NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,270 FT | 80 FLOORS | ON HOLD

[gramsjdg]

The "notion" of how we work in 2030?

What a pathetic load of BS!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

If the BIG proposal is what we're gonna end seeing rise, wouldn't it make sense to start re-configuring the foundation (for Foster's design) now so that when an anchor tenant is finally secured, it's ready to go vertical? Otherwise I'm just gonna assume that Silverstein is keeping both options on the table...

Why would Silverstein start up something that he may have to stop again anyway? This tower needs financing, and they're not about to start digging things up until they get it. When a tenant is signed, and they can move forward with construction, they will.

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

The "notion" of how we work in 2030?

What a pathetic load of BS!

These are people who would know more about the feedback they're getting from prospective tenants, so if that's what they say, I'll go along with it.



APRIL 12, 2016

[HiRiser]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Why would Silverstein start up something that he may have to stop again anyway? This tower needs financing, and they're not about to start digging things up until they get it. When a tenant is signed, and they can move forward with construction, they will.










These are people who would know more about the feedback they're getting from prospective tenants, so if that's what they say, I'll go along with it.



APRIL 12, 2016

That LED signage is quite trick isn't it. I like that part of the building design but not much else.

[HiRiser]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Blank walls typically refer to walls without any glass. 2WTC has no such walls - the building has a glass curtain the entire way around.

But I do find it strange that given BIG's emphasis on the stacked box design that they didn't emphasize each box the entire way around the building. It doesn't require physical setbacks for each section, but some kind of decorative metal work running around the perimeter of each set back spot might look nice.

A good fit would be a Columbia Center Seattle design with the concave curtainwall façade facing the reflective ponds. Using darkish glass as well.

[chris08876]

Just an interview with Bjarke Ingles. Talks about his work(s) in various cities. Up you if you want to watch them or not, but they are interesting. There's another video in the Kingdom Tower thread that in a nutshell, tells you in detail everything about the tower and design. Worth the watch. I try to post useful, but informative things.

• Video Link

If you like Ingels or not, that's fair, but the man does put effort and deep concepts within his work. For that, we have to respect him. There's more than meets the eye.

[TonyNYC]

Article in today's New York Post... Looks like both options for 2 WTC are still possible, with BIG's the favorite. Gives some hope for Foster's 2 WTC!



Silverstein Properties leaning towards BIG 2 WTC design

By Lois Weiss

May 4, 2016 | 1:16am


Silverstein Properties now has two, 3 million square-foot options for a new 2 World Trade Center tower, and we’ve now learned the developer is leaning towards the BIG one.

The first was the original Norman Foster design proposed after the site’s master plan was created. It has distinctive lighted diamonds on its slanted top.

The other is the Bjarke Ingels Group, aka BIG, design that was created to house 20th Century Fox and News Corp, The Post’s parent. But the decision to nix the move earlier this year left the two designs in hand.

The BIG building has staggered, planted terraces facing the east but also makes it appear to be facing away from the 9/11 Memorial Plaza.

Silverstein’s Chairman, Larry Silverstein, insisted that the BIG design shouldn’t be turned around, as I’ve always thought, and that it works “very well” with its current sitting.

“[The top of] Two was a distinguishing feature of Norman Foster’s design,” Silverstein said. “Opposed to what Bjarke Ingels proposed. We can go in either direction. Which way, we are not sure yet.”

But Silverstein added, “The probabilities are, and knowing the users we are talking to today, it will come down to the Bjarke Ingels.”

Other sources revealed those “users” grazing around the WTC campfire include both BlackRock and JPMorganChase, which, with at least 1 million square-foot requirements, are naturally also kicking bricks at Hudson

Yards, Manhattan West and other future market opportunities.

[NYguy]

But Silverstein added, “The probabilities are, and knowing the users we are talking to today, it will come down to the Bjarke Ingels.”

Pretty much what he's been saying. Only I wish he wouldn't have put it that way giving you guys false hope.

[Crawford]

We always knew the BIG design was the preferred design. It's what Silverstein wants, it's what the Port Authority wants, it's what tenants want.

[ILNY]

BIG ugly design is like a bad nightmare, it keeps coming back.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

We always knew the BIG design was the preferred design. It's what Silverstein wants, it's what the Port Authority wants, it's what tenants want.

But why? Who looks at those two designs and chooses BIG's? Honestly... WTF?

It's grown on me but still a far cry from Foster's although at this point I just want some ~400 meter building to get built there.

[CityGuy87]

If a tenant from the financial sector decides to anchor 2 WTC, there's a good chance they will pick Foster's tower, as his design was catered to banks and financial firms.

However, since the new WTC complex seems to be more in favor with the TAMI crowd, they will go with BIG's design, which obviously is the most likely outcome given the current atmosphere of the FiDi.

There's always the off-chance that a potential anchor tenant will request to bring their own hand-picked architect on board in the same way that Fox/NewsCorp brought BIG into the fold.

[JZeig1]

Originally Posted by ILNY

BIG ugly design is like a bad nightmare, it keeps coming back.

LMAO

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

But why? Who looks at those two designs and chooses BIG's? Honestly... WTF?

I prefer BIG's design. So, apparently do most tenants and most of the major players at the WTC.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

If a tenant from the financial sector decides to anchor 2 WTC, there's a good chance they will pick Foster's tower, as his design was catered to banks and financial firms.

Except that Silverstein said the opposite. The two main tenants they're in negotiations with are both traditional financial tenants (Blackrock and Chase) and Silverstein says he's leaning towards the BIG design.

[intheburg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except that Silverstein said the opposite. The two main tenants they're in negotiations with are both traditional financial tenants (Blackrock and Chase) and Silverstein says he's leaning towards the BIG design.

Precisely. There's no need for Silverstein to wonder what might be wanted. This gargantuan project won't be built until a significant tenant is signed. So by definition the building that gets built will be the building the tenant wants. The general trend is toward outdoor space for tenant use (in addition to and not necessarily opposed to outdoor space for public use as well), so if I had to guess, I'd say the BIG design will win out. But the point is that guessing is silly. It won't come down to a guess. It will come down to an actual tenant's desires.

The bottom line is that this building will not be built on spec. Whatever is built will be built because the tenant wanted it that way.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

But why? Who looks at those two designs and chooses BIG's? Honestly... WTF?

There honestly hasn't been much to see of Foster's design. What do you know about it other than it was to be topped by four "diamonds"? We've seen far more renderings from the BIG design (which isn't even finalized). This may seem odd to some of you, but any potential tenant interested in signing here couldn't care less about diamonds on the top. They're interested in what's inside the building.

Silverstein, who just wants to see the WTC finished (as I do) says the BIG design is where it's at. They are beginning to leave a mark on New York designwise (a number of proposals), though not on the scale of SHoP architects, which seems to be everywhere.

Anyway, Silverstein will do whatever it takes to get this tower built. The man isn't getting any younger, and would like to see this through. If by some miracle the Foster design was revived, it's just as well. I wouldn't bet on it though.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by NYguy

There honestly hasn't been much to see of Foster's design. What do you know about it other than it was to be topped by four "diamonds"? We've seen far more renderings from the BIG design (which isn't even finalized). This may seem odd to some of you, but any potential tenant interested in signing here couldn't care less about diamonds on the top. They're interested in what's inside the building.

I'm thinking more in terms of the base and how the foundation is already in place for the Foster design. While BIG's design is favored, I think based on the tenant, it could go either way. If Larry does land a finance tenant, than the Foster design theoretically may rise but if its something media based, we may very well see the BIG design.

Blackrock has been in talks with Silverstein, but I'm not holding any optimism just yet if that will go through. Ultimately, a tenant will land, and depending on who it is, we could get 1 of the two major proposal for the site going. I still hope its a finance tenant because a redesign of the foundation for the BIG structure will be needed and thats just adding on to the hard costs along with the soft.

The major problem with this site is the cost. Its going to be a $2.5 billion + tower regardless, and with the current foundation set for Fosters design, cost may play a role in which proposal ultimately rises.

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm thinking more in terms of the base and how the foundation is already in place for the Foster design. While BIG's design is favored, I think based on the tenant, it could go either way. If Larry does land a finance tenant, than the Foster design theoretically may rise but if its something media based, we may very well see the BIG design.

Blackrock has been in talks with Silverstein, but I'm not holding any optimism just yet if that will go through. Ultimately, a tenant will land, and depending on who it is, we could get 1 of the two major proposal for the site going. I still hope its a finance tenant because a redesign of the foundation for the BIG structure will be needed and thats just adding on to the hard costs along with the soft.

The major problem with this site is the cost. Its going to be a $2.5 billion + tower regardless, and with the current foundation set for Fosters design, cost may play a role in which proposal ultimately rises.

Not only the cost but how soon a tenant would need their space delivered by. Since the foundation for Foster's design is ready to go, it can immediately move on to vertical construction. With the BIG design, the foundation would obviously need to be reconfigured which could take several months and maybe up to a year to do.

Time is money and both of those factors seem to favor Foster's tower but obviously a media-based tenant will favor BIG or bring their own architect to the table. Nothing is final and it's ultimately whatever the tenant decides they want to occupy.

[tokilamockingbrd]

I think many people here over estimate the value a corporation places on the external look of the building they occupy. If the BIG design is truly much better for the people actually using the building (you know the tenants) than that is what they will most likely go with. I am sure externals matter to some tenants but not enough to go with inferior workspaces.

I personally think the Foster design is slightly better than BIG from an external perspective. But I was never in love with Foster's design to begin with. I think a building that looks like 30 Hudson would fit in well there. I think BIG's design is kinda confusing in the renders but I can also see it turning out alot better once completed.

[artspook]

Ingles is a good architect. . . Silverstein a good developer . .
but the reason we're seeing what we're seeing here . .
comes down to one word . . MONEY . .

All is fancy Salesmanship here . .
cheaper squared floor-plates for those crass-lookin' stacked "Tribeca" boxes . .
instead of foster's most every floor-plan design, being a double notched hexagon . .
Fashion another miserly generic box as a topper . . instead of . .
foster's lavish, very expensive, faceted, "million & one angles" crown.

Fox news could've easily configured TV studios . .
within the massive foster building envelope . .
just by changing column structure . .
Old Silverstein, Ingles, and Fox instead designed . .
a whole new CHEAP-O tower altogether . .
then conjured a rationale slogan . . "how we work in 2030" . .
everybody shakes hands and grins for the camera . .

They've got an airtight pitch . . they've got a golden-tongued,
"Time magazine 100 most influential people" architect colluding . .
they've got deal-with-the-devil excuses . .
they've got one colossal cheap-O turd . .
to bestow upon complacent, unobservant New Yorkers . .
with a big pile-O-MONEY for the conspirators ! . .

New Yorkers have waited so long for this building,
they've abandoned all recognition of stature . .
even at this symbolic anchoring of our momentous high-profile towers . .
We're easily satisfied with whatever they give us . .