NEW YORK | Goldman Sachs Headquarters | 749 FT / 228 M | 44 FLOORS - Page 2

NYC4Life · #21 Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 10:58 AM**

Overhead shot of Downtown.

Photo By: steppenwolf - Skyscrapercity

Fabb · #22 Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 11:10 AM**

The massing looks totally different from above. It looks slimmer than the fat towers of the WFC.

ltsmotorsport · #23 Posted **Oct 3, 2008, 2:59 AM**

Great aerial shot. Can't wait to see the glass all the way to the top on this one.

NYC4Life · #24 Posted **Oct 17, 2008, 10:06 PM**

By: jwalas - Skyscrapercity

NYCLuver · #25 Posted **Oct 18, 2008, 4:18 AM**

Just a picture I snapped while walking near the WTC site earlier today.

Fabb · #26 Posted **Oct 18, 2008, 11:15 AM**

I'm still not sure, but I guess I prefer the flat facade that faces Verizon.
The other side looks fat.

photoLith · #27 Posted **Oct 18, 2008, 4:03 PM**

Do they have to worry about subsidence since that land was just infill from the original world trade center. It would seem that it would not be very stable, at least not stable enough to support an 800ft tower, but obviously it is. I was just wondering if they have to go through different procedures in order to secure these buildings.

NYC4Life · #28 Posted **Oct 18, 2008, 5:34 PM**

The landfill and the Hudson River lie on top of bedrock.

NYC4Life · #29 Posted **Oct 18, 2008, 7:02 PM**

By: lofter1 - Wired New York

pj3000 · #30 Posted **Oct 21, 2008, 3:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photolitherland

Do they have to worry about subsidence since that land was just infill from the original world trade center. It would seem that it would not be very stable, at least not stable enough to support an 800ft tower, but obviously it is. I was just wondering if they have to go through different procedures in order to secure these buildings.

Pilings of big buildings go into bedrock, which doesn't subside as soils do. It's not like home construction. Manhattan is actually ideal for tall building construction given its foundation of metamorphic bedrock.