NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,079 FT | 80 FLOORS - Page 97

Fishman92 · #**1921** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 12:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by STR

Huh. Looks like it was redesigned. So long X-bracing.

Vid screen was axed. Shame. This building has been gutted of everything that made it interesting.

Ugh.

WHAT have they done to this?! :O
They've just removed the master from Masterpiece. This is now an ugly block. Bring back the patterns! And our vid screen!

Grrr.

TXAlex · #**1922** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 12:28 AM**

The old rendering was my favorite building of the bunch. I guess only China gets to have structurally interesting buildings? What a shame.

Fishman92 · #**1923** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 12:38 AM**

Yeah, I'm really disappointed with this now- this was gunna be awesome!
Anyway, I changed its Wikipedia page with the new render and information.

patriotizzy · #**1924** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 12:50 AM**

Shame. I really loved the uniqueness of the building in the complex, with its X-bracings.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**1925** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 12:55 AM**

OMG WTF.......im moving to Hong Kong thats it.....They destroyed the Entire Facade top to bottom and even managed to destroy the aesthetics of the base.....

animatedmartian · #**1926** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 1:31 AM**

This wouldn't have anything to do with the redesign would it?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=1078

I'm just speculating but it would be nice if there was a current story attached to why they got rid of the braces.

yankeesfan1000 · #**1927** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 1:38 AM**

I have to imagine it is cost cutting, but aren't the braces important structurally? Now the tower really looks awkward to me, a bare middle, and flares or shoulders with braces, and now the four antenna things don't work either. The braces really made this tower from a big box into something interesting.

Side note, not much has changed on silversteins website.

daHawk · #**1928** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 1:38 AM**

interesting, I thought it was because it was an early build of the game, but apparently call of duty modern warfare 3 had a more accurate version of the building a month ago. coincidence?

original video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coiTJbr9m04

Innsertnamehere · #**1929** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 1:56 AM**

horrible! i can't believe my eyes! is it april first?

scalziand · #**1930** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 2:43 AM**

Sad.

At least it still has the braces on the side. Although they look weird now without the center bracing.

meh_cd · #**1931** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 4:09 AM**

Went from a piece of art to a piece of garbage in the blink of an eye.

uaarkson · #**1932** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 4:23 AM**

Heartbreaking. I pray the original design makes it through somehow.

JayPro · #**1933** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 6:13 AM**

IMHO;

As one who has never really understood the *aesthetic* need for exterior cross-bracing, I can suffer this ostensible re-design.

That said, there must be a lot of buildings that incorporate an X-pattern or the like into their facades without the need for additional steel (IIRC Dallas' Renaissance Tower pulls this off rather nicely). Perhaps, then, something could be done to emulate the scrapped design feature along these lines.

Somehow, I think that the building's verticality is slightly enhanced with this latest iteration. It's just that to me, the X's have always looked a wee bit intrusive. I just hope that the spandrel panelling (?) is prominent enough to properly integrate the zig-zags on the setbacks with everything else.

Edit: Cost-cutting at the expense of architectural nirvana is indeed a screaming, foaming bitch. But in all frankness, I dare to ask whether we rather have an arhitecturally diluted supertall...or none at all? If this measure was taken solely to expedite the tenant hunting process (and IMO it *was*), I for one...and maybe the *only* one...understand the motive, albeit most grudgingly.

I truly empathize with those of you who see this as an irreversible indignity to a neo-Gotham-like monument; but might I suggest that what we see as of *right now* might not equal what we ultimately get? I'm thinking about/hoping for what they did with the aforementioned Dallas building, which BTW, is *not* what was first built (completion in '74; reclad, exterior facade lighting et al in '86). We shall see.

I offer these words in the spirit of civil dialogue, fully aware that I appear to be in the extreme minority on this issue.

JayPro · #**1934** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 7:28 AM**

Animatedmartian brings up a *most* interesting issue:

Just why did the renderings of this tower sans-X's get released without any accompanying news...of any kind?? One would think that wtc.com would have the journalistic integrity to include newsfeed with them.

If this redesign was made at the behest of the artistically brain-dead scrooges at the PA, I can see where on thread page 54 (Go fig.), NYGuy's posting of an article snippet seems to validate what we're apparently seeing. But why no updates from wtc.com between then and now? We've only seen two renders---and shitty ones at that---for all of eight hours as I write this. Surely this is more than enough time for the geeks who engineer the site to post a story or two as horse's-mouth corroboration. Ever hear of updating from mobile devices, gents?
In short, look at wtc.com's section on 175G. Two horrid renders + zero accompanying information from the 'Net's most reliable and exhaustive source of information about WTC II = fuzzy math indeed.

All that said...

From what DaHawk posted earlier, riddle me this: How and when did that video game cap get tweaked to reflect this so-called change? Where did they get their information from? Do they know something that we as yet do not? Are we willing to accept a video game still on face value as proof that this alleged redesign hs been greenlighted??

Something stinks here. And the more I read things, the funkier the air gets.

Kanto · #**1935** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 10:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

IMHO;

As one who has never really understood the *aesthetic* need for exterior cross-bracing, I can suffer this ostensible re-design.

That said, there must be a lot of buildings that incorporate an X-pattern or the like into their facades without the need for additional steel (IIRC Dallas' Renaissance Tower pulls this off rather nicely). Perhaps, then, something could be done to emulate the scrapped design feature along these lines.

Somehow, I think that the building's verticality is slightly enhanced with this latest iteration. It's just that to me, the X's have always looked a wee bit intrusive. I just hope that the spandrel panelling (?) is prominent enough to properly integrate the zig-zags on the setbacks with everything else.

Edit: Cost-cutting at the expense of architectural nirvana is indeed a screaming, foaming bitch. But in all frankness, I dare to ask whether we rather have an arhitecturally diluted supertall...or none at all? If this measure was taken solely to expedite the tenant hunting process (and IMO it *was*), I for one...and maybe the *only* one...understand the motive, albeit most grudgingly.

I truly empathize with those of you who see this as an irreversible indignity to a neo-Gotham-like monument; but might I suggest that what we see as of *right now* might not equal what we ultimately get? I'm thinking about/hoping for what they did with the aforementioned Dallas building, which BTW, is *not* what was first built (completion in '74; reclad, exterior facade lighting et al in '86). We shall see.

I offer these words in the spirit of civil dialogue, fully aware that I appear to be in the extreme minority on this issue.

But you aren't the only one. I too think the design is better off without the bracing

RobertWalpole · #**1936** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 11:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

I have to imagine it is cost cutting, but aren't the braces important structurally? Now the tower really looks awkward to me, a bare middle, and flares or shoulders with braces, and now the four antenna things don't work either. The braces really made this tower from a big box into something interesting.

Side note, not much has changed on silversteins website.

The Hudson Yards has posed a problem for Silverstein since Related can lease new space at the VERY low rate of $70/sf due to huge city/state subsidies and the fact that he looks to merely break even on the office part and make money on the residential part. Silverstein needs to lease at lower rates and cost cutting is the only way to do this. Unlike Related, which seeks no profit from its office component, the office component at WTC 2 and 3 is Silverstein's sole source of profit, together with fees for building 1 and 4 WTC for the PA.

sterlippo1 · #**1937** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 11:10 AM**

no bracing?

i still lke it, just not as much. oh well, it's still a beauty

gardensoul · #**1938** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 11:53 AM**

I am really disappointed by the redesign here. It now comes across as enormously BLAND. Might as well just scrap it as far as aesthetics is concerned.

Fishman92 · #**1939** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 12:01 PM**

Damn, wikipedia removed the picture I changed on the Three WTC page. How can this render not get on there, when the old on did, and they were from the exact same source? Grr

.

giantSwan · #**1940** Posted **Jun 23, 2011, 1:30 PM**

my favorite part about the bracing was the jux it provided to the other towers in the WTC complex.