NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,079 FT | 80 FLOORS - Page 67

hunser · #**1321** Posted **Jul 16, 2010, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneWorldTradeCenter

Well, most websites accept that it's U/C. After my knowledge foundation work must have started. After that heppend, it is recoginzed to be U/C. I think they started with foundation construction.

i always thought that piling work was considered as construction!?

patriotizzy · #**1322** Posted **Jul 16, 2010, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

This lol. Everything's moving so fast!

uaarkson · #**1323** Posted **Jul 16, 2010, 11:20 PM**

I don't know about this one, but they definitely started piling on 2WTC.

brian.odonnell20 · #**1324** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 12:43 AM**

Imo it would do the aesthetics of the skyline more justice if tower 3 were shorter than tower 4, maybe at around the height of 7 wtc. think about it. the whole "spiral" design concept is very overrated and kind of ends the downtown skyline with 1 wtc and thats it. To make it as beautiful as it could be any skyline should be treated like an artwork, with peaks, overlaps, and balance. In addition to shortening tower 3, maybe build a 800-900 footer (residential maybe?) north of 7 wtc to balance it out. Think about it...

OneWorldTradeCenter · #**1325** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Imo it would do the aesthetics of the skyline more justice if tower 3 were shorter than tower 4, maybe at around the height of 7 wtc. think about it. the whole "spiral" design concept is very overrated and kind of ends the downtown skyline with 1 wtc and thats it. To make it as beautiful as it could be any skyline should be treated like an artwork, with peaks, overlaps, and balance. In addition to shortening tower 3, maybe build a 800-900 footer (residential maybe?) north of 7 wtc to balance it out. Think about it...

They want to replace the lost office space of 9/11 and no residential building. I thonk the height is good. NYC needs more supertalls.

brian.odonnell20 · #**1326** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 3:39 PM**

There's only half the demand for the lost office space anymore, thats the thing. That's why towers 2 and 3 are having all these problems with construction and delays in first the place, because people think that you can magically replace the office space even when the economy was roughly twice as strong before 9/11 than it is now.

If tower 2 was shortened, maybe in about half, that would take such a level of pressure away, not to mention the cost, and not to mention the delays. Because developers wouldn't have to make these promises ahead of time to lease all this space. They would just be able to build the towers without all the tentative deals and promises. Tower 2 would be as far as tower 1, and so would tower 4. I think we can sacrifice one 1200 something footer for the saving of time and money and aesthetics, also since there's two more gong up in midtown soon enough.

OneWorldTradeCenter · #**1327** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 3:41 PM**

In my opinion, it is the wrong way to decrease those towers, only because the economy is down that days. In a few years, the situation will be completely differnent.

BStyles · #**1328** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 5:00 PM**

Not only that, if they start construction that late the tower won't be completed until the critic-projected completion date. I'd really hate to hear them running up and down Manhattan screaming "I told you so!"

Hopefully Silverstein lands these tenants and everything turns out for the best.

hunser · #**1329** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

There's only half the demand for the lost office space anymore, thats the thing. That's why towers 2 and 3 are having all these problems with construction and delays in first the place, because people think that you can magically replace the office space even when the economy was roughly twice as strong before 9/11 than it is now.

If tower 2 was shortened, maybe in about half, that would take such a level of pressure away, not to mention the cost, and not to mention the delays. Because developers wouldn't have to make these promises ahead of time to lease all this space. They would just be able to build the towers without all the tentative deals and promises. Tower 2 would be as far as tower 1, and so would tower 4. I think we can sacrifice one 1200 something footer for the saving of time and money and aesthetics, also since there's two more gong up in midtown soon enough.

you are kidding right? i would wait another 10 years for 2WTC rather than to shorten it. and the last thing this city needs is another dead supertall!

brian.odonnell20 · #**1330** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 8:41 PM**

i'm not kidding, but i made a mistake, I meant shortening tower 3 not 2.

I don't understand the big deal about this. Later this year into next year when the economy recovers, there's going to be a boom at the magnitude of the 20/30's. Look at how many towers that are proposed or u/c right now amidst an economic recovery from the worst financial crisis since the depression. If this momentum were to continue until office space demand comes back, anyone would forget about tower 3 and look at the new 5 or 6 1200-1300 footers about to sprout up. People in nyc complain about a lack of supertalls when cities like san francisco or seattle or dallas or philadelphia can't even get one, while new york has 8 or 9. Give me a break and have some patience. You don't need to force every proposal when the financing or the leasing isn't there.

uaarkson · #**1331** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 8:54 PM**

Shortening any of these towers is a horrible idea. What are you smoking?

brian.odonnell20 · #**1332** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 9:04 PM**

Well its not a horrible idea, because like i said it is being forced even though the leasing, the financing, and the aesthetics aren't there.

hunser · #**1333** Posted **Jul 17, 2010, 9:32 PM**

i understand what you're trying to say but shortening any WTC tower is the wrong move here. it's no accident that each tower serves its purpose.

uaarkson · #**1334** Posted **Jul 18, 2010, 1:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Well its not a horrible idea, because like i said it is being forced even though the leasing, the financing, and the aesthetics aren't there.

The aesthetics aren't there? How is having the towers' height taper downward in a uniform fashion not aesthetically pleasing? Especially compared to having them taper downward, then up, then down again? 3WTC would lose all its proportional beauty if it were shortened. In addition, the office space will be in very high demand once the office market recovers. As a matter of fact, class A office space is already starting to come into high demand.

Honestly, I'm very glad opinions such as yours are in the minority. If it had any sway at all we'd be in trouble.

OneWorldTradeCenter · #**1335** Posted **Jul 18, 2010, 1:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunser

you are kidding right? i would wait another 10 years for 2WTC rather than to shorten it. and the last thing this city needs is another dead supertall!

brian.odonnell20 · #**1336** Posted **Jul 18, 2010, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

The aesthetics aren't there? How is having the towers' height taper downward in a uniform fashion not aesthetically pleasing? Especially compared to having them taper downward, then up, then down again? 3WTC would lose all its proportional beauty if it were shortened. In addition, the office space will be in very high demand once the office market recovers. As a matter of fact, class A office space is already starting to come into high demand.

Honestly, I'm very glad opinions such as yours are in the minority. If it had any sway at all we'd be in trouble.

Well frankly no, I don't find the downtown skyline being one gigantic diagonal line aesthetically pleasing, which was all I was trying to say in the first place.

That's what makes midtown's and chicago's skylines so great; the fact that there are many supertalls but they are all spread evenly throughout the area so there's balance and proportion, instead of all getting taller and taller to one side then suddenly dropping off to low rises.

"Especially compared to having them tapering down then up then down again?"
Your describing the basis form of skylines like midtown nyc, Hong Kong and Chicago and Dubai and Shanghai.

brian.odonnell20 · #**1337** Posted **Jul 18, 2010, 2:40 PM**

Oh, and the master plan has so much majority because people don't look at aesthetics first. People see 3 or 4 supertalls (4 wtc a supertall?) in one plan and jump and scream and get overly excited because of the height.

JSsocal · #**1338** Posted **Jul 18, 2010, 2:59 PM**

You gotta remember downtown's skyline is different then Chicago's for example. Historically it tapered down to the water, and the tallest buildings were clustered into the center, unlike Chicago's which is more comparable to a traditional skyline. Something lost with the previous WTC and especially the WFC is that point to the skyline, that graceful tapering. Downtown should have a point, and since the WFC, 7WTC, GS, and 1LP have all flatlined downtown at 750 feet, these towers need to be as tall as they are, (to be aesthetically pleasing.)

hunser · #**1339** Posted **Jul 18, 2010, 3:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSsocal

You gotta remember downtown's skyline is different then Chicago's for example. Historically it tapered down to the water, and the tallest buildings were clustered into the center, unlike Chicago's which is more comparable to a traditional skyline. Something lost with the previous WTC and especially the WFC is that point to the skyline, that graceful tapering. Downtown should have a point, and since the WFC, 7WTC, GS, and 1LP have all flatlined downtown at 750 feet, these towers need to be as tall as they are, (to be aesthetically pleasing.)

right. people get the feeling that the downtown skyline is "flat" and one can't blame them. only in NYC you can add a 700 footer and noone notices it, i.e. the tower just doesn't stick out. that's why we need those supertalls, desperately! also, the WTC towers will create a "pyramid- like effect" if you know what i mean. it will look awesome.

NYguy · #**1340** Posted **Jul 18, 2010, 9:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Well its not a horrible idea, because like i said it is being forced even though the leasing, the financing, and the aesthetics aren't there.

It's not being "forced". One way or another, the WTC space is going to be replaced, emhasis on "replaced". As should be obvious, it's the only place in lower Manhattan where new office space can be built (and make no mistake - the demand there will return just as surely as Goldman built itself a nice, fat headquarters). Considering the 4 to 5 years it takes to get towers of this magnitude built, it would be foolish to sit around and wait until a tenant is found to try and get the ball rolling. As it is now, Silverstein has a minimal amount of office space to lease to keep this one rising steady, and Tower 2 itself is planned to rise at lease up to street level - putting it at least a year or two ahead of any rival skyscrapers that will go up in Midtown. To make a long story short, demand for new, state of the art office space always returns to Manhattan. The fact that there's hardly any of it being built now makes the need all the more greater.