NEW YORK | Goldman Sachs Headquarters | 749 FT / 228 M | 44 FLOORS - Page 19

NYguy · #**361** Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 11:38 PM**

Lazarius

THE BIG APPLE · #**362** Posted **Sep 23, 2009, 7:29 PM**

http://www.examiner.com/x-23789-NY-Busin...man-Sachs-battles-the-city-over-security

Quote:

The conflict is the result of a 2005 agreement where eager city officials were ready to agree to anything in order to get Goldman to sign a deal that would have the investment giant move its world headquarters to the World Trade Center site. In exchange for agreeing to move to the new site, the city and state officials gave Goldman tax-breaks, cash grants, and a host of other incentives. Now, as the $2.4 billion building in Battery Park City nears completion, it appears the city made promises it is no longer able to keep...

THE BIG APPLE · #**363** Posted **Sep 23, 2009, 8:46 PM**

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leeloo2003leeloo/page13/

NYguy · #**364** Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 12:27 AM**

Beekman cameo...

pmarella

THE BIG APPLE · #**365** Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 3:14 AM**

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/sets/1761979/

NYguy · #**366** Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 4:22 AM**

Even without the dominance of the WTC, photographers love this skyline...

rwatson1

robertoalonso

THE BIG APPLE · #**367** Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Even without the dominance of the WTC, photographers love this skyline...

rwatson1

robertoalonso

Amazing Woolworth looks taller than AIG and 40 Wall in this photo.

THE BIG APPLE · #**368** Posted **Sep 24, 2009, 9:09 PM**

http://www.flickr.com/photos/medialex007/page3/

NYguy · #**369** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 7:37 AM**

Lyn & Tom

uaarkson · #**370** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 6:12 PM**

Have they started moving offices into the building yet? The lower floors are lit up like a christmas tree and it doesn't look like they're construction lights. This one could end up being like the NY times building if that's the case.

Dac150 · #**371** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 8:17 PM**

I walk by this building a few times a week and I must say that there is little to no activity at the base of this building. Aside from the security guards and the construction workers you see sprucing up the grounds; there are no suits to be seen entering or exiting the place.

Lloyd said in a Reuter’s article I read a couple weeks ago that they are in the process of consolidating all of their lower Manhattan offices into the building by this winter; and after. So for now I believe they are still hunkered in over on Broad Street. If I remember correctly there was and might still be some legality or financial issue that they are working out before making the move, but I don’t want to speculate on something I don’t know the details about.

The building though is beautiful which goes without saying. I always observe people in the WFC cove plaza taking pictures of it; however I don’t believe they realize who it was built for.

Does anyone know if there are going to be any identification on the lower part of the building (perhaps on the awnings) that Goldman Sachs indeed occupies the building? Minus that it really comes off as a ‘mystery building’ for those who aren’t tenant savvy.

meh_cd · #**372** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

I walk by this building a few times a week and I must say that there is little to no activity at the base of this building. Aside from the security guards and the construction workers you see sprucing up the grounds; there are no suits to be seen entering or exiting the place.

Lloyd said in a Reuter’s article I read a couple weeks ago that they are in the process of consolidating all of their lower Manhattan offices into the building by this winter; and after. So for now I believe they are still hunkered in over on Broad Street. If I remember correctly there was and might still be some legality or financial issue that they are working out before making the move, but I don’t want to speculate on something I don’t know the details about.

The building though is beautiful which goes without saying. I always observe people in the WFC cove plaza taking pictures of it; however I don’t believe they realize who it was built for.

Does anyone know if there are going to be any identification on the lower part of the building (perhaps on the awnings) that Goldman Sachs indeed occupies the building? Minus that it really comes off as a ‘mystery building’ for those who aren’t tenant savvy.

I wouldn't call it a "beautiful building" by any means. It's a hulking mass that in a few decades will be comparable to 55 Water Street and its brothers on the other side of Lower Manhattan. If anything people are taking pictures of it because they think it is part of the WTC complex.

Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I've seen it in person and I hated it. It does look ok from the north and south, though. Hopefully once the WTC is finished it'll blend in nicely.

To clarify: my biggest beef is the massing and the facade.

Dac150 · #**373** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by meh_cd

I wouldn't call it a "beautiful building" by any means. It's a hulking mass that in a few decades will be comparable to 55 Water Street and its brothers on the other side of Lower Manhattan. If anything people are taking pictures of it because they think it is part of the WTC complex.

Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I've seen it in person and I hated it. It does look ok from the north and south, though. Hopefully once the WTC is finished it'll blend in nicely.

To clarify: my biggest beef is the massing and the facade.

Not saying you have to like it but those attributes you rattled off are what indeed makes it appear beautiful at least to me. You simply can’t beat that corporate brutalism that cascades across the riverfronts of Lower Manhattan. It’s like a fortification of what makes this city such a global player.

Architecturally these styled buildings many not appeal to you but don’t tell me that when you stand in front of 1 NY Plaza you don’t feel a sense of appreciation for the size. That’s more so the point of appeal.

Any for the record step off of 55 Water Street & Company.

NYguy · #**374** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by meh_cd

I wouldn't call it a "beautiful building" by any means. It's a hulking mass that in a few decades will be comparable to 55 Water Street and its brothers on the other side of Lower Manhattan. If anything people are taking pictures of it because they think it is part of the WTC complex.

Hardly comparible to 55 Water Street - a mess that destroyed lower Manhattan's skyline from that view. On the contrary, this one enhances the skyline, and seems to have grown in like a piece that was missing. As far as why people take pictures of it, it's a very photogenic building. It makes no difference if it's of the WTC or not. Some people think the BofA is the WTC, but they would be taking photos of it regardless.

meh_cd · #**375** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

Not saying you have to like it but those attributes you rattled off are what indeed makes it appear beautiful at least to me. You simply can’t beat that corporate brutalism that cascades across the riverfronts of Lower Manhattan. It’s like a fortification of what makes this city such a global player.

Architecturally these styled buildings many not appeal to you but don’t tell me that when you stand in front of 1 NY Plaza you don’t feel a sense of appreciation for the size. That’s more so the point of appeal.

Any for the record step off of 55 Water Street & Company.

I think part of my problem is that I'm not a fan of GS as a company. It's tainting my view of this building.

I actually kind of like 55 Water Street.

More than GS, even. Hell, I'm not even sure why I mentioned it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Hardly comparible to 55 Water Street - a mess that destroyed lower Manhattan's skyline from that view. On the contrary, this one enhances the skyline, and seems to have grown in like a piece that was missing. As far as why people take pictures of it, it's a very photogenic building. It makes no difference if it's of the WTC or not. Some people think the BofA is the WTC, but they would be taking photos of it regardless.

Pretty much the exact opposite of how I feel, but different strokes for different folks - right? I can't argue with you because you just posted an awesome update in the 1 WTC thread.

And people think Bank of America is the WTC? Damn!

I still think they could have done a better job on the facade, but the same goes for many towers going up right now. BofA included.

NYguy · #**376** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by meh_cd

And people think Bank of America is the WTC? Damn!

Yeah, I've actually heard people refer to it as the Freedom Tower - more than once. But to be fair, if you aren't from New York, and have no idea of what's going on at the WTC site (or where it's at), the only thing you may know is that there's a "Freedom Tower" under construction (somewhere in Manhattan). And the building is similar enough if you don't really look at skyscrapers often. Or maybe I'm just being nice...

meh_cd · #**377** Posted **Oct 2, 2009, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Yeah, I've actually heard people refer to it as the Freedom Tower - more than once. But to be fair, if you aren't from New York, and have no idea of what's going on at the WTC site (or where it's at), the only thing you may know is that there's a "Freedom Tower" under construction (somewhere in Manhattan). And the building is similar enough if you don't really look at skyscrapers often. Or maybe I'm just being nice...

Nah, I had a guy who had a New Jersey/New York accent ask me where the WTC site was when I was crossing West Street near Goldman Sachs. Most people just don't pay much attention.

YSL · #**378** Posted **Oct 4, 2009, 4:46 AM**

What IS that disgusting POS on NYGuy's post # 366? That shabby short brown/gray thing two buildings down on the left? Public housing? It looks so bizarrely low-rent and out of place in comparison to its surroundings. It always catches my eye. I am so sick of seeing it....it totally ruins the view and should be demolished.

All of its neighbors look nice and modern but that thing looks like a 1960s Asian commie block.

vandelay · #**379** Posted **Oct 4, 2009, 12:34 PM**

I think you're talking about Gateway Plaza. They're the first apartment buildings built in Battery Park City, and were completed in the early 80s. I agree, they're incredibly ugly. They ruin the view from the east and the west. If anyone complains about how red brick and homogeneous Battery Park is, they can blame these towers because they were so ugly that they inspired tighter design guidelines. The rent is a bit cheaper though, and of course the views are very good.

Dac150 · #**380** Posted **Oct 4, 2009, 6:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by YSL

What IS that disgusting POS on NYGuy's post # 366? That shabby short brown/gray thing two buildings down on the left? Public housing? It looks so bizarrely low-rent and out of place in comparison to its surroundings. It always catches my eye. I am so sick of seeing it....it totally ruins the view and should be demolished.

All of its neighbors look nice and modern but that thing looks like a 1960s Asian commie block.

To be honest I think the skyline would look awkward if it were anything but those buildings on those plots. Personally I think BPC was built just right, not too big and flashy, but a prelude to the Lower Manhattan skyline as a whole (when looking from the Hudson side).

These ‘commie block’ buildings also do a great job of making the WFC shine like the gem it is. It’s like sticking a Bentley between two 1980’s Toyotas. Sacrifice surroundings (which are actually beautiful at ground level) to show off beauty.