Page 2 of 216 FirstFirst 1234561252102 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 3238

Thread: New York Times Tower - 620 Eighth Avenue @ W. 41st Street - by Renzo Piano

  1. #16

    Default New York Times Tower

    Rich Battista: it will definetly be lit, I know this for a fact.

  2. #17

    Default New York Times Tower

    I'm not so sure. The crown of Bear Stern was supposed to be lit too.

  3. #18

    Default New York Times Tower

    This is what I've heard from Lois Weis of the NYPOST

  4. #19

    Default New York Times Tower

    thanks, Stern


    Its great to have something built in my lifetime that is over 1100 feet. I am only 17

  5. #20

    Default New York Times Tower

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/nyregion/20BLOC.html

    Blight Is Issue at Proposed Home for The Times
    By DAVID W. DUNLAP

    WELL-REHEARSED drama is a staple of 42nd Street, even in the legal battles that have accompanied each step of its state-sponsored redevelopment.

    The acts play out like this: The government condemns properties as blighted. Owners sue, in part for bargaining leverage. The state prevails. Cases are settled. Awards, fees and expenses are paid. Sites are cleared. And new towers emerge

    At first, Prof. Marci A. Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University, who specializes in constitutional law, said she discerned another "cut-and-dried application of the law" in the case involving owners on the block of Eighth Avenue, between 40th and 41st Streets, whose property has been acquired by New York State to create a development site for The New York Times Company's new headquarters.

    But this case differs from earlier battles in that it is being fought at a time when blight and Times Square are no longer synonymous.

    Professor Hamilton is persuaded that the case presents an important federal issue and is hoping, against high odds, that the United States Supreme Court will agree to hear the matter, which it is expected to review soon.

    "The real question is: can a government take private property for the benefit of other private owners when the blight findings they're relying on are done after the decision to take the property?" Professor Hamilton said.

    By that, she meant that the official determination of blight was issued in November 2001, after a tentative agreement reached by the Empire State Development Corporation with the Times Company and its development partner, Forest City Ratner Companies. Earlier blight findings, she said, were of questionable relevance since they were in some cases almost 20 years old.

    Professor Hamilton argued in her petition to the Supreme Court that federal and state courts were split on whether the constitutional requirement of a public purpose for the taking of property could be satisfied by blight findings that were, in essence, a pretext for economic development plans.

    Her clients are Sidney, Markus and Joseph Orbach, brothers and partners in Three O Realty, who owned a 110,000-square-foot office building at 265 West 40th Street that the state condemned in August, along with 10 other properties, to create a development site for The Times. Their tenants included a Donna Karan Home showroom and the richly stocked B & J Fabrics store. "This whole 16-story building they offered $7 million," Markus Orbach said. "That's a nice bargain."

    And an unconstitutional one, Professor Hamilton said. "The taking was not a taking for the public purpose of removing blight, but solely for the purpose of transferring private property to another, more powerful and `connected' private owner, The New York Times," she said in her petition. In response, Empire State Development dismissed the federal claim as preposterous. "No case has ever held that a pretextual blight finding is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional public use requirement," the state said in its brief, prepared by Carter, Ledyard & Milburn.

    And no pretext was involved, state officials argued. "Without public intervention, there is no reason to believe blight will cease to exist," they said, meaning prostitution, drug use and loitering; the "shabby gateway" that the buildings present to Times Square; and the general underdevelopment of the block.

    "The fact that the project may advance incidental private interests of The New York Times Company and the developer of additional office space is not unlawful and does not detract from its public purpose," the state said.

    As for the Orbachs' building, the state said that even if "isolated pockets" of the block were not blighted, the whole site was.

    Speaking for the Times Company, Catherine Mathis said yesterday: "The courts have repeatedly upheld, as recently as last year, the state's determination that the area is blighted. We believe that our proposed new headquarters will significantly enhance the area."

    HAVING prevailed in state courts, Empire State Development is now clearing the block. Sussex House, a private 140-bed dormitory at 260 West 41st Street, has already closed. Officials say that residents received relocation payments and the owner accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement.

    From the building at Eighth Avenue and 40th Street, the Taylor Business Institute and the SAE Institute of Technology have found new quarters, said Michael Rikon of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, which represents eight owners and 37 businesses, none of which have yet settled their claims. Arnold Hatters, the most distinctive store on the block, is searching for space it can afford, Mr. Rikon said, but has not found anything.

    The Donna Karan showroom will be moving and B & J Fabrics will have a new home nearby on Seventh Avenue after 48 years in the Orbachs' building.

    As they watched their property empty, the Orbachs reflected on their efforts not long ago to renovate it and build up its tenancy. "Besides the money," Sidney Orbach said, "we invested an awful lot of ourselves."

  6. #21

    Default New York Times Tower

    NYTIMES and Hearst Magazine Tower should rise together, a few blocks apart. Personally I am a bigger fan of Hearst.

  7. #22

    Default New York Times Tower

    I can't wait to see the NY Times Tower rise. It's a great piece of architecture.

  8. #23

    Default New York Times Tower

    When is construction slated to begin? *I love the plans for this building. *Although by a technicality, it will be NY's number 2. *

  9. #24
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Harlem
    Posts
    2,805

    Default New York Times Tower

    I might have heard construction will begin early 2004, maybe I'm wrong.

    This is a wonderful building. It'll introduce something completely new to the city while sticking to the basic shapes of the old. Like others, I'd be fine with an extra hundred feet to rooftop, but it's just fine the way it is to me.

  10. #25

    Default New York Times Tower

    It's an interesting building, considering what the Times has done to eliminate it's competition.
    Notice how they talk down Lower Manhattan's economy (they claim there is 17 Million sqf. of office space vacant, but only 11.9 Million is listed as "available" while 8-9 million are actually vacant) To prevent anything from getting built in Lower Manhattan.
    They would stand to loose a lot of money if the WTC was rebuilt, especially with tall towers. Did anyone read that NYTime's article on Louis Epstein back in November? Noticed how the coverage was very slanted. *

  11. #26

    Default New York Times Tower

    You really have to be a sucker to believe that idiotic plot theory made up by the Post.


  12. #27

    Default New York Times Tower

    While the NY Post does write some articles specifically to attack their competitors, this particular arguement about the Times actually has teeth. BTW, the Post didn't say that only 8-9 Million sqf. of space was vacant, Insignia/ESG published the report recently. And why is it that the NYTimes articles are so slanted towards doom and gloom for Lower Manhattan, while recently, they also ran an article promoting Midtown. They talk about how there is a "glut" of office space in Lower Manhattan, but hardly mention the economic reallities regarding their tower. They're also defending Forest City Ratner, which is helping the Times build their tower. *They write articles praising Ratner's projects (like the Metrotech complex in Brooklyn) at the expense of Ratner's competitors.

  13. #28

    Default New York Times Tower

    That must explain why the Times sponsored a study project for Downtown titled "Thinking Big" and published an article about the rebuilding titled "Rediscovering and Celebrating the Vertical Life", for instance.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/ma...08REBUILD.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/19/nyregion/19APPR.html

    It all makes sense now.

    (Edited by Christian Wieland at 6:04 pm on Feb. 22, 2003)

  14. #29

    Default New York Times Tower

    1 Bryant Park (equal height to Conde Nast?) is supposed to rise in 2005. *Just imagine the Hudson River view with the Conde Nast, 1 Bryant Park, and NY Times Tower.

  15. #30

    Default New York Times Tower

    Quote: from Christian Wieland on 5:57 pm on Feb. 22, 2003
    That must explain why the Times sponsored a study project for Downtown titled "Thinking Big" and published an article about the rebuilding titled "Rediscovering and Celebrating the Vertical Life", for instance.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/ma...08REBUILD.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/19/nyregion/19APPR.html

    It all makes sense now.

    (Edited by Christian Wieland at 6:04 pm on Feb. 22, 2003)
    Of course Muschamp's project from September was a big joke, and the current plans are bullshit too. Notice that most of the nine LMDC design finalists worked with Muschamp, including members of the THINK team. He's also been criticized for being too close with the THINK team. Why else would he praise a plan that will never get built in NYC? While Muschamp has endorsed THINK, everyone else at the paper has endorsed Libeskind, most noticably the editorial board.

    BTW, does anyone have any renderings of One Bryant Park? There arn't any pics of it on your regular website, only pics of the construction site.

Similar Threads

  1. New Year in Times Square
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: November 16th, 2013, 05:29 AM
  2. Toys R Us Times Square
    By noharmony in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2008, 10:37 PM
  3. W New York - Times Square Hotel
    By hyperfine in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 18th, 2005, 08:55 PM
  4. Times Square 2002 Celebrations Part I
    By Edward in forum Photos and Videos of New York
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 31st, 2001, 11:39 PM
  5. Pictures of luxurious W Hotel - Times Square
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 29th, 2001, 12:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software