NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS

[newhannibal]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5569674581_0c51bd5c91_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanbudhu/5569674581/)
World Trade Center Site March 2011 Progress (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanbudhu/5569674581/) by newhannibal112 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ryanbudhu/), on Flickr

[Don098]

Has anyone visited the first post of this thread lately? I feel like it could really use a face lift because there are some ancient renderings on there. It'd be nice to see some of STR's stuff on there and some of the older ones weeded out, or at least reorganized as "earlier versions". The whole post just seems haphazardly put together and poorly designed.

Perhaps it could also include an FAQ section (i.e. constant arguments about height, how this building is measured, etc. etc.)

[The Grand Architect]

nah, its not neccessary.

The first posts are pretty much a "time capsule". It contains thoughts and renderings of what people thought were "true"- only today we realize that it was totally different.

In other words, it's history.

[Don098]

nah, its not neccessary.

The first posts are pretty much a "time capsule". It contains thoughts and renderings of what people thought were "true"- only today we realize that it was totally different.

In other words, it's history.

Well not really...the headline post serves as the cover page for most threads on this forum and many of them are updated as more information becomes available. I just think it would helpful, and it might slow the conversations about the same stuff that comes up over and over and over again every few months or so. I know the American Commerce Center's thread was set up that way...

[Obey]

Beautiful photo.

[Innsertnamehere]

Has anyone visited the first post of this thread lately? I feel like it could really use a face lift because there are some ancient renderings on there. It'd be nice to see some of STR's stuff on there and some of the older ones weeded out, or at least reorganized as "earlier versions". The whole post just seems haphazardly put together and poorly designed.

Perhaps it could also include an FAQ section (i.e. constant arguments about height, how this building is measured, etc. etc.)

i agree... maybe put a *updated* part at the bottom of the post.. but it does need to be updated. someone should send m II a II r II k a pm asking him to update it.

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Hey guy's, so when to we say goodbye to Seven World Trade's dominance over number 1 , days, or weeks?

[CoolCzech]

Hey guy's, so when to we say goodbye to Seven World Trade's dominance over number 1 , days, or weeks?

Judging by that last pic, I'd say 7's dominance has already left...

[NewNYCdowntown23]

Hit up the hotels - WFC Marriott on West Street, Millenium Hilton on Church and W Hotel and Residences. Many of them have nice vantage points from above, and some of them are accessible to the general public ;)

Thank you !! Much appreciated! :cheers:

[Domamania]

Tower 7's dominance will end withing mid to late april when the next 2 floors will be added to Tower 1 because as it stands now Tower 1 is 720 feet tall, Tower 7 is 742 feet tall. Now Each office floor for Tower1 is 13 feet 4 Inches tall so times that by 2 at its 26 feet 8 inches. Now 720 feet plus 26 feet 8 Inches is 746 Feet and 8 inches tall, and that would be enough to surpass Tower 7 and take the title as 21 st tallest building in New York City.

[The Grand Architect]

Do you guys mind if I show off my work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vvhf0wlx4

[JACKinBeantown]

Nice! It's like I'm watching it get built.. all by itself. :)

[UrbanImpressionist]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5569674581_0c51bd5c91_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanbudhu/5569674581/)
World Trade Center Site March 2011 Progress (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanbudhu/5569674581/) by newhannibal112 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ryanbudhu/), on Flickr


Beautiful pic newhannibal! Thanx for posting. That's one hell of a view from the Club Quarter's isn't it!?

I've been engrossed in my painting set in October (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=189324; it's odd to see Four WTC now obstructing a lot of the buildings to the NE.

You also have me considering changing the traffic on West St from static to time-lapse like I did for my Atlanta painting http://www.urbanimpressionist.com/m-atl.html to capture the electricity of the City. Hmmm decisions, decisions.

Oh and Do you guys mind if I show off my work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vvhf0wlx4

Amazing! I don't mind ...and I hope the mods don't either ;)

[hunser]

updated diagram by CULWULLA, SSC

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/7582/wtcmarc31.jpg

[The Grand Architect]

Nice! It's like I'm watching it get built.. all by itself. :)

Thanks, this is just a teaser. I'm currently making the upper floors and attempting to make the spire time-lapse as well. Hopefully that will be a little longer than my first.

[Biff]

So basically it is half-way done. Wow it sure seems pretty big already. 6 more meters to overtake Seven World Trade Center.

......really fun to watch.

[slayerhk47]

updated diagram by CULWULLA, SSC

These diagrams are awesome! :D


I hope he continues these with WTC 2 and 3.

[Roadcruiser1]

Wow One World Trade Center is really dominating. If it wasn't for the surround high rises, and if it was built in a low rising area instead you would really see something jutting up into the air.

[IntoTheLens827]

updated diagram by CULWULLA, SSC

WOW!!!!! It's very good to see this again!!!! :D I haven't seen this in a very long time. I love how you can see how tall it is on the Empire State Building. This tower is getting up there finally!!!! :tup: :cheers:

[The Grand Architect]

I can see the headlines, big, bold, black letters:

"One World Trade Center surpasses Empire State Building"

"Becomes tallest building in New York"

[jthornton17]

I can see the headlines, big, bold, black letters:

"One World Trade Center surpasses Empire State Building"

"Becomes tallest building in New York"

you're probably right. I wouldn't be shocked to see this headline instead though............"Freedom Tower surpasses Empire State Building." Infact, when I talk to most people in Memphis about it, they still call it the Freedom Tower. Even though I told them it's one world trade center. I have a feeling that's what most of America will call it.

[jthornton17]

Well not really...the headline post serves as the cover page for most threads on this forum and many of them are updated as more information becomes available. I just think it would helpful, and it might slow the conversations about the same stuff that comes up over and over and over again every few months or so. I know the American Commerce Center's thread was set up that way...

I don't know what your problem is with conversation about 1wtc. That's what this site is about. Your going to have new people who want to talk about issues and revisit them for updates. Maybe if they drives you so crazy, you should just skip on past what people say. That takes like, 20-30 seconds I guess? I really don't understand why people find the need to belittle people on here.

[JACKinBeantown]

Ditto. It should be close to the height of the main structure of ESB by September 11. Maybe not 320 m, but probably 296.

[The Grand Architect]

you're probably right. I wouldn't be shocked to see this headline instead though............"Freedom Tower surpasses Empire State Building." Infact, when I talk to most people in Memphis about it, they still call it the Freedom Tower. Even though I told them it's one world trade center. I have a feeling that's what most of America will call it.

Yeah, there will always be people that are split between calling it the Freedom Tower and One World Trade Center.

Just like the re-naming of the Sears Tower to Willis Tower in Chicago, IL. I still call it the Sears, because that's what I'm used to, and I will keep calling it that. I mean come on! It's only North America's Tallest Tower! (currently)

If you're asking for my opinion on the name, I would call it Freedom Tower. It started as the Freedom Tower, and I'm going to stick with it.

Just like the original Twin Towers. The One World Trade Center is also called the North Tower. Same applies here.

[37TimPPG]

Is 1WTC still on schedule to top out the end of this year? Or are we now looking at early 2012?

[Fishman92]

Is 1WTC still on schedule to top out the end of this year? Or are we now looking at early 2012?

It's going to be early 2012, with the spire completed by 2013. I've been watching this being built on the pa website for about 3 months. Infact, I didn't realise they were building until I found out in January. The progress has been so fast, apart from the past few floors.

Anyone know what the grey 'bands' around the tower are?
http://oxblue.com/archive/487d07189e5fd2b7edce94fc0bcf4b68/800x600.jpg

[The Grand Architect]

The grey bands are actually curtains that cover up the floor while workers spray fireproofing onto the floors and metal. A similar process was performed on the Original Twin Towers' North and South Tower.

[Fishman92]

Oh ok, also, is that one larger curtain covering the floors above the orange-coloured floors? It#s crazy that the glass is only four stories away from reaching it...

[The Grand Architect]

Correct. The curtain closest to the "orange" floors are for the fireproofing.

Oh, don't worry about how close the glass is. The coccoon safety wrap (black "skirt" covering the upper portion of the tower) will be cut shorter to allow more space for glass installation to continue. :)

[CoolCzech]

Any idea when the base will be finished?

[sw5710]

The scaffolding at the core is starting to jump up.

[Roadcruiser1]

As the Port Authority mentioned the base should be done somewhere this year, and as soon as the concrete dries they would put glass on the base which should happen during late 2011.

[Traynor]

Everything I have read, says the base will not be clad until the first quarter of 2012, but that may have changed.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

courtesy of Otie on SSC

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/9278/wtc30marzo.jpg
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/9278/wtc30marzo.jpg

12th row of glass goin up.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5576346869_bc1d148740_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5576346869_bc1d148740_z.jpg

[JACKinBeantown]

Nice work, SONY.

[uaarkson]

Credit Otie on that diagram, SONY. It's disrespectful.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Credit Otie on that diagram, SONY. It's disrespectful.

sorry sorry i never meant to claim it as my own. its late and i just forgot to credit him.

[NYC2ATX]

So, might the tower construction temporarily slow down in a few floors due to construction of the sky lobby? Forgive me if that's a silly question, but I've known it to happen in the past, and I am wondering if we should anticipate that. Thanks!

[newhannibal]

I know this has already been discussed but I am disappointed by the lack of an open air observation deck (at least we get an observation deck again). Hopefully, I'll be able to get on the roof of it when it is finished.

[RockMont]

I know this has already been discussed but I am disappointed by the lack of an open air observation deck (at least we get an observation deck again). Hopefully, I'll be able to get on the roof of it when it is finished.


Not only that, but the bastards have reneged on having a restaurant up there. C'mon, you guys, get with the program already!!!:hell:

[BStyles]

I would love to walk out on the roof too, if it doesn't involve me getting vaporized by a couple of microwave dishes.:P

I always had a thought that a great observation deck would be at the very top of the communications ring,but the space would probably be too limited anyway. Still, an indoor observation deck is open all year round, unlike bad weather days which closed the observation deck on the South Tower.

[Plokoon11]

No those white things are laser turrents. Just kidding.

[The Grand Architect]

I know this has already been discussed but I am disappointed by the lack of an open air observation deck

I agree that the new One World Trade Center lacks what the old Two World Trade Center has, and it is a disappointment. Especially for those who are young when 9/11 happened- they never got a chance to see the open roof observatory deck or get to enjoy a meal at the Windows of the World restaurant.

Anyways, I have made my second part of my One World Trade Center animated timelapse video. This time I decided to skip floors 86-104, and went ahead on the animation for the construction of the spire and communications ring. I hope this didn't disappoint anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8uxu7JcgI

Tell me what you think!

[Dac150]

Still on the topic of the open air observation deck I see….no point in dwelling on it folks, there’s plenty else to discuss.

[STR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8uxu7JcgI

Tell me what you think!

Poor choice of background music, but the video itself is a nice result for a couple day's work.

[The Grand Architect]

^Poor choice of background music, but the video itself is a nice result for a couple day's work.

Thanks STR. I agree, I could have chosen a better choice, but this one matches the trend of how the building's construction progress.

Oh, it's taking me higher, higher off the ground.

[Patapsco]

taken April 1, 2011
sorry it was snowing and the camera was running out of juice

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5108/5580951278_c8eec768c0_b.jpg

[SD_Phil]

^Great pic! It really shows off the mass of the tower.

[ESB/WTC fan]

I agree that the new One World Trade Center lacks what the old Two World Trade Center has, and it is a disappointment. Especially for those who are young when 9/11 happened- they never got a chance to see the open roof observatory deck or get to enjoy a meal at the Windows of the World restaurant.

Anyways, I have made my second part of my One World Trade Center animated timelapse video. This time I decided to skip floors 86-104, and went ahead on the animation for the construction of the spire and communications ring. I hope this didn't disappoint anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8uxu7JcgI

Tell me what you think!
Great Job on the video! Learned something new from it, I did not know the spire had steel inside it and I was wondering how they would setup the cranes to build the Spire.

I've wondering this for quite some time, not really related to the video but does anyone know if the spire will have a white beacon light flashing on it during the day like Bank of America/4 Times Square does and the Antenna on old 1 WTC did?

[The Grand Architect]

I'm glad you liked it!

The spire must have steel inside it to support it from the wind and the weight. Like any other antenna, it must be held in place securely.

Yup, I have a friend who is a construction manager and coordinates tasks, such as erecting cranes and dis-assembling them. Learned all the techniques from him :)

Basically, tower cranes are in a mutual relationship- one helps the other one get built, and that one helps the other one get dis-assembled. Once a tower gets topped off and is not needed anymore, one of the cranes gets lowered and dis-assembled, and parts of that crane gets lowered down with the remaining crane.

[Obey]

^Great pic! It really shows off the mass of the tower.

Yes it does, it looks huge now.

[Zensteeldude]

8675309, 8675309

[Zensteeldude]

Great Job on the video! Learned something new from it, I did not know the spire had steel inside it and I was wondering how they would setup the cranes to build the Spire.

I've wondering this for quite some time, not really related to the video but does anyone know if the spire will have a white beacon light flashing on it during the day like Bank of America/4 Times Square does and the Antenna on old 1 WTC did?

I guess you missed my post stating that the Spire weighs about a ton per foot of hight.

[STR]

Self-explanitory
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1226/68562965.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4585/54049395.jpg

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

now thats just EPIC! Great work as always STR. I take my hat off to you.

[jthornton17]

Self-explanitory
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1226/68562965.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4585/54049395.jpg

str, the best yet! Thanks, that's awesome!

[STR]

One more. Since the pools have a smaller footprint than the towers did, it can be hard to tell how close the new buildings will be to the old ones.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/849/19490582.jpg

[sterlippo1]

no disrespect intended but imagine all three of those babies there? super work as usual, STR:tup:

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Just a thought, when 1 World Trade surpasses Seven World Trade, how will the Discovery channel's camera be positioned?

[djlx2]

Just a thought, when 1 World Trade surpasses Seven World Trade, how will the Discovery channel's camera be positioned?

cameras are positioned based on lighting and composition. The lens looks at the subject. I'm not sure what the idea of competition is, but for a lens it's only about the subject.

[QUEENSNYMAN]

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/the-rising/ground-zero-pictures-02.html

I guess we will not see the cranes in action for not much longer from this view.

[STR]

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/8725/20990900.jpg

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5313/99772425.jpg

[djlx2]

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/the-rising/ground-zero-pictures-02.html

I guess we will not see the cranes in action for not much longer from this view.

Should we put them to bed? They might be tired. They can stay up though.

[djlx2]

Should we put them to bed? They might be tired. They can stay up though.

Just a joke, btw, not meant metaphorically. If we're not seeing them in action, that means something else.

[The Grand Architect]

Just a walk across the street and you're there. Nice work STR.

[The Grand Architect]

cameras are positioned based on lighting and composition. The lens looks at the subject. I'm not sure what the idea of competition is, but for a lens it's only about the subject.

Correct. In this case, the "subject" is Ground Zero. So I'm 99% sure it will stay focused on Ground Zero. 1 WTC just happended to pass within the camera range.

[Obey]

Nice renderings STR!

[meh_cd]

Still on the topic of the open air observation deck I see….no point in dwelling on it folks, there’s plenty else to discuss.

STR or Zen can feel free to correct me, but I think the setbacks on Towers 3 and 4 may serve as private little terraces for whoever leases those floors.

[AuxTown]

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1226/68562965.jpg

Wow great renderings STR! This is the first time I've ever really been able to visualize the site with all its towers relative to the originals.

As a side note, I just finished watching the documentary "Falling Man" and I think anyone who has been following this site since 9-11 should watch it. Sometimes people on this forum, including myself, question how much of the WTC site will be taken up by the memorial, but after watching something like this I almost feel like we shouldn't be building there at all. Just a thought....

BXnA9FjvLSU

[djlx2]

Correct. In this case, the "subject" is Ground Zero. So I'm 99% sure it will stay focused on Ground Zero. 1 WTC just happended to pass within the camera range.

Right, right, good point. I phrased that totally wrong, "lenses" should be plural. there's more than one camera, some are mechanically a lot better at it than others. Technology will catch up though.

[STR]

Inspiration (thanks GreenwichBoy@WiredNY (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3672&p=356704&viewfull=1#post356704))
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/6932/downloadei.jpg

Result
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6857/73955157.jpg

[CGII]

^^^^

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3864/1wtcconstruction.jpg

[djlx2]

^^^^

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3864/1wtcconstruction.jpg

what an incredible building; it's utterly overwhelming that, atop a tiny cement structure with bars over its only windows, an architect could construct miles of scaffolding to sustain an elegant peak that sustains the weight of it radio antenna. I don't think other radio antenna even know the half of it.

[STR]

You know, if I hadn't change the angle and zoom so much, the columns on that photoshop would have lined up perfectly. That would have been kinda cool.

[JACKinBeantown]

It's still pretty friggin cool. And it's just a matter of a simple distortion adjustment on the actual photo in Photoshop before placing it on your rendering.

[JACKinBeantown]

Wow great renderings STR! This is the first time I've ever really been able to visualize the site with all its towers relative to the originals.

As a side note, I just finished watching the documentary "Falling Man" and I think anyone who has been following this site since 9-11 should watch it. Sometimes people on this forum, including myself, question how much of the WTC site will be taken up by the memorial, but after watching something like this I almost feel like we shouldn't be building there at all. Just a thought....

BXnA9FjvLSU

It's still very difficult for me to watch video footage from that day. I saw enough with my own eyes to last my whole life. :(

[patriotizzy]

It's still very difficult for me to watch video footage from that day. I saw enough with my own eyes to last my whole life. :(

I get sad and depressed just watching documentaries of the tragedy. I can only imagine how you must feel, knowing what you've seen, and replaying those scenes in your head with videos.

[STR]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6884/28293156.jpg

[tdawg]

It's still very difficult for me to watch video footage from that day. I saw enough with my own eyes to last my whole life.

I agree.

[steveve]

As a side note, I just finished watching the documentary "Falling Man" and I think anyone who has been following this site since 9-11 should watch it. Sometimes people on this forum, including myself, question how much of the WTC site will be taken up by the memorial, but after watching something like this I almost feel like we shouldn't be building there at all. Just a thought....



i see your point, but i think for most tourists, it won't be the buildings that are the draw, but the memorials. i don't think many people (aside from us), care about these glass boxes that don't resemble the original towers (though they hint), the towers encompass the memorials below, and in the park will be the best way to see both memorials/towers.
i can't wait till this 10th anniversary of 9/11, just so that the public will have something to see (both memorials and towers). it'll be the first significant sign of progress to those not following the rebuilding.

1WTC FTW! :banana:

[Troubadour]

The size comparison of the original WTC with the new towers makes the new ones look pitiful. The terrorists hated those towers for a reason - their grandeur was godlike.

[aquablue]

Their design was also very 1970's. The new towers will bring NY into the 21st century with their modern, sleek designs and interesting facades. The glass will create amazing effects with changing lighting, something the old WTC won't be able to compete with. Yes, the old WTC had greater bulk it appears, but I'd take these 4 towers as they represent a modern looking city and a design style that reminds me of great Asian cities like Hong Kong. NY needs more airy skyscrapers of glass to even out the brick and concrete that dominates.

I have to say, my favorite tower must be Tower 4. It just oozes Tokyo or Osaka. A zen like approach that many don't appreciate. Think of the building as a meditating zen bhudist. Really, this building is a true masterpiece.

[Zapatan]

The size comparison of the original WTC with the new towers makes the new ones look pitiful. The terrorists hated those towers for a reason - their grandeur was godlike.


Not as much heightwise but their massive bulk, 1 and 2 WTC will be about as tall as the twins, just not as massive, especially near the top, which I agree is very dissapointing but there are also 4 towers instead of 2.


I would rather have the Twin Towers back than these buildings however this plan is not really that much worse.

[aquablue]

Not as much heightwise but their massive bulk, 1 and 2 WTC will be about as tall as the twins, just not as massive, especially near the top, which I agree is very dissapointing but there are also 4 towers instead of 2.


I would rather have the Twin Towers back than these buildings however this plan is not really that much worse.

Bulk gets old after a while. I'd much rather a glistening 21st century tower, even if a little thinner, than an old gray bully of a box that harks back to a time not known for its architectural taste.

[CoolCzech]

Not as much heightwise but their massive bulk, 1 and 2 WTC will be about as tall as the twins, just not as massive, especially near the top, which I agree is very dissapointing but there are also 4 towers instead of 2.


I would rather have the Twin Towers back than these buildings however this plan is not really that much worse.

Look, this debate has been hashed and rehashed many times over. The FT exceeds the height of the original by its spire, and matches the roof height. 2WTC will be just shy of the roofline of the original twins, 3WTC weighs in as a legitimate supertall, and 4 WTC would be the tallest tower in lower Manhattan but for the other three. So we are "settling" for 3 outstanding supertalls and one very well done near-supertall. Starchitects designed the new complex (ironically, I think that 1 WTC a/k/a FT is probably the best design, but was designed by arguably the least "starish" of the 4 architects. I think the FT should help lift Childs's overall reputation).

Remember: 9 years ago there was serious talk of putting up a few 50 story towers topped, maybe, by a giant "skyline element."

Once all four are standing, it won't be long before people instantly identify Manhattan by the mere sight of them just as much as the old towers were the instant symbol of NYC. And THAT is the mark of a true "icon."

[sw5710]

When you look at 1 WTC from the ESB when it is complete. It will look like a 200' or 205' wide rectangle up to the parapet at 1368' + Just like the original 1 WTC!.

[Zapatan]

Look, this debate has been hashed and rehashed many times over. The FT exceeds the height of the original by its spire, and matches the roof height. 2WTC will be just shy of the roofline of the original twins, 3WTC weighs in as a legitimate supertall, and 4 WTC would be the tallest tower in lower Manhattan but for the other three. So we are "settling" for 3 outstanding supertalls and one very well done near-supertall. Starchitects designed the new complex (ironically, I think that 1 WTC a/k/a FT is probably the best design, but was designed by arguably the least "starish" of the 4 architects. I think the FT should help lift Childs's overall reputation).

Remember: 9 years ago there was serious talk of putting up a few 50 story towers topped, maybe, by a giant "skyline element."

Once all four are standing, it won't be long before people instantly identify Manhattan by the mere sight of them just as much as the old towers were the instant symbol of NYC. And THAT is the mark of a true "icon."



I totally agree, If WTC does indeed end up being 1350 feet tall (with a 1430 foot spire) and 3WTC 1170 this plan is probably slightly better than the twins.

I personally liked the big grey boxiness of the original twins, because of how powerful looking they were.

[aquablue]

TBH, I've started to see a major missed opportunity with this tower. I feel the roof height isn't tall enough in relation to the other towers.

They should have raised the perceived roof height to around 500m and left off the spire. It should have been around Shanghai IFC height. The roof could have ended lower down, but the 8 sides could have continued up surrounding a vacant interior space to give the appearance of a taller structure. In that way, there would be no oversupply of space.

It is a pity that the antenna had to be there. I don't like the spire at all, and I think it looks silly. I never count spires when I compare heights. Also, i find the 1776 marker rather tacky and really melodramatic. Building a taller tower than before to roof (or percieved roof) should have been enough to restore American pride.

[STR]

When you look at 1 WTC from the ESB when it is complete. It will look like a 200' or 205' wide rectangle up to the parapet at 1368' + Just like the original 1 WTC!.

Not quite. The old 1WTC was not 1,368 to the parapet, but to the top of the hat truss in the middle of the roof (1,368'2 to be exact). The parapet on the old tower was 1,362'10" and both numbers were exactly 6' lower for the other tower (1362'2" & 1356'10) As for the rest of this nonsense, the new complex is bigger and denser than what came before. There's vastly more underground space, and more buildings that combine to choke a very large amount of sunlight. If you dislike it architecturally, whatever, but if you're calling it smaller, it's simply not true.

-Signed the only person on the f'ing planet that can walk through both.
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2199/tt15.jpg

[Zensteeldude]

:previous: Yes, the 1,368 Feet is the total overall hight of the North Tower.

Top of the "bump".

The South tower had no such "bump" thus the hight discrepancy between the two.

The new Tower One is as much a memorial to the Twins as the Memorial and Museum, and should be regarded as a visual aid to the hight and grandeur of the Twins . (I always thought it to be some kind of sick joke to rebuild the Twins. They are gone, long live there memory.)

STR, bloody great stuff ! I wish to thank you once again for all of your great renderings !

[STR]

The South tower had no such "bump" thus the hight discrepancy between the two.

Actually, it did. In fact, structurally, it could have mounted an identical antenna to the other tower, though it wasn't built with the broadcast facilities on the 110th floor.

The height discrepancy was due to two floors being taller in Tower 1, due to special needs by the Port Authority.

With all the crap removed from the roofs:
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5238/t57b.jpg

[Troubadour]

Not as much heightwise but their massive bulk, 1 and 2 WTC will be about as tall as the twins, just not as massive, especially near the top, which I agree is very dissapointing but there are also 4 towers instead of 2.

Unfortunately, not all 4 are guaranteed to happen. I hope they do though.

Bulk gets old after a while.

The old WTCs were perfectly-proportioned. They had the psychological effect of Doric columns: Massive without being elephantine; imperious without being oppressive; aspiring without being abstract. I think ancient architects and Renaissance artists would have loved those towers.

I'd much rather a glistening 21st century tower, even if a little thinner, than an old gray bully of a box that harks back to a time not known for its architectural taste.

Taste is rarely amicable to inspiration. How many times have we seen critics with a stick up their rear-ends deprecate landmark Asian skyscrapers as gaudy, sci-fi prop toys? According to "taste," everything should be designed either like a Baroque church or a meaningless amorphous shape (god forbid simple geometry!). No tasteful person would ever have built the pyramids.

[pj3000]

Not quite. The old 1WTC was not 1,368 to the parapet, but to the top of the hat truss in the middle of the roof (1,368'2 to be exact). The parapet on the old tower was 1,362'10" and both numbers were exactly 6' lower for the other tower (1362'2" & 1356'10) As for the rest of this nonsense, the new complex is bigger and denser than what came before. There's vastly more underground space, and more buildings that combine to choke a very large amount of sunlight. If you dislike it architecturally, whatever, but if you're calling it smaller, it's simply not true.

-Signed the only person on the f'ing planet that can walk through both.
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2199/tt15.jpg

Cool to see both rooftops for comparison.

I think quibbling over less than 6' when talking about a tower which rises over 1300' is rather unnecessary given the intent of sw5710's comment... stating simply how it will appear like the original 1WTC.

Sure, the new WTC will be bigger and denser than the original given that there are 4 huge towers, instead of the 2 even larger towers. However, there is no denying that the design of the original massive twin towers communicated greater mass and absolute verticality than the new version does. Maybe once all 4 towers are standing, that will not hold true, considering that there is only so much one can interpret from renderings - no matter how painstakingly-detailed they are.

If you want to be "Mr. Correct", fine. But that doesn't mean you have to be arrogant about it, with your "only person on the f'ing planet that can walk through both" tagline. Give us a break and stick to producing your nice drawings for our nerdy entertainment.

[Zensteeldude]

Actually, it did. In fact, structurally, it could have mounted an identical antenna to the other tower, though it wasn't built with the broadcast facilities on the 110th floor.

The height discrepancy was due to two floors being taller in Tower 1, due to special needs by the Port Authority.

With all the crap removed from the roofs:
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5238/t57b.jpg

DOE !!!!!!!!!!!!! I should stop disseminating and just go with the facts.

[jsr]

Actually, it did. In fact, structurally, it could have mounted an identical antenna to the other tower, though it wasn't built with the broadcast facilities on the 110th floor.

The height discrepancy was due to two floors being taller in Tower 1, due to special needs by the Port Authority.

With all the crap removed from the roofs:
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5238/t57b.jpg


Was there an enclosed floor numbered 110? I've always heard floor 110 was the actual rooftop.

BTW I know you hear this a million times, but this is really excellent work you are doing, and great way to keep an accurate memory of these buildings alive. :tup:

[STR]

There was a 110th floor in both buildings. In tower 1, it housed all of the TV stations. In both buildings it housed mechanical equipment and the window washing robot. It was ~15 feet high, though there was a depression in the ceiling of the 110th for the window washing tracks. The WTC towers were one of the few skyscrapers that didn't skip any floors. There were 116 floors (6 subgrade) from the foundation to the concrete roof. That includes the 13th, 42nd, 110th, the 1st and every one in between.

Maybe once all 4 towers are standing, that will not hold true, considering that there is only so much one can interpret from renderings - no matter how painstakingly-detailed they are.

If you want to be "Mr. Correct", fine. But that doesn't mean you have to be arrogant about it, with your "only person on the f'ing planet that can walk through both" tagline. Give us a break and stick to producing your nice drawings for our nerdy entertainment.

That first half of your comment is why I added the tag line. You don't understand the scale. You just don't, because of the simple fact you can't. The renders don't convey the scale of the new buildings. You have to sit yourself down at ground level and look around. Go inside. Experience it as you would the real thing. The old complex had the low rise buildings to contrast with. It allows you to better grasp the monumentality of the larger buildings, because you have something "normal" to compare them to.

The new WTC doesn't have that. You start with a giant building, and they get larger from there. Just showing an abstract render, especially one without benches, cars, doors and other human scale objects (which I may or may not ever get around to adding) doesn't convey mass or scale of the superhuman. Sure, they still show color and proportion, and to an extent how things will integrate into their surroundings, but that's it.

So you totally missed the point, my friend. That line wasn't a boast. It was the exact opposite, the admission that the works I made and posted here are utterly inadequate. You can't really convey scale with a photo either, as anyone who has taken photos of this building will attest to: it's bigger in real life. It's bigger virtually too, you just can't take a snapshot (which is all a render is) and still fill in all of the blanks.

So no offense taken, and I hope none was given. It really was a misunderstanding.

[Zapatan]

Unfortunately, not all 4 are guaranteed to happen. I hope they do though.
.


They're all under construction

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

today


http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5761.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5762.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5763.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5766.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5767.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5768.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5770.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5771.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5776.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5777.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5780.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5782.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5783.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5784.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5792.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5804.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5805.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5806.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5807.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5807.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5808.jpg

http://i810.photobucket.com/albums/zz27/skyscrapersofnewyork/stuff/DSCN5809.jpg

[Troubadour]

:previous: And that is why I'm on board with this tower, however awesome I felt its predecessors to be. Reflected cloudscapes like that are priceless.

[Roadcruiser1]

Since people were talking about this. First at least we are building there. If we just left the skyline with nothing it would be the most depression thing we would have ever seen. Plus Lower Manhattan would never have recovered from the loss of office space. The memorial would offer dedication to the dead, and the new buildings would show recovery. It's like the story of the phoenix. The phoenix was alive, it burned to death, and in the end it was reborn into a new bird.

Another thing is between the original World Trade Center with the Twin Towers, and the new World Trade Center with One, Two, Three, Four, and Five World Trade Center is the old WTC were like two sliver anchors that held down Lower Manhattan. They pierced the skyline while being visible. Those gray boxes were instantly noticeable. You could tell what that building was. You could as long as you could see them. In fact people in the state of CT could even see them as two thin gray lines in the skyline. They certainly fitted in with the designs of the 1970's.

For the new WTC the best way to describe it is it's a giant glassy obelisk that fits the modern day 21st Century. It's beautiful in it's own way. It would hopefully be as visible as the original Twin Towers were, and hopefully unique in the same way. From STR's rendering you could tell that these glassy buildings would be extremely shiny, and interesting to look at.