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

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by N830MH

Is under construction yet?

Technically on hold. Foundation is in place.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It more than likely will. But there will be other supertalls sprouting up Downtown, so the spiral really doesn't make sense.

It more than likely will end up taller or more than likely will end up ~900 feet?

What other supertalls are planned for downtown? In any case I agree the spire is a bit silly.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It more than likely will end up taller or more than likely will end up ~900 feet?

I'm thinking its only temporary and really has to do with financing and the methods (eb-5) that Shvo is using. Could be once he gets more capital for the project, it could rise higher. Possibly the current money he has raised could finance a tower of the height that the recent filings indicated. I'm hoping this is tentative, and a temporary cap until more can be secured to built it as originally intended.

If anything, its just playing it safe. He did receive I believe somewhere in the range of 300 million for the project, but idk if thats enough to built a 1300+ ft tower.

[sterlippo1]

Originally Posted by alex1217

.

i can't believe this mess was even taken seriously. Jesus

[asharmaearth411]

Really want to see this one progress.

[asharmaearth411]

Looked like something from Star Wars.

Originally Posted by sterlippo1

i can't believe this mess was even taken seriously. Jesus

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It more than likely will end up taller or more than likely will end up ~900 feet?

What other supertalls are planned for downtown? In any case I agree the spire is a bit silly.

Read that thread to find out more about 125 Greenwich. Basically it's a similar tower with higher ceilings. The number of floors could remain the same. But the earlier tower that was planned was itself shorter than what could have risen, even with the lower ceiling heights.

[livekc]

Beautiful building

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by asharmaearth411

Looked like something from Star Wars.

Yeah. sounds like Star Wars movie. Holy Darth Vader!!!

[RonV]

Hi everyone been awhile since my last post but I'm wondering about 2WTC now that 1WTC is finished. I liked Foster's design for 2WTC, the diamond slanted roof was nice but to me the building was underwhelming for the site. So 2WTC is on hold now. But supposedly NewsCorp is trying to get involved. If that deal goes through with Silverstein, & the new firm BIG & Ingels do replace Foster, what may come of it design-wise? It seems to me this is a golden opportunity to make a truly iconic tower, with elements of Foster's design if needed, given the already-finished foundation.

But since 1WTC is 1776 feet tall (actually 1368 feet in my book) since I count to roof-height not antenna, & Nordstrum tower & many of the midtown ones will be rivaling if not surpassing 1WTC in height, it seems to me they should use this opportunity to make 2WTC at least 1362 feet as high as the old South Tower, to give some balance to 1WTC, or even make 2WTC taller than 1WTC.

In my opinion, what they could do would be keep Foster's outline for the basic design & existing foundations that were built, but add to the top somehow. Since 1WTC's antenna gives it the 1776 feet height, they could make 2WTC at least 1362 feet high to roof height, maybe even 1400 or 1600 feet high to roof height, still keeping it slightly less than 1WTC's antenna tip. I think they should use this as a golden opportunity to truly make an iconic, captivating, mega-tall building out of 2WTC.

I like 1WTC, and am thrilled it's finished, but to me the finished design is just a bit bland & corporate-generic-looking. The Twin Towers were equals, & both needed the other to be aesthetically pleasing & dominating. I don't think they should make 2WTC a twin of Childs' 1WTC but I really hope they use this opportunity to build it taller, maybe adding an outdoor observation deck too or a restaurant.

These are just my opinions, I just don't think a sub-tall generic looking glass office tower that isn't even that tall or interesting is what we need for 2WTC. I hope they make it a 1700 footer & then there would truly be some sense of vague visual restoration at the site. Just my opinion.

And as far as making the building drastically different, it would be no different than what they did with 1WTC's spire, making it the slender antenna it is. I'm not saying make a twin of 1WTC far from it..I'd just love them to use this chance to make an iconic looking, tall building for 2WTC and make it tall to roof height not with a spindly antenna! They could do this, without going taller than 1WTC's antenna, with the rather silly arbitrary 1776 foot number they used for it. Who says 1WTC has to be the tallest on the site? The twin towers were basically equal in height after all. So why not make 2WTC taller than 1WTC. Especially given the meaning of the site, & all the other up and comping billionaire towers that the general public will never set foot in.

[chris08876]

If News Corp does take the deal, it will be the same height but modified for different floor types based on the tenant needs. In this case media versus financing. If the deal fails, and a financing tenant takes it, it will remain the current design.

[RonV]

Good points. What's the current betting now on whether the deal will go through or not? Personally I like Foster's original design & would be content with it, it at least has a bit of visual interest (mostly the top part). But I still think IF the deal goes through, they should alter the design to make it more of a bold, iconic building (keeping with the tenant's needs of course) but not just some ho-hum Houston-looking sub-tall dull tower. I mean they should at least make it's roof height 1362 feet the height of the old south tower. Or use the opportunity to do a last-minute redesign to make it around 1500-1700 feet. Maybe I'm a dreamer but that would be pretty cool. I mean go big or go home. This is the WTC site for goodness sakes! But if the deal fails & Foster's is what we get, so be it. Personally I hope the deal does go through because I'm curious to see what Ingels would design.

[chris08876]

A last minute redesign would not be quick. Keep in mind this is a very expensive tower. Adding an extra 200 or even 300 feet would be absurd in its cost. Unless we are talking about a flimsy spire. The way I see it, Silverstein wants this built. I think the deal has a good shot of happening. While I'm not at the negotiating table, a tenant of this magnitude would fill a good chunk of it, and start the process of it rising. The trend has also been for media and tech companies to migrate to the area, so a tenant such as News Corp could really set the stage for even more growth.

Lesson to be learned is that developers do not care about height as much as we think they do. Its really all about making a buck. Now, if that height can make a great profit, and is seen as a good investment in the long term (lots of tenants, demand, etc.), then yes they will go tall. But to think of a fantasy tower built on pride vs economics is not likely. In NYC, economics is key for projects.

What we see with the supertall towers in Midtown North related to demand. Developers know they can sell these units. But if the market is not there or suddenly collapsed, supertalls would be gone. Fortunately, its very strong.

But if we are talking fantasy, just replicate WTC 1 and call it a day.

[RonV]

Yea you're right I was just stating what I'd like to see True it is all about money, especially at the WTC. I love the Midtown towers & yea they're all based on monetary demand & using their great heights for that purpose. 1WTC was more a symbolic building, as opposed to 432 Park which was all about housing the super rich tenants who want those billionaire exclusive views.

So, basically, with 2WTC, the 1350 feet height is set in stone you're saying, based on cost. Well, as I said, I'm ok with Foster's original if that's what happens, but it still seems a bit bland to me. If I had my choice I'd build something more iconic but also highly functional & cost effective.

Fantasy-wise, a twin of 1WTC wouldn't be all that bad either, but I'm sure building a 1wtc twin would be way way too costly given the immense cost of 1wtc alone.

I am so curious as to what will happen with 2wtc though. I still say, never say never, nothing is ever final until built, so maybe there's still a chance we may be surprised

Oh and an interesting related sidenote to this..last night I looked on 1wtc's website, & interestingly, although many floors have been leased to Conde Nast, GSA, & China Bank, there are still several floors, from about 70-90, who have not yet been leased, although I'm sure once the Observation Deck opens Friday & the building's profile & traffic & revenue starts kicking up, those floors will quickly fill up

[jsr]

Originally Posted by RonV

So, basically, with 2WTC, the 1350 feet height is set in stone you're saying, based on cost. Well, as I said, I'm ok with Foster's original if that's what happens, but it still seems a bit bland to me. If I had my choice I'd build something more iconic but also highly functional & cost effective.

You have an existing foundation that is capable of supporting a certain amount of weight, with a certain footprint.

It's not impossible that a taller tower could be produced. That's essentially what Les Robertson did with the Shanghai World Financial Center which received a significant height bump after the foundations were laid.

However there has to exist economic incentive, as well as engineering ingenuity to work within the constraints of the existing site.

[RonV]

Yea I knew they had already poured the foundations thinking Foster's design would be built before the recession hit. So I get why to an extent from a purely physical standpoint, they will be limited as to what they can build. I wasn't thinking so much in terms of mass at the bottom though, but perhaps some kind of tapering, lighter tower at the top, that the bottom's foundation could still adequately support, but also making a taller, iconic impact. Not a spire, but not a hulking mass that would be too top-heavy either. Something in-between. But yea it would have to make economic sense but since 2wtc is the successor to the South Tower, I think they should at least try to make some type of height increase worthy of it.

Maybe, if the NewsCorp deal goes through, & the fact that there is not a Windows on the World type restaurant in 1wtc, or an outdoor observation deck, that could be some (albeit small) incentive to build some type of add-on in height. Make the bulk of the building purely functional for the purpose, but have the top adequate for whatever antennas they need (although wtc's antenna should now carry a lot of broadcasters' signals) & also have some type of lucrative public restaurant or outdoor observation deck at 2wtc. Although I think the restaurant might be more likely, because the 2wtc's developers probably wouldn't want to have an outdoor observation deck so close to 1wtc & compete with it. But since 1wtc will never have an outdoor deck due to design, who knows.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by RonV

Maybe, if the NewsCorp deal goes through, & the fact that there is not a Windows on the World type restaurant in 1wtc, or an outdoor observation deck, that could be some (albeit small) incentive to build some type of add-on in height.

I don't think Silverstein has any incentive to add on height. His only incentive is to sign a tenant and get the building built, in whatever form that takes. There has always been event space planned at the top, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic change from the height.

[RonV]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't think Silverstein has any incentive to add on height. His only incentive is to sign a tenant and get the building built, in whatever form that takes. There has always been event space planned at the top, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic change from the height.

You're probably right. I definitely won't hold my breath. Lol. Silverstein is all about money & not about the architecture I can understand where he's coming from as the leaseholder & all. I'll be ok with Foster's design as it was planned, if that's what we get. Foster's design doesn't wow me though. But it could use some more "wow factor". I just always felt like 1wtc & 2wtc, if they can't be twins, should be really similar in appearance & shape but maybe that's just me. I'm really curious to see what ends up happening with 2wtc.
Maybe the least they'll do is make it 1362 feet the same as the south tower. But if not, hopefully it will add to downtown & the site as a whole.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't think Silverstein has any incentive to add on height. His only incentive is to sign a tenant and get the building built, in whatever form that takes. There has always been event space planned at the top, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic change from the height.

I agree, although he should at least add a few feet to make it as high as the old 2WTC.

[RonV]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I agree, although he should at least add a few feet to make it as high as the old 2WTC.

Yea that would at least be a cool symbolic thing they could do. Since 1wtc is 1368 feet like the north tower was. But of course 2wtc isn't a twin of 1wtc and all..But still..just 12 more feet to get to 1362. Not much of a stretch. I'm really curious to see what happens with 2wtc who knows we may be surprised they might make it even higher than 1368 though I wouldn't bet on it because they probably want to showcase 1wtc the most. Any ideas on when we might know if the NewsCorp deal goes through or not? What's the likelihood that it will or won't happen?