The Chrysler Building - 405 Lexington Avenue @ 42nd St - by William Van Alen

**Alonzo-ny** · June 14th, 2008, 12:46 PM

Cmon, prestige isnt worth that, the building isnt going to bring much income as a non prestigious billion dollar building. And the building is named for another company!

**Jake** · June 14th, 2008, 11:37 PM

Imagine if they could rename it the Abu Dhabi Investment Council Building!

Is it safe to say that we'd all flip out and send warships to the UAE?

**JCMAN320** · June 15th, 2008, 12:31 AM

^^^Lol Amen to that

**HurricaneFanatic** · June 15th, 2008, 10:57 PM

WHAT! A company from a country that helped the Taliban is being allowed to buy GREAT work of Architecture. NO WAY! A company from Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, or Turkey, I don't have a problem with. BUT DUBAI! NO F***ING WAY!

**pianoman11686** · June 16th, 2008, 01:07 PM

Pipe down. Dubai isn't even a country.

**NYC4Life** · June 16th, 2008, 02:56 PM

Dubai is one of the emirates that make up the UAE. I heard in the news a travel advisory was issued for Americans traveling there and here we are selling an iconic building to the same country. Amazing

**Ebola** · June 16th, 2008, 03:19 PM

Well let's retort by buying out the BD. ...Oh wait, we made it in the first place.

**pianoman11686** · June 16th, 2008, 04:58 PM

You people need to get your facts straight. This building is not being sold to a country, nor an emirate. It's being sold to an investment fund. (It's not even from Dubai. It's from Abu Dhabi.) Our domestic equivalent would be something like CALPERS, a pension fund, which I assure you owns property all over the world.

The entire building isn't even being sold. It's a 75% stake. People flipped out back in the late 80s when the Japanese real estate companies bought Rockefeller Center and similar landmarks. And then after a few years, things changed, and they sold it back. Nothing bad happened.

**Optimus Prime** · June 16th, 2008, 05:47 PM

Excellent post pianoman. The last several posts have displayed blatant racism and/or scaremongering.

The biggest thing to worry about with foreign companies buying American real estate is the potential for something like the Windermere to happen. Crazy old Japanese coot won't fix up the building and we can't get him into court here to make him actually do anything. But this shouldn't be an issue for the Chrysler because this is an investment fund that presumably has lots of other American assets and the building will still be 25% owned by Americans anyway.

Other than that, I'm not sure what people are afraid of, even assuming there's a terrorist connection here (incredibly, almost unfathomably dubious). That the Chrysler will somehow be turned into some sort of terrorist network hub? Get real. Or that it will be blown up? Surely they woudn't buy a stake in the place before doing that.

**Ebola** · June 16th, 2008, 11:02 PM

Sorry, but "assuming there's" some sort of a terrorism connection, it's clearly at least disrespectful, perhaps at most much worse, and that alone is enough of a reason to prevent it. Stuff like the China Center is one thing, but ownership/management of ports/important skyscrapers is pushing it when a party is in question.

**ZippyTheChimp** · June 17th, 2008, 12:04 AM

Since when are port-management and ownership of an office building at the same level of security concerns?

**NYC4Life** · June 17th, 2008, 12:13 AM

This was the same issue that arose when Dubai Ports tried to take over operations of several U.S. shipping ports, so the concern is legit.

**ZippyTheChimp** · June 17th, 2008, 12:24 AM

What is the same issue as port-management? Ownership of a building?

**pianoman11686** · June 17th, 2008, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ebola

Sorry, but "assuming there's" some sort of a terrorism connection, it's clearly at least disrespectful, perhaps at most much worse, and that alone is enough of a reason to prevent it. Stuff like the China Center is one thing, but ownership/management of ports/important skyscrapers is pushing it when a party is in question.

Wrong. It's disrespectful for the U.S., a country that owns businesses all over the world, to hypocritically deny another sovereign foreign entity from investing in its assets. This applies equally to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, and to Dubai Ports World.

I don't understand why you, NYC4Life and others cannot get these simple facts straight. Each emirate of the UAE operates independently of the next: what goes on in Dubai does not imply anything about what goes on in Abu Dhabi. And for the last time: we are talking about business ownership, not state ownership.

**NYC4Life** · June 17th, 2008, 12:35 AM

Zippy, the concern is sorely about security. Anytime an Arab firm wants to control or manage an American interest, it will raise eyebrows as it did with Dubai Ports. That is why that deal eventually crumbled. After all, some of these countries harbor and sponsor terrorism. After 9/11 the initial reaction from most people will be that of concern.