NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS [Archive] - Page 2

CoolCzech

Jan 24, 2007, 11:23 PM

But wasn't New York in the 20's all about ego and symbolisim? Today, New York has many competing skylines, and in some surveys, it has lost it's title to at least Hong Kong and still losing ground in world wide development. One factor is that there are so many obstacles to building tall in New York, that it is easier for a developer to bow down and chop off height to get the projects built. To be impressed by America's tallest Skyscrapers being built, I need to look to Chicago for inspiration. Seems like developing the tallest is a been there done that thing now for New York.

Hong Kong is rated by some that way because of all its semi-highrise tenements. There's no way that there can ever be that many office or truly high-rise residentials in any city.

And there's no way New Yorkers would or should want to live as crowded as Hong Kong residents do. As for Dubai: it's a Las Vegas run out of control, an example of what New York might look like without a planning commission.

As for NYC development... have you been paying any attention to what is going on in mid-town these days? NYC is on the verge of an incredible explosion of tall and supertall construction. Whole boulevards are about to be added.:banana:

Stratosphere 2020

Jan 25, 2007, 12:21 AM

The difference between Dubai's projects, and the WTC (Freedom Tower) is that in New York, the towers are meant to replace what was already there, or restore the skyline. Its not about egos in New York, though they could have gone higher. Freedom Tower's height of 1,776 ft was born not out of the need to be tallest, but on marking a specific year.

But its not as if New York needs to make any global announcements to the world.

I disagree, at some point in the past Chicago and New York built tall towers all about ego as well, showing their capitalism might to the World. Dubai will eventually mature itself and it will be market concious eventually. Dubai is a young city unlike Chicago and New York that are more established mature.

CoolCzech

Jan 25, 2007, 12:54 AM

NYguy

Jan 25, 2007, 1:50 PM

I disagree, at some point in the past Chicago and New York built tall towers all about ego as well, showing their capitalism might to the World. Dubai will eventually mature itself and it will be market concious eventually. Dubai is a young city unlike Chicago and New York that are more established mature.

Exactly, but that was in the past. New York is about so much more now. You don't see comments like "this tower will put New York on the map", the City is so far gone from that state that a new world's tallest really won't mean much.

But when Chicago and New York built their towers, it was mostly out of need, not ego. There was limited space, and the population was tight. The skyscraper actually helped these cities grow. Does Dubai need all of the highrises it's building now? Of course not. It's not just the skyscrapers, but pretty much all of the projects in Dubai are of the "hey, look at me world" variety. New York, with all of its great projects, was never about that. It takes more than tall buildings to make a great city. And New York, which hasn't had a world's tallest in over 3 decades has proved that consistantly.

NYguy

Jan 25, 2007, 1:53 PM

Seems like developing the tallest is a been there done that thing now for New York.

That's exactly what it is. The City's image of itself is about so much more now. Just look how long it's taken the rest of the world to catch up.

NYguy

Jan 25, 2007, 1:58 PM

NY Times

What a View to Behold, and It’s Really Something

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/25/nyregion/600_blocks.jpg

In a view facing north at the construction site, steel columns of the Freedom Tower’s south perimeter are visible, having risen almost to street level.

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
January 25, 2007

YOU can see the progress of construction at the Freedom Tower.

To put it more emphatically, you can see the progress of construction at the Freedom Tower. Today.

Stand on Vesey Street, between Greenwich and Washington Streets. Look through the chain-link fences and over the Jersey barriers. The tops of six columns of the tower’s south perimeter are now visible, sprouting from the depths of ground zero. A seventh column, standing alone nearby, is where the Freedom Tower’s east plaza will be.

You no longer need a pass. Or an invitation. Or a hard hat. Instead, that venerable tradition of sidewalk superintendence, in which passers-by get to gawk and kibitz as buildings rise, can now begin in earnest at the World Trade Center site.

For the last five years, except for the temporary PATH terminal, construction at the site occurred entirely out of pedestrians’ view, 70 feet below street level. On the sidewalk, you could hear the activity and sometimes feel it. Crane booms could be spotted. But you had to take the word of government officials or reporters that anything was actually being built down there.

Now you can see for yourself.

“I think people will be surprised,” said David M. Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the architects of the tower. “Steel goes so quickly. It’s all fabricated off-site, so you never see that work. By the time you get it to the site, it goes up like an Erector Set.”

Anthony E. Shorris, whom Gov. Eliot Spitzer has named to be executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the trade center project is “moving from the theoretical and conceptual into the real, tangible and visible.”

“The momentum is powerful in terms of construction, in terms of the marketplace, in terms of perception,” he said. “Those are all momentums we would slow at our peril.”

But wasn’t it Mr. Shorris who cast a small cloud of doubt last month when he said the new Spitzer administration would take a “fresh look” at the Freedom Tower?

“There are lots of aspects to the Freedom Tower beyond the physical, a lot of questions one can pose that don’t have anything to do with columns,” he said this week. By that, he meant who will occupy the building and how it will be financed, now that the Port Authority has taken over the project from Larry A. Silverstein, the original developer.

For his part, Mr. Silverstein said, “It’s comforting to look out of my office here at 7 World Trade Center and know that we are getting closer to the day when the entire World Trade Center site will be fully built.”

MEANWHILE, for sidewalk superintendents without his privileged vantage, here is a brief guide:

Looking south from Vesey Street, you can see the tops of seven columns. They are visible from the sidewalk now because a second tier of steel has been added to each column, bringing them up to about 8 feet below street level, or 62 feet from the concrete slab at the base of the building’s foundation. Installation of the first tier began Dec. 19 with the ceremonial setting of a column, technically designated G7.3, bearing American flags and the words “Freedom Tower.”

The cluster of six columns delineates all but the western and eastern edges of the tower’s southern perimeter. The slender column near the middle of the cluster does not have to bear as much load as its brawnier companions because the entryway to the Freedom Tower will be directly above. That means this particular column line will extend only as far as the ground floor.

“It looks like a dwarf in a forest of sequoias,” Mr. Childs said.

The next spectacle for passers-by will be the erection by the end of February of two tower cranes. More perimeter columns will emerge and, gradually, the building’s massive concrete core will rise to street level.

That should satisfy one concern that was on the minds of Michael and Nancy Shoup of Brenham, Tex., and Bill and Hilda Atkinson of Bryan, Tex., as they looked over the site from Vesey Street this week.

“If those columns are all that’s going to hold up a 1,776-foot tower, I’m not going up in it,” Mr. Shoup said, with a smile that suggested he knew there was more to come

NYC2ATX

Jan 25, 2007, 5:05 PM

The next spectacle for passers-by will be the erection by the end of February of two tower cranes. More perimeter columns will emerge and, gradually, the building’s massive concrete core will rise to street level.

OMG February?! I'm counting down the days. :banana: :banana: :banana:

CarlosV

Jan 25, 2007, 11:45 PM

thanks for your contineuos great posts MR NYguy :) you're a beautiful stranger!!!

Daquan13

Jan 26, 2007, 12:17 AM

OMG February?! I'm counting down the days. :banana: :banana: :banana:

I'd PAY to see that one!!:banana: :worship:

CoolCzech

Jan 26, 2007, 2:19 AM

I'd PAY to see that one!!:banana: :worship:

You CAN... it's called airplane tickets... ;)

Daquan13

Jan 26, 2007, 2:01 PM

But I was planning on walking there, wise guy. Haha!!

Actually, I wouldn't go to Ground Zero if I DIDN'T fly to New York. But now, it's just too friggen cold to even THINK about going there.

Ghost

Jan 26, 2007, 8:37 PM

Man u don't know about cold ;) Yesterday morning we had -20 degrees celsius here and next week it's going to be maybe over -30...

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to see those cranes... Maybe I should visit NY again in 2008 or something...

2-TOWERS

Jan 27, 2007, 4:07 AM

hey guys 85 degrees in BEAUTIFUL PALM DESERT,CA, ANYWAY CHANGING THE TOPIC ,NYC WILL GET TALL TOWERS ON THE WESTSIDE,THAT IS GREAT.:)

Daquan13

Jan 27, 2007, 5:19 PM

Showoff, haha!!

Maybe in the spring when the weather is much more warmer and accommodating, I'll go there and take some pics.

Lee J Buividas

Jan 28, 2007, 1:28 AM

Things have changed around here, but I can't find the memorial thead.
Sorry for the unrelated post.

CoolCzech

Jan 28, 2007, 1:58 AM

The Freedom Tower Exists for Anyone Who Truly Believes in It
The first part of those columns being installed in December.
Photo: Getty Images

How starved is the city for any tangible progress at ground zero? Well, consider this bit from today's Times:
Stand on Vesey Street, between Greenwich and Washington Streets. Look through the chain-link fences and over the Jersey barriers. The tops of six columns of the tower’s south perimeter are now visible, sprouting from the depths of ground zero. A seventh column, standing alone nearby, is where the Freedom Tower’s east plaza will be …
They are visible from the sidewalk now because a second tier of steel has been added to each column, bringing them up to about 8 feet below street level.

That's right, reporter David Dunlap gives you step-by-step instructions on where to stand, which way to face, and how hard to squint to see the thicket of steel that will eventually become the foundation for the Freedom Tower. Imagine the corks that will pop when the construction actually reaches sidewalk level.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/01/the_freedom_tower_exists_for_a.html

CoolCzech

Jan 28, 2007, 2:03 AM

Too many memories?
Guardian Unlimited, UK - Jan 26, 2007
The Freedom Tower will not look much like his notion of it, and its name will surely be ditched quietly after Bush leaves office; but there will be a ...

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/architecture/story/0,,1998965,00.html

********************

What a condenscending, ignorant turd... doesn't even know George Pataki is the one who named it, and that he has left office and that the name of the tower is still Freedom Tower.

Daquan13

Jan 28, 2007, 6:18 AM

He's another one of the many Freedom Tower haters who just wants to spew his crap.

Lecom

Jan 28, 2007, 8:32 AM

Things have changed around here, but I can't find the memorial thead.
Sorry for the unrelated post.
Lee, where have you been all these years?

Lee J Buividas

Jan 28, 2007, 3:24 PM

kznyc2k

Jan 28, 2007, 8:55 PM

What a condenscending, ignorant turd... doesn't even know George Pataki is the one who named it, and that he has left office and that the name of the tower is still Freedom Tower.

Uh, everything he said was correct. The way you interpreted it is what's wrong. I can see how it might sound like he implies Libeskind was the one who named the FT, but he didn't come out and say it, so technically he's not off. And perhaps he's making a point that the FT will be renamed when Bush (not Pataki) leaves office..? yes it's a far stretch, but he's not wrong in saying it. I do agree he's condescending, but really what art critic isn't?

kznyc2k

Jan 28, 2007, 9:00 PM

He's another one of the many Freedom Tower haters who just wants to spew his crap.

Did you even read the article or at least the paragraph the sentence came from before spewing your predictable crap? He doesn't "hate" the FT one bit. He said that Libeskind's FT won't end up much like he imagined it to be. That's it! No hatred there!

Come on Daquan.. that response was LAME.

CoolCzech

Jan 28, 2007, 9:37 PM

Uh, everything he said was correct. The way you interpreted it is what's wrong. I can see how it might sound like he implies Libeskind was the one who named the FT, but he didn't come out and say it, so technically he's not off. And perhaps he's making a point that the FT will be renamed when Bush (not Pataki) leaves office..? yes it's a far stretch, but he's not wrong in saying it. I do agree he's condescending, but really what art critic isn't?

Uh, everything he said was correct except that the things he said that are dead wrong. Bush didn't name the tower, Pataki did, and (while I don't know what your personal definition of "wrong" is), there is certainly nothing "correct" about saying that the most famous tower in the world will suddenly be referred to as the anonymous-sounding "1 World Trade Center" just because Bush leaves office in 2 years.

Frankly - I don't see what your point is. You concede that he's wrong about a Bush connection with the name of the tower. You concede he was condencending. So what are you arguing over, anyway?

ScottG

Jan 29, 2007, 2:49 AM

I'm glad there was gridlock. What if everyone had barged ahead with that original twisted Libeskind nightmare scenario? Time was needed for proper perspective. This is going to be a center of finance and commerce long after people have forgotten about 9/11. No offense meant here, but I still think the memorial is too elaborate and costly. Keep in mind that in 20 years almost no one who hadn't lost someone in the attacks will care about it in the least. It will just be two large fountains to them.

9/11 was the worse attack in recent history. it not only changed america but the entire world! There is not one country that wasnt affected by it. ever procedure, every urban planning, etc has changed because of 9/11. of course it will be remembered for 20...50 years! the fountains are not only a memorial, but serves as a statement that america was not beat. the WTC design cannot just be about image, but it is in the worlds eye. everyone is watching to see how america can overcome a blow to the face. The design shows that we remember, and we fight on. The families or people that were impacted might not visit everyday or have much of an interest after many years. but for people who do not know about 9/11 will be impacted. Just like any memorial site- the haulocaust, pearl harbor, battle grounds, etc. it is for people to learn what happened, how it happened, how it ended.

Ground zero is even more of a focus because it is in the heart of america's busiest city.

Lecom

Jan 29, 2007, 3:36 AM

Lecom maybe I should try to say it differently :) the forum catagories have changed lately and I thought there was a separate thread for the actual wtc memorial not the buildings. I was just curious about the actual memorial and where that thread might be if there is one.

Lee
Lee, I did not intend to say it in a negative way (e.g. "you noob, aint seen the forum layout or something?") but I just haven't seen you around much lately at all. I still remember when you posted years ago, and usually had something insightful to add to the conversation (something more forumers need to learn).

Nowhereman1280

Jan 29, 2007, 3:40 AM

Uh, everything he said was correct. The way you interpreted it is what's wrong. I can see how it might sound like he implies Libeskind was the one who named the FT, but he didn't come out and say it, so technically he's not off. And perhaps he's making a point that the FT will be renamed when Bush (not Pataki) leaves office..? yes it's a far stretch, but he's not wrong in saying it. I do agree he's condescending, but really what art critic isn't?

Well there is this one thing that makes him wrong, the fact that the name of Freedom Tower and George Bush's presidency are completely and utterly Logically unrelated. Other than that little hang up, there is a slight chance in hell that this building will not be called Freedom Tower. Think of of the paperwork and shit that would have to be changed just to consider renamming it... Its not going to happen and I have to agree, the guy who wrote that article did come off sounding as a bit of a moron...

Lee J Buividas

Jan 29, 2007, 3:57 AM

Lee, I did not intend to say it in a negative way (e.g. "you noob, aint seen the forum layout or something?") but I just haven't seen you around much lately at all. I still remember when you posted years ago, and usually had something insightful to add to the conversation (something more forumers need to learn).

Thanks Lecom :) I don't have much to say these days, now that the major design work has been completed. As a designer myself I am just sitting back and enjoying the show. :) I do enjoy your comments especially so, because of your special insight having worked on this project. You are right a lot of these people really have nothing impotant to say or even interesting. They must not have much going on in their lives. ha ha ha

donybrx

Jan 29, 2007, 2:03 PM

Well there is this one thing that makes him wrong, the fact that the name of Freedom Tower and George Bush's presidency are completely and utterly Logically unrelated. Other than that little hang up, there is a slight chance in hell that this building will not be called Freedom Tower. Think of of the paperwork and shit that would have to be changed just to consider renamming it... Its not going to happen and I have to agree, the guy who wrote that article did come off sounding as a bit of a moron...

Yes...I recall in my own lifetime how tough it was to change the the "RCA" building in Rockefeller Center to "GE" after many decades; or the "PAN AM" building to "MetLIFE", among dozens of others...Cripes!..... We're talking about name changes against nearly insurmountable difficulties......:lmao:...and there were big signs involved...Gosh!

kznyc2k

Jan 29, 2007, 2:39 PM

^ good point, donybrx.

...Bush didn't name the tower, Pataki did.....there is certainly nothing "correct" about saying that the most famous tower in the world will suddenly be referred to as the anonymous-sounding "1 World Trade Center" just because Bush leaves office in 2 years.

Frankly - I don't see what your point is...

I'm arguing in the writer's defense that it doesn't matter who named it, which is a point you seem to be stuck on. All he says is: "its name will surely be ditched quietly after Bush leaves office" - that sentence is not dependent upon who named it to be factually true, and he's not wrong in stating his opinion, no matter how unlikely to happen that might be. Also, I never conceded he was wrong. In fact I said the exact opposite: "but he's not wrong in saying it."

donybrx

Jan 29, 2007, 3:41 PM

The Freedom Tower, as a structure, in and of itself aside,....I submit, as I have before, that never in my born days have I seen such concentrated use of a site (and tragedy) by and for political purposes including the name 'Freedom Tower' and the 1776 thing, in particular by Pataki in conjunction with both the promotion by the RNC in staging the 2004 convention for election brownie points and earlier, in stirring the national emotions to lay the case for the Iraqi invasion 'come hell or highwater, right or wrong'.

I have been witness to what patriotism 'looks like' for longer than I care to let on. This particular dog and pony show didn't make the cut.

The building is not bad. It's probablythe best outcome for the circumstances under which it evolved, including the poorly handled design competition at the start. The circumstances around it were fairly disgraceful IMO; NY deserved better, the victims/survivors deserved better and so does the nation.

Dignity was scrapped in favor of opportunism, when it should have been central to the whole matter.

Harrrrumph.....

NYonward

Jan 29, 2007, 6:48 PM

The politics of the site are undeniable and, unfortunately, written. Just like we can't go back and un-elect Bush, we can't take the silly name Freedom Tower away. It's not worth the effort to change it. If it ever changes it will be because of something completely unrelated to this argument.

Scruffy

Jan 29, 2007, 8:14 PM

Yes...I recall in my own lifetime how tough it was to change the the "RCA" building in Rockefeller Center to "GE" after many decades; or the "PAN AM" building to "MetLIFE", among dozens of others...Cripes!..... We're talking about name changes against nearly insurmountable difficulties......:lmao:...and there were big signs involved...Gosh!

thats funny. 5 years after the name change i was still calling it pan am building. finally i just had to let it go and now finally metlife comes natural. But i still call citigroup center, the citicorp. dont even think about it, it just comes out. Its interesting how a name can stick in your head. im sure that they will quietly stop calling it the freedom tower once its built and gets the moniker 1 wtc or such but in the public eye, they are going to keep calling it the freedom tower. in 2000 i can guarantee you that at least 25 percent of new yorkers did not know what the world trade center was. im serious. they knew the towers by sight but didn't know the name. not everyone cares about towers. empire has the history, the fame to common knowledge but prior to 9-11 the names of the twin towers were irrelevant. but now its been so stamped into our minds that they are building this "freedom tower" that i dont think that name will ever leave our collective consciousness.

Dac150

Jan 29, 2007, 8:27 PM

^^^^^^^^Well I disagree with that. The Twin Towers/WTC were always known by name prior to 9/11. Thats just like saying people in Chicago don't know the name of the Sears Tower. It's just plain stupidity. When you have two 110 story towers in your city, its pretty damn hard not to know what they are named.

MattSal

Jan 29, 2007, 10:04 PM

Whats wrong with the name freedom tower?

pico44

Jan 29, 2007, 10:33 PM

Whats wrong with the name freedom tower?

Sounds like cheesy propaganda, if not a bit jingoistic.

Its gonna be an amazing project on it's own. We don't catchy titles and flags pasted on every surface to remember what happened there and what country we live in.

Dac150

Jan 29, 2007, 10:34 PM

Personally I think the tower should be called 1 WTC. The name Freedom Tower does not signify American freedoms. I am sure that the name will fade away as time goes by.

Daquan13

Jan 29, 2007, 11:54 PM

The Freedom Tower IS also identified as 1 WTC or Tower 1.

It's the first building by number, even though 7 WTC was rebuilt first. The numbers go just like they did for the former WTC.

kznyc2k

Jan 30, 2007, 12:14 AM

Sounds like cheesy propaganda, if not a bit jingoistic.

It is more than a bit jingoistic, but of course people have raised the valid point that the Statue of Liberty is a pretty darned jingoistic name too. I really don't like the name Freedom Tower, but it's not going away, and give it some time and nobody will think twice about it.

I'd much prefer One World Trade Center.. it's sounds so much more dignified and corporate (despite the baggage attached to the words World Trade Center), which is the image the gov't should be going for to make the building as attractive to private tenants as possible, and not just end up being a public subsidy in the name of symbolism and "American resilience."

Alas, Freedom Tower is here to stay.

CoolCzech

Jan 30, 2007, 1:38 AM

Yes...I recall in my own lifetime how tough it was to change the the "RCA" building in Rockefeller Center to "GE" after many decades; or the "PAN AM" building to "MetLIFE", among dozens of others...Cripes!..... We're talking about name changes against nearly insurmountable difficulties......:lmao:...and there were big signs involved...Gosh!

Sorry, but I'm afraid GE could buy the ESB tomorrow, and everyone the world over would STILL call it the Empire State Building, no matter how hard the company tried to change it. Really, just because you don't like the name doesn't mean you should pretend the unavoidable fact of life is that the FT will be the FT as long as it stands. You can call it 1 WTC if you like - that is the address - but the name "FT" will stick.

BTW, Bush had nothing to do with the naming of the tower, and Bush's eventual departure from office will have nothing to do with a hypothetical renaming of the tower. Total non-sequiter, and that IS what that Brit critic what wrong and ignorant about.

CoolCzech

Jan 30, 2007, 1:41 AM

I'd much prefer One World Trade Center.. it's sounds so much more dignified and corporate (despite the baggage attached to the words World Trade Center), which is the image the gov't should be going for to make the building as attractive to private tenants as possible, and not just end up being a public subsidy in the name of symbolism and "American resilience."

Alas, Freedom Tower is here to stay.

Even the Twins weren't known popularly as "1 WTC" and "2 WTC." They were known as the Twin Towers. The Empire State Building is named in celebration of the Empire State, New York, so named for its vast resources and wealth. When was the last time anyone objected to how "jingoisic" that name is? I don't see the difference between the two names at all, except that I think freedom is probably more worthy of celebration than mere wealth.

kznyc2k

Jan 30, 2007, 5:28 AM

Maybe not One and Two WTC, but they were known as the World Trade Center just as much as the Twin Towers.

The Empire State Building is named in celebration of the Empire State, New York, so named for its vast resources and wealth. When was the last time anyone objected to how "jingoisic" that name is?

Did I not make the same basic point when I brought up the Statue of Liberty?

And perhaps Freedom Tower is a more noble name than Empire State Building, but I still think it's stupid and jingoistic.

Dalton

Jan 30, 2007, 6:45 AM

Maybe not One and Two WTC, but they were known as the World Trade Center just as much as the Twin Towers.

Did I not make the same basic point when I brought up the Statue of Liberty?

And perhaps Freedom Tower is a more noble name than Empire State Building, but I still think it's stupid and jingoistic.

What a load of crap. The "Freedom Tower" is a replacement for towers destroyed in a murderous terrorist attack by people whose philosophy it is to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them and to dress women in sacks. WTF do you want to call it, the "We Deeply Apologize If Our Continual Existence Angers You Tower"?

"Freedom". Yeah, what an ugly concept...

kznyc2k

Jan 30, 2007, 6:57 AM

OK you're letting your emotions fly here. Did I ever say "freedom" is an ugly concept? Not a fat chance in hell. Did I already suggest a name in place of Freedom Tower? yes. Did I ever mention anything about conceeding anything to the terrorists? NO. Do I still think the name Freedom Tower is stupid and jingoistic? Yes. Am I entitled to my own opinion? Well, yeah, this is America. Sheesh.

Daquan13

Jan 30, 2007, 12:26 PM

Does this also mean that you won't be waiting in line ahead of me to buy your ticket to visit the obs deck when the tower opens for business? Haha!!:previous:

neverdone

Jan 30, 2007, 1:24 PM

where did the shape of this building come from?

kznyc2k

Jan 30, 2007, 2:41 PM

Does this also mean that you won't be waiting in line ahead of me to buy your ticket to visit the obs deck when the tower opens for business? Haha!!:previous:

Heh, no, I'll probably wait a few months hoping that the lines will have died down a bit. I'm usually not the first in line to do anything.. for instance, I have yet to visit the Top of the Rock.

Daquan13

Jan 30, 2007, 2:57 PM

I still have yet to visit the Empire State Building and the Rockafellar Center - and they BOTH have obs decks!

Yeah, that's a good thought. No need of trying to go there the first day of business and wonder if you might have to wait all day to get up there! Besides, the obs deck & restaurant might not be open right away.

They might do what they did with the Twins - open part of the building while the upper floors are still being worked on. This was the case with the North Twin Tower back in the very early '70s.

-GR2NY-

Jan 30, 2007, 3:00 PM

Do current polls still show that the majority of NYC residents hate the design?

They're the ones that are living with it, why not create something people actually like. I'll likely be living there soon as well and the building drives me nuts. Since theres only one it needs to be taller IMO but thats a whole 'nother topic.

**EDIT** Daquan get up in the ESB at night, when those elevator doors open and millions of lights shimmer across hundreds of square miles you'll have a whole nother perception of the city.

CoolCzech

Jan 30, 2007, 5:12 PM

I still have yet to visit the Empire State Building and the Rockafellar Center - and they BOTH have obs decks!

I've been to both, and I think that the view from The Rock is the better one - if only because you get to see the ESB, instead of looking from it.

Once the FT and the rest of the NWTC are complete, AND with the BOFA standing proud right there... AND the new Vornado towers around where the MSG currently is, AND the new supertall coming to 32nd steet added to the skyline...

What an awesome sight that will be! :eeekk:

pico44

Jan 30, 2007, 6:22 PM

I've been to both, and I think that the view from The Rock is the better one - if only because you get to see the ESB, instead of looking from it.

I agree completely. I went right after it opened with a friend from out of town and we walked directly from the ticket counter to the elevator and were two of six people on all the observation decks. It was amazing.

Now they are seeing some results from their extensive advertising campaign and I here it's much busier.

NYonward

Jan 30, 2007, 7:02 PM

What a load of crap. The "Freedom Tower" is a replacement for towers destroyed in a murderous terrorist attack by people whose philosophy it is to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them and to dress women in sacks. WTF do you want to call it, the "We Deeply Apologize If Our Continual Existence Angers You Tower"?

"Freedom". Yeah, what an ugly concept...

Your sarcasm is not a good argument. "Freedom Tower" came from Pataki (a Republican) who tagged along with the white-house's disingenuous hyperbole. It's not ugly, it's silly, but a sign of the time it was named.

CoolCzech

Jan 30, 2007, 9:03 PM

I agree completely. I went right after it opened with a friend from out of town and we walked directly from the ticket counter to the elevator and were two of six people on all the observation decks. It was amazing.

Now they are seeing some results from their extensive advertising campaign and I here it's much busier.

I was there early last week - plenty of tourists up there. First time I went, it was just Americans. I guess the tour operators are starting to catch on...

The best thing about visiting the "Top of the Rock" is, you don't stand there for an hour or two just to get to the top... you just go right on to the top without hardly any wait at all.

pico44

Jan 30, 2007, 10:43 PM

The best thing about visiting the "Top of the Rock" is, you don't stand there for an hour or two just to get to the top... you just go right on to the top without hardly any wait at all.

Correction: second best thing...

http://www.pbase.com/rfcd100/image/73292305/original.jpg

posted by newyorker2005 on SSC
http://www.pbase.com/rfcd100/image/73292305/original.jpg

Freedom Tower is only going to make this view better.

|zY|

Jan 30, 2007, 11:02 PM

^^new background, and first post too. Thanks.

Daquan13

Jan 30, 2007, 11:21 PM

Correction: second best thing...

http://www.pbase.com/rfcd100/image/73292305/original.jpg

posted by newyorker2005 on SSC
http://www.pbase.com/rfcd100/image/73292305/original.jpg

Freedom Tower is only going to make this view better.

Looks like the ESB is going to block the view of the Freedom Tower from this vantage point.

Hell, I can't even see 7 WTC from here!! Guess one has to go to the ESB's obs deck to get a good bird's-eye-view of the Freedom Tower, hey?

kznyc2k

Jan 31, 2007, 12:17 AM

No, 7 WTC is the tower partially cut off at the far right, and the Deutche Bank building the stubby black box to the left of it.

^^new background

Ditto. Damn, and I just changed my background a day ago to an awesome Comcast Center pic.

nygirl1

Jan 31, 2007, 1:14 AM

yep that's 1 Liberty not seven World Trade. From the very vantage point the photographer is standing at you will see the entire complex of the World Trade. 1 World Trade Center in this picture would only be slightly cut off at the very right end of this picture. A pano from here in a few+ years including Jc+ Brooklyn and all their projects will be something.

CitySkyline

Jan 31, 2007, 5:30 AM

...
I'll likely be living there soon as well and the building drives me nuts.

How can a building that doesn't exist yet drive you nuts? Why not wait till it's actually built and you can check it out in real life and admire it's HUGE size (as opposed to a small computer rendering).

I have a suspicion that many people who dislike the FT based on the small renderings will have a change of heart once it's actually built and it towers over them, all 1776 ft. of it. I mean, people who never got to see the original Twin Towers must have no idea what it really was like to see them in real life (not implying this refers to you, GR2NY). Seeing a small picture just isn't the same. Same will be true of the FT. An actual building will be a lot more impressive than just a drawing.

(And, this isn't even taking into account all of the other buildings going up around the FT, all of which will be pretty tall and impressive in their own right.)

Daquan13

Jan 31, 2007, 12:00 PM

I was one of the ones who never got the chance to see the Twins up close or even go inside either of them. I always saw them from a distance in a car or bus.

I'm planning to visit the Freedom Tower and it's obs deck when it opens. To see what I missed when the Twins stood there. The restaurant also, if it opens to the general public.

When WOTW was in the North Tower, it was open only to the priveliged few who could afford it, mainly the employees of the WTC! I hope that won't be the case this time around.

And I'll visit the mall as well.

NYguy

Jan 31, 2007, 1:29 PM

From the very vantage point the photographer is standing at you will see the entire complex of the World Trade. 1 World Trade Center in this picture would only be slightly cut off at the very right end of this picture.

It was always a classic shot of the ESB with the Twins in the background. It will go something like this:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70328401/medium.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/70329275/medium.jpg

Daquan13

Jan 31, 2007, 1:36 PM

And even if the Freedom Tower DIDN'T have the spire, it would STILL be taller than the ESB because it's the just about the same height as the old Twins.

NYguy

Jan 31, 2007, 1:38 PM

I'm planning to visit the Freedom Tower and it's obs deck when it opens. To see what I missed when the Twins stood there.

Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7_EQfCNots

Daquan13

Jan 31, 2007, 2:18 PM

Great find!!

The first video was of Maculay Culkin when he visited the WTC in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

I also watched the helicopter ride over the city.

And those horrible videos of the attack on the WTC. There once was a documentory aired on Flight 11, up to and including a Mohamad Atta look-alike in the "cockpit".

2-TOWERS

Jan 31, 2007, 2:42 PM

one thing , no other obs. deck will ever top W.T.C. , even BD will have a joke of a deck 3/4 from the top,,I just hope this new F/T will have the same outdoor deck as W.T.C. DID:skyscraper:

Daquan13

Jan 31, 2007, 11:38 PM

As we are seeing the tower's construction progress move right along, to this day, we still have yet to find out the real truth on that one.

I hope there will be one also, but as far as that goes, the chances of it ever happening look slim and none.:skyscraper:

Ghost

Feb 1, 2007, 6:54 PM

Seems like the core is taking it's shape!
Webcam today:
http://www.renewnyc.com/WebCamImages/pic07020113595900.jpg

ZZ-II

Feb 1, 2007, 7:59 PM

seen it a few minutes ago, yeh the core is coming :)

DUBAI2015

Feb 2, 2007, 12:32 AM

Seems like the core is taking it's shape!
Webcam today:
http://www.renewnyc.com/WebCamImages/pic07020113595900.jpg

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
YES!!!!!!!

TAFisher123

Feb 2, 2007, 3:12 PM

And the skinny stick in the middle is getting taller......for some reason.....the FT looks to be 10-20 feet tall now:yes:

http://renewnyc.org/WebCamImages/pic07020210595900.jpg

slurrey

Feb 2, 2007, 3:28 PM

Kinda looks like a middle finger :)

RockMont

Feb 2, 2007, 3:31 PM

One of the first ideas after 9/11 was to rebuild the World Trade Center with the tallest building in the middle, as a hint to any anti-American enemy in the middle east and elsewhere.

Ghost

Feb 2, 2007, 5:36 PM

And the skinny stick in the middle is getting taller......for some reason.....the FT looks to be 10-20 feet tall now:yes:

http://renewnyc.org/WebCamImages/pic07020210595900.jpg

No, I think that's only the crane background :) But yeah, it's like middlefinger, too bad it has 6 fingers :haha:

Daquan13

Feb 2, 2007, 10:01 PM

That could mean that the steel is now above street level.

Dac150

Feb 3, 2007, 6:44 PM

I have a good feeling this thing is gonna start moving at a brisk pace.

DUBAI2015

Feb 3, 2007, 7:13 PM

And the skinny stick in the middle is getting taller......for some reason.....the FT looks to be 10-20 feet tall now:yes:

http://renewnyc.org/WebCamImages/pic07020210595900.jpg

Sadly, no. :( It was just the smaller crane.
http://renewnyc.com/WebCamImages/pic07020313595900.jpg

ZZ-II

Feb 3, 2007, 7:59 PM

core is taking shape :)

Daquan13

Feb 3, 2007, 9:21 PM

Well, at least the towering cranes that will soar into the sky with the tower, will be brought in and set up later this month.

That is another sure sign that the tower is being built and should put an end to the whining and crying from others for the former towers to be built!

NYguy

Feb 5, 2007, 12:34 PM

NY Post

PRICE OF FREEDOM HITS TOWERING $3B

By TOM TOPOUSIS
February 5, 2007

The cost of the Freedom Tower has soared to $3 billion, according to the Port Authority's latest estimates.

Construction costs for the 1,776-foot tower have been pegged at $2.478 billion, up from the $2.2 billion estimate for steel, concrete, glass and labor projected last spring.

But the latest tally included in the Port Authority's capital budget includes an additional $507 million for "nonconstruction" costs that include security at the site, integrity monitors to keep an eye on contractors, the cost of selling bonds to finance the project, marketing the office space and fitting it out for tenants, The Post has learned.

Adding all the costs, the price tag for the Freedom Tower budgeted by the bistate agency is $3 billion - making it not just the tallest building in the city, but also the most expensive.

By comparison, a new state-of-the-art headquarters for Goldman Sachs under construction at a site directly across West Street from the Freedom Tower is expected to cost about $2.3 billion.

"The Port Authority's capital plan publicly accounts for every dime of spending on all our building projects over the next 10 years, including the Freedom Tower," said agency spokesman Steve Sigmund.

"During that period, the building has long-term soft costs, like brokers and marketing fees, tenant fit-outs, responsible contingencies and security, which go beyond hard construction costs."

Sigmund said the price tag will be offset by $900 million in insurance funds and about $1 billion in Liberty Bonds. The remainder of the cost will have to be recouped through rents charged for the 2.6 million square feet of office space after the tower is complete in 2011.

Contributing to the project's cost is the roughly $500 million to build an 80-foot-tall substructure in the Trade Center's "bathtub," atop of which the tower will be built.

The latest construction costs are a key factor that Gov. Spitzer said he will use to determine whether the massive tower should be built as designed. He has said he would balance cost against the projected revenue from rents.

So far, federal agencies have issued letters of intent to occupy nearly 1 million square feet in the tower. New York state has also agreed to lease about 400,000 square feet. And the PA has been in talks with the Chinese real-estate firm Vantone to lease another 1 million square feet.

Construction of the Freedom Tower's base is under way, and bids for nearly half of the project's construction have been put out.

The PA's capital budget includes a total of $8 billion to be spent at the World Trade Center, including the Freedom Tower, the transportation hub, the memorial, retail malls and site infrastructure.

CoolCzech

Feb 5, 2007, 5:28 PM

I'm not sure that $3 billion for a towering building like the FT compares so unfavorably to $2.3 billion for a rather non-descript building of mediocre height like the Goldman Sachs...

NYonward

Feb 5, 2007, 7:16 PM

You have to figure that the construction and security cost increases are also going to figure into everything at the site. Its more headline than real news.

Lecom

Feb 5, 2007, 8:10 PM

They're talking about it as if the FT is the only project ever that experiences costs such as the ones they list.

wong21fr

Feb 5, 2007, 8:23 PM

For those New York staters; what is the chance of Spitzer actually scaling back the Freedom Tower? Would he really have such a lack of foresight?

Nowhereman1280

Feb 5, 2007, 8:33 PM

For those New York staters; what is the chance of Spitzer actually scaling back the Freedom Tower? Would he really have such a lack of foresight?

How on earth would they ever scale this thing back? Didn't that article say that the Feds and PA already have 1.4 of the 2.6 million Sqft leased already and that they are negotiating leasing out another 1 million to a Chinese company? I would think that 2.4 of 2.6 million Sqft is a pretty good occupancy rate...

kznyc2k

Feb 5, 2007, 9:00 PM

I'm not sure that $3 billion for a towering building like the FT compares so unfavorably to $2.3 billion for a rather non-descript building of mediocre height like the Goldman Sachs...

But keep in mind that with the Goldman Sachs, that's being built to order - meaning that pricetag includes all expenses related to outfitting the trading floors and all interior spaces, inflating the price way up past what it'd normally cost for a 40-something floor spec development.

NYguy

Feb 5, 2007, 11:41 PM

Its more headline than real news.

Correct. But every step of the Freedom Tower is being documented, more so than even the other WTC towers will be. I don't think they'll be as scrutinized by the media, especially since they have yet to get any "catchy" names.

NYguy

Feb 5, 2007, 11:44 PM

How on earth would they ever scale this thing back? Didn't that article say that the Feds and PA already have 1.4 of the 2.6 million Sqft leased already and that they are negotiating leasing out another 1 million to a Chinese company? I would think that 2.4 of 2.6 million Sqft is a pretty good occupancy rate...

They're not going to scale it back. Spitzer always said he was going to "look into" the cost of the tower and the deals put together. But he has repeatedly said there was very little that could be done at this point to change the tower.

Also, don't forget that this building is part broadcast tower. The broadcasters originally wanted 2,000 ft. or more.

STERNyc

Feb 6, 2007, 1:46 AM

northface

Feb 6, 2007, 2:25 AM

i agree strern ^

kznyc2k

Feb 6, 2007, 3:08 AM

I never understood how that THINK proposal got as far as it did in the competition. To me it screams "misuse of taxpayer dollars."

I always liked the United Architects plan.

Daquan13

Feb 6, 2007, 5:40 AM

People can criticize Pataki all they want, but if Spitzer was in office I have little doubt that this disgrace is what will have been built:

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide55.jpg

I don't think Silverstien would have allowed this digusting pile of junk to be built, since the main goal is to put back the same amount of office space that was lost.

And you know that the relatives didn't want it either because it reminded them too much of the former Twins and 09-11.

But yes, I figured that the construction cost for the Freedom Tower would soon go up.

STERNyc

Feb 6, 2007, 6:25 AM

Fitting for Paris:

http://www.schwartzarch.com/think04.jpg

Fitting for New York:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/72105229/original.jpg

I think people forget how gigantic these buildings really are, primarily because they are so big. There's no sense of scale, but place 4 WTC in LA and it would eat up its skyline, place any of the other towers in any other American city other than Chicago and New York and it would completely devour it. One thing that I'm looking forward to the most is the awe-inspiring vistas these monoliths will provide looking through the concrete canyons of lower Manhattan.

NYguy

Feb 6, 2007, 12:50 PM

People can criticize Pataki all they want, but if Spitzer was in office I have little doubt that this disgrace is what will have been built:

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_e/slides/images/Slide55.jpg

That's hard to say. Would there even have been a Lower Manhattan Development Corporation? That was Pataki's baby, his way of keeping (presumed mayoral winner) Mark Green's hands off the pot.

But Spitzer meddling at this point would just be a continuation of Pataki's errors. I don't think he'll want to do that. In fact, he said he wants to speed things up, even though things are already moving according to plan now.

NYguy

Feb 6, 2007, 1:02 PM

I don't think Silverstien would have allowed this digusting pile of junk to be built, since the main goal is to put back the same amount of office space that was lost.

Silverstein wouldn't have been responsible for building those towers, that's what always gets lost. The office space was to surround those towers, which were to stand above the footprints.

That plan was flawed from the beginning because all of the participants were told not to touch the memorial quadrant - although nobody listened.

Foster's plan for rebuilt, redesigned "twin" towers would have been best. You satisfy a large portion of the "rebuild the towers" crowd, and you satisfy the "build taller & better" crowd. It was a win-win. Basically, all Childs would have had to do was put the antenna platform on the revised tower at 1764 ft instead of 1776 ft. And the antennas would have rose to the planned 2000 or 2100 ft.