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

[Vertical_Gotham]

I guess it's time to change my lock screen!



As I said b4, when this building is built, imo it will change a lot of the naysayers minds. There is brilliance about the design that can be fully appreciated when completed and witnessed in person.

I for one love the cantilevers and it's going to be amazing looking up from either the Northern and Western sides of this towering tower with the cantilevers cantilevering out one after another rising to enormous heights. It will be breathtaking. Almost scary but amazing.

No where in the city can one witness such architecture. I don't even think there is a tower at this height in the world that has such a feature that has both a series of cantilevers & setbacks that this tower will have.

One for the record books being the tallest in the world with cantilevers?? I'm not sure but anyway, I'm moving forward and I'm looking forward to this.

Looking good to me.

[citybooster]

Time will tell, V_G. Ingles may yet decide to tweak it... maybe he can improve the design. I give you credit for taking it as well as you have, knowing just how you felt about the Foster design. It had been your avatar a good while. A lot of disgust, disappointment and outright hate and at first I felt it too. It's going to take a lot to convince some people and I have to say I'm not really sold yet. I will keep an open mind but Ingles has to convince me.... though I guess if this is what we get opening in 2020 or so, I'll have no alternative, lol.

[aaron38]

[QUOTE=JR Ewing;7058639]New York today is like Rome in the first year of our Lord.

You do realize don't you that by 1AD Rome was well past its prime and was only in decline after that point? Yes? You might want to pick a different analogy.

[Vertical_Gotham]

Originally Posted by citybooster

Time will tell, V_G. Ingles may yet decide to tweak it... maybe he can improve the design. I give you credit for taking it as well as you have, knowing just how you felt about the Foster design. It had been your avatar a good while. A lot of disgust, disappointment and outright hate and at first I felt it too. It's going to take a lot to convince some people and I have to say I'm not really sold yet. I will keep an open mind but Ingles has to convince me.... though I guess if this is what we get opening in 2020 or so, I'll have no alternative, lol.

Hey, nice seeing you here!

Yea, I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but crying over spilled milk is unproductive. Lol.

All we can do is hope for the best and I'm pretty sure there will be more tweakings to come like all projects experiences.

We need more details & I expect to hear more details moving forward for things like materials used for cladding and I'm sure it will be of highest of quality. That alone can make or break a project and excellent quality can just about make any tower shine. This is a high profile project in a high profile site and I'm confident 2 WTC will receive nothing but quality.

The eastern facade reminds me of 50 Hudson and if I could request a change, I wouldn't mind if Bjarke incorporated those vertical fins clad in a different material on that side on every setback like the 50 HY proposal, which would give it some depth facing TriBeCa. It would be a nice touch.

[JR Ewing]

[QUOTE=aaron38;7058746]

Originally Posted by JR Ewing

New York today is like Rome in the first year of our Lord.

You do realize don't you that by 1AD Rome was well past its prime and was only in decline after that point? Yes? You might want to pick a different analogy.

You need a history lesson, lad. You clearly did not attend a Jesuit school.

[KevinFromTexas]

I'm definitely not a fan of the new design. The old design for Two World Trade Center would have been the nicest one in the complex. It went from being what would have been one of the most interesting and iconic buildings in New York to just another tall building. Now the world trade center complex to me looks like the 70s behemoth's on 6th Avenue across from the Rock in Midtown. Modern architecture has become too simplistic. And no spires on Three World Trade Center? Boo.

[CHI -21c]

Guys, come on. Take it for what it is. It's stacked boxes. Abstraction and facetiousness have no place at Gound Zero. (however, the render from the memorial looks very Ground-Zero-esque, but that's the materials and lighting talking, NOT architecture.)
Do we really want to hand over such a symbolic and historic building to some nihilistic, discotheque-going Danish kids?






The previous design was noble and portrayed honor and dignity. It looked like it was holding up a badge or a group of stars. It was a symbol in NY's skyline.

[Michagain]

Ya know, as much as I LOVED the Foster design, it's been so long that I've gotten bored with it as an option.

[artspook]

This SSP site has uplifted me for a decade. This is my 1st post. Just have to say this though.
The enhancing soaring spikes and industrial X bracing were looted from 3WTC . . .
The tacky 2WTC redesign . . . is but fat, clunky, stacked, horizontal forms, awkwardly foisted into the skyline's momentum of verticality . . .
NYC's most famous symbol of power, is fast becoming an endless morass of boxy glass, sending a pretty crass, shabby, and boring message to a world, that once looked to NY for design inspiration . . .

[winlinmac001]

The cantilever design symbolizes strength. However, how much strength is yet to be defined. It's amazing how this building will be engineered, a lot of weight on top. A lot of physics to be taken into account here.

[JZeig1]

The building is an architectural statement.

In regards to the symbolism of what should be built there, imho, I don't think that it's more appropriate than the diamond head building. The original building honored and payed reference to the memorial site and the tragedy that occurred here all most 2 decades ago (it will be by the time this is done).

It would, though, compliment the PAC with it's stacked design - if that was ever to be built. But to be honest, I like the new design, and I could live with it if it were at a different location.

[Crawford]

To those who don't like the current design on the basis of it not harmonizing with the existing towers, what is your response to the new design being enthusiastically endorsed by the architects of the other towers?

Ingels went to Childs, Maki and Rogers during the design process and solicited their input. He presented the final version to all three, and all three reportedly endorsed the change.

Assuming the other architects were honest in their assessment, how can this be reconciled with the assessment given by many in this thread? I don't know the answer, but I'm asking, as there's obviously a disconnect.

[sparkling]

Interview: Bjarke Ingels On New Design For 200 Greenwich Street, Aka Two World Trade Center

NIKOLAI FEDAK
JUNE 11, 2015

YIMBY sat down with Bjarke Ingels to talk about his firm’s design for 200 Greenwich Street, aka Two World Trade Center. Continue Reading

[Skyguy_7]

Nice to finally see a few BIG supporters voicing their opinion. I had the opportunity to visit the WTC in July of 2001, but chose not to, which of course I now deeply regret. Knowing we would never again get to experience looking up at those soaring monoliths, those two testaments to this country's strength, drive and ingenuity, this tower has evolved into something great.
Here's the view that does it for me. A mere 22 feet shorter than its predecessor, I could care less what it looks like from the North or East. I see a successful regeneration of the might that once was.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by Crawford

To those who don't like the current design on the basis of it not harmonizing with the existing towers, what is your response to the new design being enthusiastically endorsed by the architects of the other towers?

Ingels went to Childs, Maki and Rogers during the design process and solicited their input. He presented the final version to all three, and all three reportedly endorsed the change.

Assuming the other architects were honest in their assessment, how can this be reconciled with the assessment given by many in this thread? I don't know the answer, but I'm asking, as there's obviously a disconnect.

I read this, but I can't in good faith believe it's actually true.

[FacedectomalFenestra]

I really like this new design. It brings downtown into the present by providing a "vertical campus" in the vein of Foster's CITC tower currently under construction in Philadelphia. I believe that there is a movement towards that kind of workspace taking place, and this building, if constructed, should have no problem at all landing tenants. While we all understand the reasoning behind it, the bunker/shelter mentality that has been in place downtown throughout most of the WTC rebuild may have actually had a negative affect on the area's recovery, and I am glad to see the developers of this tower taking that first brave step away from it in order to provide open, uninterrupted floor plans with the elevators exposed and facing outward (this is also a feature that this building shares with CITC; just wait until they're up and running! It will be so awesome watching these elevators going up and down all day and night from outside.).

Aesthetically, I think that this building is interesting from every angle. While watching the video the first few times, I couldn't help but to keep pausing it during the final segment where they show the building from a bunch of different vantage points. And the news ticker? That's just showing off. People will be hit by vehicles with regularity looking up at the building from that side. In my opinion, this design is far superior to the original Foster design. The sliced off portion was the only interesting part, and only when that was the only thing that you focused on, and only from far away, and only from the west/southwest. Looking at the renderings that showed the building in it's entirety, and not just the "diamonds", it appeared to be too bulky from the west/southwest due to the apparent lack of height caused by the slicing. From other angles, especially from the north, the building looked too "crystally", as if it were the realization of one of the angle topped placeholder buildings from Childs' original master plan. This only my opinion, and I didn't hate the original design, I just didn't think that it was perfect. This new design is a total win.

There's more to a building than the way the top looks.

[hunser]

VS

[meh_cd]

North side looks the worst. It needs some kind of facade treatment.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by meh_cd

North side looks the worst. It needs some kind of facade treatment.

Every side looks horrendous.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by gttx

I read this, but I can't in good faith believe it's actually true.

You think the other architects are being dishonest? Possible I suppose, but not likely.

Childs has been VERY vocal on his disapproval of previous changes to the WTC site, why would he now start lying? Rogers and Maki are Pritzker Prize winners, semi-retired, in their 80's, and have no skin in the game. I don't see why they would be scared to speak honestly.