is one of the largest employers, with a current work force of 6,024.

So it is no surprise, one state official said, that public officials and the real estate industry are excited about Bank of America's plans, even if the bank does not even want to move into a new home until 2007. After all, Bank of America is growing, unlike most of the major commercial and investment banks in the city. Indeed, an analyst at Lehman Brothers estimates that an additional 20,000 commodity and security brokers in the city will lose their jobs over the next year or so.

Peter G. Riguardi, president of Jones Lang LaSalle, a real estate company working for the bank, declined to comment.

But one real estate executive who has met with the bank's real estate team said, "They appear to be very serious about consolidation and going into a new development."

One developer added that the bank was trying to take advantage of a weak real estate market to make a deal. "They want a world-class headquarters at a bargain-basement price," he said.

The bank, which leases space at 9 West 57th Street and several other locations, has talked to Brookfield Financial Properties about the tower Brookfield is building at Madison Avenue and 42nd Street. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which was supposed to occupy the entire building, has decided to take only 375,000 square feet and sublease the remaining 765,000.

A more likely candidate for a site, city and state officials said, is at 42nd Street and the Avenue of the Americas, where Douglas Durst has long wanted to build a skyscraper. The two sides have met several times and Mr. Durst has asked state officials if they would condemn a handful of properties he does not already own on the block.

The bank is paying some of the highest rents in the city, real estate brokers said, and could easily move into a new building at a lower rent. But even at the peak of the city's real estate boom, in 2000, Mr. Durst and other developers found it hard to snare a major tenant. It is unclear, the brokers said, whether Bank of America will make a deal.

Whatever happens, Bank of America has established itself as an exceptional tenant in the current market, where many corporations are cutting payrolls and office space. According to Cushman & Wakefield, vacant office space in Manhattan today totals 47.7 million square feet, the equivalent of more than 20 Empire State Buildings.

Real estate brokers say more space has come on the market than has been leased in the last year. The law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop, for instance, is close to leasing 200,000 square feet at the Bertelsmann Building in Times Square. When it does, it will leave behind a similar-size space downtown, where it had made its home for almost 150 years.

Few analysts expect that downtown space to fill up soon, especially since the financial industry, one of the city's most important economic engines, is shrinking and sending more jobs outside Manhattan. For that reason, David Shulman, a real estate analyst for Lehman Brothers, described plans to build new office towers as "a bit exuberant."

In a speech to the New York City Partnership last week, Larry A. Silverstein, who took the lease on the World Trade Center towers just before they were destroyed by terrorists in September 2001, said he expected to complete the first two-million-square-foot tower at the site in 2008, followed by four more two-million-square-foot office buildings.

And Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff hopes to redevelop the far West Side of Manhattan, with plans calling for another five million square feet of office space in that neighborhood between 2010 and 2014.

City officials and some developers say that when a turnaround comes, they expect the city's economy to rebound as quickly as it did in the 1990's, when according to Insignia ESG, a real estate broker, the amount of vacant space in the city dropped from 51.8 million square feet in 1996 to 17.8 million in 2001 as companies expanded. But during what was arguably the biggest real estate boom in city history, only seven office towers were built.

NoyokA
March 12th, 2003, 10:19 AM
A more likely candidate for a site, city and state officials said, is at 42nd Street and the Avenue of the Americas, where Douglas Durst has long wanted to build a skyscraper. The two sides have met several times and Mr. Durst has asked state officials if they would condemn a handful of properties he does not already own on the block.

BrooklynRider
March 12th, 2003, 10:26 AM
The ray of hope for the future - a company is actually looking for 1 million square feet of space.

DougGold
March 12th, 2003, 10:39 AM
I don't understand why they'd be looking to build their own skyscraper when Silverstein is obviously going to be tenant-hungry for whatever goes up on the WTC site. I'm sure he'd bow to any design demands they'd have if they signed up for major occupancy.

NoyokA
March 12th, 2003, 10:42 AM
Agreed. And what better way to advertise a company named Bank of America.

billyblancoNYC
March 12th, 2003, 11:08 AM
It would be nice if they considered this their Corp Headquarters, and not just their NYC headquarters.

diVinci
March 12th, 2003, 02:52 PM
Corporate or NYC headquarters...who cares? *As long as Silverstein secures them as a major lease holder in Office tower 1 connected to the Garden tower!!!

billyblancoNYC
March 12th, 2003, 05:27 PM
True, but it's always good for ego to have a huge corp. headquarters, esecially since Phillip Morris is selling out after 100 yrs (bastards).

If it is corp. head, then maybe some more folks would be placed here, esp. *free-spending execs - they always help the economy!

enzo
March 14th, 2003, 01:19 AM
Hehehe... talk about IRONY.

Here is the story about the Philip Morris move from the Bloomberg Co. wires!

Altria Moves U.S. Cigarette Headquarters to Richmond (Update2)
By Courtney Schlisserman

New York, March 4 (Bloomberg) -- Altria Group Inc. will move the headquarters of its Philip Morris USA tobacco unit to Richmond, Virginia, from New York to reduce expenses as profit is hurt by rising cigarette taxes.

The company, parent of the world's biggest cigarette maker and formerly known as Philip Morris Cos., expects to save about $60 million a year. All 682 employees of the Philip Morris USA staff in New York, or about 5 percent of the unit's workforce, will be affected, Altria said in a statement.

Altria, which expects $120 million in costs from the move, is losing sales as smokers switch to discount and counterfeit brands because of higher sales taxes. New York raised cigarette sales taxes and passed a law, to go into effect later this month, to further limit smoking in restaurants, bars and office buildings.

``This was a difficult decision to make because of our company's long corporate history in New York City and the impact it will have on our employees but I believe that it is the right decision,'' Philip Morris USA Chief Executive Michael Szymanczyk said in the statement.

The move isn't related to the new laws, Philip Morris USA spokesman Brendan McCormick said. The company, whose employees currently are allowed to smoke in its New York building, plans to comply with the new laws, he said.

Moving Philip Morris USA, ends more than 100 years of association between the unit and New York. Philip Morris & Co., Ltd. incorporated in the city in 1902. It opened its manufacturing facility in Richmond around 1919, McCormick said.

Richmond Bound

Altria owns 120 Park Avenue, a 554,000 square-foot, 26-story building half a block from Grand Central Station and leases another six floors of a building across the street, from SL Green Realty Corp. Altria Group's 740 other employees at the site will remain in New York, the company said.

Shares of Altria rose 2 cent to $39 at 2:19 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. They had slumped 28 percent in the past year.

Philip Morris USA already has 6,800 employees, or about half its staff, in Richmond.

The first employees will arrive this summer and some workers currently located at the company's Richmond offices off of I-95 will move to former home of Reynolds Metals Co., which Philip Morris USA is going to rent from the University of Richmond. The move will be completed by June 2004.

Altria changed its name in January to differentiate itself from the companies it owns. In addition to Philip Morris USA, the company also owns Philip Morris International, 84 percent of Kraft Foods Inc. and 36 percent of SABMiller Plc.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News.

Bk Italian 123
March 14th, 2003, 01:51 AM
ENZO, ur totally right about the history, but i have 1 question, dont they have more than that 26 story building on park avenue, and the 6 floors of the building adjascent?

NYguy
May 27th, 2003, 08:38 AM
(NY Times)

Bank Is Close to a Deal for a Tower Off Times Sq.
By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Bank of America is close to signing a deal with the developer Douglas Durst to build a skyscraper on 42nd Street, near the Avenue of the Americas, which would become the bank's New York headquarters.

The bank would be a partner in the project and occupy half the space in the proposed $1 billion tower, which is expected to contain 2 million square feet of space, according to real estate executives and government officials. It would stand next to the Condé Nast Tower, the 48-story skyscraper Mr. Durst built in Times Square four years ago.

If the project goes forward, it will strike an upbeat note at a time when the city is playing a blues medley of corporate layoffs, deep municipal budget cuts and tax increases. Little office construction is going on, because millions of square feet of office space are sitting empty. Yet when much of the financial industry is shrinking, Bank of America, which has about 3,000 employees at five locations in Manhattan, would be expanding its presence in New York with the new building.

"It's proof that New York, despite the recession, has intrinsic strengths that no major bank can ignore," said Mitchell Moss, director of the Urban Research Center at New York University. "You can't be a major banker and not be in New York."

The skyscraper would also be a personal triumph for Mr. Durst. He would be completing a development his father, Seymour, began 40 years ago when he bought his first parcel on the block between 42nd and 43rd Streets, from Broadway to the Avenue of the Americas. Seymour Durst died in 1995; the Durst family now owns or controls all but two parcels on the long block, where development has had a long and contentious history.

On Thursday, the city sent a letter to the state expressing support for the proposed project on 42nd Street. According to a senior state official, the state is considering condemning the block. If the state condemned the property, Mr. Durst would not have to negotiate a sale price with the owners of the two parcels he does not already have. In all likelihood, the state would take control of the land and lease it back to the bank and the developer for a nominal sum. The state would also have to persuade a court that the condemnation was for a public purpose.

The Empire State Development Corporation is expected to issue a notice this week that it will hold a public hearing on condemnation.

Peter G. Riguardi, president of Jones Lang LaSalle, a real estate company representing Bank of America, declined to comment, other than to say: "The bank is committed to New York City. We're looking at all deals seriously." But a state official said he considered the talks between the bank and Mr. Durst to be "very serious."

"Next week is a big week," said one executive who has been involved in the negotiations.

Bank of America has also talked to state and city officials about an incentive package for the deal. The Bloomberg administration has often said it is reluctant to grant companies special tax breaks, which critics call corporate welfare. But earlier this month, the state and city granted Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, up to $46.1 million in tax breaks and other subsidies in connection with the company's purchase of a building at 685 Third Avenue, at 43rd Street, and a pledge to transfer 1,000 jobs to Manhattan from outside of New York City.

Real estate executives said they expected Bank of America to get some sort of incentive package from the city, although some of the benefits would be tied to job growth. State officials had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the bank to move to Lower Manhattan, which has lost thousands of financial jobs since Sept. 11.

New York was still suffering a deep recession and a real estate depression in 1995 when Mr. Durst first announced plans to build the Condé Nast tower. Unlike many other developers, the Durst family had little debt on its holdings and was able to finance the project.

The following year, Mr. Durst quickly lined up two major tenants — Condé Nast and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the law firm — and began building 4 Times Square, a structure that heralded a building boom.

"A new office tower will be music to the ears of the real estate community," said Ross F. Moskowitz, a real estate lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. "As they did with the Condé Nast building in the mid-90's, the Dursts will look to be a first-market mover and trendsetter with this building."

But New York City is still losing jobs. According to Newmark & Company, a real estate firm, 58.1 million square feet of office space sits vacant or available, more than the entire commercial market in Boston.

A block away from Mr. Durst's project, the developer Boston Properties lost its anchor tenant last summer and is still trying to fill Times Square Tower, its building with 47 stories and 1.2 million square feet under construction on 42nd Street. To the east, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is also chasing tenants to fill the 35-story office building under construction at Madison Avenue and 42nd Street. The bank is no longer planning to occupy most of the tower.

So far, The New York Times Company and its partner, Forest City Ratner, have been unable to lure a tenant to the newspaper's proposed new headquarters, on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets. The Times plans to use about half the tower.

The Bank of America project has the support of state and city officials, but nothing is guaranteed on this block, where feuds and near-misses abound. In the past, the Durst family has almost struck deals with Morgan Stanley, Chemical Bank, Nasdaq, L'Oreal and Zurich Insurance.

But the Dursts now own or control more than 90 percent of the block. Susan Rosenberg owns a small building at the southwest corner of 43rd Street and the Avenue of the Americas where her late father, Harry Goldberg, opened a pawnshop in 1948. She has vowed to be the last to sell.

A group led by Joseph Bernstein owns an L-shaped parcel that fronts on both 42nd Street and the Avenue of the Americas. In 1985, the Bernstein group nearly bought out the Durst holdings, but the deal fell apart. Since then, the two sides have been at loggerheads, with Mr. Durst seeking to buy out the Bernstein group, while Mr. Bernstein has refused, offering instead to become Mr. Durst's partner.

The Bernstein group filed a lawsuit to block the state from condemning the property in the late 1990's, when Mr. Durst was close to striking a deal with Nasdaq to build a headquarters. That deal also fell apart and Mr. Bernstein withdrew the suit after the attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

"We're willing to negotiate," Mr. Bernstein said. "We're definitely sellers at the right price."

Mr. Durst also needs permission from the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to move Henry Miller's Theater, which sits in the middle of the block, west to a spot next to the Condé Nast Tower.

Eugenius
May 27th, 2003, 09:44 AM
Darn, you beat me by an hour. *You have to wake up pretty early in the morning to scoop members of this forum.

Fabb
May 27th, 2003, 09:50 AM
When the news is that good, it's worth waking up early.
I hope the 2 million sq-ft tower will be tall and slender. Like the 70-story building that was once envisioned.

Zoe
May 27th, 2003, 10:01 AM
2 million square feet with a billion dollar price tag sounds like a significant building. *Does anyone know what the height restrictions are for that block (are there any air rights near by that Durst can purchase)?

JMGarcia
May 27th, 2003, 10:33 AM
The current proposal is for 781 feet. I believe Stern has a rendering on his website.

I'm sure it could change radically if a major tenant gets involved with their own input though.

Fabb
May 27th, 2003, 10:56 AM
That proposal is so old that it can't be left without modifications. I bet there will be an entirely new design.

Zoe
May 27th, 2003, 11:18 AM
Yeah I thought the original renderings for 1 Bryant Park called for a 1.5 million square foot building. *
Therefore if they just add additional floors to make up the difference in space, that could push it to over 1000ft tall (rough math 1.5 to 2 = 33% increase; 781ft x 33% = 1,041) *I'm sure the math I just used is going to make a lot of people on this board laugh. *;)

(Edited by Zoe at 10:23 am on May 27, 2003)

Fabb
May 27th, 2003, 11:27 AM
1041 ft ?
That doesn't make me laugh.
I'm starting to yearn.

Derek2k3
May 27th, 2003, 11:28 AM
Quote: from Zoe on 9:01 am on May 27, 2003
2 million square feet with a billion dollar price tag sounds like a significant building. *Does anyone know what the height restrictions are for that block (are there any air rights near by that Durst can purchase)?


There are no height restrictions for Midtown or most of Manhattan. He could build whatever size building he wants as long as he complies with the site's F.A.R. which lets him build 2 msf. here. He could build a 100 story building if he wanted to by only using half the lot or by letting it setback significantly.

I think the 1.6 msf was without the other lots, now that he he has them ( or going to get them), it will be up to *him to decide if the area added will be used to increase the floorplate size or increase the number of floors.

If he couldn't acquire the lots, he probably could have bought their air rights and still build a 2msf tower. It would just have to be taller instead of bulkier.



(Edited by Derek2k3 at 10:43 am on May 27, 2003)

NYatKNIGHT
May 27th, 2003, 11:47 AM
Hopefully it is at least taller than Atlanta's BOA tower (1,023').

Fabb
May 27th, 2003, 12:53 PM
That cheater ?
Hopefully, it'll have more than 55 floors.

NoyokA
May 27th, 2003, 03:47 PM
Hopefully the corporate identity will influence the design, as you have all mention for the better and higher.

NoyokA
May 27th, 2003, 03:50 PM
In the buisness world's view skyscrapers can be a powerful advertising instrument, "an image that captures the public's attention".

Bank of America is looking to expand into an already competitive New York market, it could use a New York landmark as a company hallmark.

(Edited by Stern at 2:51 pm on May 27, 2003)

yanni111
May 27th, 2003, 07:42 PM
i think at 2 million sq ft it should definetely be above 1000 ft, that is if he doesnt make it a wide beast, for example like 7 wtc was, which was a 2 million sq ft building. I will say he wont make it that wide because it would make this new building way too close to Conde Nast, i assume he would want to keep them as far apart as he could to minimize view blockage or an oppresive closed in feeling for workers.(im sure Bank of America will say the same)
Aon(flat top) in Chicago is at 1136 ft with 2.5 million sq ft and it has shorter floor-ceiling heights than the new higher style of buildings like Conce Nast and 2 IFC in Hong Kong so 2 million at 1000 ft makes sense. This would be the PERFECT spot for anything above 900 ft at the very least! please make it so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NYguy
May 27th, 2003, 07:59 PM
If the state condemned the property, Mr. Durst would not have to negotiate a sale price with the owners of the two parcels he does not already have. In all likelihood, the state would take control of the land and lease it back to the bank and the developer for a nominal sum. The state would also have to persuade a court that the condemnation was for a public purpose.

The Empire State Development Corporation is expected to issue a notice this week that it will hold a public hearing on condemnation.

The older rendering that we have is of the smaller version of the project. *It the state condemns the site and gives Durst total control, he can the move forward with the larger version, putting the tower closer to or on 6th Ave. *Sounds great, I'm sure BOA would like a distinctive tower, but there's plenty of competition with the NY Times tower not that far off. *Also, I'm not sure if Durst wants anything blocking his new antenna.

(older rendering)
http://www.pbase.com/image/15772979/large.jpg

(Edited by NYguy at 7:01 pm on May 27, 2003)

NoyokA
May 27th, 2003, 08:35 PM
Thanks NYGUY for the 1.6 million (midblock) elevation. Having seen a model of this particular scheme the curves on this baby are really spectacular.

And I hate to break it to you guys but the latest scheme for the 2 million square foot option "One Bryant Park" was not much taller, but rather a fatter curve with a spire reaching 881 feet (max). Subject to changes, ofcause.

The 2 million square foot option:

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/durst.sized.jpg

Gulcrapek
May 27th, 2003, 08:43 PM
Works for me with any variation of that design. Obviously I'd prefer if it was taller, but for the most part that goes for all projects.

DominicanoNYC
May 27th, 2003, 09:16 PM
This building has a real sleek design.

Agglomeration
May 27th, 2003, 09:20 PM
I'm loving it already! Bring it on as soon as possible. Let's see a massive 55 floor tower rise on site! Sorry, but I had to get my feelings out.

DominicanoNYC
May 27th, 2003, 09:29 PM
lol:) It's hard not to say things like that for a building that looks so great.

tugrul
May 27th, 2003, 10:08 PM
Screw height, that design melts my heart :) It works very well with the three boxes framing it in the Bryant Park rendering, and the boxy side of its elder brother.

Fabb
May 28th, 2003, 04:44 AM
I have the impression that the side facing 6th Ave is not aligned to the street line.
Nothing wrong with that, but it would be unusual.

NYguy
May 28th, 2003, 09:06 AM
It still looks good. *But I wonder about that spire and the Conde Nast antenna. *I still think we may see something different.


http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/durst.sized.jpg

Kris
May 28th, 2003, 09:14 AM
Good, 'cause that pole's ridiculous.

Fabb
May 28th, 2003, 10:09 AM
I've already seen one like that : http://www.skyscrapers.com/re/en/wm/bu/120440/.

BrooklynRider
May 28th, 2003, 11:00 AM
I love it. *I think it will greatly alter the prominence of the Verizon menace over Bryant Park.

JMGarcia
May 28th, 2003, 01:18 PM
I expect it will not look anything like these renderings.

DominicanoNYC
May 28th, 2003, 09:04 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 12:18 pm on May 28, 2003
I expect it will not look anything like these renderings.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It has too. This design is much to perfect for any corrections.

NoyokA
May 28th, 2003, 09:39 PM
Would you object to a great skyline pressence? Id hold out with Fox and Fowle on board....

NyC MaNiAc
May 28th, 2003, 10:11 PM
Yeah, BofA likes to build high...

Sure do wish this was built Downtown...is it's location really set in stone, or could it change?

TLOZ Link5
May 28th, 2003, 10:25 PM
OMG, that rendering is hot. *I am definitely psyched about this tower now.

alejo
May 28th, 2003, 10:37 PM
this is the best project I've seen for this city in the last years.

DominicanoNYC
May 28th, 2003, 10:45 PM
It really is one of the best. I'd place it amongst the TWC and Bloomberg Tower. I'd add the Hearst too. This building just needs to get built because it's a big step towards restoring our skyline after the loss of the WTC.

Kris
May 28th, 2003, 10:57 PM
The Midtown skyline doesn't need restoration. I find BofA rather cowardly not to choose Downtown. They could even make it a patriotic PR stunt.

jack
May 28th, 2003, 11:07 PM
What's there right now, anyone have pictures?

tugrul
May 28th, 2003, 11:27 PM
Edward's is the best one of the site off the top of my head (http://www.wirednewyork.com/1bryant_park.htm).

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/one_bryant/1bryant_park_6thand42nd.jpg

A bit outdated, as I'm certain that wrapped building is gone by now.

Some cross the street photos I took last June:

http://photos.galatali.com/skyscrapers/tugrul/2002-06-11/One%20Bryant%20Park%20Site%20%283%29.jpg;OP=IMAGE; ROTATE=0;WIDTH=640
http://photos.galatali.com/skyscrapers/tugrul/2002-06-11/One%20Bryant%20Park%20Site%20%282%29.jpg;OP=IMAGE; ROTATE=0;WIDTH=640

And from 43rd in October:

http://photos.galatali.com/skyscrapers/tugrul/2002-10-04/Conde%20Nast%20%28from%2043rd%20and%20Sixth%2C%20s treet%20level%29.jpg;OP=IMAGE;ROTATE=0;WIDTH=640
http://photos.galatali.com/skyscrapers/tugrul/2002-10-04/42nd%20Street%20midblock%20%28from%2043rd%20and%20 Sixth%2C%20east%20half%29.jpg;OP=IMAGE;ROTATE=0;WI DTH=640

jack
May 28th, 2003, 11:32 PM
How do you guys attach images?

tugrul
May 28th, 2003, 11:38 PM
Consult the help. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/misc.cgi?action=ikoncode)

NyC MaNiAc
May 29th, 2003, 01:06 AM
Yeah Christian, I feel the same way. I feel Downtown isn't getting much love...we need these newer, nice looking buildings to start populating Lower Manhattan! It's been too many years without a noteworthy 'scraper going up Downtown.

jack
May 29th, 2003, 12:49 PM
I guess not, I screwed this up somewhere. But I'll be trying.

tugrul's Edit: Don't stick the address of the html page in *the img tag, right click on the image and gets its address

jack
May 29th, 2003, 12:50 PM
Here's one from the top
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wpoet/nyc/photos/0232.jpg

TLOZ Link5
May 29th, 2003, 06:41 PM
I take it that Pronto Pizza is gone as well?

NYguy
June 1st, 2003, 01:57 AM
Quote: from NyC MaNiAc on 12:06 am on May 29, 2003
Yeah Christian, I feel the same way. I feel Downtown isn't getting much love...we need these newer, nice looking buildings to start populating Lower Manhattan! It's been too many years without a noteworthy 'scraper going up Downtown.


I think those 5 new WTC towers will change that. *And you could be seeing a world's tallest. *Not bad for Downtown...

Fabb
June 1st, 2003, 07:57 AM
That's right.
But the process has proven so painful so far that it gives the impression that downtown isn't getting much love.
I'm happy that there are plans for the West Side, but Downtown should be the priority. Talks about big developments elsewhere should come later.

Evan
June 1st, 2003, 02:25 PM
Quote: from Fabb on 6:57 am on June 1, 2003
That's right.
But the process has proven so painful so far that it gives the impression that downtown isn't getting much love.
I'm happy that there are plans for the West Side, but Downtown should be the priority. Talks about big developments elsewhere should come later.

Downtown is getting plenty of attention. *Because so many groups all want to have a say in the rebuilding of the WTC, the pace is moving slowly. *Besides, if the city does not make any plans to develop the westside, or make any improvements to midtown, then midtown will begin to decline. *

NyC MaNiAc
June 1st, 2003, 09:22 PM
Good Point, NYGUY, but at this rate, it seems like it will never come. And I want to see us building Downtown in places that have not been destroyed. It's sad that the only major buildings going up in more than a decade are because major buildings we're destroyed.

BrooklynRider
June 2nd, 2003, 10:14 AM
It seems entirely appropriate to me that there are a multitude of projects being discussed for the multitude of neighborhoods in NY: Downtown, Midtown, Far West Side, Downtown Brooklyn. *This is precisely what makes NYC like no other.

NYguy
June 3rd, 2003, 08:34 AM
(NY Post)

BOFA CLOSING IN ON 42ND STREET
By STEVE CUOZZO

June 3, 2003 -- DOUGLAS Durst's plan to build a spectacular new tower for Bank of America on West 42nd Street just scored two big, back-to-back breakthroughs.

Durst and BofA quietly signed a "term sheet" last week, indicating that they have agreed on all key points of the deal to develop a $1 billion, 2 million square-foot, 57-story tower for the bank's new headquarters. A term sheet is a precursor to a lease and a framework for it, although not as binding.

BofA's real estate broker, Jones Lang LaSalle president Peter Riguardi, wouldn't confirm or deny, saying only that the bank "was evaluating all opportunities." Durst could not immediately be reached.

Yesterday, meanwhile, the Empire State Development Corp. took the first step toward condemning the handful of properties Durst does not already own on the block bounded by Sixth and Seventh avenues and 42nd and 43rd streets.

ESDC scheduled a June 18 public hearing on its proposal to condemn the land and override certain city zoning rules. Condemnation would clear out a few holdout properties and allow construction of a regularly-shaped tower with a rectangular base.

The project known as One Bryant Park would be one of Manhattan's longest-awaited developments, bringing a prestigious financial institution to the messy block linking Sixth Avenue's corporate corridor and the glittering "new" Times Square.

Durst built 4 Times Square, home to Conde Nast and law firm Skadden Arps, in the 1990s. But he has been unable until now to proceed with the rest of the block filled mostly with low-rise stores and fast-food shops.

The Post first reported back on Feb. 25 that BofA was scouting for a Manhattan site to build. Its leases in two buildings on West 57th Street expire in 2007.

NoyokA
June 3rd, 2003, 09:18 AM
Okay, we topped 800 feet....

JMGarcia
June 3rd, 2003, 09:35 AM
....or at least pretty close to it. :)

BrooklynRider
June 3rd, 2003, 11:23 AM
Of course it would be a speculative answer, but, had BoA decided it did want to move into a new building at the WTC site, how long do you think that process would have taken? *This deal is moving quickly.

Personally, I'll be happy to see this building go up and, along with Time Square Plaza, see the Times Square Redevelopment complete. *Then, we will see significant *development in other areas of thec ity.

Fabb
June 3rd, 2003, 01:32 PM
Quote: from JMGarcia on 8:35 am on June 3, 2003
....or at least pretty close to it. :)


What is that supposed to mean ?
I say, if there's a logic in this world, we topped 900 feet.

NYguy
June 3rd, 2003, 05:19 PM
DOUGLAS Durst's plan to build a spectacular new tower for Bank of America on West 42nd Street...

Spectacular....
a. A single dramatic production of unusual length or lavishness.
b. An elaborate display.

JMGarcia
June 3rd, 2003, 05:35 PM
Quote: from Fabb on 12:32 pm on June 3, 2003

Quote: from JMGarcia on 8:35 am on June 3, 2003
....or at least pretty close to it. :)


What is that supposed to mean ?
I say, if there's a logic in this world, we topped 900 feet.


It mean it might not quite reach 800 feet. Using the 13 1/2 foot per floor estimate 57 floors would come out to about 769 feet. I also doubt if Durst will build anythign to block their new antenna next door on Conde Naste. A lot could depend on how high on the antenna the transmitters are.

dnice215
June 3rd, 2003, 05:46 PM
well i would think that if the building is to hold 2 mil sq ft.. it would be close to if not more than 800ft. Hopefully the building will be closer to the 900ft mark or even a 1000 (praying). If im not mistaking the conde naste antenna is supposed to be 1142ft so even if the building was 1000ft it wouldnt block the transmitter. Does any1 have an updated rendering of the Building

NoyokA
June 3rd, 2003, 06:15 PM
As earlier mentioned BOFA Atlanta is 1023 feet and 55 storeys.

TLOZ Link5
June 3rd, 2003, 06:51 PM
Lessee...according to skyscrapers.com the original height was 781 feet and 53 stories, not counting the spire.

So we divide 781 by 53, and we're left with 14.735849057. *We'll round that off to 14.74.

We multiply 14.74 * 57, and we get about 840 feet. *That'll put 1BP in the Top 10, if it's finished before the Times Tower and One New York Place.

Then again, spire.

dnice215
June 4th, 2003, 05:15 AM
15 ft per floor, isnt that a little high for a notmal office building arent they usually around 10? *either way I just hope its above 800ft im sick of skyline fillers, we need more buildings to deviate from the mass of the midtown buildings. This is really a good spot for some serious height. The views from jersey would be incredible with conde naste, TSQT, NYTT, BoA and chrysler all on 42nd

Kris
June 4th, 2003, 08:34 AM
June 4, 2003

2 Property Owners Object to Plan for Skyscraper Near Times Sq.

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Just as plans for a new skyscraper were forming near Times Square, the owners of two parcels of land on the block have said they oppose efforts by a developer and the state to condemn their property to make way for it.

The Empire State Development Corporation announced on Monday that it would hold a public hearing about the project, a 57-story headquarters for Bank of America, on June 18, the first step in the process of condemning the land for a new skyscraper. If the state is successful, it will condemn all the land on the block bound by Broadway and the Avenue of the Americas, between 42nd and 43rd Streets, and lease the property to the developer Douglas Durst, who will, in turn, build a $1 billion tower for Bank of America.

But the two property owners, Susan Rosenberg and a group led by Joseph Bernstein, say they would rather negotiate than have the government intervene. The two own the only two parcels on the block that Mr. Durst does not control. Although Mr. Bernstein filed a lawsuit to stop an earlier attempt at condemnation, the two owners stopped short of saying they would go to court.

"We're a seller at a right and reasonable price," said Ms. Rosenberg's husband, David M. Rosenberg, calling condemnation "unnecessary and outrageous."

The dispute is the latest chapter in a four-decades-long attempt to redevelop the block, which housed restaurants, nightclubs, pornography stores, theaters and T-shirt shops. Ms. Rosenberg's father bought her building at the southwest corner of 43rd Street and the Avenue of the Americas in 1948 and opened a pawnshop.

Mr. Durst's family bought its first parcel in 1967. Thirty-two years later, Mr. Durst built the 48-story Condé Nast building at 4 Times Square, on the western end of the block.

Real estate executives and state and city officials say Bank of America will occupy half the two-million-square-foot building if a deal is completed. "We're exploring several options to address our real estate needs in the New York City area," said Tara Burke, a spokeswoman for the bank.

Government officials say the bank is negotiating over a possible package of tax breaks and other incentives.

This is not the first time Bank of America has asked for subsidies. A decade ago, the city granted more than $15 million in tax breaks and cash grants after the company threatened to leave Manhattan. But the city terminated the benefits package in 1998 after the bank's New York payroll fell to 800, well below the 1,700 envisioned in the deal.

Today, Bank of America, which has about 3,000 employees in New York, says it plans to expand its presence in the city. State and city officials take them seriously. And Mr. Durst wants to build.

But there is a long history of missteps and feuds on the block. In the 1980's, Mr. Bernstein had a deal to buy out Mr. Durst's father, Seymour. But it fell apart when Mr. Bernstein became embroiled in a scandal over his role in secretly buying New York real estate for Ferdinand Marcos, the former Philippine dictator.

Since then, Mr. Bernstein has either rebuffed Douglas Durst's offers to buy his land or set a price Mr. Durst was unwilling to pay. His property is occupied by a Sprint telephone store.

Mr. Bernstein now says he is planning to build a small 30-story condominium hotel on his property. He said he would pay Mr. Durst $40 million for his corner lot next door.

"We have plans to build our own project," Mr. Bernstein said.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

NYguy
June 4th, 2003, 08:55 AM
Mr. Bernstein now says he is planning to build a small 30-story condominium hotel on his property. He said he would pay Mr. Durst $40 million for his corner lot next door.

"We have plans to build our own project," Mr. Bernstein said.

I wouldn't bet on it.

BrooklynRider
June 4th, 2003, 10:45 AM
Wasn't it the Millman family that pulled the same stunt with their building by throwing scaffolding up around it to drive up the price?

If the owners are offering at a reasonable price, I'd say negotiate. *However, there is no doubt that the site is presently underused given its geographic location.

(Edited by BrooklynRider at 9:46 am on June 4, 2003)

Eugenius
June 4th, 2003, 01:59 PM
Quote: from BrooklynRider on 9:45 am on June 4, 2003
Wasn't it the Millman family that pulled the same stunt with their building by throwing scaffolding up around it to drive up the price?

If the owners are offering at a reasonable price, I'd say negotiate. *However, there is no doubt that the site is presently underused given its geographic location.
I believe you are talking about the Maidman family, and yes, they did put up scaffolding (which got them fined, since they didn't get the proper permits before doing that)

Derek2k3
June 4th, 2003, 02:07 PM
The Maidman's threatened to convert the building that was demolished into a hotel.
'Durst had vowed to build "around" the Maidmans' property if they went ahead with a scheme to convert their empty building into an Isaac Mizrahi-designed hotel. '

TLOZ Link5
June 4th, 2003, 09:36 PM
Quote: from dnice215 on 4:15 am on June 4, 2003
15 ft per floor, isnt that a little high for a notmal office building arent they usually around 10? *either way I just hope its above 800ft im sick of skyline fillers, we need more buildings to deviate from the mass of the midtown buildings. This is really a good spot for some serious height. The views from jersey would be incredible with conde naste, TSQT, NYTT, BoA and chrysler all on 42nd


The 14.74 foot figure was floor-to-floor, dnice. *Not floor-to-ceiling. *Obviously there would be space between a lower ceiling and an upper floor for electric wiring, HVAC, et al.

pL86
June 4th, 2003, 11:12 PM
Although it's almost certain the two parcel owners won't be able to stop condemnation of their parcels - witness what happened to the nearby New York Times development - I happen to think they're right. *Eminent domain power is abused. *It's one thing if the state needs land to build a road, a utility or an airport but to condemn private land in order to give it to another private party? *Nothing prevents Dunst or any other developer from paying for the land.

tugrul
June 4th, 2003, 11:33 PM
Although I hate government intervention, from what I've read about this site, it doesn't really seem like an abuse of the power. Private owners have been squabbling over these parcels for decades now, and look at what has resulted. A half a block of essentially single floor retail in the midst of the densest commercial office space in the country, not to mention the last XXX store on 42nd Street IIRC.

Opportunistic land owners are preventing Durst or any other developer from paying to consolidate that site. I can't imagine a sane person that would give up their parcel on that site without trying to gouge Durst for the enormous value of the consolidated site. And that is fine until it starts interfering with the city getting a larger Bank of America presence. Those jobs and everything else that comes with the BoA headquarters are the needs of the many that outweight the needs of the few.


To chime into the height debate, I'd be really happy if it ends up in Bloomberg's ballpark of 54 floors and 850ft (with residential no less). I doubt it would meet or exceed 900 given the Conde Nast antenna considerations, but I would hope its more of a real 800fter than its brother. Ever see a diagram of 1CMP, Conde Nast and Metlife? Bleh :(

NoyokA
June 5th, 2003, 09:52 AM
Now that I know we will either be getting a small 30 storey hotel, or a 60 storey office tower, Im happy with either....

Joking ofcause.

Eugenius
June 5th, 2003, 03:03 PM
I bet the construction time frame of the new tower is such that by the time it is finished, the Freedom Tower will be finished as well, and the Conde Nast antenna will be obsolete, opening the way for a taller building.

dnice215
June 5th, 2003, 04:32 PM
once the freedom tower is built, will they take the conde naste antenna down and restore it to its original height since it will be obsolete?

Fabb
June 5th, 2003, 05:12 PM
I wouldn't think so.
Unless it's of no use at all and costs a lot to maintain.

JMGarcia
June 5th, 2003, 05:14 PM
The Conde Nast antenna will be mostly used for radio stations that will not move to the Freedom Tower which is being rented by the TV Assoc. Some radio stations will no doubt move to the Freedom Tower but will likely leave their back-up locations on Conde Nast.

So I doubt if the new antenna will ever come down.

Fabb
June 5th, 2003, 05:19 PM
Let's see what it looks like first.
If it happens to be horrible, hopefully it won't stay forever.

NoyokA
June 5th, 2003, 05:22 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/891-tower.JPG

Lets not forget these are different projects...

Fabb
June 5th, 2003, 05:46 PM
Right, we should stick to One Bryant Park, or some moderator will close the thread.

So, I wonder what will be the visual impact of the new antenna on OBP.
Which one will be considered as the pinnacle of Times Square ?
The 57-story tower with a tiny spire ?
Or the 48-sory building with a freakishly tall antenna ?

NYatKNIGHT
June 5th, 2003, 05:51 PM
They could have a giant blue-white bolt of electricity humming between the two.

Gulcrapek
June 5th, 2003, 07:22 PM
That would be awesome. Really though... it would be.

chris
June 5th, 2003, 08:21 PM
Sounds too gimicky for One Bryant Park. 6th Avenue is more conservative. Maybe going diagonally across Time Square to the Morgan Stanley Building.

chris
June 5th, 2003, 08:45 PM
http://www.c-grayson.com/posted_images/zap.jpg

NoyokA
June 5th, 2003, 08:59 PM
uh oh.... looks like fire broke out at Conde Nast...

hilarious.

DominicanoNYC
June 5th, 2003, 09:24 PM
AHHhhhhhhhhh! lol. Is that a real pic?:o All the buildings are glowing and the Conde Nast has green smoke rising out of it. Creepy.:)

Fabb
June 6th, 2003, 06:00 AM
The photographer must have been very proud.
This picture is spectacular. And it looks recent, too: the Biltmore Tower is already completed.

JMGarcia
June 6th, 2003, 12:41 PM
B OF A SPIRE WILL TOWER OVER AREA

By LOIS WEISS
NY Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



June 6, 2003 -- The new Bank of America tower overlooking Bryant Park may rise to as high as 850 feet, becoming one of the tallest buildings in the area.
It would be a full 42 feet taller and at least 400,000 square feet larger than developer Douglas Durst's Conde Nast Building to its west, and 100 feet taller than the AOL Time Warner building at Columbus Circle.

Durst has hired Cook + Fox Architects to plan the world-class tower as a major environmentally sensitive project and architectural statement, sources said.

"It's not going to be a box with a curtain wall on it," scoffed one person familiar with the ongoing planning.

Neither Durst nor Fox returned calls for comment.

Sources say nothing is yet designed.

As The Post first reported, BofA has signed a term sheet with Durst for what may eventually become more than half the 2 million-square foot project.

The Henry Miller theater will not be moved, but its landmarked 43rd Street façade will be restored.

The abandoned "fly tower" - storage for scenery - would be demolished and incorporated into One Bryant Park, which would extend over a portion of its roof.

Durst owns the theater and has promised female friends the theater will be completely remodeled and will certainly include a "sufficient" ladies room.

New retail spaces, pedestrian areas and a new subway entrance would also be incorporated into the tower.

Fabb
June 6th, 2003, 01:52 PM
42 ft taller ? That's huge !
Well, I'm disappointed. Again.

JMGarcia
June 6th, 2003, 02:28 PM
Maybe it'll have a spire. ;)

Seriously, I just don't see the 60 floor ceiling really be broken in NY for commercial space until there are some major changes in elevator technology/building expense to make taller towers more economical.

A 50-60 story building can easily be 2 - 2.5 million sq. ft. A taller, thinner building that had the same amount of space would be much more expensive. Building larger than 2 - 2.5 million sq. ft. requiring a taller building is considered too risky to finance.

Its the proverbial rock and a hard place.

NoyokA
June 6th, 2003, 04:07 PM
Im not as dissapointed with the height as I am with the architects. Never even heard of Cook + Fox Architects....

Gulcrapek
June 6th, 2003, 04:43 PM
That's Fox&Fowle. Fowle left.

chris
June 6th, 2003, 04:43 PM
For the record. I took the photo on the roof of my building about 2 months ago. I found a photo with a google image search of a lighting bolt and touched it into my image using PhotoShop. The original photo was a foggy night. The "smoke" coming off Conde Nast is I presume HVAC exhaust from heating, it was a cold might (on the original link below you see the same on World Wide Plaza). To fit the lightning bolt in, I had to add some extra sky from another photo the same night. The color matched, but the sky wasn't as bright as the sky over Time Square (fancy that), that is why the buildings look like they have a glow. I could have cleaned that up, but it was a quick and dirty touch up. The original photo is here:

http://www.c-grayson.com/posted_images/panorama_midtown_at_night.jpg

Arch
June 6th, 2003, 04:54 PM
Its not fox and fowle. *Fox left F+ F and joined Richard Cook & Associates, Architects.

Gulcrapek
June 6th, 2003, 05:11 PM
Thanks, got the names mixed up..

chris
June 6th, 2003, 05:48 PM
Yes, Fox left, but the firm doesn't seem to have yet changed it's name, or at least its marketing:

http://www.foxfowle.com/

NoyokA
June 6th, 2003, 06:07 PM
I like keeping on top of stuff like this, I really had no idea. Neither Fox or Fowle had much to do with the firm today though, Daniel J. Kaplan was the director of high-rise and mixed use projects, the vision behind the Conde Nast and Reuters that we love. I hope he is the architect of record here too...

chris
June 6th, 2003, 07:00 PM
Fox has been removed from the page of "Principals & Associates" but Daniel is listed as the other "Senior Principal" with Bruce Fowle. Maybe the new firm will be Fowle & Kaplan...?

chris
June 6th, 2003, 07:12 PM
I have a book published by l'arcaedizioni called "Function Structure Beauty" on the work of Fox & Fowle that portrays Fox as being the business brains of the operation, and Fowle as the creative force. It is actually Fox who gives special mention to Daniel Kaplan in his Forward as being the partner over the commercial projects studio.

JMGarcia
June 6th, 2003, 07:26 PM
Here's the websit for Richard Cook architects who Fox joined and together seem to be doing the BOA Tower.

http://www.rcaarchitects.com/

Arch
June 6th, 2003, 09:10 PM
Quote: from Gulcrapek on 4:11 pm on June 6, 2003
Thanks, got the names mixed up..


Fox left F+F very recently, within the last few months. *The Cook firm has been a relatively small but well regarded local firm with potential. *They know the business and manage to produce quality buildings for developers. *

Check out the School out in East Hampton on their website. *Pretty cool. *The Caroline and the office building are better than the your average cookie cutter NY buildings.

chris
June 6th, 2003, 09:46 PM
> ...Fox joined and together seem to be doing the BOA Tower.

Well there you go. You can build a whole practice off a piece of business that size.

keep your eyes open for Fox & Cook, LLP
That's my bet. With Fox bringing in that kind of business, he'll take top billing... of course he had top billing at Fox & Fowle as well.

maxinmilan
June 7th, 2003, 10:06 AM
Fox & Fowle has done a good job in these recent years... The 'new' Times Sqaure has started under their name... (4 Time square and so on...). I'm little bit surprised now to know that they arem't together anymore...
Just a curiosity: why the One Astor Plaza top is not anymore illuminated ? I've found in many web-cam or pics that it is switched off. It is I think one of the best crown of the city and most of all built before Postmodernism...

NoyokA
June 8th, 2003, 06:51 PM
Fox Departs Fox & Fowle



by ArchNewsNow
March 17, 2003


On Friday, Fox & Fowle Architects issued a statement that co-founding Principal Robert F. Fox, Jr., AIA, left the firm, effective March 11, 2003, to start his own Manhattan-based architectural practice.



The parting of the ways is, according to the firm, “with mutual goodwill.” The New York City-based practice, which celebrates its 25th anniversary this year, will continue as Fox & Fowle Architects. Daniel Kaplan, AIA, will join co-founder Bruce Fowle, FAIA, as Senior Principal. Kaplan will continue his dual roles as Managing Principal and Studio Director. Mark Strauss, AIA, AICP, Sudhir Jambhekar, AIA, and Sylvia Smith, AIA, will also remain as Principals in the firm.



Among the hot projects currently on the F&F boards are the new School of Management at Syracuse University; the new tower for The New York Times with Renzo Piano Building Workshop; and the redesign of public spaces at Lincoln Center with Diller + Scofidio and Cooper Robertson & Partners, among others.

----

Durst's choice is without precedent, the direction and director of designs is worrisome.

Arch
June 8th, 2003, 10:14 PM
Quote: from Stern on 5:51 pm on June 8, 2003
Fox Departs Fox & Fowle

Durst's choice is without precedent, the direction and director of designs is worrisome.

Can't say I agree with you Stern. *F + F has never been a preeminent firm from a design perspective. *Fox "the brains" was their greatest value. *

The overall development of the Times Square area which was spearheaded by F+F shows an ambiguous and arbitrary design philosophy stuck in a late 90's pattern. *I think new blood and thinking could be a great advantage at this time.

Maybe Durst taking some risks is another step of New York's architectural re-birth. *Take note stoic corparate architects and clients, there is great change afoot these days. *All the sudden the standard SOM, KPF, F+F, et all don't seem to be cutting the mustard (example 300 Madison, 750 Seventh, 1 Times Square). *The rash of designs by world class architects (Hearst Building, NY Times, WTC, Meier Condo's in the West Village, Fosters new building at site 5C in Tribeca, Austrian Embassy, LVMH) is changing the face of industry here. *This is a trend that goes back to not long before 9/11 and was solidified in the unprecedented public/civic participation in the WTC competion.

From the WTC site to the new Lincoln Center to the Stadium and new codes for the west side, there is great potential for NY to regather its crown as one of the world's great architectural cities.

(Edited by Arch at 9:16 pm on June 8, 2003)

NoyokA
June 8th, 2003, 10:28 PM
The new firm might just be phenomenal, but like I said without precedent. I cannot pass judgement, however I can praise the work of Daniel Kaplan of Fox and Fowle. A new corporate identity might work for Fox and Cook, I dont know.

To quote Durst:

When we work with somebody and it works, we will continue working. We've worked with Fox & Fowle since 1986 and with Tishman Construction since 1981. If we find that the relationship works and we share a common goal, we continue to work with those people.

Strange waters....

Agglomeration
June 8th, 2003, 10:56 PM
At the very least, Fox & Fowle isn't known for building flat-surfaced boxes, at least not generally, unlike SOM. I still want to see how the ultimate design will turn out.

Arch
June 8th, 2003, 11:16 PM
With Fox still involved tbe Dursts are still going with what works. *

But they arent putting all the eggs in one basket either. *I think F+F are still doing their new apartment building on 57th and 11th. *Fox has always been the big building thinker/planner so that split seems to make some sense.

I'm also not saying that Cook + Fox will be the end all be all of architecture (we need to see the results first). But that this is a further sign of a larger shift in the risks that developers are willing to take. *More important, this may also show that developers are ready to try new design directions (as the dursts did on 4/3 times square and with Sustainable design in general) and have realized the value that good design can bring to a project. *

I bet we'll be hearing a lot more about this design over the summer. *But as the new firm just got the job , it could be the end of the summer/early fall before we really know. * And I think the ESDC decides/meets in September and we should see a design at the latest by then.

NoyokA
June 9th, 2003, 10:35 AM
Fox has always been the big building thinker/planner so that split seems to make some sense.

Fox has always been the buisness aspect, including his association with the Durst family. His philosophy includes sustainable 'corporate' architecture, but not as far as vision reasoning that only a 30 storey building like "Reuter's" makes sense today.

emmeka
June 10th, 2003, 09:51 AM
You know what?
I think that the site needs someting like this!
Iv'e always looked at it and thought, you know what, that needs a really good skyscraper!

It's a really good design I think!!!!
What do you guys think?

Fabb
June 10th, 2003, 11:11 AM
I think I'll be happy when the site is cleared and a nice design is released.

emmeka
June 10th, 2003, 01:17 PM
I must admit that the present design is almost the same as the reuters building and a little more imagination could be used!

Fabb
June 10th, 2003, 01:33 PM
No. Reuters is just a big toy.
1 Bryant Park will have more generous proportions.
I expect something more dignified than Reuters.

emmeka
June 10th, 2003, 01:58 PM
Yeah i guess youre right.
Whats your thoughts on the design?
What else would you prefer?

emmeka
June 11th, 2003, 11:53 AM
actually its really starting to grow on me now.
I can imagine it next to *the Conde Nast building.

Derek2k3
June 12th, 2003, 10:45 PM
From Cityfeet By Lois Weiss

DURST HIRES COOK + FOX

\http://www.cityfeet.com/news/default.asp?lCityID=1

The Durst Organization has hired Cook + Fox to design the environmentally friendly, jumbo One Bryant Park. The tenant for more than half the 2.1 million sf nearly 850 foot tall tower will likely be Bank of America. Architect Bob Fox recently split from Fox & Fowle and his long-time partner Bruce Fowle to join his former associate and now partner, Rick Cook. Fox & Fowle designed the Durst’s 4 Times Square while Cook created the redevelopment of 360 Madison Ave. for Dr. Axel Stawski and is working on the historically sensitive Sciame, Zuberry & Durst multi-building project at the South Street Seaport.

TLOZ Link5
June 13th, 2003, 07:26 PM
"The Durst Organization has hired Cook + Fox to design the environmentally friendly, jumbo One Bryant Park. The tenant for more than half the 2.1 million sf nearly 850 foot tall tower will likely be Bank of America."

Yay!

DominicanoNYC
June 13th, 2003, 10:28 PM
This is going to be one of the most exciting projects ever. With the height being somewher around or over 850ft the final desicion will be highly expected. It'll be a nail biter.

Arch
June 13th, 2003, 10:40 PM
Since it appears that a completely new design is on the way. *Does anyone have some ideas of what this building should look like? *Or how about what should be included in the project. *

Its a huge site. *I did some quick comparisons and it looks like the site is the same size as the empire state building site (about 86,000 sf) and at 2.1 million sf it should be about the same size as the ESB. *Looks like it has be a good deal squatter to fit the same area in a shorter height.

There are some pretty important urban issues that need to be considered as well. *Not many sites sit off the NE corner of a stately urban park as well as on the end of a tremendous corporate corridor (Rock Center, XYZ buildings etc). *Not to mention the adjacency/view of and from Times Square, the corner of two primary avenues, and the gothic Busch Tower across the street...

Lots of critical issues to solve. *Any ideas?

(Edited by Arch at 9:41 pm on June 13, 2003)

yanni111
June 14th, 2003, 01:18 AM
i went by the block today and noticed something very odd. A new store opened one the property, its a new 99 cent store just two doors down from that recently closed peep show place. Why would a new store open when the current building are set to be destroyed? I could understand the property owner leasing it in the meantime to squees as much profit in the remaining time but why would the 99 cent business owner open it knowing it will close soon. The front had "grand opening banners" on it. Maybe this business is actually owned and operated by Durst!! Haha!

Also does anyone know if the Pronto Pizza lot all the way on the corner of 42 and 6 will be part of the new tower or not? Many articles have said no but i have heard yes. Does Durst own that lot or not? Does he want to buy it? I would think he would so as to put as much space as possible between Conde Nast and this new tower so they dont block each others views as much. Hmm actually though the Pronto Pizza lot is not very big in its length towards 43 rd street, those other midblock lots he owns go deep into the block towards 43 st. I guess buying the Pronto lot would be pointless since he cant fit the tower into it right? I mean he is going all the way towards the back end of Henry Miller theatre so hes going pretty deep in the back.

yanni111
June 14th, 2003, 01:22 AM
This quote below is from that article posted earlier. Does this mean it will take up the ENTIRE block between 42 and 43 facing 6th avenue, there are a lot of stores facing 6th.

"If the state is successful, it will condemn all the land on the block bound by Broadway and the Avenue of the Americas, between 42nd and 43rd Streets, and lease the property to the developer Douglas Durst, who will, in turn, build a $1 billion tower for Bank of America.

Eugenius
June 15th, 2003, 04:28 PM
Yanni, I think you answered your own question. *Because all the land on the block will be condemned, the Pronto Pizza will have to go. *Additionally, the incremental costs involved in setting up a 99 cent store are minimal, so I can definitely see someone taking advantage of the cheap short-term rental deals offered on the property right now to make a quick buck (umm... I mean 99 cents).

TLOZ Link5
June 15th, 2003, 07:22 PM
Remember that we still need to factor in the height of the spire.

I am really pysched about this project now. *With BoA as a potential tenant, it's very certain to go through.

BrooklynRider
June 16th, 2003, 10:13 AM
I hope the Dursts find a new prominent location for their debt clock on 6th Ave.


(Edited by BrooklynRider at 9:28 am on June 17, 2003)

Derek2k3
June 17th, 2003, 10:24 AM
New York City County - The Empire State Development Corporation, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed 1 Bryant Park Project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. Written comments on the draft scope will be accepted until close of business Monday, June 30, 2003. A public scoping session will be held on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 at 5:00 pm at the New 42nd Street Sudios, 3rd floor, 229 West 42nd Street, New York City. The action involves the development of a major new office building in Midtown Manhattan's office district. The new building, 1 Bryant Park, would house the headquarters and trading floors for a major financial services institution, as well as other office and commercial tenants. The proposed building would be approximately 850 feet tall and contain a total of approximately 57 floors. A pedestrian circulation area would be provided along the west side of Sixth Avenue. The new building is proposed to extend over a portion of the roof of the Henry Miller Theater, a New York City Landmark, and would require the demolition of the theater's abandoned fly tower. The façade of the theater on 43rd street is proposed to be restored and the theater would be incorporated into the project. The project site would consist of developer-controlled properties along with four other parcels totaling approximately 11,600 square feet, for a total site area of approximately 88,000 square feet. In order to assemble the full site, it is anticipated that the entire project site would be acquired by ESDC through condemnation. It is also anticipated that ESDC would provide an override of New York City Zoning Resolution regulations related to height and setback, configuration of pedestrian circulation space, transfer of floor area across district boundaries, retail and streetwall continuity, and signage regulations. In connection with the proposed alterations of the Henry Miller Theater, ESDC would override the Landmarks Preservation Commission's public approval process under the New York City Landmarks Law; however, consultation with the city and state historic preservation agencies will be conducted regarding such proposed alterations.

Contact: Rachel Shatz, Planning & Environmental Review, Empire State Development Corporation, 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, phone: (212) 803-3252.

NoyokA
June 17th, 2003, 11:42 AM
Anyone going?

JMGarcia
June 17th, 2003, 12:28 PM
You just know that some NIMBY is going to say it'll throw shadows over Bryant Park even though its on the north side of it.

NoyokA
June 17th, 2003, 12:51 PM
You know it JM.

Fabb
June 17th, 2003, 02:34 PM
or too much sunlight if the skin is made of reflective glass.

TLOZ Link5
June 17th, 2003, 06:20 PM
I'll be out of school by then, so I'll see if I can attend.

BrooklynRider
July 18th, 2003, 10:11 AM
Walking along 42nd Street, between 7th Ave & 6th Ave, I noticed that Tishman Construction has set up a project office. *They are the Construction Managers for Durst Projects in NYC. *As Conde Nast is complete and Tishman has no other projects going on in Times Square rightnow, I wonder if this is a sign activity for the new tower?

NYatKNIGHT
July 18th, 2003, 12:16 PM
Or are they there for the antenna on Conde Nast?

BrooklynRider
July 18th, 2003, 01:47 PM
Oh, I'll bet that's it...

Thanks.

NYguy
August 4th, 2003, 03:52 PM
Another look at the site of the tower (43rd side) with the Conde Nast overhead...


http://www.pbase.com/image/19992160/original.jpg

(Edited by NYguy at 2:53 pm on Aug. 4, 2003)

Evan
August 4th, 2003, 08:03 PM
Is that a crown on top of the Times Square Tower?

Gulcrapek
August 10th, 2003, 08:24 PM
Yeah. It'll be clad in a bit.

Just Rich
August 23rd, 2003, 10:39 AM
I just sold a portion of my digital Manhattan model to a company here in Toronto that is working on One Bryant Park.

They're a big company and have been involved in some huge projects (ie Petronas Towers).

I'm going to try and get some inside info on the project to share.

NoyokA
August 23rd, 2003, 12:16 PM
Thanks Rich.

Inside information is always appreciated.

londonlawyer
August 23rd, 2003, 06:50 PM
Does anyone know what's going on with the Bank of America Tower?

Gulcrapek
August 23rd, 2003, 06:57 PM
Lol... if anybody knew, it would be here.

DominicanoNYC
August 24th, 2003, 08:39 PM
Londonlawyer, I understand. We're all excited over this project.;)

kliq6
August 25th, 2003, 03:40 PM
This tower wont be moving anytime, the tenant is signed up yet the EPSDC has always treated NYC as a second rate citizen and the review process for City projects has always taken more time to complete then if this project was to be built in Buffalo.

Plus with the landmarks on board they will try every move in the book to block this project. If they stall it for some time, BOA will pull out

LF22
August 25th, 2003, 04:03 PM
Quote: from dnice215 on 4:46 pm on June 3, 2003
well i would think that if the building is to hold 2 mil sq ft.. it would be close to if not more than 800ft. Hopefully the building will be closer to the 900ft mark or even a 1000 (praying). If im not mistaking the conde naste antenna is supposed to be 1142ft so even if the building was 1000ft it wouldnt block the transmitter. Does any1 have an updated rendering of the Building

londonlawyer
August 25th, 2003, 04:24 PM
Quote: from DominicanoNYC on 7:39 pm on Aug. 24, 2003
Londonlawyer, I understand. We're all excited over this project.;)


It's a great project, and the current site is so dilapidated. *It will be excellent if the new tower is built.

Kris
September 5th, 2003, 04:10 AM
September 5, 2003

Plans to Use Tax-Free Bonds for Midtown Tower Cause a Stir

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Plans to build a 50-story headquarters for Bank of America on 42nd Street have stirred opposition from some real estate executives and civic groups because of the bank's request for $650 million in tax-exempt bonds allocated for post-Sept. 11 rebuilding.

The critics do not object to the construction of the 2.1-million-square-foot tower near the Avenue of the Americas. But they said they do oppose the state and city using special subsidies designed to encourage the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan for projects in Midtown, particularly because some of the new office space will compete for tenants with acres of vacant office space downtown.

"The bonds were supposed to spur economic development in parts of the city that need it," Bettina Damiani, project director for Good Jobs New York. "The fact that they want to use them in Midtown is mind-boggling. What other area on the face of the planet is less needy?"

A major real estate executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to antagonize Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, also objected. "It sends the wrong message," he said. "It looks like they're more focused on Midtown than down here."

City officials and some business groups countered that the Bank of America building, a joint venture with the developer Douglas Durst, would solidify New York's position as an international financial center, thereby making it a good candidate for the special tax-free financing known as Liberty Bonds.

"Their decision reinforces New York's pre-eminent position as a financial center," said Andrew M. Alper, president of the city's Economic Development Corporation. "We're happy to help them consolidate and grow their presence here."

The Bank of America project is scheduled for a public hearing on Sept. 29. The city has indicated that the project could get an unspecified amount of tax breaks.

A second project in Midtown has also set off criticism. Forest City Ratner has asked city officials for $400 million in Liberty Bonds for its part of a new building on Eighth Avenue, between 40th and 41st Streets, which it is developing in partnership with The New York Times Company. But city and state officials said they have not decided what to do with Forest City's application.

The Times Company and Forest City Ratner reached an agreement with state officials more than two years ago to build a 52-story tower as part of a deal in which the newspaper got $26.1 million in sales-tax breaks and other incentives. Now Forest City claims it needs the Liberty Bonds because it cannot obtain construction financing for its part of the tower.

In 2002, the federal government provided up to $8 billion in Liberty Bonds for residential, commercial and utility projects to revive New York's economy after the September 2001 terror attack. The legislation for the bonds set aside up to $2 billion for commercial projects outside Lower Manhattan.

So far, state and city officials have approved $400 million in bonds to rebuild 7 World Trade Center and $113 million to erect an office building in Brooklyn for Bank of New York, which was forced to move some of its operations away from Lower Manhattan after the attack. So there is plenty of bond money available, but critics contend the special financing was never intended for thriving areas like Midtown.

Bank of America had more than 400 employees at the World Trade Center, as well as more than 2,000 in Midtown. After the bank announced plans to consolidate its operations in Manhattan, state and city officials tried unsuccessfully to persuade the company to move downtown. Instead, the bank focused on a proposal by Mr. Durst to build a new tower at 42nd Street and Avenue of the Americas.

Under the terms of its joint venture with Mr. Durst, the bank would move its investment banking and asset management operations to about 1.1 million square feet in the tower from two buildings in Midtown. The bank has told state and city officials that it would add 500 to 1,000 jobs.

"This is a very positive step in our economic recovery from 9/11, when financial services took a huge blow," said Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the New York City Partnership. "It in no way conflicts with the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan."

But critics argue that the bonds were not intended for Midtown office projects, or speculative office space.

Councilman Alan J. Gerson, who represents Lower Manhattan, said it was "an abuse of the program" to use Liberty Bonds where they were not needed, rather than in areas hit hardest by the aftermath of 9/11.

At a private meeting at the Carlyle Hotel last month with Mr. Alper of the Economic Development Corporation, William C. Rudin, John E. Zuccotti and other downtown property owners argued against using Liberty Bonds in Midtown, according to executives who attended the meeting. And at a meeting with members of the Real Estate Board of New York, other real estate executives voiced their opposition to Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff. Carl B. Weisbrod, president of the Alliance for Downtown New York, did the same in a meeting with the Economic Development Corporation.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

BrooklynRider
September 5th, 2003, 09:59 AM
NY Post has similar story in today's edition. They state it is a 57-story building, 2.1M sf. Any guesses on height?

DominicanoNYC
September 5th, 2003, 12:49 PM
Well there's 50-57 stories. From the renderings I've seen in this thread I'm guessing some 580-610ft and if the spire is included about 670-690.

TLOZ Link5
September 5th, 2003, 04:25 PM
That's kind of short, Oscar.

Freedom Tower
September 5th, 2003, 06:51 PM
What renderings have you seen? I haven't seen any renderings.

DominicanoNYC
September 5th, 2003, 09:12 PM
What renderings have you seen? I haven't seen any renderings.
Look at page 3 of this discussion. And your right TLOZ. I looked at the renderings and now I'm guessing 750-810ft.

yanni111
September 5th, 2003, 10:24 PM
the article says that the legislation sets aside 2 billion for projects outside downtown. Well if this will mean 500-1000 new jobs isnt this a pretty good reason to give the damn bonds? I could understand not wanting to if it would mean no new jobs but this is a clear benefit for the city. Also if the federal government is ready to provide the $2 billion why should it be refused for any reason?

TLOZ Link5
September 7th, 2003, 02:04 AM
And Liberty Bonds were used to aid in the construction of Atlantic Terminal. If they can be used in Brooklyn—which, mind you, has a fraction of the vacancy rate that either Manhattan CBD has—then why not in Midtown? In proportion to DT B'kyln, Midtown is definitely more in need of Liberty Bonds.

NoyokA
September 24th, 2003, 04:01 PM
Any updates?

Anything worth mentioning Rich?

TLOZ Link5
September 24th, 2003, 05:12 PM
Hey Stern, how much longer before your site is completely back up?

Fabb
September 24th, 2003, 05:38 PM
That's kind of short, Oscar.

Oscar is mean.
I'm guessing 800-880 ft.
Well, I hope it's not a 50-story building. I wouldn't be surprised if the journalist was wrong again.

NoyokA
September 24th, 2003, 06:08 PM
Hey Stern, how much longer before your site is completely back up?

Hey TLOZ. I had foolishly relaunched my site prematurely; it will not be operational until sometime in early 2004. And to be honest it is no longer my site, it is more of a collaboration between Zoe and myself. Although I am willing to open it up to other members, the goal being to photograph all Manhattan skyscrapers. If any forum members has an interest in creating such a database, I will explore opening it to them.

In addition to rewriting all the new building entries, photographing buildings, and updating layouts and graphics, I feel confident that the site will be relaunched in early 2004.

Here's a sample page:

http://a.1asphost.com/guide/the_future.html

Gulcrapek
September 24th, 2003, 06:42 PM
Small suggestion - resize the full size images a bit.

DominicanoNYC
September 24th, 2003, 11:21 PM
That's kind of short, Oscar.

Oscar is mean.
I'm guessing 800-880 ft.
Well, I hope it's not a 50-story building. I wouldn't be surprised if the journalist was wrong again.
Well I'm sorry... :o I would like it to be more than 50-stories too.

Fabb
September 25th, 2003, 06:05 AM
Do you believe it's really a 50-story building ?
I'm confused.

Just Rich
September 25th, 2003, 09:37 AM
Stern

I called the architects who bought my model and they're just involved in creating a site model. They're not involved in the design work at the moment and may not be at all. I'll check with them again in a couple of weeks.

Edward
September 28th, 2003, 10:56 PM
The stretch of 42nd Street (http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/42nd/default.htm) between Avenue of the Americas and Broadway, the site of One Bryant Park (http://www.wirednewyork.com/1bryant_park.htm). 28 September 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/one_bryant/bryant_park_42nd_28sept03.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/1bryant_park.htm)

Kris
September 28th, 2003, 11:31 PM
Another regrettable loss.

ZippyTheChimp
September 28th, 2003, 11:34 PM
Wait! It's not a blight.

kliq6
September 29th, 2003, 11:15 AM
There is a meeting today at 110 Wiliam street to decide if this project should get $450 milion in Liberty Bonds and if Bank of America should get the tax brekas they are looking for. If this both happens, this project will be getting under the way soon

matt3303
September 29th, 2003, 05:48 PM
Well, lets hope at least some of it happens. NYC can't keep being tough on corporations. If they get a competitive offer, like Jersey, they'll easily go there.

Kris
September 30th, 2003, 12:58 PM
September 30, 2003

Bonds for a Midtown Skyscraper Bring Out Supporters and Critics

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

The announcements for public hearings by the city's Industrial Development Agency are usually buried in the back of a newspaper and rarely draw more than a handful of people to consider what amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for private projects.

But there was a full house on hand yesterday, about 75 people, for a debate over the merits of a $915 million, 57-story skyscraper for Bank of America at 42nd Street and the Avenue of the Americas. Critics and supporters focused on the city's plan to provide $650 million in tax-free financing known as Liberty Bonds for the bank, which would be the principal tenant, and its development partner, the Durst Organization.

"We've been trying to bring more sunshine to the process," said Bettina Damiani, director of Good Jobs New York and a critic of the development agency. "In that respect, this has been a huge success. It can only lead to economic development with clearer public benefits."

Still, the directors of the Industrial Development Agency are expected to tentatively approve the special financing for the project today without getting more than a cursory report on the hearing. A number of speakers also complained yesterday that city documents detailing the Bank of America project were full of conflicting and confusing numbers.

Andrew M. Alper, chairman of the agency, acknowledged that the matter was somewhat rushed because Bank of America needed to complete the project before its current lease at 9 West 57th Street expired in 2008. But, he added, the project will have to come back to the agency for another public hearing and approval.

Mr. Alper said the bank's decision to build a new headquarters on 42nd Street was "a strong vote of confidence in New York and will do a lot to rebuild the city's economy."

The bank plans to occupy about half the proposed 2 million-square-foot skyscraper.

But members of the Libertarian Party, a community housing group and an adjacent property owner facing condemnation criticized the city for agreeing to a huge subsidy for a wealthy bank and developer in the most desirable office district in the world. The Liberty Bonds, they said, were intended to rebuild Lower Manhattan after the attack on the World Trade Center.

John C. Whitehead, chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, issued a statement at the hearing opposing the use of Liberty Bonds for Midtown projects, because the use of the bonds downtown is "fully feasible."

Mr. Alper said the city did not see the demand downtown for all $8 billion in Liberty Bonds. The bank project, however, is not feasible without the bonds, he said.

Margaret Hughes of the Good Old Lower East Side housing organization said the money would be better spent on "creating economic development opportunities in the outer boroughs."

Ms. Damiani questioned whether the city had included adequate penalties in the event Bank of America failed to live up to its promises to keep 2,800 jobs in Manhattan and add hundreds more in the future. She said the bank had obtained $18 million in tax breaks in 1993 to bring 1,700 employees to the World Trade Center. But by 1998, the bank had cut its staff at the trade center to 830.

Members of the New York City Arts Coalition and the Environmental Justice Coalition praised the building for its environmental design but said the city should insist on a development fee for the arts and affordable housing.

The Real Estate Board of New York, the construction industry executives and the construction unions all spoke in favor of the project.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Fabb
September 30th, 2003, 01:55 PM
Members of the New York City Arts Coalition and the Environmental Justice Coalition praised the building for its environmental design

At least they have seen a design.

BrooklynRider
September 30th, 2003, 02:12 PM
The Durst (Development) / Tishman (Construction Manager) combo is the pre-eminent builder of greebn architecture in NYC. The Westin NYC, Reuters, and Conde Nast are the "greenest" commercial buildings in NY. On the side, Jody Durst owns major organic farm operations and Dan Tishman owns Llama farms.

kliq6
September 30th, 2003, 02:37 PM
Liberty of Bonds OK'd for midtown tower

New York City’s Industrial Development Agency today gave preliminary approval for $650 million in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to be used for Bank of America’s proposed headquarters building in midtown.

Bank of America plans to develop a 2 million-square-foot, $915 million skyscraper at 42nd Street and Sixth Ave., and occupy half the floors.

The use of Liberty Bonds—authorized by Congress to help revitalize lower Manhattan—to subsidize the midtown project has met with criticism from rebuilding agency Lower Manhattan Development Corp. and good-government groups like Good Jobs New York. John Whitehead, chairman of the LMDC, acknowledged Monday in a public hearing that $2 billion of the bonds had been earmarked for potential use outside of lower Manhattan if all of the money could not be used downtown. But he argued that it is “fully feasible” that the entire $8 billion worth of bonds may be needed in lower Manhattan.


Copyright 2003, Crain Communications, Inc.


As for last post that is true except Westin was not developed by Durst but was built by Tishman.

NoyokA
September 30th, 2003, 03:47 PM
Awesome. I wish Bofa would build 67 storeys instead, but in a sluggish market Im not complaining.

Fabb
September 30th, 2003, 05:44 PM
Awesome. I wish Bofa would build 67 storeys instead, but in a sluggish market Im not complaining.

I wish it was a 97-story building.
But that would be impossible because such a tall building would disrupt the emission by the antenna of Condé Nast.
Then I guess I'm not complaining either.

Arch
September 30th, 2003, 09:12 PM
You've got to assume that a design will have to be shown pretty soon. They've given the number of stories, but the height is a whole other question. Given a banks needs on such a huge site, you've got to assume the slab to slab is going to be pretty significant for a good part of the building.

Also on the Green side, Cook + Fox are pretty big proponents of green design as well... at least Fox was at Fox and Fowle and it seems that Cook is from their website. Fox was involved/wrote the green guidelines at Battery Park City (which are pretty impressivE). The Dursts are serious about it. I've heard Douglas Durst gets around in a hybrid car as well.

Any bets on a height?

LF22
October 2nd, 2003, 06:14 PM
900-1000 feet

emmeka
October 4th, 2003, 01:20 PM
any new renderings yet?

TLOZ Link5
October 4th, 2003, 01:58 PM
If there were, you'd see 'em here.

NyC MaNiAc
October 4th, 2003, 04:26 PM
900-1000?

Is that really optimistic, or could that end up being a reality?

TLOZ Link5
October 4th, 2003, 07:07 PM
Maybe not.

Like Fabb said, they'd have to consider the antenna atop Condé Nast.

Arch
October 15th, 2003, 07:05 PM
I saw a rendering last night!

Durst presented the project to the real estate program at NYU.

The building is about 900 ft tall, 52 stories, with an antennae going up to 1,200 ft!

The rendering was very cool. A tall thin faceted building which seems to be designed for the view from Bryant Park with special attention to the top. The top is dramatically cut (reminiscent of Citicorp) but with a very tall (looked to be maybe 8 floors high) transparent screenwall. The tower portion is split into two masses and each mass rises from a square base then cut back at some aggressive angles to form a crystalline shape. There seems to be some sort of giant atrium at the southeast corner.

I wish I could have gotten a picture of it... but I heard that there should be a public hearing next month.

It looks like this is serious and going ahead real soon.

NoyokA
October 15th, 2003, 07:07 PM
Those design tactics almost sound Asian!

It about time we get some of that height this side of the continent!

londonlawyer
October 15th, 2003, 07:13 PM
I saw a rendering last night!

Durst presented the project to the real estate program at NYU.

The building is about 900 ft tall, 52 stories, with an antennae going up to 1,200 ft!

The rendering was very cool. A tall thin faceted building which seems to be designed for the view from Bryant Park with special attention to the top. The top is dramatically cut (reminiscent of Citicorp) but with a very tall (looked to be maybe 8 floors high) transparent screenwall. The tower portion is split into two masses and each mass rises from a square base then cut back at some aggressive angles to form a crystalline shape. There seems to be some sort of giant atrium at the southeast corner.


I wish I could have gotten a picture of it... but I heard that there should be a public hearing next month.

It looks like this is serious and going ahead real soon.

Arch:

Did it look at all like the renderings? Is the exterior composed of glass and burshed aluminum?

NoyokA
October 15th, 2003, 07:25 PM
Cook + Fox Architects, LLP
30 Cooper Square
9th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Phone: 212-477-0287
Fax: 212-477-4521

E-Mail: info@cookplusfox.com
Website: www.cookplusfox.com

londonlawyer
October 15th, 2003, 07:28 PM
Cook + Fox Architects, LLP
30 Cooper Square
9th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Phone: 212-477-0287
Fax: 212-477-4521

E-Mail: info@cookplusfox.com
Website: www.cookplusfox.com

Stern,

Wasn't Fox and Fowle or KPF the architecht previously?

NoyokA
October 15th, 2003, 07:38 PM
Previously, yes.

Arch
October 15th, 2003, 08:58 PM
Arch:

Did it look at all like the renderings? Is the exterior composed of glass and burshed aluminum?

Not even remotely. The exterior is clear glass but the shape is not like the prow of the Fox/Fowle scheme. I saw no connection between the previous design and this new one by Cook + Fox.

This design is much more aggressive. Very sharp. I don't think there is another building quite like it around here. At first, I thought there was a superficial resemblance to the WTC designs with their slanted roofs. But after looking at it for a while I think, the whole building shape is being pushed. As opposed to a square tower with a hat on it like the Empire State (not that there is anything wrong with the ESB). I think this could be beautiful and unique, but its not going to be easy to build.

TLOZ Link5
October 15th, 2003, 11:12 PM
Cook + Fox Architects, LLP
30 Cooper Square
9th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Phone: 212-477-0287
Fax: 212-477-4521

E-Mail: info@cookplusfox.com
Website: www.cookplusfox.com

"Directory Listing Denied"?

yanni111
October 16th, 2003, 01:39 AM
this is exciting!! i cant wait to see a rendering! its totally understandable that bank of america would want a really cool and new looking design to showoff that they are now in NYC.

emmeka
October 16th, 2003, 09:49 AM
Im so impatient.

NYatKNIGHT
October 16th, 2003, 01:15 PM
Wow, thanks for the info Arch, can't wait to see it.

1200' spire next to Conde Nast and down the street from NY Times....spiresville.

emmeka
October 16th, 2003, 06:00 PM
I know that spires add to height and all that, and i'm not against them in any way but I hope that New York isnt suddenly going to be one of those cities covered in spikes. Five of six, strateigicly placed around the city is fine but a clump would be a little overwhelming on the skyline.

yanni111
October 16th, 2003, 06:22 PM
i think spires are great, the more the better! How in any way is a sea of flat roofs better than spires sticking out punctuating the skyline? They emphasize the vertical impact of any building!

emmeka
October 19th, 2003, 04:59 AM
thats not what i was saying, i love spires as well, but i dont want new yorks skyline ending up looking like an uptuned hairbrush!

matt3303
October 19th, 2003, 08:08 PM
I agree that too many spires don't look good, but having a culmp around one area (Times Square) will be interesting and make that area another focal point for Midtown (besides the ESB)

Freedom Tower
October 19th, 2003, 08:48 PM
I think he said it was an antenna, which is similar to a spire but even more useful! :D But not counted for height :( Unless the spire is particularly nice, I'd rather an antenna anyway because at least it has some functional aspect. Which is it a spire or an antenna? Hopefully spire in this case becuase it would make it 1200 feet official.

Eugenius
October 20th, 2003, 05:51 PM
I would guess that it will not be an antenna. Durst owns the nearby 4 Times Square. Therefore, building another antenna less than a block away would, at best, cannibalize his own business, and at worst create radio interference that would render both antennae useless.

TLOZ Link5
October 20th, 2003, 07:06 PM
Keep in mind that Condé Nast's antenna may only be temporary, loathe as I am to admit it. 1BP is several years down the road, and the Freedom Tower will likely assume Condé Nast's broadcasting functions by then.

kliq6
October 24th, 2003, 04:02 PM
Novemeber 10 the nyc edc will determine if BOA gets the tax breaks they want, which is what this project is hinging on

Just Rich
October 24th, 2003, 05:17 PM
Come onnnnn tax break!! :o

Freedom Tower
October 24th, 2003, 05:36 PM
See. Tax-cuts and tax breaks do help the economy. They make it more likely for someone to purchase anything, including hiring a company to build a building.

TLOZ Link5
October 24th, 2003, 07:06 PM
I'm kinda torn about this project. I'd love to see this tower be built, but Liberty Bond funding was not proposed until relatively recently. It seems like a wasteful move for the City and a greedy move by BoA and the Dursts.

Does anyone think that Downtown is being gypped in this transaction, as well as with the NYT Tower?

Arch
October 24th, 2003, 08:38 PM
I don't see any problem with Liberty Bonds for this building. This comes from part of the pot that is specifically dedicated for areas outside of downtown. The whole of manhattan was affected by 9/11. And in any case this isn't a zero sum game. Development of any area is beneficial to the whole. Not to mention a major financial institution putting money behind their belief that NY has a great and positive future as the once and future home of the worlds financial markets. That's what Liberty Bonds are all about; holding the center of what makes this city here. Yes they might have built anyhow, but we want to make sure that there are no other buildings like 30 Hudson Streets (Goldman Sachs) in Jersey.

Also, finding a site that works on many levels is very complicated. Everything has to work including spatial considerations, location, timing, engagement and agreement by all parties involved. 7 WTC doesn't work for them (banks need large open expanses for trading floors) and the potential problems of development at the WTC site (timing and construction issues for decades to come) put downtown at a serious disadvantage for any major bank that needs to be secure above all else.

But this insures that they stay put in Manhattan. This is in the public interest even while it's also good for the bank and the Dursts.

Freedom Tower
October 25th, 2003, 12:20 AM
"but we want to make sure that there are no other buildings like 30 Hudson Streets (Goldman Sachs) in Jersey. "

I wouldn't go that far. The construction of GoldmanSachs is a good thing. Jersey City is right across from NYC and although new construction there doesn't help Manhattan itself, it brings more business to the general area. I think it's more important to keep it in the Manhattan area, of course in Manhattan is better than out and no liberty bonds should ever be used outside manhattan. A larger issue than liberty bonds, but I think a big goal right now is just to keep businesses in the country.

Arch
October 25th, 2003, 10:45 AM
Fair enough. I overstated my point. One too many beers at happy hour. I would have prefered if 30 Hudson was in Manhattan.

matt3303
October 25th, 2003, 05:27 PM
I would have prefered if 30 Hudson was in Manhattan.

I agree. 30 Hudson would look nice in NYC. I could even pick out a few spots.....anyway, I do think Liberty Bonds should be used to retain jobs (and create new ones) within the city lines. Think about it---$5 billion dollars---you can't give it all to Lower Manhattan.

Freedom Tower
October 25th, 2003, 11:29 PM
Hehe. Arch, pass one of those beers here. I'm watching the Yankees game on and off becuase I'm too nervous to just watch the thing. I need to get a little dizzy ;). Kind of back on topic, I too would have rathered to have 30 hudson in manhattan, you're not alone on that one. :)

Zoe
October 26th, 2003, 11:30 AM
Even though it would have looked great in manhattan, I'm glad it was built in JC (I know, he didn't really just say that did he). I'm just as interested in BH, LIC and JC building really tall as I am Manhattan. It creates a more dramatic effect if the skyline is extended on all the surrounding shores of the metropolitan area. That is one of the things I like most about Hong Kong. Manhattan will continue to build tall and over time places like the west side will have the same density as mid-town (maybe not as fast as we would like, but it will happen). Things really start getting interesting when you have that kind of density in every direction you look. :P

kliq6
October 26th, 2003, 12:31 PM
JC has taken advatage of the hardship of building in Manhattan for years, Liberty bonds may help level the field

ZippyTheChimp
October 26th, 2003, 12:57 PM
Development of any area is beneficial to the whole.
This is obviously true, but the program is also about recovery of a specific area. Let's change the names. A devastating event occurs in LIC, and funding is allocated to the area. Would it be proper to divert some of that money to Downtown Brooklyn?

The Liberty bond program is also intended to indirectly help the smaller downtown businesses that depend on big corporate developments.

Zoe
October 29th, 2003, 11:00 AM
Fleet/BofA Merger Leaves Unanswered Questions
By Barbara Jarvie GlobeSt.com
Last updated: Oct 29, 2003 08:54AM

NEW YORK CITY-The new Bank of America, created by the $47 billion stock-for-stock transaction merger with FleetBoston Financial, leaves a number of unanswered questions. For instance, what's to become of FleetBoston Financial's more than one millions sf of office space, including its headquarters, in Downtown Boston? A Bank of America spokesperson tells GlobeSt.com that those decisions "have not yet been made" because it's too soon in the process.
Other questions concern whether the FleetCenter, home of the Boston Bruins and Celtic will be renamed? FleetBoston chair and CEO Charles Gifford says it would be likely that the center's name would be changed to reflect the new corporate identity.
The new company will serve approximately 33 million consumer relationships and maintain offices in Boston and Bank of America's home base in Charlotte, NC. The company will have nearly 10% of the banking deposits in the US and have almost 5,700 retail banking offices, more than 16,500 ATMs. Gifford will serve as chairman of the board of directors of the merged company from Boston. Kenneth D. Lewis, currently chairman and CEO of Bank of America, will be CEO and will maintain his principal office in the combined company's headquarters in Charlotte.
Bank of American spokesperson Eloise Hale says that because the banks operated in different markets---FleetBoston was concentrated mostly in New England--there was not any overlap. In fact, she anticipates that no branches will be closed and that 150 branches will be added over the next year. The new Bank of America will also be a leading lender to small banking businesses in the nation--serving 30% of the businesses operating in its 29-state franchise.
The new board of directors, which will have 19 members, including 12 from Bank of America and seven from FleetBoston, will meet in both Boston and Charlotte. Under terms of the agreement, FleetBoston Financial stockholders will receive .5553 shares of Bank of America common stock for each of their shares. The transaction's value has been established at almost $47 billion, or $45 per FleetBoston Financial share. If it meets with board and regulatory approval, closing is expected in the first half of 2004.
"The opportunity to merge with Fleet is unique," Lewis says. "From the Bank of America perspective, we will have the leading market position in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Jersey as well as a powerful retail platform in New York City, upstate New York, New Hampshire and Maine."

GLNY
October 29th, 2003, 11:16 AM
NYTimes, 10/30
A Theater Is Closing, Leaving a Hit Show in the Cold

"Urinetown," the unlikely musical hit that has been occupying Henry Miller's Theater on West 43rd Street for more than two years under the threat of eviction, has finally gotten the bad news. The producers were told on Monday that the show would have to leave the theater by Feb. 15 because a 57-story skyscraper was about to be built on the Avenue of the Americas between 42nd and 43rd Streets, a site that includes the theater.

The show's future is unclear. Two of its producers, Michael Rego, of the Araca Group, and Michael David, of Dodger Stage Holding, said "Urinetown" could possibly move to another theater but that there were complications, among them that no other Broadway houses were currently available.

A move to Off Broadway is not out of the question, but economic factors, including union contracts, make this possibility "a long shot," Mr. David said.

Mr. Rego added: "We always knew this would be happening. We knew that the building would be coming down. And now it's coming down for real."

The news adds just one more peculiar chapter to an anomalous theater story. A faux-Brechtian comedy and political satire about a futuristic world in which certain bodily functions are taxed, "Urinetown" was written by two relatively unknown Chicagoans, Greg Kotis and Mark Hollman.

It began life at the New York International Fringe Festival in 1999 and climbed the theatrical food chain to Off Broadway and, finally, Broadway, where its opening was delayed by the 9/11 attacks. More than two years later, it is still going strong. In fact, the producers, who said they were expecting "Urinetown" to last perhaps another year, were about to announce that the show had recouped its $3.7 million capital investment when they learned that it would have to leave the theater.

"The little show that could actually did," Mr. Rego said, adding that a full American tour was now traveling and that the musical, which has already been produced twice in South Korea, was expected to open new productions next year in London, Toronto, Tokyo and Melbourne.

The producers emphasized that their relations with the Durst Organization — the developer of the site and the owner of the theater — and in particular with Douglas Durst, its president, were amicable, and that they had received the news without rancor. When they first took over the theater, they said, they were promised only six months, which seemed like plenty, given the nature of the show and the crapshoot of producing musicals on Broadway.

"Who knew it was going to last two years?" Mr. David said. "Douglas Durst was kind enough to let us make his life miserable for this long. The organization has been unbelievably supportive and generous, and we couldn't be more grateful. It's just that we got to like it there."

For his part, Mr. Durst, interviewed by phone yesterday, expressed admiration for the producers and their show.

Henry Miller's Theater, now a roomy, suggestively squalid auditorium, was named for an English-born actor and producer who had it built for his own performances and productions. It opened in 1918, and has had a motley history since. Major productions that have had their premieres there include Thornton Wilder's "Our Town" (1938); T. S. Eliot's "Cocktail Party" (1950) and "Agatha Christie's "Witness for the Prosecution" (1954).

In 1997 the theater was the first home of the current Broadway revival of "Cabaret." In the 1970's and 80's, it was, among other things, a pornographic movie house and a nightclub. Some 55 performances from now, "Urinetown" will become the theater's longest-running tenant, surpassing "The Moon Is Blue," which ran for 924 performances in the early 50's.

The facade has landmark status, and Mr. Durst said the theater itself would be rebuilt as part of the new building, which is scheduled to open in 2008. The original theater, he said, had 950 seats in 12,000 square feet. When it is rebuilt, he added, its original seating capacity will be restored. (It currently holds 631.) To accommodate an audience of that size today, he said, will require 35,000 square feet.

"The theater we intend to build will be the finest playhouse on Broadway," Mr. Durst said.

One reason "Urinetown" had been allowed to remain in the theater so long was that construction of the new skyscraper, which is to be the New York headquarters of Bank of America, had been delayed by the refusal of two property owners on the block to sell their space. Now, Mr. Durst said, he is confident that the state will condemn those properties, allowing the developers to buy or lease them for a nominal sum. Mr. Durst said he expected demolition to begin in March.

kliq6
October 29th, 2003, 12:03 PM
Lets just hope this happens

Freedom Tower
October 29th, 2003, 05:51 PM
Agreed.

Derek2k3
November 1st, 2003, 09:03 PM
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/enb/20031029/not2.html

Notice Of Acceptance Of Draft EIS And Public Hearing
New York City County - The New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation, as lead agency, has accepted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed One Bryant Park Project. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on November 11, 2003 at 4:00-8:00 p.m.at the New Victory Theater located at 209 West 42nd Street, New York, NY. Public Comment Period ends December 22, 2003. The action involves the development of an approximately 900-foot tall building with approximately 2.1 million gross square feet and approximately 51 stories. The proposed development is expected to house the majority of Bank of America, N.A.’s investment banking and trading operations, as well as other office and commercial tenants. In addition, the project would include approximately 19,000 square feet of retail uses and a rebuilt Henry Miller’s Theater with up to a maximum of 1,100 seats. Public amenities to be provided include: a covered through-block public pedestrian corridor connection between 42nd and 43rd Streets located on the western portion of the Project site (adjacent to the existing Four Times Square building); consolidated and improved subway entrance at the northwest corner of Sixth Avenue and 42nd Street; a below-grade pedestrian connection between the 42nd Street-Sixth Avenue subway station and the 42nd Street-Times Square subway station with a new mid-block subway entrance between Sixth Avenue and Broadway; an urban garden room of approximately 3,500 square feet that would be publicly accessible and provide seating and trees; increased pedestrian circulation space in the area around the Project site; and a completely rebuilt Henry Miller’s Theater with the landmarked 43rd Street façade preserved and restored. The Project site occupies the approximately eastern two-thirds of the block between Sixth Avenue and Broadway from West 42nd to 43rd Streets, in Manhattan.

Contact: Rachel Shatz, Planning & Environmental Review, Empire State Development Corporation, 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017.

NYguy
November 1st, 2003, 09:08 PM
The action involves the development of an approximately 900-foot tall building with approximately 2.1 million gross square feet and approximately 51 stories.

The closer we get to construction, the more exciting this tower becomes. Maybe we can get a rendering from the hearing?

TLOZ Link5
November 1st, 2003, 11:44 PM
Improved subway entrances, pedestrian connections between 6th and 7th Avenues, urban garden room...

This project is making me drool.

billyblancoNYC
November 3rd, 2003, 11:53 AM
And I really like the new, bigger theater being thrown in, too. This is important for the city.

kliq6
November 3rd, 2003, 05:46 PM
Hoepfully after the Nov 20 meetin gthe tax breaks and condemenation process will completet the site for Durst to build

NYguy
November 3rd, 2003, 06:39 PM
I am more excited about this tower now than I am about the NY Times tower. It seems that it will rise about the same time as the Freedom Tower, with the Times tower maybe not far behind. Exciting times for skyscraper construction in NY...

BrooklynRider
November 5th, 2003, 09:39 AM
Well, Urinetown won't close until January 6th, so, clearly, we are months away from movement on this.

NYguy
November 5th, 2003, 03:34 PM
Mr. Durst said he expected demolition to begin in March.

It will be a few months....

emmeka
November 6th, 2003, 02:21 PM
Does anyone know an actual release date for the renderings?

NYguy
November 6th, 2003, 03:10 PM
There hearing is on Nov. 11th, maybe something will come out then. This is a major new building for Midtown. Sixth Avenue could use a shakeup - Bank of America meets Avenue of the Americas and the Americas Tower...

TLOZ Link5
November 6th, 2003, 04:55 PM
Does anyone know an actual release date for the renderings?

If we did, we'd all be scrambling to be the first to post it :wink:

NoyokA
November 6th, 2003, 05:39 PM
There hearing is on Nov. 11th, maybe something will come out then. This is a major new building for Midtown. Sixth Avenue could use a shakeup - Bank of America meets Avenue of the Americas and the Americas Tower...

So who'll be there?

kliq6
November 6th, 2003, 05:46 PM
i will

NYatKNIGHT
November 6th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Details please.

NoyokA
November 6th, 2003, 06:13 PM
i will

Do you have a camera?

matt3303
November 6th, 2003, 07:00 PM
How do you get into one of these hearings? Don't you have to live in the area? (Although mabye kilq6 does) Also, if you go, please take pictures.

NoyokA
November 6th, 2003, 07:04 PM
No. All you might need is photo-id.

kliq6
November 6th, 2003, 09:46 PM
iwork for a construction company that is bidding the project. The meeting was cancelled and the NYC IDA meeting takes place Nov 20 at the Victory Theater.

kliq6
November 6th, 2003, 10:02 PM
follow up to my text

The Empire State Development Corporation will hold a public hearing on benefits proposed for the Bank of America and Durst Organization (including condemnation of properties) on Thursday, November 20th.

JMC
November 6th, 2003, 11:50 PM
BofA in seattle is ~970 ft. tall and BofA in Hotlanta is ~1000 ft. tall...IMHO, this NYC bad boy has got to be at least at tall as seattle's...I mean, this is NYC...They wanna be bigger than Citigroup (market cap), and I bet that's gonna come out in this building....And the others...in Dallas and Charolette..certaintly, there's a president here...In NYC, you go big or go home!

NYatKNIGHT
November 7th, 2003, 11:21 AM
No argument here. It's the perfect place for a 1000 footer.