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

[BrooklynLove]

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.

Zippy - maybe GS should've just built a bunker in Poughkeepsie. You're the one who started the whole ragging on GS for not including a core - I'm asking you for some factual reasoning behind your conclusion that they should be faulted for the absence of a core - still waiting.

[TREPYE]

Good catch.



mudpig

Ugh! The shape is so....squat.

[pianoman11686]

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.

Would you mind providing a rehash of the above? I know that GS used hundreds of millions in Liberty Bonds to help finance construction, but I thought that was a 'reward' for deciding to stay in Lower Manhattan. The only "safety" issue I was aware of during the decisonmaking process was the West St. tunnel proposal - which was entirely separate from any concerns about terrorism.

I also don't think BofA or 7WTC are good counterexamples. Durst used Liberty Bonds to finance BofA's construction, despite it being in a different business district than the bonds were intended for. 7WTC is considered part of the World Trade Center, and had other unique aspects that made it more of a target (like the ConEd substation), so there was probably no choice but to use the highest safety standards available.

[lofter1]

According to THIS GS received $1.6B tax breaks / subsidies (including Liberty Bonds) for the new HQ.

When GS negotiated for those funds wasn't it all based on the claims: "So expensive to build here, to build safe in order to protect our employees & interests"?

And wasn't the whole brou-ha-ha over the West Street tunnel terrorist- & fear-related -- bombs and such? GS (and others) succeeded in blocking the tunnel and also got them to adjust the streets and the bike lane to create a wider buffer to the east of GS HQ. (I doubt those costs were borne by GS, but are probably additional DOT expenditures paid for by taxpayers).

NY TIMES / 8.11.05 : The firm was particularly rankled by the state's plan to bury West Street in a tunnel that would have ended at its headquarters' front door, creating an abundance of traffic and related security concerns. In April, after failing to persuade the state to abandon the tunnel idea, the investment firm pulled the plug on its plans, and hired a commercial real estate firm to begin scouting the city for a new location, possibly in Midtown.

After negotiations for the GS HQ at BPC started up again:

Goldman, shaken by its own security concerns, asked for additional concessions. It wanted a safer streetscape ...

And ultimately the final agreement mandated:

... the city has agreed to change the streetscape around Site 26, where the two-million-square-foot office tower would rise on West Street. For example, the bike lane and sidewalk on the street would be narrowed to accommodate bollards to protect the building from truck bombs. The direction of traffic on Murray Street would probably be reversed to reduce the number of vehicles whizzing by the buildings ...

According to THIS the new tower at 1BP / Durst recieved: "$650 million in Liberty Bonds plus Additional $82.6 Million in City and State Tax Breaks"

[ZippyTheChimp]

You're the one who started the whole ragging on GS for not including a core

No, it was Antinimby who first mentioned the core, although I would not use the word ragging to describe his post.

I'm asking you for some factual reasoning behind your conclusion that they should be faulted for the absence of a core - still waiting.

Why must I provide reasoning for the conclusion that they should be faulted when...

I never said it was anyone's fault. I said it was their DECISION.

Read the damn posts.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Would you mind providing a rehash of the above?

Lofter did a good job.

[KenNYC]

Not knowing much about high rise construction; what is this concrete core you're talking about? Like a "spine" in the building?

[stache]

Yes, it's where most of the service systems for the building are installed.

[BrooklynLove]

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.

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.

Zippy - if you don't have answers to my questions, that's fine. If you're going to reach a sweeping conclusion based on assumptions, then so be it, but yelling at me is not going to change anything.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Learn how to read, instead of posting pathetic attempts to get in the last word.

Sorry if this is appears condescending, but you leave me no alternative. You don't know what I'm talking about; you don't know what you're talking about.


**I'm not yelling. The font and color were used for a reason that seems to escape you.

[pianoman11686]

According to THIS GS received $1.6B tax breaks / subsidies (including Liberty Bonds) for the new HQ.

If we're going to do a rehash, let's at least be clear in how we word things. The $1.6 billion amount was NOT a combination of tax breaks and subsidies. That was the amount issued of Liberty Bonds to finance the building's construction. Tax breaks and employee retention bonuses amounted to $173 million.

When GS negotiated for those funds wasn't it all based on the claims: "So expensive to build here, to build safe in order to protect our employees & interests"? And wasn't the whole brou-ha-ha over the West Street tunnel terrorist- & fear-related -- bombs and such? GS (and others) succeeded in blocking the tunnel and also got them to adjust the streets and the bike lane to create a wider buffer to the east of GS HQ. (I doubt those costs were borne by GS, but are probably additional DOT expenditures paid for by taxpayers).

As far as I remember, the tunnel issue wasn't a terrorist-related one. It came out of (legitimate) concerns over having an office building with 9,000 employees located right outside a high-speed traffic area. And you have to admit, it was a pointless expense that would've been itself a waste of taxpayer money.

I'm not sure why this debate became so muddled. I don't see the lack of a concrete core in the building as some kind of irony or hypocrisy on the part of GS. The tower will be fairly anonymous - equivalent to any of the major WFC buildings, and not a target in itself. The reason GS received generous terms from the city/state was because of political posturing. They saw a situation which they could take advantage of, and they did.

[lofter1]

If we're going to do a rehash, let's at least be clear in how we word things.

Well ... and, uh, many thanks to you for following up

Jeez Louise -- you ask for someone else to do a "re-hash" (i.e.: research) because you don't seem to want to read what came before and then you dump on me.

Next time I'll keep that in mind.

I supply direct info linking the tunnel to GS's terrorist worries and you say. " ... as I remember, the tunnel issue wasn't a terrorist-related one."

Maybe you remember wrong. If not, where's your back-up? Links, please.

Perhaps lousy memory, poor reading comprehension and laziness is what led to the discussion becoming "muddled."

You say:

The $1.6 billion amount was NOT a combination of tax breaks and subsidies.
That was the amount issued of Liberty Bonds to finance the building's construction.
Tax breaks and employee retention bonuses amounted to $173 million.

Did you read this from the LINK to the NY TIMES article?

Goldman would get at least $150 million in new city and state tax credits, as well as $600 million of new Liberty Bonds to add to the $1 billion in previously issued bonds, the officials said.

And where's your inside information that allows you to say the following? NYPD, GS and Mayor Mike don't aseem to agree ...

The tower will be fairly anonymous - equivalent to any of the major WFC buildings, and not a target in itself.

Da noive.

[pianoman11686]

Jeez Louise -- you ask for someone else to do a "re-hash" (i.e.: research) because you don't seem to want to read what came before and then you dump on me.

Jeez Louise is right - someone's in quite the mood today. I asked Zippy, not you, to provide a rehash, so please, spare me any guilt for making you do any extra work. I didn't ask for articles either; I asked for elaboration on the point of whether safety concerns were actually terrorist-related or traffic-related. Since Zippy is from BPC and I know he followed the developments in detail, I thought he could answer my question with relative ease.

I supply direct info linking the tunnel to GS's terrorist worries and you say. " ... as I remember, the tunnel issue wasn't a terrorist-related one."

Oh really? From the article you provided:

The firm was particularly rankled by the state's plan to bury West Street in a tunnel that would have ended at its headquarters' front door, creating an abundance of traffic and related security concerns. In April, after failing to persuade the state to abandon the tunnel idea, the investment firm pulled the plug on its plans, and hired a commercial real estate firm to begin scouting the city for a new location, possibly in Midtown.

Where, in those two sentences that capture the main point of the article, does it say GS was worried about terrorism? Even more to the point, where does it say that GS was so worried about a particular type of attack that they would contemplate constructing a building with a concrete core specifically to allay those safety concerns?

Maybe you remember wrong. If not, where's your back-up? Links, please.

Here's some backup and more backup.

Perhaps lousy memory, poor reading comprehension and laziness is what led to the discussion becoming "muddled."

Um, I was talking about how Zippy and BrooklynLove's exchange got the discussion muddled. Maybe you're the one with poor reading comprehension. You certainly do seem to like calling out other forumers about it, apparently regardless of whether it's deserved.

Did you read this from the LINK to the NY TIMES article?

Yes I did, and I don't see your point. My figures match the article's figures.

And where's your inside information that allows you to say the following? NYPD, GS and Mayor Mike don't aseem to agree ...

I have no inside information. I have common sense. Why would an anonymous-looking office building be specifically targeted as opposed to the Freedom Tower, or the WTC Memorial, or the PATH station, which are all within a couple-block radius?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Jeez Louise is right - someone's in quite the mood today. I asked Zippy, not you, to provide a rehash, so please, spare me any guilt for making you do any extra work. I didn't ask for articles either; I asked for elaboration on the point of whether safety concerns were actually terrorist-related or traffic-related.

I didn't want to get involved in a complicated discussion about Goldman Sach's safety/security/terrorist issues, since my three-letter one-word question has characterized me as ragging about attaching blame. But that's another story.

The timeframe of the GS concerns included the battle over the West St tunnel, the NYPD taking a more active role in security at the WTC site, and the redesign of 1 WTC, which was squared up and set-back from West St. Bloomberg, Pataki, and Silver got directy involved when GS threatened to abandon the site over security.

When you use the word security at the WTC site, you're not talking about the security of crossing the street.

GS's security concerns were never enumerated, except a vague reference to the tunnel, which was headed for cancellation anyway. I do remember that at the photo-op to announce the "new deal," I wondered what security changes were made. I also remembered that GS executives were the only ones with the good sense to offer "no comment" on the whole affair.

I'm sorry that I haven't provided a detailed chronology of links, but these events unfolded over several months, and I'm really getting bored.

I dislike every aspect of this building except one - the thousands of employees it brings into the neighborhood. Although BPC has good residential density, many of us are gone during the day. The neighborhood misses the 40,000 people that worked at the WTC and Deutche Bank.

[lofter1]

Just for the hell of it ...

Pianoman wrote: From the article you (me - aka Lofter1) provided:

Originally Posted by NYTimes / Lofter1:

The firm was particularly rankled by the state's plan to bury West Street
in a tunnel that would have ended at its headquarters' front door,
creating an abundance of traffic and related security concerns.
In April, after failing to persuade the state to abandon the tunnel idea,
the investment firm pulled the plug on its plans, and hired a
commercial real estate firm to begin scouting the city for a new
location, possibly in Midtown.

Pianoman continues: Where, in those two sentences that capture the main point of the article, does it say GS was worried about terrorism?

It is amazing to me that anyone who lives in NYC in 2008 can claim not to understand that related security concerns is a direct reference to possible terroristic activities.

Or maybe GS is concerned about the commuter traffic, illegal left turns and double parking ?

The "abundance of traffic" line was always BS. There was already tons of traffic on West Street. And how would the presence of a tunnel entrance (another one already exists 10 blocks to the south and at times the traffic backs up from there) in front of the GS building increase traffic beyond the bumper to bumper situation which often exists in the stretch outside the GS site?

Finally, if somebody wants to converse on a subject with only one other poster then a PM is advised. Otherwise everything is up for open discussion by anybody. Pretty danged un-forumy to say, "I was talking to him, so you should just shut up."