NEW YORK | What do you think of the new WTC? - Page 14

Roadcruiser1 · #**261** Posted **Apr 4, 2012, 4:24 AM**

First of all I hope you are not another troll, second of all the building to the right is the Beekman Tower by Frank Gehry, third of all Frank Gehry is designing something at the World Trade Center. It's the Performing Arts Center.

Also One World Trade Center is better architecturally than the Twin Towers and I am saying this even though I loved the Twin Towers.

SLC Ute · #**262** Posted **Apr 4, 2012, 5:41 AM**

Hey all, long time follower from Utah... Sorry if this has already been addressed, but this is the first I am hearing about Frank Gehry's Performing Arts Center at the World Trade Center. Where will it be located? When will it be completed? and Where can one obtain additional information?

I also want to say Thanks to everyone involved with all the excellent photos and details about this tower. It is becoming a remarkable Symbol of the American Spirit that will carry on in tribute to all those we have lost!

cityenthusiast · #**263** Posted **Apr 4, 2012, 5:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLC Ute

Hey all, long time follower from Utah... Sorry if this has already been addressed, but this is the first I am hearing about Frank Gehry's Performing Arts Center at the World Trade Center. Where will it be located? When will it be completed? and Where can one obtain additional information?

I also want to say Thanks to everyone involved with all the excellent photos and details about this tower. It is becoming a remarkable Symbol of the American Spirit that will carry on in tribute to all those we have lost!

I dont know much about the performing arts center but I bet you can find some information on the port authorities world trade center site that has all the updates about whats going on at the site here is the website www.wtcprogress.com

SLC Ute · #**264** Posted **Apr 4, 2012, 6:17 AM**

cityenthusiast, Thank you! It appears the plan is for it to go in just East of WTC1.

Roadcruiser1 · #**265** Posted **Apr 4, 2012, 12:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLC Ute

Hey all, long time follower from Utah... Sorry if this has already been addressed, but this is the first I am hearing about Frank Gehry's Performing Arts Center at the World Trade Center. Where will it be located? When will it be completed? and Where can one obtain additional information?

I also want to say Thanks to everyone involved with all the excellent photos and details about this tower. It is becoming a remarkable Symbol of the American Spirit that will carry on in tribute to all those we have lost!

1)

2) 2016

3) http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=196755

Quote:

Originally Posted by robby68

Where is this walkway at

Brooklyn Bridge Park.

Forest Glen · #**266** Posted **Apr 4, 2012, 2:45 PM**

Every real New Yorker wants the old WTC back. They weren't the most ornate buildings, but they were a part of the city skyline. No New Yorker wants some European-looking building to replace an icon.

HomrQT · #**267** Posted **Apr 4, 2012, 3:36 PM**

I like the current design of the tower, but I despise it being a rip-off of an already built tower. Such a prominent location should have gotten it's own design.

Roadcruiser1 · #**268** Posted **Apr 4, 2012, 10:54 PM**

This video is another reason why I want the Twin Towers back.

• Video Link

Roadcruiser1 · #**269** Posted **Apr 8, 2012, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189

It might be 1,349 feet to the roof, if that plan is still viable. The antenna or spire would go up to 1,420 something feet. I personally would want this tower to a twin height-wise to 1 WTC. Would give the skyline a little resemblance to how it was before 9/11. I would like to see a rendering.

No. Again the design calls for a spiral. This is why this building is shorter than One World Trade Center. Plus it's placement would not give people any view of a Twin Towers remind since it would block One World Trade Center at certain viewpoints.

meh_cd · #**270** Posted **Apr 9, 2012, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

No. Again the design calls for a spiral. This is why this building is shorter than One World Trade Center. Plus it's placement would not give people any view of a Twin Towers remind since it would block One World Trade Center at certain viewpoints.

The height is close enough for it to mimic a twin anyway; most people aren't going to notice the small difference. If anything they will be taken in by the striking diamond at the top. Just that this time, they will be fraternal instead of identical twins.

Zapatan · #**271** Posted **Apr 9, 2012, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

No. Again the design calls for a spiral. This is why this building is shorter than One World Trade Center. Plus it's placement would not give people any view of a Twin Towers remind since it would block One World Trade Center at certain viewpoints.

1 world trade center is 1776 feet, anything shorter than that is shorter than 1WTC.

I'm not saying it will be 1430 feet tall, I'm just saying it wouldn't break the spiral plan (Which is stupid nonetheless)

jd3189 · #**272** Posted **Apr 9, 2012, 11:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

No. Again the design calls for a spiral. This is why this building is shorter than One World Trade Center. Plus it's placement would not give people any view of a Twin Towers remind since it would block One World Trade Center at certain viewpoints.

The Twins blocked each other at certain viewpoints too. Besides, 2 WTC would still be shorter than 1 WTC with those provisions overall. It will just have a 100 ft jump,which would make it a fraternal twin to 1 WTC by height. I understand that the design was hoping for a spiral, but it would be nice to keep that aspect of two dominant structures in the skyline that the original WTC had. It would be somewhat of a compromise, without it being blatantly expressed.

Roadcruiser1 · #**273** Posted **Apr 10, 2012, 12:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189

The Twins blocked each other at certain viewpoints too. Besides, 2 WTC would still be shorter than 1 WTC with those provisions overall. It will just have a 100 ft jump,which would make it a fraternal twin to 1 WTC by height. I understand that the design was hoping for a spiral, but it would be nice to keep that aspect of two dominant structures in the skyline that the original WTC had. It would be somewhat of a compromise, without it being blatantly expressed.

They aren't already that much different. The Twin Towers matched each other by roof height 1362 to 1368 feet. One and Two World Trade Center has a 20 feet difference only. One World Trade Center is 1,368 feet while Two World Trade Center is 1,348 feet. It's close enough.

Salakast · #**274** Posted **Apr 13, 2012, 9:42 PM**

I personally feel the tower should've been 2001 feet, 1776 feet seems too low, and this tower is only a few feet higher than the other 1 WTC.

Bill Ditnow · #**275** Posted **Apr 24, 2012, 5:56 PM**

As I see this go up every day, the more disappointed I am. It's exactly what the NY Times architecture critic wrote seven years ago when the final design was unveiled: a giant paperweight with a toothpick stuck on top.

Intended to evoke an obelisk, it is monstrously overscaled. The giant over-eleongated triangles that make up its facets are utterly boring, and provide no sense of a "twist" in the building, as I think was intended. From a distance, these facets are hardly noticeable anyhow, which means it looks much like one of the original twins but without the other. But the twins were iconic precisely because there were two of them and because of their stripped-down modernism, without hokey elongated triangles and gimmicks like toothpick spires to gussy them up.

If and when the other towers, equally mediocre, are finished, the result will be complete visual discordance. There is no relationship among the towers, though that was striven for. But the striving was unsuccessful.

This is what happens when you let politicians, a greedy and philistine leaseholder and his mediocre house architect drive the reconstruction of a site that demanded greatness and got dross.

Roadcruiser1 · #**276** Posted **Apr 24, 2012, 6:50 PM**

Can we please stop with the Twin Towers? They are not coming back no matter how much you want them.

chris123678 · #**277** Posted **Apr 24, 2012, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

As I see this go up every day, the more disappointed I am. It's exactly what the NY Times architecture critic wrote seven years ago when the final design was unveiled: a giant paperweight with a toothpick stuck on top.

Intended to evoke an obelisk, it is monstrously overscaled. The giant over-eleongated triangles that make up its facets are utterly boring, and provide no sense of a "twist" in the building, as I think was intended. From a distance, these facets are hardly noticeable anyhow, which means it looks much like one of the original twins but without the other. But the twins were iconic precisely because there were two of them and because of their stripped-down modernism, without hokey elongated triangles and gimmicks like toothpick spires to gussy them up.

If and when the other towers, equally mediocre, are finished, the result will be complete visual discordance. There is no relationship among the towers, though that was striven for. But the striving was unsuccessful.

This is what happens when you let politicians, a greedy and philistine leaseholder and his mediocre house architect drive the reconstruction of a site that demanded greatness and got dross.

I'm just happy that something is being built but i do agree. The Angles of the triangles are not noticeable from certain angles. But the glass is going to bring that out, I hope.And I agree it does look like one big original tower without the others. But I'll judge in 6 weeks when it's done. The other towers don't go with this one, espically tower 2. Just a cluster of towers.

uaarkson · #**278** Posted **Apr 24, 2012, 8:09 PM**

Bill Ditnow has not seen STR's renders of the complex.

EDIT: Nevermind, after reading through the guy's post history I have concluded that he is actually insane.

Check out this gem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

The world will run out of economically recoverable fossil fuels in this century, a fact that will permanently end industrial/technological civilization. In about a hundred years and maybe in as few as fifty years, the new Times Tower will be an uninhabited ruin among other uninhabited ruins. But, as Frank Lloyd Wright said, Manhattan’s skyline will make for marvelous ruins.

NewYorkDominates · #**279** Posted **Apr 24, 2012, 8:39 PM**

^Hahaha,that comment Bill wrote was pure comedy."The world will run out of economically recoverable fossil fuels in this century, a fact that will permanently end industrial/technological civilization....".Guy is really insane.

Yes,from what I've seen from the renders,the tower's edges and angles will be very visible.

jd3189 · #**280** Posted **Apr 24, 2012, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

As I see this go up every day, the more disappointed I am. It's exactly what the NY Times architecture critic wrote seven years ago when the final design was unveiled: a giant paperweight with a toothpick stuck on top.

Intended to evoke an obelisk, it is monstrously overscaled. The giant over-eleongated triangles that make up its facets are utterly boring, and provide no sense of a "twist" in the building, as I think was intended. From a distance, these facets are hardly noticeable anyhow, which means it looks much like one of the original twins but without the other. But the twins were iconic precisely because there were two of them and because of their stripped-down modernism, without hokey elongated triangles and gimmicks like toothpick spires to gussy them up.

If and when the other towers, equally mediocre, are finished, the result will be complete visual discordance. There is no relationship among the towers, though that was striven for. But the striving was unsuccessful.

This is what happens when you let politicians, a greedy and philistine leaseholder and his mediocre house architect drive the reconstruction of a site that demanded greatness and got dross.

Sorry man, but you're a minority around these parts. 1 WTC may not be what you were expecting, but be lucky that we're expecting anything even when the economy is improving.