# NYC: New York Times vs. Bank of America



## Vlad the Great (Jul 22, 2004)

The 2 biggest skyscrapers currently u/c in New York City: Which one do you like better?  


New York Times Tower
weighing in at 1142 feet and 52 stories
Currently set for completion in 2007; Steel expected to rise soon




One Bryant Park (Bank of America Tower)
beefy at 1200+ feet and 54 stories.....really fat too but a crystalline shape



Set for completion in 2008; a little behind NYTT in the race. Will be tallest on 42nd Street....finally beating the Chrysler Building!



Pick One!


----------



## Vlad the Great (Jul 22, 2004)

Oh yeah.....I voted Bank of America.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

You should've had a 3rd option in the poll - "I like them both equally" - coz that's what I would have voted.


----------



## waccamatt (Mar 7, 2004)

Neither one makes me gaga. Another choice?


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

NYT is best 2ME!


----------



## Islander (Jul 29, 2004)

> really fat too but a crystalline shape


 It's not fat at all, it's just the angle (check out the 3d video below). Anyway, I prefer BOA.

http://www.durst.org/i_prop.asp?propertyid=12
Go to renderings/animations, and click the quicktime animation under "animations".


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

Finally New York adds two more towers above 1000ft. After losing the twin towers, only Chrysler and Empire State was over over 1000ft. Now with these two towers and the Freedom Tower (Which I hate the design) it will give New York 2 more distinct towers in the sea of skyscrapers that have very similar heights. I chose Times because, honestly, the BoFA reminds me of the Freedom Tower. The top of the BoFA looks as though it would be empty like the Freedom Tower's top.


----------



## RafflesCity (Sep 11, 2002)

this is really tough!

I prefer NYT so I voted for it, but the BOA is very exciting too


----------



## superskyline (Mar 1, 2005)

Deffinetly the New York Times Tower! I really like the top and shape, tall and slim!


----------



## jer4893 (Feb 5, 2005)

NY Times building looks very similar to Shangri-La in Vancouver. Bank of America tower dosn't really appeal to me.


----------



## get13 (Nov 27, 2004)

No doubt the NY Times tower. I just love it


----------



## Ellatur (Apr 7, 2004)

is the height of one bryant plaza including the spire? (or antenna?)


----------



## Hviid (Jan 8, 2005)

Bank of America .. for sure!


----------



## The Mad Hatter!! (Oct 27, 2004)

2 more spires,new york starting to look like dubaI with the spires everywhere,nyt boa is a bit bulky and akward


----------



## james2390 (Mar 31, 2003)

Bank of America is huge, so I'll go for the slimmer New York Times Tower. I like both though.


----------



## 612bv3 (Oct 10, 2004)

I like the BOA a tiny bit more than the NYTT.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I like the BoA. I'm not too big a fan of NYT's top.


----------



## Chibcha2k (Oct 19, 2002)

i can't make my mind up... I love them both!!


----------



## DamienK (Sep 11, 2002)

How tall is the NY Times Tower without the spire? 250 m?


----------



## Gendo (Dec 4, 2003)

That's a toughy, but BOAT edges out NYTT for me.


----------



## phillyskyline (Apr 23, 2005)

NTT looks to boxy.. i like BoA better. good to see NYC rebuilding.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

1000 footers? :| 

One's 950ft and the other is 850ft.

Anyways, I'll take BOA


----------



## 3tmk (Nov 23, 2002)

I like both of them, and being on 42nd, all those spires will look like candles, I can't wait to see them built, on top of that the NYTT is already getting above ground!
Even though I like the BoAT, I prefer the NYTT for its top that beats all


----------



## New Jack City (Dec 29, 2002)

What does everyone think now?

BOA:










Picture by: Carlos123

NY Times:


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

Boa for sure.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Both are great and I wouldn't mind having either of the two in my city. But I think I'll go with the New York Times for now. I'm not really a fan of BOA's shape. Plus, it is so rare nowadays for a skyscraper to pull off a modernist design without looking too cheap and tacky. The NYT definitely pulls it off! But the more I look at BOA, the more I like it. I'll wait for BOA to be complete before I give my final vote, in which I will probably change my mind then. So, I won't vote just yet.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

hngcm said:


> 1000 footers? :|
> 
> One's 950ft and the other is 850ft.
> 
> Anyways, I'll take BOA




Right:

In Hong Kong:

Bank of China is only 1001'

Central Plaza is only 1,014'

The Center is only 958'

as opposed to 1,227'- 1,205'- 1,135'

and in Dubai

Emirates office tower is 1,020 ft and not 1,163'

Burj Al Arab is 900 ft and not 1,053'

Emirates Hotel tower is 856' and not 1,001'

In Chicago, Trump is 1,171'- not 1,362'

Shun Hing Square in Shenzhen is 1,066' not 10 ft taller than ESB by way of teeny antennae's that make it 1,260'

Seg Plaza in Shenzhen 957', and not 1,167'

and @ 1,056' Citic plaza is not 1,283'

point is: Of course they are all considered taller because of their pinnacle heights but if Central Plaza is 1,227' then Boa is 1,200 ft. That thing ontop of Shung Hing Square officially ranks it higher than the Empire State Building.. they are spires. Then the spire on nytt counts just the same.


----------



## BrooklynNYC (Apr 10, 2007)

In my opinion, Bank of America has a much more sleek design.

And thanks nygirl, people need to leave New York's spires alone.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

BoC's and Central Plaza's (and The Center's for that matter) spire's look good in proportion to their height. 

Some of the new NYC buildings under construction have strangely disproportionate looking spires.


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

I don't think that's the case. Regardless they are spires that add height. Without the spires on Boc it barely breaks 1,000', without the spire on The Center it wouldn't even break 1'000 ft. The issue of official height by spire is objective observation. The fact that they look good is subjective opinion. The registered height is based on fact and not opinion. Therefore if those buildings in HK are 200 feet taller officially by way of spire than the same goes for these buildings in NY. Like it or not. If the building's spires in New York don't count then why should everywhere else? The fact is they do count in New York and they do count everywhere else you see one. So knock Shun Hing Square off of your top lists.. Because Empires' spire which is actually structurally connected to the rest of the building rises much taller than that of the rooftop of SHS. If this is the case than Burj Dubai is 200 ft shorter than it actually is scheduled to top out at ( leaving 200 extra ft for some other city to claim WTB one day). Let's face it the pinnacle on that building is no different than the spires on Petronas and we all know how that debocle turned out. 
The thing is we almost all collectively recognize these spires as additional heights on all these buildings. 1200 ft sounds alot better than 1000 ft. Doesn't change the fact that BOC is a fantastic building but significantly drops the height. 

I see all buildings with the spires for the heights they are with their spires. BOA and Nytt spires are drastically taller than most others. I can accept that. Doesn't change the fact that they pass the 1000' mark. Does it?


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

B of A's better.


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

Both didn't do much for me when they were first planned, and in both cases I've completely reversed my views. They're both fantastic. :cheers:


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

nygirl said:


> I don't think that's the case. Regardless they are spires that add height. Without the spires on Boc it barely breaks 1,000', without the spire on The Center it wouldn't even break 1'000 ft. The issue of official height by spire is objective observation. The fact that they look good is subjective opinion. The registered height is based on fact and not opinion. Therefore if those buildings in HK are 200 feet taller officially by way of spire than the same goes for these buildings in NY. Like it or not. If the building's spires in New York don't count then why should everywhere else? The fact is they do count in New York and they do count everywhere else you see one. So knock Shun Hing Square off of your top lists.. Because Empires' spire which is actually structurally connected to the rest of the building rises much taller than that of the rooftop of SHS. If this is the case than Burj Dubai is 200 ft shorter than it actually is scheduled to top out at ( leaving 200 extra ft for some other city to claim WTB one day). Let's face it the pinnacle on that building is no different than the spires on Petronas and we all know how that debocle turned out.
> The thing is we almost all collectively recognize these spires as additional heights on all these buildings. 1200 ft sounds alot better than 1000 ft. Doesn't change the fact that BOC is a fantastic building but significantly drops the height.
> 
> I see all buildings with the spires for the heights they are with their spires. BOA and Nytt spires are drastically taller than most others. I can accept that. Doesn't change the fact that they pass the 1000' mark. Does it?


Course not, just pointing out that some of the newer towers being built in the Big Apple have ungainly spires.


----------



## FROM LOS ANGELES (Sep 25, 2005)

Both of these structures are very remarkable, but this is owned by BoA. I would like these two buildings a lot more if they didn't cheat their height with huge spires.


----------



## GVNY (Feb 16, 2004)

New York Times for being a superior design.


----------



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

I think the freedom tower is gonna look good with the spire.

my vote is for b of a, considering the height and the angles.


----------



## SkyLerm (Nov 26, 2005)

BoA for me


----------

