PDA

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


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361

DUBAI2015
Mar 16, 2007, 1:00 AM
In the 1973 picture the Marriot Hotel is U/C

CarlosV
Mar 16, 2007, 4:59 AM
I wonder how old ...we are gonna be til we see all this built!! :(

http://www.projectrebirth.org/albums/world-trade-center_towers/196000_hr.jpghttp://www.projectrebirth.org/albums/world-trade-center_towers/198000_hr.jpg

TREPYE
Mar 16, 2007, 5:08 AM
:old:

At least I contribute with my own beautiful fotos every week..I dont recall ever seen any of your fotos Mr. D...

Yeah seriously Daquan. I don't mean to pick on you or anything but all you do is kiss this Freedom Tower's ass all the time meanwhile it is not even that great of a design, or even a good one for this site for that matter (IMO of course :)).

kznyc2k
Mar 16, 2007, 5:42 AM
all you do is kiss this Freedom Tower's ass all the time

Ditto.

Daquan13
Mar 16, 2007, 6:30 AM
Neither one of you guys have to like the tower, but stop poking at those who do! How does one kiss the Freedom Tower's ass? Never knew that it had one.

If only you understood how bad I wanted to visit the Twins, and to have them snatched from us that day in just two hours, you'd know how bad I wanted to visit the obs deck just to see what it was like standing on top of New York over 1,300 feet in the air. That's how badly I want the Freedom Tower built, since the Twins are not being rebuilt.

I was on vacation during the week of 09-11, and could have gone to New York to visit the towers during that week.

At least I'm not the one who whines and bitches about wanting something back that won't be rebuilt.

Carlos, you started this crap, accusing ME and CoolCzech of saying the wrong stuff about the former WTC. Now the shoe is on the other foot because I'm pointing out stuff that's wrong in those pics that YOU posted about the Twins, claiming stuff was right.

You're just pissed off because I proved you wrong. But hey, you bought it, you own it. You bought the farm, don't complain now because you have to feed the pigs. Haha!!:haha:

CarlosV
Mar 16, 2007, 7:17 AM
:omg:

Urban Sky
Mar 16, 2007, 7:37 AM
all you do is kiss this Freedom Tower's ass all the time
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

BINARY SYSTEM
Mar 16, 2007, 9:34 AM
It's taking sooooooooooooooo looooooooooooooooong toooooooooooo creaaaaaaaaate thiiiiiiiiiis tooooooooooooooower, LET ALONE THE ENTIRE COMPLEX! Some of us might not be alive when this is actually built, the midtown project will be completed at about the same time as this, only problem is that this project had half a decade longer to complete.

One word: Larry!!!

Daquan13
Mar 16, 2007, 1:45 PM
And it took almost 1/2 a decade to even actually get the tower started, other than 7 WTC, which was put back in the same spot where the former tower was.

kznyc2k
Mar 16, 2007, 3:16 PM
Neither one of you guys have to like the tower, but stop poking at those who do!

It's not about whether I like the tower or not (I give it a 3 outta 5), but you just have a really, really huge boner for this tower, D, and it's quite apparent by the volume with which you post. It's good and all to be enthusiastic about your passion, but I think you're beyond being enthusiastic, and have jumped over into the "obsessive" category.

Daquan13
Mar 16, 2007, 8:44 PM
It's not about whether I like the tower or not (I give it a 3 outta 5), but you just have a really, really huge boner for this tower, D, and it's quite apparent by the volume with which you post. It's good and all to be enthusiastic about your passion, but I think you're beyond being enthusiastic, and have jumped over into the "obsessive" category.



As of late, I've been talking mainly about the Twins, so how do they fit in with the Freedom Tower? I've read some posts and threads where some of YOU guys get a huge bonified boner for certain buildings.

So how can you guys do stuff and then critisize me if you think I'm doing the same thing?:shrug:

kznyc2k
Mar 17, 2007, 12:57 AM
I've read some posts and threads where some of YOU guys get a huge bonified boner for certain buildings.

So how can you guys do stuff and then critisise me if you think I'm doing the same thing?:shrug:

If you're going to use my words and lump me in with others in an overall question, then you should at least make sure that my actions fit with what you're asking. So I'll ask you: where did I ever once gush over any building, in NYC or otherwise? Please find a post of mine where I do. And I ask this of you because I know there's no building I've gone ga-ga over, on here or any other forum.

LWR
Mar 17, 2007, 4:31 AM
Attention shoppers: testosterone spill on aisle seven ! :yes:

Patrick
Mar 17, 2007, 5:06 AM
This thread is just plain halarious "but you just have a really, really huge boner for this tower" lol. But yeah not this crap again, dose this have to happen every freakin month?

Ladies Please...

But personally I dont blame anyone, this tower is taking so god damn slow that theres nothing else to do or talk about except attack Daquan13. Blah.

Daquan13
Mar 17, 2007, 10:49 AM
Thank you, Patrick!

They are up in arms probably because I like the tower and want to see it get built. They claim that I'm obsessed with it.
I imagined that they're pissed at me because I come here a lot to post. Too bad, so sad.:koko:

NYguy
Mar 17, 2007, 11:53 AM
I wonder how old ...we are gonna be til we see all this built!!

How old will you be in five years?

NYguy
Mar 17, 2007, 11:55 AM
Thank you, 2-TOWERS!

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

The entire "tub" is under construction.

NYguy
Mar 17, 2007, 11:58 AM
Christ, the shit in the Chicago Spire thread hasn't got anything the on the poopflinging going on over here.

That's because posts there are deleted on a regular basis. After reading much of this one, I'm beginning to see why.

Dac150
Mar 17, 2007, 4:19 PM
You guys have to realize, building a foundation for a 16 acre site is going to take a long time. Were not talking about your typical small glass residential highrise. This development is immensly vast. I rather them take their time to build a quality item. I garuntee once this reaches street level, the towers will skyrocket. Its always the case with every tower: long time to reach street level, but rises quickly. Not to mention how complex and delicate this site is with those slurry walls.
I understand everyone is growing tired of waiting (as am I), but lets be a little more constructive on this thread rather than polluting it with crap. The damn thing is getting built, lets be happy!

NYRY85
Mar 17, 2007, 5:19 PM
the man has a point.

Daquan13
Mar 17, 2007, 5:43 PM
You guys have to realize, building a foundation for a 16 acre site is going to take a long time. Were not talking about your typical small glass residential highrise. This development is immensly vast. I rather them take their time to build a quality item. I garuntee once this reaches street level, the towers will skyrocket. Its always the case with every tower: long time to reach street level, but rises quickly. Not to mention how complex and delicate this site is with those slurry walls.
I understand everyone is growing tired of waiting (as am I), but lets be a little more constructive on this thread rather than polluting it with crap. The damn thing is getting built, lets be happy!



I imagine that because it took close to five years to start getting the Freedom Tower off paper and on the ground, people at times might "lose it" because of the fact that it's going to take at least until about 2011 to see the finished product.

Which is probably why the other towers will start being built almost simutaneously so that they will all be soaring close to the same time and so as not to drag out the construction process for what might have been yet another decade or so.

7 WTC seems to have sprouted up pretty quickly once it got started. But maybe because that building was the last one to fall, so I think Silverstein wanted it built first.

To coin the phrase; time waits for no one, in this case, we are all being forced to wait this thing out regardless, but at least Silverstein and the officials, along with the PA, has worked out a plan last spring to accelerate
the sprouting of the towers and to ease the time frame and not make it seem so painfully slow.

dubai 1
Mar 17, 2007, 6:34 PM
was it ever figured out if the beams were in the right place

Daquan13
Mar 17, 2007, 6:44 PM
They had better be! Otherwise I don't even want to think what might happen.

Dac150
Mar 17, 2007, 7:34 PM
I don't see why they wouldn't be.

Daquan13
Mar 17, 2007, 7:49 PM
Knowing Pataki, let's hope that they AREN'T in the wrong spots!

After all, he did all of this with the tower for cheap sensationalism and to make himself look good.

ramvid01
Mar 17, 2007, 10:03 PM
The land that 7 WTC sits on isnt owned by Port Authority. That is the only reason it got built so quickly again.

Daquan13
Mar 17, 2007, 10:30 PM
The land that 7 WTC sits on isnt owned by Port Authority. That is the only reason it got built so quickly again.



And I think also, that no one was in it when it fell, therefore, no one died in it. The occupants, whatever number of them were in there, had screwed out of there long before it collapsed.

Corbin Dalus
Mar 18, 2007, 5:13 AM
Mayor Nagen was right about this project!

Lecom
Mar 18, 2007, 6:05 AM
They are in the right place. Trust me.

NYguy
Mar 18, 2007, 12:51 PM
The land that 7 WTC sits on isnt owned by Port Authority. That is the only reason it got built so quickly again.

Also, there was the matter of the power station that was needed.

NYguy
Mar 18, 2007, 12:55 PM
Which is probably why the other towers will start being built almost simutaneously so that they will all be soaring close to the same time and so as not to drag out the construction process for what might have been yet another decade or so.

7 WTC seems to have sprouted up pretty quickly once it got started. But maybe because that building was the last one to fall, so I think Silverstein wanted it built first.

Those other WTC towers are right on time (although the PA could have speeded things up by building the new "tub" sooner). The reason they'll be rising the same time as the Freedom Tower is because Freedom had so many delays.

Don't forget that when the original WTC was constructed, the tub had to come first. That's what's taking place now on the eastern half of the site, due to be completed in about 9 months. As he has already proven with 7 WTC, once Silverstein is given the land to build on, the other towers will rise.

Daquan13
Mar 18, 2007, 3:41 PM
But what puzzles me is why wasn't a tub built on the east side of Ground Zero before the Twins were built? I thought they had already done that before, seeing that the land must be kept dry.

Yeah, that was a smart thing they did last spring. Otherwise, like you said, the shorter towers might have gone through Freedom Tower-like delays.

CGII
Mar 18, 2007, 5:57 PM
Why didn't they build a tub on the Eastern half of the WTC site in the 60's?
Because the Eastern half of the WTC site had stumpy office towers less than 10 floors occupying it, not 110 storey monsters.

Dac150
Mar 18, 2007, 6:06 PM
Why didn't they build a tub on the Eastern half of the WTC site in the 60's?
Because the Eastern half of the WTC site had stumpy office towers less than 10 floors occupying it, not 110 storey monsters.

Exactly, there was no need for that due to what was being built above it. Of course now thats a different story, therefore the TUB is required.

Independence
Mar 19, 2007, 9:57 AM
Why didn't they build a tub on the Eastern half of the WTC site in the 60's?
Because the Eastern half of the WTC site had stumpy office towers less than 10 floors occupying it, not 110 storey monsters.


Considering that the tallest building in my town has a total of 11 storeys I'm again forced to think "what the fuck..." :haha:

NYguy
Mar 19, 2007, 9:11 PM
But what puzzles me is why wasn't a tub built on the east side of Ground Zero before the Twins were built? I thought they had already done that before, seeing that the land must be kept dry.


The original Path terminal was there. They've only just removed it. Also, there were still buildings on that site, even after the Twin Towers were nearly topped out.

http://www.pdxhistory.com/assets/images/subwaytnl2.jpg


http://www.tmk.com/hm_gallery/1462.jpg


http://images.nycsubway.org/i21000/img_21820.jpg


http://www.souptree.net/blog/images/wtc_underconstruction.jpg


BTW, another crane is about to go up at the site...

http://www.tropolism.com/Zero2650.jpg

CGII
Mar 19, 2007, 9:23 PM
Holy sweet new rendering. I just wish they could make the heights a little more realistic.

CGII
Mar 19, 2007, 9:29 PM
Rough height correction:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4481/newtcor8.jpg

Dac150
Mar 19, 2007, 9:36 PM
Now i'm liking that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STERNyc
Mar 19, 2007, 9:48 PM
Holy sweet new rendering. I just wish they could make the heights a little more realistic.

You're right, and how often is it the case that its the other way around? This is especially the case in NYC where its so hard to make an impact on the skyline, anyone remember the "three sisters" rendering of 425 Fifth Avenue? Again, I can't wait for this project to come to fuition.

Daquan13
Mar 19, 2007, 11:17 PM
You're right, Again, I can't wait for this project to come to fuition.



As are a lot of us with baited breath.

Urban Sky
Mar 19, 2007, 11:24 PM
It's not about whether I like the tower or not (I give it a 3 outta 5), but you just have a really, really huge boner for this tower, D, and it's quite apparent by the volume with which you post. It's good and all to be enthusiastic about your passion, but I think you're beyond being enthusiastic, and have jumped over into the "obsessive" category.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

CoolCzech
Mar 20, 2007, 12:50 AM
Holy sweet new rendering. I just wish they could make the heights a little more realistic.

Really. Even the 4 WTC would dominate the area, if by itself. That rendering makes it out barely larger than the surrounding older building. And 2 WTC looks downright puny, when in reality it will be just shy of the original Twin's height.

Daquan13
Mar 20, 2007, 7:02 AM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



I've forgotten about this and moved on. How old are you?

For Pete's sake, why don't you grow up? Stop acting like you're five years old!:koko: :rolleyes:

sfcity1
Mar 20, 2007, 8:24 AM
Rough height correction:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4481/newtcor8.jpg

A very nice addition (I offer no opinion as to how good of a replacement of the TT though) to the NYC skyline. Now, if only this can catch on elsewhere in Manhattan.

NYguy
Mar 20, 2007, 12:28 PM
Rough height correction:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4481/newtcor8.jpg

Very nice. BTW, things will change (again) when we get a final design for Tower 5, probably approaching 900 ft. Goldman should also be added to the rendering. Can't get a read on the Beekman.

NYguy
Mar 20, 2007, 12:29 PM
anyone remember the "three sisters" rendering of 425 Fifth Avenue? Again, I can't wait for this project to come to fuition.

OH, don't bring up that insult to our intelligence again. I've never gotten over that.

NYguy
Mar 20, 2007, 12:32 PM
A very nice addition (I offer no opinion as to how good of a replacement of the TT though) to the NYC skyline. Now, if only this can catch on elsewhere in Manhattan.

It seems to already have (check the proposals forumn), if only because developers have WTC envy and Manhattan is desperate for new office space.

Ghost
Mar 20, 2007, 3:51 PM
Please, someone go taking pictures there! Does anyone have acces to 7 WTC? :) I know there is not happened much but still... something to stop that fight between Daquan and others!
That webcam really sucks... I tried to make better quality but don't make much difference... What is that red X?
http://i9.tinypic.com/3z24kuu.jpg

CGII
Mar 20, 2007, 3:57 PM
Very nice. BTW, things will change (again) when we get a final design for Tower 5, probably approaching 900 ft. Goldman should also be added to the rendering. Can't get a read on the Beekman.

Beekman would appear just to the left of 7 WTC, at about the same height, no?

ramvid01
Mar 20, 2007, 7:59 PM
Beekman would appear just to the left of 7 WTC, at about the same height, no?

Beekman is about 830ish feet, so it's actually taller than 7 WTC.

But I doubt you'd see it from that angle at least. Its on the other side of Manhattan.

CGII
Mar 20, 2007, 8:01 PM
Beekman is about 830ish feet, so it's actually taller than 7 WTC.

Yes, but if it were included in the rendering posted earlier it should appear to be near 7 WTC in height, due to perspective.

Scruffy
Mar 20, 2007, 8:04 PM
Beekmans taller than 7wtc by over 100 feet.

BINARY SYSTEM
Mar 20, 2007, 10:03 PM
From certain angles Beekman Tower will be visible from Jersey City. Midtown and Brooklyn will easily see Beekmans Tower, as it's almost another 1000 footer.

CGII
Mar 20, 2007, 10:37 PM
Perhaps you don't understand. Beekman Tower should appear the same height as 7 WTC from that view due to perspective, not because it's physically the same height.

Daquan13
Mar 21, 2007, 12:42 AM
I was told that ALL of the towers, including Tower 5 is supposed to be taller than 7 WTC.

Dac150
Mar 21, 2007, 1:06 AM
^ Yes 7 WTC is the shortest highrise of the cluster. From what I heard 5 WTC is shorther that 4 WTC, but taller that 7 WTC. Then again that was a while ago and things change quickly on this project.

Daquan13
Mar 21, 2007, 1:12 AM
No doubt about that!!

Lecom
Mar 21, 2007, 1:15 AM
Looks eerily familiar

http://images.nycsubway.org/i21000/img_21820.jpg

Dac150
Mar 21, 2007, 1:19 AM
I would personally visualize them (being the towers) as steps. One is taller than the other leading up to the Freedom Tower. 7 WTC is just a side bar.

To tell you the truth, I think 7 WTC looks out of place compared to the rest of the towers designs. Sure the facade, matches up, but the structural architecture just isn't flowign with me. Just goes to show you how the glass box concept is out. (I'm still a glass box fan though!)

Dac150
Mar 21, 2007, 1:22 AM
Looks eerily familiar

http://images.nycsubway.org/i21000/img_21820.jpg

Look how different the surrounding area is though compared to now. It's funny how time has changed.

Daquan13
Mar 21, 2007, 1:26 AM
Yeah, you can see the North Tower being started, but as the photo indicates, the South Tower was not yet started.

In another photo, 7 WTC wasn't built yet, but there was a substation there in the shape of it upon which Silverstein built the tower.

Note how the remains of Greenwich Street ran throuh the area before the construction began.

Also, upon visiting Tishman's website, I found out that they built the Twins.

kznyc2k
Mar 21, 2007, 5:42 AM
Lecom, thank you for posting that picture. I've never seen the towers at that stage before from such a telling angle. What year is that -- '67-68ish?

Intersting to see one of the two Hudson Terminal buildings is still standing.

NYguy
Mar 21, 2007, 12:05 PM
Beekman would appear just to the left of 7 WTC, at about the same height, no?

Now that I look at it closer, Beekman would probably appear between towers 2 and 3 in that rendering. At 876 ft, it'd be taller than Chase, but set back about the same distance. Other than that, it would be behind tower 2.

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4481/newtcor8.jpg

Daquan13
Mar 21, 2007, 1:55 PM
Lecom, thank you for posting that picture. I've never seen the towers at that stage before from such a telling angle. What year is that -- '67-68ish?

Intersting to see one of the two Hudson Terminal buildings is still standing.



Probably around that time, since the bathtub had to be built first.

Now I see the outline of the tub area where the Twins were built, while past that area, no tub walls were put in.

2-TOWERS
Mar 21, 2007, 2:21 PM
Look how different the surrounding area is though compared to now. It's funny how time has changed.the good ol' days:cool:

Kent76
Mar 21, 2007, 4:42 PM
On wikipedia I read that the Freedom tower will have 108 ( 87 for occupancy ) floors and that will there be an obs deck at 1362 feet? Is it true?

RockMont
Mar 21, 2007, 5:26 PM
I think it will be equal to that of a 108 story building, with the foundation, and some area on top being non-floors, the foundation being equal to the first 15 and some utility floors between the observation deck and the top business floor. Kind of like the Empire State Buildings "floors" 86 t0 102 are between the rooftop and the top of the spire, which has a little compartment inside and is considered the 102nd floor.

NYguy
Mar 22, 2007, 12:03 PM
the Empire State Buildings "floors" 86 t0 102 are between the rooftop and the top of the spire, which has a little compartment inside and is considered the 102nd floor.

The Empire State's 102nd floor is currently the city's highest observation deck. The more popular deck (on the 86th) is the city's highest outdoor observation deck...(btw, there are a few regular floors above the 86th)

86th Floor Observatory:
The 86th floor Observatory, 1,050 feet (320 meters), reached by high speed, automatic elevators, has both a glass-enclosed area, which is heated in winter and cooled in summer, and spacious outdoor promenades on all four sides of the Building. High powered binoculars are available on the promenades for the convenience of visitors at a minimal cost. Souvenir counters are also located in the 86th floor observatory. The 86th floor observatory is handicap accessible.

102nd Floor Observatory:
The 102nd floor Observatory has reopened as of November 1, 2005.
Admission tickets are only sold at the Observatory ticket office, located on the 2nd floor of the building, at a cost of $15.00 in addition to regular admission tickets.

Observatory Hours:
Open daily 365 days a year.
8:00am to 2:00am, 7 days a week. Last elevators go up at 1:15am.


from the 102nd...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/starberrysweet/sets/72157594327002396/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/268879967_55f93d6571.jpg?v=0


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/91/267293555_8e2a60b696.jpg?v=0


http://www.flickr.com/photos/starfish235/340137141/in/photostream/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/340136406_c33ddb6d04.jpg?v=0

Daquan13
Mar 22, 2007, 1:48 PM
I think that's highway robbery for them to want to friggen charge an additional $15.00 just to go up into that 102nd floor shoebox!!

I was told or heard that only 10 or 12 people can fit in there at one given time.

2-TOWERS
Mar 22, 2007, 1:52 PM
the twins were a 110 floors, and and 92 feet shorter , then the sears, which also has 110 floors, and BD is at level 116 and is only at the 103 floor of the sears right now, interesting how the floor count is on some buildings:cool:

2-TOWERS
Mar 22, 2007, 1:56 PM
I think that's highway robbery for them to want to friggen charge an additional $15.00 just to go up into that 102nd floor shoebox!!

I was told or heard that only 10 or 12 people can fit in there at one given time.
yes it is a shoebox , as i myself , was lucky enough to go up there alot of times, at the price of addmission, now it will cost about 30.00 to see both decks, which also includes a movie, and last i seen the movie they still included the twins, i just hope F/T will have the outdoor deck, like 2 wtc, that was breathtaken.

Daquan13
Mar 22, 2007, 2:04 PM
In the beginning, it was said that the Freedom Tower would have 2 obs decks.

Now they're only mentioning one. And it is my belief that because of the rotating support ring for the spire, they probably won't put a 2nd obs deck there.

DUBAI2015
Mar 22, 2007, 3:04 PM
That little white ring is supposed to rotate?

CGII
Mar 22, 2007, 3:21 PM
the twins were a 110 floors, and and 92 feet shorter , then the sears, which also has 110 floors, and BD is at level 116 and is only at the 103 floor of the sears right now, interesting how the floor count is on some buildings:cool:

Even more interesting was that the WTC observation decks were higherthan Sears'.

NYguy
Mar 22, 2007, 7:25 PM
I think that's highway robbery for them to want to friggen charge an additional $15.00 just to go up into that 102nd floor shoebox!!

I was told or heard that only 10 or 12 people can fit in there at one given time.

If people want to get up there, they'll spend the extra $15. If the demand is too high, it'll lead to closing again. As you've just noted, it's a very limited space.

NYguy
Mar 22, 2007, 7:27 PM
In the beginning, it was said that the Freedom Tower would have 2 obs decks.

Now they're only mentioning one. And it is my belief that because of the rotating support ring for the spire, they probably won't put a 2nd obs deck there.

There'll be no outdoor deck/rotating ring at the Freedom Tower. Previous plans called for an outdoor deck at 1,362 ft, but that was pulled back.

NYguy
Mar 22, 2007, 7:36 PM
from the 102nd...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/starberrysweet/sets/72157594327002396/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/268879967_55f93d6571.jpg?v=0


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/91/267293555_8e2a60b696.jpg?v=0


http://www.flickr.com/photos/starfish235/340137141/in/photostream/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/340136406_c33ddb6d04.jpg?v=0

A little more on the mystery floors...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tocci/322005557/in/set-72157594419553875/

http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif

Daquan13
Mar 22, 2007, 10:27 PM
You'd think that after all this time, they'd put a restaurant up there somewhere between the 86th and 102nd floors, but I guess that won't happen.

CGII
Mar 22, 2007, 11:31 PM
You'd think that after all this time, they'd put a restaurant up there somewhere between the 86th and 102nd floors, but I guess that won't happen.

There's no room.

NYguy
Mar 23, 2007, 11:35 AM
You'd think that after all this time, they'd put a restaurant up there somewhere between the 86th and 102nd floors, but I guess that won't happen.


Are you kidding? There's no room for a restaurant.

NYguy
Mar 23, 2007, 11:41 AM
NY Sun

Big Developers Covet Piece of Ground Zero

http://www.nysun.com/pics/51009_main_large.jpg

With real estate values soaring in Lower Manhattan, the time could be right for investors to take a stake in the planned development at the former World Trade Center site.

By DAVID LOMBINO
March 23, 2007


With the real estate market soaring in Lower Manhattan, experts say the time is right for some of the city's biggest developers to take a stake in the future of ground zero.

The chairman of the publicly traded Vornado Realty Trust, billionaire Steven Roth, an aggressive real estate player who controls 19 office buildings in New York, met with developer Larry Silverstein late last year, according to a source involved with downtown development. The source said the preliminary discussion surrounded the acquisition of part, or all, of the buildings known as Towers 2, 3, and 4, large commercial office buildings that would be built along the eastern side of the site on Church Street.

Real estate analysts say the three towers, comprising 6.2 million square feet, are worth billions of dollars, and because of their prime location and large office floor plans are the financial prize of the planned development. Silverstein Properties is scheduled to begin construction in January 2008 on towers 3 and 4, and in July 2008 on Tower 2. The buildings are scheduled to be completed by 2013.

The New York real estate market has been flooded with capital recently, as hedge funds, large pension funds, foreign investors, and private equity companies seek to tap into the profitable asset class, shifting funds from other traditional investments such as the debt and equity markets.

Vornado, which recently lost out in the bidding for Equity Office Properties Trust, which had more than 500 office buildings across the country and sold to Blackstone for about $39 billion, seemingly has access to an unlimited amount of capital for acquisition. The company is heavily invested in the area around Madison Square Garden, where it has plans with the Related Companies to develop millions of square feet of office space.

Several real estate analysts say it would be tempting for Mr. Silverstein, 75, to tap into rapidly rising values in Lower Manhattan, which are being driven skyward by increasing office rents and greater certainty surrounding the future development of the 16-acre former World Trade Center site. Mr. Silverstein's new office building, known as 7 World Trade Center, is filling up with tenants and he is said to be charging about $70 a square foot for the top floor, though many experts predicted at one point that he would be stretching to get $40 a square foot.

It has been almost a year since the Port Authority, which owns the 16-acre site, and Silverstein Properties, which controls a 99-year lease, reached an agreement about the future development of up to 10 million square feet of new office space.

The president of the Real Estate Board of New York, Steven Spinola, said there has been a "tremendous" increase in value to Mr. Silverstein's ground zero assets during that span.

"It must close to double in value," Mr. Spinola said.

He said it would be "surprising" but not "impossible" for Mr. Roth to seek to acquire part or all of Mr. Silverstein's development rights.
" Roth has not shown any interest in Lower Manhattan. But if he is going to do something, he is going to do something big," Mr. Spinola said.

A spokesman for Mr. Roth, Howard Rubenstein, said Mr. Roth has "no intention" of purchasing development rights at the former World Trade Center site, and that no meeting with Mr. Silverstein took place. "It is absolutely not true," Mr. Rubenstein said yesterday.

An executive of Silverstein Properties, John Lieber, said the notion that the company is seeking to sell its development rights is "nonsense." Mr. Silverstein has indicated his intention to hold onto the assets indefinitely.

Mr. Silverstein would not be alone in trying to cash in on Lower Manhattan's miraculous increase in real estate values. The Port Authority is said to be shopping to private sector developers a stake in the Freedom Tower and another tower to be built nearby called Tower 5.

The Port Authority also recently reached out to some private developers to build out 600,000 square feet of planned retail space along the eastern side of ground zero. According to sources familiar with downtown development, one of the city's most active firms, the Related Companies, is one the developers that has been contacted. Another developer, Westfield, controls the right to first offer on the retail site and could be a partner in any development.

A director for Real Capital Analytics, Daniel Fasulo, said an unbuilt development site at ground zero could fetch about $275 million, based on recent sales of development sites in Midtown. It would be worth as much as $1,000 a square foot, or about $1 billion for an office building of 1 million square feet after it is built and rented out.

Thus, Mr. Silverstein's 6.2 million square feet could be worth more than $6 billion.

"That is such a humongous project that it would not surprise me if Silverstein brought in another developer to assist with the building process," he said. "But I cannot foresee a situation where they would sell the entire interest in the site."

He said Silverstein Properties is a "merchant builder" that makes its money from constructing new towers, but it could seek to take on an additional partner.

"Merchant builders usually don't give up the right to build. It's how they make money," Mr. Fasulo said. "Once he adds his value, it makes sense for him to realize that value."

Mr. Fasulo said Silverstein Properties could do a "pre-sale" on part of the future development where the company could enter into a contract with another developer to control it once the building is finished.

"It helps the bank out and it helps the builder. The buyer usually gets a market discount for getting in so early," he said.

Any sale, according to sources familiar with downtown development, would face several hurdles about the division of insurance proceeds stemming from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and would require approvals from the Port Authority.

Daquan13
Mar 23, 2007, 12:04 PM
Are you kidding? There's no room for a restaurant.



CGII already said that.

And I DID read somewhere that the ring supporting the spire atop the Freedom Tower was supposed to rotate, unless they changed it.:shrug:

BINARY SYSTEM
Mar 23, 2007, 2:23 PM
Silverstein Properties is scheduled to begin construction in January 2008 on towers 3 and 4, and in July 2008 on Tower 2. The buildings are scheduled to be completed by 2013.

2013..........................:slob:

Why doesn't Larry start the construction now, instead of being a cheap J*w and waiting for the Port Authority to finish the bath tub! This is pathetic, the whole project from the design plan to this slow, old and greedy developer has been the worst I've seen in a long time... and all eyes around the world are on this project! :( Our only hope is the midtown development which is steamrolling right along. :tup:

ramvid01
Mar 23, 2007, 3:01 PM
Silverstein Properties is scheduled to begin construction in January 2008 on towers 3 and 4, and in July 2008 on Tower 2. The buildings are scheduled to be completed by 2013.

2013..........................:slob:

Why doesn't Larry start the construction now, instead of being a cheap J*w and waiting for the Port Authority to finish the bath tub! This is pathetic, the whole project from the design plan to this slow, old and greedy developer has been the worst I've seen in a long time... and all eyes around the world are on this project! :( Our only hope is the midtown development which is steamrolling right along. :tup:

Hmmm. Unless you want the building to topple over because of water damage, I think that slurry wall is a bit important. Just my 2 cents though.

kznyc2k
Mar 23, 2007, 3:29 PM
^ Lol, just a weeee bit.

NYguy
Mar 23, 2007, 3:59 PM
Why doesn't Larry start the construction now, instead of being a cheap J*w and waiting for the Port Authority to finish the bath tub!

First of all, the slurry wall has to be completed before excavation can even begin for the towers. The PA will be finished with the wall for towers 3 and 4 late this year, finishing the wall for Tower 2 sometime next year.

This is pathetic, the whole project from the design plan to this slow, old and greedy developer has been the worst I've seen in a long time

It's not the developer who has stalled this project. You do know that there was a lenghty, 3-staged design process, followed by bickering from an architect who wasn't even hired to design the buildings in the first place. Only to be followed by the "revelation" from the NYPD that the Freedom Tower just happened to be bordering on West St - a very busy highway. None of which has anything to do with the developer.

Why did the PA wait 3 to 4 years to start building a slurry wall everyone knew was going to go there regardless? They say it had to be designed. The point is, all of this constant whining about the progress of the site is about a year too late. Every corner of ground zero is now under construction. And they'd better take the time to do it right.

BINARY SYSTEM
Mar 23, 2007, 4:06 PM
OK... I'm sorry about ranting on Larry, maybe it's not his fault completely. But you guys have to admit that the project as a whole has been riddled with major f*ck ups. I'm just pissed off when I heard the words 2013333! :hell:

Dream'n
Mar 23, 2007, 4:41 PM
I don't think 2013 is really that far off in the grand scheme of things. It's been 6 years since 2001 and it's just 6 more years til 2013.

Daquan13
Mar 23, 2007, 9:59 PM
Not quite. At least as far as 09-11 is concerned.

And like NYguy said, better that the slurry wall is being put in now instead of when the Freedom Tower is built.

An BTW, we're coming up on a year since the tower started construction last spring. In April.

antinimby
Mar 24, 2007, 1:54 AM
Let's hope someone else buys the rights to Tower 4 (Maki's) and redesigns it. :yes:

DUBAI2015
Mar 24, 2007, 5:39 AM
Can anyone get some recent pictures of the site?

Daquan13
Mar 24, 2007, 10:16 AM
The crappy location of the cam and even the cam itself produce crappy pics anyway!!

jbmetal311
Mar 24, 2007, 2:06 PM
These new designs look ok, but just don't come across as a sign of financial power to me at all, like WTC did. It kind of reminds me of those buildings going up in Madrid, but there's nothing really amazing or monumental about any of them.

I honestly feel that a two-tower design sort of like the trade center, but with more of a futuristic design could have done wonders for the site.

TAFisher123
Mar 24, 2007, 4:10 PM
Three buildings the size of the Empire state building all right next to each other, and a fouth 950 footer thrown in for good measure......your right, there's nothing monumental about that......happens every day

Daquan13
Mar 24, 2007, 5:19 PM
These new designs look ok, but just don't come across as a sign of financial power to me at all, like WTC did. It kind of reminds me of those buildings going up in Madrid, but there's nothing really amazing or monumental about any of them.

I honestly feel that a two-tower design sort of like the trade center, but with more of a futuristic design could have done wonders for the site.



When are you guys going to accept the fact that this new complex will NOT be anything like the former one was?

For Pete's sake, accept the new design and live with it. You're going to have to anyway. Geez!

m@!
Mar 24, 2007, 6:46 PM
my rendering of what i think it should look like. (rough sketch) :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/maxreality/randomness/newtcor_b.jpg

Daquan13
Mar 25, 2007, 1:53 AM
OMG!

Another one. I'm going to steal a line from Mark, and that is;

When will this lost cause give up?

When the tower is built or when tenants start moving in? Or will you guys keep on poking and screaming for a Freedom Tower "Twin"? Haha!!:koko: :rolleyes:

Trojan in NYC
Mar 25, 2007, 2:49 AM
There'll be no outdoor deck/rotating ring at the Freedom Tower. Previous plans called for an outdoor deck at 1,362 ft, but that was pulled back.
I never got a chance to go on the outdoor deck of the original WTC, and now they won't have one for the freedom tower. That sucks!

Daquan13
Mar 25, 2007, 4:58 AM
The Empire State Building still has one, as does the GE Building (Top of the Rock).

But I think I'm just glad that the tower is getting an obs deck regardless.