That would make the most sense but the construction unions in New York have a peculiar agreement that the concrete workers cannot work ahead of the steel workers. So you will not see a concrete core rise ahead of the steel even though that is the schedule used in almost anyplace else in the world. BOFA and 7 WTC also have concrete cores that were never visible throughout anypoint of the construction process.

That's the exact same method being used to build the Comcast Center in Philly.

Wells thats fascinating. I hadn't heard that before. thanks for the info

What is the benifit to the unions to have it built this way? Both the steel workers and concreters are going to have the same amount of work anyway right? It almost sounds like doing things backwards (steel first then conrete) would create more work and man hours. Oh wait I think I just answered my question. :doh:

You people sound like a broken record. No matter how many times it's explained to you this this tower will take the rest of this year to reach street level, you still come back with the same questions and comments. And its not as if other towers in New York have moved any faster. We've been following skyscraper construction in the city long enough to know that once the tower reaches street level it will take off. You don't have to go far to see how long these things take, just look accross the street at the Goldman Sachs. A couple of blocks away, 10 Barclay St (a much smaller building) took a year or more to reach street level. If it takes that long, it takes that long. So, unless you're planning to die off, then it shouldn't matter. It's being built. End of story.

Work is steadily progressing in all quarters of ground zero now. The days of
delay are over, so everyone can just sit back, wait, and watch.

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/i...teOverlay4.jpg


http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/i...fredmtwr07.jpg


http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/i...fredmtwr08.jpg


http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/i...fredmtwr04.jpg


http://www.renewnyc.com/WebCamImages...2312595900.jpg

Great pics.
I'm not so familiar whit the site plan, but witch those numbers is memorial plaza? Or does it mean street level of memorial? I don't get idea of this picture (maybe thanks to my excellent English :)), it says that summer 2007 there is going to be paving and trees? I hope someone got my point... BTW sry for size of this pic.
http://www.renewnyc.com/images/memorial_timeline.jpg

Well, for a while, I wondered just how they'd be able to build the concrete base with all that steel on top of it.

Didn't dawn on me that steel is needed to help support the underground base. Now it appears that the workers are preparing to encase the steel columns with rebar for the concrete that will eventually surround the steel.

And BTW, the steel that's there even now, is just about at street level since those columns were extended.

Numbers 7, 8, and 9 are the memorial plaza sites...

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/i...teOverlay4.jpg


http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/i.../MemArea01.jpg

Gothamist....

Viñoly Spanks Freedom Tower

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments...y-renders2.jpg

January 23, 2007


As the architect Rafael Viñoly sees it, the Freedom Tower is utterly superfluous. This was the concluding thought of his public presentation on January 18, this year's first Third Thursday lecture sponsored by the Downtown Alliance.

Rounding out his half-stoic, half-bitter account of the past five years' WTC design proceedings, he plugged the new book, Think New York: A Ground Zero Diary, which chronicles these affairs from the point of view of the novel design team with which he collaborated. He also chucked a few zingers in the direction of the architect David Childs and former Governor Pataki. Left relatively unscathed was the developer Larry Silverstein, owner of the acclaimed new building (7 World Trade Center) in which the event was held.

Viñoly characterized Freedom Tower--designed by Childs and SOM--as economically inefficient and aesthetically mediocre, especially in relation to the adjacent, arguably superior office towers now being designed by Norman Foster, Richard Rogers and Fumihiko Maki (towers 2, 3, and 4 on the WTC site). The crowd of around 1000 appeared amused and perhaps stirred by Viñoly's flippant, imaginative renderings of the site depicting the Freedom Tower at half-height and then missing altogether. "You don't lose much," he quipped. Viñoly reasons that the Freedom Tower's 2.6M square feet of office space could be redistributed among other towers, and observes that its chief architectural features are its cheesy name and its height as measured in feet, which is the same number used to describe how many years passed between Jesus's birth and the American Revolution.

Finally, Viñoly compared the "comedy of errors" of designing and redesigning the Freedom Tower to the US invasion of Iraq, in the sense that the situation may be too flawed to fix. "You can't save face--because you made a blundering mistake," he said. On the other hand, the architect praised the exhilarating "injection of enthusiasm" about architecture and the design of public space during the early stages of planning. Recalling the site masterplan he co-generated as part of the THINK team, runner-up to Daniel Libeskind's plan in 2003, Viñoly said he still believes that the site should highlight cultural, arts and memorial facilities, while accommodating the required office space at the sidelines.

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments...inolyTalk3.jpg

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments...inolyTalk2.jpg

______________________________

A reminder:

http://www.schwartzarch.com/think01.jpg


http://www.schwartzarch.com/think03.jpg


http://www.schwartzarch.com/think02.jpg


http://www.schwartzarch.com/think04.jpg

Rounding out his half-stoic, half-bitter account of the past five years' WTC design proceedings, he plugged the new book, Think New York: A Ground Zero Diary, which chronicles these affairs from the point of view of the novel design team with which he collaborated. He also chucked a few zingers in the direction of the architect David Childs and former Governor Pataki.

******************

Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the rock...

It's ironic that Viñoly blasts an architect in whose very building he is giving his presentation.

That's too bad its not going to be the world's tallest, but i am happy nevertheless.

NYC doesn't need to have the world's tallest because there's no need to go that high anymore. Dubai's projects are all born out of ego and symbolism, not market conditions; while the Freedom Tower was born of .. oh.... wait a minute...

I suppose we should've gone for 2800 ft after all :rolleyes:

The difference between Dubai's projects, and the WTC (Freedom Tower) is that in New York, the towers are meant to replace what was already there, or restore the skyline. Its not about egos in New York, though they could have gone higher. Freedom Tower's height of 1,776 ft was born not out of the need to be tallest, but on marking a specific year.

But its not as if New York needs to make any global announcements to the world.

But wasn't New York in the 20's all about ego and symbolisim? Today, New York has many competing skylines, and in some surveys, it has lost it's title to at least Hong Kong and still losing ground in world wide development. One factor is that there are so many obstacles to building tall in New York, that it is easier for a developer to bow down and chop off height to get the projects built. To be impressed by America's tallest Skyscrapers being built, I need to look to Chicago for inspiration. Seems like developing the tallest is a been there done that thing now for New York.

On the last part, right, we don't need to make any announcements like that anymore and I said that already. But the Freedom Tower did NOT need to be 1776.. that's purely symbolism for the sake of symbolism like I sarcastically referred to, especially when the structure that's reaching the height is another freaking spire that could be built to any height, not just 1776. And I would also say Pataki's ego was a big enough factor in the equation to make my comment stand intact.

yes, back in the 20s, but like you said it's old hat here. And my comments were a poke at how while NY's skyscrapers are built almost entirely of market conditions now, the FT most definitely wasn't, as Rafael Vinoly clearly shows.

Personally I wouldnt like to see a building that high. In addition to there being no need, I think aesthetically the current height works best with the skyline. Just image the Burj Dubai in place of the Freedom Tower, it would ruin the skyline.

A very good point. Boston's new tallest proposal does something of the like in that it's nearly 1100 ft to rooftop while the rest of the skyline plateaus at around 600 ft, creating a big disparity.

And just to make it totally clear, I don't advocate building the FT up to Burj Dubai heights; I suggested it purely in jest.