Where Wil上海龙凤网论坛首页l WeWork?

aishanghai No Comments

by Brendan O’Connor


In December, the Wall Street Journal reported that coworking startup WeWork had leased around 1.6 million square feet of office space in New York. This made it the fastest-growing company by footprint in New York since 2010. In the months since then, WeWork has added nearly another half-million square feet.

“We take large spaces and cut them up into smaller spaces,” WeWork co-founder and CEO Adam Neumann said in a TechCrunch Disrupt Q&A from earlier this week. The business is much more complicated than that, of course: It offers free beer at all of its spaces; there are couches, where people from all walks of life (who are members of WeWork) can talk to each other; and there’s an app, a kind-of social network for members. In December, the four-year old WeWork closed a $355 million funding round at a $5 billion valuation.

“It’s almost like you’re a real estate company wrapped in this tech sheen,” Bloomberg Television’s Betty Liu pointed out in an interview with Neumann and early WeWork investor Mort Zuckerman, of Boston Properties, in February. “There is no real estate company that can become worth five billion dollars in four years,” Neumann demurred. In other interviews, Neumann emphasizes the WeWork app as much as the WeWork space itself. “We don’t have tenants, we have members. It’s a month-to-month licensing agreement, we’re not actually looking for long-term commitment,” he said.

Whether WeWork is looking for a long-term commitment from its members or not remains to be seen, but they have certainly made one — several, actually — to landlords in the city. (WeWork did not respond to requests for an interview.)

According to a survey of recently signed leases in Downtown Manhattan by a NYC commercial brokerage firm, in February, WeWork signed a new, sixteen-year lease at 85 Broad Street, in the Financial District, for 233,174 square feet across six floors. WeWork is paying approximately $5.1 million per year for the lower three floors, at $44 per square foot, and approximately $5.7 million per year for the upper three floors, at $49 per square foot; cumulatively, WeWork is paying somewhere around $11 million per year in rent for the next five years. (It goes up after that.) Average rent in the area was $56.94 per square foot at the end of March, according to market analysis by CBRE, so market rate for this amount of space would be closer to $13 million. In other words, WeWork is getting a pretty good deal. (It is also getting the first fourteen months for free.)

A couple of months later, in April, WeWork signed a nineteen-year lease for the entire fourth through seventeenth floors — 180,000 square feet — of 1460 Broadway in Midtown. The same day, WeWork signed a fifteen-year lease for 140,169 square feet — all nine floors — at 315 West 36th Street in Midtown West.

The more conventional real estate world admires WeWork’s rapid rise, but scoffs at its pretensions to being something other than it is. “It’s not original in concept: they’re executive suites. They’ve built on everyone else’s successes, and taken it a step further,” Jeff Nissani, a commercial broker at Marcus & Millichap, told me. Asked what their impact on the market has been, Nissani deemphasized WeWorks effect on rent rates. “Their impact is that it’s very difficult for other executive suites to compete. Because they’ve capitalized so well, they can offer a much higher-end build-out.” And, in turn, they can charge more for the space they provide: According to WeWork’s website, tenants at the space on Broad Street will pay from $750 per month for a one-person private office to $3,900 per month for a six-person private office.

So far in New York, WeWork has fifteen locations in Manhattan and one “coming soon” in DUMBO. (In November, Forbes confirmed reports that WeWork would be the anchor tenant of a $300 million redevelopment in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, of which Boston Properties is a co-owner; it will have some 200,000 square feet of space there.) The Brooklyn market is ripe for the taking: “The demand for small office spaces is the highest it’s ever been in the history of the borough,” Christopher Havens, vice president of aptsandlofts.com’s commercial division, told me. “When tenants call me looking for office space for one or two people, I say the chances are infinitesimal that they’re going to find something. People just don’t build offices that small. There are a lot of illegal subdivisions along the L train, east of the highway. But I tell clients, ‘Go to a coworking space.’”

“The demand for small office spaces in Brooklyn is not physically satisfiable — not without new construction,” Havens continued. “[WeWork] won’t ‘have an impact.’ They’re fulfilling a need — a desperate need. There’s no space.”

Neumann, who serves as the company’s public face, grew up on a kibbutz. “A kibbutz is a failed social experiment that happened in Israel,” he says in a video from a Q&A at this year’s TechCrunch Disrupt. The major flaw with the kibbutz Neumann grew up on, he says, is that everyone made the same amount of money. WeWork, he says, is a “capitalist kibbutz.” “One the one hand: community. On the other, still, you eat what you kill.”

The community that WeWork imagines itself providing is one from and through which capital flows, but it is also one in which people help each other out of the goodness of their hearts. “When Hurricane Sandy hit, our members were helping each other, some people had power and some people didn’t,” Neumann says. “That was the first time I saw our community really alive.” (Sharing economy start-ups in New York City love talking about Hurricane Sandy.)

“The world is changing. You have a generation that cherishes intention and meaning, a lot of times above material goods,” Neumann says. “We like to believe that anybody in the world who understands the sharing economy, who defines success not just as financial but also as feeling good, treating other people well, and just being grateful understands that by leveraging the sharing economy he or she can get space, cars, bikes, hotels — not only at a discounted rate, but through leveraging the sharing economy through a much more social experiences.” He continues, “Anybody who gets that is part of ‘the We Generation.’ It’s not limited by age.”

It is a convenient idea, this “We Generation.” It refers to a category of people united across all boundaries — space time, race, class, gender — by the illusory notion that we are all working and living for each other, and that somehow this notion is inherently compatible with the demands of investors, the market, and capitalism. The logical conclusion of WeWork’s vision is to expand into the residential market — to break down the boundaries between residential and commercial. This is already happening: landlord and developer Vornado Realty Trust is redeveloping a building for WeWork in Washington, D.C.’s Crystal City neighborhood that will include both residential and office space. “Landlords briefed by WeWork on the concept liken it to a dorm for Millennials in their 20s,” the Wall Street Journal reported. WeWork wants to control the space in which every significant aspect of a certain kind of person’s — the We Gen上海龙凤1314桑拿eration’s — life takes place.

One employee, who requested anonymity because talking to the press about WeLive is expressly forbidden by the company — “a higher up who did so was half-jokingly publicly shamed at the corporate summit” — told me, “They see themselves as Uber for space.” This person added, “They want to destroy the work-life barrier.” Imagine: You are a WeWork member, a graphic designer, maybe, or a serial entrepreneur. You have friends and colleagues and clients — what’s the difference, really — all over the country, or maybe even the world, and you can travel between WeWork’s residential office spaces to see them all for a few days, weeks, or months at a time, without ever leaving the comfort of your coworking home. Wherever you go, there We are. Living. Working. Weing.

In the Bloomberg Television interview, Zuckerman made it clear that he doesn’t think WeWork getting into residential is the best idea. Neumann is “the master of this new kind of office space,” Zuckerman said. “I would concentrate on that.” Then, he added, “When he has grey hair, then tell him to move into residential.” Neumann just smiled in response.

Internally, while there is some skepticism that the WeLive project is possible, there’s also the whole-hearted belief that if anyone can do it, Neumann can. “If you’re ever stumped for conversation you can just talk about how great Adam is,” the employee said. “Yesterday, people put wigs on for his birthday, to wish him a happy birthday.”

Photo by Payton Chung

Correction: This piece previously stated some of WeWork’s yearly rates as monthly. We regret the error.

Financin上海龙凤平台g Ventured

aishanghai No Comments

Facing overwhelming demand from institutional investors, Uber has expanded its Series E round of venture financing by $1 billion, according to documents filed Wednesday with the Delaware secretary of state, bringing the total capacity for the round up to $2.8 billion. The move, which was confirmed by Uber, occurred just weeks after the company closed a $1.2 billion round of financing. … The most recent expansion is on top of some $4 billion Uber raised, inc上海龙凤油压419luding a recent $1.6 billion round of convertible debt financing from the clients of the private wealth arm of Goldman Sachs, the investment bank previously confirmed.

Why, you might ask (or not, but whatever), would Uber need all that money — so much that it did not even expect to field that amount? A remarkably concise explanation from CEO Travis Kalanick:

@JeremyShure @ajs @MikeIsaac — Uber’s success is dependent on making transportation as a service sustainably lower cost than owning a car

— travis kalanick (@travisk) February 7, 2015

@JeremyShure @ajs @danprimack @MikeIsaac @Uber if we don’t lower prices sustainably below car ownership, market oppty significantly limited

— travis kalanick (@travisk) February 7, 2015

Building this kind of world-transforming infrastructure is indeed expensive, especially at a truly global scale. But how could it be possibly be sustainable for users to constantly pay another human to drive them around at a price that is still cheaper than owning a car, particularly in cities and suburbs that aren’t exactly dense?

@danprimack fair enough… driverless in 2030 FTW… ? /@MikeIsaac

— travis kalanick (@travisk) February 7, 2015

Oh, right.

Why Be a Renter When Yo上海龙凤空姐约会!!u Could Be a Sharelord?

aishanghai No Comments


Given mounting to opposition to Airbnb from various, disparate parties, one might reasonably ask how the company will fulfill its grander ambitions of making it so that “every person in every country can stay with someone on Airbnb,” and in the process, push forward a “broader evolution in capitalism,” in which one’s property and time become assets from which value can be unlocked by app middlemen, allowing you to maintain your ever-tenuous class position.

While the Home Share Lobby works on transforming government policy so that it is more favorable to Airbnb, the company is taking a more straightforward route with an opposition group motivated more directly by self-interest: landlords, who currently don’t get a cut of the revenue their tenants receive for renting out the apartments that they own. According to Bloomberg, Airbnb is “reaching out to some of the largest U.S. apartment owners with the aim of working out上海龙凤旗袍店具体地址 a deal in which tenants can rent out their units through the website — and have their landlord’s blessing.”

Any agreement would probably include some kind of revenue sharing, giving landlords a cut of income the tenants earn from renting out their apartments, said Rick Haughey, vice president of industry technology initiatives at the National Multifamily Housing Council. Negotiations would need to reassure owners that they’d have a say over what happens at their properties.

… Partnerships between Airbnb and landlords initially would be limited to markets where the legality of short-term rentals isn’t in question, the person with knowledge of the discussions said. That would rule out New York City for now but possibly include cities that have passed home-sharing regulations, such as Philadelphia; Nashville, Tennessee; and San Jose, California, according to the person.

This is only logical: If we arrive at the point where everyone is Airbnbing their apartment — or least thinking about it — the only possible result is that landlords begin baking that assumed income into the rent as a more complete assessment of their apartments’ value. If Airbnb signs deals with landlords, it would formalize such an arrangement and remove the lingering ambiguity that many hosts face about the legitimacy of their enterprise — and, in some cases, the risk that they might lose the very home they’re trying to keep.

But going a little further, one might ask: What does a slightly more efficient Airbnb look like? Who or what, given sufficient time or policy or technology, is less necessary than other components? For Uber, which efficiently allocates things in need of transit into empty car seats, drivers are openly a stopgap until driverless cars are ready sometime in the next fifteen years. Airbnb, viewed abstractly, efficiently distributes travelers into empty, extant rooms or homes, extracting value from underutilized space. Strictly speaking, the permanent tenants of those homes are not necessary, only the space. In the case of apartments it would seem more efficient for Airbnb to deal directly with a property owner than to sublet the space from a tenant. But removing tenants from the chain, however efficient, contradicts with not just the entire thrust of Airbnb’s current PR campaign for home-sharing — that it provides an economic lifeline to the middle and working class — but the policy goals that it is working toward, which would enshrine the right to share the home in which you live, whether you own or merely rent it.

Priorities shift though. Right now, at least rhetorically, much of Uber’s advocacy is around jobs and drivers, who leverage their time and vehicles to transport its users. (Uber even provides loans so that people can buy cars to become Uber drives!) But it’s clear, even today, that it will abandon them as soon as it is able to. In fact, it’s hard to overstate just how radically driverless cars will transform Uber: Currently, not a little of its value is predicated on how much of its infrastructure it doesn’t directly employ or own — meaning that it is very efficient — but a driverless world seems to all but require that Uber own or directly control its entire fleet.

Airbnb is slightly more opaque about its future, but there are probably hints in CEO Brian Chesky’s recent obsession with the hospitality industry, detailed in a Fast Company profile last year that also discussed the company’s hire of boutique hotelier Chip Conley:

“Our business isn’t [renting] the house,” Chesky says. “Our business is the entire trip.” His idea is to create a portfolio of new services that make the Airbnb experience more consistent from stay to stay, and that can generate lots and lots of additional revenue. One starting point: a cleaning service that will offer fresh sheets and towels to Airbnb proprietors. … Chesky’s first directive to Conley was to create a set of hospitality standards that could make the Airbnb guest experience more reliable. The aim was to figure out which baseline comforts Airbnb ought to offer guests, while embracing the unique, local, and often unpredictable charms its hosts provide on their own. In November, Conley rolled out nine such standards for hosts to follow. Some, like pledging that a listing is accurate, are general to the point of blather. But others specifically address cleanliness and appropriate ways to interact with guests.

Standardized hospitality and consistency, which would make Airbnb more hotel-like, seems to preclude the individuation of millions of regular, middle-class people sharing their homes, and points toward the ideal host being something between a landlord and a hotelier — or even toward Airbnb more directly controlling properties, even if much of its current value, like Uber, is tied up in the idea that it doesn’t actually own property. Then again, part of the pitch behind WeWork — the terrifically conventional real-estate company disguised as a startup which leases property, adds amenities like beer kegs, then sublets it to tech workers at a premium — has been that it is “asset-light,” meaning it owns no property, and yet it is now in the process of developing one. Which is all just a way saying it wouldn’t be so surprising if, in the next couple of years, Airbnb opens something like a “model hotel,” not unlike Amazon’s physical bookstore.

More broadly though, there’s a lot of property out there that could be developed into a fluid-use space, and whose value could be more thoroughly extracted if its usage and occupancy were allocated and distributed through a platform. Right now, cities largely make those decisions through permits and other regulatory frameworks; a loosening of that regime would, at least in the short or even medium term, make those properties more valuable by allowing platforms to take over that role. This is exactly what Airbnb is arguing about private homes after all: That cities — or even landlords — should not have the right to prevent the people who live there from doing whatever they want with it, like subletting it whenever they’re out of town for a weekend. Now extend that argument to every building in every desirable location, their utilization maximized through a platform: Wow, they all seem so much more valuable now.

Who knows though? It’s hard to predict what happens if we throw, like, traditional notions of the government enforcing property rights out the window and grant that to a large, ascendant middleman, because that’s precisely when things get weird. But one suspects there’s probably never been a better time to own a little piece of property in the heart of a very cool city.

Giph by Gifbay


Wild Nothing上海龙凤高桥, “Reichpop”

aishanghai No Comments


I have to think that should this song somehow fail to put you in a good mood it will, at the very least, not put you in a bad mood, which ought to count for somet上海龙凤论坛琪琪78hing. You’ve started off the day much worse, probably even this week. Still, it’s almost certainly better for everyone if you let it put you in a good mood, so try to work with that. Enjoy.


Better a上海爱上海龙凤s a Tweet

aishanghai No Comments

A great number of journalists, including most who cover Twitter, have made the service a major part of their jobs. It functions less as a resource than a context; a feed-and-follower-based framework that matches a reporter’s self-conception better than most of the other things they do at work, where their stories are filed and piled into publications with diminishing sense of direction or purpose. It’s a place where they feel listened-to, at least by their peers; it’s a place where their news can get just the right amount of traction, becoming visible to thousands of people without totally losing context. It’s a service that allows the writer’s ego to remain, if diminished, at least intact. It is a place where reporters perform their jobs in every sense of the word.

And so of course we’re mad! This time about [CHECKS TWITTER] the long tweets. Jack Dorsey, writing in the voice of the first-ever man to discover that sentences can be linked together into groups larger than two but fewer than infinity, responded to leaked news reports about “10,000-character tweets” with this announcement:


— Jack (@jack) January 5, 2016

“We’ve spent a lot of time observing what people are doing on Twitter, and we see them taking screenshots of text and tweeting it,” Dorsey writes. “Instead,” he asks, “what if that text… was actually text?” Not-quite answering his not-quite rhetorical question, he says: “That’s more utility and power.”

Screenshotting text is a common recent behavior: celebrities posting screenshots of notes; publications posting preview quotes; most commonly, probably, readers screenshotting and highlighting the parts of links they most want their followers to read. Twitter has been gradually and deliberately adding new types of media to Twitter posts for half a decade: with clickable hashtags; with shortened links; with images, then grids of images; with “Cards,” which preview text — many characters of text! — and pictures; with videos, then auto-playing videos; with quotes of tweets inside tweets. 140 characters, once an all-encompassing limit, became just one limit of many: you can have this many photos, this many links, and these many letters tying them all together. As Matt Buchanan wrote in 2012, after the introduction of one of an endless line of “new Twitters”:

So, this is the Twitter we have today, and the one we’ll essentially have for the foreseeable future, particularly since Twitter has pushed out third-party developers and clients that would give us an alternative way to look at and use Twitter. It’s rich and graphical and dense and will only become richer, denser and more media-heavy still. It’s ultimately a different service now, no longer simply about the best you can do with 140 characters.

Then, a conclusion that could have been written at the end of basically any Twitter article published since: “Twitter may well be just as important today as it was yesterday, if not more so, but the things we’re saying with it now just don’t feel quite so essential anymore.”

Anyway, people were posting images of text on Twitter for lots of reasons. They posted images of text because there was no other way to write long. They posted images of text because they wanted to highlight a quote. They posted images of text because… they wanted to post images of text! For all its reported struggles with growth, Twitter still has the rare privilege of being a destination — a platform that people check frequently and repeat上海龙凤90会馆edly, from which they find other things. People are linking to images on Twitter? Let’s incorporate images! People are watching YouTube videos from Facebook? Let’s host videos of our own. People are reading articles from the feed? Let’s… put articles in the feed! Platforms are markets; they research themselves. It’s a great setup for the platforms! And one that Twitter has embraced enthusiastically, gradually assembling a service out of features conceived and tested by users and (mostly now defunct) third parties. (Down to its logo. Down to its verbs!)

So the capability to post longer text posts that expand inside the feed seems especially notable because posts can be counted in characters, and Twitter is known for its character count. But a feed in which you can already tap “play” or open a grid of photos into a slideshow or open a link into an internal browser is a feed in which tapping a text preview to see more text will feel natural. It won’t take long, I imagine, for links to start to feel almost out of place — for Twitter to feel a bit more like Instagram, where users frequently write blog-length captions, and where the links and the web effectively don’t exist.

Like each change before it, longer text posts will alter the character of Twitter — they will make certain behaviors more attractive and common and will marginalize others. Alternative link-shortening services still exist for a very narrow set of uses — analytics, mostly — and plenty of people still post links to images or gifs hosted elsewhere. But the dominant link and image behaviors on Twitter became, as soon as was possible, native.

What’s unusual about text, and which helps explain why journalists’ reactions to this change are so confident and visceral — as opposed to the resigned and uncertain responses they have to changes in Facebook, which, to them, is much more powerful in ways they can control much less — is that, unlike, say, native Twitter images, which marginalized a small number of Twitter-specific companies, longer posts change a professional calculus for anyone who uses Twitter to promote writing online. An old boss used to say, half-joking and then eventually not joking at all, “maybe that story would be better as a tweet.” What was initially almost pejorative — said to mean “short” or “slight” or “unworthy of a longer post” — became a complex judgement. Could this piece of news be conveyed well in a sentence or two with an image or video? Could we just screenshot that statement, or release, rather than asking people to follow a link to a post where it’s quoted? If the answer is yes, then the corresponding reader question — would I rather see this on Twitter, or click on some site — is answered as well.

The ability to post 10,000 characters will make the answer to that question “yes” in a majority of situations. Possibly a large majority! This post, for example, would fit in a 10,000 word text card. I doubt anyone reading it expanded in their Twitter feed would think, “damn, I wish I was reading this on a website instead of right here! I wish I had clicked a link, for some reason!” This is somewhat worrying if you’re in the business of making posts against which ads are sold.

In the past, the tweeting media professional could attempt to justify the enormous amount of labor invested in the daily use of Twitter with a number of arguments: it sends traffic, which makes money with ads; it develops loyalty not just to me, your employee, but to you, my employer; it keeps us in “the conversation,” or “a conversation,” or “the most readily visible conversation.” The first argument, which was always questionable — Twitter never sent THAT much traffic, and the arguments that it was somehow especially valuable traffic were conveniently unquantifiable — barely applies. The jokes about journalists all “working for Twitter” suddenly become true in every way except one.

Longer text will, in this way, ruin Twitter for the people who are most vocal about its ruin: it will make the work they do better for Twitter, better for Twitter users, but worse for them (or at least their employers). If Twitter could absorb what’s left of blogging, great news for Twitter! Moments seems like it might be a better, or at least more complete, product if a “collection of tweets” could include a little more text, right?

Now commence some now-familiar conversations:

— If readers never leave Twitter, what does a publication matter to them?

— If readers never leave Twitter, how do posters get paid?

— If posters get paid, why only those posters? Because they work for publishers? Didn’t we just lose track of what a publisher is?

— How would revenue sharing work? Twitter doesn’t really monetize posts or videos or images so much as it monetizes the entire feed, so… ???? (I think this explains, somewhat, some publishers’ early experiences with Facebook Instant articles, which are returning significantly lower ad rates per-reader than heavily monetized webpages. Facebook’s like “nope, that’s the right amount of ads,” because they also monetize outside of individual posts, in the feed itself; publishers are like, “hey, uhhhh, we need to be making a LOT MORE on these posts to keep doing what we’re doing??” And then everyone backs out of the room shrugging. Allegedly.)

And some newer ones:

— Why would your interview subject, who is on Twitter, talk to you for a post that you’ll be putting in a text box on Twitter?

— Inline Twitter writing would be… different, right? You wouldn’t just write a straight new article to be read inline — it would have to feel sort of natural in the flow? It’s maybe not a place for stories so much as… announcements? Announcement-like things? Stories told like announcements?

— Twitter is currently testing non-chronological feeds, and already shows you tweets you “missed,” etc. A stronger emphasis on engagement will naturally favor native posts. This isn’t a question I guess.

— Will this make arguing on Twitter easier? (Or just more tempting, oh god)

— Do tweets become… headlines for themselves?

— What’s the end-game? Where does that gradual trajectory of follower growth end up? At a sad plateau corresponding with the death of Twitter? Somewhere else entirely? Just… here, forever? Hm.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. The only question in Jack’s post was “What if that text was… actually text?” More utility, more power. For Twitter.


上海龙凤 后花园Vacancy Curbed

aishanghai No Comments

Throwing it back.??? #nyc #summeranalyst2008

A photo posted by Pete Wang (@pwang1025) on Aug 1, 2015 at 8:57am PDT

The Real Deal reports that Vox Media “is in advanced discussions to sign a lease for more than 70,000 square feet at 85 Broad Street.” Vox Media’s New York headquarters, which houses much of its editorial, Vox Dot Com excepted, is currently in Midtown Manhattan. A move to the Financial District would have Vox following in the footsteps of Conde Nast, Time Inc., and News Corp., who have all fled Midtown for the austere-but-prosperous canyons of downtown, or announced plans to do so, adding another data point to the story that the “center of gravity” in New York media and dining has shifted southward.

If the deal goes through, Vox, a recent-but-proud member of the billion-dollar-valuation club, will be settling into the former headquarters of Goldman Sachs, a “brownish tower [that] isn’t interesting enough to be ugly,” according to the New York Observer:

Goldman Sachs became the world’s most important firm in a spectacularly dull, purposefully frumpy, desperately anonymous tower. Inside, it smelled like cigarettes in the 1980s and homemade chocolate chip cookies on the 30th floor. Babies cried in the first-floor day-care center; Jon Corzine worked outside in a Town Car parked on the curb after his ousting; and Hank Paulson felt sad when birds flew into the windows.

After being sold to MetLife and subsequently abandoned by Goldman in 2010 for a new headquarters at 200 West Street — which “appears to have been designed in the hope of rendering the company invisible” — 85 Broad Street was the home of the “largest vacant block of available space on the market,” which it couldn’t seem to fill until rather recently.

If Vox runs out of space again soon, it can always send employees down a few flights to the building’s new WeWork loca爱上海龙凤点评网tion.


Vox Media Terrorized by上海龙凤浦东川沙 Pissroach

aishanghai No Comments


Earlier today, Eater’s new executive editor Helen Rosner (congrats!) referred to a “beautiful” companywide email. The Awl has acquired it from an anonymous source, and we have learned that Vox Media’s New York office manager Becky Rosefelt may be the bravest and most patient soul in media: She is currently combatting a gigantic pissroach on behalf of Vox’s many salesdudes.

Hello gentle上海龙凤地址men of the 9th floor,

Now that 25% of you have approached me bearing an iphone 6 with a picture of a cockroach in the urinal, I’ll address this head on.

There is a cockroach in the urinal on the 9th floor.

Since I don’t want to touch it any more than you do, I’ve requested that the building take care of it. This hasn’t occurred yet, but when it does, I’m happy to notify you. No, you were not the only one to almost have a heart attack or wet yourself (although that’s the place to do it) — urine in good company.

Please refrain from showing me anymore cockroach pix. Check yourself before you insect yourself.


Vox, a billion-dollar company, is reportedly moving from its current pissroach-infested offices in Midtown to seventy thousand square feet of space in the Financial District at 85 Broad Street, the former headquarters of Goldman Sachs. We hope, at least for the office manager’s sake, that in addition to its many other amenities, that it is pissroach-free.

UPDATE: At least some Recode employees were not informed of the pissroach.

UPDATE II: Tipster: “Greg T. Gordon — Executive Director of Video, Vox Creative — for the kill.”

UPDATE III: Original pissroach photo added.

UPDATE IV: August 29, 2017—According to Jenny G. Zhang, newsletter editor for Eater, the pissroach (or a relative pissroach) has returned, this time to haunt the women’s bathroom

And here is a video:


Photo by Becky Rosefelt


New York C上海龙凤分体旗袍ity, January 5, 2016

aishanghai No Comments

weather review sky 010516

★★★ The heater had baked a dry patch at the back of the throat overnight. Wisps of steam flared short distances from the building tops. Here and there someone had salted an icy patch on the sidewalk; spilled liquid had frozen in rivulets where it ran. The cup of coffee from the luxe bakery slipped out the sides and top of the lid and dribbled down the new glove. T上海龙凤桑拿论坛1314here had been none of the glossy brand-colored plastic lid plugs on the counter by the milk. Finally it was necessary to stoop by the curb and pour a steaming jet of coffee out into the gutter to get the sloshing under control. A man in a knit Philadelphia Eagles hat walked up the avenue with a woman in a knit New York Giants hat. The thermometer indoors on the office windowsill said it was 64 degrees indoors. The deep afternoon cold did not prevent a note of marijuana smoke from floating on the open air in Union Square. “I smell kush, man!” one young man declared to another. “I smell kush, too!” the other replied. The trains were stuffed, hot, and dysfunctional. The express train arrived on the local track and went 30 blocks nonstop from there. On the walk back from the express stop, a foot slipped on a narrow slick of black ice in the roadway.

Older posts Newer posts