NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,270 FT | 80 FLOORS | ON HOLD

[Enigmatism415]

Would it have killed them to just make it a little bit taller? Thanks for the prints, NYGuy.

Oh, and what's the elevation difference between 1WTC and 2WTC? Shouldn't the latter be further up the hill than the former?

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by Enigmatism415

Would it have killed them to just make it a little bit taller? Thanks for the prints, NYGuy.

Oh, and what's the elevation difference between 1WTC and 2WTC? Shouldn't the latter be further up the hill than the former?

As per the master plan, 1 WTC is meant to be the pinnacle so each corresponding tower decreases in height as it spirals down towards the memorial.

[weidncol]

Well I think he just wants it to be taller to at least match the height of 1

[Enigmatism415]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

As per the master plan, 1 WTC is meant to be the pinnacle so each corresponding tower decreases in height as it spirals down towards the memorial.

Originally Posted by weidncol

Well I think he just wants it to be taller to at least match the height of 1

I want 1WTC to be taller than 2WTC, but only by six feet.

[Foosh]

Now that Fox and company are not taking the space does that mean both towers are on the table dependant on the client?

[Guiltyspark]

I have seen a few people throw out the idea that the original design was not that special if you disregard the crown. Yeah, well Katy Perry is not that special if you disregard her tits, but her were are in a world where they have made her a millionaire.

[De Minimis NY]

I’ve come around to appreciate the way Ingles’ version looks on the skyline and actually prefer it to Foster’s diamonds at this point. Foster’s tower is far more elegant and would unquestionably be my choice if we were starting from scratch, but it’s more of a centerpiece than a complement to WTC 1 and the overall complex that’s already set in stone. Ingles’ design is less exciting, but it creates a better relationship between towers 1 and 2, which pays homage to what we lost and helps to pull the whole complex together better. It’s the less flashy, but more wise choice to close the complex out.

That said, though, I remain extremely concerned about the depth of the base of the tower. I think this will look great from a distance, but on the pedestrian level it will be overwhelming (not in a good way) with that MASSIVE flat wall of glass facing the transportation hub—just look at how long it is compared to the base of WTC 1 in the schematics above.

Was Foster’s design that egregious in that respect? (I know it’s the same footprint, but at least the diamonds design had the large indents running down the structure to break the walls up). I’m very concerned that this is going to make that whole side of the building feel barren and lifeless. This tower’s role on the skyline is paramount, but they have to keep in mind that it’s not fronting some random street in the financial district, it’s the entryway to the plaza and frame around the transportation hub. We’ve just spent way too much time and money on creating a world-class pedestrian space down there to totally ignore the way this thing interacts with the street.

I’m just hopeful that this is still an early version of the base and that some further refinement will break up the façade down there in some way.

[Eidolon]

^^^
Fosters vs Ingels, no matter who wins, the general public will win too!

[jayden]

At this point, I don't give a flying fuck which design they choose.

Just find a damn tenant, and get the thing built.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by jayden

At this point, I don't give a flying fuck which design they choose.

Just find a damn tenant, and get the thing built.

I agree. There's just been to much disappointment and delays with this. Quite frankly, with so much going up, this is not a priority in the sense of excitement. As long as it fills the void so that we can finally see a WTC site thats not u/c, and return to a normal way, that's all that matters. I'd even be happy with a height chop to 1000 ft. As long as it finishes and can land a tenant in a competitive market. I'm tired of the site being a construction zone.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Foosh

Now that Fox and company are not taking the space does that mean both towers are on the table dependant on the client?

No.

In the divorce from News Corp. and 21st Century Fox, Silverstein has walked away with custody of the Bjarke Ingels design for 2 WTC, which replaced an earlier draft by Norman Foster. The design, which was drafted during the negotiations at the request of the prospective tenant, features several terraces all the way up in the staircase-like structure. Prospective tenants have been receptive to the design, Mr. Silverstein said.

Ms. Tighe added that while Mr. Foster’s 2006 design was beautiful, the rendering by Mr. Ingels carries “the notion of how we work in 2030, as opposed to how we were working at the time.”

Indeed, Silverstein finds itself back to square one in securing an anchor tenant to build the roughly 1,270-foot tower following the extremely public blowup.

While this might seem like a daunting task, the team behind the project sounds bullish that a replacement will be signed by the end of this year, and completion is only pushed back a year to 2021. Plus, now the developer has a new design for the property—the only silver lining after the Murdoch deal went south—that will allow the company to lure in someone new.

Silverstein reiterated previous assertions that it won’t take long for a replacement tenant to materialize. The building represents the “new language” of buildings in New York City and the creativity of its architect — qualities that will swiftly attract future occupants, he said.

“We’ll build tower two,” he said. “We will find a user for that building, and it won’t take up a lot of time. That’s a good building.”

[mrnyc]

hmm, they say new design for new clients, but then the render is the ingels design ???

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

hmm, they say new design for new clients, but then the render is the ingels design ???

They're referencing the Ingels design as the new design. Foster's design was the old.

Ms. Tighe added that while Mr. Foster’s 2006 design was beautiful, the rendering by Mr. Ingels carries “the notion of how we work in 2030, as opposed to how we were working at the time.”

That Foster design is as dead as this one, which was my all time favorite proprosal for the WTC:

[CityGuy87]

I'm still wondering if those underside news tickers will end up being used considering NewsCorp is out. I don't expect the final anchor tenant to be a major media conglomerate so that particular design aspect will most likely not end up in the final product.

[O-tacular]

If it is to be Ingels' design that they go with I just hope they tweak it a bit. That blank side is awful.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

I'm still wondering if those underside news tickers will end up being used considering NewsCorp is out. I don't expect the final anchor tenant to be a major media conglomerate so that particular design aspect will most likely not end up in the final product.

Maybe or maybe not. But this is New York City. That's not something that would have to be dependant on the tenant. Keep in mind Fox was taking less than half of the space. Also, while they likely would have stayed there a lengthy number of years, a lease signing is temporary, unlike a major design feature.

[artspook]

always nice to see earlier eye-popping proposals . .
that coud've been . . strong accomplished noteworthy . .
nothing timid about those angular "kissing towers"
by Foster . . If only there were excellence comparable . .
going up at WTC today . .

[Bill Ditnow]

I agree that the Kissing Towers were outstanding, and far and away the best proposal for the site. Not only was it architecturally stunning, but it had symbolic value, in that it seemed to meld the original twins into one "kissing" form, suggesting that the twins had arisen from the ashes and melded together to form a bigger, stronger presence. But, mediocrity wins as usual, and we've got what we've got, which is

[TK2001]

A change in the stacked box design?

[CityGuy87]

If the BIG proposal is what we're gonna end seeing rise, wouldn't it make sense to start re-configuring the foundation (for Foster's design) now so that when an anchor tenant is finally secured, it's ready to go vertical? Otherwise I'm just gonna assume that Silverstein is keeping both options on the table...