Page 956 of 968 FirstFirst ... 456856906946952953954955956957958959960966 ... LastLast
Results 14,326 to 14,340 of 14513

Thread: WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

  1. #14326

    Default

    Christopher Square


  2. #14327

    Default

    Daily Mail
    November 22, 2014

    Anna Wintour 'refuses to work at new World Trade Center Vogue office due to rat infestation'

    By SHYAM DODGE

    Video: Tour of Vogue Offices

    While the US Vogue offices are moving to 1 World Trade Center in New York City, Anna Wintour may not be making the transition anytime soon.

    A Vogue employee told Gawker that the new offices are infested with rats. And the problem is apparently so bad that the editor-in-chief is reportedly refusing to enter the premises.

    Wintour, 65, has allegedly informed her staffers that the vermin must be removed before she clicks her dainty heels into their new home.


    New digs, big problem: While the US Vogue offices are moving to 1 World Trade Center in New York City, Anna Wintour may not be making the transition anytime soon

    Vogue, however, is not scheduled to move into the 1 World Trader Center until the new year, giving ample time for the removal of the rodents.

    The staff member told Gawker the most pressing dilemma facing them had to do with fashion: 'A serious concern (laughable but I guess it makes sense) is all the clothing that could get nibbled through.'

    The timing of the infestation comes after Vogue created an online campaign advertising their move to the new offices: 'Batten the hatches, lower Manhattan, because we're coming for you.'


    That's one famous mover: The Instagram feed for the Conde Nast owned publication showed rapper Will.i.am carrying boxes for them

    The Instagram feed for the Conde Nast owned publication showed rapper Will.i.am carrying boxes for them.

    Meanwhile, Wintour has defended her decision to put Kim Kardashian and Kanye West on the April cover of Vogue, but now it appears she is suggesting that the choice was 'tasteless'.

    According to Fashionista, the magazine editor said: 'I think if we just remain deeply tasteful and just put deeply tasteful people on the cover, it would be a rather boring magazine!'


    Day in the life: The publication was tongue in cheek about the moving process

    She added that even from the very beginning, Vogue was never about pleasing everyone. 'The first celebrity that I put on the cover of Vogue was Madonna, and that was considered completely controversial at the time, too,' she explained.

    'It's such a long time ago probably no one remembers, but she was a very controversial figure. Now she's part of the establishment.'

    Ms Wintour, 65, went on to say that if Vogue didn't reflect modern culture - even the more provocative figures within it - 'nobody would talk about us. It's very important that people do talk about us.'

    © Associated Newspapers Ltd

  3. #14328

    Default

    I saw "Rats" and a million things came to mind. Then I saw her photo and I couldn't help it.

  4. #14329

    Default

    Lol, from what I've read about her reputation (and I LOVE 'Devil Wears Prada'), they'd probably run away from her rather than towards her.

  5. #14330
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UrbanToronto.ca
    Posts
    371

    Default

    How much food could rats possibly find in a new building like this?

  6. #14331
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Subway sandwich crumbs?

  7. #14332
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    Ha!

  8. #14333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed007Toronto View Post
    How much food could rats possibly find in a new building like this?
    10 years of discarded bacon, egg and cheese sandwiches in every possible crevice and nook.

  9. #14334

    Default

    I bet there's piss in every corner too.

  10. #14335

    Default

    7WTC Never had this problem. Silverstein should've never sold 1WTC.

  11. #14336

    Default

    Until I see photos of rats and/or droppings, I'm not buying any of it. Do rats really make their way 20+ stories up into vacant spaces with not a lot of food?

  12. #14337

    Default

    This 'rat story' is just a cover for what she really fears: that WTC Tower One is a target for another terrorist attack. In her circles it is not PC and not Cool to say you fear a terrorist attack; but fear of rats and unsanitary conditions - totally OK. Please note: my comment is pure speculation, and any facts supporting my statement either can not (or will not) be explicitly stated or confirmed.

  13. #14338
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,478

    Default

    A Soaring Emblem of New York, and Its Upside-Down Priorities

    Flawed 1 World Trade Center Is a Cautionary Tale

    By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN


    The newly opened 1 World Trade Center in Manhattan, at 1,776 feet, is officially the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere.
    Todd Heisler/The New York Times


    The observatory, with the wraparound, nosebleed views, is not finished. Almost half the office space isn’t leased yet. But a baker’s dozen years after Sept. 11, 1 World Trade Center is up and running.

    “It’s not so bad,” offered an architect who has a window facing the building.
    Alas, it is.
    Like the corporate campus and plaza it shares, 1 World Trade speaks volumes about political opportunism, outmoded thinking and upside-down urban priorities. It’s what happens when a commercial developer is pretty much handed the keys to the castle. Tourists will soon flock to the top of the building, and tenants will fill it up. But a skyscraper doesn’t just occupy its own plot of land. Even a tower with an outsize claim on the civic soul needs to be more than tall and shiny.

    I find myself picturing General MacArthur in aviator sunglasses when I see the building. Its mirrored exterior is opaque, shellacked, monomaniacal. An abbreviated obelisk, the building rises to 104 stories atop a square, 20-story, concrete bunker, only partly disguised behind butterflylike louvered glass panels. The tower’s thick, chamfered corners produce octagonal floors and a facade of steep, interlocked triangles. From north, south, east and west, the building looks the same.


    A lobby of 1 World Trade Center that leads to the transit hub. The building’s architect, David Childs,
    from the firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, also designed 7 World Trade Center.
    Todd Heisler/The New York Times


    It abruptly stops at 1,368 feet, the height of the former twin towers, achieving its symbolic target number — 1,776 feet — by virtue of a skinny antenna. Counting the antenna is like counting relish at a hot dog eating contest. But it sufficed for the arbitrating Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. So, the building is the tallest in the Western Hemisphere, as if that ever meant anything.

    Replacing the twin towers with another giant office building was somehow supposed to show New York’s indomitable spirit: the defiant city transfigured from the ashes. To the contrary, 1 World Trade implies (wrongly) a metropolis bereft of fresh ideas. It looks as if it could be anywhere, which New York isn’t.

    Its widely respected architect, David Childs, from the mega-firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, also designed 7 World Trade, across the street, an elegant, glazed trapezoid, with thin, translucent edges and a profile that shifts as you move around it. It’s a very fine skyscraper, attending to what’s happening on the ground, where Greenwich Street slides by the front door, and Lower Manhattan has been coming back to life.

    The neighborhood had occasional baby strollers before the twin towers fell, but its gradual transformation from the financial district into more of a live-work community happened mostly after Sept. 11 — despite the World Trade Center development. Battery Park City, across from the World Trade Center site, arose during the 1980s and provided a little context and a kind of mid-rise foreground to the immense twin towers, bringing the area back down to the level of the street and the waterfront.


    The building's south lobby.
    Todd Heisler/The New York Times


    But it never really connected with the rest of Lower Manhattan. There had been talk after Sept. 11 about the World Trade Center development’s including housing, culture and retail, capitalizing on urban trends and the growing desire for a truer neighborhood, at a human scale, where the windswept plaza at the foot of the twin towers had been.

    But the idea was brushed aside by the political ambitions of former Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, a Republican, and the commercial interests of Larry Silverstein, the developer with a controlling stake at the site, among other forces pressing for a mid-20th-century complex of glass towers surrounding a plaza. Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted. In retrospect, had 1 World Trade been built last, after the site was coaxed back to life (and yes, many added years later), a very different project might have evolved.

    Instead, the building, built as if on a dare to be the tallest, required unprecedented fortifications at astronomical costs, on an immensely difficult site. Mr. Childs faced a nearly impossible task: devising a tower at once somber and soaring, open and unassailable, dignified but not dull. He envisioned an elaborate antenna and a tapered base. Both ideas were vetoed, among much else. The building didn’t end up exactly as the architect pictured it. Few buildings do. I’m not sure that the differences are what tipped the scale.

    On the plus side, the place is state-of-the-art, with supersonic elevators, almost too much sun, and a whitewashed, vaulted lobby behind blast walls masked by cheery abstract art. Thin, vertical windows let in strips of natural light through clever slits in the ventilated concrete base. Prismatic panes of glass, in pastel colors, soften the compressed, extra-tall entrances on Vesey and Fulton Streets.


    The south entrance of 1 World Trade Center.
    Todd Heisler/The New York Times


    Many New Yorkers hated the twin towers, but their sculptured corners captured sunlight at dawn and dusk, creating immaterial ribbons of orange and silver that floated up toward the ether. The towers changed, depending on where you stood, at what hour. The space between them shifted, too; it opened or closed as you moved around the city.

    One World Trade is symmetrical to a fault, stunted at its peak, its heavy corners the opposite of immaterial. There’s no mystery, no unraveling of light, no metamorphosis over time, nothing to hold your gaze. By comparison, Britain’s tallest tower, the 95-story Shard in London, by Renzo Piano, dissolves and shimmers as day passes into night. Screens cluster at the top to make a sharp point, completing the glacial spire. Immense, overlapping planes of extra-white glass give the building a prismatic, luminous transparency.

    With its hotel, offices, restaurants, apartments and observation deck, it is also an all-in-one mixed-use development, built on a busy transit hub. The point is that something better was possible in Lower Manhattan.

    That said, one day the sally ports now blocking Vesey and Fulton Streets may disappear, shops may glom onto the office towers around the memorial plaza, and the plaza may become more like a park. Life has a way of taking over even the most unpromising places in New York.

    Until then, 1 World Trade is a cautionary tale. The public had a big stake in making it great. That stake wasn’t leveraged. There are other giant projects like Hudson Yards, Penn Station and Roosevelt Island that will reshape the city’s streets and skyline. Their design is everyone’s business.

    Not so bad should never be good enough.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/ny...l?ref=nyregion

  14. #14339

  15. #14340

    Default

    Kimmelman is apparently the only person in town who longs for more luxury condos.

Similar Threads

  1. New 51-story tower Downtown
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: January 17th, 2006, 09:20 PM
  2. Renderings CIBC Tower
    By NoyokA in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 19th, 2003, 07:17 PM
  3. 3 Buildings From 1830's Threatened By a Tower - Downtown
    By Kris in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 29th, 2003, 11:08 AM
  4. A Home Depot in the Bloomberg Tower?
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 15th, 2003, 03:16 AM
  5. Special Issues for Merrill, the Landlord
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2002, 12:04 PM

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