Condé Nast Seeks New Nest

otr4timesq Condé Nast Seeks New NestDespite the fact that Condé Nast is going through a period of unprecedented hardship, and despite the fact there could be more bad news coming down the pike—“Hold on to your seat this week,” said one source about potential news later this week regarding the fate of some of Condé’s B titles—the company hasn’t quit looking for a new home.

Condé Nast has been in the Death Star—oops! 4 Times Square—for only a decade now, but for the last year Si Newhouse has been itching to find a way to put all of his magazines under one big shiny roof.

In the fall of 2007, he signed up with developer Douglas Durst to build a new tower over the West Side railyards—the same man who built his home for him in Times Square—but once the M.T.A. chose Related Properties to build on the far West Side, that deal was dead in the water.

Then we heard in March 2008 from Condé Nast’s COO John Bellando that other options were being considered, but shortly afterward it became very quiet on the real estate front.

And despite the fact Mr. Newhouse folded Domino last week, and has mandated a uniform budget cut throughout the company, he is still very much looking for a new skyscraper.

“We have started having some conversations/discussions with people,” said spokeswoman Maurie Perl in an email.

And what people?

In the last month, Condé Nast has met with Stephen Ross’ Related Properties, according to a well-placed source. Brookfield Properties, another real-estate developer, had reportedly been talking to Condé Nast as late as September. Have they had a meeting more recently as well?

“No comment,” said Brookfield’s spokeswoman.

And apparently Douglas Durst hasn’t entirely given up the fight to try to convince Mr. Newhouse that 4 Times Square should be his home for the future.

“I can’t discuss discussions that are under discussion,” said Mr. Durst, through his spokesman.

Discuss!

“I wouldn’t use the word ‘negotiations,’” said Ms. Perl, the Condé Nast spokeswoman. “I think that would be too strong a characterization.”

jkoblin@observer.com

— Additional reporting by Eliot Brown

Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President