NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1210

QUEENSNYMAN · #**24181** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 4:37 PM**

FROM: NYBOY75

PART 2 OF THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE PARK TOUR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3V1b...ature=youtu.be

jd3189 · #**24182** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish

Imagine if we had skyscrapers --between-- Downtown and Midtown !!

That may soon be a reality if residential development can be done without affecting the historic neighborhoods in the "gap".

TechTalkGuy · #**24183** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by QUEENSNYMAN

FROM: NYBOY75

• Video Link

That carousel is a new feature at the Brooklyn Bridge Park.
The sun surely looked like it'll bake a cake in the heat.
I'm grateful you have taken the time to drive from the Rockaways -- that alone is a hike in itself.

Once again, GREAT update, thank you, QUEENSNYMAN!!

QUEENSNYMAN · #**24184** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 5:57 PM**

FROM: NYBOY75

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXnpC...ature=youtu.be

Part 3 hope you like.

TechTalkGuy · #**24185** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by QUEENSNYMAN

FROM: NYBOY75

• Video Link

Great views again -- the Beekman Tower really compliments the skyline with One World Trade Center in the distance, along with Four WTC and the rest.
Another GREAT update, thank you, QUEENSNYMAN!!

mheadroom · #**24186** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish

Imagine if we had skyscrapers --between-- Downtown and Midtown !!

We can't build tall buildings in Chelsea and Greenwich Village because there isn't a lot of granite or bedrock there. Mostly shale and sandstone. Which is why you don't want to be in that "valley" during a significant earthquake.

mheadroom · #**24187** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

I did a basic drawing explaining what will happen. The dimensions are not to scale and are therefore prone to error, but this is what will basically happen.

This gives me hope that maybe 25-50 years from now — when they figured out how to make blast-resistant prismatic glass — they can rip out the ugly fins restore Childs' chamfered design.

Roadcruiser1 · #**24188** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mheadroom

This gives me hope that maybe 25-50 years from now — when they figured out how to make blast-resistant prismatic glass — they can rip out the ugly fins restore Childs' chamfered design.

Not going to happen. What is wrong with a box base anyway? The Twin Towers had a box base. There is no logical reason for a chamfered base.

TechTalkGuy · #**24189** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 8:12 PM**

I realize there are some people who are not crazy about the height, specifically due to the antenna spire.

Why not just plant a tall tree on the roof -- at least it will keep growing, get plenty of sunlight and plenty of rain.

marshall · #**24190** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fish

I realize there are some people who are not crazy about the height, specifically due to the antenna spire.

Why not just plant a tall tree on the roof -- at least it will keep growing, get plenty of sunlight and plenty of rain.

I'm all for green architecture, but that would look silly and totally out of place on this building. Plus there will be NO room on the roof for anything but the communications equipment.

mheadroom · #**24191** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Not going to happen. What is wrong with a box base anyway? The Twin Towers had a box base. There is no logical reason for a chamfered base.

There's nothing wrong with a box base in general but this building was designed with a chamfered base clade in prismatic glass.

I thought it looked elegant. It complemented the tapered design of the building well and it was a great solution to the fortress look of the base.

I also liked that the chamfered design gave it exactly the same foot print as the old Twin Towers. Now 1WTC will be a few dozen feet thicker. No big deal but I am annoyed that the PA keeps compromising the design of this building. Every change makes it a little more generic and little less iconic.

Roadcruiser1 · #**24192** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mheadroom

There's nothing wrong with a box base in general but this building was designed with a chamfered base clade in prismatic glass.

I thought it looked elegant. It complemented the tapered design of the building well and it was a great solution to the fortress look of the base.

I also liked that the chamfered design gave it exactly the same foot print as the old Twin Towers. Now 1WTC will be a few dozen feet thicker. No big deal but I am annoyed that the PA keeps compromising the design of this building. Every change makes it a little more generic and little less iconic.

I think a good compromise would be to chamfer the sides a bit to give it the form that was similar to the old Twin Towers, and the dimensions didn't change. It is still 200 by 200 feet.

Gabedamien · #**24193** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 10:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris123678

The Change to the base wasn't something that they wanted to do. It was necessary.
The Original prismatic glass that was planned to be installed would have left the base chamfered, but the prismatic glass, when tested, failed. It was discovered that if one of these panels fell off the base in some type of explosion that the glass would break into dangerous large shards.

But... but... we’re not using prismatic glass any more!

Let me get this straight. We had a chamfered base covered in prismatic glass. The chamfered base was turned into a box base because the chamfered corners would be dangerous if the glass shattered. Then the prismatic glass was scrapped because they couldn’t make it in the first place. And... we’re still going with the box base? Someone in charge is just not paying attention, it would seem.

To answer why the chamfered base is better (in my opinion, of course), it reflects the rest of the tower. This is no longer true with a squared off base. It would also slightly reduce the visual weight of the base a little bit and makes it slightly more geometrically complex and elegant, both pluses in this case where the visual focus should be the upper part of the tower (where the actual floors start). As it is, it feels completely disconnected from the tower proper, like two completely separate buildings fused on top of each other.

Meh, whatever, this is not nearly as big an issue for me as I am making it sound; again, the iconic addition of 1WTC’s skyline is supplied by its top portion, not its bottom portion.

jsr · #**24194** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabedamien

But... but... we’re not using prismatic glass any more!

Let me get this straight. We had a chamfered base covered in prismatic glass. The chamfered base was turned into a box base because the chamfered corners would be dangerous if the glass shattered. Then the prismatic glass was scrapped because they couldn’t make it in the first place. And... we’re still going with the box base? Someone in charge is just not paying attention, it would seem.

Seems to me the strong vertical lines of the new V-glass panels wouldn't work aesthetically with tapering corner chamfers?!

chris123678 · #**24195** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabedamien

But... but... we’re not using prismatic glass any more!

Let me get this straight. We had a chamfered base covered in prismatic glass. The chamfered base was turned into a box base because the chamfered corners would be dangerous if the glass shattered. Then the prismatic glass was scrapped because they couldn’t make it in the first place. And... we’re still going with the box base? Someone in charge is just not paying attention, it would seem.

To answer why the chamfered base is better (in my opinion, of course), it reflects the rest of the tower. This is no longer true with a squared off base. It would also slightly reduce the visual weight of the base a little bit and makes it slightly more geometrically complex and elegant, both pluses in this case where the visual focus should be the upper part of the tower (where the actual floors start). As it is, it feels completely disconnected from the tower proper, like two completely separate buildings fused on top of each other.

Meh, whatever, this is not nearly as big an issue for me as I am making it sound; again, the iconic addition of 1WTC’s skyline is supplied by its top portion, not its bottom portion.

This question is left better off to be answered by Otie or Roadcruiser.

TechTalkGuy · #**24196** Posted **Jun 10, 2012, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mheadroom

We can't build tall buildings in Chelsea and Greenwich Village because there isn't a lot of granite or bedrock there. Mostly shale and sandstone. Which is why you don't want to be in that "valley" during a significant earthquake.

If they dig deep enough, would they eventually reach bedrock?

JSsocal · #**24197** Posted **Jun 11, 2012, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mheadroom

We can't build tall buildings in Chelsea and Greenwich Village because there isn't a lot of granite or bedrock there. Mostly shale and sandstone. Which is why you don't want to be in that "valley" during a significant earthquake.

^^That's just a myth, they can really build a skyscraper anywhere- (the world financial center is built on landfill, specifically piles dug deep into the ground). Midtown really developed because it was desirable and far away from the slums of the lower east side and the bowery, not because of bedrock

All this hubbub about the base, as I recall it was SOM who went back to the drawing board with the base, and it is them who are behind the new square corners. The reason I'm happy with this change is now the tower will not be growing wider, before going smaller, when viewing the tower from 45 degrees. The taper makes the tower very bottom heavy.

Roadcruiser1 · #**24198** Posted **Jun 11, 2012, 1:57 AM**

It's not that bad.

These belong to Otie. Credits go to him.

The Tower as a whole.

chris123678 · #**24199** Posted **Jun 11, 2012, 2:35 AM**

Honestly, the base looked better with the corners.
Now that it's a square, it looks very massive and somewhat unappealing.
But I'll have to wait for the finish product.

BTW- Have they began marble installation in the lobby yet?

alan88 · #**24200** Posted **Jun 11, 2012, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris123678

Honestly, the base looked better with the corners.
Now that it's a square, it looks very massive and somewhat unappealing.
But I'll have to wait for the finish product.

BTW- Have they began marble installation in the lobby yet?

Marble installation in lobby is underway

alan