HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    

One World Trade Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram
New York Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1421  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2007, 9:08 PM
chitown12 chitown12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by 37TimPPG View Post
Does the Freedom Tower HAVE to be 1776 feet tall? Couldn't they go several hundred feet higher? Say, maybe 300 or 400 feet higher? It would be nice if NYC could regain the crown of tallest skyscraper in the US. I would hate to see that honor go to CS!
Sorry buddy but since the your spire is the only reason the height is going to be at 1,776 feet NYC would have to go a lot higher to match the roof of the spire which will top out at 2000. No BS height on the CS.

On another note i am excited for this project to get going and hope things start to speed up with everything in general.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1422  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2007, 9:51 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by chitown12 View Post
Sorry buddy but since the your spire is the only reason the height is going to be at 1,776 feet NYC would have to go a lot higher to match the roof of the spire which will top out at 2000. No BS height on the CS.

On another note i am excited for this project to get going and hope things start to speed up with everything in general.
I wouldn't call it "BS" height. Lets not forget, many early designs of the CS had a spire to get it to 2000".
__________________
New York, New York- A city so nice they named it twice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1423  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2007, 10:50 PM
SNT1 SNT1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 177
Freedom tower is 1776' because "1776" symbolizes America's year of The Declaration of Independece. so its a symbolic thing.

Plus, if they actually started vertical, they might get the Country's tallest title, as this tower is actually only around 1350 feet to the roof and the other 400 or so is the spire. Country's tallest until Chicago, once again, takes it from NY with the Chi-Spire, and that's if the guys at ground Zero starts to move their ass more rapidly. CS's site is moving pretty swifty and smoothly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1424  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2007, 11:10 PM
dagobert dagobert is offline
Onkel Dagobert
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Entenhausen
Posts: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNT1 View Post
Freedom tower is 1776' because "1776" symbolizes America's year of The Declaration of Independece. so its a symbolic thing.

Plus, if they actually started vertical, they might get the Country's tallest title, as this tower is actually only around 1350 feet to the roof and the other 400 or so is the spire. Country's tallest until Chicago, once again, takes it from NY with the Chi-Spire, and that's if the guys at ground Zero starts to move their ass more rapidly. CS's site is moving pretty swifty and smoothly.
I think the entire attempt to reach 1776 feet with an ultra long spire is pretty lame if not pathetic. If it was 1776 feet to the tip of the roof then it wouldn't really bother me, because we would have a legitimate attempt at constructing a building of considerable hight to make a statement. Instead we have a half hearted attempt to do so.
In addition 1776 feet is 539.9 meters, does number 539.9 mean anything to anyone? I'm asking because if anyone in the rest of the world does ever hear anything about this tower it will most likely be in meters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1425  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2007, 11:18 PM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyo View Post
This is a new rendering of the Freedom Tower lobby:



This is the old rendering of the lobby:



http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/08...eedom_tow.html


Why did they deviate (get rid of) the old one? I like THAT one much better!
That natural lookng wood panel was the center of attention. The new one above looks much too plain and boring.

Yeah, the lobby DOES look kind of lofty with that high ceiling - almost similar to the ones in the Twins.

Last edited by Daquan13; Aug 3, 2007 at 1:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1426  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2007, 11:19 PM
rich_200's Avatar
rich_200 rich_200 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 4,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagobert View Post
I think the entire attempt to reach 1776 feet with an ultra long spire is pretty lame if not pathetic. If it was 1776 feet to the tip of the roof then it wouldn't really bother me, because we would have a legitimate attempt at constructing a building of considerable hight to make a statement. Instead we have a half hearted attempt to do so.
In addition 1776 feet is 539.9 meters, does number 539.9 mean anything to anyone? I'm asking because if anyone in the rest of the world does ever hear anything about this tower it will most likely be in meters.
Very likely the rest of the world will know about it in meters, but anyway this is supposed to be a symbol for the US not for the rest of the world so it doesn´t matter.

I'm usually against spires becuase for me it is cheating(unless it is really part of the building as in the Petronas or in the Chrysler), but in this case due to the significance of the height the spire will reach and becuase it isn´t just an invisible spire as the NYTT I don´t have any problem with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1427  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 12:57 AM
SkyCrapper's Avatar
SkyCrapper SkyCrapper is offline
Super Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daquan13 View Post
Why did they deviate (get rid of) the old one? I like THAT one much better!
That natural lookng wood panel was the center of attention. The new one above looks much too plain and boring.

Yeah, the lobby DOES look kind of lofty with that high ceiling - alost similar to the ones in the Twins.
look closely. its the exact same thing from the other side. you just cant see the detail of the wood and desk from this view. and the pictures arent shown on the other wall. but yeah. looks the same to me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1428  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 1:05 AM
SNT1 SNT1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagobert View Post
I think the entire attempt to reach 1776 feet with an ultra long spire is pretty lame if not pathetic. If it was 1776 feet to the tip of the roof then it wouldn't really bother me, because we would have a legitimate attempt at constructing a building of considerable hight to make a statement. Instead we have a half hearted attempt to do so.
In addition 1776 feet is 539.9 meters, does number 539.9 mean anything to anyone? I'm asking because if anyone in the rest of the world does ever hear anything about this tower it will most likely be in meters.

uhh, SO what if it reads 540m to the rest of the world? This tower is in USA. Probably not a lot of people would care for 1776 either way. But its an Amerian tower, so it wouldn't matter. And, its structural height mirrors the old WTC twins, so I guess thats somewhat symbolic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1429  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 1:41 AM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyCrapper View Post
look closely. its the exact same thing from the other side. you just cant see the detail of the wood and desk from this view. and the pictures arent shown on the other wall. but yeah. looks the same to me


Ok, I think I see it now. So other than the pics on the walls being removed,
everything else is still the same?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1430  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 1:37 PM
seamus21514
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The thing behind the attendant at the desk would be so cool if it was like a video wall, with like a live view from up top or something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1431  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 2:37 PM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,744
And on the long wall across from the front desk, or on the other side of that wall, I think it would have been nice to put a gently-flowing water fountain on a marble slab there.

Like the one featured at the One Eleven Huntington Ave Tower at the Pru Center in Boston.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1432  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 4:54 PM
GarCastle GarCastle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 321
Is it me or do those lobby shots look like the guy is standing at an upscale stainless urinal? How convenient! :^)

As far as nWTC1's height and all, I think the whole site is a great tribute to the folks that lost their lives. I never realized that the two ex-foundation holes will have water flowing down them. I don't think nWTC1 needs to be of any spectacular height. It should be as elaborate as it can be while still being useful and rentable. Bluntly put, Lower Manhattan needs the space back.

It will not be long before we have numerous other supertalls in "The City" being built with roofs that are higher than nWTC1 will be. While those other dvlps (Hudson Yards, MSG, etc.) will be of huge scale each with their own grand scale, it is fairly unlikely that they will be as well planned and as gorgeous as this complex will be when done. So I really cannot complain about it in any way. If they went for 2,000', the cost would eliminate the design. If 2000' in Manhattan was profitable, then they would have designed it that way in order to make it more marketable. /shrug

I work on the 3rd floor and sometimes go across the street to eat on the 16th floor. And really... wtf wants to work on any floor involving a 10 minute elevator commute? I'm no superstar but even I have better things to do in life than that lol. For a residence that height would simply rock, but for a businessman entering and leaving the workplace a few times a day, screeeew that heh.
__________________
"I don't need the city, it never cared for me." - Neuroticfish.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1433  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 5:03 PM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,744
I think he's going through one of the turnstyles,. No?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1434  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 9:21 PM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNT1 View Post
uhh, SO what if it reads 540m to the rest of the world? This tower is in USA. Probably not a lot of people would care for 1776 either way. But its an Amerian tower, so it wouldn't matter. And, its structural height mirrors the old WTC twins, so I guess thats somewhat symbolic.
Every international news story on the FT that I've ever read - from Xinhua to the BBC - reports the height of the tower as "famously 1,776 feet tall." Give the rest of the world SOME credit, guys.

And besides... this is (yawn) SUCH a trite argument, right up there with the all the heartache over the name of the tower
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


For the First Time in My Life, I'm Proud of Wisconsin!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1435  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 10:21 PM
donybrx donybrx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagobert View Post
I think the entire attempt to reach 1776 feet with an ultra long spire is pretty lame if not pathetic. If it was 1776 feet to the tip of the roof then it wouldn't really bother me, because we would have a legitimate attempt at constructing a building of considerable hight to make a statement. Instead we have a half hearted attempt to do so.
In addition 1776 feet is 539.9 meters, does number 539.9 mean anything to anyone? I'm asking because if anyone in the rest of the world does ever hear anything about this tower it will most likely be in meters.

You're in rough territory here. There are those for whom the 1776' height is like catnip, if not crack. Speak agin' it and it's like you're threatening the stash, they turn into Rosemary's Baby......and you're dead meat in the water instead of just somebody with an opinion.

Seriously, I'm one who was disappointed at the decision since "1776" has been done to death (though not in NYC, except for the Broadway musical of the same name) and that NYC and the catastrophe of 9/11 deserved at least a little more imagination and careful thought instead of what's handy/obvious (having nothing to do with my deep sense of what's actually patriotism). But, what do I know....Oh. I know. I thought a Bush presidencywas a b-a-a-a-a-ad idea as far back as 1999, but what can ya do?


Anyway I really wanted you to know that there is a Dagobert St. in Wilkes-Barre, PA.....the rest is old news from me.......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1436  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 10:30 PM
Plokoon11 Plokoon11 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 813
Whats up with this tower, I haven't seen any steel rise, or anything go up, how long is it going to take to have some steel and flooors, so far I looked over this in a year, and wow, the slowest progress ever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1437  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 10:43 PM
37TimPPG 37TimPPG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plokoon11 View Post
Whats up with this tower, I haven't seen any steel rise, or anything go up, how long is it going to take to have some steel and flooors, so far I looked over this in a year, and wow, the slowest progress ever.
Patience. Patience. Patience

Seriously, In a year you should see this thing really start to soar to the sky. The building is over a 1000 feet tall so it takes a lot of prep work for the foundation and substructure. From what I understand a lot of concrete has been poured this week.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1438  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2007, 10:54 PM
dubai 1's Avatar
dubai 1 dubai 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 201
^^ but still. this should even be on the highrise construction cuz there not doing shit. the Chicago spire will be starting up but the time this tower goes up. which is a shame
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1439  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2007, 4:38 AM
Daquan13 Daquan13 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Boston, MA. USA
Posts: 7,744
Are you reading what everyone has been saying?

This project, though massive and long-awaited, can't be rushed just like that.
We've all complained when the thing seemed to be at a standstill.

Now we must give it some time to get going. We've got no choice but to wait anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1440  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2007, 11:19 AM
KingKrunch's Avatar
KingKrunch KingKrunch is offline
:-)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the run
Posts: 459
I don't know if this has been posted yet:

The Port Authority has a nice video of the construction between December 2006 and May 2007: Click me
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:58 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.