HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    

Three World Trade Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram
New York Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1921  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 12:16 AM
Fishman92 Fishman92 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by STR View Post
Huh. Looks like it was redesigned. So long X-bracing.


Vid screen was axed. Shame. This building has been gutted of everything that made it interesting.

Ugh.
WHAT have they done to this?! :O
They've just removed the master from Masterpiece. This is now an ugly block. Bring back the patterns! And our vid screen!

Grrr.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1922  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 12:28 AM
TXAlex's Avatar
TXAlex TXAlex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 343
The old rendering was my favorite building of the bunch. I guess only China gets to have structurally interesting buildings? What a shame.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1923  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 12:38 AM
Fishman92 Fishman92 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 236
Yeah, I'm really disappointed with this now- this was gunna be awesome!
Anyway, I changed its Wikipedia page with the new render and information.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1924  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 12:50 AM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,116
Shame. I really loved the uniqueness of the building in the complex, with its X-bracings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1925  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 12:55 AM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,518
OMG WTF.......im moving to Hong Kong thats it.....They destroyed the Entire Facade top to bottom and even managed to destroy the aesthetics of the base.....
__________________
New York City,The City That Never Sleeps,The Capitol Of The World,The Big Apple,The Empire City,The Melting Pot,The Metropolis,Gotham

Buildings Over 200 Meters 62 Completed 20 Under Construction 50 Proposed 0 On Hold

Last edited by SkyscrapersOfNewYork; Jun 23, 2011 at 1:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1926  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 1:31 AM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,536
This wouldn't have anything to do with the redesign would it?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=1078

I'm just speculating but it would be nice if there was a current story attached to why they got rid of the braces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1927  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 1:38 AM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,427
I have to imagine it is cost cutting, but aren't the braces important structurally? Now the tower really looks awkward to me, a bare middle, and flares or shoulders with braces, and now the four antenna things don't work either. The braces really made this tower from a big box into something interesting.

Side note, not much has changed on silversteins website.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1928  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 1:38 AM
daHawk daHawk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4
interesting, I thought it was because it was an early build of the game, but apparently call of duty modern warfare 3 had a more accurate version of the building a month ago. coincidence?



original video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coiTJbr9m04
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1929  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 1:56 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Insertoronto
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,205
horrible! i can't believe my eyes! is it april first?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1930  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 2:43 AM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,448
Sad.

At least it still has the braces on the side. Although they look weird now without the center bracing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1931  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 4:09 AM
meh_cd meh_cd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 571
Went from a piece of art to a piece of garbage in the blink of an eye.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1932  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 4:23 AM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 1,800
Heartbreaking. I pray the original design makes it through somehow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1933  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 6:13 AM
JayPro JayPro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,047
I May be Treading Thin Ice Here But.......

IMHO;

As one who has never really understood the *aesthetic* need for exterior cross-bracing, I can suffer this ostensible re-design.

That said, there must be a lot of buildings that incorporate an X-pattern or the like into their facades without the need for additional steel (IIRC Dallas' Renaissance Tower pulls this off rather nicely). Perhaps, then, something could be done to emulate the scrapped design feature along these lines.

Somehow, I think that the building's verticality is slightly enhanced with this latest iteration. It's just that to me, the X's have always looked a wee bit intrusive. I just hope that the spandrel panelling (?) is prominent enough to properly integrate the zig-zags on the setbacks with everything else.

Edit: Cost-cutting at the expense of architectural nirvana is indeed a screaming, foaming bitch. But in all frankness, I dare to ask whether we rather have an arhitecturally diluted supertall...or none at all? If this measure was taken solely to expedite the tenant hunting process (and IMO it *was*), I for one...and maybe the *only* one...understand the motive, albeit most grudgingly.

I truly empathize with those of you who see this as an irreversible indignity to a neo-Gotham-like monument; but might I suggest that what we see as of *right now* might not equal what we ultimately get? I'm thinking about/hoping for what they did with the aforementioned Dallas building, which BTW, is *not* what was first built (completion in '74; reclad, exterior facade lighting et al in '86). We shall see.

I offer these words in the spirit of civil dialogue, fully aware that I appear to be in the extreme minority on this issue.

Last edited by JayPro; Jun 23, 2011 at 6:43 AM. Reason: Additions, both factual (Dallas citation) and argumentative
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1934  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 7:28 AM
JayPro JayPro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Huntington, Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,047
Hold The Phone Here.........

Animatedmartian brings up a *most* interesting issue:

Just why did the renderings of this tower sans-X's get released without any accompanying news...of any kind?? One would think that wtc.com would have the journalistic integrity to include newsfeed with them.

If this redesign was made at the behest of the artistically brain-dead scrooges at the PA, I can see where on thread page 54 (Go fig.), NYGuy's posting of an article snippet seems to validate what we're apparently seeing. But why no updates from wtc.com between then and now? We've only seen two renders---and shitty ones at that---for all of eight hours as I write this. Surely this is more than enough time for the geeks who engineer the site to post a story or two as horse's-mouth corroboration. Ever hear of updating from mobile devices, gents?
In short, look at wtc.com's section on 175G. Two horrid renders + zero accompanying information from the 'Net's most reliable and exhaustive source of information about WTC II = fuzzy math indeed.

All that said...

From what DaHawk posted earlier, riddle me this: How and when did that video game cap get tweaked to reflect this so-called change? Where did they get their information from? Do they know something that we as yet do not? Are we willing to accept a video game still on face value as proof that this alleged redesign hs been greenlighted??

Something stinks here. And the more I read things, the funkier the air gets.

Last edited by JayPro; Jun 23, 2011 at 8:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1935  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 10:51 AM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPro View Post
IMHO;

As one who has never really understood the *aesthetic* need for exterior cross-bracing, I can suffer this ostensible re-design.

That said, there must be a lot of buildings that incorporate an X-pattern or the like into their facades without the need for additional steel (IIRC Dallas' Renaissance Tower pulls this off rather nicely). Perhaps, then, something could be done to emulate the scrapped design feature along these lines.

Somehow, I think that the building's verticality is slightly enhanced with this latest iteration. It's just that to me, the X's have always looked a wee bit intrusive. I just hope that the spandrel panelling (?) is prominent enough to properly integrate the zig-zags on the setbacks with everything else.

Edit: Cost-cutting at the expense of architectural nirvana is indeed a screaming, foaming bitch. But in all frankness, I dare to ask whether we rather have an arhitecturally diluted supertall...or none at all? If this measure was taken solely to expedite the tenant hunting process (and IMO it *was*), I for one...and maybe the *only* one...understand the motive, albeit most grudgingly.

I truly empathize with those of you who see this as an irreversible indignity to a neo-Gotham-like monument; but might I suggest that what we see as of *right now* might not equal what we ultimately get? I'm thinking about/hoping for what they did with the aforementioned Dallas building, which BTW, is *not* what was first built (completion in '74; reclad, exterior facade lighting et al in '86). We shall see.

I offer these words in the spirit of civil dialogue, fully aware that I appear to be in the extreme minority on this issue.
But you aren't the only one. I too think the design is better off without the bracing
__________________
America and New York deserve to have twin towers again! I am boldly resisting the twin towers taboo enforcers - a.k.a. the bullies who harass folks on this forum just because they have different opinions than these bullies do!
Recipe for the best syrup in the world:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191318
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1936  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 11:08 AM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000 View Post
I have to imagine it is cost cutting, but aren't the braces important structurally? Now the tower really looks awkward to me, a bare middle, and flares or shoulders with braces, and now the four antenna things don't work either. The braces really made this tower from a big box into something interesting.

Side note, not much has changed on silversteins website.
The Hudson Yards has posed a problem for Silverstein since Related can lease new space at the VERY low rate of $70/sf due to huge city/state subsidies and the fact that he looks to merely break even on the office part and make money on the residential part. Silverstein needs to lease at lower rates and cost cutting is the only way to do this. Unlike Related, which seeks no profit from its office component, the office component at WTC 2 and 3 is Silverstein's sole source of profit, together with fees for building 1 and 4 WTC for the PA.

Last edited by RobertWalpole; Jun 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1937  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 11:10 AM
sterlippo1 sterlippo1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,250
no bracing? i still lke it, just not as much. oh well, it's still a beauty
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1938  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 11:53 AM
gardensoul gardensoul is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 113
Very disappointing

I am really disappointed by the redesign here. It now comes across as enormously BLAND. Might as well just scrap it as far as aesthetics is concerned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1939  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 12:01 PM
Fishman92 Fishman92 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 236
Damn, wikipedia removed the picture I changed on the Three WTC page. How can this render not get on there, when the old on did, and they were from the exact same source? Grr.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1940  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2011, 1:30 PM
giantSwan's Avatar
giantSwan giantSwan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northeast, United States
Posts: 224
my favorite part about the bracing was the jux it provided to the other towers in the WTC complex.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:07 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.