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

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Some pics of Three World as seen from here in the Rockaways , today: BY: NYMAN2010:

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, FEBRUARY 4TH, 2017 by NYMAN2010, on Flickr

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, FEBRUARY 4TH, 2017 by NYMAN2010, on Flickr

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, FEBRUARY 4TH, 2017 by NYMAN2010, on Flickr

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, FEBRUARY 4TH, 2017 by NYMAN2010, on Flickr

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, FEBRUARY 4TH, 2017 by NYMAN2010, on Flickr

NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE, FEBRUARY 4TH, 2017 by NYMAN2010, on Flickr

[NYguy]

shinya


















Kelly Hafermann

[artspook]

really great shot of a timeless classic's lit crown at night (in above pic) . .
it's a new sophisticated lighting configuration, atop 70 Pine, & it looks great . .
it complements the landmark quality architecture . .

175 Greenwich will probably botch our magical vertical skyline . .
by lighting its unimaginative top edge, with dumb horizontal neon lines . .
(don't know this to be true yet) . . but it'll probably try to match
tower 4's insipid cheap shopping-mall-in-the-sky scheme . .

[artspook]

hey QueensNYman ! . .
nice Lincoln ad (above) . .

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by artspook

hey QueensNYman ! . .
nice Lincoln ad (above) . .

Matthew McConaughey would be proud.

Originally Posted by artspook

175 Greenwich will probably botch our magical vertical skyline . .
by lighting its unimaginative top edge, with dumb horizontal neon lines . .
(don't know this to be true yet) . . but it'll probably try to match
tower 4's insipid cheap shopping-mall-in-the-sky scheme . .

That honor goes to 5 Beekman. 3 WTC is a Victoria Secret model compared to 5 Beekman and the damage it has done to this great skyline.

IMO, 4 WTC is the 2nd best looking tower in the complex. Sure its minimalistic, but it works, and it always looks good at every angle. Its just classy you know. Elegant. 4 WTC never did any harm to anybody. Never demanded respect. Its just there, gracefully inhabiting the skyline. Unlike 5 Beekman, who is a disheveled drunk in our skyline. The opposite of classy, with its obnoxious crown and cheap, grey wall facade.

[Mr Saturn64]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Matthew McConaughey would be proud.



That honor goes to 5 Beekman. 3 WTC is a Victoria Secret model compared to 5 Beekman and the damage it has done to this great skyline.

I don't see anything wrong with 5 Beekman.

4WTC is a pretty good building, but not as good as this or 1WTC. Of course, 1WTC owes much of its attractiveness to its height, and 3WTC would look much better with the spires, but still.

[NYguy]

Simone Gramegna

Old skyline (left) meets new (right)

[mrnyc]

ot, but i see from that last amazing pic that pier 17 still seems to be moving along. its taking a long time, but i imagine it would. i saw active work there the last time i looked in on it a few weeks ago.

[NYguy]

Arnaud Lerondeau

[hotwheels]

Photos Capture Three World Trade Center's Progression

As one of the most highly anticipated development projects in New York City, Three World Trade Center has continued to progress by leaps and bounds as we approach its 2018 launch date.

[NYguy]

Tony Shi

[Mr Saturn64]

Nice shots. I love the reflecting glass. The three towers look so good together with that same sort of reflection going on.

[Enigmatism415]

Originally Posted by Patrick

The problem with 3 WTC is it has too much detail. The Other towers are plain, but unique in their own way. The braceing on the tower is very cool, but dosnt belong in the complex. Maybe it would be better off without the exterior braceing.

They must have read your post... Was it worth it?

[NYguy]

ddny2k





Jörg Schubert





picturjii

[dropdeaded209]

it's kind of a shame those corner spires got VE-ed out of the design--would have added a nice high-tech look to the top...

[artspook]

"That honor goes to 5 Beekman. 3 WTC is a Victoria Secret model compared to 5 Beekman and the damage it has done to this great skyline."
- chris08876

that in response to my . .
"175 Greenwich will probably botch our magical vertical skyline . .
by lighting its unimaginative top edge, with dumb horizontal neon lines . .
(don't know this to be true yet) . . but it'll probably try to match
tower 4's insipid cheap shopping-mall-in-the-sky scheme . . " . .
- artspook

I do indeed agree that 3 WTC is more noble than 5 Beekman . .
though for its size, it should've been more so . .
I was speaking only in terms of 4 WTC's cheap crown lighting at night . .
and I am hoping for something more impressive & imaginative for 3 WTC . .
in that regard . .

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

it's kind of a shame those corner spires got VE-ed out of the design--would have added a nice high-tech look to the top...

sadly it wasn't about the money, it was a concurrence among the architects to make the master plan more homogeneous. You can blame BIG's flat topped Tower 2 for that. It's no coincidence the spires disappeared with the 2 WTC redesign.

[artspook]

"make the master plan more homogeneous" - Hudson11

you mean that all of that sameness . .
of harsh, shiny, monotonous glass, isn't more than enough homogeneity ? . .
that one must bash down every leap of design enthusiasm, . .
into rigid conformity . . to submit to, whose criterion ? whose fear of expression ? . .
Certainly not Richard Rogers's or Norman Foster's . .

I fear that, that type of "concurrence among the architects" that you mention . .
is nothing more than a bread & butter political facade of civility . .
so that the architects can make it easier on themselves . .
while continuing to work with the penny-pinching developers in this town . .
the entire WTC complex would've been elevated by a more imposing 3WTC . .
Why have two out of 4, badly designed buildings . .
when you could have only one . .

the Ingles 2 WTC heap, of course, has all the misshapen dignity
of a warehouse on the old Gowanus Canal . . It's so blatantly obvious
that Ingles cheaper, crown-less, more orthogonal, stepped configuration . .
saves tons more money, . . than Foster's notched, octagonal-footprinted tower
. . with a spectacularly expensive, super-complex crown . .

Heck, the cost of those expensive freestanding, stainless-steel beams . .
sturdy enough to tower 10 stories above 3 WTC's roof . .
could easily save Larry lots of money too, . . if they'd just disappear . .
so they did . . Heck, who's focusing on changes at the WTC site 15 yrs later . .
the New York Times doesn't even critique architecture anymore . .

But shortsighted Larry, thought he could save $, by cutting corners . .
But he would've already rented out half of 2 WTC space by now . .
if he, Ingles, Fox News, and the Devil hadn't conspired to compromise
the excellence of our great downtown redevelopment plan . .
He's changed New York's shiny 1st rate Center of Civic Pride, . .
into perfunctory real-estate drivel . .

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

sadly it wasn't about the money, it was a concurrence among the architects to make the master plan more homogeneous. You can blame BIG's flat topped Tower 2 for that.
It's no coincidence the spires disappeared with the 2 WTC redesign.

Among the most ridiculous of posts I've seen on this website, and there have been many.


The spires are gone because it's a different design. It's not the first time the design was altered.















Tony Shi

[Mr Saturn64]

While I generally like skyscrapers with beams along the facade, I actually think this one looks better without it. The spires, on the other hand, were much better than the flat-topped roof seen in the more recent design.