hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
... they don't plan to stay in New Jersey thereafter, especially since they were never able to convince the top brass to move to New Jersey.

I would be very surprised if this is true. The Goldman Sachs move to JC is not an isolated case. More and more law firms, hedge funds and other financial firms are moving a LOT of their back room operations to locations outside of NYC. With networking technologies that allow for offices over disparate locations to work and collaborate as if they were literally one door over, many firms have come to realize that paying premium rates on office space in NYC (what's the current rate per sq ft in Midtown and/or Downtown!?) is not worth it when you can buy space elsewhere (a client of mine just moved ALL of their support and backroom operations to Florida) for a fraction of the cost. Over the past year or two, many of my clients in Wall Street have leased and/or announced plans to move their staff to JC, keeping a small footprint in NY to use for upper management, some conference rooms and working offices, and for the NYC corporate address.

Not planning to stay in New Jersey doesn't mean moving back to NYC, for what it's worth. At the very least, I'm sure they will shop around again for massive tax breaks.

yes. i guess they want those tax breaks. i doubt gs would be dumb enuff to move all to consolidate ny area presence back in manhattan. they need contingency plans

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
... they don't plan to stay in New Jersey thereafter, especially since they were never able to convince the top brass to move to New Jersey.

I would be very surprised if this is true. The Goldman Sachs move to JC is not an isolated case. More and more law firms, hedge funds and other financial firms are moving a LOT of their back room operations to locations outside of NYC. With networking technologies that allow for offices over disparate locations to work and collaborate as if they were literally one door over, many firms have come to realize that paying premium rates on office space in NYC (what's the current rate per sq ft in Midtown and/or Downtown!?) is not worth it when you can buy space elsewhere (a client of mine just moved ALL of their support and backroom operations to Florida) for a fraction of the cost. Over the past year or two, many of my clients in Wall Street have leased and/or announced plans to move their staff to JC, keeping a small footprint in NY to use for upper management, some conference rooms and working offices, and for the NYC corporate address.

Not planning to stay in New Jersey doesn't mean moving back to NYC, for what it's worth. At the very least, I'm sure they will shop around again for massive tax breaks.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
... they don't plan to stay in New Jersey thereafter, especially since they were never able to convince the top brass to move to New Jersey.

I would be very surprised if this is true. The Goldman Sachs move to JC is not an isolated case. More and more law firms, hedge funds and other financial firms are moving a LOT of their back room operations to locations outside of NYC. With networking technologies that allow for offices over disparate locations to work and collaborate as if they were literally one door over, many firms have come to realize that paying premium rates on office space in NYC (what's the current rate per sq ft in Midtown and/or Downtown!?) is not worth it when you can buy space elsewhere (a client of mine just moved ALL of their support and backroom operations to Florida) for a fraction of the cost. Over the past year or two, many of my clients in Wall Street have leased and/or announced plans to move their staff to JC, keeping a small footprint in NY to use for upper management, some conference rooms and working offices, and for the NYC corporate address.

Conformist wrote:
... they don't plan to stay in New Jersey thereafter, especially since they were never able to convince the top brass to move to New Jersey.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
They give out millions and millions of dollars in bonuses every year to partners, but they can't fix their own building? And Fulop as an ex-employee has no juice to get this eyesore fixed?

I thought the rumor was they were moving out of this building. If true, it explains why they don't want to pay to maintain it.

i thought i read somewhere that gs was looking to build another building in jc,which was surprising given office vacancies in north jersey

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
They give out millions and millions of dollars in bonuses every year to partners, but they can't fix their own building? And Fulop as an ex-employee has no juice to get this eyesore fixed?

I thought the rumor was they were moving out of this building. If true, it explains why they don't want to pay to maintain it.

Monroe wrote:
They give out millions and millions of dollars in bonuses every year to partners, but they can't fix their own building? And Fulop as an ex-employee has no juice to get this eyesore fixed?

dtjcview wrote:
As far as I know - this is an issue with every single high-rise building, period. Ice sheets form on sides of buildings, then it slips off and falls when it starts to melt. Ever seen the yellow tape around the WFC?

You could just as easily die from falling ice from a 5-story building.

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
As far as I know - this is an issue with every single high-rise building, period. Ice sheets form on sides of buildings, then it slips off and falls when it starts to melt. Ever seen the yellow tape around the WFC?

You could just as easily die from falling ice from a 5-story building.

the point is they should thought about this problem while building the thing by protecting the streets near and not just throw some nets on top as an afterthought. It's something pretty obvious and well documented for highrises.

dtjcview wrote:
As far as I know - this is an issue with every single high-rise building, period. Ice sheets form on sides of buildings, then it slips off and falls when it starts to melt. Ever seen the yellow tape around the WFC?

You could just as easily die from falling ice from a 5-story building.

PotStirJC wrote:
What is the deal with the Goldman Sachs scaffolding?

1. I have heard rumors that there is a design flaw that causes icicles to form and fall from the tower. But this is just a rumor. I also heard there is a lawsuit against the architectural firm. Does anyone know the real reason for the scaffolding?

2. Does Goldman Sachs have the right to leave permanent scaffolding around the base of their tower? Shouldn't this be addressed by zoning laws? I'm sure this scaffolding was not shown when the tower was initially proposed. The town should force them to correct any problems that require the scaffolding (AHEM Mr. "conflict of interest" Fulop). They certainly can afford it. Not to mention the fact that they are using a makeshift solution to solve a potentially fatal design flaw.

Anyone have any info here?

moobycow wrote:
I believe they have problems with the facade and small pieces falling onto the walkway.