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

[scalziand]

I bet Blackrock would be a perfect fit for 2WTC now that Fox is out.

[jshdodd]

I'm very optimistic that a tenant will be found in due time. Lower Manhattan is experiencing an impressive revitalization that is rejuvenating it with life. Once the Transportation Hub is in full operation with retail, I would expect that in no time someone will anchor 2WTC. Just look at all the towers that have been going up, will be going up and have been proposed for Lower Manhattan. It's going to happen.

[chris08876]

I'd be cool to see a super star company like Google just rent out the whole tower. The 9th Avenue HQ for the NY division is woefully inadequate for such a company.

Given that Lower Manhattan has seen an influx of media and tech, might be a good tenant. Although since the Foster tower is designed or geared more towards finance, IF a tech tenant was to sign up, I hope the current specs would be okay.

[chris08876]

Modified rendering by our up and coming architect, yimby friend, Thomas_Koloski.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by jshdodd

I'm very optimistic that a tenant will be found in due time.....It's going to happen.

Yes, Silverstein will get his tenant. One of the things this shows people who are always wondering why it takes so long to finalize a lease, its never completely done until it's done. Although 9 times out of 10, when they get this close it's a done deal, this is one of those 10% that don't. Silverstein was close before with tower 2, he was close this time. It'll happen.

[scalziand]

I keep thinking about the 1msf that Blackrock is supposed to be looking for.

[drumz0rz]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'd be cool to see a super star company like Google just rent out the whole tower. The 9th Avenue HQ for the NY division is woefully inadequate for such a company.

Given that Lower Manhattan has seen an influx of media and tech, might be a good tenant. Although since the Foster tower is designed or geared more towards finance, IF a tech tenant was to sign up, I hope the current specs would be okay.

The old Port Authority Terminal is a nice building and is absolutely huge in size, spanning a fully city block. Google also houses some massive data centers inside. There's no way they'd move from there to a skinny tower like this one.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Oh, this is excellent news!!! Good riddance BIG design!!!

[Cynicism]

.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Oh, this is excellent news!!! Good riddance BIG design!!!

Not so fast on that. We don't know for sure what Silverstein is going to do. What we do know is that he has shown a willingness to go with whatever can get a tenant on board (even if this one didn't work out). Even if he doesn't stick to the new design in particular, Silverstein could still keep Ingels on as the architect of the tower.


http://silversteinproperties.com/com...-trade-center/

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Not so fast on that. We don't know for sure what Silverstein is going to do. What we do know is that he has shown a willingness to go with whatever can get a tenant on board (even if this one didn't work out). Even if he doesn't stick to the new design in particular, Silverstein could still keep Ingels on as the architect of the tower.


http://silversteinproperties.com/com...-trade-center/

Ingels was only brought in because of Murdoch to design their headquarters, Larry prefers the Foster design and I don't think Ingels is capable of designing a more traditional skyscraper to better fit the already-built Foster foundation (if that could even work). To demolish Foster's foundation would prolong the development a couple more years and not to mention that it's quite expensive to do so as well.

While nothing is certain in every aspect of this project, it makes so much more sense for Silverstein to revive the Norman Foster design from an economic standpoint.

The obvious hurdle is finding a bank or financial firm to anchor it, given that Foster's design is geared towards those type of tenants. Lower Manhattan is slowly becoming less of a financial district and more of an area that's attracting media, tech and advertising firms so any potential tenant from those industries may possibly want to keep BIG on as the architect. However, if BIG was to be kept on, we would definitely see a brand new design, definitely no underside news tickers cantilevering over the next.

Basically, there are only two scenarios: the Foster design returns or BIG is kept on but redesigns it for Silverstein. My money is on the former but no matter which way you look at it, the BIG design as is will not be built.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

Ingels was only brought in because of Murdoch to design their headquarters, Larry prefers the Foster design and I don't think Ingels is capable of designing a more traditional skyscraper to better fit the already-built Foster foundation (if that could even work). To demolish Foster's foundation would prolong the development a couple more years and not to mention that it's quite expensive to do so as well.

Silverstein doesn't care what you think, and they're not going to demosish Foster's foundation. Even if Silverstein did prefer Foster's design, which I haven't seen him say, he's going to build whatever tower he can get a tenant to commit to. That's what will get tower 2 built, and that's all you need to know about that.

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Silverstein doesn't care what you think, and they're not going to demosish Foster's foundation. Even if Silverstein did prefer Foster's design, which I haven't seen him say, he's going to build whatever tower he can get a tenant to commit to. That's what will get tower 2 built, and that's all you need to know about that.

Apparently one of the driving factors that led to the Fox/News Corp deal going south was that BIG's design could not fit on the same foundation as Foster's therefore, the existing foundation would have to be demolished thus pushing back the initial expected completion date of 2020 (when the lease they ultimately renewed was up).

It's been widely noted that Foster's design for Tower 2 was Silverstein's favorite, he never made a secret of it. Also, Larry almost backed out of the deal with the Murdochs because he felt that BIG's design did not fit in well with the other towers and only went forward with it after the other architects approved of it.

With News Corp/Fox out of the picture, we are back to square one but at least Silverstein is now free to use whatever design he so chooses but we shall see what kind of anchor tenant it might get (media or financial) and that will ultimately decide this tower's fate.

[Enigmatism415]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Silverstein doesn't care what you think, and they're not going to demosish Foster's foundation. Even if Silverstein did prefer Foster's design, which I haven't seen him say, he's going to build whatever tower he can get a tenant to commit to. That's what will get tower 2 built, and that's all you need to know about that.

Look, it's fairly clear that the construction of the current BIG design would require the demolition of 2WTC's current foundation. You're right in that the existing Foster design won't necessarily be resurrected, but I promise you that whatever is built will be required to make full use of the Foster foundation at the very least. Otherwise, it's simply not worth the time and money. Ripping up the old foundation would also greatly disrupt the WTC mall (Westfield wouldn't even agree to open retail space in 3WTC until it was fully erected, and not just a stump, because of disruption concerns). In short, whatever is put there will not be the current BIG design.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

Apparently one of the driving factors that led to the Fox/News Corp deal going south was that BIG's design could not fit on the same foundation as Foster's therefore, the existing foundation would have to be demolished thus pushing back the initial expected completion date of 2020 (when the lease they ultimately renewed was up).

It's been widely noted that Foster's design for Tower 2 was Silverstein's favorite, he never made a secret of it. Also, Larry almost backed out of the deal with the Murdochs because he felt that BIG's design did not fit in well with the other towers and only went forward with it after the other architects approved of it.

There was the whole discussion of Larry Silverstein talking to the architects of the other towers to get their opinions on whether or not the BIG design fit in with the other towers, and everything was deemed "ok". But your point is lost anyway, because even if Silverstein would have preferred Foster's design, that did NOTHING to stop him from trying to move forward with the BIG design anyway.

Originally Posted by Enigmatism415

Look, it's fairly clear that the construction of the current BIG design would require the demolition of 2WTC's current foundation. You're right in that the existing Foster design won't necessarily be resurrected, but I promise you that whatever is built will be required to make full use of the Foster foundation at the very least. Otherwise, it's simply not worth the time and money.

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/bjarke-...-trade-center/

Ingels was more than eager to take on the challenge. “It’s like playing Twister with a 1,300-foot high-rise,” he says. Many structural elements of the skyscraper came predetermined by the intricate underground architecture of the property, which was set in place by Port Authority and Libeskind’s master plan. Mechanical equipment, like air vents for Calatrava’s station, are positioned on the existing foundations and had to be incorporated into Ingels’ building.

....“The buildings were originally designed for us almost 10 years ago,” Silverstein says. “The Bjarke design that we’re looking at today reflects the design and the language that works today.”

For all of Silverstein’s dramatics, though, there was never much doubt that he would go along with BIG’s building. Under terms of a deal that Silverstein struck with the Port Authority years ago, Two World Trade Center was only going to be built if it had private financing, and that was only going to come if the developer secured a large anchor tenant. Ingels came with the Murdochs, and the Murdochs were the key to bringing the laborious redevelopment process to a close, cementing Silverstein’s legacy.

That last bit sums up what I've beens saying about what gets built. Silverstein will be partial to whatever design will get his tenant signed and the tower financed. It could be one of the other designs, or neither. The good news is that all you guys have to do is sit there and wait like the rest of us. The answer will be revealed for free.

[Darias060]

This might be a dumb question but I'm gonna ask anyway. Out of curiosity, is there any chance that the zoning can be converted to residential and be more profitable for Silverstein? If so, would the far allow for something even taller than wtc1? That would be neat.

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by Darias060

This might be a dumb question but I'm gonna ask anyway. Out of curiosity, is there any chance that the zoning can be converted to residential and be more profitable for Silverstein? If so, would the far allow for something even taller than wtc1? That would be neat.

These buildings are meant to be for commercial and retail use, nothing else. Maybe 5 WTC could be a residential/hotel.

As per the master plan for the WTC site, tower 2 cannot exceed 1 in height, and each tower is meant to spiral down towards the memorial, thus each tower becomes shorter than the next making tower 1 the ultimate pinnacle.

[jsr]

Originally Posted by Darias060

This might be a dumb question but I'm gonna ask anyway. Out of curiosity, is there any chance that the zoning can be converted to residential and be more profitable for Silverstein? If so, would the far allow for something even taller than wtc1? That would be neat.

Would you want the patrons of One World Observatory staring into your posh highrise digs all day long?

[drumz0rz]

Originally Posted by jsr

Would you want the patrons of One World Observatory staring into your posh highrise digs all day long?

Exhibitionists?

Ingels was more than eager to take on the challenge. “It’s like playing Twister with a 1,300-foot high-rise,” he says. Many structural elements of the skyscraper came predetermined by the intricate underground architecture of the property, which was set in place by Port Authority and Libeskind’s master plan. Mechanical equipment, like air vents for Calatrava’s station, are positioned on the existing foundations and had to be incorporated into Ingels’ building.

I wonder if it got to the point that the NYPD veto'd Ingels' plan to play twister with the columns to line them up with the existing foundation? Considering how they forced a complete redesign of 1 WTC, I could imagine them having issues with a foundation that might have any vulnerable weaknesses. That could have been a driver as to why they realized that to build BIG's design they'd have to start over from scratch and thus killed the deal...

[franktko]

Rebuilding the foundations for the Ingels' design: has this been confirmed publicly or is everyone taking this for granted after someone posted "Hey, I know a guy who works there and he says they will have to start from scratch"?