NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,270 FT | 80 FLOORS | ON HOLD - Page 206

drumz0rz · #**4101** Posted **Dec 16, 2015, 7:22 PM**

I've noticed that most renders seems to shift the building slightly to make it appear that it won't completely block 1 WTC and it's observation deck (which it certainly will).

chris123678 · #**4102** Posted **Dec 27, 2015, 4:53 AM**

The design for this building, in my opinion, is pretty hideous.
I understand that they design change was needed, but it's rather an ugly change

BrandedCow · #**4103** Posted **Dec 27, 2015, 2:29 PM**

I am not a big fan of the staircase. Please say this is not the final design that will actually be built.

chris08876 · #**4104** Posted **Dec 27, 2015, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandedCow

I am not a big fan of the staircase. Please say this is not the final design that will actually be built.

It is. Not sure whats up with this delusional thinking that it will change (speaking in general because others think it will change too). Fox deal is a done deal. This will rise. We must accept it.

We didn't get the Foster design because of client needs. Silverstien was having an incredibly hard time getting a tenant in the other tower with the floor plates that they had. It was geared towards finance. This new tower is much more pleasing for media related tenants such as fox. Sometimes in real estate, you have to kiss ass to get a tenant, and this is an example. But at least we are getting a super tall, and this might be a case where once its finished, people will like it. Same reaction was found for 432 Park. At first, many hated it, and now its a common staple for the NYC skyline.

Prezrezc · #**4105** Posted **Dec 27, 2015, 8:48 PM**

As a political recusant myself, I wouldn't care which media conglomerate from whatever political moonbat wing scores the golden ticket of tenancy here.
The bottom line IMO is that Larry seemed to have miscalculated as to whom he wanted this tower to cater to.
Also, as broached in previous posts, Lord Fosters design--as beautiful as it is--is little more than a geometrically enhanced and taller version of Chicago's Smurfit-Stone tower...not that said building is in any way mediocre. The aforementioned observation, however, prompts me to question the wisdom of having only one vantage point (i.e. the Jersey side) enjoy the grandeur of the prime "marketable" aesthetic feature of the tower.
Otherwise, the north-south/vice versa views looked unflatteringly bloated; and even worse, those from anywhere from Long Island as a geographic entity (i.e. the two boros and anywhere in Nassau County that can offer a reasonably indicative perspective) seems to me to have bestowed us with somewhat of a backhanded booby prize...unintended perhaps, but backhanded nonetheless.

chris08876 · #**4106** Posted **Jan 2, 2016, 3:28 AM**

Credit: Thomas_Koloski

====> Scroll

artspook · #**4107** Posted **Jan 2, 2016, 11:30 PM**

It's a "taller version of Chicago's Smurfit-Stone tower" - Prezrezc . .
yes of course there's a resemblance between the two . .
but I feel that they're hardly the same . .
. . that Chicago building has a square footprint . .
Fosters 2WTC proposal has a notched hexagonal footprint . .
so when the tops of both towers get sliced at a similar angle . .
the appearance of their sloped diamond roofs are significantly different . .
2WTC being much more complex & nuanced . .

jayden · #**4108** Posted **Jan 4, 2016, 5:08 PM**

Patiently waiting for the announcement

chris08876 · #**4109** Posted **Jan 4, 2016, 10:28 PM**

Credit: http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-trade...-in-1441937197

HiRiser · #**4110** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 5:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

ok sorry off topic but WHEN ARE THEY GONNA WASH THE DAMN WINDOWS????? 1WTC still looks like a sloppy patchwork with its different shades of scum-covered glass

My thoughts exactly. Been annoying the #### out of me for ages. The building has a multimillion dollar building maintenance unit that is rarely seen.

HiRiser · #**4111** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 5:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiRiser

My thoughts exactly. Been annoying the #### out of me for ages. The building has a multimillion dollar building maintenance unit that is rarely seen.

oops my bad. sorry about off topic WTC1. In fact what looks like dirty glass is actually read-thru of the blinds inside.

jsbrook · #**4112** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 11:28 AM**

Any news on 5 WTC? The St. Nicholas Church hasn't filled the planned plot, right? It is just adjacent to where this tower was supposed to rise? Speaking of, what's going on with that?

Shwayze1994 · #**4113** Posted **Jan 5, 2016, 11:41 AM**

I love this tower, I think once it is actually built, people will love it. Its original and looks like it belongs to the complex, Fosters design is nice and will be missed, but this design is far superior.

Kurtz · #**4114** Posted **Jan 6, 2016, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shwayze1994

I love this tower, I think once it is actually built, people will love it. Its original and looks like it belongs to the complex, Fosters design is nice and will be missed, but this design is far superior.

I agree and at same time i think the opposite for Foster design.
I don't think Foster's tower would have been diamond beauty from real.

chris08876 · #**4115** Posted **Jan 7, 2016, 9:21 PM**

Credit: Vertical_Gotham and @Joseph.hdz

Zapatan · #**4116** Posted **Jan 7, 2016, 10:18 PM**

I'm starting to sort of like this building.

It should be 1,362 feet tall though

CityGuy87 · #**4117** Posted **Jan 7, 2016, 11:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I'm starting to sort of like this building.

It should be 1,362 feet tall though

I think the current height is fine actually and the whole point of the master plan was that 1 WTC is the pinnacle and each tower gets shorter as it spirals down to the memorial. Foster's 2 WTC definitely captured that aspect a lot better than BIG though.

chris08876 · #**4118** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 2:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I'm starting to sort of like this building.

I think this will be one that changes opinions once its up and going. It will be nice to see this rising along with 45 Broad and 125 Greenwich.

I personally think its nice, and it could be that the renderings don't do justice. 432 Park for example looked terrible in the renderings, yet in person, its simplistic nature really shines. Some dislike 5 Beekman, and it looks like rubbish in the renderings, but in person, its quite nice. The final product will be the ultimate test of judgement. Of course this will vary, but it could change opinions with a positive spin.

CoolCzech · #**4119** Posted **Jan 8, 2016, 2:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

I've noticed that most renders seems to shift the building slightly to make it appear that it won't completely block 1 WTC and it's observation deck (which it certainly will).

The north tower "blocked" the view of the original WTC's observatory. I think the parapet of 2 WTC will be at the same height as the new obsevatory, reproducing the spectacular effect of having another huge tower looming directly across from the observer. A good thing.

spc fan · #**4120** Posted **Jan 10, 2016, 6:54 AM**

Has the building started actual construction yet? On google earth, I still see foundation works. Nice design, though I think the original 2006 one looks prettier. Just as Chris 08876 said, we HAVE to acept this even If you do not like it. This might be the final design. Well, this design looks like blocks stacked together, I think, and looks like the CoC complex in Moscow. Actually, rather something like awesome too.