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

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Just because a small handful of 2000 foot towers exist in Asia doesn't mean that 1000-1400 foot towers are not supertalls

I have yet to see the building that "dwarfs" the original WTC towers. Each tower pitched 110 acres of office space into the air. I don't think an absurdly elongated 1950's scifi-style opus like the Burj Dubai "dwarfs" that with its ridiculously spindly upper pinnacle.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by OneWorldTradeCenter

I requested the height and floor speculations to an old friend of mine who works for CTBUH. He has excellent contacts. I will post the response when I hear back. For now, we have to wait.

You should get the information from Silverstein Properties. They would have the exact figures. Other than that, we are all speculating. The information I posted is what's public.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

true, 1170 to the roof would put this tower 200 feet lower, very tall but it would be nice if there were two towers that could about match the height of the old twins.

There will now be 3 supertalls, with nearly a fourth on site. Far better than what we had with just the twins. Frankly, I think we should be greatful for getting even one tower built to that scale. Early on, it didn't look like we would and most people didn't believe we would or even should. And yet, here we are today looking at multiple supertall construction, and people still find room to complain about the height. Amazing.

[Zapatan]

He already stated he's waiting for more info. That's fine. A little imagination and you can already see it.

Just curious, if we're all waiting for more info, why did you change all the thread titles?

[STR]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I have yet to see the building that "dwarfs" the original WTC towers. Each tower pitched 110 acres of office space into the air. I don't think an absurdly elongated 1950's scifi-style opus like the Burj Dubai "dwarfs" that with its ridiculously spindly upper pinnacle.

It's not that spindly. There's just nothing nearby to which you can scale it to.

[Lecom]

^Agreed. 1WTC is successfully dwarfed.

[NYguy]

^ It's certainly taller, but let's end that conversation right there because I don't want to have to delete a lot of post.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Just curious, if we're all waiting for more info, why did you change all the thread titles?

I changed the title given the info I have at the time, which was something different than what we had. It will likely be changed again because the number given is probably just the height for the parapet..

[Traynor]

^He meant, no other building in the WTC complex. That is: The X-bracing is not a design feature on any of the other buildings of the new World Trade Center and in his opinion made it stand out in the wrong way.

I thought that was clear.

[The Grand Architect]

Originally Posted by Traynor

^He meant, no other building in the WTC complex. That is: The X-bracing is not a design feature on any of the other buildings of the new World Trade Center and in his opinion made it stand out in the wrong way.

I thought that was clear.

Thank you Traynor, for elaborating for me. You pretty much covered all there is to say.

Also, to be more specific, there isn't another X braced building in Lower Manhattan for that matter. Or, an alternate option, they could have added the curtain wall OVER the X braced metal, so the X support beams would be less visible. If they did this, the X braced will be still visible, however, it would show less, therefore, making a less of a negative standout.

But who I am to tell the PA what to build. Just voicing my opinion.

[Zapatan]

^The fact that there isn't one means that maybe there should be IMO

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Traynor

^He meant, no other building in the WTC complex. That is: The X-bracing is not a design feature on any of the other buildings of the new World Trade Center and in his opinion made it stand out in the wrong way.

It stands out in the "wrong way" no more than tower 2 does with it's "diamond" sloped summit, or the Freedom Tower with its enormous spire. This is not the old WTC complex, where the towers looked exactly alike (because they were). I think part of the reasoning for reopening the street grid - regardless of however much traffic flows through - was to make the complex part of the fabric of the City. These towers are meant to stand out individually as skyscrapers on their own as well as ramain a part of the WTC complex. It makes for a much more natural experience rather than a walled off utopia of buildings.

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

But who I am to tell the PA what to build. Just voicing my opinion.

You'd be talking to the wrong horse anyway, as Larry Silverstein is behind this one.

[The Grand Architect]

If you would read my earlier post quoted here:

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

I agree with whoever said that 3WTC's facade design has a flaw. I don't really like the X shaped exoskeleton, nor do I like the facade style.

I mean, no other building has that style, and it looks funny.

As you can see, I only disapprove of the facade. NYguy, I am more concerned with the facade style, not what the building looks like as a whole. Forget spires and slanted tops, they are fine.

But what bothers me is how the facade looks among the building and with the other buildings surrounding it. That is why I added a recommondation here a few posts earlier:

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

Or, an alternate option, they could have added the curtain wall OVER the X braced metal, so the X support beams would be less visible. If they did this, the X braced will be still visible, however, it would show less, therefore, making a less of a negative standout.

But who I am to tell the PA what to build. Just voicing my opinion.

[Zensteeldude]

Step one, installing the tower base, CHECK ! They still have to install rebar and pour the hole full then wait for the concrete to cure. We may see tower cranes in a few weeks.

Photo by 325ccr over at WNY
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...t=9206&page=37

[Zensteeldude]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

If you would read my earlier post quoted here:



As you can see, I only disapprove of the facade. NYguy, I am more concerned with the facade style, not what the building looks like as a whole. Forget spires and slanted tops, they are fine.

But what bothers me is how the facade looks among the building and with the other buildings surrounding it. That is why I added a recommondation here a few posts earlier:

I rather like the X bracing.

The second building I ever worked in NYC.
http://www.780third.com/AboutJRTReal...4/Default.aspx

Do a Google image search for "780 third avenue new york"

(The first building was 520 Madison Ave.)

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

what bothers me is how the facade looks among the building and with the other buildings surrounding it. That is why I added a recommondation here a few posts earlier:

Same applies.

Originally Posted by Zensteeldude

Photo by 325ccr over at WNY
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...t=9206&page=37

Excellent.

[The Grand Architect]

I don't know about you, but I prefer the X bracing behind the glass facade. The glass will make the X bracing less obvious if you're looking at the skyline. Hopefully this would make it "hidden among the crowd". If you know what I mean.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

I don't know about you, but I prefer the X bracing behind the glass facade. The glass will make the X bracing less obvious if you're looking at the skyline.

The X bracing is what a lot of people like about the design. No need to "hide" it. Manhattan is covered with skyscrapers that don't have it.

[The Grand Architect]

I don't want to hide it. It's just too obvious and sticks out alot. We need it to be like 1 WTC's base; with the base "W" steel still visible, but not as visible as it is currently.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

I don't want to hide it. It's just too obvious and sticks out alot. We need it to be like 1 WTC's base; with the base "W" steel still visible, but not as visible as it is currently.

It should be visible, exactly as is, and not hidden, even a little bit. The base of the Freedom Tower wasn't originally designed that way - security concerns called for designs there to be what they are. Had things gon as planned, it too would have had similarly exposed bracing, only more of it...

[aquablue]

I like the exposed bracing. It gives detail to the facade which reminds me of the intricate steel work on the Eiffel tower.

[BStyles]

It gives us a sense that a tower is not as elegant if we don't know what's holding it up.