NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,170' Pinnacle / 1,080' Roof | 80 FLOORS

[The Grand Architect]

Yeah, but you're forgetting something. The original 1 WTC base steel is identical throughout the entire building, right? The continuous "X" shaped steel is part of the facade, and runs from the base all the way to the top. I have no problem with that because that is part of the facade- AND part of the steel frame holding it up a 1,776 foot tall skyscraper.

Consider this:

What if you remove ALL of the "X" shaped metal from the original 1 WTC. It would look like floors stacked on top of each other with just glass to prevent people from falling over the floors. No protection or support there.

But, if you take the "X" shaped bracing off the 3WTC, it would look fine, because you got the vertical steel support columns on the north and south side of the building. The original 1 WTC doesn't have the vertical support columns, only the "X" shaped facade to support the floors that extend out from the central core. If you remove that, you only got a central core holding everything up! I might not have the blueprints for the original 1 WTC, but judging from those pictures you posted above, it looks like the "X" cris-cross metal is the only thing supporting the outer edges of the tower.

So, in the original 1 WTC, the "X" bracing is part of the building's skeleton. Basically, if you remove it, the building would collapse.

If you take the "X" bracing off the 3 WTC, the tower will still stand, because 3WTC still has the other vertical support columns, plus a central core.

[JSsocal]

Uhhhh, no. Those braces on 3WTC are extremely important to the structural integrity of the tower. The two large columns on the east and west sides of the building get their strength from those bracings, and they also reduce swaying in the tower. They aren't just a facade element.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

If you take the "X" bracing off the 3 WTC, the tower will still stand, because 3WTC still has the other vertical support columns, plus a central core.

Technically, yes, the building would stand since the braces probably don't carry vertical loads. They do, however, handle much of the lateral loads from wind, which in a building this tall, are immense. The building would be structurally compromised without those braces.

[The Grand Architect]

Originally Posted by CGII

Technically, yes, the building would stand since the braces probably don't carry vertical loads. They do, however, handle much of the lateral loads from wind, which in a building this tall, are immense. The building would be structurally compromised without those braces.

The 2 vertical beams on the west and east side, plus the 4 other vertical beams from the north and south side are enough to hold the tower.

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Uhhhh, no. Those braces on 3WTC are extremely important to the structural integrity of the tower. The two large columns on the east and west sides of the building get their strength from those bracings, and they also reduce swaying in the tower. They aren't just a facade element.

Take a closer look at the 3WTC image provided by NYguy:



As you can see on the 3WTC, behind the X braces are 2 vertical beams. This should be enough to support that side. If you look on the north and south side of the facade, you can see 4 major vertical beams there. These are enough to support the tower all the way to the top. Not to mention the central core of the 3WTC.

We've got enough support there. Those X braces aren't needed. If they're for looks, I'm just suggesting they'd be hidden behind the glass facade so it won't look so obvious.

[fimiak]

I believe the X-beams to be remarkable and unique. They will provide a lot of character to the site. If you can think about the shape that the two stacked X's make, the diamond shape, you will notice the diamond is carried over to 2WTC. This to me is a fine collection of skyscrapers because they each in their own way will leave behind a legacy of what it was like to live in the 2010s, the decade it will all be completed.

This musing of mine is simply coming from the way the Empire State Building just screams to me of another important New York City era, the 1930s. The WTC complex will become one of the most recognizable "windows" into what American democracy and way of life represents for the next 25 years.

[brian.odonnell20]

ok enough with the philosophical allegory bullshit. The design of a tower has nothing to do with a political systems and ways of life. Why do people need to establish all of these over-thought connections and symbols? Yeah, the x's form diamonds if you look at it that way. It obviously wasn't a purposeful intention of the architect to connect it with tower two. It's a simple engineering concept put to work. Relax.

[STR]

^actually, the cross braces were a deliberate attempt to relate to Tower 2. It continues a pattern of diagonals that start with the corners of 1, continue with the crown of 2, and bridges with the angled floorplates of Towers 4 & 7. Extendeding the bracing beyond the curtain wall adds texture to help Calatrava's transit hall fit in with the towers.

Nothing in or on these buildings are coincidental. Everything is a deliberate decision that tries to balance giving each building a unique character while still tying everything together as a cohesive whole.

[meh_cd]

Given that John Hancock is one of my all time favorites, I have no doubt that 3 WTC is going to surprise me when it is finished. You really need to see the cross bracing in real life to appreciate it.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

Those X braces aren't needed. If they're for looks, I'm just suggesting they'd be hidden behind the glass facade so it won't look so obvious.

It doesn't matter what they're there for, your argument is that you don't like them, and want them hidden. That's fine, and no one has to like everything. Most people prefer it just the way it is, and that's fine also. You're not going to convince anyone otherwise, so there's no use getting worked up about it.

Personally, I think its the best of the WTC designs, and am curious how tower 2 would have looked with a more related design. We know there was a flirtation with it...but it probably would have been too similar.










(images were posted in the tower 2 thread, from wtc.com)

[Apex]

wow i am just going to come out and say it is a damn good thing they did not end up using those designs for tower 2. phew!!

[The Grand Architect]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It doesn't matter what they're there for, your argument is that you don't like them, and want them hidden. That's fine, and no one has to like everything. Most people prefer it just the way it is, and that's fine also. You're not going to convince anyone otherwise, so there's no use getting worked up about it.

Personally, I think its the best of the WTC designs, and am curious how tower 2 would have looked with a more related design. We know there was a flirtation with it...but it probably would have been too similar.






(images were posted in the tower 2 thread, from wtc.com)

Let me just point out something. If Tower 2 originally had a similar bracing style as Tower 3, and Tower 2's bracing was removed, then how come Tower 3's bracing isn't? I'm not trying to "get worked up" about it, I was just wondering why Tower 3'd design remains as is.

They're both towers (not the same height, but similar), and yet only one of them get's the bracing design (tower 3), and the other one got it remove (tower 2). I mean, one tower isn't going to collapse if those "X" bracings were removed.

This supports my statement:

Originally Posted by The Grant Architect

As you can see on the 3WTC, behind the X braces are 2 vertical beams. This should be enough to support that side. If you look on the north and south side of the facade, you can see 4 major vertical beams there. These are enough to support the tower all the way to the top. Not to mention the central core of the 3WTC.

We've got enough support there. Those X braces aren't needed. If they're for looks, I'm just suggesting they'd be hidden behind the glass facade so it won't look so obvious.

This divides up the conversation into 2 parts: structural and design.

STRUCTURAL:

If tower 2's "X" style bracing got removed and remains as is, why doesn't tower 3's do the same? I mean, with the current design being implemented, tower 2 is still going to rise and stand freely without those "X" bracings. Consider this a hypothetical question. No need to answer it. It just doesn't make sense that one tower's cross bracing was removed, but the other remains, and yet, they don't benefit the tower's structural integrity.

DESIGN:

Originally Posted by Apex

wow i am just going to come out and say it is a damn good thing they did not end up using those designs for tower 2. phew!!

Yes, I agree. This brings back the discussion of design vs. tower 3. Personally, I have to agree with you, because those X bracings on those tower 2 models stick out too much, and as I said earlier "make it stand out negatively".

Like I said before, they removed the X bracing probably because Tower 2 does not need them, and it already has enough support with the other vertical steel columns that are already in place.

Same applies with Tower 3: If the X bracings were removed, the tower will still stand.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bottom Line: I'm not going to argue whether the design is bad or not. I respect everyone's opinions, but in my own opinion, the "X" bracing should be placed behind the curtain wall so it would not look so obvious.

Second of all, I'm just saying that the "X" bracings aren't needed to make the tower stand. There are alot of people that said that they needed those X bracings for the tower to stand, but in reality, those other vertical steel columns are already there, and that SHOULD be enough to hold the tower in place.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

Bottom Line: I'm not going to argue whether the design is bad or not. I respect everyone's opinions, but in my own opinion, the "X" bracing should be placed behind the curtain wall so it would not look so obvious.

Because trade center needs more blandly-cladded glass towers.... 7 and 3 are the only ones with any hint of character in the facade. There is no need to hide it.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

Let me just point out something. If Tower 2 originally had a similar bracing style as Tower 3, and Tower 2's bracing was removed, then how come Tower 3's bracing isn't? I'm not trying to "get worked up" about it, I was just wondering why Tower 3'd design remains as is.

They're both towers (not the same height, but similar), and yet only one of them get's the bracing design (tower 3), and the other one got it remove (tower 2). I mean, one tower isn't going to collapse if those "X" bracings were removed.

Bottom Line: I'm not going to argue whether the design is bad or not. I respect everyone's opinions, but in my own opinion, the "X" bracing should be placed behind the curtain wall so it would not look so obvious.

Second of all, I'm just saying that the "X" bracings aren't needed to make the tower stand. There are alot of people that said that they needed those X bracings for the tower to stand, but in reality, those other vertical steel columns are already there, and that SHOULD be enough to hold the tower in place.

No one said tower 2 originally had bracing. And I don't think anybody cares that much whether you like the bracings on tower 3 or not. You've stated your opinion over and over, to the point where its now spamming this thread. You don't like it. That's it. But you'll either just have to not like it or get over it. Those are your options. Nobody elese cares so stop flooding this thread with it. If you have a problem, send me a pm.



slopepics

[The Grand Architect]

You even posted 2 pictures with the 2WTC models having a similar bracing design. Obviously, they were removed because I assume they serve no purpose. Why can't the 3 WTC do the same??

Although you said you "were curious how it would look like", I used your pictures and that quote as an example.

Originally Posted by NYguy

Personally, I think its the best of the WTC designs, and am curious how tower 2 would have looked with a more related design. We know there was a flirtation with it...but it probably would have been too similar.

Even though those models are old and very outdated, they still pose a purpose to this discussion. I think I proven my point more than enough, and I agree that I am taking it too far.

[STR]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

You even posted 2 pictures with the 2WTC models having a similar bracing design. Obviously, they were removed because I assume they serve no purpose. Why can't the 3 WTC do the same?

Let's use this as a way to nudge this conversation in a more educational direction. The answer clearly isn't that "obvious" as you don't seem to quite understand why. The bracing wasn't removed because "they serve no purpose." Do you really think these architects and engineers, all of whom are under tremendous pressure to keep costs down, add superfluous structural members? No, I don't think so either.

So what's the real deal here?

Foster chose to remove the bracing as an aesthetic choice. The engineers can and could have made any combination effective and (within a margin) efficient. However, and this is something else that isn't entirely obvious, taking away one element doesn't mean the rest of the structure can continue without it. To put it bluntly, that's pretty much why we have to build another World Trade Center in the first place (for a clear case example, look up NIST's final report on 7WTC, the loss of one critical column caused the collapse of the entire building). Taking that an applying it to building design, if you remove the X-bracing, you have to beef up something else to compensate for it. So just because there's other columns in 3WTC, it does not mean those columns alone can hold up the building without additional steel and concrete.

That's where the aforementioned margin comes in. In general, a braced tube structure, like 3 World Trade and the Hancock Center, are more efficient than non-braced tube structures (excluding bundled tubes, like the Sears Tower, which are even more efficient than braced tubes, but require internal columns which can be undesirable for office tenants). Those x-braces mean there needs to be less steel in the building overall without any loss of strength.



Now, could you enclose the bracing within the curtain wall and still retain your gains in efficiency? Sure, but just as Foster chose to make is tower non-structurally expressive, Rogers wanted to make that the forefront of his design. Watch some of the video interviews on wtc.com, Rogers (with the site's history in mind) wanted a building that looked extremely strong to occupants and visitors. True, 3WTC is no stronger (relatively speaking) than any of the other buildings on site, but again it's an aesthetic choice. Just as I said before, the X's also help tie into the diagonals on 1,2 and 4, and the textured look that's the core of Calatrava's transit hall.

[Zapatan]

I personally love the X braces, reminds me of the JHC, one of my favorite buildings ever.

[Lecom]

I, for one, think the bracing will be a marvel to look at. Jon Hancock Center's X bracing became one of Chicago's symbols, though aside from its height, X bracing, tapering shape and the twin antennas, the building would've been a run-of-the-mill office box with a cor-ten steel facade and rather mundane, International-style mullions. 3WTC has an arguably more refined, contemporary curtain wall, dynamic massing in the form of its setbacks, and the X bracing is much more pronounced. Grand Architect, I understand why you think the X bracing looks cheesy and gimmicky, and I've shared similar sentiments for a long while myself, but I really think you'll be pleasantly surprised once you see the finished product.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

I don't want to hide it. It's just too obvious and sticks out alot. We need it to be like 1 WTC's base; with the base "W" steel still visible, but not as visible as it is currently.

No we don't..we need it to be as it is. Frankly, the bracing is the main reason I like this building.

Like Manhattan needs another boring sheer glass tower. This building is brilliant and will be a stunner. It's totally eye catching and just what the WTC complex needs. It will be very unique building to Manhattan.

[djlx2]

I fully support virtually everything Grand Architect has said in this thread, as well as the awesome video he's posted in the Forum (video I've found elsewhere has been much more confusing). I'm particularly in agreement with his statements on the X-bracing, such as this:

Originally Posted by The Grand Architect

I don't know about you, but I prefer the X bracing behind the glass facade. The glass will make the X bracing less obvious if you're looking at the skyline. Hopefully this would make it "hidden among the crowd". If you know what I mean.

X-bracing I think is there for support (who knows how well it was designed, I'm sure they had to toss out a lot of work in the process), and once/if it somehow manages to do this, I think it is a much better thing to not have it called attention to and certainly "hidden in a crowd". A glass exterior where you can see outside but also reflections of what's going on outside I think is a much better design. Starting right now. Of course the building hasn't started going up...not sure what's up with that, but I guess I'll keep checking back.

[aquablue]

you can agree with him all you like, but I think both of you are just wrong. The diamonds are beautiful.