NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,079 FT | 80 FLOORS - Page 19

NYC4Life · #**361** Posted **Aug 8, 2008, 5:55 PM**

Even less of a difference when there will be 2 taller towers just next door (1 WTC, 2 WTC).

kazpmk · #**362** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockMont

As tall as these buildings are going to be, 15 feet seems like a very little difference.

I was curious because the Empire state building in 1,250 ft and I wanted to know which would be taller.

CoolCzech · #**363** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

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.

I tend to agree with you: 3 WTC just tries too hard. The other towers seem defined by their basic geometry. 3 WTC relies too much on added on gimmicks like the cross-bracing, and the inexplicable poles on each corner at the top. My approach to improving the design would be, Simplify, simplify...

Antares41 · #**364** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 10:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I tend to agree with you: 3 WTC just tries too hard. The other towers seem defined by their basic geometry. 3 WTC relies too much on added on gimmicks like the cross-bracing, and the inexplicable poles on each corner at the top. My approach to improving the design would be, Simplify, simplify...

You may get your wish when they actually try to construct the bldg. Complexity usually correlates to cost, greater complexity equal greater cost.
With material cost projected to increase in the coming months I would look for some cost-cutting to impact the final bldg appearence; hopefully not to greatly because i think it is a wonderful bldg.

Dac150 · #**365** Posted **Aug 9, 2008, 11:06 PM**

^^^ I wouldn't consider some cross bracing and four small spires major detail that would fall under the criteria to get cut due to cost. This building has some detail, but when you look at the big picture that detail only goes so far.

CoolCzech · #**366** Posted **Aug 10, 2008, 1:00 AM**

There are some new looking renderings at http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com...=1&pro_id=1915

[SP]Neo · #**367** Posted **Aug 12, 2008, 1:44 AM**

really nice rener thank coolczech. in some renders it looks like too much detail but if it turns out liek in this one the cluster will look great and 3wtc won't be a foreign matter.

Lecom · #**368** Posted **Aug 12, 2008, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I tend to agree with you: 3 WTC just tries too hard. The other towers seem defined by their basic geometry. 3 WTC relies too much on added on gimmicks like the cross-bracing, and the inexplicable poles on each corner at the top. My approach to improving the design would be, Simplify, simplify...

If every detail was overladen with sich attention-grabbing detail then 3WTC's excesses would seem overdone. However, its structural articulation would seem like a welcome change if the rest of the towers are glass prisms that vary only through their massings and facade treatments. Seeing how 2WTC got simplified recently (the facade became uniform and horizontal sections were removed), seems like this may be the case.

Islander · #**369** Posted **Aug 14, 2008, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

There are some new looking renderings at http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com...=1&pro_id=1915

It looks incredibly similar to the Times tower from that angle.

bkraig4life · #**370** Posted **Aug 14, 2008, 4:00 PM**

Im not a fan 0f the times building, (because of the spire) but i think this building will be just fine. With smaller spires, this tower looks incredible.

gttx · #**371** Posted **Aug 14, 2008, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antares41

You may get your wish when they actually try to construct the bldg. Complexity usually correlates to cost, greater complexity equal greater cost.
With material cost projected to increase in the coming months I would look for some cost-cutting to impact the final bldg appearence; hopefully not to greatly because i think it is a wonderful bldg.

Since when is cross-bracing an "added gimmick?" Making the cross-bracing visible is very different from just throwing in some extra steel. Take away that bracing and it's going somewhere else in the tower, which may make it even less feasible economically.

Apex · #**372** Posted **Aug 14, 2008, 10:13 PM**

What is with this ridiculous trend of adding parapets of extra glass cladding above where the actual roof is? It will look very dated very quickly, imho ...

Antares41 · #**373** Posted **Aug 14, 2008, 11:47 PM**

[QUOTE=gttx;3735862]Since when is cross-bracing an "added gimmick?" Making the cross-bracing visible is very different from just throwing in some extra steel. Take away that bracing and it's going somewhere else in the tower, which may make it even less feasible economically.[/QUOTE

I made a general statement regarding complexity versus cost. Of course, functional members are critical and won't be compromised. In none of my comments did I specify or focus on any specific aspect of the bldg.

Lecom · #**374** Posted **Aug 15, 2008, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apex

What is with this ridiculous trend of adding parapets of extra glass cladding above where the actual roof is? It will look very dated very quickly, imho ...

It's the current popular way of hiding the unsightly technical stuff on the roof. Before mid-twentieth century, buildings simply did not have so much sophsticated machinery like central cooling that required entire floors of mechanical space, so their rooftops weren't accomodated accordingly. Notice how some of the older buildings, like 500 Fifth Ave and barclay-Vesey, simply have their cooling units plopped at their tops. Later came the practice of building a usually cheap shed around the machinery, which often lacked a rooftop yet the walls closed on all four sides, giving many Modernist buildings that trademark service box on top, which is often mistaken for simply elevator service space. The solution that seems to be in vouge today is extending the facade above the roofline to hide the mechanicals, making the extensions appear more integrated with the rest of the building. Imagine if instead of extending the facades at 3 WTC they just plopped a grey fence around the cooling units.

CoolCzech · #**375** Posted **Aug 15, 2008, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

It looks incredibly similar to the Times tower from that angle.

Yeah, I noticed that. I always thought the Times tower would have looked better if it wasn't colored gray. Also, 3 WTC won't have the ceramic rods.

TANGELD_SLC · #**376** Posted **Aug 20, 2008, 6:38 AM**

I know most of you in this thread dislike the complexity of this tower but it's my favorite in the World Trade Centre complex. I like it's design and I think it will end up looking just as good in real life as it does in the renderings. All of the other towers are more simplistic in their design, but they are all very, very unique and WTC3 just adds to it all.

talltowers08 · #**377** Posted **Sep 13, 2008, 12:19 PM**

hey will there be any knew photos put up

theWatusi · #**378** Posted **Sep 13, 2008, 3:17 PM**

no more new photos ever!

ChicagoSpire2000 · #**379** Posted **Sep 13, 2008, 5:51 PM**

I really like this tower as well (although its not my fav), but I too have been wondering: Is this tower 1240 or 1255 feet?;will it be taller or shorter than the ESB?

Dequal · #**380** Posted **Sep 13, 2008, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TANGELD_SLC

I know most of you in this thread dislike the complexity of this tower but it's my favorite in the World Trade Centre complex. I like it's design and I think it will end up looking just as good in real life as it does in the renderings. All of the other towers are more simplistic in their design, but they are all very, very unique and WTC3 just adds to it all.

I like this one the most of the whole complex.