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

[antinimby]

Need 2 WTC to fill in that gap ^ in the last pic.

[NYguy]

^ Yes.



Mike Raspa

[TREPYE]

That pic above: <smh!>

From majestic cutting-edge design and uniqueness to downright piss-poor banality afterthought. WTC3, a monument to Silverstein just being so miserably cheap and greedy.
https://inhabitat.com/files/wtc-3-rogers.jpg



Just infuriating!

[eXodius]

I agree in a way about the design changes being a bit of a disappointment for making this building what it is today, but I’d rather those changes than having this building be Stump #2 after 2WTC being Stump #1. There was a chance for a while that this building be left at around 6-8 floors of the podium but luckily money came in to fund it further.

I wonder... could someone (perhaps after Silverstein) add the frame and antenna later? No one’s stopping a future owner from changing things, right?.

[Bill Ditnow]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

That pic above: <smh!>

From majestic cutting-edge design and uniqueness to downright piss-poor banality afterthought. WTC3, a monument to Silverstein just being so miserably cheap and greedy.
https://inhabitat.com/files/wtc-3-rogers.jpg



Just infuriating!

Yup!

Out the window goes the brilliant diamonds on WTC2, out the window goes the original stunning design of WTC3, out the window goes the radome on the otherwise insipid WTC1! What a mess!

[Bill Ditnow]

Not that it matters much. Lower Manhattan is likely to be partly submerged by 2100 and all these buildings will be ghost towers.

Here's what's in store for other great cities.

Adios, Miami!

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

Yup!

Out the window goes the brilliant diamonds on WTC2, out the window goes the original stunning design of WTC3, out the window goes the radome on the otherwise insipid WTC1! What a mess!

I remember saying years ago "If you think all of these buildings are going to be built as they are in these renderings then you're crazy." and everyone bitched and yelled at me - ha. That was the era of major value engineering.

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

Not that it matters much. Lower Manhattan is likely to be partly submerged by 2100 and all these buildings will be ghost towers.

research "The BIG U"

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

research "The BIG U"

Ultimately, if sea levels are expected to rise high enough, I see them building a permanent sea wall/barrier across the Narrows (with some kind of lock system for ship traffic) similar to the ones in the Netherlands, either in tandem with the BIG U or in place of it. Either way, Manhattan is home to such valuable real estate and so important to the national and international economy that I don’t see the city/state/federal govt. just letting it flood.

Anyways, back to the subject of 3WTC. I actually like it without the cross bracing on the main part of the tower. It relates better visually to 4WTC and gives sort of a more unified look to the complex overall.

[JSsocal]

^Disagree- that's the single biggest loss. Being that the vertical piers of the x-bracing in that scheme were closer together it had the effect of 'slimming down' the east and west elevations. Now it's a little fatter- a little shorter, overall a bit less graceful.

The other loss is the smaller diagonal bracing on the north/south elevations. Rogers+Partners buildings are successful when the structures are delicate, as was this first iteration. Fortunately the lobby retains some of this delicate look, however the rest of the bracing that remained in the building was bulked up, and now appears ham-handed, almost a cartoon of a Rogers building.

I think, hypothetically, if there had been any kind of design competition for 3wtc- that we might have picked just about any other proposal over what's been built here.

[Zerton]

Overall I think it's a very nice building - strong and almost elegant.
But the cross bracing looks ornamental. Is it even doing anything structurally?
Is it at least taking all the shear loads? I have a feeling that it is entirely superfluous and has no structural function.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by JSsocal

^Disagree- that's the single biggest loss. Being that the vertical piers of the x-bracing in that scheme were closer together it had the effect of 'slimming down' the east and west elevations. Now it's a little fatter- a little shorter, overall a bit less graceful.

The other loss is the smaller diagonal bracing on the north/south elevations. Rogers+Partners buildings are successful when the structures are delicate, as was this first iteration. Fortunately the lobby retains some of this delicate look, however the rest of the bracing that remained in the building was bulked up, and now appears ham-handed, almost a cartoon of a Rogers building.

I think, hypothetically, if there had been any kind of design competition for 3wtc- that we might have picked just about any other proposal over what's been built here.

I’m not really familiar with Rogers’s other work, so I was evaluating this tower more on its own appearance as well as its relation to the other buildings of the WTC. I don’t think a “graceful” or “delicate” building would have been appropriate here next to the simple, bulky shapes of the other WTC towers. I feel like the original design had a little too much going on visually, and was trying to look taller and thinner than it really was, whereas the building as built is sleeker and not ashamed of its bulkiness.

[TonyNYC]

3 WTC beats out the Hudson Yards, 1 Vanderbilt, and others to land a big firm!

I got this info from people in the know.. 3 WTC to land another big name lease. Taking one of the cities biggest most prestigious consulting firms from Midtown East, where it's been forever.

Hearing it's a done deal...McKinsey & Co to sign at 3 WTC!

[jayden]

Originally Posted by TonyNYC

3 WTC beats out the Hudson Yards, 1 Vanderbilt, and others to land a big firm!

I got this info from people in the know.. 3 WTC to land another big name lease. Taking one of the cities biggest most prestigious consulting firms from Midtown East, where it's been forever.

Hearing it's a done deal...McKinsey & Co to sign at 3 WTC!

hmm...

When can we expect an official announcement?

[NYguy]

https://nypost.com/2017/11/20/mckins...-trade-center/

McKinsey & Co. is moving its headquarters to World Trade Center





By Steve Cuozzo
November 20, 2017

Global management-consulting giant McKinsey & Co. is moving its Manhattan headquarters from 55 E. 52d St. to Three World Trade Center, The Post has learned.

The prestigious firm told its staff of the planned move last week. It represents another advance for the thriving Downtown office market, which now boasts a healthy mix of media, creative and traditional financial firms. It’s another loss for East Midtown, where the effects of recent rezoning to allow large new modern buildings to rise might not be felt for years.

Negotiations with Three World Trade developer Larry Silverstein were a well-kept secret. Sources said that McKinsey will take about 200,000 square feet on floors 60-64 of 80-story Three World Trade, including a 5,000-square-foot, south-facing outdoor terrace on the 60th floor.

Once the 15-year lease is fully signed, as is expected, McKinsey will join GroupM at the new tower designed by Richard Rogers. The building is to open in May 2018. The lease would raise office occupancy to 900,000 square feet in the 2.5 million-square-foot building.

[Dac150]

A big win for Downtown … hopefully this move will spark additional leasing activity within the complex. It's nice to see the space filling up, and with such prominent brands.

[Hudson11]

a good sign to be sure, but by no means a milestone. They're 'only' taking 200k sqft, which means 900k/2.5M or 36% is leased. 2 WTC still needs an anchor, and 1 WTC is still only 75% leased.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

a good sign to be sure, but by no means a milestone. They're 'only' taking 200k sqft, which means 900k/2.5M or 36% is leased. 2 WTC still needs an anchor, and 1 WTC is still only 75% leased.

"Only" 200k sqft is a pretty large chunk. You don't get lease signings of that size everyday, even in New York. Not the largest by far, but still nothing to sneeze at. It's how these mammoth towers fill up, and also helps to insulate against tenant moves driving vacancies way up. Of course, the 1msf tenants are always major.

[Hudson11]

agreed. I tried to imply a bit of sarcasm with the 'only' 200k bit but thats hard to do over a message board.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

agreed. I tried to imply a bit of sarcasm with the 'only' 200k bit but thats hard to do over a message board.

Yes, yes it is.


Anyway, other new buildings are in the market for tenants of that size...


https://nypost.com/2016/10/18/one-va...ank-as-tenant/

October 18, 2016

The 1.7-million-square-foot One Vanderbilt being developed by SL Green Realty has TD Bank both as its lower-floor anchor tenant and for a retail bank.

But as The Post’s Steve Cuozzo reported back in 2014, the space at the top of One Vanderbilt can’t be occupied by office tenants until the $220 million transit improvements and connections are completed.

Mayor de Blasio repeated this not once but twice during his speech at Tuesday’s groundbreaking.

While the remark prompted a TD Bank official to make a face, the bank’s 200,000-square-foot tenancy won’t be affected.

SL Green Chief Executive Marc Holliday told me the 250,000-square-foot tenants the company is seeking are barely looking now, and likely won’t make any commitments until later in the process when “they can see it.”