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

[Dac150]

What a kick in the shin...

[The Grand Architect]

Originally Posted by IntoTheLens827

Holly Cow!!!! THAT IS HUGE!!!!!!! Man, I can't belive how much stuff & people are in that space. This is an amazing photo!

And that's only 1 trading floor out of the 6 on the 3WTC.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

And that's only 1 trading floor out of the 6 on the 3WTC.

The above posted trading floor is the largest in the world. All six trading floors combined will not equal that square footage.

[uaarkson]

3WTC's trading floors will be much smaller than that, actually.

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

3WTC's trading floors will be much smaller than that, actually.

Though I still hope UBS will take them. I'd hate to see this tower's construction delayed.

[Traynor]

Hmmm... What day did the second crane go up? I must have missed a day watching the cams.


(Screen capture closeup from HD webcam here: http://evsdatacenter.netfirms.com/kpitv/silver.htm )

[Traynor]

So, tower 3 has been redesigned omitting most of the X-bracing.

http://www.wtc.com/media/images/s/ar...d-trade-center


(Image from World Trade Center website here: http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9745/...3lookingup.jpg )

[Roadcruiser1]

The building looked way better with the X bracing. Now the building looks sterile in my opinion.

[Traynor]

So much for all that foolishness about how the X-bracing was integral to the design and the building couldn't be built (as designed) without them... that a certain "expert" on here claimed.

[Kanto]

I think the tower would look the best if they removed all the bracing. Yes, it would look very simplistic this way, but I still think it would work well with the other buildings. It is, after all, the no. 3 of the complex, and doesn't have to be that much unique. I think towers 3, 4 and 7 make perfect support buildings with towers 1 and 2 being the truly iconic ones.

Btw, I just had a rather eerie and disturbing thought. Look at that rendering Traynor posted. Doesn't 2WTC look a bit weird in it? Where are the sharp angle diamonds? I don't wanna scare you folks but I recall one forumer speaking about how these diamonds might suffer the same fate as the bracing. I just hope this is just a mistake in the rendering, or my eyes fooling me.

[Traynor]

Better Before and After images here:




(Courtesy DinoVabec over at SSC found here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...746082&page=32 )

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by Kanto

I think the tower would look the best if they removed all the bracing. Yes, it would look very simplistic this way, but I still think it would work well with the other buildings. It is, after all, the no. 3 of the complex, and doesn't have to be that much unique. I think towers 3, 4 and 7 make perfect support buildings with towers 1 and 2 being the truly iconic ones.

Btw, I just had a rather eerie and disturbing thought. Look at that rendering Traynor posted. Doesn't 2WTC look a bit weird in it? Where are the sharp angle diamonds? I don't wanna scare you folks but I recall one forumer speaking about how these diamonds might suffer the same fate as the bracing. I just hope this is just a mistake in the rendering, or my eyes fooling me.

You're looking at 200G from a direction and vantage point at which the diamonds can't be seen clearly. I can barely make them out; and it looks as if they haven't been touched. But that's a moot point given that this render is for 175G.

So if it turns out that I have to resign myself to this change being reality, I'll suggest this: Make both setbacks equal, preferably toward the taller. The current "half-shrug" look with the Z-bracing is distracting.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Traynor

So much for all that foolishness about how the X-bracing was integral to the design and the building couldn't be built (as designed) without them... that a certain "expert" on here claimed.

What this means is the developer/contractor/whoever decided to use fixed moment connections at column and beam joints instead of an exposed truss system. In either case, these systems provide necessary lateral support.

Interestingly, moment connections are typically more expensive than trusses, this could have been an instance of the developer wanting to provide less visual obstructions in the leaseable space, but without knowing the details this is only speculation.

[اختارت أحد]

Originally Posted by JayPro

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.

Instead of all the pondering, maybe you should call or e-mail Silverstein's office and put it to rest.

With that said, I'm sure this watered down mess is what we're really getting. How unfortunate. In all honesty, this building is now no more exciting than 4WTC other than the bigger height.

[Dac150]

This is just speculation; however it is possible that there have been consistent complaints about the visual obstructions the cross bracings would have by potential tenants. When you have to lease space, sacrifices may have to be made on design in order to satisfy a deal.

The change is disappointing nonetheless. The buildings are all now uniformed; this was the only one that ‘stood’ out.

[STR]

Originally Posted by JayPro

C (my observation). There is still no news of this on the TWC site, nor have we seen any updated pics from said site.

Till I see overwhelming proof that these changes are *not* a vicious joke, i.e. confirmation from the two sites aforementioned plus one or two additional postings here from aggrieved forumers who've sought and obtained legit answers, I officially declare radioactive bullshit on this.

http://www.wtc.com/media/images/s/ar...d-trade-center

Look, I really wish this wasn't true either. Not only did I like the building (now that I think about it, it might have been my favorite), but I put an unholy amount of time into my model of it. However, the odds of someone from SP uploading a half-dozen renders, after paying two different graphics houses to create them, on accident is extremely remote.

Pour one on the curb for our stillborn friend. Not the whole bottle, I need a hit myself.

Originally Posted by Traynor

So much for all that foolishness about how the X-bracing was integral to the design and the building couldn't be built (as designed) without them... that a certain "expert" on here claimed.

What a ridiculous (and petty, but that's besides the point) thing to say. Nobody said it was impossible, especially given that there's three other buildings in the complex with a very similar structural system (concrete shear wall core and perimeter columns spaced 30 feet on center) and two of those will rise higher than this (now) turd.

What the asinine raving was about 2-3 months ago was the suggestion that one could remove the braces without doing anything else. Like someone could go into AutoCAD, click on the X's, hit delete, and go grab lunch. The mere suggestion is ignorant at best. To alter something that large, means redesigning the whole building. And, well, they redesigned the whole building. About the only thing left untouched was the column footings, and even then they eliminated four of those. If they had the time, I'm sure Richard Rogers would have re-done the whole building to make it both cheaper, and better, but that would take too much time. Even this redesign (which was apparently proposed in September, according to the filename on wtc.com) might have mucked with the timeline. This redesign is probably why construction on Tower 2 pulled ahead of Tower 3 this spring.

Nothing on this scale exists in a vacuum. No design element, no decision. That has been my argument all along, on this and other specific topics.

Originally Posted by Traynor

So, tower 3 has been redesigned omitting most of the X-bracing.

For someone that likes digging up old bodies, I find it interesting that you wouldn't bother to realize you're announcing day-old news that has been the topic of the thread since Page 96.

Originally Posted by Dac150

This is just speculation; however it is possible that there have been consistent complaints about the visual obstructions the cross bracings would have by potential tenants. When you have to lease space, sacrifices may have to be made on design in order to satisfy a deal.

Maybe, but that hasn't been an issue in other buildings. Some, like the Hancock Center, charge a premium for the X-condos. My guess is that they cut them to reduce the amount of stainless steel (they also removed the stainless steel curtain wall spandrels that was between each of the office floors) they'd have to buy and make construction itself easier by reducing the number of lifts.

Without the bracing, the building will probably end up using more conventional steel. Non-braced tube structures are almost always less structurally efficient than braced tubes. However, if they save on labor and the stainless steel facade elements, they end up ahead.

[Don098]

Originally Posted by STR

I kind of like it without the X-bracing It definitely lost some texture but I think it fits in better with its neighbors. In some ways I think it makes WTC2 look even better.

[steveve]

Originally Posted by Don098

I kind of like it without the X-bracing It definitely lost some texture but I think it fits in better with its neighbors.

i agree with that statement. it's more uniform with the clean facades of the other towers (esp. 4WTC), though i find the X beams were one of the best, most definitive features of this tower.... not great news, though of course, we never know how good it'll look in real life, so i'll wait till it's completed.

[JayPro]

Just to reiterate what I observed before, I never really caught on to the idea of cross-bracing as a predominantly aesthetic design element. I completely understand it as a hazard-proofing measure; but that sort of thing should be integrated in a more interiorized level...if that makes sense. Otherwise follow the example of Chicago's Hancock Tower and don't make it so conspicuous.

The last pic showing the bare facade certainly enhances the verticality of the complex and does seem to make it blend in a lot more. All these towers should be evaluated not individually, but as parts of a whole. That said, I suppose I can live with the Z bracings at the corners now...maybe.

IMHPOV, I don't know why the X bracing had to include horizontal pieces. I think *that's* what made it seem to me like overkill. Wouldn't it have been wise to just have the X's and leave well enough alone?

Not only that. Could they have made the X-bracing with a more translucent material if one of the reasons for this design change is potential whining over obstructed views?

@STR I do feel your pain for having all your work/consultations basically trivialized and negated by what for all intents is an unannounced design change. My only beef was that we should have heard something from wtc.com or Silverstein's site as corroboration. Edit: No news from wtc.com; Silverstein website's entry on 175G still shows the X-bracing for some reason.

[JBoston]

Originally Posted by JayPro

Just to reiterate what I observed before, I never really caught on to the idea of cross-bracing as a predominantly aesthetic design element. I completely understand it as a hazard-proofing measure; but that sort of thing should be integrated in a more interiorized level...if that makes sense. Otherwise follow the example of Chicago's Hancock Tower and don't make it so conspicuous.

The last pic showing the bare facade certainly enhances the verticality of the complex and does seem to make it blend in a lot more. All these towers should be evaluated not individually, but as parts of a whole. That said, I suppose I can live with the Z bracings at the corners now...maybe.

IMHPOV, I don't know why the X bracing had to include horizontal pieces. I think *that's* what made it seem to me like overkill. Wouldn't it have been wise to just have the X's and leave well enough alone?

Not only that. Could they have made the X-bracing with a more translucent material if one of the reasons for this design change is potential whining over obstructed views?

@STR I do feel your pain for having all your work/consultations basically trivialized and negated by what for all intents is an unannounced design change. My only beef was that we should have heard something from wtc.com or Silverstein's site as corroboration. Edit: No news from wtc.com; Silverstein website's entry on 175G still shows the X-bracing for some reason.

This has been my least favorite tower out of the complex because of the busy facade created by the cross bracing. I agree with most of what you said and I think it looks much better.