View Full Version : NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS
Great progress here, this tower is scraping the sky beautifully so far!
Sorry I'm only getting around to this now but R.I.P. Zen, I always loved your contributions to this thread, it will be much different now...
Modulair
May 9, 2011, 8:24 PM
does anyone know when will the freedom tower reach its maximal roof height ? (415 meters)
Kanto
May 9, 2011, 8:47 PM
Unfortunately, the time of the troll is still here.
I haven't said anything off topic. What did I do to deserve you offending me?
SkyscrapersOfNewYork
May 9, 2011, 9:03 PM
does anyone know when will the freedom tower reach its maximal roof height ? (415 meters)
by the end of this year or early next year though i believed the topping out ceremony is scheduled for late this year.
brian.odonnell20
May 9, 2011, 9:23 PM
I think ZenSteelDude is alive and just posted that for kicks.
FuzzyWuz
May 9, 2011, 9:25 PM
You know what I feel represents Freedom? Soft flowing curves representing the freedom of the ocean waves, clouds in the sky, or the rushing of free rivers.
I know, let's redesign the site to look like a box of maxi pads!
New poster. Hi.
Modulair
May 9, 2011, 9:35 PM
why do they say "108" floors for freedom tower ? i count only around 90, but not 108...
where are the 15 missing floors ????
Modulair
May 9, 2011, 9:44 PM
by the end of this year or early next year though i believed the topping out ceremony is scheduled for late this year.
ok thx and do you know when will the tower have its full exterior appearence finished ?? (i mean: when the tower will be completely covered by glass, will have reached its total height of 541 meters) ?? falling 2012 ??
please, if someone has some details bout this,can he answer me ? :yes:
Roadcruiser1
May 9, 2011, 9:59 PM
The 20 floors that you are talking about is at the concrete base of the building. That concrete base is 20 stories high. The building would be completed during April 2013 which includes the glass and everything.
SkyscrapersOfNewYork
May 9, 2011, 10:04 PM
why do they say "108" floors for freedom tower ? i count only around 90, but not 108...
where are the 15 missing floors ????
the base while only being 7 floors technically serves as floors 1-20 and the facade should be complete early 2013 if memory serves me correctly.
Traynor
May 10, 2011, 3:07 AM
I hadn't seen this cool, time lapse-style video before. Apologies if it has been posted previously.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5785491/the-new-world-trade-center-looks-absolutely-gorgeous-in-this-time-lapse-video
:cheers:
JACKinBeantown
May 10, 2011, 5:03 AM
My philosophy is never apologize for posting something cool. If it's been posted before, so what.
It's an image of the original design for the new WTC the way the Tralfamadorians would see it.
Kevin Scott Koepke
May 10, 2011, 11:53 AM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2779/5706865718_a3db8abe71_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinskoepke/5706865718/)
manhattan dawn. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinskoepke/5706865718/) by ksk photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/kevinskoepke/), on Flickr
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2307/5706865382_301c97a681_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinskoepke/5706865382/)
manhattan dawn. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinskoepke/5706865382/) by ksk photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/kevinskoepke/), on Flickr
Kanto
May 10, 2011, 12:11 PM
The dawn photos are amazing.
2-TOWERS
May 10, 2011, 2:10 PM
2 vertical beams up...:cheers:
Domamania
May 10, 2011, 2:33 PM
Yay, with the new vertical steel beams, toer one has now surpassed wool worth Building and the Bloomberg Tower, it also about the same height as the Pan AM AKA Metlife building.
Now Tower 1 WTC is going to into the big leagues now as far as height. For me the magical number is the 70 th Floor, why you may ask, because at the 70h Floor it will completly change the NYC Skyline for a long time.
Fishman92
May 10, 2011, 3:20 PM
Yay, with the new vertical steel beams, toer one has now surpassed wool worth Building and the Bloomberg Tower, it also about the same height as the Pan AM AKA Metlife building.
Now Tower 1 WTC is going to into the big leagues now as far as height. For me the magical number is the 70 th Floor, why you may ask, because at the 70h Floor it will completely change the NYC Skyline for a long time.
But surely not- the tower before the beams was 772 feet- as was stated on the last page. So now, as every elevation is approx 2x13ft(so 26ft), it's 798 feet. Surpassed the woolworth, yes, but not the bloomberg or metlife just yet.
But hey, it's still within the top 20 tallest buildings in NY now. Sweeet.
Domamania
May 10, 2011, 4:44 PM
But surely not- the tower before the beams was 772 feet- as was stated on the last page. So now, as every elevation is approx 2x13ft(so 26ft), it's 798 feet. Surpassed the woolworth, yes, but not the bloomberg or metlife just yet.
But hey, it's still withing the top 20 tallest buildings in NY now. Sweeet.
you also got to count the vertical steel splice where they connect the steel vertical beams together, plus its not 13 feet times 2, its 13 feet (4 INCHES) times 2.you got to put in affect the inches as well cause they make the different plus the conneting splices that connect the vertical beams. which is 6 feet.
aquablue
May 10, 2011, 6:45 PM
you also got to count the vertical steel splice where they connect the steel vertical beams together, plus its not 13 feet times 2, its 13 feet (4 INCHES) times 2.you got to put in affect the inches as well cause they make the different plus the conneting splices that connect the vertical beams. which is 6 feet.
Whatever.
The tower will be done when its done. Who cares about anything else.
Traynor
May 10, 2011, 6:54 PM
Update to diagram checklist for lower Manhattan:
http://i.imgur.com/keGst.jpg (http://imgur.com/keGst)
(Image compiled from the Diagram section found here: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=8 )
Obey
May 10, 2011, 9:22 PM
Woah, being almost as tall as Beekman is impressive.
SkyscrapersOfNewYork
May 10, 2011, 11:47 PM
when did this thing pass the Woolworth bldg???
sw5710
May 11, 2011, 12:40 AM
Today it passed the Woolworth Bldg. This jump takes it to just over 800' splices included.
Dylan Leblanc
May 11, 2011, 1:10 AM
Pics from yesterday (May 5, 2011)
11.
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1354155.jpg
This guy is starting to look AWESOME!!
betawest
May 11, 2011, 6:14 AM
I wish they would put up the Calatrava ribs already. I want to see whats we're getting for $3 billion. :D
mindbender
May 11, 2011, 7:19 PM
You have a couple of years to wait my friend. The PATH station is still a big pit.
Weyerhaeuser1
May 11, 2011, 8:08 PM
:previous: one would think that if people on this end wanted to hurry it along there would have been more of an emphasis on having the transportation system itself actually up and running
BrBTowers
May 11, 2011, 9:47 PM
Hey everybody I'm making a video for one of my classes and I decided to do it on the construction of WTC1. I took about 60 or 70ish photos from this forum and I would like to know if that's all right? Also if I could get music suggestions for the background of the video that would be helpful. I'll post it here if everything turns out all right.
Thanks in advance :tup:
bunky
May 11, 2011, 11:05 PM
Hey everybody I'm making a video for one of my classes and I decided to do it on the construction of WTC1. I took about 60 or 70ish photos from this forum and I would like to know if that's all right? Also if I could get music suggestions for the background of the video that would be helpful. I'll post it here if everything turns out all right.
Thanks in advance :tup:
Good idea. You will need to get permission from the person who took the photo for any that you use. This may not be the person that posted it to the forum, you might have to follow links back to flickr etc. but i'm sure most people would be happy for you to use them. Good luck.:tup:
jwalas
May 11, 2011, 11:39 PM
Taken today
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa155/jwalas/Construction/DSCN2361.jpg
SkyscrapersOfNewYork
May 12, 2011, 12:54 AM
damn! this thing is moving along like clock work!
Starship Catvern
May 12, 2011, 12:57 AM
Shot this last night from Weehawken
"We will not go silently into the night."
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3486/5711902338_99b1c8a0f0_b.jpg
NYguy
May 12, 2011, 1:20 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/nyregion/at-1-world-trade-center-effort-to-cover-base-in-glass-is-dropped.html
Feature at Trade Center Is Halted After $10 Million
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/12/nyregion/BUILDING1/BUILDING1-popup.jpg
By CHARLES V. BAGLI
May 11, 2011
It was supposed to be an elegant solution to a very large problem: how to disguise the 185-foot-tall fortified concrete base of 1 World Trade Center so it does not look like a gigantic bunker.
The plan was to drape the base with 2,000 clear prismatic glass panels and welded aluminum screens to create, in the words of the architect, “a dynamic, shimmering glass surface.”
But the glass has proved difficult to manufacture at that scale. In trials, the refinishing required for the prismatic effect has left the glass brittle and prone to shatter. With the steel frame of the building now rising to the 65th floor, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has scrapped the idea and sent the architects back for yet another revision.
“As design moved to the testing phase, it became clear that the prismatic glass simply had too many technical problems to overcome and at a budget that was not cost effective,” said John Kelly, a spokesman for the Port Authority. “We have been finalizing a design that will be far more practical while being both distinctive and magnificent.”
About $10 million had already been spent on the glass. David M. Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, who designed the tower and the prismatic glass covering, did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
Douglas Durst of the Durst Organization, which owns a 10 percent stake in the building and is in charge of leasing it, said the switch in plans should have no effect on the timetable for the building, scheduled to open in January 2014. The new facade is likely to be made of more traditional clear glass panels, possibly with granite elements to tie it into the surrounding plazas.
The problem with the glass illustrates the tension inherent in the entire $3.2 billion project: how to create a skyscraper that is at once iconic and defended against terrorism, while also containing costs.
...To make prismatic glass, wedges are cut into the surface to create a prismlike effect, so that the glass will “reflect, refract and transmit light in various spectrums,” according to the architect, without blinding passers-by or drivers. Prismatic glass has been used as a decorative feature for more than a century in lamps and storefronts.
But the World Trade Center plan was unprecedented, at least in the United States, said William M. Yanek, executive vice president of the Glass Association of North America in Topeka, Kan. “To our knowledge prismatic glass has never been used on a building of this magnitude,” he said. Above the base, workers are installing more than 12,000 more traditional, ultraclear glass panels to the building’s steel frame.
Three companies competed for the $82 million contract to manufacture and install the base facade, and in August 2008 the Port Authority selected a joint venture of DCM Erectors and Solera Construction. In an effort to cut costs, DCM-Solera, which declined to comment, decided to manufacture the glass in China, a move that infuriated three American companies that had provided the architect with technical support for the project, as well as the governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, where the companies are based.
“I’m not sure a more important symbol of our nation than the Freedom Tower will be seen in my career,” Gary R. Danowski, vice president of PPG Performance Glazings, a Pennsylvania glass manufacturer, told an industry publication in 2009. “The thought that the protective skin of this icon of America will be made from glass sourced on the other side of the planet and not local material is quite a blow.”
But with the Chinese manufacturer unable to produce a glass panel that matched the sample from the architect, DCM-Solera ordered the raw glass last October from PPG’s manufacturing plant outside Carlisle, Pa.
The fabrication was still to be done in China, and some panels were sent there beginning in January. It was a complex undertaking involving cutting, as well as laminating and tempering to create the safety-glass effect. But the glass panels tended to bow after they were cut and tempered, which interfered with the lamination process. The ridges cut into the glass also proved to be too brittle and broke into large pieces, rather than tiny pellets.
It is unclear whether an American factory would have been more successful, but after two years and millions of dollars, the Port Authority decided that further trials would not be prudent, and in March it quietly dropped the idea.
SkyscrapersOfNewYork
May 12, 2011, 1:22 AM
oh for Christ sake, you'd think that they'd know what they were doing by now...
animatedmartian
May 12, 2011, 2:31 AM
Sort of not surprised, but sort of wishing that it didn't happen. Hopefully whatever else they come up with won't look ridiculously like a cheap replacement.
sw5710
May 12, 2011, 2:53 AM
Just put the same glass as above on the base.:D
uakoops
May 12, 2011, 3:04 AM
Just put the same glass as above on the base.:D
That would look great, but the mech floors need to be open for ventilation. The prismatic glass panels were supposed to be staggered so there is air space between them.
BTW what's with the media constantly referring to the "185 foot concrete bunker"? Only the first 60 feet is concrete, the rest is the mech floors and is open steelwork with a metal grill behind.
WillPostPix
May 12, 2011, 3:10 AM
oh for Christ sake, you'd think that they'd know what they were doing by now...
From what I've read, the higher the building rises, the higher do complications and issues. I wouldn't be surprised they're actually even more worried now than before about technical aspects, for many reasons.
BiggieSmalls
May 12, 2011, 3:18 AM
i bet we end up with something similar to the titanium base of 7 WTC.
CassGilbert
May 12, 2011, 3:21 AM
It's looking very impressive already. Should go down there to take fresh pics for the history books :)
sw5710
May 12, 2011, 3:43 AM
i bet we end up with something similar to the titanium base of 7 WTC.
The 1st 2 floors above the titanium base of 7 look like ventilation. Just do that in glass on 1 WTC for air flow.
QuarterMileSidewalk
May 12, 2011, 5:07 AM
Glass all the way down, please. It'll look so much nicer.
Fishman92
May 12, 2011, 6:48 AM
Well ain't that a rotten toffee apple.
I don't want A titanium base. No way. I would look so ugly. Maybe if they just used normal glass, but in the same layout as the prismatic would have been- it would look a lot better than a dark titanium base.
Domamania
May 12, 2011, 10:57 AM
I was just thinking of a great Idea for the base of the Tower. I would say is either use the aluminum or the light colored titanium steel on where the beams are of the base and then put the clear glass in between them, so you would give it a good looking touch with is with a mix of the nostaglia resembliance of the original Tower 1.
vandelay
May 12, 2011, 12:51 PM
A stone or masonry base would be very fitting, after all 1WTC is basically a monumental obelisk. Carved granite, e.g. an art deco frieze, would have looked incredible.
Don098
May 12, 2011, 1:35 PM
A stone or masonry base would be very fitting, after all 1WTC is basically a monumental obelisk. Carved granite, e.g. an art deco frieze, would have looked incredible.
Best idea I've read so far...
NYguy
May 12, 2011, 1:41 PM
Taken from wtc.com
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18589/1367835-T800600.jpg
http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18589/1367835.jpg
uaarkson
May 12, 2011, 1:44 PM
A stone or masonry base would be very fitting, after all 1WTC is basically a monumental obelisk. Carved granite, e.g. an art deco frieze, would have looked incredible.
Neat idea, although in reality I think it might be contextually obnoxious.
Fishman92
May 12, 2011, 3:13 PM
Yeah, i think sticking to glass is the best Idea.
Looking at cam 4 on Discovery, I've just seen now how much more bulk the glass gives it- The parts without glass look a wee bit skinny. But hey, that glass is looking glorious. And the tower is finally starting to look how tall it is- with all those crowding buildings, it's hard to judge how tall it really is (Especially when I live in a small town where the tallest building is the ~120 ft church).
EDI: Also, you can just glimpse the curtain wall on the WYN cam. Wow.
NYCLuver
May 12, 2011, 4:58 PM
Taken May 11th, 2011
(All future WTC pictures of mine are dedicated to ZenSteelDude!)
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2679.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2680.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2681.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2682.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2683.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2684.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2688.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2689.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2692.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_2693.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2696.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2697.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2700.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2703.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2710.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2717.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2718.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2719.jpg
http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/DKNY620/IMG_2720.jpg
hunser
May 12, 2011, 5:02 PM
NYCLuver, you have outdone yourself this time! glorious pics man! :tup:
yankeesfan1000
May 12, 2011, 6:36 PM
NYCLuver, you have outdone yourself this time! glorious pics man! :tup:
x2.
The glass on this thing is sensational.
sterlippo1
May 12, 2011, 6:57 PM
x2.
The glass on this thing is sensational.
i know it.........remember all the concern about the glass quality etc not being up to snuff? i think we don't have to worry about that any longer. This tower is magnificent!:worship:
Traynor
May 12, 2011, 7:42 PM
While I agree the quality of the curtainwall is excellent, I find it puzzling that so many people like the idea that a future icon of this magnitude, is basically being clad like a chameleon which is camouflaged to blend into its surroundings. And I tend to agree with this critic's take on the glazing:
...I don't want such a prominent building to visually vanish from a scene. I want imposing architecture to be exactly that: Imposing. Not clad in a way that it blends with the background and disappears, but so that it stands out.
Many other architectural critics have applauded the design of 1WTC and used poetic terms to describe its glass, like: "A river of glass that virtually brings the sky to the earth." While that sounds flowery, personally I don't want to look at a building and see a perfect reflection of the sky. That's what we have the actual sky for.
I want to see amazing architecture, brilliant engineering, remarkable detail, fantastic materials. All of those may be employed here in building the new 1WTC, but they are effectively disappearing before our eyes as the glass rises, just like the Predator monster in the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie of the same name. Even if the glazing was gold or green or amber or any other colour it would be more of a psychological impact.
In the future when strolling along the yet to be reopened Greenwich Street, without looking up, 1 WTC will be invisible in your peripheral view, diminishing its visual impact and therefore the emotional impact on the psyche as well. The originals dominated their environment, while this tower and the others (with perhaps the exception of 3WTC and it's exposed structure.) will apologetically bow to their surroundings and quietly disappear to the background of your consciousness.
If this was a conscious decision by the architects: To allow peaceful reflection at the memorial and to not steal focus away from the somber gravitas of its meaning, they have missed the point of rebuilding. Rebuilding this center is to show the world that America will not bow to ideals imposed from fanatical beliefs; America will proudly stand for whatever she deems important and not kowtow to other's demands. So why produce such a weak presence at such a sanctum of importance?
This is where the maxim "Go big, or go home" could have been employed by paraphrasing it "Go Bold, or give up" and unfortunately the designers took the safe road...
JACKinBeantown
May 12, 2011, 9:23 PM
"This is where the maxim "Go big, or go home" could have been employed by paraphrasing it "Go Bold, or give up" and unfortunately the designers took the safe road... "
Hey! "Go bold" is a tagline I wrote for Mistic over a decade ago. Then it got usurped by Dentine's agency for its ads. Now this guy's using it. - But I agree too. I like fenestration to look like fenestration... windows that give a big building its scale. When you look at ESB you can clearly see that there are lots and lots of floors. Blue glass buildings look like... well, blue glass. At least it's 800 feet tall. That's something to be happy about.
Well 1WTC is not the first, someone should have thought of that argument a long time ago...
http://www.worldgreatestsites.com/pics/jinmao-tower-world-financial-center.jpg
No complaints from me though, I've been very impressed with the cladding. It is reflective, but that also creates a very dramatic look.
Obey
May 12, 2011, 10:01 PM
Terrible news IMO.
CoolCzech
May 12, 2011, 11:49 PM
A stone or masonry base would be very fitting, after all 1WTC is basically a monumental obelisk. Carved granite, e.g. an art deco frieze, would have looked incredible.
It might look too much like a tombstone. Given the history of the site, that might not go over too good...
CoolCzech
May 12, 2011, 11:56 PM
I wonder if the next technical impossibility doesn't turn out to be the spire... :uhh:
The North One
May 13, 2011, 12:36 AM
i bet we end up with something similar to the titanium base of 7 WTC.
I wouldn't mind this at all, 7 base looks great.
I never really liked the whole prism concept.
NYC2ATX
May 13, 2011, 1:25 AM
x2.
The glass on this thing is sensational.
x3 nycluver....there you are, I've been looking for you :D
phoenixboi08
May 13, 2011, 10:38 AM
Well 1WTC is not the first, someone should have thought of that argument a long time ago...
http://www.worldgreatestsites.com/pics/jinmao-tower-world-financial-center.jpg
No complaints from me though, I've been very impressed with the cladding. It is reflective, but that also creates a very dramatic look.
haha. Although I love the building, the IFC is not as striking as 1WTC. I don't mean this in a biased way, or in attempt at picking favorites, just that, for some reason, the IFC kind of "disappears" from certain perspectives...I can't really explain what I mean, you have to see it in person. Also, the glass isn't as "airy."
NYguy
May 13, 2011, 11:14 AM
I wonder if the next technical impossibility doesn't turn out to be the spire... :uhh:
Not likely.
Kanto
May 13, 2011, 12:01 PM
I wonder if the next technical impossibility doesn't turn out to be the spire... :uhh:
They should have rather made the building's roof taller and made it without a spire. I hate spires.
NYYskyline
May 13, 2011, 1:47 PM
They should have rather made the building's roof taller and made it without a spire. I hate spires.
I almost agree. I say make the bulding taller and keep the spire. The building should be 1776 feet tall and the spire that reaches 2001 feet.
JACKinBeantown
May 13, 2011, 2:03 PM
(All future WTC pictures of mine are dedicated to ZenSteelDude!)
I'm pressing the "like" button.
sterlippo1
May 13, 2011, 2:41 PM
I almost agree. I say make the bulding taller and keep the spire. The building should be 1776 feet tall and the spire that reaches 2001 feet.
seriously, that is brilliant:tup:;) it would have been epic
uaarkson
May 13, 2011, 2:44 PM
I almost agree. I say make the bulding taller and keep the spire. The building should be 1776 feet tall and the spire that reaches 2001 feet.
I can't help but laugh every time someone suggests this. The spire topping off at 2001 ft? Do you have any idea how terrible that is, symbolically? Think, people.
dchan
May 13, 2011, 3:21 PM
I can't help but laugh every time someone suggests this. The spire topping off at 2001 ft? Do you have any idea how terrible that is, symbolically? Think, people.
That's why it should top out at 2002 feet. Because 2002 symbolizes the first year of hope renewed...I guess.
uakoops
May 13, 2011, 3:56 PM
How about topping off at 2012 and adding a foot each year....
JayPro
May 13, 2011, 4:00 PM
Or maybe we can hope they change plans to top it off, spire and all, to 2,011', representing the year we made UBL hop the twig.
Then again, the rest of the classic downtown skyline would have been made to look like a 18th century British countryside village.
Too much, that.
We should be having too much fun watching an entire forest of stone, glass and steel rising anew piecemeal from toxic rubble to focus inordinately on its largest tree, as beautiful as it's growing.
2¢
EDIT: This is not to insinuate that we should give less of our free time on this forum to watching this watershed monument to ultimate victory take shape. I was just trying to hop on the argumentative train that my fellow posters were riding in IMO a humorous vein.
NYYskyline
May 13, 2011, 4:50 PM
seriously, that is brilliant:tup:;) it would have been epic
thanks, it truly would be. It would show our freedom and dedication.
I can't help but laugh every time someone suggests this. The spire topping off at 2001 ft? Do you have any idea how terrible that is, symbolically? Think, people.
no it wouldnt. It would show we are all strong and not afraid of terrorits. The only thing better would add an obervation deck with the spire.
10023
May 13, 2011, 5:26 PM
That's why it should top out at 2002 feet. Because 2002 symbolizes the first year of hope renewed...I guess.
How about 2011 feet with Bin Laden's severed head speared to the top, preserved in formaldehyde?
Traynor
May 13, 2011, 5:29 PM
So somehow the number 2001 is disrespectful symbolically when it comes to the wished-for height of a building, but having it emblazoned all over the place around the site on plaques, memorials, T-shirts and postcards isn't?
This is random absurdity that only comes from some people who have turned their "Sensitivity Meter" up to 12 after 9/11.
Reality check:
Around the world hundreds of horrific events have been memorialized in ways that are way more maudlin, graphic and on the nose than simply having a building's height match the day its predecessor was destroyed.
This shrine in Hiroshima where 70,000 people lost their lives comes to mind:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/DSCN0282.JPG/800px-DSCN0282.JPG
(From the Wikipedia article found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima )
patriotizzy
May 13, 2011, 6:39 PM
So somehow the number 2001 is disrespectful symbolically when it comes to the wished-for height of a building, but having it emblazoned all over the place around the site on plaques, memorials, T-shirts and postcards isn't?
This is random absurdity that only comes from some people who have turned their "Sensitivity Meter" up to 12 after 9/11.
Reality check:
Around the world hundreds of horrific events have been memorialized in ways that are way more maudlin, graphic and on the nose than simply having a building's height match the day it's predecessor was destroyed.
This shrine in Hiroshima where 70,000 people lost their lives comes to mind:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/DSCN0282.JPG/800px-DSCN0282.JPG
(From the Wikipedia article found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima )
I agree with this guy.
Kanto
May 13, 2011, 6:55 PM
How about topping off at 2012 and adding a foot each year....
And maybe add a mayan calendar on the roof. Then crop circles would start to appear near NY :lmao:
No seriously now, there's nothing wrong on it being 2001 feet tall. The year the reason for this building was born. But I think 2011 feet would be better cause that's when Osama was killed :banana:
Btw, I agree that 1776 should have been the roof height. 1373 roof height is way to few nowadays.
ESB/WTC fan
May 13, 2011, 9:28 PM
Just a question,what's the things at the top of both Towers u know the red light flashing...? For planes...? Will the new One World Trade Center have advertising red lights for planes at the top..? Almost every building in New York City have them... :D
Yes, the red beacon lights on the roof of skyscrapers is so pilots can see them, in one of the night time renders of the new, current 1 WTC that's being built, it shows the spire having a red beacon light on it.
I really hope the spire has a white beacon light flashing on it during the day like the original did and 4 TS/One Bryant Park currently does, it would make the tower look much more awesome, IMO.
The Grand Architect
May 14, 2011, 1:02 AM
I almost agree. I say make the bulding taller and keep the spire. The building should be 1776 feet tall and the spire that reaches 2001 feet.
I really like this idea. The actual building should rise to 1,776 feet, which represents the birth of the nation, and the spire should rise to 2,001 feet, which represents the darkest day of our nation, 9/11/01.
HOWEVER, this is MY idea now:
After the spire reaches 2,001 feet, there should be a light beacon that should point upward into the sky. This light beacon should be visible every night, and this beacon symbolizes the strength of our nation to push forward after the deadly attacks. Most importantly, the light beacon symbolizes the American spirit, and that a terrorist attack will not bring us down.
As you can see, this tower is not only a tall one, but it also tells a story about our nation.
NYYskyline
May 14, 2011, 3:24 AM
I really like this idea. The actual building should rise to 1,776 feet, which represents the birth of the nation, and the spire should rise to 2,001 feet, which represents the darkest day of our nation, 9/11/01.
HOWEVER, this is MY idea now:
After the spire reaches 2,001 feet, there should be a light beacon that should point upward into the sky. This light beacon should be visible every night, and this beacon symbolizes the strength of our nation to push forward after the deadly attacks. Most importantly, the light beacon symbolizes the American spirit, and that a terrorist attack will not bring us down.
As you can see, this tower is not only a tall one, but it also tells a story about our nation.
that would be great.
jthornton17
May 14, 2011, 4:10 AM
that would be great.
This is a great idea, but it's obviously a little to late now. I think it would've been a great idea. maybe had they put all the mechanical floors and empty space between floors 105 to the top. Where you could obviously have the observation decks on the top. I know some would say it would be to big a risk from terrorist, but I say this building is going to have that risk anyway. So the point is moot. The biggest problem is money. This building is already costing in the billions to build. I couldn't imagine what it would cost to build it up to 1776 feet.
jthornton17
May 14, 2011, 4:21 AM
that would be great.
It would be kind of cool to see a simulation of what it would look like. That is if you go with the same shape as the current model, but at 1776 feet from the base to the roof.
It would be kind of cool to see a simulation of what it would look like. That is if you go with the same shape as the current model, but at 1776 feet from the base to the roof.
Uh, isn't that pretty similar to the never built NYSE Tower (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=151098)?
Puzzlecraft
May 14, 2011, 3:34 PM
I've been away from the forums for a while and am shocked and saddened to learn Zen is no longer with us. He will be truly missed by me. Steel Porn forever!
Roadcruiser1
May 14, 2011, 7:22 PM
First of all the Freedom Tower would not see any height increase. The current height 1,776 feet symbolizes the year America gained their independence. There will not be any 2,000+ building there. However NYC could get one in the next 20-30 years. The Twin Towers will not be rebuilt at the WTC. Construction has progressed so much that it just isn't viable to do it anymore, and there is nothing you can do. Not to count out the fact the PATH tunnels exist under the memorial. If the Twin Towers were to ever be rebuilt it would never be at the World Trade Center. Hopefully in the future there would be room in Brooklyn, or Jersey City to build a replica, but not at the WTC.
xnyr
May 14, 2011, 7:24 PM
Uh, isn't that pretty similar to the never built NYSE Tower (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=151098)?
Although this is OT for this thread; for quite while, I've wanted to point out that, except for the podium, 1WTC is clearly a rip-off of the KPF design for the NYSE Tower.
CoolCzech
May 14, 2011, 7:40 PM
Although this is OT for this thread; for quite while, I've wanted to point out that, except for the podium, 1WTC is clearly a rip-off of the KPF design for the NYSE Tower.
...and except for the spire, I suppose...
Need it be pointed out that just about every 60's and 70's tower in Manhattan is a rip-off of the Seagrams building? :rolleyes:
Zapatan
May 14, 2011, 9:09 PM
WTF happened to this thread?
599GTO
May 14, 2011, 9:14 PM
I'm so sick to death of hearing the crying for the old WTC. Building a 1970s building in 2011 sounds absolutely ridiculous. The new WTC complex is more beautiful, is of its time and I'm happy with what's getting built.
If you want the old twin towers so badly, become a developer, raise large sums of money, find a construction site somewhere and build them yourself because THEY WILL NOT BE REBUILT ON THIS SITE. PERIOD. How many times can this be reiterated? No amount of wishing will change the fact that the twin towers are gone and never, ever coming back to the WTC site.
Get over it and please move on with your life!
The Grand Architect
May 14, 2011, 9:19 PM
http://oi52.tinypic.com/mip8yc.jpg
Kanto
May 14, 2011, 9:30 PM
I don't think there is anything wrong on speaking about the old WTC in this topic. After all, it's the Freedom Tower's ancestor.
Btw, do any of you folks have a map of the PATH tunnels under the WTC site? I want to know if really nothing can be built there.
NYC-Graffhead91
May 14, 2011, 9:35 PM
Photo taken on May 14, 2011:
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee200/Izakokomarixyz/skyscrapers/new1wtcpicnikwidecopyright.jpg
JSsocal
May 14, 2011, 11:58 PM
I don't think there is anything wrong on speaking about the old WTC in this topic. After all, it's the Freedom Tower's ancestor.
Btw, do any of you folks have a map of the PATH tunnels under the WTC site? I want to know if really nothing can be built there.
1WTC is built over the path tunnels, that really isn't an issue. The old 2 WTC had a tunnel that went through it as well.
Starship Catvern
May 15, 2011, 1:26 AM
Taken last tuesday on my visit to NYC. This behemoth already dominates the downtown skyline.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/5720183001_c8c1d02faf_b.jpg
mrnyc
May 15, 2011, 1:52 AM
holy smokes what a great nightshot - you can really see the enormity of the wtc and what is to come re its effect on the skyline. good work -
photoLith
May 15, 2011, 2:06 AM
^
Newbs, seriously, get that crap off of here, keep the forum on track and not about conspiracy theories about why the towers collapsed.
photoLith
May 15, 2011, 2:07 AM
Ugh, I cant wait to see this thing completed.
jthornton17
May 15, 2011, 2:09 AM
I'd like to say the following piece in what I hope is taken in a constructive manner and without fear of reprisal.
I don't know how much longer I'll be able to keep my frustration bottled up. It would seem that whenever I come to any WTC II-related thread seeking any substantive news of progress, my hopes are frequently squelched with one co-optation after another of the pending topic.
Almost all of these musings reveal themselves as "Rebuild the Original Towers" soliloquies, each displaying varying levels of IMO sophomoric reasoning skills.
I don't want anyone here to confuse my admitted heartache over the infrastructural loss of 9-11 for what I perceive as an unrealistic sense of nostalgia that IMHO ignores the many factors that simply cannot allow a return to where we were, what we were doing and how we were thinking on 9-10.
I suppose I can somehow empathize with posters who will keep lobbying for a return of the Twins; and I do not wish to stop them. It's just that I grow weary of seeing threads ostensibly dedicated to the WTC's resurrection derailed to mourn a loss that cannot be realistically brought back. Let them start their own threads. Most of us, I would think, want to read about progress...and the healing and closure that will inevitably arise from it.
Another 2¢
Yeah, I wonder how much of it's American Pride. It's more, lets show the terrorist than the concept of the building. I understand how a lot of people, including Trump wanted the towers rebuilt, with a newer and some cases a larger 21st century style. I really feel like it kind of takes away from the memorial to have them rebuilt. They're something sacred and special. It's like losing a loved one. We all want them back, but if you make a clone of them..........it's just not the same. I think if we did nothing with the site, the terrorist do win. But I think it's being done the right way. I love how the new WTC is bigger, has the 1776 foot mark on it, and lets face it........most Americans will probably consider it the Freedom Tower. I think when the building and memorial open, it's going to become much bigger than anyone could ever consider it being. That you will see Americans who would've never come to NYC, come to visit the site.
NYYskyline
May 15, 2011, 2:30 AM
Taken last tuesday on my visit to NYC. This behemoth already dominates the downtown skyline.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2070/5720183001_c8c1d02faf_b.jpg
I know its off subject but the Beekman looks great at night.
JACKinBeantown
May 15, 2011, 2:59 AM
As many have said, there's nothing wrong with going a little off topic... even if you go so far as to call this building by the wrong name (ahem... Freedom Tower... cough).
jthornton17
May 15, 2011, 3:18 AM
As many have said, there's nothing wrong with going a little off topic... even if you go so far as to call this building by the wrong name (ahem... Freedom Tower... cough).
Sadly, I don't think that name will ever go away. People here in Tennessee and people on national news programs, still call it the Freedom Tower. I can understand it with the events of 9/11 and the death of Bin Laden. I can understand that a lot more than the madness of wanting to rebuild the original towers. Even the height of the new 1wtc being 1776 feet. It's going to be hard to get away from that name.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.