HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    One World Trade Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2361  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2008, 9:38 PM
pablosan pablosan is offline
Up Up and Away
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,718
I think that it is a nice looking tower. Only time will tell what it really does for the skyline.
__________________
DenZone
     
     
  #2362  
Old Posted Jan 5, 2008, 11:24 PM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Westfield to Pay $625 M. to Develop WTC Retail
by Eliot Brown | January 4, 2008 |

The Port Authority has finalized a deal with the mall-operating giant Westfield Group to develop and operate the 488,000 square feet of retail planned for the World Trade Center site. The group, now in a joint venture with the Port Authority, will control retail both above ground and below; both in transit-related concourses and in Larry Silverstein’s three towers.

The total cost of developing the retail is estimated to cost $1.45 billion, with Westfield paying $625 million, according to the Port Authority.

The Times’ Charlie Bagli had details on the deal last month.

Press release below:





Port Authority TO PARTNER WITH WESTFIELD

TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE MAJOR WTC RETAIL COMPLEX


First New Retail Development in Downtown Since 9/11

Will Reconnect WTC Site to Lower Manhattan’s Neighborhoods

The Port Authority and The Westfield Group - the world’s largest retail property owner by equity market capitalization - have agreed to jointly develop and operate 488,000 square feet of world-class quality retail at the World Trade Center site, the first new retail development to be built in lower Manhattan since 9/11.

The new World Trade Center retail, which will reconnect the site to neighborhoods in the downtown area, will bring a vibrant street-level environment for local residents, workers and tourists. The retail facilities will feature a full array of eateries, ranging from full-service restaurants to casual dining, and local, national and international specialty shops.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer said, “This agreement will provide the business and residential communities in lower Manhattan with a major economic boost and create a further incentive to relocate downtown. This retail program will integrate the World Trade Center site with the rest of the city’s streetscape, creating a linkage that will allow for a bustling, active street life in the neighborhood.”

New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said, “I have said all along that retail development at the World Trade Center must include street-level shopping to welcome residents, visitors and workers in an area, and reflects the fact that lower Manhattan is a vibrant 24-hour community. I am pleased that the plans announced today by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey include this vital support for our neighborhood.”

Port Authority Chairman Anthony R. Coscia said, “This public-private partnership with Westfield will allow us to create a new, vibrant shopping and dining atmosphere at the World Trade Center site, while generating new revenue that can be reinvested in the region’s transportation system. This project will provide a major boost to the local economy, and will enhance the quality of life for those who live, work or visit downtown. It will provide them with a vibrant urban shopping experience, with about 50 percent of the retail above ground.”

Port Authority Executive Director Anthony E. Shorris said, “With its immediate connection to the community in lower Manhattan, the retail at the World Trade Center is one of the development’s most visible and important elements. Westfield brings the expertise and resources the project needs to make good on its promise. This is the third major public-private venture the Port Authority has brought on line this year - another showcase for the good we can do when we work together.”

Westfield Group Co-Managing Director Peter Lowy said, “It’s a thrill for Westfield to be back. We are excited to have the opportunity to reinvest in this great city and be involved with the redevelopment of this historic site. With the Port Authority, we look forward to putting our global experience and commitment to work creating a world-class, iconic shopping destination for all who live, work and visit here.”

New York City Council Member Alan J. Gerson said, “The World Trade Center calls for a unique, premiere retail presence, which serves the needs of the community while providing a worldwide attraction and accentuating the special nature of the site. Bustling retail activity will also demonstrate our determination to carry on our work and business, undeterred by our enemies. This partnership with The Westfield Group is a great first step toward realizing these goals.”

Manhattan Community Board 1 Chairperson Julie Menin said, “Retail is one of the key components that will help activate the street and realize the vision of a 24/7 community. We are thrilled that the Port Authority is bringing on Westfield as a partner to truly create the active street retail that lower Manhattan - the fastest-growing residential neighborhood in the city - deserves.”

The Port Authority will provide approximately $825 million and Westfield will provide approximately $625 million toward the $1.45 billion retail project.

Prior to September 11, 2001, Westfield had net leased the World Trade Center retail components, which consisted of 427,000 square feet of space, one of the highest-grossing shopping areas in the nation.

In December 2003, to accelerate the rebuilding at the World Trade Center site, the Port Authority acquired the retail net lease from Westfield.

The World Trade Center retail is just one of several projects on the site that are either in construction or progressing through the planning stages. There are currently more than 600 construction workers and 100 pieces of heavy equipment on the site, and nearly every corner of the 16 acres is now under construction.

Major construction on 1 World Trade Center, the Freedom Tower began during the middle of 2006, after a milestone master redevelopment agreement that outlined new roles and responsibilities for the rebuilding. The tower’s footings and foundations are nearly complete, and steel will begin to rise above street level during the first part of 2008.

Construction of the foundations for the World Trade Center Transportation Hub and Memorial also are underway. Major steel beams for both projects are scheduled to be erected during the upcoming year.

http://www.observer.com/2008/westfie...lop-wtc-retail
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


I ❤️ NY
     
     
  #2363  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 1:55 AM
kevininlb kevininlb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 506
hi. as way of an apology, i'm an infrequent snooper from phoenix.

anyone care to tell me what the two buildings under construction are (posted by nyguy)?

appreciate it.
     
     
  #2364  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 2:54 AM
Chi649's Avatar
Chi649 Chi649 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolCzech View Post
This rendering makes the spire look almost like a giant spiral, a mini-Chicago Spire...
I was thinking the same thing CoolCzech.

I like both designs of the spire but I think I prefer the smoother one better. Either way, it will look nice. So is it a fair assessment to say that there is a lot of anticipation for FT to start rising into the sky? If I can't wait, I can't imagine how NY'ers must feel. Here's to the rise of the Freedom Tower this year
__________________
Visit the official website for the Chicago Spire:
http://www.thechicagospire.com
     
     
  #2365  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 3:21 AM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Believe me, Chi649: the first time I saw the lower Manhattan skyline after the attacks of 9/11, I came close to tears. Who could have predicted back then that we had to wait until 2008 before the rebuild would even be brought back to street level?

It will be SO sweet to drive across the Whitestone, and see magnificent towers rising there once more...


archimagazine.com

I love how balanced this overall skyline will seem: the FT will be taller than the Twins, yet seem more in harmony with the other towers because of Libeskind's ascending spiral concept.
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


I ❤️ NY

Last edited by CoolCzech; Jan 6, 2008 at 3:50 AM.
     
     
  #2366  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 3:27 AM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
By the way, if anyone wondered what it would look like if the FT was designed to the same height and shape as the BD:


3pointd.com

At the risk of being accused of bias, I just don't know about that idea... too much is just too much...
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


I ❤️ NY
     
     
  #2367  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 4:06 AM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,746
Great idea for the FT, but no, New York will NEVER allow it to happen.

That would be almost TWICE the height of the Freedom Tower, wouldn't it?

Last edited by Daquan13; Jan 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM.
     
     
  #2368  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 5:44 AM
gttx's Avatar
gttx gttx is offline
Urban Explorer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daquan13 View Post
That would be almost TWICE the height of the Freedom Tower, wouldn't it?
It would also be ugly.
     
     
  #2369  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 1:05 PM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by gttx View Post
It would also be ugly.


Yeah, I don't particularly think too highly of it. To me, it looks like several piles of match sticks tied together and stacked vertically with one of them sticking out high in the sky!
     
     
  #2370  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 5:02 PM
37TimPPG 37TimPPG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by gttx View Post
It would also be ugly.
BD would look so out of place in lower Manhattan. Plus, FDNY would probably scream to the heavens to not get it built!
     
     
  #2371  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 5:52 PM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,703
Redesign of the WTC gave us an opportunity to rebuild the complex at the old, grand scale while harmoniously integrating it into the skyline. The BD, as much as I actually like it, would flush that scheme down the toilet.
     
     
  #2372  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 10:29 PM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,746
To coin the phase; Build it tall and they will come. But I don't think anyone would be coming to that one! Especially not the 09-11 families.

Not only that. Terrorists would be trying to think of a million ways to knock it down!! A couple of well-placed planes, and it's all over.

Last edited by Daquan13; Jan 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM.
     
     
  #2373  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2008, 10:01 PM
BradMacD BradMacD is offline
likes candy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick
Posts: 79
Looking good, been lurking here for a while

The anticipation for this glass monster (a good type of monster ) to shoot up to where the twins soared.
__________________
rrr.
     
     
  #2374  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 2:28 AM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
If it was really desired the architects could've made something as tall as BD, but it's silly to say a building designed specifically for a completely different location and landscape could just be transplanted to another. First and foremost, that's why BD would never work in NY, or why ESB would never work in Chicago, or why the Chicago Spire wouldn't work in Los Angeles.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
     
     
  #2375  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 2:37 AM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
I tend to agree about the BD not fitting New York, somewhat less so the CS not fitting LA, but really don't see why the ESB wouldn't fit in Chicago: it's not like Chicago doesn't have relatively tall art deco towers of its own.
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


I ❤️ NY
     
     
  #2376  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 3:58 AM
jsr's Avatar
jsr jsr is offline
Is That LEGO?
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: ABS Dreamland
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolCzech View Post
I tend to agree about the BD not fitting New York, somewhat less so the CS not fitting LA, but really don't see why the ESB wouldn't fit in Chicago: it's not like Chicago doesn't have relatively tall art deco towers of its own.
The massing styles are pretty distinct though, owing to very different setback laws between the two cities. The ESB doesn't look like a 1930's Chicago building IMO. OTOH, I wish Chicago had setback laws similar to NYC back then. Oh, what might have been for the Windy City....

Sorry this might be staying a bit off topic.
__________________
jsr
     
     
  #2377  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2008, 8:02 PM
MikeS MikeS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 16
Can anyone please tell me why the green epoxy coated rebar is used in certain areas of the foundation and not in others? Thanks in advance.
     
     
  #2378  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2008, 1:09 AM
fleonzo fleonzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolCzech View Post
By the way, if anyone wondered what it would look like if the FT was designed to the same height and shape as the BD:


3pointd.com

At the risk of being accused of bias, I just don't know about that idea... too much is just too much...
CoolCzech...is there a way you could draw that graphic design with most of the current proposals (WTC, Hudson yards, Brooklyn,etc..) so we can see what the NYC skyline would like in 5yrs? That would be a thread onto itself!
     
     
  #2379  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2008, 1:42 PM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
I'm sure there is, but I didn't do the drawing - go to 3pointd.com.
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


I ❤️ NY
     
     
  #2380  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2008, 1:58 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolCzech View Post
I tend to agree about the BD not fitting New York, somewhat less so the CS not fitting LA, but really don't see why the ESB wouldn't fit in Chicago: it's not like Chicago doesn't have relatively tall art deco towers of its own.
Well, for one thing, even though Chicago's downtown was remarkably canyoned in the 1920s and 1930s, it never really developed into the supertall sensation that New York did. NY produced 40 Wall, 70 Pine, Farmer's Insurance, the ESB, the Chrysler, Rockefeller... Chicago produced the Palmolive, Board of Trade, Civic Opera, Roosevelt Tower... all very tall towers, but none of the crazy high supertalls NY was producing. Chicago didn't get one until the John Hancock. The tallest building in Chicago at the time was about as tall as the Singer Building.
New York's zoning for skyscrapers at the time was that the full height of the building cannot occupy more than 25% of the entire site, to allow sunlight to reach the sidewalks, which invariably pushed skyscrapers up so developers could get the most rent from their land. Chicago never did, which is why Chicago's old skyscrapers are simply massive and straight up.

Here, compare the diagrams:
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?3468920
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?3469129

As well, the style disparity between NY and Chicago would've prevented an ESB styled tower. I'm sure you know already about the great war between the styles (Chicago eventually won, more or less), with Chicago representing the Sullivan style school of selective ornamentation and with NY representing the Beaux Arts school of ornamentation everywhere. Even though the ESB seems pretty bland for a NY skyscraper, it is very ornate for a Chicago one.

Chicago Board of Trade (tallest in Chi in 1931)


And the ESB (tallest in NY in 1931)


And I suppose the CS could kind of work in LA, but there's no doubt in my mind the most appropriate place for it to be on the planet is Chicago, where it continues the statements made by the Mies-era Chicago school that emphasizes the structural elements of a building and innovation without adding unecessary elements (such as twisting the floorplate a few degrees each advance up or alternating balcony plates each floor).
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.

Last edited by CGII; Jan 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.