NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1209

JSsocal · #**24161** Posted **Jun 9, 2012, 9:31 PM**

^^The cladding won't reflect those corners, they'll extend straight down from the culmination point at the top of the base

Dense_Electric · #**24162** Posted **Jun 9, 2012, 9:31 PM**

The chamfered corners will still be present under the new cladding, but the cladding itself will form 90° corners.

chris123678 · #**24163** Posted **Jun 9, 2012, 11:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabedamien

Wait a second, I’m confused. I thought I had read that the base’s originally chamfered corners had been scrapped in favor of (less interesting) 90° corners. But here it looks like the base does have chamfered corners, no? I see so few pictures of the base, and I haven’t been downtown in so long, that I didn’t even think about this until now... what’s the story?

From what i was told, they are going to fill the chamfered corners with non structural steel.

TechTalkGuy · #**24164** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 12:49 AM**

I am pleased to know that they are taking their careful time with the base -- as this is a very important visual element of the tower.

Otie · #**24165** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 1:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish

I am pleased to see progress -- but these petty comparisons of how many inches the steel has risen is getting rather rusty.

Forgive us, anyone connected to the engineering world knows how excited we get with numbers.

TechTalkGuy · #**24166** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 1:48 AM**

Years ago, I used to provide weekly photo updates, but even at a weekly schedule, you really need to have a keen eye to spot the changes.

Roadcruiser1 · #**24167** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabedamien

Wait a second, I’m confused. I thought I had read that the base’s originally chamfered corners had been scrapped in favor of (less interesting) 90° corners. But here it looks like the base does have chamfered corners, no? I see so few pictures of the base, and I haven’t been downtown in so long, that I didn’t even think about this until now... what’s the story?

The base was built when the design still called for the chamfer. The base design was changed much later to a square so now the base is going to receive non structural steel which will bring it to a 90 degree angle. After that they are going to finish it up and fit the cladding completing the base.

Roadcruiser1 · #**24168** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 3:10 AM**

I did a basic drawing explaining what will happen. The dimensions are not to scale and are therefore prone to error, but this is what will basically happen.

knarfor · #**24169** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 3:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCLuver

June 8th, 2012

(From the Far Rockaways, maybe about 15 miles away?)

I've always liked this view. When I see it, I imagine that 1 WTC and The Empire State Building are each the leader of a gang of skyscrapers, staring each other down.

Gabedamien · #**24170** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 4:36 AM**

Wow, so that’s just... what the heck? What’s the rationale behind that? I had made the admittedly baseless assumption that the design change was primarily a financial one, i.e., that a squared-off base was somehow easier to construct (why this would be, I did not presume to guess). But we already have a chamfered base, sooooo....... someone out there thinks that the squared off base looks better? That person needs to have a water balloon thrown at them.

I don’t mean to resurrect an old point of contention, but somehow I managed to miss the original discussion of these points. I was already hurting from the plaza changes (meh, I can deal), and the change from prismatic glass to the less interesting base cladding (again, no biggie), and the CARDINAL SIN of removing the radome enclosure for the spire (the WORST). I thought for a brief moment that at least I was getting something back, it was a miracle! But no.

Honestly though I could probably find a dozen features of this tower I would willingly downgrade if it meant we could have the spire back. Not for the height (ridiculous and immaterial circus, that), but for the sheer beauty of it. It would have looked so amazing... it was my favorite part of the entire structure.

NYguy · #**24171** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 11:22 AM**

I'll be away for a couple of weeks, so I'll miss whatever ceromony they'll have...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1092857

President to get an eyeful Thursday in WTC visit
Much progress has been made since his last trip September 12

By Tina Moore
June 9, 2012

Quote:

When President Obama comes to Ground Zero on Thursday, he will see an impressive work in progress under a dozen soaring cranes on a site dotted by scores of hardhats. He will see 1 World Trade Center — the Freedom Tower — has almost topped off at 104 floors as workers erect the huge glass panes that encase the structure. Across from that, 2 World Trade is at grade level and workers are beginning the 88-story climb to completion. Three World Trade is a seven-floor concrete block intended to provide extra security to the eventual 80-story building. If the commander in chief looks up, he’ll see an American flag and a POW flag flapping in the wind atop the hulking cement structure.

Next door, 4 World Trade has climbed to 70 floors and has only two floors to travel to reach its apex. Construction crews travel between floors in elevator cages. If Obama goes inside, he’ll see that a marble backsplash has already been added to a lobby wall. Light floods the space that is topped with a 45-foot ceiling. He will be able to look down into a giant football-shaped, two-story hole in the earth that will become a transit hub where subways will connect to trains.

patrickhuss

hunser · #**24172** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 11:50 AM**

Red Skies over Midtown Manhattan von Tobias Neubert Photography auf Flickr

The Imster · #**24173** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 12:40 PM**

What really is a shame is that the new WTC1 is not going to be taller than the Willis Tower to the roof - i would love to see the it topped out at 1500ft - it would look even more spectacular in the New York Skyline then put a 276ft mast on top - they should do this

Nomadd22 · #**24174** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 1:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Imster

What really is a shame is that the new WTC1 is not going to be taller than the Willis Tower to the roof - i would love to see the it topped out at 1500ft - it would look even more spectacular in the New York Skyline then put a 276ft mast on top - they should do this

They probably deleted the chamfered corners because they found out they could save $12.50 by not requiring special angles on the glass. Not much chance they'd spend more on height when it's not practical to have more office floors anyhow.

TechTalkGuy · #**24175** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 1:58 PM**

I too wish it were taller.

Roadcruiser1 · #**24176** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 2:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Imster

What really is a shame is that the new WTC1 is not going to be taller than the Willis Tower to the roof - i would love to see the it topped out at 1500ft - it would look even more spectacular in the New York Skyline then put a 276ft mast on top - they should do this

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish

I too wish it were taller.

Not going to happen. It already had it's specific footprint and structure for it's current height. It can't be increased, but there will be buildings going up that would be taller than the Sears Tower in Midtown Manhattan soon.

Roadcruiser1 · #**24177** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 2:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabedamien

Wow, so that’s just... what the heck? What’s the rationale behind that? I had made the admittedly baseless assumption that the design change was primarily a financial one, i.e., that a squared-off base was somehow easier to construct (why this would be, I did not presume to guess). But we already have a chamfered base, sooooo....... someone out there thinks that the squared off base looks better? That person needs to have a water balloon thrown at them.

I don’t mean to resurrect an old point of contention, but somehow I managed to miss the original discussion of these points. I was already hurting from the plaza changes (meh, I can deal), and the change from prismatic glass to the less interesting base cladding (again, no biggie), and the CARDINAL SIN of removing the radome enclosure for the spire (the WORST). I thought for a brief moment that at least I was getting something back, it was a miracle! But no.

Honestly though I could probably find a dozen features of this tower I would willingly downgrade if it meant we could have the spire back. Not for the height (ridiculous and immaterial circus, that), but for the sheer beauty of it. It would have looked so amazing... it was my favorite part of the entire structure.

To me the base is extremely similar to the former Twin Towers bases. Since the base is a square just like the base of the Twin Towers were, but if you are angry about the change you will have to complain to Durst. They were responsible for this redesign too.

QUEENSNYMAN · #**24178** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 2:46 PM**

FROM: NYBOY75

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxNjQ...1&feature=plcp

I have more longer videos I will Post later as I have to, upload them, hope you like. This is a short part 1 followed by 2 more vids.

TechTalkGuy · #**24179** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by QUEENSNYMAN

FROM: NYBOY75

• Video Link
I have more longer videos I will Post later as I have to, upload them, hope you like. This is a short part 1 followed by 2 more vids.

I was in bed when you were out there!
Next time, try a tripod to steady your zooms!

GREAT update, thank you, QUEENSNYMAN!!

chris123678 · #**24180** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 4:16 PM**

The Change to the base wasn't something that they wanted to do. It was necessary.
The Original prismatic glass that was planned to be installed would have left the base chamfered, but the prismatic glass, when tested, failed. It was discovered that if one of these panels fell off the base in some type of explosion that the glass would break into dangerous large shards.