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

[MercurySky]

I for one am glad they got rid of the major braces. They might look better on this design if it was a stand alone building. As it is one of a group it looks better and sleeker without them.

[Zapatan]

I just fail to understand why Towers three and four are now about the same height, part of me actually wishes tower 4 was shorter... although the design change besides the height is growing on me, but the height reduction remains disgusting.

[RobertWalpole]

Silverstein's site still lists the building as 1,170 feet tall. Apparently, T4 grew, but T3 did not shrink.

[STR]

^That was discussed extensively starting on Page 102, I broke down my reasoning in this post, which is based on this official render.

Moving onwards, here's the inset that separates the tower from the podium, which is visually more of an annex now.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by STR

^That was discussed extensively starting on Page 102, I broke down my reasoning in this post, which is based on this official render.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you don't have any actual proof, no one can be certain so we should wait for official figures.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I just fail to understand why Towers three and four are now about the same height, part of me actually wishes tower 4 was shorter... although the design change besides the height is growing on me, but the height reduction remains disgusting.

Just ignore any talk of height changes. Short of any actual facts, its just that. When we get the actual breakdown, of course there will be clarification here.
Until then, and not before, we'll address the issue as we always have. Either way, sleep shouldn't be lost over it.

Keep in mind that if we were in fact to give the tower an overall height of 1,170 ft to the tip of the "spires", that would still be just above the height of the parapet
from this particular rendering...

[STR]

^That render is actually my main point of evidence. Once you subtract the floors that are absent in that render, you're forced to the same conclusion I was. Shame too. I was actually hoping it would come out to 1170 parapet.

vvv The 3 missing floors.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by STR

^That render is actually my main point of evidence. Once you subtract the floors that are absent in that render, you're forced to the same conclusion I was. Shame too. I was actually hoping it would come out to 1170 parapet.

vvv The 3 missing floors.

The spires look only 30 feet tall in that rendering so it's still 1140 feet to the parapet if that's accurate.

[STR]

Different angles are causing that discrepency. The top of the version on the left is distorted by a wide-angle lens effect. The one on the right compresses the top of the building while blowing up the bottom of the building. The spires are roughly the same length in both versions.

It's like a map of the world. There's always some kind of distortion because you're projecting a 3D object on to a 2D surface. You're never going to get a perfectly accurate representation.

[JayPro]

I don't mean to be a smart-ass; but I should point out (and it should be obvious when comparing the two renders) that the one on the right is closer both to the viewer and the ground.
I took maybe one or two art classes in high school; but I know enough about perspective to observe that in cases similar to the right-hand pic, visual tricks with the building's proportions begin to appear. For instance, if the right hand pic were the same viewer-to-object height and distance as the left, the spires would not look as stubby.

Incidentally, I notice that the spires have a little more "meat on the bone", most likely due to the bracing reduxes(sp?).

Anyway, I respectfully suggest that the artistic concept of perspective is perhaps the catalyst that drives the mass confusion over 175G's final height. The right-hand pic IMO is not a reliable guide as to the final product.

Edit @STR: Beat me to it.

[STR]

^You got the spires right though. They don't taper anymore, so they're big thick, 5 foot wide masts all the way to their termination.

[Traynor]

There are so many subtle changes, not obvious at first glance. Like the fact that the spires now emanate from a different spot on the facade. Before they were flush with the West and East faces, now they start from the recessed corners.

[steveve]

i don't like the recent changes at all.... First they scrap the X beams, which, IMO, added so much definitive character to the building, then they mess around with the height of this thing.... not impressed.
Not to mention, the newly released renders look much cheaper than the older ones, especially the angles they did...

[JayPro]

I just did a little math in my head based on the newly projected height to parapet.
Extrapolating that to the whole building, I believe (my extreme emphasis) we see a 30' overall drop in height (re-calculated 1,140' to roof/parapet + 70' spires = 1,210' overall ).
My math is based on the thread title.

I freely admit a 125% chance of being dead wrong.

[STR]

^Well, after completing the model, here's my breakdown of numbers, which have been refined from earlier, rougher estimates I posted a few pages back:

Office+retail levels are 66' combined.
2 mechanical floors @ 21' each.
4 trading floors @ 18 each
Last trading floor+ podium roof comes out to 21' high.

That leaves a podium 201' tall.

On top of that, there's 3 mechanical floors of 27' a pop.
Then 53 typical office floors of 13'6" each, which makes for an occupied height of 997'6".
Two more mechanical floors of ~22' brings you to the roof at 1041'6"

A series of 3' and 13'6" high glass and steel panels brings you to a fin height of 1073'
Subtracting 1073 from 1170 gives you 97' long spires.

66+(2*21)+(4*18)+21+(3*27)+(53*13.5)+(22*2)+31.5+97=1170

This render, BTW shows the spires at 85 feet tall, before I finished proportioning out the lower floors. It made the building look a bit...chunky and inelegant.


This, and all later renders, show the lower roof and longer 97' spires.

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by steveve

i don't like the recent changes at all.... First they scrap the X beams, which, IMO, added so much definitive character to the building, then they mess around with the height of this thing.... not impressed.
Not to mention, the newly released renders look much cheaper than the older ones, especially the angles they did...

I think one of the reasons for the height change that we've kept under the radar is the redesign by necessity to accommodate the trading space. Plus I've been lurking here long before I became a member and have done long enough to believe that 90% of the time, renderings are not an indicator of the final result.

I mean, if the post-X brace rendering above were even close to what we should expect, we all would be looking at the world thru fisheye lenses.

One last point, one where I admittedly show my aesthetic bias: If I had a choice between costly, visually obtrusive and perhaps redundant X-bracing versus tailoring the look of the tower to fit its ultimate purpose of reeling in clients (see my trading floor point above), I'd take option A.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by STR

Different angles are causing that discrepency. The top of the version on the left is distorted by a wide-angle lens effect. The one on the right compresses the top of the building while blowing up the bottom of the building. The spires are roughly the same length in both versions.

It's like a map of the world. There's always some kind of distortion because you're projecting a 3D object on to a 2D surface. You're never going to get a perfectly accurate representation.

The angle is not different enough to account for the spires being 3 times taller on the old one. It would make more sense if the spires where 30 feet and the roof was 1140. The renderings of your spires, though great, don't account for how short the individual pinnacles are, the are NOT 97' feet long in that rendering.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by JayPro

I don't mean to be a smart-ass; but I should point out (and it should be obvious when comparing the two renders) that the one on the right is closer both to the viewer and the ground.
I took maybe one or two art classes in high school; but I know enough about perspective to observe that in cases similar to the right-hand pic, visual tricks with the building's proportions begin to appear. For instance, if the right hand pic were the same viewer-to-object height and distance as the left, the spires would not look as stubby.

Incidentally, I notice that the spires have a little more "meat on the bone", most likely due to the bracing reduxes(sp?).

Anyway, I respectfully suggest that the artistic concept of perspective is perhaps the catalyst that drives the mass confusion over 175G's final height. The right-hand pic IMO is not a reliable guide as to the final product.

Edit @STR: Beat me to it.

Like I said, the angle is slightly different, yet the spire's are easily 3 times shorter in the new one, that doesn't equal 100 feet.

[STR]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

The angle is not different enough to account for the spires being 3 times taller on the old one. It would make more sense if the spires where 30 feet and the roof was 1140. The renderings of your spires, though great, don't account for how short the individual pinnacles are, the are NOT 97' feet long in that rendering.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just as critical for having an honest debate, you have no understanding of what I (or JayPro) is talking about. Please reread everything said on this page, and try again.

[Traynor]

The fact that certain people are relying on counting floors in a bad, re-hashed render of the tower as the definitive and final say on the matter, speaks to the veracity of their claims.