PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : NEW YORK | Bank Of America Tower | 1,200' Pinnacle / 945' Roof | 53 FLOORS



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

FlyersFan118
May 1, 2005, 2:20 PM
amazing. that building is spectacular.

Crawford
May 1, 2005, 3:13 PM
If the WTC is not allowed to rebuild their parking then what will fill the hole? Undergound retail/office floors?

The WTC hole was formerly an underground retail mall and a train station, not parking. There will be a new mall and train station built on the site. The old parking wasn't under the Twin Towers, it was adjacent, underneath a low-rise building. The new offsite garage will be for tourist buses. There is no public parking planned anywhere on the WTC site.

Back to BofA, I am interested in seeing renderings of the new subway connection and pedestrian passage. The subway connection will link the Times Square station with the Bryant Park station, creating one huge superstation from 5th Avenue to 8th Avenue. I wonder if this station will be bigger than Chatelet-Les Halles in Paris, which I believe is currently the world's biggest subway station.

try 2B funny
May 1, 2005, 3:27 PM
http://www.durst.org/prop/images/1bp/hires/5.jpg



Dense and big.

Pluto
May 1, 2005, 4:23 PM
It really is classy and functional. It will add so much in such a simplistic way. However, NYC needs to work on some more peaks... too many 700-800fters is leveling the skyline.

Matty
May 1, 2005, 7:38 PM
Well, it is most economical right now to do so.

You won't be seeing many bigger. However, if the city continues to force all development in Manhattan, as the metro region continues to grow, the average hieght will just keep growing...

Or Jersey will build all of the new offices. It's the choice of the city's planners, really.

Crawford
May 1, 2005, 8:06 PM
Well, it is most economical right now to do so.

You won't be seeing many bigger. However, if the city continues to force all development in Manhattan, as the metro region continues to grow, the average hieght will just keep growing...

Or Jersey will build all of the new offices. It's the choice of the city's planners, really.

Huh? There's more construction right now in Brooklyn and Queens than in Manhattan. Anyone who lives in New York notices this trend.

Regarding building height, it is determined by zoning. If you want taller buildings, you will need to vote in elected officials who loosen the zoning rules. It has nothing to do with developers or the public.

ltsmotorsport
May 2, 2005, 6:34 PM
This building is really growing on me. At first I was not very impressed with it. But now I think it looks sweet.
Same here. I really like that night rendering too.

Matty
May 2, 2005, 7:40 PM
Well, it is most economical right now to do so.

You won't be seeing many bigger. However, if the city continues to force all development in Manhattan, as the metro region continues to grow, the average hieght will just keep growing...

Or Jersey will build all of the new offices. It's the choice of the city's planners, really.

Huh? There's more construction right now in Brooklyn and Queens than in Manhattan. Anyone who lives in New York notices this trend.

Regarding building height, it is determined by zoning. If you want taller buildings, you will need to vote in elected officials who loosen the zoning rules. It has nothing to do with developers or the public.

There are more skyscrapers over that height going up in other boroughs? Since when? I meant skyscraper development, silly. That's what we were talking about, after all -- keep on track.

Irregardless of zoning, economy more than anything will dictate the height of a building. Just because they CAN build to 1000 feet doesn't mean they WON'T build 500 instead to reap more profits.

TalB
May 2, 2005, 8:19 PM
The real reason why the hole has to be deep enough is to allow for the building to have some support for the base to the top otherwise it wouldn't stand.

Daquan13
May 2, 2005, 8:28 PM
You're right!

In other words, it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

STERNyc
May 2, 2005, 8:52 PM
You two, I don't know what this forum would do with out you guys. A deep foundation to support the building, who would've thought. All this time we thought it was something else, we were really perplexed, we most definetly couldn't come to that conclusion all on our own.

BRAVO! Geniuses.

Daquan13
May 2, 2005, 9:36 PM
Oh, please. Put a sock in it, will you, wise ass?

Why don't you stop picking on myself & TalB?

It seems that every time one of us makes a comment, you get irritated by it.

If it bothers you that much, then I think maybe you should refrain from commenting here. Get over it. Deal with it.

Chi-town
May 2, 2005, 9:55 PM
^ Or you and Tweedle-Dumb could refrain from moronic comments...

Daquan13
May 2, 2005, 10:03 PM
^ Or you and Tweedle-Dumb could refrain from moronic comments...



You, also. You need to go grow up & get a life.

Let me ask YOU one thing; Are you here to add insight to the threads with nice comment or are you here to pick a fight?
Oh, you're good for calling members names & poking fun at them, aren't you?


:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke: :poke:

Matty
May 2, 2005, 10:48 PM
Maybe each of you should just put each other on ignore instead of starting an arguement.

Or in the very least, take it to PM's instead of spamming it here.

Daquan13
May 2, 2005, 11:10 PM
I did that.

NYguy
May 2, 2005, 11:22 PM
If the WTC is not allowed to rebuild their parking then what will fill the hole? Undergound retail/office floors?

The WTC will have parking, and a lot more parking for buses. In effect, you will have a new Port Authority bus terminal at the WTC site. While that is expected to be mainly for tourists, with the drop of in tourism that is being predicted by the agency, it could also serve a purpose for commuters.

Crawford
May 2, 2005, 11:25 PM
If the WTC is not allowed to rebuild their parking then what will fill the hole? Undergound retail/office floors?

The WTC will have parking, and a lot more parking for buses. In effect, you will have a new Port Authority bus terminal at the WTC site. While that is expected to be mainly for tourists, with the drop of in tourism that is being predicted by the agency, it could also serve a purpose for commuters.

But there will be no public parking. The parking is just for commuter and tourist buses.

NYguy
May 2, 2005, 11:44 PM
If the WTC is not allowed to rebuild their parking then what will fill the hole? Undergound retail/office floors?

The WTC will have parking, and a lot more parking for buses. In effect, you will have a new Port Authority bus terminal at the WTC site. While that is expected to be mainly for tourists, with the drop of in tourism that is being predicted by the agency, it could also serve a purpose for commuters.

But there will be no public parking. The parking is just for commuter and tourist buses.

That's not the point, there will be parking. There won't be as much for the public because of the limited space. There has to be room for the memorial, memorial center (which is underground) and the bus garage. The site doesn't need any public parking, it will be served well by transit.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2004/12/15/nyregion/blocks.184.1.500.jpg

TalB
May 3, 2005, 7:03 PM
Regaurdless to what will be in the basement level, at least it's good to finally see that they are finally working on the foundation after all that digging.

Daquan13
May 3, 2005, 7:30 PM
They are?!

I thought that it was still at a standstill.

If you're right, & I hope that you are, then it's about freaking time!

NYguy
May 4, 2005, 12:42 AM
posted by cypher at wirednewyork.com...


http://www.timelapser.com/images/archives/05-03-05/05-03-05-002o.jpg


http://www.timelapser.com/images/archives/05-03-05/05-03-05-009o.jpg


http://www.timelapser.com/images/archives/05-03-05/05-03-05-003o.jpg

lakegz
May 4, 2005, 1:32 AM
RIP Pronto Pizza!
Those are pretty awesome shots, they capture everything you would need. The site looks very rectangular but when you look at the renderings, the building seems a little more evenly squared. ANybody know how much separation there will be between BOA and Conde Nast?

H-man
May 4, 2005, 4:33 AM
there is a lowrise portion of the building between the tower and conde nast

Fabb
May 4, 2005, 6:57 AM
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that this site is much bigger than that of the NYTimes Tower.

Daquan13
May 4, 2005, 8:43 AM
What's with all that nasty looking green water down in there?

Lecom
May 4, 2005, 11:44 AM
RIP Pronto Pizza!
Quote of the day

NYguy
May 4, 2005, 1:59 PM
I'm not sure, but it seems to me that this site is much bigger than that of the NYTimes Tower.

It's not that much bigger than the Times site.

The footprints of both towers are so large because they both have lowrise wings.

Here's another look at the Times tower:

http://www.thecityreview.com/timesre5.gif

http://www.thecityreview.com/timesre.gifhttp://www.thecityreview.com/timesre4.gif


And Bank of America tower:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/41675885/medium.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/41675885.jpg

Fabb
May 4, 2005, 2:36 PM
I get the geometry of the tower much better now. I wasn't aware that it had one very slim side (much like the NYTimes tower).

carfreak01
May 4, 2005, 8:19 PM
I hate that all towers nowadays MUST have lowrise portions. It's almost like developers are unable to have a highrise without a lowrise taking up 2x the site area. I like how they used to fill the whole site, or only buy a portion where they'd build and leave the rest for other towers.

STERNyc
May 4, 2005, 9:02 PM
Without lowrise portions NYTIMES and BOFA would only rise about 20 storeys with humongous floor plates.

giovanni sasso
May 4, 2005, 9:30 PM
hummm ... man, i don't know. i'm still not sold on BOFA. it just looks weird to me. like cira centre on steroids with a freedom tower spire. something isn't clicking for me on that building, but at least the slender side looks good. definitely my least favorite between it, NYT & 80 south street.

EDIT: durr ... i can't seem to find it in this thread: who is the architect behind this building?

Fabb
May 5, 2005, 7:47 AM
EDIT: durr ... i can't seem to find it in this thread: who is the architect behind this building?

The Design

Designed by Cook+Fox Architects, LLP of New York, the glass, steel and aluminum skyscraper is inspired by the building's unique site within its immediate location and its broader urban context. The faceted crystal design of the tower features unique sculptural surfaces with crisp folds and precise vertical lines that are animated by the movement of the sun and the moon. The transparency of the building, with its floor-to-ceiling windows, provides evocative views both from and through the space. From the building's base, which accommodates the surrounding complex pedestrian and transit circulation, to the overall massing, continuing up to the tip of the spire, the design responds to the built environment of Midtown Manhattan.

giovanni sasso
May 5, 2005, 1:35 PM
thanks fabb.

JACKinBeantown
May 5, 2005, 2:35 PM
hummm ... man, i don't know. i'm still not sold on BOFA. it just looks weird to me. like cira centre on steroids with a freedom tower spire. something isn't clicking for me on that building, but at least the slender side looks good. definitely my least favorite between it, NYT & 80 south street.

EDIT: durr ... i can't seem to find it in this thread: who is the architect behind this building?

I like it. It would be better without the spire (which looks tacked on), but it'll be a pretty cool building.

Fabb
May 5, 2005, 4:12 PM
What are you talking about ? The spire is fine, along with the wind turbine. They give the top of the tower some kind of "industrial" quality - which is a good thing in a more and more sanitized area.

lakegz
May 5, 2005, 4:50 PM
It looks like a techy Narwhale.

carfreak01
May 5, 2005, 8:36 PM
Without lowrise portions NYTIMES and BOFA would only rise about 20 storeys with humongous floor plates.

Or, they could have saved a lot of money by buying the site, building solely the highrise on 1/2 or 1/3 of the site, and sell the rest of the land for $$$$$$$$$$$

JACKinBeantown
May 5, 2005, 10:08 PM
What are you talking about ? The spire is fine, along with the wind turbine. They give the top of the tower some kind of "industrial" quality - which is a good thing in a more and more sanitized area.

Actually I thought it was pretty clear what I was talking about, but I'll explain it more clearly.

The building has a nice design. It gradually gets narrower as it reached its apex on the top corner of the extended glass walls above the roof line. Then there's this spire that sticks out of the middle of the roof and peaks over the glass wall extension. It doesn't look like part of the building... it looks like something stuck on the roof. Like an old-fashioned TV antenna on the roof of a house.

As far as looking "industrial", sure I guess the wind turbine serves some purpose, but I'm not sure which industry benefits from spires.

STERNyc
May 5, 2005, 10:47 PM
Without lowrise portions NYTIMES and BOFA would only rise about 20 storeys with humongous floor plates.

Or, they could have saved a lot of money by buying the site, building solely the highrise on 1/2 or 1/3 of the site, and sell the rest of the land for $$$$$$$$$$$

No, you don't understand. NYC zoning is based on FAR, floor area ratio, which allows a developer to build that number of storey. For instance if this building has a FAR of 16, the developer could build a 16 storey building bar any setback requirements, and nothing more. However by putting a low-rise portion or also commonly done a plaza or transferred air rights the building can use that FAR for that part of the site and add it to the tower part of the site, hence you get buildings of 50 storey in Manhattan. As such the low-rise portion by law can never rise any higher since the entire floor area is used for the tower.

NYguy
May 6, 2005, 12:10 AM
there's this spire that sticks out of the middle of the roof and peaks over the glass wall extension. It doesn't look like part of the building... it looks like something stuck on the roof. Like an old-fashioned TV antenna on the roof of a house.

This building was made for a spire. Its more a part of the building than spires on towers like Trump Tower Chicago, Freedom Tower, or even the Times tower for that matter...

JACKinBeantown
May 6, 2005, 3:25 AM
True, NYguy. Those buildings are completely wrong for spires... even more so IMO than BofA. I think very very few buildings should have spires. Too many have them just for false height's sake. But examples where I think they work because they are a natural extension of the building are Chrysler of course, 40 Wall St, not American Intl (it's obviously for height), Burj Dubai (though it seems like its spire will be ridiculously tall) and some pyramidal tops like Worldwide Plaza and Frost in Austin.

But you're absolutely right... Times, Freedom Tower, Trump Chicago, and many others have no business sticking spires on top.

As far as BofA goes, no I don't think it will kill the aesthetics of the building to have the spire. But I think it would be better without it.

Fabb
May 6, 2005, 7:31 AM
The building has a nice design. It gradually gets narrower as it reached its apex on the top corner of the extended glass walls above the roof line. Then there's this spire that sticks out of the middle of the roof and peaks over the glass wall extension. It doesn't look like part of the building... it looks like something stuck on the roof. Like an old-fashioned TV antenna on the roof of a house.


OK.
But this building doesn't really have a roof (in the traditional sense). The upper limit of the building is not precisely defined and that's the beauty of it.
The spire nicely adds to the ambiguity.

FlyersFan118
May 7, 2005, 10:46 PM
If they had put a smaller spire on it and in a better place, it'd look a LOT better.

IMO spire height shouldn't count, thought. It's cheating. (That's what's retarded about Sears/Petronas - Petronas spires count and Sears spires dont...wtf). But whatever. 944', 1200', 960', it don't matter - it's a very nice building.

Lecom
May 8, 2005, 6:49 PM
NYTT's spire is worse though.

buildup
May 11, 2005, 2:34 AM
This tower doesn't need a spire and especially doesn't need the one that is proposed. It just doesn't match the style.

banned
May 18, 2005, 10:09 PM
5/18/2005
http://live7.truelook.com/timages/live7/strends/NorthView/imgbuf/buf_2440/1116403444331343.jpg

shadowbat
May 18, 2005, 10:36 PM
^DAMN THAT'S DEEP!!:eek:

lakegz
May 19, 2005, 12:04 AM
^^Damn, Thats beautiful!!!!:crazy:

Lecom
May 19, 2005, 12:59 AM
It would be tight if they had a maze of underground tunnels on basement level connecting all the basements in the city.

NYguy
May 19, 2005, 1:36 AM
5/18/2005
http://live7.truelook.com/timages/live7/strends/NorthView/imgbuf/buf_2440/1116403444331343.jpg


Looks deeper than Ground Zero to me. Maybe they shut put the Twins there..;)

STERNyc
May 19, 2005, 2:59 AM
In all honesty it looks about the same depth as the Bloomberg Tower's retaining wall. However with the Bloomberg Tower these is a two course home depot located in the basement.

JACKinBeantown
May 19, 2005, 3:51 AM
I would imagine that the weight/area ratio would be about the same as Bloomberg since the roof levels are basically the same height. So maybe they'll get started with the actual foundation of the structure soon.

Fabb
May 19, 2005, 2:18 PM
I have the impression that site the weight/area of BofA is much bigger than that of Bloomberg.
I've always seen the Bloomberg tower as a very slender building on a huge site.
BofA, which is bigger, occupies half a block.

Of course, it's just an impression. I don't know for sure what I'm talking about.

CarlosV
May 29, 2005, 9:35 PM
http://www.svmetro.com/photos/nyc-2005-05-23-small/nyc-2005-05-23-small-Images/9.jpg

80 feet excavation for the Bank Of America Tower :)


photo by Lucius Kwok

Daquan13
May 29, 2005, 9:55 PM
Wow!!

That's 10 feet deeper than the excavation hole was for the original WTC!

Fabb
May 30, 2005, 6:58 AM
OK. Now it's time to go up !

banned
May 30, 2005, 4:06 PM
Is it really 80 feet? Wow!

5/30/05
http://live7.truelook.com/timages/live7/strends/NorthView/imgbuf/buf_2633/1117440498410136.jpg

http://live7.truelook.com/timages/live7/strends/NorthView/imgbuf/buf_2633/1117440498410697.jpg

lakegz
May 30, 2005, 5:20 PM
guys, dont pay any attention to this lagger.

banned
May 30, 2005, 5:21 PM
guys, dont pay any attention to this lagger.
Are you talking about me?

Pluto
May 30, 2005, 5:56 PM
What a neat little hole.


wow... nevery thought that sentence would come out of my mouth.

lakegz
May 31, 2005, 6:32 AM
guys, dont pay any attention to this lagger.
Are you talking about me?

nah, i was referring to the BOA when i said lagger. The race was between this one and NY Times tower and this one is pretty far behind the pace.

Fabb
May 31, 2005, 8:20 AM
Officially, the NYTimes Tower is supposed to be completed in 2007, BofA one year later.
So, it's makes sense that BofA lags behind a little.

Lecom
Jun 1, 2005, 12:44 AM
That sapot is just begging for a skyscraper.

Daquan13
Jun 1, 2005, 2:17 AM
It will get one.

You just gotta give it some time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

If it were, then New York would have hired their contractor.

NYguy
Jun 7, 2005, 8:47 PM
Another size comparison of the area of the BOA:

http://www.timelapser.com/images/archives/05-03-05/05-03-05-002o.jpg


And the NY Times:

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/41big.jpg

Lecom
Jun 8, 2005, 2:42 AM
Those aerials remind me of the construction site in Staunton Island in GTA Liberty City.

Pluto
Jun 8, 2005, 3:18 AM
^is that TS tower next to NYT still getting built?

NYguy
Jun 8, 2005, 12:53 PM
^is that TS tower next to NYT still getting built?

It is, but its not clear if it will be a residential or office tower. Plans are being reworked.

carfreak01
Jun 8, 2005, 4:00 PM
^I hope it's res. That area could always use more 24 hour business. :haha:


Anyhow, the shots make it seem like the NYT site is larger. Is that true?

Fabb
Jun 8, 2005, 4:50 PM
the shots make it seem like the NYT site is larger. Is that true?

I don't know, but it's very likely, because the NY Times site will include a tower and a low rise.

tone99loc
Jun 8, 2005, 6:20 PM
about 30 cabs in the photo of NY Times Tower/ really illustrates how cabs dominate in midtown

STERNyc
Jun 8, 2005, 7:44 PM
Anyhow, the shots make it seem like the NYT site is larger. Is that true?

You tell me:

http://www.americanproperties.com/images/pageThreeMap2_17.jpg

NYguy
Jun 8, 2005, 10:21 PM
Stern, I believe that to be a little misleading because there will be more space between the Conde Naste and the BOA tower.

The two sites are actual closer to the same size.

STERNyc
Jun 8, 2005, 11:15 PM
Stern, I believe that to be a little misleading because there will be more space between the Conde Naste and the BOA tower.

The two sites are actual closer to the same size.

The map is independent it was not made by any of the BOA project interests. BOA will take up the entire block up until Conde Nast, a conventionally sized office building. There are a number of conventionally sized office buildings on the NYTIMES block.

JACKinBeantown
Jun 9, 2005, 1:31 PM
The holes look about the same area and depth to me. Makes sense since both buildings will be roughly the same size.

NYguy
Jun 9, 2005, 1:31 PM
Stern, I believe that to be a little misleading because there will be more space between the Conde Naste and the BOA tower.

The two sites are actual closer to the same size.

The map is independent it was not made by any of the BOA project interests. BOA will take up the entire block up until Conde Nast, a conventionally sized office building. There are a number of conventionally sized office buildings on the NYTIMES block.

You misunderstand. What I am saying is that there is space in between what will be the BOA and the Conde Naste building. The map comparison doesn't account for that.

NYguy
Jun 9, 2005, 1:32 PM
NY OBSERVER

Durst Makes Si A Times Sq. Offer He Conde Refuse

http://newyorkobserver.com/images/mainimages/sherman061305a.jpg

by Gabriel Sherman
June 9, 2005

It’s been six years since the august magazine-publishing empire, Condé Nast Publications, took up residence in its Times Square Death Star.

In that time, the 23 floors it occupies in the state-of-the-art tower—complete with its famous Frank Gehry–designed cafeteria—have become as inseparable a part of the company’s identity as has the West 43rd Street neo-Gothic behemoth occupied by The New York Times.

Of course, The New York Times is moving anyway—to a new tower designed by architect Renzo Piano.

Condé Nast is staying where it is. But not without growing pains.

Since the relocation, virtually all of Condé Nast’s back-office functions—from accounting to procurement—have been dispersed to locations outside 4 Times Square.

Condé Nast’s vertical expansion is being stymied by the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, which leases the upper 25 floors of the building.

And as Mr. Newhouse’s company expands—this fall, they’re set to publish a new title from one of its oldest enterprises, Men’s Vogue—the company has been looking for places to jettison ancillary operations from the mothership.

The problem isn’t new. Shortly after Mr. Newhouse relocated his magazines from 350 Madison Avenue to 4 Times Square, according to a real-estate source familiar with the proceedings, the Durst Organization, the developer of Condé Nast’s headquarters, held discussions with Condé Nast executives over ways to connect 4 Times Square to a tower being planned on the site abutting the Condé Nast tower to the east. A sort-of Condé Nast Mini-Me.

The conversations, the source said, while never moving beyond the preliminary stages, called for Condé Nast to take several hundred thousand square feet of space in a building on the site where the 54-story Bank of America Tower is currently under construction.

The initial concept would’ve had the tower directly affixed to 4 Times Square at the base, the source said, rather than requiring a sky-bridge to link the two towers. The revised plans for 1 Bryant Park, where Bank of America will take one million square feet, separates the 954-foot-tall tower from 4 Times Square and will total 2.1 million square feet when completed in 2008.

Douglas Durst, co-preside nt of the Durst Organization, the developer of both 4 Times Square and the Bank of America Tower, said that his company had been in discussions with Condé Nast over expansion possibilities, but that the talks have since terminated.

Condé Nast still has 14 years on its lease at 4 Times Square, but remains the company elusive about its real-estate expansion plans.

Robert Bennis, Condé Nast’s senior vice president for real estate, said he had no knowledge of formal plans to acquire space in the new Durst tower.

Condé Nast spokeswoman Maurie Perl declined to comment on the company’s real-estate hunt.

"As a privately held company, we don’t discuss our strategy," Ms. Perl said. "The company has grown in both the size and the number of magazines that we publish, the result being that we will continue to explore our options …. We are not currently housed in one building in New York City and around the country," Ms. Perl said, adding: "That will continue. "

Beyond 4 Times Square, Condé Nast currently occupies three floors at 1440 Broadway, where the company’s I.T., circulation, consumer-marketing and strategic-sourcing divisions are housed. Fairchild, the wing of the Advance Publications empire Mr. Newhouse acquired for $650 million in 1999, recently added a reported 28,000 square feet to the 230,000 square feet it leased in new offices at 750 Third Avenue last year, along with Fairchild’s long-held space at 7 West 34th Street. Condé Nast operates the editorial offices for Wired in San Francisco; Bon Appetit and Architectural Digest in Los Angeles; and runs its credit and database operations out of a facility in Wilmington, Del.

In 1999, Condé Nast led the charge of media giants to iconic towers of starchitecture. But they may soon find themselves outpaced.

The new Hearst Tower, which will rise literally out of the rubble of the company’s corporate Heimat, the International Magazine Building, is rising fast. The New York Times plans to occupy its new spire by 2007.

Whether they’ll have more success incorporating their buildings into their corporate images than Time Warner remains to be seen.

Time Warner moved into its $1.7 billion corporate palace at Columbus Circle, which is still known more for its biosphere-cum-shopping-mall pedestal than as the seat of a global media empire.

Apparently, Whole Foods is a stronger draw than CNN!

Condé Nast never had that problem. But then again, that presents another: Can you move out of a building 20 years after it becomes the anchor of your brand in a media city like New York?

"For Condé Nast," said Peter Golder, an associate professor of marketing at N.Y.U.’s Stern School of Business, "the headquarters becomes even more important as the company grows. For their employees, the corporate image of a building like 4 Times Square matters a lot more. There is more prestige working in the headquarters that is the showpiece property than working in some remote location."

Cue clickety stillettos!

—Gabriel Sherman

Lecom
Jun 9, 2005, 1:48 PM
BOFA is no COnde Nast's Mini-Me. BOFA is bigger.

CarlosV
Jun 14, 2005, 1:13 AM
welll.....da da da da da da this is the latest look june 13 2005....

as you can see, no steel columns yet :(

just a deep 80 foot hole...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/8e31ab6f.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/8cfdff6a.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/9b16472f.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/5eb03577.jpg

banned
Jun 14, 2005, 2:22 AM
Ah great, thanks Carlos! These pictures show us the progress being made of late, which we cannot see from the ESB cam.

It looks like most of the hole has been dug, they just have that part in the center to finish.

JACKinBeantown
Jun 14, 2005, 3:25 AM
Maybe a few more weeks before the foundation work gets going.

banned
Jun 16, 2005, 8:25 PM
The hole is filling up (but not with steel). Look from today (6/16/05).. not sure how long the pic will stay on..

Granted, this pic is only a sliver of the huge site and we've seen from the recent pics that they are making progress, with only that large section of rock in the middle to go. The dirt appears to be for the crane/hammers to chip away at the rock.

http://www.mattg.us/bofa/bofa-06-16-05-02


Here is a pic from 6/15/05
http://www.mattg.us/bofa/bofa-06-15-05-03

banned
Jun 17, 2005, 3:45 PM
Check out the picture from today:

http://live7.truelook.com/timages/live7/strends/NorthView/imgbuf/buf_2950/1118995723458279.jpg

Fabb
Jun 17, 2005, 4:06 PM
Are they just moving the dirt from one corner to the other ? Because that could last forever.

ltsmotorsport
Jun 17, 2005, 6:37 PM
That's a lot of bedrock to get outta the hole. Are they going to blast?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/8cfdff6a.jpg

Daquan13
Jun 17, 2005, 11:36 PM
They might.

Or just use diesel-powered jack hammer machines.

Moving right along though!!

NYguy
Jun 18, 2005, 12:00 AM
I wonder what kind of artifacts they might have found in there...

Daquan13
Jun 18, 2005, 12:15 AM
One has to wonder.

Didn't hear of any though.

ltsmotorsport
Jun 18, 2005, 12:22 AM
I wonder what kind of artifacts they might have found in there...

The national treasure. Oh wait, that was downtown.:frog:

CoolCzech
Jun 18, 2005, 11:01 PM
One has to wonder.

Didn't hear of any though.

I doubt they'd publicize it if they did: can you imagine the delays if "preservationists" suddenly got in the act to save, say, an old Indian burial ground?

Swede
Jun 18, 2005, 11:09 PM
So thay can't do like they did with a pre-VikingAge grave they found when building my hood?
/the skeleton is on display in the local library. :D

on topic: that's a fair chunk of bedrock that needs to go. Blasting would be my initial idea, but could the buildings nearby (and all the underground infrastructure) stand it?

buildup
Jun 19, 2005, 1:00 AM
I wouldn't think there would be anything down there. I'm sure they built buildings there at least four or five times. Unless there is a dinosaur in the bedrock. Then you got problems!

lakegz
Jun 19, 2005, 3:57 AM
its amazing the things contrustion teams can do, like blowing through bedrock with the precision to keep your engineering calculations for the structure the same.

NYguy
Jun 19, 2005, 12:58 PM
I wouldn't think there would be anything down there. I'm sure they built buildings there at least four or five times. Unless there is a dinosaur in the bedrock. Then you got problems!

Whatever was there before was nowhere near as deep as they are now. From this photo alone you can just imagine. About a decade ago Downtown, they found an entire African burial ground (at the site of a new federal building). But anything found here would go further back...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/8cfdff6a.jpg

NYOfficeTower
Jun 19, 2005, 2:31 PM
What a mess!

Daquan13
Jun 19, 2005, 2:35 PM
Probably in a month that will all be gone and you will see all of the foundation being built.

banned
Jun 20, 2005, 4:13 PM
The hole is... filled

http://www.mattg.us/bofa/bofa-06-20-05-03.jpg

They must be making progress on the center

Chi-town
Jun 20, 2005, 4:50 PM
The hole is... filled

Well they've gotta bust up all that rock to carry it away...

banned
Jun 20, 2005, 5:06 PM
The hole is... filled

Well they've gotta bust up all that rock to carry it away... Ya, I know. This building is one of my favorite u/c right now, so I've been watching it every day. I know the view from the ESB cam is only a tiny portion of the site, and I know they have to do this to get rid of the rock in the middle of the site.