NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,270 FT | 80 FLOORS | ON HOLD - Page 145

NYguy · #**2881** Posted **Aug 11, 2014, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

Might I also be so bold as to include my own slight indignation when I see a post made several *months* ago bumped with a well-meaning (My emphasis), but TBH unimportant comment on aesthetics, when what most of us really hope for in this regard is actual news on the project...Any news at all...

...preferably good news; but that's somewhat of another argument for another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weidncol

Here's some possible amazing news!

http://nypost.com/2014/08/11/jpmorga...-and-delaware/

This tower will always be in play for tenants, most won't be reported. It won't surprise me when someone signs here. Anything on the west side surprises me more, even though I know it's being developed, and that area will change.

Matt · #**2882** Posted **Sep 12, 2014, 8:24 PM**

If this tower isn't built as per the original specs and design, the terrorists will have already won!

JayPro · #**2883** Posted **Sep 12, 2014, 9:20 PM**

The choke chain I'm wearing to keep myself from rising to close to troll bait will apparently allow me this observation and, happily, nothing more:
That was a non-germane, day-late-and-dollar-short attempt at validating a silly attempt at Aristotelian analogy, when in fact:

200G's status : terrorist victory :: an apple : the freeze-dried left nut of a barnacle....

Onn · #**2884** Posted **Sep 12, 2014, 10:09 PM**

Since when did this one get moved to "Under Construction"? 2WTC clearly clearly on hold.

WonderlandPark · #**2885** Posted **Sep 12, 2014, 11:30 PM**

Because people can't see straight when it comes to the WTC site. The regular rules and logic get tossed.

NYguy · #**2886** Posted **Sep 13, 2014, 12:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

Since when did this one get moved to "Under Construction"? 2WTC clearly clearly on hold.

It's been here since it's been under construction. Where have you been? More importantly, why do you people insists on bumping this thread for no reason?

N830MH · #**2887** Posted **Sep 13, 2014, 4:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

It's been here since it's been under construction. Where have you been? More importantly, why do you people insists on bumping this thread for no reason?

Yeah, I don't see any news from Port Authority. They hasn't gotten approved yet. I don't see any new pictures of 2WTC yet.

WonderlandPark · #**2888** Posted **Sep 13, 2014, 5:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

It's been here since it's been under construction. Where have you been? More importantly, why do you people insists on bumping this thread for no reason?

Well, by that logic, bring back the Chicago Spire. Its been U/C since its been U/C.

Time to call a spade a spade. Its on hold by any stretch of the definition. No shame in admitting the fact. No doubt this beauty will rise. But for now she's on hold.

NYguy · #**2889** Posted **Sep 13, 2014, 5:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by N830MH

Yeah, I don't see any news from Port Authority. They hasn't gotten approved yet. I don't see any new pictures of 2WTC yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

Well, by that logic, bring back the Chicago Spire. Its been U/C since its been U/C.

Time to call a spade a spade. Its on hold by any stretch of the definition. No shame in admitting the fact. No doubt this beauty will rise. But for now she's on hold.

My apologies for overestimating the ability to comprehend. The Chicago Spire was never under construction. The first few levels of this tower have already been built. Now, if you scroll through the various developments listed here, you will notice some have been paused and on hold. We dont just keep moving threads back and forth on a whim.

NYguy · #**2890** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 8:56 PM**

Potential good news...

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/04/...new-wtc-tower/

Zapatan · #**2891** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 9:01 PM**

That's awesome I just hope they don't change/shorten it like 3WTC.

Crawford · #**2892** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 9:11 PM**

Fantastic news, but I hope they don't mess with the base too much. I really like the base, and hope the needed studio space can be accommodated under the current design.

In any case, very exciting, and I hope we can get going on 2 WTC, and then only have 5 WTC left to discuss.

chris08876 · #**2893** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 10:42 PM**

Can't wait until this beauty rises:

antinimby · #**2894** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 10:46 PM**

Yeah but will it look like that by the time it actually gets built?

Zapatan · #**2895** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

Yeah but will it look like that by the time it actually gets built?

I read over on SSC that the potential tenants (combined of course) may want to lease half the space in the building. If that's true then I doubt they'll cut the height or anything, that would be one too many blows for the WTC site honestly. First 3WTC get's shortened, and 1WTC loses the radome, if 2WTC stays the same I'll still be happy with the complex, however anything less is just unacceptable.

While I'm excited by this news I'm also worried given their corner cutting history.

Zapatan · #**2896** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR Ewing

I'm glad you're consistent with your unwarranted pessimism about NY and its unparalleled projects.

Out of curiosity, Where are you from anyway?

He's right to not get his hopes up, look what happened to 1WTC and 3WTC. They still look alright but not as good as before.

I'm not saying they'll definitely cut back but it's certainly in the realm of possibilities.

Crawford · #**2897** Posted **Apr 10, 2015, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

He's right to not get his hopes up, look what happened to 1WTC and 3WTC. They still look alright but not as good as before.

I'm not saying they'll definitely cut back but it's certainly in the realm of possibilities.

1 WTC didn't get cut back at all. It's the exact same height as always planned. 3 WTC was only modestly shortened from the original.

jsbrook · #**2898** Posted **Apr 11, 2015, 12:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

1 WTC didn't get cut back at all. It's the exact same height as always planned. 3 WTC was only modestly shortened from the original.

It is not just height. 1 WTC was value-engineered. The original design included a enclosure for the top. It was ultimately stripped of cladding and resembles a mere antenna (though it avoided being labeled as such and having its height downgraded accordingly).

Will be nice to see 3 WTC resume and hopefully unaltered from the planned design.

Zapatan · #**2899** Posted **Apr 11, 2015, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

1 WTC didn't get cut back at all. It's the exact same height as always planned. 3 WTC was only modestly shortened from the original.

I was referring to the radome. The antenna would have looked light years better covered.

3WTC's height cut was modest yes, but if tower 2 is shortened by 70 feet I still think it wouldn't look as good. Even worse if they cut out cool parts of the design due to budgeting like on 1WTC's "spire".

Again, I'm not saying it'll definitely happen but I'm prepared for it.

NYguy · #**2900** Posted **Apr 11, 2015, 3:22 AM**

We know the base was designed to accomodate trading floors and the retail. It's probably a question of whether FOX will have the street front studio space as they currently have,
and all the networks like to have. Even as trading floors, there was talk that they weren't big enough in either tower 2 or 3.

But, if they couldn't make it work in the Hudson Yards, they have no choice but to make it happen here. That's another positive about these towers potentially landing tenants.
Whenever one gets taken off the table, there are fewer options for those companies looking to be anchor tenants in these new office towers. After this, everything would have
to shift back to the Hudson Yards, and eventually Midtown East.