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

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

This is a shame. Tower 3 lost it's uniqueness to the other towers. This is obviously Silverstein's first bump on the road.

Oh and:



Careful what you wish for, Tower 2's diamonds might be next on the removal list. Don't wanna sound like I'm getting ahead of myself, but with these "tacky NYC developers", who knows what could happen next.

I didn't like what that article about cost cutting at 3 WTC had to say about postponing 2 WTC "indefinitely." Damn it, why are faceless bureaucratic gnomes at the PA allowed to do this?? This project is world importance, and they can't rise above their role role as mid-level bureaucrat hacks.

[sweet-d]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I didn't like what that article about cost cutting at 3 WTC had to say about postponing 2 WTC "indefinitely." Damn it, why are faceless bureaucratic gnomes at the PA allowed to do this?? This project is world importance, and they can't rise above their role role as mid-level bureaucrat hacks.

i'm also very disappointed to hear that also considering tower 2 is the most different out of all of them

[JayPro]

This post assumes that reference is being made to an article posted by NYGuy in March of last year...found on thread page 54.
If you re-read said article, it was Silverstein who proposed to shelve Tower 2 till economic conditions allowed for more wiggle room for everyone involved; but the PA turned him down.
This was obviously long before any accord between larry and the PA was reached.
Is that the piece we're talking about here? Please redirect me, otherwise.
Thx

[Don098]

Exactly CoolCzech...what article are you talking about? You can't drop panic-inducing info on here like that without a source. Your information doesn't sound correct whatsoever.

[slayerhk47]

Shouldn't we stop arguing about which design of this building we like better and just be glad that it is getting built at all?

Personally I thought the old design looked too much like the Hancock tower. But my opinion doesn't really matter. I would be glad they would be building this no matter what. Well, maybe if they had ads all over it I would hate it.


But why not we get back on track and discuss the actual construction of a great building.

[CGII]

Again, we don't know why the decision was made to remove the exterior trusses. It's very possible it wasn't due to budget as the shear wall or moment connection system that would have to replace the trusses are normally considerably more expensive.

[JayPro]

@slayerhk47;

I'm hearing you on that; but when we're caught off guard with a major design change without seeing newsfeeds about it from either one of the two main relevant websites (wtc.com & silversteinproperties.com), especially when said changes have to do with *cost-cutting measures, it naturally raises a lotta hackles and pushes as many panic buttons.

*Edit: This seems to be a persistent allegation. Props to CGII for his technically based observation (meaning I have no idea how moment connection systems affect construction without an explanation fit for a layman like me. Shear walls I can wrap my head around.)

Things aren't helped any when we get sidetracked further with citations from a news article that refers to NY governor Paterson.

It just takes a bit of time to calm some extremely frayed nerves and redirect focus to where we all agree it should be. As it stands right now, we'll most likely hafta deal with this subtraction and move on.

[STR]

Did some digging at the request of someone at WiredNY. I looked up the graphics design studio that does work for Rogers Stirk, Team Macarie. They have some unreleased (at least not at full rez) renders of the previous iterations of 3WTC. Nothing about the new Version 3 design.

Tower 3, Version 2, Reception Desk in main lobby.
Tower 3, Version 2, Lobby from above
Tower 3, Version 2, Lobby from the Ground (wide angle)
Tower 3, Version 2, Church St facing
Tower 3, Version 1, from the Northeast

[The Grand Architect]

Well, all I did was took my old model, click on the X bracing, hit delete, and made a new render.

[JayPro]

The more I look at 175G's Church St. Render, the more I am convinced that the s0-called X-Bracing---which I submit should actually be called asterisk-on-its-side-bracing (* turned 90º)---is obtrusive bordering on obnoxious.
The visual continuity of the structure is more disturbed the closer these bracings are seen. I mean...so many posters here rightfully criticize renderings and established structures for their street-level presence, either in isolation or compared to the surrounding buildings.
Well, in this case: By itself, my observations re the bracing have already been made. But the fact that 175G as shown in said Church render stands adjacent the Transit Hub makes things look even more disjointed IMO. Eliminating the bracings will redirect the pedestrian's eye to the wonderful uniqueness of the Hub instead of IMO visual brashness.
2¢

[Troubadour]

If they're going to ditch the X-bracing, they'll need a different kind of glass than they were going to use. Otherwise it will look blank, absent, and vacuous.

[JayPro]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

If they're going to ditch the X-bracing, they'll need a different kind of glass than they were going to use. Otherwise it will look blank, absent, and vacuous.

IMO:
If you're looking only at that part of the facade, you might have a point. It does look somewhat threadbare now. But the beauty of this tower, bracings or no, is the varying facade treatments depending on where you look. The setbacks will still have the Z-braces. And the N-S facades will feature spandrel panelling that looks quite intricate, especially when viewed from greater distances. And the panel crown with its *four points has its own characteristic, too.

All in all, 175G viewed from an angle will be most excellent...especially at night.

*Edit: This design element is a survivor of the X-brace purge. These are also bracings, corner verticals that run up to and above the rest of the structure, thus revealing the spires. The original plan was to have the entire bracing lit up at night with special LED fixtures whose colors change over time. Perhaps this will still happen for the corner bracing/spire element.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by STR

Did some digging at the request of someone at WiredNY. I looked up the graphics design studio that does work for Rogers Stirk, Team Macarie. They have some unreleased (at least not at full rez) renders of the previous iterations of 3WTC. Nothing about the new Version 3 design.

Tower 3, Version 2, Reception Desk in main lobby.
Tower 3, Version 2, Lobby from above
Tower 3, Version 2, Lobby from the Ground (wide angle)
Tower 3, Version 2, Church St facing
Tower 3, Version 1, from the Northeast

I don't see what major tweaking they would have to do to these designs pending the retail presence within the base would remain. The office lobby looks fairly basic. Thus far the only eye catching change is the elimination of the video screen - which is frankly absurd.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I didn't like what that article about cost cutting at 3 WTC had to say about postponing 2 WTC "indefinitely."

In this case, "indefinitely" means until a tenant is found. That has continued to be the case for Tower 2. Tower 3 is on better standing, but keep in mind that's only because of agreed upon support from the Port Authority and the City (with some minimal conditions). Silverstein was also asked to cut the costs of his towers as a condition. What that ultimately means for the appearance of the towers remains to be seen. But anyone who would rather not see this tower built due to changes has clearly lost all focus on the point of the rebuildng, and what it means to and for the City.

[STR]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

If they're going to ditch the X-bracing, they'll need a different kind of glass than they were going to use. Otherwise it will look blank, absent, and vacuous.

It will be the same glass as 1 & 7 World Trade. It's pretty good glass. It's not going to be nearly as good as it was with the bracing, but it's not going to look "blank".

[JayPro]

And that's only for the facades with the bracings. The N-S sides will feature a somewhat more detailed surface whose close up renderings remind me a bit of Chase's N-S sides.
My POV.

[Patapsco]

June 26, 2011

[Patapsco]

June 26, 2011

[jthornton17]

Originally Posted by NYguy

In this case, "indefinitely" means until a tenant is found. That has continued to be the case for Tower 2. Tower 3 is on better standing, but keep in mind that's only because of agreed upon support from the Port Authority and the City (with some minimal conditions). Silverstein was also asked to cut the costs of his towers as a condition. What that ultimately means for the appearance of the towers remains to be seen. But anyone who would rather not see this tower built due to changes has clearly lost all focus on the point of the rebuildng, and what it means to and for the City.

Interesting. so it looks like tower 3 will be the next one that will go up into the sky, when they get done with the ground level construction. I honestly still love the way the tower looks without the braces. If the glass is going to be of the same quality as 1 wtc, it should look great. Does anyone know if there are any other changes to the new 3 wtc other than just the x braces being gone?

[JayPro]

Barring anything unforeseen, the elimination of the X braces is the only big change. Since IIRC this was a matter of value engineering from the get-go (i.e. done not as much for reasons of aesthetic considerations as for those of functionality), I don't see anything else about this tower right now that can be seen as prohibitive.