NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1149

marshall · #**22961** Posted **May 9, 2012, 7:15 PM**

Here is a side by side, with SOM's on the left, and the potential re-designed spire on the right, found it off of skyscrapercity...What do you guys think? I love SOM's design, but the one on the right I don't think looks all that bad either really.

marshall · #**22962** Posted **May 9, 2012, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/201...-redesign.html

Render!

I like SOM's design better, and for the sake of keeping 1wtc the tallest in terms of pinnacle, and classification, I hope Durst sticks to SOM's design...In this side-by-side rendering, I don't think the redesign spire looks all that bad aesthetically...However, regardless, 1wtc will still be the tallest in New York for a long time, I feel pretty sure of that. You are assuming 432 Park will be built to its intended height, which is not at all certain. It could be downsized, keeping 1wtc the tallest. That being said, I still think Durst should honor SOM's design for the sake of global prominence, it would give 1wtc bragging rights over Taipei 101 and even the Sears Tower, if the radome is stripped off, the antenna would not count in height/pinnacle. So for that reason I support the original design. Let's hope it doesn't change.

StrongIsland · #**22963** Posted **May 9, 2012, 7:21 PM**

[QUOTE=marshall;5695464]Here is a side by side, with SOM's on the left, and the potential re-designed spire on the right, found it off of skyscrapercity...What do you guys think? I love SOM's design, but the one on the right I don't think looks all that bad either really.

I don't know I like them both to be honest:/ The new base looks a lot better then the old one though it really compliments the building in that rendering compared to the old one that looked as if the building could just topple off of it...

MadGnome · #**22964** Posted **May 9, 2012, 7:28 PM**

Thanks DetroitMetro. Exactly what I was looking for.

NYC GUY · #**22965** Posted **May 9, 2012, 7:50 PM**

I hope they keep the original design it just looks better.

1Boston · #**22966** Posted **May 9, 2012, 7:52 PM**

It's not as bad as i imagined, but it's still bad. I would much rather have SOM's design, which im sure everyone but Durst would agree. The worst parts about it are the color, the thickness and the little knobs that are all over it. It would be much harder to see at night and it would not be the same without that lighting they were planning for the top of the spire.

NYC GUY · #**22967** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:00 PM**

So which one do you think will be picked?

Onn · #**22968** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:02 PM**

Mega Super Fail.

Dac150 · #**22969** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:05 PM**

Obviously the preferable is the original design, however the alternative isn't all that terrible. Technically speaking it will be the same height regardless of whether or not the antenna is concealed.

steveve · #**22970** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:07 PM**

Sure the antenna prob isn't as bad as it could be, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO, the old one still looks 100x better.

the new antenna's ribs look retarded.

Don098 · #**22971** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:13 PM**

That's looks like shit. Is it too late to go back to the original design? They've clearly figured out how to maintain it, albeit cumbersomely. It's certainly not impossible. This period of austerity that this country is fixated on will lead to our decline, and here on top of our greatest new symbol of strength, resiliency, and power, we make a permanent concession based on a temporary, relatively negligible amount of money. The Durst organization is spineless.

Dac150 · #**22972** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don098

The Durst organization is spineless.

You have to understand the fact that it's a business that's considering this for economical reasons, not to deliberately tarnish the aesthetics of the building. I agree that the original design concept is 'better', however it should not be felt that Durst is considering this out of any form of spite.

Don098 · #**22973** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

You have to understand the fact that it's a business that's considering this for economical reasons, not to deliberately tarnish the aesthetics of the building. I agree that the original design concept is 'better', however it should not be felt that Durst is considering this out of any form of spite.

Where exactly did I say that the Durst Organization made this decision spitefully, and that they were deliberately trying to tarnish the aesthetics of the building? If you're taking that from the word spineless, you need to look up its definition. No one is saying that. Everyone understands the cause: to save money and preserve their bottom line. The problem is that the bottom line is measured 4 times a year, and the result of this decision will haunt the building over the course of its lifetime which could easily be 100 years. That's myopic, and "spineless" because they didn't have the ball to take a bit of a loss in the short-term to preserve the greater good for the long term. That's typical of businesses, and that's the context in which everyone's opinions are being amplified.

Dense_Electric · #**22974** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:30 PM**

Tell me they're at least keeping the current design for the communications ring. I honestly think that lends a lot more to the appearance of the building than the spire/antenna.

Don098 · #**22975** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:33 PM**

This conversation should be shifted over to the more public commentary on the NYTimes article. The Durst Organization's communications office will more closely monitor the article than this forum, and there's a better chance they'll see the outrage on there than on here.

NewYorkDominates · #**22976** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:36 PM**

A sign of a great country in decline.

Comment from NYT,all which is frighteningly true:

"The year 1368 was the start of the Ming Dynasty;a nice fit for the future "China Center" occupants of 1WTC,and a sly comment on the current world economy."

Dac150 · #**22977** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don098

that's the context in which everyone's opinions are being amplified.

No quarrels from me - just wanted to qualify that it be known Durst is not the enemy. I'm sure they have their reasons.

Don098 · #**22978** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

No quarrels from me - just wanted to qualify that it be known Durst is not the enemy. I'm sure they have their reasons.

Enemy is a bad word to use. Reprehensible is a better one. I don't believe their reasons substantiate the outcome.

chris123678 · #**22979** Posted **May 9, 2012, 8:55 PM**

I'd hate to complain, but they need to leave this God damn building alone.
We've waited all these years just for this building to get up off the ground and its just ridiculous. Glass changes, spire changes, strikes, concrete, delays, etc, it just never ends for this tower.
You'd think that a site like this, a tower like this, such a symbolic thing for our country, that they would stop being cheap and let it take it's title, but it's all for the money, and if not, pardon my ignorance but this is ridiculous.

gramsjdg · #**22980** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:03 PM**

The new design is most definitely an antenna. In fact, it has almost the same design as Conde Nast's antenna. If that isn't adding insult to injury, I don't know what is.

I say remove the antenna "spire" and the communications ring, (which looks like it is now without the radomes) skip WTC-5 and just build WTC-2 1776 ft tall.