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

[JR Ewing]

Originally Posted by chris08876

That would be a dream if the Foster design could just be relocated. Signature Tower would be nice for HY.

When all is set in stone, this tower will be loved, just like 432 Park is.

I agree. I could definitely see King Dimon commissioning Foster's design for his palace in the Yards.

[plinko]

This forum never disappoints with all the armchair architects and engineers imploring that they know more than the people who are, in fact, designing and paying for the building.

It's offensive to all the professionals hard at work on this who know more about it than any of us ever will.

[Vertical_Gotham]

Originally Posted by JR Ewing

I agree. I could definitely see King Dimon commissioning Foster's design for his palace in the Yards.

That would be great and it would be amazing there! Has there ever been such a case? the best site currently in the Hudson Yards to replicate Foster design, size and height would probably be Tishman's site with ~ 2.8msf.

50 HY has a little less with aprox 2.3msf, so definitely modifications would be needed, but still I would be ecstatic nonetheless for a little shorter version of Foster's tower.

[JR Ewing]

Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham

That would be great and it would be amazing there! Has there ever been such a case? the best site currently in the Hudson Yards to replicate Foster design, size and height would probably be Tishman's site with ~ 2.8msf.

50 HY has a little less with aprox 2.3msf, so definitely modifications would be needed, but still I would be ecstatic nonetheless for a little shorter version of Foster's tower.

Plus Dimon already ruled out a deal with Related. It seemed that Related wanted JPMC to lease the premium 1m sf remaining at the top of Time Warner and to occupy 55 HY.

[Vertical_Gotham]

[RKOwens44]

Originally Posted by JR Ewing

People understandably loved Foster's design. I did.

However, if this were proposed from out of the blue for another site in Midtown or the Yards, People would love it. This tower is gorgeous.

For all we know, Foster's design will be built in the Yards.

For the record, I no longer hate the design as much as I did the first time I saw it, but I still think the building is totally wrong for the World Trade Center site. I heard many saying that Foster's 2WTC was too simple and looked like a boring bank building. But that's exactly what a 2WTC should be, simple. The design of 1WTC is very simple, which is not by accident: it was supposed to be familiar to the design of the Twin Towers, which were just two simple silver boxes. 7WTC and 4WTC are very simple. 3WTC, which in the initial site designs back from about 2006ish was very complicated with all sorts of angled exterior columns, has repeatedly been scaled down over the years to become quite simple. Foster's 2WTC fit in well with this architectural theme. The beauty of the site was to come from the sum of its parts, not necessarily one building standing on its own.

The redesign feels too much like a flashy, avant-garde media building, which I have no problem with architecturally whatsoever, it's just that one of them doesn't belong right smack in the middle of the WTC site. Although the World Trade Center has never in practice been limited in its tenants to just banking companies, it's still located in the heart of the financial district and its architecture should be appropriate to that fact. I also like rooftop gardens but on the scale that this building would call for is also totally out of place for the World Trade Center. I think the easiest way to describe the way I feel about the building is, it's just "too much". It's like going to a boardroom meeting wearing a rainbow colored suit and a cowboy hat while everyone around you is just dressed in a standard suit and tie. But, like I said, the big issue I have isn't with the design, it's with believing that they think it's possible to go from no engineering plans to open for business in just 5 years. Some of the newer people here might want to have optimism this can be done, but I know from experience, having kept up with this reconstruction every day or nearly every day since April 2007 that these buildings don't rise that quickly. 1WTC took 5 years 4 months for this to happen, and this building is larger (in terms of overall size) and much more complicated, thus it's likely to take a minimum of 6 years plus I just read an interview with the architect where he said that "hopefully" construction could begin next year sometime. 2022 AT EARLIEST.

[ArtDecoRevival]

Hmmn…. not sure what I think about this yet.

I love the new building, but I also loved the old Norman Foster one. It's like breaking up with a great girlfriend and getting into a relationship with a new girl who you also think is great, but still being a bit mixed about who you'd rather be with.

I guess I wish this building was replacing Three World Trade or Five World Trade instead of Two. I hope the Foster design for 2 WTC isn't another visionary design that never gets built. But I think it will be. I don't see it getting used in another part of New York. Things just don't work that way.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RKOwens44

I'd like to offer some insight into why I believe this redesign has a nearly zero chance of becoming reality. First, let me say that I'm a Professional Engineer and have been following the reconstruction of the WTC site every day since April 2007. I was also able to get onto the construction site itself in 2008 and 2009.

Ok.

Originally Posted by RKOwens44

As can be seen from the renderings, the shape of the new building's footprint is larger and in a totally different shape from the Foster design. For this and many other reasons (like the increased weight on the eastern side of the building), the building has no possibility of being built by keeping the four below-grade floors, columns, and core in place.

And you somehow think the architects and engineers who are actually working on this project don't have a clue about what they're doing at this level.

Originally Posted by RKOwens44

Even if Silverstein and this new company signed a deal today and an engineering firm was hired to start work on the plans for the new building today, and construction crews started disassembling the four below-ground floors today, it would be June 2016 at the very least before engineering plans were developed enough such that construction could begin. ..... So this is a very optimistic and very rapid construction and they would STILL be two years away from being able to move in when their 2020 lease expires.

And you don't think News Corp and FOX have the intent to have a suitable headquarters available by the time current leases expire in 2020. That no detail or stone will be left unturned, even as months (and more months still) go into the leasing process. Why would anyone even consider the trouble and risks when there are other oppurtunities in the city where that wouldn't be the case? On the contrary, I believe it is the speed in which they could get this up that played a part in Silverstein getting this tenant.

I'm sorry, but get back to me in 2020. You can then either say I told you so, or you can wonder how the building was able to get built. I'll be content to watch as the building is refined, leases signed, and work finally restarts.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

The news said this building will be completed by 2020, I hope it will be a lot sooner considering it shouldn't take 5 years to build.

Assuming the resume construction by early next year (2016), a "completion" of 2020 (more likely 2019 by our standard of looking at things) is a pretty good timeframe.

Originally Posted by RKOwens44

Since I've been posting in this thread since 2007, I've learned to just roll my eyes at such condescending and sophomoric talk, but you're more than welcome to read about my site visits and post history with a few clicks.

No need to be so defensive. It's highly unlikely that you know more about the project than the people who are actually working on it. That's all anyone is saying.

Originally Posted by plinko

This forum never disappoints with all the armchair architects and engineers imploring that they know more than the people who are, in fact, designing and paying for the building.

It's offensive to all the professionals hard at work on this who know more about it than any of us ever will.

I have faith in the people who are actually working on this. Could there be further revisions? There always are at this stage. Even Foster's design had it's revisions. But for the most part, what you see is pretty much what they intend to build.


_

[H-TownChris]

I'm a little late of this new design change and I completely dislike it, I want the old one back. I really loved the old rendering but I guess they're going with this ugly version of the building. It'll grow on me, hopefully......

[RKOwens44]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Ok.

And you somehow think the architects and engineers who are actually working on this project don't have a clue about what they're doing at this level.

Now I remember why I stopped being an active (day to day) poster in the WTC threads years back. Whenever anyone had an opinion that differed from what Silverstein or the Port Authority was saying, or when anyone was disappointed with a design change, their opinions were belittled, the apologism on behalf of the PA and Silverstein shifted into high gear, and sensible people just got tired of the sophomoric tone and left.

I have faith in the people who are actually working on this.

NYGuy, I remember you as being one of the other people who have been here for a decade or so, and so tell me, do you honestly believe this when you say it? Surely you remember how in 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority were both publicly claiming that the memorial and museum would both be open by 2009. Well, the memorial opened in 2011 and the museum in 2014. I clearly remember how in 2009, 60 Minutes did a report on the transportation hub and the PA was claiming it would be totally open by 2011. It's now 2015 and the thing still isn't open! I've learned from hard experience not to believe dubious and unrealistic time schedules, no matter what Silverstein or the PA or anyone else says. Time will tell, but 4 years (2016 to 2020) for a building this massive is totally unrealistic.

NYGuy, I want you to be honest, you've been here and in the 4WTC thread since before its construction started, you know exactly how long it took for that building to go from street level to being open for the first tenants (5 years). Do you honestly, HONESTLY, believe that a building even more massive and more complicated than 4WTC can be constructed in LESS time? Just 4 years? If so, I have some ocean front property in Nevada I'd like to sell you.

By the way, does anyone know what month in 2020 their lease expires?

[The North One]

Holy shit, this redesign is hideous.

[Nomadd22]

Originally Posted by RKOwens44

NYGuy, I remember you as being one of the other people who have been here for a decade or so, and so tell me, do you honestly believe this when you say it? Surely you remember how in 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority were both publicly claiming that the memorial and museum would both be open by 2009. Well, the memorial opened in 2011 and the museum in 2014. I clearly remember how in 2009, 60 Minutes did a report on the transportation hub and the PA was claiming it would be totally open by 2011. It's now 2015 and the thing still isn't open! I've learned from hard experience not to believe dubious and unrealistic time schedules, no matter what Silverstein or the PA or anyone else says. Time will tell, but 4 years (2016 to 2020) for a building this massive is totally unrealistic.

NYGuy, I want you to be honest, you've been here and in the 4WTC thread since before its construction started, you know exactly how long it took for that building to go from street level to being open for the first tenants (5 years). Do you honestly, HONESTLY, believe that a building even more massive and more complicated than 4WTC can be constructed in LESS time? Just 4 years? If so, I have some ocean front property in Nevada I'd like to sell you.

Considering that the subgrade work, which can be a large chunk of construction time, is already completed, why not? I thought the steps would look better facing the Hudson, but assumed they had to be the other way because the main tower section had to be over the part of the foundation made to handle the main sections of Foster" design. There might be a little fancy engineering to get the loads for the new tower to match the foundation, but that's just part of the new design.

[meh_cd]

Originally Posted by JR Ewing

People understandably loved Foster's design. I did.

However, if this were proposed from out of the blue for another site in Midtown or the Yards, People would love it. This tower is gorgeous.

For all we know, Foster's design will be built in the Yards.

Bumping the Foster design up to 2000 feet has been a dream of mine for a while. Plop that in Phase 2 of Hudson Yards and people would be ecstatic.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by meh_cd

Bumping the Foster design up to 2000 feet has been a dream of mine for a while. Plop that in Phase 2 of Hudson Yards and people would be ecstatic.

Just watch a Chinese or Arab city building Foster's 2WTC at 2,000ft. I'm not joking, it could very well happen.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RKOwens44

NYGuy, I remember you as being one of the other people who have been here for a decade or so, and so tell me, do you honestly believe this when you say it?

I'm speaking of the architects and engineers working on this particular tower. A large part of the lease sigining is contingent on making this design work for the practical needs of News Corp and Fox. Say what you will about any of these people, but I don't think anyone involved in this process is dumb. And they would have to be to get this far involved in something that won't work, especially as I said, when there are other options available, less complicated.

[prageethSL]

The new design is a crass, bulky gimmick that pays no reverence to the WTC memorial and has no place among the other three towers and it doesn't respect the memory of the old WTC. The original Lord Norman Foster design is masterful and would make for an iconic addition to the Manhattan skyline. To leave it on the drafting table is a disservice to the people of New York City.

#Save 2WTC

[artspook]

oh yeah now I remember where I saw this masterpiece building before. It was on the kindergarten floor. And I wasn't the only kid who designed such a block pile that year.

If everybody expressed their point of view on buildings . . . tour de force developers and genius architects wouldn't be able to get away with all the garbage real-estate they dump into our cities. Keep putting out your ideas guys.

[winlinmac001]

Sorry folks, couldn't resist, plucked from SSC,

[JR Ewing]

Those guys on SSC are morons.

The fact of the matter is that practically any skyscraper design can be sketched by any of us. One needn't be Picasso to envision, let alone draw, Ping-an in Shenzhen, Steinway, Sears, the Burj, etc. The idiots on that site are like fools who look at a Jackson Pollack and dismiss it as something they can do.

All of the buffoons who reflexively dismiss 432 Park are oblivious to its homage to modern art.

Similarly, among the most revolutionary buildings of the modern era are Pompidou and Llyods, and when they first came out, the same idiotic backlash would have emerged from the dimwits at SSC had they been around.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I'm speaking of the architects and engineers working on this particular tower. A large part of the lease sigining is contingent on making this design work for the practical needs of News Corp and Fox. Say what you will about any of these people, but I don't think anyone involved in this process is dumb. And they would have to be to get this far involved in something that won't work, especially as I said, when there are other options available, less complicated.

I don't happen to like the design, but I have to agree with you wholeheartedly here. Not sure why a professional engineer would be so out of touch with the design profession.

The fact is, these supertall towers - which once were the province of only a small group of the top architects and engineers in the world - are becoming much more normal as technology and construction techniques improve. They aren't "run of the mill," certainly, but the engineering behind them is straightforward enough, especially for the firms involved here. I really don't understand all the doom and gloom about technical feasibility.

As someone in the design world, it sort of drives me crazy when people ask questions like "did they think of the fact that maybe the old foundation won't hold up the new building?" Yes, of course they f*cking did. Like in minute one of day one.