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

[Ghost]

So, LMDC's webcam seems to be down...

Anyway, wasn't there supposed to be some new crane installed by end of february?

[Realthang]

So, LMDC's webcam seems to be down...


They apparently have been removed. There is no camera left that is pointing directly to the freedom tower construction site anymore. :( The HD Earthcam has had its software upgraded recently but the pictures still haven't been updated since Sept 11th last year.

[Daquan13]

So, LMDC's webcam seems to be down...

Anyway, wasn't there supposed to be some new crane installed by end of february?



Two of them, supposedly.

Looks like Ground Zero is being rebuilt by the Slowskys (the 2 turtles in the Comcast commercial).:rolleyes:

[NYguy]

NY Sun

Durst and Malkin Could Lose Big If Tower Is Built

By DAVID LOMBINO
March 2, 2007


The pair of major landlords waging a campaign against the Freedom Tower have been arguing publicly against the project without disclosing that they personally could lose millions of dollars a year if it is built.

Last week, developers Douglas Durst and Anthony Malkin put their names at the bottom of full-page advertisements in several New York City newspapers by a group they are co-chairmen of called The Continuing Committee for a Reasonable World Trade Center. The advertisements said the project was ill conceived, too expensive, and poorly planned.

The ads were released just after the Spitzer administration indicated it would move forward with the project, and before the Port Authority approved several key construction contacts. They went into detail about the tower's architecture, its security vulnerabilities, its rent roll, its height, its name — just about everything except for the fact that the project includes plans for television and radio broadcast antennae that would replace those on the old twin towers, and compete with those on buildings owned by Messrs. Malkin and Durst.

Mr. Malkin controls the Empire State Building and Mr. Durst owns the Condé Nast Building at 4 Times Square, both of which are now the most desirable locations in the city for the location of television and radio broadcast facilities and their antennae.

Following the destruction of the World Trade Center, the Empire State Building antenna, at about 1,454 feet tall, became the primary antenna for the area's major television stations. The Conde Nast building antenna, at about 1,141 feet tall, became a favorite backup.

The Port Authority, which owns the Freedom Tower, is currently in negotiations with the Metropolitan TV Alliance, a conglomerate of local television broadcasters. The MTVA has committed to using the proposed 256-foot broadcast antenna on top of the Freedom Tower. Sources close to the negotiations say the contract is nearly complete and would net about $10 million a year in annual rent to the Port Authority. A 20 to 30 year contact worth hundreds of millions of dollars would contribute to the financial viability of the Freedom Tower, they say.

A source close to the negotiations between the Port Authority and the MTVA said the new antenna, reaching higher than all competing antenna facilities, at 1,776 feet tall, would be the highest point in the region, offering broadcasters the clearest level of service. Other antennae, like the facilities on Messrs. Durst or Malkin's buildings, could still be used to create a signal redundancy, but would probably command lower rents.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Malkin said he does not view the Freedom Tower's antenna as a "competitive threat." He said his public involvement is not financially motivated.

"Whatever revenues we have are locked in. They are long-term contracts. I will likely be retired or retiring before it become an issue," Mr. Malkin said. "When the World Trade Center was in place and functioning, our broadcast facility was full. If we are not the number one facility, we are the number two. Broadcasters will have to use our facility."

A former top real estate official at the Port Authority who negotiated the last deal between broadcasters and the former World Trade Center, James Connors, now works for Mr. Malkin.

A spokesman for the Durst Organization, Jordan Barowitz, said that antenna revenue was not behind Mr. Durst's public campaign. He said Mr. Durst would like to see the Freedom Tower rebuilt, but redesigned and delayed. Mr. Barowitz said revenue from antennae accounts for less than .5% of the Durst Organization's total revenue.

Both Messrs. Durst and Malkin have said they were continuing a family tradition. In the 1960s, Mr. Durst's father, Seymour Durst, and Mr. Malkin's grandfather, Lawrence Wien, formed the Committee for a Reasonable World Trade Center to protest the original twin towers.

A spokesman for the Port Authority, John McCarthy, declined to comment because the antenna agreement is being negotiated.

A spokesman for the MTVA, Pat Smith, would not comment on the status of the negotiations, but he said new antenna facilities are necessary. He said the broadcasters are committed to a Freedom Tower facility.

"There are still millions of people in the metropolitan area who do not have cable, or who have additional televisions in the house without cable. They are not getting a fully adequate signal. It would also facilitate the transition to digital television," Mr. Smith said.

Before committing to the Freedom Tower antenna, MTVA had considered other sites in New York and New Jersey, including the possibility of a free-standing antenna not connected to any existing building.

[Daquan13]

Oh, please. My heart bleeds for them!

Let's see now; we've waited for God knows how long - five years for a major tower to start being built on the land and those two goons want it put off or put on hold because THEY don't think it should be built right now?

Why won't these two knuckleheads go crawl back under the rock from which they came?! They make me sick!!

Neither Silverstein, the PA, city or state officials, Gov. Spitzer, nor the LMDC is gong to back out from building the tower now. Deals were reached, agreed upon and the tower IS moving forward.

Guess they're just going to have lose big bucks because the tower WILL be built, and it WILL meet the construction timetable planned.

[kznyc2k]

thanks D.
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7669/captainobviouskg5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[LWR]

I suppose if construction has stopped, I wouldn't want to have a never-changing web cam capturing nothing either (perhaps that's why it's no longer operational (?).

[Daquan13]

kznyc2k;

Haha!!:haha:

I'm just stating the facts. That those two anti-Freedom Tower jerks need to stop this foolishness. You seem to have a problem with me on that. Or maybe you think I might be saying it too often.

But I'm sorry, my thoughts are my thoughts, and I really could give a crap less about how broken up they feel about the tower being built against their moronic suggestions that it should wait.

There's always going to be some maniac, or in this case two of them, who thinks that to rebuild Ground Zero now starting with the Freedom Tower, is not practical. If the officials catered and pandered to everyone who comes along and whines & complains about any part of Ground Zero's work, then I guess it would NEVER be rebuilt.

LWR, I don't think that the rebuild will be stopped. At least not in the present time. Just two sore-losing big shot landlords who have been taking extremely heavy doses of run-your-mouth pills and coming out fighting and taking cheap shots at the Freedom Tower's importance.:yes:

[NYguy]

I suppose if construction has stopped, I wouldn't want to have a never-changing web cam capturing nothing either (perhaps that's why it's no longer operational (?).

That webcam was operational long before any construction actually began. Why would they stop it now if work had stopped???

(By the way, work hasn't stopped.)

[NYonward]

NY Observer

Demand Looks Good for Downtown Towers …
… but when the buildings open up, so will competition from the midtown market.

http://www.observer.com/data/articleimages/photoimages/030507_article_lab.jpg

By: Tom Acitelli
Date: 3/5/2007
Page: 30


It’s looking good these days for downtown Manhattan to become one of the great commercial real-estate success stories of the next several years.

Right now, the downtown office-vacancy rate is about 10.7 percent, according to brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle. That rate’s lower than it was a year ago, at 10.8 percent—and much lower than the dangerous highs of nearly 13 percent in the months immediately following the terrorist attacks.

Since then, a lot of business, big and small, has returned. Half of the top 10 Manhattan office leases in 2006 were inked downtown, including the two biggest: 600,000 square feet in the Freedom Tower for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service, and 589,978 feet in 7 World Trade Center for Moody’s Investors Service.

Governors Eliot Spitzer and Jon Corzine both endorsed the Freedom Tower last week, and the board of the Port Authority O.K.’d $500 million in construction contracts for the 2.6-million-square-foot skyscraper. Along with the Freedom Tower, new office buildings will spill at least 10.8 million square feet of space onto the downtown market by the end of 2012, according to Jones Lang LaSalle.

But whether the tenants will still be there then depends on a few factors.

Today, downtown presents a cheaper alternative to midtown. So, for one thing, rents in lower Manhattan will have to continue to undercut those in midtown, the present-day prince of the office submarkets. By the end of 2006, the average rent downtown was $38.62 a square foot, according to the brokerage Cushman & Wakefield; in midtown, it was $58.92 a square foot, and $100-per-foot leases weren’t unusual; the bulk of the 41 such leases signed last year were in midtown.

Downtown is an even bigger discount for larger companies looking for blocks of higher-quality space, which is harder to find in midtown and midtown south.

The midtown vacancy rate was 6.4 percent by the end of 2006, according to Cushman & Wakefield, and the midtown south rate even lower, at 5.6 percent. Larger blocks of space—those of at least 100,000 contiguous feet—are also harder to come by in midtown and midtown south: Only 10 remain. And, with the New York Times headquarters and One Bryant Park as the only higher-quality office buildings slated to open in both submarkets in the next two years, such blocks should only dwindle in number.

So, a tighter, more expensive midtown and midtown south could drive companies downtown, into the gaping arms of brand-new skyscrapers like the Freedom Tower.

Once there, the companies would find the Fulton Street Transit Center, linking 12 downtown subway lines to the new World Trade Center transit hub. And a growing amount of rentals and condos—gems like the Cipriani Club Residences at 55 Wall Street and 20 Pine Street, where Giorgio Armani’s interior-design firm sculpted the insides—are sprouting around the sites of these hubs, helping turn downtown into a 24/7 enclave.

In other words, meet the new and improved downtown Manhattan!

But suppose that the economy doesn’t hold? Or that 2006 turns out to be the peak year for Wall Street bonuses for many years to come? Suppose that the city’s unemployment rate, now around 4 percent, starts to inch back upward?

The success of Manhattan’s office market has always been closely tied to the ability of the local economy to create and maintain jobs. A lot of office-based jobs means a lot of demand for offices. Take a healthy economy away—one spurred locally by the financial-services sector—and the office-leasing market tends to turn very ill.

In the summer of 2001, downtown’s vacancy rate was barely 6 percent. A healthy local economy buoyed the submarket, and the original World Trade Center, which was filled with tenants by the late 1990’s, gleamed as a symbol of its health. Will the Freedom Tower do the same a few years from now? It’s likely, but ….


LAST WEEK, THE LAB CONTENDED THAT too few homes are being built to keep pace with New York City’s population growth. The city added, between 2000 and 2005, more than 205,000 residents, according to census estimates; and, from 2000 through 2006, about 159,000 permits were approved for privately owned housing units.

That leaves a difference of about 40,000 people without homes to rent or to buy, assuming a one-to-one ratio between homes and residents. As readers pointed out, however, the average New York City household has more than one person; it has 2.59 persons, according to 2000 census data.

Still, the city faces a housing deficit, despite the Bloomberg administration’s efforts to erase it by encouraging new development through subsidies and rezoning.

That’s because, when measuring New York’s housing supply, you start with a negative number—a deficit—left by previous administrations and by a private sector that, until fairly recently, wasn’t too keen on building homes in much of the city.

The Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University estimated in 2005 that the difference between the demand for housing and the supply was about 100,000 units. (The Manhattan Institute put the deficit at 111,000 in 2002.)

So, subtract 100,000 from the 159,000 home-building permits. Multiply the resulting number—59,000—by 2.59 residents, and you get 152,810 residents that could be housed in these roughly 59,000 new units, assuming that all get built (though at least 10 percent won’t).

The city added over 205,000 residents from 2000 to 2005. Subtract from this 152,810, and you have about 52,190 new residents more than there are new homes available. (These calculations don’t account for variables that could drive the deficit even wider, such as existing units becoming obsolete or the 2006 growth population.) While this deficit leads to a low apartment-vacancy rate and to vicious competition for condos and co-ops, it’s still a relatively low one.

An official in the city’s Department of Housing and Preservation pointed out to The Lab that “between 1990 and 2000, only 78,607 housing units were created … Between 2002 and 2005, the city’s population grew by nearly 14,000 households, but 42,372 new units have been added, thereby shrinking the housing gap.”

That gap, though, remains.

[Realthang]

That webcam was operational long before any construction actually began. Why would they stop it now if work had stopped???

(By the way, work hasn't stopped.)

LDMC took down the cams because the traffic they were receiving was too low to justify the cost.

[antinimby]

Well that's kind of shortsighted since traffic will surely pick up once the construction goes into full gear.

[DUBAI2015]

Can anybody get some up-close pictures of the site since the webcam broke?

[NYguy]

LDMC took down the cams because the traffic they were receiving was too low to justify the cost.

LMDC is closing up shop anyway. But its not as if the public demanded a webcam. Most people aren't like us, watching every inch of progress. But once the tower reaches that 1,000 ft mark - especially with the other towers fast on its tail - people will start looking up again.

[NYRY85]

we'll get that old feel to the city like when we had the twins.

1,000 footers at the WTC again will make the city feel complete.

[Dac150]

^^I agree

[NYguy]

we'll get that old feel to the city like when we had the twins.

1,000 footers at the WTC again will make the city feel complete.

Not only complete, but it will feel larger. Where before there was a "mere" two 1,000 footers, there will now be 3. Joined by a near 1,000 footer, and a near 900 footer. (Oh, and the new Goldman and residential towers that will surround the site).

[TAFisher123]

Well that's kind of shortsighted since traffic will surely pick up once the construction goes into full gear.
prob a security risk if you think about it

[NYguy]

prob a security risk if you think about it

But what isn't these days? Even if they hid the entire building behind a giant curtain until construction was finished, it'll still be there when it's done.

[NYRY85]

the city just had a badass feel to it when the twins were there. it completed NYC. they were fuckin NYC. now that theyre gone even if you didnt know they were gone, the city still wouldnt feel "complete."

[CoolCzech]

Not only complete, but it will feel larger. Where before there was a "mere" two 1,000 footers, there will now be 3. Joined by a near 1,000 footer, and a near 900 footer. (Oh, and the new Goldman and residential towers that will surround the site).

Not to mention the fact that the entire surrounding area will be far, far nicer than it ever was, what with all the streetscaping, waterfalls & park, and oh yeah, a Calatrava train station.

BTW, when I was in NYC last night I walked down 8th avenue (saw the NY Times tower with some of the floors lit up, as the snow began to fall in the middle of the afternoon - sorry, it looked better than in broad daylight, but STILL nothing to write home about). As the snow began to fall, I ducked into what appeared to be an arcade in front of an older building, judging by the essentially classical style. The place was a circular hall lined by shops, and reminded me of Trajan's Market in Rome... just like the Time Warner Center's curved shopping arcade fronting Columbus Circle does. Sure enough, I came out thru a side exit and it turned out I was a Worldwide Plaza!

I think I've figured out something about Childs: the man is a frustrated classical architect; deep down, I think he really wishes he could design buildings using historical styles. I think it gives a clue how he came up with a design for the FT that looks strongly like an obelisk on a square base: it's classical in conception, and bears a striking similarity to cemetery monuments:

http://www.cemeteries-madison-co-in.com/gilmore.gilmore.jpg

versus:

http://i.cnn.net/money/2007/02/23/news/freedom_tower.reut/freedom_tower.03.jpg

Now, Childs has admitted to an obelisk theme, but never mentioned obelisk-shaped tombstones... but given the history of the site, and the Memorial being built there... I think using the square base as a stand for an obelisk is too obvious an allusions to a funerary monument to be mere coincidence...

[Daquan13]

Well, at least we are getting the tower, and it will be a beautiful and sleek one as opposed to the previous designs.

[Lecom]

Not only complete, but it will feel larger. Where before there was a "mere" two 1,000 footers, there will now be 3. Joined by a near 1,000 footer, and a near 900 footer. (Oh, and the new Goldman and residential towers that will surround the site).
True, even if it's debatable which will have a stronger effect - two enormous 1300 foot obelisks rising straight to their flat tops or a larger yet overall shorter spiral eventually reaching the same height, yet accentuated by rising spires rather than flat walls. Only time will tell.

One thing is certain - it will be a whole new era for New York. It is true that we won't get the symbolic and memorable look that dominated the 80's and 90's, but we will get a whole new symbolic, and futuristic, look instead. It's time to move on.

[CoolCzech]

Well, at least we are getting the tower, and it will be a beautiful and sleek one as opposed to the previous designs.

Hey, I didn't mean that as a slam: I like the current design. I just think that I've figured out what makes Childs tick, and what made him go with an obelisk motiff for the FT, that's all...

[NYRY85]

True, even if it's debatable which will have a stronger effect - two enormous 1300 foot obelisks rising straight to their flat tops or a larger yet overall shorter spiral eventually reaching the same height, yet accentuated by rising spires rather than flat walls. Only time will tell.

One thing is certain - it will be a whole new era for New York. It is true that we won't get the symbolic and memorable look that dominated the 80's and 90's, but we will get a whole new symbolic, and futuristic, look instead. It's time to move on.

hopefully the big badass NYC feel that was lost before comes with it.

[Lecom]

hopefully the big badass NYC feel that was lost before comes with it.
True, but in such case New York would need to regain its true big badass feel. Currently, as the city is experiencing its Golden Age, lowest crime rates in decades and commonplace gentrification, it's becoming a great city yet personification-wise, I rather see it as a sophisticated yet somewhat pansy dude who's afraid to get his hands dirty. The abundant nimbies don't make the situation better. I'm not saying that we should bring back badassery by allowing the plight of the 70's to return, but perhaps we should bring it back through other means, such as reinforcing certain industries in the area, strengthening the economy (for instance, bringing back the once very powerful role the Stock exchange played in the city's economy), support certain types of light industry in certain zones, etc.

[Lecom]

Hey, I didn't mean that as a slam: I like the current design. I just think that I've figured out what makes Childs tick, and what made him go with an obelisk motiff for the FT, that's all...
Pure superficiality. Comparing buildings to objects and refering it to certain motifs has been done to death. You might as well argue that Taipei 101 was influenced by a stack of Chinese Food boxes. I think you are forgetting that the reason for the base, as well as the entire redesign, have been NYPD's complaints, and the current base isn't even square but is rather a reflection of the tower's upper part, complete with cut corners.

[CoolCzech]

Well, yeah... but just because he HAD to have the square base didn't mean he HAD to have an obelisk, did it? But I think it's not superficial to note Childs's affinity for classical forms. And the base was altered slightly later on, after the initial obelisk form was established. I just thought it was an interesting observation, that's all...

[Daquan13]

Hey, I didn't mean that as a slam: I like the current design. I just think that I've figured out what makes Childs tick, and what made him go with an obelisk motiff for the FT, that's all...



Oh, I wasn't accusing you of complaining against the tower at all.

I just like it over the previous designs, and felt that if they had done this right the first time around, that the tower would have at least had its steel frame in the air by now.

[NYguy]

True, even if it's debatable which will have a stronger effect - two enormous 1300 foot obelisks rising straight to their flat tops or a larger yet overall shorter spiral eventually reaching the same height, yet accentuated by rising spires rather than flat walls. Only time will tell.

If the Twin Towers were 200 ft shorter, they still would have had a dominance on the skyline. Certainly from street level, that difference wouldn't have been noticeable. Now, we will have 3 towers of the same scale, with a tower taller than Citicorp Center thrown in for good measure (forget about tower 5 for now). All you need do is look at the prominence of the Citicorp on Midtown's skyline, and you realize we're getting something NY has never had in it's history - construction of so many large towers, simultaneaously, side by side. It exceeds the original construction.

[NYguy]

hopefully the big badass NYC feel that was lost before comes with it.

Has it ever really been lost? I don't think it has.

[DUBAI2015]

Can we get some Freedom Tower updates?

[Daquan13]

Not much there since the last report. Only that the core has risen a little bit.

[NYguy]

Can we get some Freedom Tower updates?


They're on the 40th floor...:)

[Lecom]

Has it ever really been lost? I don't think it has.
On Downtown skyline silouette, it has.

On a side note, I think the current overall design is in many ways better than the original's sculpturality, in a sense that it provides a much more organic set of highrises that are better integrated with the Downtown skyline. A new building elsewhere in Downtown would create much more of an impact than it would have with the Twin Towers around, which would still have dominated the skyline unless the new tower was even more of a sculptural piece than the original WTC.

[hoosier]

Not much there since the last report. Only that the core has risen a little.

That is definitely newsworthy!! Anything rising from that site is big news!!

[BINARY SYSTEM]

As of March 4, 2007.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/410892039_2bf3ebd8ca_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/410892131_fd9beb1ee4_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/410891386_b5402fb227_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67628243@N00/

[NYguy]

On Downtown skyline silouette, it has.


To the extent that Downtown's skyline is all you see, maybe. Whenever I see Downtown's skyline, from whereever I see it, Midtown is also in view. That's why I feel NY has never lost it's "bigness".

[Dac150]

Nothing has really changed, but the cranes keep to momentum going.

[Daquan13]

Where in the Sam Hill are those two tall cranes that were supposed to be brought in and erected? Last month, I might add.

[Ghost]

Great pics! Whole site is full of construction going on!

From lowemanhattan.info
*The following information was last updated on March 2, 2007.

Current activities for construction of the Freedom Tower include:

* Installation of tower-foundation steel columns
* Pouring of concrete for the foundation and rebar installation
* Start of layout for PATH track-side barriers; installation of barrier wall
* Erection of the first tower crane begins in early March 2007


BTW, EarthCam has now webcam capturing the whole site, but man, that's crap quality. Does anybody know is the HD-cam coming back someday?

[Dougall5505]

can you post a link?

[CoolCzech]

Deleted; NY Guy already beat me to the article, as he is wont, darn it...

[CoolCzech]

If the Twin Towers were 200 ft shorter, they still would have had a dominance on the skyline. Certainly from street level, that difference wouldn't have been noticeable. Now, we will have 3 towers of the same scale, with a tower taller than Citicorp Center thrown in for good measure (forget about tower 5 for now). All you need do is look at the prominence of the Citicorp on Midtown's skyline, and you realize we're getting something NY has never had in it's history - construction of so many large towers, simultaneaously, side by side. It exceeds the original construction.

True. And even more importantly, the architectural quality of this reconstruction will far outstrip the original towers. Factor in the urban landscaping and new infrastructure like Calatrava's station, and all you can say is, Wow!

[Daquan13]

If the Twin Towers were 200 ft shorter, they still would have had a dominance on the skyline. Certainly from street level, that difference wouldn't have been noticeable. Now, we will have 3 towers of the same scale, with a tower taller than Citicorp Center thrown in for good measure (forget about tower 5 for now). All you need do is look at the prominence of the Citicorp on Midtown's skyline, and you realize we're getting something NY has never had in it's history - construction of so many large towers, simultaneaously, side by side. It exceeds the original construction.



When Yamasaki had the towers still in the design stages, they were originally going to be 80 to 90 stories tall.

But the city wanted them to be taller than that, ultimately surpassing and eclipsing the ESB in floors and height.

Yama, at first, said that it couldn't be done, mainly because of the design and arrangement of the elevator shafts.
Then he redisigned the shafts so that they could accommodate the taller design of the towers.

[antinimby]

But the city wanted them to be taller than that, ultimately surpassing and eclipsing the ESB in floors and height.When you say "the city," who exactly are you referring to?

I've never known the city of New York to ever ask for a building to be taller. Shorter, yes but taller, no.

[Daquan13]

City officials and then also, the politicians. Before 09-11, cities, especially New York, were pushing for taller ofice towers. Then the slogan was the taller, the better.

Now, since 09-11, it mostly has been the desire or wimping out to build shorter towers!

Remember when Silverstein only wanted to build the Freedom Tower 70 stories tall with that ugly birdcage on top?

[antinimby]

You couldn't be more wrong. Before or after 9/11, New York NEVER pushed for higher office towers.

Quite the opposite as a matter of fact. I know of numerous occasions where the city has asked the developer to scale down their proposals, not up. :koko:

[Daquan13]

Hmmph. Then who do you think wanted the Twins to be taller than they had been orginally planned? Hmmm?

[CoolCzech]

Daquan is, I believe, quite correct: the Twins were originally to be only 80 stories tall. I believe Rockefeller was the one who pushed for a then record-setting height... though I think he held a state office at the time, not a city one.

[Daquan13]

He and the rest of the family, I believe were the ones who were most influencial in getting the towers built. They were the driving force behind making the project a reality.

They wanted something taller than the ESB, and this was certainly their opportunity to seize the moment.

[JMGarcia]

Rockefeller was governor. The towers were built by the Port Authority which is controlled by the gov's of NY and NJ. The City of New York has very little input into the project just as happened with the rebuilding since 9/11.

[Daquan13]

And also, if I remember correctly, there were even protests against the Twins themselves being built. Scores of NY'rs didn't want them, but the officials had igged them.

Just as is today, people wanted the Twins back and the officials are igging them for the Freedom Tower to be built instead.

[antinimby]

I would even go so far as to say that if the city did have a say, the Twins would've never been allowed to be that tall.

This city is notorious for disapproving of tall towers. I know it's ironic because the city obviously have many towers, but it's true.

[Daquan13]

The tallest office tower to date in the USA is still the Sears Tower, but it will be eclipsed in a few years by the Freedom Tower when the steel has risen.

The first WTC was going to be built regardless once suitable land for it was found.

The land (Radio Row), BTW, on which the Twins once stood, had consisted of old dillapidated, antiquated ancient rodent-infested dinosaur buildings - old radio / electronics stores that had either died or were dying, was due to be
demolished anyway because it was practically a ghost town.

[CarlosV]

Daquan is, I believe, quite correct: the Twins were originally to be only 80 stories tall. I believe Rockefeller was the one who pushed for a then record-setting height... though I think he held a state office at the time, not a city one.


WRONG!

the worlds tallest building was not an idea of Rockerfeller but a "PR" idea from one woman that worked for him!

[Daquan13]

Do you have any proof at all of this on file? Since you're so damn quick to dispute us and say that we're wrong....

Thought not!

[CoolCzech]

WRONG!

the worlds tallest building was not an idea of Rockerfeller but a "PR" idea from one woman that worked for him!

Well, fine, though Rockefeller was without a doubt a driving force behind the WTC and had a penchant for megasized projects. Whatever the case, the bottom line is the Twins were originally conceived to be shorter than they were ultimately executed, and Daquan was quite right about that point.

[Daquan13]

Thanks CoolCzech,

That is definitely true, and here it is, that I typed from a clip in the booklet Never Forget: Commemorating the Twin Towers;

(Quote) "Yamasaki's original plan was for the towers to be only 80 to 90 floors tall. But the possibility that they could be the tallest buidings in the world had appealed to the PANYNJ for publicty reasons, so the designs were heightened to make the towers taller than the Empire State Building (End quote)."

Rockafeller WAS in office as NY gov, as JMGarcia stated above.

[2-TOWERS]

the freedom tower will not be higher then , the sears, roof height that is, sure the mast will be higher, but truely, put F/T side by side with the sears and it is a big diff.

[Daquan13]

How do you figure that?

The Freedom Tower is suppossed to be the tallest buing in the USA. And I don't think the Sears' antenna counts as height for the tower.

Match them up side by side in a pic, if you can, so that they can be compared, please.

[CoolCzech]

the freedom tower will not be higher then , the sears, roof height that is, sure the mast will be higher, but truely, put F/T side by side with the sears and it is a big diff.

Yeah, but Sears stands alone, not with 4 supertall and near-supertall neighbors. The scale of the new WTC project is awesome.

[winst69]

There seems to be something growing on the last remaining webcam.
Could it be a crane???

[jbmetal311]

Regardless of the Sears, the Freedom Tower most likely will not hold the US record for very long. The Chicago Spire is on the way...

[Ghost]

There seems to be something growing on the last remaining webcam.
Could it be a crane???
I think it is! :banana:

[Daquan13]

Regardless of the Sears, the Freedom Tower most likely will not hold the US record for very long. The Chicago Spire is on the way...



There's still no official confirmation as to whether that tower is going to be built.

It'll probably be a while for a decision, as was the Freedom Tower during its
design stages.

[DUBAI2015]

There seems to be something growing on the last remaining webcam.
Could it be a crane???

Where is the photo of the incriminating crane?

[Dougall5505]

maybe this one?
http://www.instacam.com/instacamimg/NYPBR/NYPBR_l.jpg
http://www.projectrebirth.org/film/cameras/camera_LiveCam.html

[Daquan13]

Geez, that's a very crappy photo they took!

Couldn't they do a little better than that? That "crane" that's supposed to be
set up looks like a pile driver.

And BTW, we all know that 7 WTC is 7 WTC, right? So why did the media screw up and call it 7 WFC? I think someone got their wires crossed.

[2-TOWERS]

LIKE I SAID , PUT THEM SIDE BY SIDE, THE SEARS IS HIGHER:cool:

[Ghost]

maybe this one?
http://www.projectrebirth.org/film/cameras/camera_LiveCam.html
No I meant this:
http://i14.tinypic.com/4g8rd36.jpg
EarthCam (http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/groundzero/#)

[CarlosV]

LIKE I SAID , PUT THEM SIDE BY SIDE, THE SEARS IS HIGHER:cool:


:psycho: :gaah: :gaah:

[CarlosV]

The tallest office tower to date in the USA is still the Sears Tower, but it will be eclipsed in a few years by the Freedom Tower when the steel has risen.

The first WTC was going to be built regardless once suitable land was found.

The land (Radio City), BTW, on which the Twins once stood, had consisted of old dillapidated, antiquated ancient rodent-infested dinosaur buildings - old radio / electronics stores that had either died or were dying, was due to be
demolished anyway because it was practically a ghost town.

WRONG AGAIN

GHOST TOWN? HARDLY! .......it was an old section of low and high rise old buildings full of stores and low income /poor tenants....who put up a fight against a powerful agency (PA NY NJ) and the Governor to no avail. it took YEARS to buy them out or take away their land...it went to the courts who sided with the developers.


1962
http://www.projectrebirth.org/img/WTC_1962.jpg

"Business owners in Lower Manhattan's "Radio Row" object to World Trade Center development plans, asserting the project will destroy the local landscape along with their businesses. They begin a series of protests and challenges that will delay construction for four years."


1966

http://www.projectrebirth.org/img/WTC_1966.jpg

"Over a rising tide of protests, demolition activities begin for "Radio Row" and the Hudson-Manhattan Terminal buildings, followed by groundbreaking and the start of construction for the new World Trade Center."


1971

http://www.projectrebirth.org/img/WTC_1971.jpg

" With technological advances paving the way for unprecedented building heights, the first of World Trade Center's Twin Towers – the south tower – is topped off. The Towers are the first skycrapers ever built without the use of masonry. Instead, engineers use a drywall system reinforced by steel cores.
"




1973
http://www.projectrebirth.org/img/WTC_1973.jpg

A ribbon-cutting ceremony commemorates the official opening of the World Trade Center, comprised of the Twin Towers and four other buildings occupying the site. At 1368 and 1362 feet – 110 stories each and over 100 feet taller than the Empire State Building – the Towers are now the tallest buildings in the world.



:) I MISS THEM....

[NYguy]

LIKE I SAID , PUT THEM SIDE BY SIDE, THE SEARS IS HIGHER:cool:

Higher than the ESB maybe. The Freedom Tower will rise to 1,776 ft. Nothing on Sears reaches that high.

[NYguy]

Port Authority (Feb)

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/gallery/wtcth/2007/02/fredmtwr04.jpg

(3)
http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/WTCSiteOverlay5.jpg

[winst69]

Sorry guys looks like i got it wrong. looks like a pile driver. And i was on about the earthcam webcam.

Oh and yes the sears tower has a higher roof hight, but the spire on FT counts, which makes it taller. Sorry, And no amout of moaning will change that fact.

[Daquan13]

WRONG AGAIN

GHOST TOWN? HARDLY! .......it was an old section of low and high rise old buildings full of stores and low income /poor tenants....who put up a fight against a powerful agency (PA NY NJ) and the Governor to no avail. it took YEARS to buy them out or take away their land...it went to the courts who sided with the developers.


1962
http://www.projectrebirth.org/img/WTC_1962.jpg

"Business owners in Lower Manhattan's "Radio Row" object to World Trade Center development plans, asserting the project will destroy the local landscape along with their businesses. They begin a series of protests and challenges that will delay construction for four years."


1966

http://www.projectrebirth.org/img/WTC_1966.jpg

"Over a rising tide of protests, demolition activities begin for "Radio Row" and the Hudson-Manhattan Terminal buildings, followed by groundbreaking and the start of construction for the new World Trade Center."


1971

http://www.projectrebirth.org/img/WTC_1971.jpg

" With technological advances paving the way for unprecedented building heights, the first of World Trade Center's Twin Towers – the south tower – is topped off. The Towers are the first skycrapers ever built without the use of masonry. Instead, engineers use a drywall system reinforced by steel cores.
"




1973
http://www.projectrebirth.org/img/WTC_1973.jpg

A ribbon-cutting ceremony commemorates the official opening of the World Trade Center, comprised of the Twin Towers and four other buildings occupying the site. At 1368 and 1362 feet – 110 stories each and over 100 feet taller than the Empire State Building – the Towers are now the tallest buildings in the world.



:) I MISS THEM....



Oh please. Save the drama, dude. I KNOW all this stuff.

Why don't you stop this foolishness? As of late, all you've done is to come back here to keep on saying that I or others are friggen wrong!

You're not telling me for one thing, anything that I don't already know. I followed the history about the Twin Towers right after the terror attacks, so save your breath please, and tell someone who doesn't know.

And yes, Mr, Einstein, I also already know about the fight that the tenants of the stores had put up against the PA to keep it from evicting them and grabbing the property to build the Twins, so all of this is just wasted breath, like I said. It was eminent domain.

[2-TOWERS]

How do you figure that?

The Freedom Tower is suppossed to be the tallest buing in the USA. And I don't think the Sears' antenna counts as height for the tower.

Match them up side by side in a pic, if you can, so that they can be compared, please.

roof top height the sears is higher, i forgot about the petronas way of easy height, but just for good measures , put the sears and F/T SI:D DE BY SIDE

[CarlosV]

Oh please. I KNOW all this stuff.

Why don't you stop this foolishness? As of late, all you've done is to come back here to keep on saying that I or others are friggen wrong!
.

:jester:

[CarlosV]

Port Authority (Feb)

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/gallery/wtcth/2007/02/fredmtwr04.jpg



:banana: AWESOME

[2-TOWERS]

well anyway footings look great, great pic carlos

[DUBAI2015]

It says Feb. not Mar.

[Urban Sky]

Port Authority (Feb)

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/WTCSiteOverlay5.jpg

Thats a cool ass photo

[2-TOWERS]

look how the path curves, where the old way it wnet straight toward C -21 , THEN made a horseshoe turn, interesting also how the original footprints are hardly visable..

[Daquan13]

It's just too bad, and it's a damn shame, that those 7 steel beams have to stand there naked and lonely until next year when more steel willl be added.

Pataki was just so full of crap!! He was full of crap after 09-11, he was full of crap on 07-04-04, and he was full of crap when he left office.

All of his actions for supposedly getting the Freedom Tower started were just false hopes and empty promises!!

[2-TOWERS]

your right d-quan those steel beams just dont make sense all by themselves, and the look way.....out of place, especially the lone skinny one:shrug:

[kznyc2k]

he was full of crap on 07-04-04

Excuse my ignorance, but what happened on that day?

[Daquan13]

Thank you, 2-TOWERS!

And I never understood just why that skinny one is there!!

[Scruffy]

Those beams piss me off to no end. Because other than us on the forum, no one realizes that they are a sham, they are the product of a publicity stunt from a political leech. The tower was nowhere near far along its constuction to be at steel bars. Hence why they say there won't be anymore steel until pretty much next year. But this douchebag in human form wants to look good, wants to have the appearance of success in his decade long tenure as governor when really he will be remembered for failure after failure and now he will be remembered for a failed presidential run should he set himself up for it. He forced them to erect the steel to make it look further than it was to have a photo op. And then this heartless SOB has people come down and sign the beams with heart wrenching messages and thereby praising him for his leadership when the worst part of all, and I have no proof but my gut feeling, I feel that those beams with so much meaning and emotion written on them aren't going to be there. If so much work is still left to be done, the obvious is that they are going to build around them and then quietly take those beams down when the real structure goes up. Common sense dictates that no one part of the structure can be so far advanced than the rest. Im sure there is a way to shore up a certain part of the structure and have the beams up prior to the rest of the structure with the appropriate forethought but that is not what something Senor Douchebag is known for. This whole beam raising prior to the new year and the end of his term seemed like such a last minute idea, i doubt even that its really secure enough to rest a supercraper on. My gut says it will be replaced with the real bars. Perhaps these can go into the planned museum. And Douchebag's contribution and little exhibit at the museum can be tucked away in a dark corner where the hobo's and I can gleefully pee on whats left of his career. It such an obvious and callous stunt he pulled that I wonder and scratch my head why its not more public. Why the Times isn't on it. why Armando Diaz isn't doing a "shame shame shame" segment on the fox 5 news. i'll sit here and stew some more and rant quietly to myself, but should the fucker actually put himself out there as a presidential candidate, I will be first in line to try and knock him down a peg. If this is the shit he pulls as governor, he shoudl never be allowed the power and responsibility of the top office

Thats my rant. And in short why we a long time to wait before this tower starts stretching into the sky.

[Daquan13]

Excuse my ignorance, but what happened on that day?



Did you forget? Haha!!

That was the day that Pataki, in a supposed ceremony, had the cornerstone planted in the spot where the Freedom Tower is being built, supposedly then signifying that the tower was offcially under construction. As you know, there were so many delays after that.

At the time, nothing else had happened and the following year, NO, CORRECTION, last year, that design was scrapped because Pataki had ignored the advice of the NYPD for over a year, that the tower should be built using safer better security measures.

All of which brings to mind, the present design with the concrete base. The cornerstone was later dug up and removed from Ground Zero, mainly because the tower was moved back several feet away from the sidewalk - another measure to discourage would-be terrorists.

Scruffy, ditto on that one!! I can understand your anger and frustration. And umm, just who is the political leech? That wouldn't happen to be Pataki, now would it? He's as loyal as they come. Haha!!

I wrote a post almost similar to yours several pages back, and yes, politics, red tape and BS is certainly playing its roll in getting things done for Ground Zero!! The political leech was gov for ten years?! Boy, that was pretty scary!

[GarCastle]

Let's just hope the beams do not rot before they become part of the tower.

[Daquan13]

Haha!!:haha:

I just had to laugh at that one!! I love it!! Wouldn't be surprised if they did, in light of what all has been slowing up the progress there.:haha:

[RockMont]

I'm surprised they hadn't rotted, even before they were set up.

[Daquan13]

I'm surprised they hadn't rotted, even before they were set up.



They're going to be completely encased in concrete anyway, so that rust and the painted columns will be hidden.

[Ghost]

http://i13.tinypic.com/49a9sgz.jpg
I think there is starting to happen something.

[Daquan13]

I just don't like that location for the camera!! The higher location was much better.

[Daquan13]

:jester:


Umm, Sorry but....., YOU'RE wrong, dude.

The middle pic that you posted that was dated 1966. It shows one of the Twins to the left being erected.

Dude, neither one of the towers were even soaring into the sky back then. The foundation work and the slurry wall was just getting into gear back then.

It just dawned on me that something was wrong with that particular photo. Now I know.

[CGII]

Umm, Sorry but....., YOU'RE wrong, dude.

The middle pic that you posted that was dated 1966. It shows one of the Twins to the left being erected.

Dude, neither one of the towers were even soaring into the sky back then. The foundation work and the slurry wall was just getting into gear back then.

It just dawned on me that something was wrong with that particular photo. Now I know.

Here's a medal, you won an argument on the interweb.


Christ, the shit in the Chicago Spire thread hasn't got anything the on the poopflinging going on over here.

[kznyc2k]

^ Haha

The foundation work and the slurry wall was just getting into gear back then.

Yeah, whoever labelled the pics got it wrong by a good 5 years. the Marine Midland Bank building (slender black tower) wasn't completed til '67, and the US Steel/1 Liberty Plaza (u/c in the pic) was finished by early '73, whereas in the pic it looks like it'd be about a year and a half off from completion.

Judging by the hazy look to the sky, I'd say it's from the summer of '71.

[Daquan13]

Yeah, at first, I almost thought that was the DBB being built.

And BTW, I just spotted something else. The pic that's dated 1973 is also wrong. it shows the North Tower with the antenna already installed atop the building. I read somewhere where the antenna wasn't installed on that building until around 1977.

It might not have been Carlos, but someone else screwed up big time!