PDA

View Full Version : Conde Nast Building Antenna Construction



NYatKNIGHT
March 11th, 2003, 12:04 PM
Mar. 9, '03

The top has no visible signs of construction for the temporary broadcast tower:

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid54/pff709bb8eb4faf50d97b4b13af194e5c/fc84f382.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid54/p0c0131d0218e3825a1a7f3f12840ca7e/fc84f380.jpg

Fabb
March 11th, 2003, 03:39 PM
Was it another bluff, then ?

NYatKNIGHT
March 11th, 2003, 04:16 PM
It's definitely a mystery. Is the whole thing on "hold" until the broadcasters figure out what they are doing?

NoyokA
March 11th, 2003, 04:47 PM
My guess is that designs are still being made up. The construction start date was given a month after conception.

ZippyTheChimp
March 25th, 2003, 04:44 PM
My spy network has produced this image of the roof of Conde Nast.
http://www.pbase.com/image/14721466.jpg

Looks like work may be starting on the new antenna.

NoyokA
March 25th, 2003, 04:56 PM
secong that.

NYguy
March 25th, 2003, 05:03 PM
Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 3:44 pm on Mar. 25, 2003
My spy network has produced this image of the roof of Conde Nast.
[Looks like work may be starting on the new antenna.


Thanks. *Now get your spy network to train that camera on the Empire State. *I'm still not sure what's going on up there, but as recently as sunday I have seen odd structures on the upper levels, ironicly similar looking to the Conde Naste billboards...

NYguy
March 25th, 2003, 05:05 PM
Another possible site for NYC broadcasters

Tower space is at a premium in the New York City area. With the Empire State building holding just about all the TV and FM it can, and a number of stations temporarily on the Armstrong (Alpine) tower, other tower sites are being reviewed for permanent and auxiliary facilities.

The TV and FM broadcasters seem to be gravitating toward separate sites. The proposed 2000-foot tower being planned for across the Hudson is being designed mainly for TV, but the Metropolitan Television Alliance (MTVA) has said it is not ruling FM tenants out.

Another possibility for a combination site is the Conde Nast building in Times Square. The building's owner plans to replace the current 132-foot tower atop the building with a 358-foot tower.

The current tower is the backup site for Clear-Channels' five local stations. It was designed to handle 12 FM antennas. The Durst Organization, the owner, claims that the new tower could house all the city's FMs as an auxiliary site. The Durst Organization also said it is talking to TV stations about hosting its auxiliary sites.

FAA approval has already been obtained and construction is planned to be completed by next June.

http://images.broadcastengineering.com/files/158/conde_nast_building220.gif

Fabb
March 25th, 2003, 05:10 PM
Will wr have to wait until next June to see a rendering?
This is frustrating.

NYatKNIGHT
March 25th, 2003, 05:19 PM
Is next June this June or in two Junes?

Whatever.
SO glad to see something has started up there.

NYguy
March 26th, 2003, 09:10 PM
Looking for tenants

The Durst Organization, owner of the Conde Nast building at 4 Times Square, has publicized plans to expand its transmission capabilities. That facility already serves as the auxiliary site for Clear Channel's five-station group, Spanish Broadcasting's WSKQ(FM) and WPAT(FM), and public radio WNYC(FM).

"The game plan is to remove the 132-foot tower, which was originally designed to accommodate 12 stations, and replace that with a new 358-foot tower," said John Lyons, manager of communications and broadcast operations for the Durst Organization. "We would then have the room to serve as an aux site for every FM in the city."

Lyons said a new three-bay antenna would be interlaced with a digital antenna on the same aperture to satisfy broadcasters' eventual needs for in-band, on-channel digital transmission.

"We already have FAA approval and hope to begin work early next year with the project being completed by June," Lyons said.

"Having 4 Times Square serve as a true backup site for all of the city's FMs makes sense," he said. "That way not all of the eggs are in the same basket at Empire."

Conde Nast's tower project also will include aux sites for New York City television stations. Lyons said the Durst Organization was in negotiations with various television broadcasters to secure slots on the new tower.

TLOZ Link5
March 26th, 2003, 09:44 PM
Was that article very recent, NYguy?

Fabb
March 27th, 2003, 04:21 AM
I hope it's not.


"We already have FAA approval and hope to begin work early next year with the project being completed by June,"

Does that mean June, 2004 ?

NYguy
March 27th, 2003, 09:40 AM
(Daily News)

TV tower planned for Times Sq.
By ERIC HERMAN
*

Television is coming to Times Square. The first new broadcast tower in midtown since the Empire State Building went on the air in 1931 is enroute.

And its first signal could be in Spanish.

Univision is close to signing a deal to transmit from a new, 358-foot tower on top of the Conde Nast Building, also known as 4 Times Square, real estate sources said.

"We're going ahead ... because there's so much interest in it," said Douglas Durst, co-president of the Durst Organization, which owns the building.

The Univision deal would be a coup for the Dursts, who decided to build the tower after the antenna atop One World Trade Center was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks. A spokeswoman for Univision, the country's biggest Spanish-language network, did not respond to requests for comment.

Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers lost television service after Sept. 11, forcing several stations to broadcast from the 204-foot antenna atop the Empire State Building. The top of that antenna stands 1,454 feet above street level.

The Dursts planned their antenna as a backup for the Empire State Building's. But the Univision deal shows it could become the primary transmission for some stations.

The tower will rise 358 feet above the roof, putting it 1,142 feet above street level, according to co-president Jody Durst. At a price tag of $25 million, it's set to be completed in October.

The Dursts have received the necessary approvals, they said, from the Empire State Development Corp., which owns the land, and the Federal Aviation Administration. They also have permission from the city's Buildings Department.

A group called the Metropolitan Television Alliance, including WNBC, WNET, WABC and other stations, says it needs a taller tower than the Dursts or the Empire State Building can offer. The MTVA plans a 2,000-foot tower in Bayonne, N.J.

"At this point, no MTVA member has signed or expressed any inclination to sign any agreement for the Times Square location," said Edward Grebow, president of the Alliance.

The MTVA would prefer to build its tower on Governor's Island, which the city recently acquired, one source said. But officials have resisted.

The most recent proposal is to build a temporary antenna on the island in exchange for $8 million to $10 million in annual rent. The group would build a permanent tower on top of an office building at Ground Zero, guaranteeing a revenue source for the project.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/891-tower.JPG
Rendering of broadcast tower to be built on Conde Nast Building roof at 4 Times Square.


A scanned rendering from the paper...
http://www.pbase.com/image/14776423

(Edited by NYguy at 8:59 am on Mar. 27, 2003)

NYguy
March 27th, 2003, 09:43 AM
The tower will rise 358 feet above the roof, putting it 1,142 feet above street level, according to co-president Jody Durst. At a price tag of $25 million, it's set to be completed in October.

The Chrysler bldg will be bumped to 4th place in Midtown as far as complete height goes. *The 1,142 ft height is VERY close to the height of the planned NY Times tower just a block away...

JMGarcia
March 27th, 2003, 09:58 AM
Not bad looking as antennas go. :)

The new ones on 32 Ave. of the Americas turned out quite good too.

Fabb
March 27th, 2003, 01:41 PM
The bad news is that we'll have to wait another 6 months.
I don't know how the antenna of Condé Nast and the spire of NY Times will function together.
Their duality might be interesting.

Kris
March 27th, 2003, 02:17 PM
It has the insect look. Hello Hong Kong.

Fabb
March 27th, 2003, 02:46 PM
The biggest cockroach I know is not in HK but in Chicago. Big, black, with two giant antennas. *

Kris
March 27th, 2003, 04:05 PM
I've always thought it's a shame that the Sears Tower tops the otherwise graceful Chicago skyline.

NYatKNIGHT
March 27th, 2003, 04:26 PM
So true. And to me, Sears doesn't look as tall as it really is.


http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/891-tower.JPG

This antenna needs more muscles towards its base.

Gulcrapek
March 27th, 2003, 04:51 PM
Looks good. I'm only concerned about too many spires poking out around that area.

NYguy
March 27th, 2003, 05:04 PM
The antenna reminds me a lot of the old antenna atop 1 WTC. *Here's a reprint of an article that deals with the ORIGINAL constructon of the WTC antenna. *The conversation is very similar to what is taking place today...
.................................................. ..........

From the New York "Times," January 14, 1977

TRADE CENTER TV TOWER AGREED ON
by John T. McQuiston

"Tentative agreement on the placement of a 365-foot antenna mast atop the North Tower of the World Trade Center, a move that would significantly improve reception for 20-million television viewers in the metropolitan area, was confirmed yesterday by a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The agreement ends nearly 10 years of dispute between the Port Authority which owns and operates the World Trade Center and the Television Broadcasters All-Industry Committee, representing 10 television stations that now broadcast from an antenna atop the Empire State Building.

Final approval by the 12 member board of commissioners of the Port Authority is expected, according to John Tillman, spokesman for the authority. He said the total cost for the antenna and the installation of new transmitters and auxiliary equipment on the 109th floor of the 1,350-foot North Tower would come to $23-million.

Mr. Tillman said the Port Authority would 'pick up the tab' for $21-million of the total cost, with the broadcasters paying approximately $2-million.

The antenna has been built and has been 'weathering' away outside the RCA plant in Gibbsboro, N.J., while the broadcasters and the Port Authority argued over who paid for what. Mr. Tillman said it would take about six months to refurbish it.

'In May or June of this year,' he said, 'it will be hoisted by crane to the top of the tower' where it will be placed on an already-completed base in the precise middle of the 209-foot-square tower roof.

'Would that we still had King Kong to do the lifting,' Mr. Tillman added.

Each of the 10 television stations would then install its own antenna equipment on the mast, linking it with what Mr. Tillman called the 'latest and most sophisticated' transmitters to be installed on the 109th floor. 'If all goes according to plan,' he said, 'and the operation meets Federal Communications Commission approval, broadcasting can begin by the end of the year.

The Port Authority agreed in 1967 before the World Trade Center opened in downtown Manhattan, to let television stations move their transmitting equipment from the Empire State Building to the roof of the Trade Center. This was because the 110-story center was expected to interfere with TV signals eminating from the Empire State.

Industry experts had warned that the steel structure of the center and its aluminum siding would reflect 5 percent of the signals sent south from the Empire State antenna. This left Staten Island viewers in that path with a weakened signal.

The signals reflected by the two towers of the Trade Center traveled north, causing a delayed or double, picture on some screens in northern Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester County -- an image referred to as 'ghosts.'

However, after the Trade Center opened in late 1970, the Port Authority balked on the new antenna. The authority argued that the center was not interfering with TV transmissions as much as had been feared.

The broadcasters countered that the center was interfering. In October, 1975, the Port Authority once more agreed to erect the transmitting equipment.

Since then, the authority, the broadcasters and the 10 television stations have been working out the details in separate legal agreements, the last of which was reached yesterday.

Most local television network officials were caught by surprise by the long-awaited tentative settlement. Spokesmen for ABC-TV, CBS-TV and NBC-TV declined immediate comment.

Since the 10 broadcasters have a lease with the Empire State Building to pay rent on its 25-year- old antenna until 1984, the Port Authority, Mr. Tillman said, had agreed to give the broadcasters 'rent-free tenancy' until that time. 'Then they would begin paying rent to the Port Authority at a rate yet to be negotiated,' he said."

The Port Authority ended up really wanting the television broadcasters to move from the ESB -- paying most of the cost of the 365-foot antenna --$21-million --plus free-rent until the Empire State leases expired in 1984. Probably won't see anything like that deal again.

http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/wtc-d.jpg

Fabb
March 27th, 2003, 05:30 PM
Quote: from Kris on 3:05 pm on Mar. 27, 2003
I've always thought it's a shame that the Sears Tower tops the otherwise graceful Chicago skyline.
This time you didn't read my mind.
The cockroach is Big John. Obviously.

Have you ever seen an asymmetrical cockroach like Sears ?


The antenna reminds me a lot of the old antenna atop 1 WTC. *I don't really agree.
The old antenna of the WTC was basically a white cylinder.
I think that the antenna of Condé Nast will be more like an intricate metallic structure.

NYguy
March 27th, 2003, 08:21 PM
Quote: from Fabb on 4:30 pm on Mar. 27, 2003[brI don't really agree. *The old antenna of the WTC was basically a white cylinder. *I think that the antenna of Condé Nast will be more like an intricate metallic structure.

I didn't mean it looks exactly like the old WTC antenna. *But looking at the rendering, the top half of the structure recalls the old WTC antenna.

I'm not sure if the 1,142 ft height is exactly right, but that would put the antenna within a ft or two of the mast on top of the planned NY Times tower...

http://images.beradio.com/files/135/1102/1102_4Times.gif

Drawing of 4 Times Square. Partial West Elevation: Proposed Antenna Scheme (above)


http://www.designarchitecture.com/Images/02k_NYT_99_WestElev.jpg...http://www.thecityreview.com/timesre4.gif

The Conde Nast antenna will give it an appearance similar in design and height to the NY Times tower.

(Edited by NYguy at 7:23 pm on Mar. 27, 2003)

TLOZ Link5
March 30th, 2003, 08:42 PM
Quote: from Fabb on 4:30 pm on Mar. 27, 2003


This time you didn't read my mind.
The cockroach is Big John. Obviously. *

I dunno, I like John Hancock. *And thank you very much for instilling that roach analogy into my brain. *:angry:

j/k


Have you ever seen an asymmetrical cockroach like Sears ?

Have you seen many New York cockroaches?

Fabb
March 31st, 2003, 03:58 AM
Coming from me, the cockroach analogy was a compliment.
I'm a big fan of John Hancock and Sears.

Gulcrapek
May 4th, 2003, 08:01 PM
5/04/03

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/album02/condemay.jpg

NYguy
May 5th, 2003, 05:31 PM
I have two things to look forward to in the fall - this antenna and the mural on the Deutsche Bank building.

maxinmilan
May 5th, 2003, 06:01 PM
Ehi guys the analagy was funny and true in a way... however we cannot compare the Big John with Sears. The last one is really an ugly bldg without elegance and without an intetresting curtain-wall. The Big John is a masterpiece.

Edward
May 13th, 2003, 11:54 PM
Conde Nast Building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/default.htm) on 10 May 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/images/conde_nast_building_10may03.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/default.htm)

Zoe
May 27th, 2003, 12:35 PM
Looks like work started this morning on the new antenna. *There is a crew up there and they are using the crane.

NoyokA
May 27th, 2003, 06:19 PM
Uppermost portion (broadcasting) removed. The hollow steel remainder of the shell:

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/1053951109499371_G.jpg

dnice215
June 3rd, 2003, 05:56 PM
Now that the uppermost portion has been removed, are they going to start on the main construction of the antenna because it seems like they took a long time to just remove that small portion of the old one. Also when is the antenna going to be fully operational?

NoyokA
June 3rd, 2003, 06:13 PM
Uppermost portion (broadcasting) removed in its entirity.

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/CondeNast.jpg

TLOZ Link5
June 3rd, 2003, 06:43 PM
"Just a little more off the top, Charlie."

...expanding on Garcia's haircut analogy.

dnice215
June 4th, 2003, 05:00 AM
thanx stern, that is an amazing angle, where did you get that view from? ESB? Also when will it be fully operational?

emmeka
June 10th, 2003, 01:31 PM
You know what? The Conde Nast building is like the king of times square. I was quite shocked to hear that there going to add a communications mast to the top but its kind of grown on me.

dnice215
June 24th, 2003, 03:37 PM
Does anyone know how the progress is coming on the new attenna?? its supposed to be finished by this summer, can someone post a pic

dnice215
June 24th, 2003, 03:46 PM
emmeka Posted on 12:31 pm on June 10, 2003
You know what? The Conde Nast building is like the king of times square. I was quite shocked to hear that there going to add a communications mast to the top but its kind of grown on me. *
*

If Conde naste is the king of times square it seems like it is finally getting a proper crown :)

Fabb
June 24th, 2003, 05:39 PM
Quote: from dnice215 on 2:37 pm on June 24, 2003
Does anyone know how the progress is coming on the new attenna?? its supposed to be finished by this summer, can someone post a pic


By September to be precise.
Don't you want to have the surprise of seeing it completed ? You might ruin it if you're too impatient.

NoyokA
June 24th, 2003, 06:40 PM
Sounds familar ;)


4 Times Square, already the pinnacle of a revitalized Times Square, is to get a proper crown

dnice, not much in the way of progress worth mentioning, but you can keep an eye on it with the ESB webcam.

TLOZ Link5
July 30th, 2003, 08:21 PM
Doesn't really reveal any progress. *It might be the angle.

Gulcrapek
July 30th, 2003, 08:24 PM
Last night there was an antenna stump protruding from the box. I'm not sure if it's a remnant or an addition.

dnice215
July 31st, 2003, 09:54 AM
i think its a new addition, because there has been nothing there for the last few weeks

yanni111
August 2nd, 2003, 04:09 AM
theve been working up there the last few days and the *new antenna is getting taller, yesterday they put up a new yellow colored section, it looks like it reaches as high as the old antenna was

Fabb
August 2nd, 2003, 05:36 AM
A yellow section ?
Are they considering a multicolored antenna ?
I'm impatient to see that.

NYguy
August 3rd, 2003, 02:44 AM
Pics taken 8/02/03...


http://www.pbase.com/image/19917347/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/19917413/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/19917440/original.jpg


Another look at the rendering of the completed antenna...

http://upload.pbase.com/image/14776423/original.jpg

dnice215
August 3rd, 2003, 06:13 AM
great pics nyguy!!

TLOZ Link5
August 3rd, 2003, 03:44 PM
Now we're getting somewhere.

Fabb
August 3rd, 2003, 05:13 PM
Hopefully this antenna will be lit up at night and will have a tremendous presence.

JMGarcia
August 3rd, 2003, 06:49 PM
Judging from that rendering they certainly didn't spend anything extra on sprucing it up or any aesthetic considerations.

Its not that its ugly, just plain, It could/should have made some sort of architectural statement. The NY Times spire will forever overshadow it it seems.

Fabb
August 3rd, 2003, 07:01 PM
I'm not sure the NY Times spire will look like it appears on the renderings. So far, it's like the sting of an insect or a fish. But it'll probably look different. Can't be that neat.

On the other hand, the antenna of the Condé Nast Building really looks like a man-made structure that as a function as well as a welcome aesthetic impact.
Honestly, the only thing I disliked about the Condé Nast was the dark tip of the old antenna and the fact that it was too short.
I'm sure I'll be more than happy with the new one.

Kris
August 3rd, 2003, 08:12 PM
So much fuss over an antenna. But the central TS cluster does need a clearer skyline presence, mark, identity.

NoyokA
August 3rd, 2003, 11:57 PM
Judging from that rendering they certainly didn't spend anything extra on sprucing it up or any aesthetic considerations.

Its not that its ugly, just plain, It could/should have made some sort of architectural statement. The NY Times spire will forever overshadow it it seems.

Its functional JM, and function need not be pretty. The top of Conde Nast would be very different if its purposes were aesthetic.

I am without example of an aesthetically pleasing functional purpose.

JMGarcia
August 4th, 2003, 12:11 AM
Don't get me wrong, I do think its a good thing, bit it could have had a little something special while still being functional.

http://igloo.its.unimelb.edu.au/Melbourne/images/yarra_river.jpg

http://www.traveladdicts.connectfree.co.uk/Australia/Images/Melbourne_skyline_from_across_river.jpg

(Edited by JMGarcia at 11:12 pm on Aug. 3, 2003)

NoyokA
August 4th, 2003, 12:16 AM
The first looks like the old stub antennae. The other is a spire, Im sure. Conde Nast and NYTIMES are better architecturally speaking and taller. The relationship will be most similar, but much better.

Fabb
August 4th, 2003, 03:13 AM
Quote: from Stern on 10:57 pm on Aug. 3, 2003
I am without example of an aesthetically pleasing functional purpose.


The cross bracing of the John Hancock Center.
The antenna of the ESB and the WTC.
The slanted roof of Citigroup, even though that one never functioned as intended...
Come on Stern !

JMGarcia
August 4th, 2003, 09:56 AM
Quote: from Stern on 11:16 pm on Aug. 3, 2003
The first looks like the old stub antennae. The other is a spire, Im sure. Conde Nast and NYTIMES are better architecturally speaking and taller. The relationship will be most similar, but much better.


I agree that the NY buldings are better architecturally and certainly the NY Times spire is well suited to its building. I think the spire will be quite similar to the white spike on Aurora Place.
http://www.dupont.com/safetyglass/lgn/stories/images/15064b.jpg

As far as the Conde Naste antenna goes, although I'm not advocating a replication of either of the Melbourne antennas/spires. I posted their pics to show an alternative to a purely function antenna.

Conde Naste is the symbol of Times Sq. and deserves something more spectacular than a purely functional aesthetic, in fact I think the architecture of the building requires it. Perhaps something the reflects the existing box on the roof.

Kris
August 4th, 2003, 10:09 AM
"Aesthetic functional." Sounds an awful lot like architecture.

JACKinNYC
August 4th, 2003, 11:37 AM
You guys are saying the Times Square buildings are better architecturally than the white one in the foreground of JM's picture?! Are you kidding?

NoyokA
August 4th, 2003, 12:01 PM
The white building is compared with NYTIMES, are you saying much the same building but much the shorter is any better?! Its the same architect, are you kidding?

JACKinNYC
August 4th, 2003, 02:41 PM
What? I'm saying I like that white building with the curved wall in front of the water. I'm sure the new Times Building will be nice *too. I'm happy that Times Square Tower and Conde Naste are there but they're not my favorite buildings... the white one looks much more elegant and pleasing to the eye. (Here's a stretch: I'd say it looks more like a Monet and Conde Naste looks more like a Mondrian. Monet has much more staying power.)

NoyokA
August 4th, 2003, 03:10 PM
Here is what you wrote, and what I replied to:


You guys are saying the Times Square buildings are better architecturally than the white one in the foreground of JM's picture?! Are you kidding?

The white building is 88 Philip Street in Sydney Australia, and is the showpiece of a skyline of filler and background buildings. Likewise NYTIMES will be the showpiece of the Timesquare skyline.

geez man'

NYguy
August 4th, 2003, 03:34 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this building looks like the Reuters?


http://www.dupont.com/safetyglass/lgn/stories/images/15064b.jpg . http://www.riser.com/casestudies/real%20estate/3times3.jpg

Freedom Tower
August 4th, 2003, 04:03 PM
Do they have the same architects?? They definately look similar.

(Edited by Freedom Tower at 3:03 pm on Aug. 4, 2003)

yanni111
August 9th, 2003, 08:06 PM
they added a new section yesterday to the antenna that gets more narrow toward the top

NYatKNIGHT
August 12th, 2003, 01:37 PM
August 10

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid73/pf129d108d31b28d1cd29e9fbf64734be/fb68acb9.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid73/p8fbb18b4815cf24dfd9135fa9188c2db/fb68acb2.jpg

(Edited by NYatKNIGHT at 12:44 pm on Aug. 12, 2003)

JACKinNYC
August 12th, 2003, 04:13 PM
Quote: from Stern on 2:10 pm on Aug. 4, 2003
Here is what you wrote, and what I replied to:


You guys are saying the Times Square buildings are better architecturally than the white one in the foreground of JM's picture?! Are you kidding?

The white building is 88 Philip Street in Sydney Australia, and is the showpiece of a skyline of filler and background buildings. Likewise NYTIMES will be the showpiece of the Timesquare skyline.

geez man'



I agree with you that the NY Times building will be the nicest of Times Square. What are you "geez"ing about?

maxinmilan
August 12th, 2003, 04:53 PM
Of course Reuters and NYTimas are not designed by the same architect: the first one is by Fox&Fowle the last by Renzo Piano. NYguy I agree with you, I think that between Reuters and Aurora place in Sidney there are some similitudes; Aurora place was built in 1996-2000, Reuters was finished in 2001. The first is 200 meters high 44 stories, the Reuters 169.2 m (201 with spire). I think Renzo Piano's building is more dynamic, more elegant and the curvilinear facade is more attractive and more evident. Anycase Reuters is however a good bldg, full of 'fragments' like most of the new architectures in Times Sqaure (and this is good, maybe is the only way to fit in contest in Times Square a contest made of different contests). Strange and funny case the architect associated with Piano for the NYTimes project will be Fox & Fowle.


From Renzo Piano's site:
To celebrate the Olympic Games in Sydney in the year 2000 the Australian corporation, Lend Lease Development, initiated and commissioned the design and construction of a commercial tower and a residential building. At first sight, the buildings seem to be an exercise in pure form, as if they were sails that rise until they suddenly adopt the shape of an unfolding fan. In fact, however, the building's striking form also incorporates functionality, sociability, and technological innovation.
The project is located in the city's historic district, which dates back to the 1850s. This meant that certain architectural details had to be respected, while keeping in perfect harmony with the symbol of the city: its Opera House. The second challenge was of a social order: to build a people-friendly environment where residents and employees would cross paths unobtrusively.
The project is comprised of two buildings linked by a glass-covered square which creates an urban microcosm.
The office tower is 200 meters high, rises 44 levels, and encompasses 49,000 square meters. The residential building has 17 levels and faces Sydney's Botanical Gardens. The tower was designed to allow integration between the levels, which was achieved in part by the inclusion of winter gardens and terraces.
The design has a built-in ethereal quality making it less imposing on its surroundings. It was important to give it a delicate, free shape, as captured in the shell-like slope of the main facades. The fritted glass "skin" of the building regulates the sun's rays and wall temperatures, while taking on a homogenous cream-white, ghostly pallor. This glass skin extends beyond the building volume, dissolving its edges, and accentuating the building's overall lightness.
This exceptionally shaped skyscraper meets the project's main dictate: to construct a building that, while immense, remains human and hospitable. The tower is not a stack of stories. It is an integral part of the city, rising into the air.

NoyokA
August 12th, 2003, 09:21 PM
Looking good, looking good.....

I love the new look already!

Thanks Knight.

emmeka
August 17th, 2003, 11:04 AM
That building on the opposite page that was compared with reuters, is in Sydney, Ive been to Sydney and I can see your point NYguy but when you see them in person rather than a rendering as youre probably aware of they look totally different. That one is one of my personal favorites in Sydney.

NYguy
August 20th, 2003, 08:32 AM
Here's a few more photos of the Conde Nast antenna taken on Sunday (8/17/03)


http://www.pbase.com/image/20401847/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/20401875/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/20401918/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/20401926/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/20401934/original.jpg

Fabb
August 20th, 2003, 08:49 AM
I like it better than the old one already.

Kris
August 20th, 2003, 09:43 AM
The TST's (partial) sharp dynamic cladding is really its redeeming feature. Childs should have perhaps given up the stripes, patches and other tricks and wrapped the whole thing in electric blue.

yanni111
August 20th, 2003, 06:40 PM
the new antenna is really getting tall now, i think itll look really good when its done, its a perfect spot for a spire/antenna that rises clear above the rest of the buildings in the area!

NoyokA
August 20th, 2003, 10:56 PM
Rising above the height continuity of its neighbors, as a great new look and a perfect compliment to the architecture of Times Square. Its also a great new look for the building too.

Fabb
August 21st, 2003, 08:27 AM
I'm anxious to know how it'll affect the skyline.
From the New Jersey, it should dominate the spire of the Chrysler building.

NYatKNIGHT
August 21st, 2003, 11:57 AM
Definitely, in fact Chrysler is almost lost from the Jersey side anyway.

DominicanoNYC
August 21st, 2003, 09:07 PM
Hey don't worry to much about seeing it in NJ. I saw the spire from 125 and Malcolm X Blvd. Of course it was more of a faint shadow, but It's at least visible from a distance.

NYguy
August 24th, 2003, 08:25 AM
A couple of more (I like the new look of the building now)


http://www.pbase.com/image/20605454/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/20605451/original.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
August 24th, 2003, 09:51 AM
It looks quite a bit like this
http://www.foxfowle.com/images/32ave_05.jpg

JMGarcia
August 24th, 2003, 10:14 AM
I really like the additional detailing on 32 Ave. of the Americas. I was hoping for something similar on Conde Nast. Lighting Conde Nast's antenna at night might make up for it though. :)

ZippyTheChimp
August 24th, 2003, 10:49 AM
JM, if you mean the platforms at 32AOTA, *that may still happen at Conde Nast.

JMGarcia
August 24th, 2003, 12:39 PM
I hope so!

NYguy
August 24th, 2003, 04:27 PM
I'm still wondering about the antenna(s) on the Freedom Tower.....

dnice215
August 24th, 2003, 08:44 PM
i can already start seeing the conde naste antenna and i live in mt. vernon (westchester aprrox. 20 mi. from midtown. I have no doubt it will have a large effect on the skyline, from all angles. Now we just need those billboards to light up and 4txsq will become an instant icon

ZippyTheChimp
August 24th, 2003, 10:09 PM
Here ya go JM. Closeup of 32 AOTA.
The details are telecom doo-dads.
(doo-dads is *the proper technical term)
http://www.pbase.com/image/20626208.jpg

JMGarcia
August 24th, 2003, 11:22 PM
I like the circular bands that the telecom equipment seems to sit on. They make it so much more interesting.

emmeka
August 26th, 2003, 02:42 PM
Yeah I can see it from my place as well, is it me or is times square tower starting to look like its almost complete? And the colour is really looking great in those photos.

dnice215
August 26th, 2003, 03:35 PM
you are right emmeka, TSQT has a wonderful design and the color scheme is amazing. It really works well with the rest of the tsq. buildings and is in the perfect spot.

Derek2k3
August 26th, 2003, 09:11 PM
Quote: from dnice215 on 7:44 pm on Aug. 24, 2003
i can already start seeing the conde naste antenna and i live in mt. vernon (westchester aprrox. 20 mi. from midtown. I have no doubt it will have a large effect on the skyline, from all angles. Now we just need those billboards to light up and 4txsq will become an instant icon


I live in Mt Vernon too..well not anymore since I'm in college at Brooklyn.

NYguy
August 29th, 2003, 06:14 PM
Do they still call it "money earnin' Mt. Vernon"?

8/28/03


http://www.pbase.com/image/20798187/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/20798247/original.jpg

Gulcrapek
August 29th, 2003, 06:21 PM
Now I really think it's going to be too big.

TLOZ Link5
August 29th, 2003, 08:30 PM
Might it become defined by its spire as opposed to its architecture?

DominicanoNYC
August 29th, 2003, 09:15 PM
Quote: from Gulcrapek on 5:21 pm on Aug. 29, 2003
Now I really think it's going to be too big.

I'm starting to agree with you. I hope it's topping out soon.

JerzDevl2000
August 30th, 2003, 03:48 AM
NY Guy, I LOVE the shot of the Lincoln Tunnel approach looking east into the city! 4 Times Square is really starting to stand out from the "750-800 ft. plateau" that makes up most of midtown. Just wait until the NY Times tower starts to commence!

Fabb
August 30th, 2003, 07:33 AM
Quote: from DominicanoNYC on 8:15 pm on Aug. 29, 2003

Quote: from Gulcrapek on 5:21 pm on Aug. 29, 2003
Now I really think it's going to be too big.

I'm starting to agree with you. I hope it's topping out soon.


Are you serious ?
Let Times Square be crazy ! ... and the super-tall antenna will signal the magical place from everywhere.

JMGarcia
August 30th, 2003, 10:21 AM
The antenna on top of the ESB is 226 feet. The one on Conde Nast is half again as tall. It looks like it has a ways to go yet.

matt3303
August 30th, 2003, 07:13 PM
I at first thought (when it was completed) that the Conde Nast Antenna was too small--now it's just right (I was in TSQ this afternoon) but if they keep building I fear it may become huge and non-proportionate.

DominicanoNYC
August 30th, 2003, 09:03 PM
Quote: from matt3303 on 6:13 pm on Aug. 30, 2003
I at first thought (when it was completed) that the Conde Nast Antenna was too small--now it's just right (I was in TSQ this afternoon) but if they keep building I fear it may become huge and non-proportionate.
That is what I'm saying.

JMGarcia
August 31st, 2003, 12:15 AM
It has gotten much taller and thinner since Friday morning. I've even notice a red light on top tonight. I'll try to get a pic of it tomorrow for you.

dnice215
August 31st, 2003, 05:23 AM
Quote: from Derek2k3 on 8:11 pm on Aug. 26, 2003 I live in Mt Vernon too..well not anymore since I'm in college at Brooklyn.


Mt. Vernon is the spot to be.... amazingly enough Derek2k3, not only do we come from the same city but we also have the same name (derrick). I used to go to college upstate but now im transfering down here.

p.s. Yes NYGuy, they still call it money earnin' hehe

dnice215
August 31st, 2003, 05:26 AM
I am thrilled about every inch of height being added to conde naste, however i think you guys are right about it possibly looking unproportional... but i hope you guys end up being wrong, because it would really mess up the architecture of the building.

Fabb
August 31st, 2003, 07:37 AM
From the street, at Times Square, the antenna won't make much of a difference. It'll be noticeable in the distance.
The Condé Nast building will remain basically the same. Only the antenna will mark the spot.

Kris
August 31st, 2003, 10:59 AM
Nicely or not.

JMGarcia
August 31st, 2003, 05:01 PM
8/31/03

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Image1.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Image2.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Image3.jpg

Fabb
August 31st, 2003, 05:07 PM
Great pictures.

Has one of the billboards been removed ?

NoyokA
August 31st, 2003, 06:34 PM
http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/Dcp_1459.sized.jpg

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/Stern/Dcp_1460.sized.jpg

Gulcrapek
August 31st, 2003, 07:00 PM
That's definitely the highest they should go.

JMGarcia
August 31st, 2003, 08:55 PM
I figure its about 2/3 or 3/4 done now.

TLOZ Link5
August 31st, 2003, 11:04 PM
It's still got a ways. *The NYC diagram at skyscraperpage.com shows Conde Nast with its antenna fully extended. *It looks wild.

Gulcrapek
August 31st, 2003, 11:23 PM
Yeah... but I really hope Frank got his proportions wrong.

ZippyTheChimp
August 31st, 2003, 11:37 PM
If that diagram is correct, then it's barely half done.

emmeka
September 1st, 2003, 04:22 AM
Fabb, I'm not sure if a billboards actually has been removed, the pictures that JMGarcia posted look like it though! If it has it will only be temporary you know, for 'ease of construction'.

Fabb
September 1st, 2003, 12:40 PM
No. Actually, I rejected the idea of the removal being related to the work on the antenna.
Don't you remember that the bill-boards are going to be endowed with a new high-tech system that will produce giant animations ?

TLOZ Link5
September 1st, 2003, 04:25 PM
It would have been nice if they had added on a few floors to Conde Nast during this phase of construction.

NYguy
September 1st, 2003, 05:07 PM
Another look at the rendering for comparison...

http://www.pbase.com/image/20902267/original.jpghttp://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Image3.jpg

(Edited by NYguy at 4:33 pm on Sep. 1, 2003)

NYguy
September 1st, 2003, 05:49 PM
http://www.pbase.com/image/20902485/medium.jpg

Fabb
September 1st, 2003, 05:53 PM
In the case of the WTC, the proportion of the antenna was just perfect.

NoyokA
September 1st, 2003, 06:00 PM
Lets not forget, if the WTC still stood we wouldnt need a disproportioned antenna. You can blame 9-11, as the Conde Nast Building was never designed for such purpose. You cant blame the architects, but you can even say its somewhat dignified in that it steps up such a role.

Edward
September 1st, 2003, 06:23 PM
Antenna being erected on top of Conde Nast building (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/default.htm). 31 August 2003.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/images/conde_nast_4times_antenna_31aug03.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/default.htm)

Fabb
September 1st, 2003, 06:23 PM
Quote: from Stern on 5:00 pm on Sep. 1, 2003
Lets not forget, if the WTC still stood we wouldnt need a disproportioned antenna. You can blame 9-11, as the Conde Nast Building was never designed for such purpose. You cant blame the architects, but you can even say its somewhat dignified in that it steps up such a role.


OK.
Maybe it'll set new aesthetic standards.

DominicanoNYC
September 1st, 2003, 07:52 PM
Quote: from Stern on 5:00 pm on Sep. 1, 2003
Lets not forget, if the WTC still stood we wouldnt need a disproportioned antenna. You can blame 9-11, as the Conde Nast Building was never designed for such purpose. You cant blame the architects, but you can even say its somewhat dignified in that it steps up such a role.


You can also height that we've been getting out of most buildings in the decades after the TWC.

NYguy
September 2nd, 2003, 09:05 AM
It looks about 2/3rds up in this pic...

JMGarcia
September 2nd, 2003, 11:17 AM
I've often noticed that when it comes to proportions it usually has a lot to do with what you are used to.

That being said, I think the old Conde Nast antenna was too short for the building but I am afraid the new one may be too tall.

NYatKNIGHT
September 2nd, 2003, 11:27 AM
Zoom in:

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/NYatKNIGHT/antenna7.sized.jpg

emmeka
September 2nd, 2003, 11:35 AM
yeah, I know what you mean. I really hope they dont overdo it.

NYguy
September 2nd, 2003, 04:04 PM
Quote: from NYatKNIGHT on 10:27 am on Sep. 2, 2003
Zoom in:

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/NYatKNIGHT/antenna7.sized.jpg


Nice shot!

Fabb
September 2nd, 2003, 05:53 PM
This proves that a spire is in no way aesthetically superior to an antenna.

ZippyTheChimp
September 2nd, 2003, 06:10 PM
That closeup - I must admit, it looks good.

Kris
September 2nd, 2003, 06:27 PM
I like the setbacks, beads and skyward arrows. Very intricate.

DominicanoNYC
September 2nd, 2003, 09:11 PM
Quote: from Christian Wieland on 5:27 pm on Sep. 2, 2003
I like the setbacks, beads and skyward arrows. Very intricate.

Yeah. At least it'll look nice even if it might be out of proportion.

TLOZ Link5
September 2nd, 2003, 10:28 PM
It's definitely quite graceful. *Very elegant.

dnice215
September 3rd, 2003, 03:41 AM
what a great shot!! jeez, NYatKnight do you have a telescope for a camera, what did you use to capture such a perfect picture??

NYatKNIGHT
September 3rd, 2003, 11:15 AM
I just zoomed all the way in and pushed the button. It's slightly out of focus, so I wouldn't say 'perfect', but thanks for the compliment. Of course, I was surrounded by those perplexed onlookers trying to figure out what the heck I was taking a picture of.

It does look good now - I hope they don't wreck it!

yanni111
September 3rd, 2003, 11:39 AM
yeah this antenna does look very nice, those beads look cool. The way it slopes in reminds me of the top of chrysler. Im thankful it looks like this, getting thinner as it goes up. If it was like the WTC antenna which basically stayed the same width all the way up it would have looked wrong on top of a much shorter building like Conde Nast.

Fabb
September 3rd, 2003, 11:48 AM
I guess they had to figure out a way to make it as light as possible.

yanni111
September 4th, 2003, 08:42 PM
i was at the corner of 42 and 8th today and the antenna looks really cool from street level there. The Reuters antenna appears to be right next to it so they look good as a pair. I want it to be taller, the more freakishly tall the better!!

TLOZ Link5
September 4th, 2003, 09:56 PM
There's an amazing view of Conde Nast from lower Broadway, around 10th Street.

NyC MaNiAc
September 4th, 2003, 10:24 PM
Yanni, you're right-It really is like freakishly tall...

The Conde Nast would make a Good WTB...


Long Live the Antenna! :lol:

DominicanoNYC
September 4th, 2003, 11:34 PM
I hope this isn't a stupid question, but what is WTB

NyC MaNiAc
September 5th, 2003, 12:04 AM
World's Tallest Building...I think...

I hope I didn't just make myself look really stupid somehow.

DominicanoNYC
September 5th, 2003, 12:33 PM
Yeah. That's probably what it means.

Kris
September 5th, 2003, 12:38 PM
We're The Best.

DominicanoNYC
September 5th, 2003, 12:42 PM
Thanks Christian.

ZippyTheChimp
September 8th, 2003, 05:27 PM
Point Counterpoint.
From Brooklyn Heights.
Stop!
http://www.pbase.com/image/21146971.jpg

NyC MaNiAc
September 8th, 2003, 05:30 PM
We're The Best.

Hehe. We Sure Are.

Kris
September 8th, 2003, 06:29 PM
Anybody need a massive hypodermic injection?

Gulcrapek
September 8th, 2003, 07:05 PM
It actually looks respectable from Brooklyn/Lower Manhattan, almost complements the ESB.

DominicanoNYC
September 8th, 2003, 07:20 PM
It actually looks respectable from Brooklyn/Lower Manhattan, almost complements the ESB.
Wow! Your right. I think that the Conde Nast looks great from a distance.

TLOZ Link5
September 8th, 2003, 07:22 PM
Anybody need a massive hypodermic injection?

Oh, hush.

ESB looks more like a hypoderm than any other building in New York.

Kris
September 8th, 2003, 09:35 PM
You mean a hypodermic needle. But the ESB's spire is thicker and clearly tapers.

ZippyTheChimp
September 8th, 2003, 09:44 PM
http://www.zip.com.au/~guyd/special/dig_foto/syringe.jpg

Hmmmm.
The only thing missing is little billboards.

NoyokA
September 9th, 2003, 04:23 PM
loook....two threads now. :)

BrooklynRider
September 10th, 2003, 10:08 AM
I was in Times Square last night. The antenna is pretty impressive, and it seems that there is still a way to go on it. It would dominat the southern end of Times Square sky if they dramitically illuminate it. Combine that with the new video screens to go up on each side below it and it becomes an icon for the new century in NYC.

Fabb
September 10th, 2003, 10:19 AM
It clearly has the potential.

JMGarcia
September 10th, 2003, 12:34 PM
I really, truely, really hope they light it some way. They'd be fools not to.

TLOZ Link5
September 10th, 2003, 01:31 PM
How about a zipper-light along the antenna, like on the MONY Building?

GR2NYsoon
September 14th, 2003, 05:49 PM
i dont understand why a large spire can generate 11 pages of responses. who cares about a spire much at all ?

Fabb
September 15th, 2003, 04:38 AM
Maybe it's because some people among us desperately need to see something tall rising in NY.
Does height matter to skyscraper fans ?

NYatKNIGHT
September 15th, 2003, 12:21 PM
It's true, a noticeable heightening on the NY skyline is great to see. Though it's just a spire, this antenna is single-handedly changing the midtown Manhattan skyline....for the better (so far). It was starting to flatten out, and that is unacceptable. Too bad it's not a beefier antenna, but then again they aren't done yet.

Gulcrapek
September 27th, 2003, 04:01 PM
Only thing left is the very tip.

http://live7.truelook.com/pimages/strends/pa.1/995558946134246/buf_691/1063910697291063.jpg

DominicanoNYC
September 27th, 2003, 09:04 PM
The antenna is very noticable from a distance now.

Gulcrapek
September 27th, 2003, 09:08 PM
I know. Every clear day I see it poking up through a school window.

BrooklynRider
September 29th, 2003, 10:48 AM
Ah, we have two threads going on Conde Nast. Anyway, to repeat an earlier post....

I was in Times Square and around town over the weekend. The mast has reached new heights and has made a mark on the skyline. It is also regrettably ugly and completely out of proportion with the building.

Fletch52
September 29th, 2003, 06:03 PM
I don't think I've ever been so anxious to see an antenna. I'll be in NY a couple weekends from now and I'm going to make a point to see this building! lol

Freedom Tower
September 29th, 2003, 06:04 PM
If you wouldn't mind could you please take some pictures? I don't know the next time is that I'll have a chance to go into the city, but I hope soon.

Fletch52
September 29th, 2003, 06:05 PM
Yeah, no problem.

matt3303
October 2nd, 2003, 09:16 PM
I see midtown on clear days from Smith 9th-Street stop on the F train, and today I glanced at the Empire State Building...when I noticed a competing neighbor. It was the antenna from Conde-Nast. It is H-U-G-E. I seriously think it extends up to the ESB's 90th floor or so. I'll try to get a picture (mabye this weekend?) from the station. But it really rivals the Empire State. (Imagine what it looks like from the observation deck?)

DougGold
October 3rd, 2003, 12:36 PM
The new antenna is certainly different. It's so large, it's a significant new member to the skyline, and right now it's almost all latticework except for the topmost area which is a solid piece of transmitting machinery. So at first glance, you'd almost think that solid piece is floating in the sky until you register the latticework. Weird stuff, definately not typical for New York.

maxinmilan
October 3rd, 2003, 01:05 PM
Yes, we need a pic. If someone can post it it will be a good thing. thanx

NYatKNIGHT
October 3rd, 2003, 01:11 PM
Posted by NYguy on Skyscraperpage.com:

http://www.pbase.com/image/21869783/original.jpg


The rendering shows those two white sections, only thing left is the thinner white top section and what looks like some rings around the lower sections.
http://www.pbase.com/image/20902267/original.jpg

Fabb
October 3rd, 2003, 01:17 PM
It certainly does look different.
And way better.

BrooklynRider
October 3rd, 2003, 02:22 PM
The angle in the first picture actually makes it appear shorter. It is very tall and, I feel, very ugly.

JMC
October 3rd, 2003, 02:59 PM
I've been a lurker, here, for about two years...never felt the need to post a comment, until now...that antenna...looks awful.

Function over form, with no consideration to proportion...just floors me.

Fabb
October 3rd, 2003, 03:21 PM
Proportions seem to look good when one is used to them. Being disturbed by the new antenna is a healthy reaction.

JMGarcia
October 3rd, 2003, 04:17 PM
Proportions seem to look good when one is used to them. Being disturbed by the new antenna is a healthy reaction.

How freudian of you Dr. Fabb. ;)

Fabb
October 3rd, 2003, 05:55 PM
Come on !
Freudian theories refer constantly to sexuality.
Did I make an allusion without realizing it ?
Am I out of control ?

JMGarcia
October 3rd, 2003, 06:00 PM
lol - Maybe its me. Should I seek help?


Proportions seem to look good when one is used to them.So true!

Kris
October 3rd, 2003, 07:29 PM
Proportions seem to look good when one is used to them. Being disturbed by the new antenna is a healthy reaction.
Absolutely - everything's relative, nothing's inherent. Regularly defecate in the middle of a museum and eventually your excrement will be recognized as art.

TLOZ Link5
October 3rd, 2003, 09:03 PM
Oh come now, Christian; surely making an analogy between Condé Nast's antenna and poopy is a bit harsh.

Jasonik
October 3rd, 2003, 09:15 PM
I like the setbacks, beads and skyward arrows. Very intricate.

Kris
October 3rd, 2003, 10:16 PM
My remark refers to proportion, bright bulbs (you know, the concept, that abstract thing); not the antenna, which I'll judge when it's completed, and certainly not its details.

TLOZ Link5
October 3rd, 2003, 10:28 PM
Ah, I see.

But regarding the poopy, I happen to agree. Oh, how I long for the days when being an artist implied having silly skills like knowing how to paint and/or sculpt...

JMC
October 4th, 2003, 12:09 AM
...perhaps it's the fact that the antenna looks so clumsy, as if it's being held together by c-clamps, which is so disconcerting. At any rate, this is an issue of fuction over form...someone looked at the ROE...it's probably built from high-tensile, tubular steel (or aluminum)...but, it just needs to be wider, if it's gonna aspire to the hight...

emmeka
October 4th, 2003, 12:48 PM
I feel devastated, if it was taken down to the height of the bottom of the white bits, then it would be the right size. I hope its just the angle but thats probably just wishful thinking.

yanni111
October 8th, 2003, 10:55 PM
so it looks like the antenna is topped out. The last section doesnt look very good, it just this thin pole sticking up out of the white section. I wish it tapered to a point instead. Oh well at least its freakishly tall and looks pretty wild from a distance. They are still adding some kind of small circular platforms at 2 or 3 points along the antenna.

JMGarcia
October 9th, 2003, 12:47 AM
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I really do hope they light it up at night.

Eugenius
October 9th, 2003, 01:30 AM
I recently saw the antenna from Hoboken, and it looks wild.
It really balances the Midtown skyline, which, until recently, was greatly skewed toward the ESB. I think it's a worthy addition.

JMGarcia
October 11th, 2003, 05:19 PM
Pictures on 11 October 2003. Mostly completed.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Ant1.JPG

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Ant2.JPG

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze26pnp/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Ant3.JPG

emmeka
October 12th, 2003, 06:51 AM
If the building was a lot taller then it would go, but I still think that its too big.

maxinmilan
October 12th, 2003, 10:41 AM
So with this mast the total hight should be 348 m. Interesting for records, but for an aesthetic point of view let's say strange thing.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2003, 10:49 AM
You're right, it's waaay too big. From the ferry to Jersey City, it looks like a radio tower on the crest of a hill.

James Kovata
October 12th, 2003, 12:37 PM
That mast is entirely too big for the building.

TAFisher123
October 12th, 2003, 06:11 PM
it would be too big for the empire state building.....pretty stupid looking, i hope its not permanent

Nick_in_Michigan
October 12th, 2003, 06:43 PM
I think it looks fine, it serves a function and is somewhat unique. The owner of the building would not build an antenna any higher than what it needs to be. I liken it to smaller skyscrapers in the 30's, 40's, and 50's that had oversized TV and Radio towers on top, but in this case it is New York supersized. You are seeing the growth of the functional city, the antennae's intent is not to make the building look any better. This will be a visible sign on the city's skyline of the strength of it's media forces.

Gulcrapek
October 12th, 2003, 06:58 PM
I saw it again today, and it's growing on me (no pun intended). The white solids at the top sort of break it up so if it's even the slightest bit hazy it looks like the antenna stops under them, and if it's clear it makes it look less of a solid pole.

JMC
October 12th, 2003, 10:20 PM
Anyone have a shot of PSFS in Philly? That's a good example of a flat-roof building sporting an *appropriate* antenna. I believe that's what the gentleman from Lansing, Mi is exemplifying, in his post...

Apples to Oranges, IMHO.

yanni111
October 12th, 2003, 10:41 PM
yeah i actually like the white sections near the top, they break it up and give it a good look, overall im very satisfied with this thing. I was driving over the Manhattan bridge the other day and that view is awesome of the ESB being flanked on either side by the Chrysler and Conde Nast.

JonY
October 13th, 2003, 05:28 AM
I've always loved 4 Times Square http://qopt.phys.msu.su/pasha/smiles/smiles1/1luvu.gif

However, no scraper in a gazzilion years will ever surpass this:

______________http://www.artline.com/associations/ipa/show/show98/exhibitors/etherton/chrysler.jpg

BTW Is the Teligent neon still ablaze on the crown of Conde Nast?

______________________http://www.actconferences.com/ww99/ImagesWW99/Teligent%20logo.gif

JMGarcia
October 13th, 2003, 10:15 AM
Teligent went bankrupt and the sign came down sometime there after. All four sigsn are currently empty.

It would be nice to see them filled up someday.

NYatKNIGHT
October 14th, 2003, 12:19 PM
10/13 from Hoboken

http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/NYatKNIGHT/Midtown.sized.jpg

JonY
October 14th, 2003, 01:24 PM
Strange yet interesting angle of it there from the Hudson NYatKnight. ESB looking as great as ever though.


Teligent went bankrupt and the sign came down sometime there after. All four signs are currently empty. It would be nice to see them filled up someday.
So the bubble burst internationally on many I.T. companies.
Hopefully the great looking 4 Times Square signs will be replaced post-antenna construction.
Maybe even better versions!!

Gulcrapek
October 14th, 2003, 05:04 PM
Nice. TST looks great too.

maxinmilan
October 14th, 2003, 05:13 PM
When I saw this pic my first reaction was a great laugh. Yes the spire is too big. I think it's not just a matter of height: the mast could reach the same height but being designed in a different way: for example with a basement bigger (like the mast of Empire State); in this case we probably would have a building better balanced.

emmeka
October 16th, 2003, 09:57 AM
My only hope is that we will all get used to it after a while.

TLOZ Link5
October 16th, 2003, 01:59 PM
I already like it. If and when they illuminate it, I'm going to be pleased by the outcome.

Kris
November 20th, 2003, 12:37 PM
Photos by czsz:

http://www.urbanphoto.net/csznyc/amday3.jpg
http://www.urbanphoto.net/csznyc/skyline1.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
November 20th, 2003, 12:52 PM
It looks ok up close from the street, but from a distance it looks silly.

TLOZ Link5
November 20th, 2003, 02:40 PM
It looks ok up close from the street, but from a distance it looks silly.

If only because the building itself looks so short from far away.

emmeka
November 20th, 2003, 02:48 PM
True, True.

Those photos dont do the city justice, it all looks squashed together and low.

JCDJ
November 21st, 2003, 02:48 AM
Is it the antenna the MTVA planned for Jersey city or Bayonne?

emmeka
November 21st, 2003, 09:14 AM
Bayonne.

Do you think that the Conde Nast antenna will be taken down if the tower is built?

matt3303
November 27th, 2003, 12:04 AM
It would be a waste to put up an antenna that size for only 3 or 4 years. Besides, I don't think the owners or tenants want any more construction work. On an unrelated note, has anyone noticed how the antenna "twinkes" (or mabye "flashes" is the right word) at night? The lights are so bright you can see them for like 15 miles. It really adds to the visual effect of the skyline.

JMGarcia
November 27th, 2003, 12:48 AM
I just noticed tonight that the flashies have been replaced with the more typical red lights. Also, the box on the roof that used to be lit is still dark. I think they're still working on it a bit so there may be a slim hope for some more interesting lighting.

Kris
December 18th, 2003, 04:10 PM
http://www.quarlo.com/12_12_2003/03121206.jpg

www.quarlo.com

TLOZ Link5
December 18th, 2003, 04:36 PM
Very late '70s/early '80s.

James Kovata
February 5th, 2004, 12:38 AM
They may have been said already, but that antenna is disproportionately large for the building.

michelle1
February 12th, 2004, 06:10 AM
Hello anyone could supply me with the live Web Cam of Conde Nast Building so I could see new antenna please?
Thanks

Edward
March 14th, 2004, 01:45 AM
Conde Nast (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/default.htm) looks smashing with the new antenna. 13 March 2004.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/images/conde_nast_antenna_13mar04.jpg (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/4xsq/default.htm)

Ptarmigan
March 14th, 2004, 01:50 AM
When I was in New York last summer, they did change the antennae. I am wondering how they got the cranes up on top? The antennae looks to large to me. Old one was better.

Gulcrapek
March 14th, 2004, 01:51 AM
Indeedy... and look at all that glass. :shock:

edit: in reply to Edward's post...

michelle1
March 16th, 2004, 04:45 AM
Edward, I can see crane on the roof right beside the antenna. It looks like they are going to remove old billboard frames and will replace them by full motion video LED Lumacom Signage very soon, then all the building will look even more smashing, don't you think?
michelle

RandySavage
March 16th, 2004, 12:16 PM
I'm conflicted... sometimes it looks awkwardly large for the building, sometimes it looks great. Another view (looking down 42nd):

http://img22.photobucket.com/albums/v65/RandySavage/100_0067.jpg

Kris
March 16th, 2004, 03:36 PM
It looks slightly better proportioned with the recently added central "fuzz."

michelle1
March 17th, 2004, 08:30 AM
Great photo! I would say that antenna is proportionately perfectly all right but I might be wrong, all depends on your taste. Maybe signage will break the building from the antenna and will decrease its dominance. Signs will put great visual effect especially thru the night.

Gulcrapek
August 21st, 2004, 05:13 PM
http://galleries.soaringtowers.org/albums/album50/conde3.sized.jpg

NYguy
August 23rd, 2004, 09:07 AM
It has a few more years of glory before the Bank of America tower overshadows it...

Bob
October 8th, 2004, 04:46 PM
Never was a big fan of this building. Architecture by committee. The antenna helps, somewhat. But those top-of-the-building electronic signs and "water barrel" forms are ghastly.

ZippyTheChimp
October 8th, 2004, 04:56 PM
I agree. It looks stubby. I thought the new antenna might help, but now it reminds me to get a flu shot.

NewYorkYankee
October 8th, 2004, 04:58 PM
IMO, this is the ugliest building in NYC!

Johnnyboy
October 8th, 2004, 05:00 PM
i like the antena. I do believe they should somehow make antenas more attractive somehow. It looks nice on that building though.