NEW YORK | World Trade Center Building 7 | 610 feet Pinnacle | 47 FLOORS | 1987 - Page 2

Tyler Xyroadia · #21 Posted **Jan 30, 2012, 3:26 PM**

Blarg! Another Brutal Boring Box from the 80's

Far too dark, too over bearing and too forgettable.

I sneer contemptuously upon it!

marvelfannumber1 · #22 Posted **Jan 30, 2012, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

Blarg! Another Brutal Boring Box from the 80's

Far too dark, too over bearing and too forgettable.

I sneer contemptuously upon it!

Guess you're glad it ended up like this.

Architectureabout.com

THE BIG APPLE · #23 Posted **Jan 30, 2012, 5:11 PM**

I would say the old 7 complemented its surroundings (Barclay-Vesey, Verizon Buildings) a bit more than the new 7.

DrNest · #24 Posted **Jan 30, 2012, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanita

I always thought this was a cute skyscraper. But then again, I have a knack for loving buildings that the critics hated- see my threads on One Penn Plaza, 55 Water, and One New York Plaza.

Totally agree. Those are some of my favourite skyscrapers in NYC, particularly One Penn Plaza.

Tyler Xyroadia · #25 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvelfannumber1

Guess you're glad it ended up like this.

<snip>
Architectureabout.com

I won't pull punches with you...
The events of 9/11 were horrific. And while the WTC complex was "iconic" and "imposing" the WTC Towers and complex were the height and absoulte paragon of the Big Boring Boxes.

I wept for the people that died, but I did not shed a tear for the buildings themselves. They were monsters of concrete and brutal design that dominated the skyline and not in a good way.

Sadly what is replacing them is not that much better, Modern big boring glass boxes.

marvelfannumber1 · #26 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

I won't pull punches with you...
The events of 9/11 were horrific. And while the WTC complex was "iconic" and "imposing" the WTC Towers and complex were the height and absoulte paragon of the Big Boring Boxes.

I wept for the people that died, but I did not shed a tear for the buildings themselves. They were monsters of concrete and brutal design that dominated the skyline and not in a good way.

Sadly what is replacing them is not that much better, Modern big boring glass boxes.

I never said i didn't weep for the people that died. Oh and nobody died in building 7 either so it's not like a post like that is offensive or disgusting in any way.

Tyler Xyroadia · #27 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 6:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvelfannumber1

I never said i didn't weep for the people that died. Oh and nobody died in building 7 either so it's not like a post like that is offensive or disgusting in any way.

I hope I did not make that implication.

Your intial question of me was:
Guess you're glad it ended up like this.

Now, I could have said "You are damn stright I am"
But such a response I feel would lack a certain amount of...Tact, which I hope you can apprciate...

My statement about lives lost was more in regard to the WTC complex as a whole, however that begins to detract from that thread itself which I shall apoligize for.

THE BIG APPLE · #28 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 12:18 AM**

The difference between the old and new WTC's are that the old looked good from north (midtown), south (harbor), east (brooklyn bridge), west (NJ), NE (manhattan bridge), and SW (statue of liberty). But not the SE or NW where it looked like the twins were ONE building. So the old WTC looked good 6/8 or 3/4 of the time. The new WTC will look good from the west (NJ), SW (statue of liberty), and south (harbor). BUT not from the north (midtown), east (brooklyn bridge), NE (manhattan bridge), NW, and SE. So the new WTC will only look good 3/8 of the time compared to the old WTC which looked good 6/8 of the time. 6/8 VS 3/8.

jd3189 · #29 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 12:25 AM**

Agreed. Although the new WTC will feature great design above and at ground level, the original Twins were iconic because they could be roughly seen anywhere in the New York metro area.

Roadcruiser1 · #30 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 1:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

The difference between the old and new WTC's are that the old looked good from north (midtown), south (harbor), east (brooklyn bridge), west (NJ), NE (manhattan bridge), and SW (statue of liberty). But not the SE or NW where it looked like the twins were ONE building. So the old WTC looked good 6/8 or 3/4 of the time. The new WTC will look good from the west (NJ), SW (statue of liberty), and south (harbor). BUT not from the north (midtown), east (brooklyn bridge), NE (manhattan bridge), NW, and SE. So the new WTC will only look good 3/8 of the time compared to the old WTC which looked good 6/8 of the time. 6/8 VS 3/8.

What do you mean unattractive. At some of the locations you mentioned the new WTC still looks pretty good. (WTC.com)

Midtown

Downtown Manhattan

Only problems I have is the view from the East which is completely blocked.

Credits to STR.

Chapelo · #31 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 3:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

What do you mean unattractive. At some of the locations you mentioned the new WTC still looks pretty good. (WTC.com)

Credits to STR.

I don't know about you, but from this angle, it kinda resembles the Twins. Tower 1 (of course), and Tower 3 resembles the South Tower.

THE BIG APPLE · #32 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 3:21 AM**

WELL LETS MAKE A COMPARISON

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

Old

New

WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT. YOU CAN TELL IN ALMOST ALL THE PHOTOS THE TWINS LOOK WAY SUPERIOR.

sw5710 · #33 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 7:48 AM**

I had been to the twins many times from 1978 when I was a kid to the last time in 2000 and loved going up on the roof. The only thing I had a problem with is the box look.

marvelfannumber1 · #34 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 1:43 PM**

PEOPLE! The topic about the twins is here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=184976

This is about 7 World Trade Center

Amanita · #35 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 5:04 PM**

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure Freedom tower aka 1 WTC has its own thread too. Go flog it there.

Patrick · #36 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 9:33 PM**

All those pictures were completely unnecessary. Back to 7WTC...

The North One · #37 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 10:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT. YOU CAN TELL IN ALMOST ALL THE PHOTOS THE TWINS LOOK WAY SUPERIOR.

Thats entirely subjective.

The caps arent helping your point either, are you 5?

Chapelo · #38 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 10:33 PM**

Here's a (very small) picture of 7WTC under construction in late 1986..

From: http://enr.construction.com/building...w.asp?slide=13

Under construction in April 1986..you can see the X-Bracing on the 22nd floor. This is where Guiliani's Command Bunker was located.

From: http://www.asohogallery.net/photo_2004.html

OptimumPx · #39 Posted **Feb 2, 2012, 12:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chapelo

Here's a (very small) picture of 7WTC under construction in 1985..

From: http://enr.construction.com/building...w.asp?slide=13

Under construction in April 1986..you can see the X-Bracing on the 22nd floor. This is where Guiliani's Command Bunker was located.

From: http://www.asohogallery.net/photo_2004.html

Wonder why the first picture is flipped like that.

marvelfannumber1 · #40 Posted **Feb 2, 2012, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OptimumPx

Wonder why the first picture is flipped like that.

Fixed the angle for OCD's sake and made the pic a little bigger.

http://enr.construction.com/building...w.asp?slide=13