Perry

Regards,
C.J.Anderson-Wu
Editor of International News
Taiwan Architect Magazine
Founded in 1976, TAM is the oldest professional architectural journal among Chinese readership
http://www.twarchitect.org.tw

The Times owns half the building, including the portion it occupies. Forest City Ratner owns the other half. The management of The Times controls both its office space and the editorial page. One and the same.

http://www.snopes.com/college/halls/sinking.asp

So then is the problem that Ratner’s construction guys misread the plans?

Or is the problem that the Times didn’t ask for parking even though 40 bikes were regularly being parked in old Times buildings a number which should have been trending up?

It’s a good thing Piano didn’t make this mistake when building the addition for the Morgan Library. Of course, were the mistake to be repeated in designs for Columbia it shouldn’t be a problem since they are proposing to build a giant seven story basement (“bathtub”) that will go under most of the neighborhood they want to wipe out.

Both the New York Times site and Columbia’s building, just like Atlantic Yards, make use of the legerdemain of forced private-to-private owner eminent domain effected by public agencies. Eminent Domain in the name of the “public good” but no bike parking and no green certification!

(Note, the Times partnered with both: 1.) Forest City Ratner builder of Atlantic Yards, and 2.) Renzo Piano architect for Columbia University’s West Harlem expansion.)

Maybe this story is about the just the obliviousness of the Times, but the points made about New York Times local city reporting in the comments are well taken- Without employees biking, the Time reporting will be less sensitive. And with the Times beholden on getting permits they are apt to have been a little soft on letting things pass- And then there is eminent domain which they should be reporting on- but they themselves made use of it. Atlantic Yards doesn’t get mentioned (for instance in the recent articles on Doctoroff’s departure) or covered as it should. And the Columbia expansion is a very big story which will need to be reported comprehensively.

So where should we go for our New York City news?

The Times DOES needs to have its feet held to the fire on this issue as well as the building management. If the Times’ management really wanted the building management to change its bike policy, it would get changed. The only thing the Times needs to do is ask. The real question is, will they?

As for Fleury comment:
Interesting how the topic has shifted from “Phony ‘Green’ Architecture” to “Ha! The Times Ain’t so Liberal After All!”
I made that point all the way back at 14.

How about a demo in front of their building, or originate a Critical Mass Rally there?

(Btw, am I the only one who thinks that #33, VDH, may be a snooty little Brit.)

After lots of complaining, a much smaller, less convenient bike parking area was provided, but smokers were given precedence over cyclists at an organization whose mission is the public health.

So this story doesn’t surprise me.

By law, it is every building owner’s responsibility to maintain the sidewalk in front of the building and 6 inches from the curb into the street. The building owner is required to keep the area clear of obstructions and safe for pedestrians. There is good reason for this law. Just think of when it snows. If building owners were not responsible for the sidewalk (technically the sidewalk is not the building owner’s property), building owners would not have incentive to shovel snow off the sidewalk or keep the sidewalk clear to prevent slip and falls.

What is required to keep the sidewalks safe and whether chaining up bikes causes a hazard is up for debate.

Someone in the US used “take” correctly instead of the universally misused “bring”.

“”I started taking my bike up the freight elevator…”

My faith in the NYT is restored.