# Renovating the UN



## flesh_is_weak (Jun 16, 2006)

i have a suggestion: put it on high orbit...that ought to make the UN more 'universal' so to speak


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

staff said:


> Holy shit. What's wrong with (a significant proportion of) Toronto forumers?
> The civic pride boosting thing seem to have worked. hno:


I don't see what's wrong with being civic minded. There are many cities that would love to have the UN, Toronto included. New York City wasn't a bad choice to build the UN, but times have changed since 1945. 

Shouldn't the UN be hosted in a country where it isn't neglected, or perhaps in a more neutral country? If Americans want the UN, they should pay attention to it. Look at this Montreal proposal:

http://galeriedephotos.cyberpresse.ca/index.php?t=Black&a=1102&m=cp


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The UN has been pretty clear in asserting that they weren't going to leave New York. Their structure is not likely to change, with other key locations in Vienna and Geneva.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I agree that the likelihood is almost nil, but the current state of their infrastructure is pretty bad. New York benefits tremendously from having the UN. They should offer more support than has been offered.


----------



## Gary_A_Hill (Aug 7, 2007)

*Stay in NYC.*



LordMarshall said:


> As for moving the HQ do a different city, I’m against the idea. The UN belongs in NY, over 50 years of history is associated with the buildings where they are now. I’m not willing to let that history go to waist just because the host country at present has problems with the UN. The Americans at the start were really proud of hosting the organization this pride needs to be rebuilt with the building.


I agree with this sentiment. Part of the reason for the delay is merely partisan politics in the US. Bolton has a reputation for being anti-UN, and because of this he couldn't even get confirmed by the Senate, so he is now gone. The President who appointed him will be gone in another year, and we can hope for better relations with the UN then.


----------



## Gary_A_Hill (Aug 7, 2007)

*International Style*



PotatoGuy said:


> I always thought the building was quite ¨70´s¨


It's actually "International Style," a term dating from the 1930s which applies to many buildings built in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. It's also a good example of the type, and symbolic of the UN (because of the assembly hall). I'm in favor of restoration.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I have no issue with the UN staying in New York, but the UN shouldn't be subjected to the climate of American politics. Places like Switzerland host many international organizations because they are stable and are seen as neutral. New York and the USA are neither these days. 

The UN probably won't move, but the present situation is ridiculous.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

isaidso said:


> I have no issue with the UN staying in New York, but the UN shouldn't be subjected to the climate of American politics. Places like Switzerland host many international organizations because they are stable and are seen as neutral. New York and the USA are neither these days.
> 
> The UN probably won't move, but the present situation is ridiculous.


The UN site is technically not American soil, and even if they are based elsewhere, given America's clout, the American influence is not likely to reduce.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

isaidso said:


> Hell, move that sucker to Toronto. Americans don't deserve to have it in their country. Toronto was made for the UN. Toronto is a microcosm of the world with no dominant ethnic group. No major world city can say that.
> 
> Toronto isn't English, Chinese, Italian, Russian, Nigerian, Brazilian, German, American, or any one thing in particuilar. It's a bringing together of the world's people under the umbrella of tolerance and liberty. Toronto is what the world would look like if all borders were erased. Every religion, nationality, ethnicity, culture, race, or obsure minority is represented in this city. There's never been anything like Toronto in the world. What better place on earth for the UN?


WTF? You're actually saying that no other city on Earth is as multicultural as Toronto? 

What a load of shit. You obviously have no idea about other cities and other countries.

I agree with taking the UN from NY, as the Americans are compromising it, but I wouldn't give it to Toronto. Western Europe would be far better as it's one of the few places left that is embracing democracy, rather than cutting away at the very foundations of it like the US is doing.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

It is you who is talking out of your ass. The United Nations itself views Toronto as the most multicultural city on earth. They are a fairly credible source, if you ask most people. There are many other academics and intellectuals that have argued that Canada is uniquely place to become the world's first post-modern nation. Suggested reading: Nationalism Without Walls by author Richard Gwyn. Toronto is further along the journey of diversity than anywhere else. Not only in the % of foreign born, the number of immigrants it takes in every year, but multicultualism is in fact the law of the land. The Constitution of Canada enshrines multiculturalism as the central principle of the nation. Canada is the first nation to do this. 

There is no dominant group in Toronto any more. London is dominated by British, New York by Americans. If you strip away the British from London, or Americans from New York, you get Toronto. Almost everyone here is from somewhere else. Those that can be classified solely as Canadian, are in the minority. You may not agree with this argument, but there is alot of data and research to back this up. 

There are many good candidate cities, I've never said anywhere that there weren't. I was born and raised in London, travelled all over Europe, spent alot of time in New York, and now live in Toronto. Having experienced all of these places, I agree with the United Nation's on this one. You don't have to, but if you think it is shit, take it up with the UN and do a little travelling before you make such ignorant comments. I moved here because it is an exciting time to be here. I asked a Russian why he moved to Toronto. His response was an exaggeration, but in many ways, very true: "everyone is moving here".


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I visited the building back in the summer. Nice but the style is dated, and when I mean dated, that's not a compliment. hno:

Anyway, I don't see the UN leaving anytime soon, thinking of a place to put the HQ would absolutely just bring non-stop bickering between nations. Chances are, though, it would be in a country on the Security council. :|



> The United Nations itself views Toronto as the most multicultural city on earth.


Don't get me wrong, Toronto is obviously a diverse place, and I'm not discounting that, but I believe that UN proclamation was an urban legend...


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I agree that the UN will stay in New York. It isn't an undesirable location. I'm not quite sure what you mean by urban legend though. People seem to get enraged even at the assertion that some place else might offer more diversity than London or New York. They can't fathom it. New York and London are universally viewed as the most diverse because of their place in the world. Doesn't mean that they are though.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

They aren't the most diverse places on earth, as that's all up to opinion and how you see diversity as. But London and NYC are cities of _power_ and will continue to look as themselves as so.

As for the urban legend thing, I believe that there was a report by the UN that said that Toronto, along with Miami and Vancouver, had the largest percentage of foreign-born, it never actually said it was the most _diverse_ city in the world and now the urban legend has perpetuated itself for the longest time.


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

The UN needs to be in America. As the most powerful nation on Earth, if America wasn't so directly involved with the UN, it would give it one more reason to back out of it.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

How about moving the UN to Gaza City, especially since Hamas supports the UN a lot.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*UN chief to work in tent on north lawn during five-year plans to refurbish UN building *
17 December 2007

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Renovations to the United Nations' stylishly obsolete headquarters are $219 million (euro152 million) "projected over budget," the former architect for the National Park Service who is heading up the five-year renovations said Monday. 

"These are based upon the delays of the past year," Michael Adlerstein told reporters. "We are absolutely committed to bringing the budget back completely to the original." 

A little over a year from now, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the General Assembly will be working in something of an elaborate tent city on the U.N. compound's north lawn by the East River. 

After renovations are complete, the United Nations "will not only be a safer, healthier, greener and a more secure place -- our renovated workshop for peace will also stand out as a symbol for building a revitalized united nations for a better world," U.N. deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said. 

While the 39-story Secretariat building and adjoining General Assembly Hall undergo a planned $1.876 billion (euro1.3 billion) interior makeover, Ban and other U.N. employees and delegates will remain on the U.N. campus, housed in a temporary conference building on the north lawn, Adlerstein said. 

Last week, the General Assembly signed off on Ban's plan to accelerate renovations, the first such work since the U.N. headquarters was built 55 years ago. Work that was initially planned to last seven years is now scheduled to be completed by 2013. 

The work is due to start next spring. While the buildings contain art and other cultural gems from around the world, they also have lead paint, asbestos insulation, worn-out interiors and outdated electrical wires and plumbing. 

The iconic postwar exteriors will remain the same. Plans also call for renting space enough to move hundreds of other U.N. staff elsewhere in Manhattan and across the East River in Long Island City. 

Adlerstein, who helped with improvements to the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island and New York Botanical Garden, said the renovations to heating, cooling, security, fire, information and broadcast systems would turn the building into "a model of environmentally sustainable construction" that consumes 40 percent less energy, in keeping with Ban's instructions. 

The U.N.'s energy bills are about $13 million (euro9 million) a year, Adlerstein added. 

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg demanded in October that U.N. officials quickly install new sprinklers, smoke detectors and exit signs or he would quit allowing students to visit because the buildings violate fire and safety codes. "We are in total agreement with the city of New York," Adlerstein said.


----------



## shadyunltd (May 1, 2006)

isaidso said:


> I agree that the likelihood is almost nil, but the current state of their infrastructure is pretty bad. New York benefits tremendously from having the UN. They should offer more support than has been offered.


Dude, the USA is the country contributing the most to the budget of the UN. In my book, that's enough.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

I hadn't seen this thread. I'm glad the UN's HQs is getting renovated 'cause, honestly, it's ugly


----------



## Ebola (Mar 12, 2006)

Funny how a thread about refurbishing the UN Global HQ building turns into a thread about how the US doesn't deserve the honor of having it and how it should be moved to another country, but that was obviously a given due to utter retards and racist idiots of SSC.


----------



## cheeps (Jun 5, 2007)

Move the UN out of the USA.


----------



## Ch.G Ch.G (Aug 4, 2007)

I'm surprised no one posted this story published by the New York Times late November:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/world/28nations.html

It doesn't go into great detail, but it implicates the United Nations in the hold-up for renovation just as much as the United States. Of course, truth matters little in the face of anti-US bias rampant in this threat, but I still figured I'd throw it out there.

And, yes, as a city with an ethnic plurality (37% White, 28% Black, 27% Latino, 10% Asian according to the 2000 census), a foreign-born population totaling 36%, and 170 languages spoken, New York is -- clearly! -- far from a "microcosm" of the world. Those damned Americans!


----------



## Ch.G Ch.G (Aug 4, 2007)

TalB said:


> How about moving the UN to Gaza City, especially since Hamas supports the UN a lot.


I second that motion.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

The reason why the UN was chosen to be in the US was b/c of the fact that the US was one of the few countries to have the ability to veto bills, which other countries lacked. At first the idea to have the UN was in DC, but it was rejected b/c that city was the capital of the US, and it felt too American to hold a world organization. Another city was in Philly, but b/c of having the Declaration of Indendence written there, it too was viewed as being too American. The same went was Boston when there was the Boston Tea Party, which lead to the American Revolution. San Francisco wasn't hated, but was rejected b/c it was too far for most of the original members. I think it was good that NYC was picked b/c it already had, and countinues to have, a large international population. The reason it stands where it is now was b/c the US government thought it would be joke building it on the east side, especially the fact that it was on the site of abandoned warehouses and factories. Before the current location was built, they were placed in Corona Pk in one of the former sites of the 1939 World's Fair. BTW, the UN has it's own zip code separate from the rest of the area it's in, so it's mailed to differently.


----------



## TU 'cane (Dec 9, 2007)

Are renovations even necessary?


----------



## Ch.G Ch.G (Aug 4, 2007)

Dr.Giggles said:


> Are renovations even necessary?


Are you kidding? The thing's falling apart.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*U.N. leases offices in N.Y. Picks building in midtown *
27 March 2008
The Washington Times

The United Nations yesterday said it has leased 15 floors of midtown office space, crossing the final logistical hurdle before the nearly $2 billion renovation begins in June. 

The organization will shift some 1,800 employees to a Madison Avenue glass tower for up to six years, while the iconic Secretariat Building is stripped down to the concrete slab and rebuilt with modern systems and security. 

The high price of temporary offices had threatened to derail the ambitious reconstruction effort, which includes the removal of asbestos-laden building materials, measures for the protection of visiting dignitaries and restoration of delicate historical architectural details. 

The new space will run slightly more than $53 per foot per year - roughly half the going rate for comparable midtown office space. That works out to roughly $24 million per year. 

The new location "will allow us to complete our swing-space needs while providing excellent proximity to the U.N. compound," said Michael Adlerstein, the architect who is overseeing the six-year plan. 

He said the negotiations began in December and were vetted by U.N. procurement and the legal office. 

The move will begin later this year or early next year. 

The organization would not normally be able to afford 460,000 square feet of office space at 380 Madison Ave., an increasingly empty office tower on one corner of 47th Street. 

Due to a complicated land lease, however, the office building is to become vacant in 2014, and few companies want to move into a building for only six years. 

The building's owner, New York real estate titan Sheldon Solow, has a tangled history with the United Nations. 

Mr. Solow is said to have opposed - loudly and powerfully - the organization's construction of a new building on city space at 42nd Street and First Avenue, just a few yards south of the U.N. compound. The New York State Senate finally denied the United Nations permission to build on the site in 2004. 

Now Mr. Solow has offered the United Nations space in the office tower he plans to construct on the site of a former Con Edison power plant just one block south of the U.N. compound. The organization is an appealing tenant, unlikely to be affected by economic downturns. It could also be a magnet for international organizations or foreign missions seeking nearby space. 

That office tower, as well as a half-dozen residential towers, was to have received the go-ahead last night by the New York City Council. 

However, the United Nations has millions of square feet of nearby office space, almost all of it at deeply discounted rates. 

These leases, which can cost as little as $23 per square foot - one-quarter of the prevailing prices - do not expire until 2023, giving the organization plenty of breathing room.


----------



## Pegasusbsb27 (Sep 5, 2005)

Oh come on people. If the world has a capital it is New York City. I think that everybody agree with me...So the UN must stay right there!


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

isaidso said:


> Hell, move that sucker to Toronto. Americans don't deserve to have it in their country. Toronto was made for the UN. Toronto is a microcosm of the world with no dominant ethnic group. No major world city can say that.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Vienna still has quite a large UN presence. I thought their compound was just like an enclosed city. So the World City project was even bigger than what's there now?


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

So the UN needs temporary office space while their buildings undergo reconstruction. Why don't they acquire an office building that is completely vacant as their temporary headquarters? I don't know if the UN will have a temporary headquarters during this rebuilding.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Jim856796 said:


> So the UN needs temporary office space while their buildings undergo reconstruction. Why don't they acquire an office building that is completely vacant as their temporary headquarters? I don't know if the UN will have a temporary headquarters during this rebuilding.


On the surface that would make sense, but:

1. The UN has to officially keep its hqrts, even if only in name, *on UN land *-- so it's technically INDEPENDENT of USA jurisdiction.

2. What mdtown Manhattan office buildings will give you a General Assembly hall (w/ all the intepreter and other support facilities, etc.) built in PLUS the Security Council, FAO Assembly rooms, etc.? None.

(The tall slab is called the Secretariat. The lower structure w/ the little dome is called the "GA" (or General Assembly wing). 

So this rebuilding every 10 floors is the best option. It will only displace some 1,800 employees with every shift, and those employees have to be physically close to UN hqrtrs. Also, remember that the UN already rents/occupies a lot of other surrounding office space that is NOT on UN land.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The UN isn't a very rich organization. I don't think they can afford a couple hundred million to buy a building.


----------



## Astralis (Jan 28, 2007)

They should renovate it ASAP :yes:.


----------



## Thorgeirr (Oct 3, 2007)

alesmarv said:


> I realy dont see why the United Nations is staying in America, they should realy move to another country. America doesnt deserve their presens.


I was thinking the other way. UN doesnt deserve to be in USA. Maybe they can move it to countries like Libya, you know one of the countries in human rights commission. :lol:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*U.N. headquarters renovation launched in New York *
By Patrick Worsnip
Mon May 5, 3:18 PM ET
Reuters 

Officials in blue U.N. hard hats broke ground on Monday for a temporary building at the United Nations, launching a $1.9 billion renovation project to make U.N. headquarters safer, more comfortable and greener.

The three-story structure to be built on the U.N.'s north lawn beside New York's East River will house conference rooms and the U.N. General Assembly until restoration of the nearly 60-year-old U.N. skyscraper is completed in five years.

The distinctive blue-tinted glass and steel 40-story building housing the U.N. secretariat, which was designed by French architect Le Corbusier and Brazil's Oscar Niemeyer, has been increasingly showing its age.

It has water dripping through its roof, toxic asbestos lining its ceiling tiles, no sprinklers in case of fire and erratic heating and cooling systems, leading to friction with New York City authorities.

New York architect Michael Adlerstein, the latest manager to head the much-delayed project, told reporters the aim was to leave the building's exterior looking the same as it does now.

"However, it will be a greener, more sustainable building, it will be a much safer builder and it will be modern," said Adlerstein, who previously worked to renovate buildings ranging from New York's Statue of Liberty to India's Taj Mahal.

From the end of this year, most of some 4,700 staff will be moved either into the temporary structure or into rented premises in Manhattan. The Security Council, however, is slated to continue functioning in the existing complex.

INCONVENIENCE

Speaking at the ground-breaking, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the work would bring "considerable inconvenience" to employees.

Ban and 16 other senior U.N. officials and diplomats then donned hard hats and used shovels to turn over dirt, marking a symbolic start to the project.

The project has been much criticized for delays. Planning started in 1995 and has been through several managers including Adlerstein's predecessor and fellow American, Louis Frederick Reuter, who quit after 10 months in what he called frustration at working within the U.N. system.

Cost estimates have also spiraled. Last October, Ban decided to speed up the project to keep it within a budget approved by the General Assembly of $1.877 billion.

Construction manager for the project is Skanska Building USA, a unit of Swedish construction group Skanska.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague (Nov 19, 2005)

TalB said:


> How about moving the UN to Gaza City, especially since Hamas supports the UN a lot.


That is an excellent idea, we can also get the US out of the UN at the same time. I've never been to NYC but I understand that the UN headquarters is on one end of 42nd street so it's probably prime real estate. The UN could sell the land off for high rise condos and use the proceeds to help finance construction of their new headquarters in Gaza which will provide a lot of construction jobs.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Yeah, right. The land of the UN was deeded to it 'in perpetuity' or until the organization disbands. I think you underestimate the UN if you think they will give up such prime Manhattan real estate so easily.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague (Nov 19, 2005)

rover3 said:


> Yeah, right. The land of the UN was deeded to it 'in perpetuity' or until the organization disbands. I think you underestimate the UN if you think they will give up such prime Manhattan real estate so easily.


Nope, I imagine they will sell for as much as they can get, should bring in quite a fortune. IIRC it was Rockefeller money that paid for the, if they are forced by the deed to hold title to the land then they can develop the site and use the income to finance operation at the their new headquarters in Gaza (or Geneva, Vienna, Toronto or wherever in the event that the Gaza location proves unsuitable for some unforeseen reason).


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

I know that. I mentioned that in a previous post. Read the rest of the thread before you post anymore so your points don't become redundant.


----------



## Thorgeirr (Oct 3, 2007)

rover3 said:


> Yeah, right. The land of the UN was deeded to it 'in perpetuity' or until the organization disbands. I think you underestimate the UN if you think they will give up such prime Manhattan real estate so easily.


They dont deserve a spot in Manhattan. I agree that they should get out.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*A hollow session puts the 'un-' in U.N. *
1 October 2010
The Washington Post

A colleague, walking by the 38-story United Nations headquarters last week during the 65th meeting of the General Assembly, looked up to see that the windows on several of the top floors appeared blown out, the wind whipping off the East River through the seemingly abandoned shell.

It was as if former U.S. ambassador John Bolton's fondest dream had come true!

"If the U.N. . . . building . . . lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference,'' Bolton famously said back in 1994. Asked this week about the building's appearance, Bolton e-mailed: "It's a start!"

Actually, the entire building has been gutted for a renovation project, scheduled for completion in three years or so, at best.

Maybe that's why last month's diplomatic gabfest just didn't have the same feel, the same excitement and side-splitting hilarity that these sessions generally have.

President Obama delivered a perfectly fine speech, nothing earth-shattering. And Iran's wacky president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, lamely tried to match prior ravings, but, aside from saying the United States orchestrated 9/11 to save the economy, his act seemed to have gotten a little stale and predictable.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez perhaps feared he could never top that 2006 slam of President George W. Bush, when he called Bush "the devil" and said "you can still smell the sulfur" after Bush had spoken in the chamber. Chavez, who didn't fare all that well in Venezuelan elections this week, was a no-show this time.

Ditto Loop Favorite Moammar Gaddafi of Libya, with his elite virgin-female bodyguard detail and collapsible tent. His spectacular fashion shows and dazzling incoherence of past years - demanding $7.77 trillion in reparations for colonialism - were a perennial highlight.

France's Nicolas Sarkozy, always entertaining with his stunning wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, gave but a cameo appearance. Neither of the Castro brothers was there. (Fidel last made an appearance in 2000.)

There wasn't so much as a drop-by from Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. That's probably because he faces international war crimes charges, accused of orchestrating a campaign of murder, torture and forced expulsions in Darfur, and would probably be arrested on the spot.

Speaking of the United Nations, Equatorial Guinea's foreign minister used the General Assembly meeting to call on the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to stop stalling and start giving out the life sciences award set up in the name of that country's dictator, Teodoro Obiang Nguema.

Loop Fans may recall that the award, endowed for five years by a $3 million gift from Obiang, was set up two years ago - over objections by Washington and the European Union - and then stalled over outrage from the human rights community.

The issue popped up again in June as Obiang, in power for 31 years, accused opponents who were trying to block the prize of being "colonialist, discriminatory, racist and prejudiced."

But Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu of South Africa told UNESCO, "a beacon for hope and development," not to allow "itself to burnish the unsavory reputation of a dictator" whose regime "has been marked by corruption and abuse."

UNESCO's executive board agreed to study the matter further, deferring the question again. Hard to imagine UNESCO would destroy once and for all its reputation for a lousy $3 million.

So, what's with all that digging on West Executive Drive between the West Wing and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building? The drilling and pounding, which started in May, are driving folks in nearby offices to distraction. A new bunker in the works?

Not so, says the General Services Administration. The official response: "The construction [is] to replace aged and service-interruption-prone heating, cooling, electrical, fire alarm equipment and systems serving the West Wing."

The GSA says it's "constantly working to mitigate as much as possible any impact on the day to day work at the White House." Sounded like the end of the world a couple of days ago.

When will this end - and, more important for some, when will the parking perks on the drive be restored? Ah, well, "looks like it will be more than a year," we were told.

Private sector, anyone?

The Agency for International Development, supposedly running the third prong of the Obama foreign policy of defense, diplomacy and development, didn't have an administrator for the first year of the administration - despite all the earnest talk about elevating the importance of development.

After Administrator Rajiv Shah was sworn in to run the place, his picture joined those of Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the wall in the agency lobby.

But Shah's photo recently disappeared. AID folks, prone to Machiavellian thinking, wondered whether this was a sign, a la the Soviets erasing photos of Trotsky.

"Maybe they're trying to send a message that he's no higher than a deputy secretary so why should his picture hang there?" one employee speculated.

Not really. Seems the problem is that you can't drill into metal wall, so the pictures are hung with Velcro, and sometimes they fall down. "Part of elevating development will involve upgrading to industrial-strength Velcro," said spokeswoman Lynne Weil. A visit to Home Depot appears to be in order.

As expected, Morgan Stanleyexecutive Tom Nides, formerly at Credit Suisse First Boston, Fannie Mae and the Bill Clinton-era U.S. trade rep's office, has been nominated as deputy secretary of state for management and resources. He would replace Jack Lew, whose nomination to run the Office of Management and Budget has been held by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) to protest the gulf oil-drilling moratorium.

Michael Vickers, now assistant secretary of defense for Special Operations/low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities (SOLIC&IC), has been picked to move up to undersecretary for intelligence.


----------



## Paper Ninja (Feb 7, 2008)

hkskyline said:


> "Part of elevating development will involve upgrading to industrial-strength Velcro,"



So regal.


----------



## bikegames59 (Oct 1, 2010)

UN is most famous organization, i dont believe they have such building i agree they shopuld moved to some other country, London is a good suggestion


----------



## bikegames59 (Oct 1, 2010)

I think London is a good option, they shouldnt live in such bad condition they should move as soon as possible


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

They are not moving anywhere, but proceeding with the renovation.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*U.N.: RENOVATION LEAVES SOME WORKERS HIGH AND DRY *

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 11, 2010 (IPS/GIN) - For more than two decades, he has served world leaders and diplomats who wined and dined here at United Nations headquarters in New York. Today, he is unsure how much longer he will be able to put food on his own table at home.

"We have been working here for so many years, but now they want to kick us out. This is not fair. We have families," said Syed Hussain, 54, who hails from Bangladesh and has worked at the delegates' dining room since 1988.

Hussain and his colleagues told IPS that all of them û nearly 100 û were worried about losing their jobs because Aramark, the private food company they work for, has decided to close down its operations at U.N. headquarters.

In May 2009, Aramark sent a letter to its employees indicating that it would no longer need their services after Aug. 10, 2010 when the U.N. started implementing its Capital Master Plan (CMP) to renovate the secretariat building, a landmark structure in midtown Manhattan, which was built between 1950 and 1952. It now appears that the workers will be laid off by the end of October.

The U.N. complex sits on more than 17 acres and includes six buildings totaling about 2.6 million square feet. The renovation work is due to be completed by 2013. Since last December, when the renovation started, some 6,000 UN employees have been relocated to other buildings.

The relocation has not only caused job losses for long-time workers like Hussain, but also made it hard for the staff and delegates to mingle with each other to exchange ideas about world affairs at lunch or dinner tables at a common and convenient place.

"It's no longer the United Nations. It's the dis-United Nations," remarked journalist Dogan Uluc. "It takes me more than 15 minutes from my office to walk all the way to a conference room in the new building. This is ridiculous. It's lousy planning."

Some critics have argued that the renovation is being used as a pretext to curb media access to delegates and Security Council members, and is also a veritable smokescreen to tighten restrictions on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) accredited to the world body.

In a hard-hitting letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in April, the NGO Working Group on U.N. Access complained that "the temporary arrangements, as part of the Capital Master Plan, are creating additional access problems and significantly reducing space for NGO participation."

In contrast, the plight of contract workers at the U.N., like those in the cafeteria, has been largely unnoticed.

Asked to explain why the architects of the so-called Capital Master Plan failed to take into consideration the negative impact on the professional and personal lives of the people who work at the U.N. compound, a CMP official referred IPS to Central Management Services (CMS), which signed the contract with Aramark. CMS officials did not respond to requests for comment on the loss of jobs for the delegates' dining room workers.

Jolio Mayata, who has worked there for more than 10 years, is worried. "The management is closing it down because they think they would lose business. But something must be done about it. For so many years, it has never been closed, not even during 9/11," he said.

Mir Wazid, a shop steward, added: "They (Aramark) say they are going to lose the business. Everybody is out of a job these days. If we are out of job, there will be no health insurance for us. The U.N. talks about human rights. Where are our human rights in this place?"

Manowar Khan, who has been working at the delegates' dining room since 1988, expressed similar concerns about U.N. officials' seeming inability to persuade Aramark to provide job security to its employees.

"The U.N. donates money all over the world, but here nobody cares for us. If they can't solve this internal problem, how can they claim to be solving the world's problems? The Fifth committee must take stern action to save our jobs. After all, we have served its members for so long," he said.

The Fifth Committee of the U.N. General Assembly is responsible for the world body's administration and budgetary matters.

Farhan Haq, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said U.N. officials fully support the rights of the dining room staff. "It's Aramark which makes decisions [about hiring and firing]. We don't. But we are trying to tell them that they should keep their staff," he said.

Like Haq, an official of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which is part of the U.N. system, expressed sympathy for the workers, but requested that his name not be used.

"We hope the catering company would follow the ILO rules," he said in response to a question about whether or not the ILO rules apply to workers who serve U.N. staff members and diplomats. "We would like to see the contracts between the U.N. and the catering company to be honoured."

When approached by this correspondent, the company's general manager, Ron Beck, first agreed to an interview in person, but later backtracked, saying: "I am not allowed to speak to you."

However, he confirmed that his company was ready to lay off its workers by the end of this month.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*NY bedbug epidemic spreads to the United Nations *
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101027/ts_nm/us_un_bedbugs_3

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - New York City's bedbug epidemic has spread to yet another landmark in the city that never sleeps - the United Nations, officials at the world organization said on Wednesday.

The pests appeared at places like the Empire State Building and Bloomingdale's before reaching the city's center of international diplomacy on the East Side of Manhattan.

The U.N. press office said a bedbug-sniffing dog had confirmed the presence of bedbugs in furniture in the basement of the Dag Hammarskjold Library, where the offices of the team overseeing the U.N. headquarter's $1.9 billion renovation project are housed.

"This furniture has been moved to a part of the building not occupied by staff to facilitate fumigation," it said.

The library is a three-story annex to the main building.

"Bedbug infestations have been found in many public and commercial buildings throughout New York City indicating a worsening problem," the U.N. statement said.

In August, the pest extermination company Terminex said that New York is the most bedbug-infested urban center in the United States. Other cities in the top five were Philadelphia, Detroit, Cincinnati and Chicago.


----------



## kilwa123 (Jan 21, 2012)

thanks for this post.


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

All I can say is the cladding on this building is 10x better than the hideous green-ish glass.


----------



## tim1807 (May 28, 2011)

Did they cleaned the windows for 1,2 billion dollars?


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

tim1807 said:


> Did they cleaned the windows for 1,2 billion dollars?


It's all new, not cleaned. 

This is how it used to look like... hideous 









http://wirednewyork.com/un.htm


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

They also upgraded the M&E services inside, removed the abestos.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Here is the website on the renovation plan and current status :
http://www.un.org/cmp/uncmp/english/index.asp


----------



## red_eagle_1982 (Jan 24, 2009)

èđđeůx;61014519 said:


> ^^ Stupid idea, in my opinion.


Perhaps, the word you were looking for is sarcastic.


----------



## WTCNewYork (Jun 9, 2011)

Sarcasticity said:


> It's all new, not cleaned.
> 
> This is how it used to look like... hideous
> 
> ...


To me it looked about ten times better with the old cladding. Its a shame they put on the new cladding and made it look so bland.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

WTCNewYork said:


> To me it looked about ten times better with the old cladding. Its a shame they put on the new cladding and made it look so bland.


Agreed. Just because we didn't like it doesn 't mean they won 't like it in the future either. If our ancestors did what we do now we would have very limited examples of previous architectural styles like Gothic, Baroque etc....


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

It does look too generic now. Might be more visually appealing but it has lost its unique character.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

I agree. It's ugly cladding look was kind of its signature. Now its just another tower.


----------



## 3tmk (Nov 23, 2002)

MDguy said:


> I agree. It's ugly cladding look was kind of its signature. Now its just another tower.


:yes:
Its ability to look absolutely hideous one day, and quite beautiful on another, all due to that cladding, was what made it great in the skyline.


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

The cladding always looked ugly to me, but I do see what you guys mean. It does look very generic now. But I'm still quite happy it went under renovation though.


----------

