News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
I think the deal was that Deloitte didn't want to see the KPMG sign from their building. Presumably, there won't be a Deloitte sign facing KPMG either.
 
That's exactly what the deal was: employees of the two firms will be able to look out their respective windows in peace.

What I can't believe is that the sign on the south side of the building facing directly into Trump is still up. (It is still up, isn't it?) I cannot imagine anyone would want to live directly across the street from that, and they could likely have the City force it to be taken down.

42
 
interchange42 said:
That's exactly what the deal was: employees of the two firms will be able to look out their respective windows in peace.

What I can't believe is that the sign on the south side of the building facing directly into Trump is still up. (It is still up, isn't it?) I cannot imagine anyone would want to live directly across the street from that, and they could likely have the City force it to be taken down.

42
Click to expand...

Could they though? The sign was already there when they bought those apartments, so they knew what they were getting, or should have. I'm not sure what the current state of nuisance law is on this. In any event, the owners there may be sick of litigation at this point.
 
You would know better than I would about how it might be negotiated or litigated, but it strikes me that the City, having allowed residential zoning immediately south of where the KPMG sign went up, should now be doing what they can to have that removed. At the same time, what use now to the company is KPMG's sign facing south? It's not going to be seen by anyone other than very annoyed condo residents now.

42
 
Good points. Does the city regulate sign brightness? Otherwise, I would expect it would be for the Bigot Tower's residents and Brookfield to sort it out between them. Are any of the apartment owners actually complaining?
 
coT0ZIj.jpg
 
I don't understand. The top floor of the east tower is at least 5 stories shorter than the sign being taken down. I, for one, would think it would be neat having a massive sign outside my window anyways. Seeing things up close that almost everyone only ever sees far away can be a cool experience.

Plus, isn't this tower only commercial? It's not like the extra light coming from sign would affect anyone's life at night time.
 
I understand your sentiment, but when the sign directly outside your window belongs to your director competitor it doesn't make a great environment for hosting clients.
 
whatever said:
I understand your sentiment, but when the sign directly outside your window belongs to your director competitor it doesn't make a great environment for hosting clients.
Click to expand...

They can shut the shades then. They decided to move there :p

Besides, it's at least 5 stories higher than this tower's top floor (not including mechanical perhaps). How visible would it ever be from the window of the top rental floor?
 
whatever said:
I understand your sentiment, but when the sign directly outside your window belongs to your director competitor it doesn't make a great environment for hosting clients.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd have negotiated that deal too, and if I were Brookfield, I'd have taken it in order to lease those floors. But Deloitte has no clients who aren't aware of KPMG, E&Y and PWC, so it seems silly and petty.
 
In any case, both companies understood that it was better not to have to stare at the competitor's sign, so KPMG agreed to take their sign down and Deloitte agreed not to put one up.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top