Page 105 of 150 FirstFirst ... 55595101102103104105106107108109115 ... LastLast
Results 1,561 to 1,575 of 2245

Thread: New Goldman Sachs Headquarters - 200 West Street - by Henry Cobb of Pei Cobb Freed

  1. #1561
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Goldman succeeded in getting a "safety corridor" along West Street (moivng the road farther away from the building -- and an adjustment to the location of the bike path). Plus GS will take over the previously-public corridor which runs between the new HQ and the Embassy Suites building -- which, I believe GS will also take over and control.

    Not sure how they plan to control the public / vehicles along Vesey and Murray Streets.

    Perhaps they figured they had minimized the possibility of those events which might mandate a concrete core.

  2. #1562

    Default

    ^
    The question remains. Who outside of Goldman would have mandated a concrete core.

    I don't know what BL means by vetting as it applies here. If the building meets code, and since there is no tenant to demand it as a lease requirement, it's Goldman's decision.

  3. #1563
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    My point is that they most likely hired an expert consultant on this issue. These concerns post 9-11 have received uber priority on Wall Street.

  4. #1564

    Default

    ^
    Well of course they hired experts.

    But taking into account that a concrete core, while not structurally necessary, would have made the building more safe (do you doubt this?), who do you think made the decision not to incur the expense of a concrete core?

    Methinks Goldman Sachs.

    In light of their threats to build elsewhere unless (mostly non-specific) safety issues were resolved, you would think they would have built the safest tower possible.

  5. #1565
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    If GS hired experts to analyze this issue and then given the results of that analysis determined that a core was not justified in view of competing concerns and other security/integrity steps taken, I don't think it's fair to fault them. Security was undoubtedly a priority concern in designing this building, but it's not the only concern.

    Does the BofA tower have a concrete core? Frankly, I'd be more concerned for that building than the GS building. Much easier target in view of the heavy post 9-11 security presence in the WTC vicinity.

  6. #1566

    Default

    BoA did not issue threats about abandoning the project over security concerns.
    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
    Frankly, I'd be more concerned for that building than the GS building.
    We're not talking about your concerns; it's those of GS.

    Security was undoubtedly a priority concern in designing this building, but it's not the only concern.
    Again, would the building be safer with a concrete core?

    Silverstein built 7WTC with a concrete core; it wasn't required.

    In the end, it was GS that decided not to spend the extra money on a safer building. You seem to be trying to distance them from that decision.

  7. #1567
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Zippy:

    Do you know why GS didn't include a concrete core?

    Do you know the full extent of security measures they have included in the design?

    Is it less ok for GS not to include a concrete core than it is for BofA? If so, why?

    What security measures is Silverstein including in 99 Church? And how about Ratner re Beekman Tower?

  8. #1568

    Default

    afaik, BoA does have a concrete core. i think there was a picture of it in the nytimes article about a buiding code group trying to overturn the post-9/11 safety requirement.

    GS is free to have or not have a concrete core. sure it would make the building safer, but so would making it into a windowless bunker ala the u.s. mission to the u.n.

  9. #1569
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by econ_tim View Post
    ... but so would making it into a windowless bunker ala the u.s. mission to the u.n.
    My point exactly.

  10. #1570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynLove View Post
    Zippy:

    Do you know why GS didn't include a concrete core?
    I only stated that it was their decision, when I said WHO? in response to your first remark to Antinimby's point. Go back and check.

    You're the one who's speculating on WHY GS did what they did. All I said is that they did it (a fact), and it was their decision, since there was no tenant making demands.

    Is it less ok for GS not to include a concrete core than it is for BofA? If so, why?
    I already stated that BoA (which has a concrete core ) did not use a safety issue to extract more public funding as GS did. Same for 7WTC. So it's ironic to me that of the three buildings, the one that made the biggest stink about safety is the one without the concrete core.


    7 WTC is not a windowless bunker, and neither is BoA.

  11. #1571
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Zippy - it seems to me that you're faulting GS for not including a conrete core. My point is a simple one - how can you fault them w/o knowing why they didn't include a concrete core?

  12. #1572

    Default

    I'll make this simple:

    1. A concrete core would have made the building safer. You still haven't acknowledged this.

    2. The decision to not spend the money was made by GS. They are the builder-owner-occupier.

    3. I doesn't matter why they didn't - maybe the expense, maybe added floor space, maybe construction time. But they didn't.

  13. #1573
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Not to be a spoiler, but a concrete core can make a builidng "safer" in the case of which catastrophic events?

    Having watched both GS & BA go up since the time they were holes in the ground, it would appear to me that GS might be the "safer" structure in the case of street level truck bombs -- as GS is quite the bunker at the base facing Wet / Murray (huge concrete encased beams and girders and diagonal cross pieces rising well above the ground).

    But I'm no engineer -- nor do I have all the inside knowledge regarding what else was included in each building to make it resistent to outside forces.

  14. #1574
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I'll make this simple:

    1. A concrete core would have made the building safer. You still haven't acknowledged this.

    2. The decision to not spend the money was made by GS. They are the builder-owner-occupier.

    3. I doesn't matter why they didn't - maybe the expense, maybe added floor space, maybe construction time. But they didn't.
    1) if you say so but to be honest i don't really know that a core makes a building safer or not - or more specifically, whether a core makes the GS building safer or not

    2) do you know that the core decision was primarily a cost based decision? how do you know that GS didn't elect more effective alternative safety measures?

    3) of course it matters why they didn't. by your logic building owners are reckelss not having earthquake insurance in nyc.

  15. #1575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynLove View Post
    1) if you say so but to be honest i don't really know that a core makes a building safer or not
    This discussion doesn't go anywhere unless you get past it.

    do you know that the core decision was primarily a cost based decision? how do you know that GS didn't elect more effective alternative safety measures?
    Why do you keep trying to expand what I said?

    of course it matters why they didn't. by your logic building owners are reckelss not having earthquake insurance in nyc.
    Do I have to keep stating that I made no opinion as to WHY GS did it? Whether they were cheap? Or reckless? Or stupid?

    Keep your argument here: The building would be safer with a concrete core. GS made the decision not to go with it.

    If you want to offer proof that it would not be safer, or if some other entity made the decision, go ahead. But that's all I said.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 21st, 2012, 01:38 PM
  2. 165 Charles Street @ West Street - by Richard Meier
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: June 8th, 2010, 05:36 PM
  3. The Zebra at 420 West 42nd Street
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: August 30th, 2007, 01:28 PM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2005, 07:27 PM
  5. Carnegie Mews - 211 West 56th Street
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 19th, 2001, 10:14 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