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

[sterlippo1]

If it is really official, then I'll break out the Lower-Manhattan checklist:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5147/5601218646_8e9cc9c35d_b.jpg
(Culminated from the Diagrams section found here: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=8 )

interesting that 8 of these 13 buildings are within 74 feet of each other:shrug: soon, we wont have the lower manhattan skyline any longer without an anchor, and what an anchor it will be!:cheers:

[Don098]

That last rendering almost makes the new complex look better than the old one, and with the new height increases it definitely will. (if they are true)

:cheers:

There are no new height increases.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

There are no new height increases.

according to NYguy there is

WTC 2. 1429'

WTC 3. 1270'

WTC 4. 977'

[aquablue]

:banana::banana::banana: Wohooo, height increase :tup:

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's get this party started :) :)

[Don098]

according to NYguy there is

WTC 2. 1429'

WTC 3. 1270'

WTC 4. 977'

No...

:banana::banana::banana: Wohooo, height increase :tup:

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's get this party started :) :)


and no.

Sorry to break the news, but the PA released the wrong numbers. PLEASE go back and read the discussion beginning with NYGuy's post #1547 (pages 78 to 79 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=130301&page=78)) on the 200 Greenwich thread and all of your questions will be answered.

Man STR is going to scream. I can hear him now, especially after he explicitly said, "I'm trying to beat this rumor down before it even gets legs."

So...yea...

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

No no no!!!!!

The PA released the wrong numbers. PLEASE go back and READ.

Man STR is going to scream. I can hear him now. There were like 15-20 posts around this topic about a week ago.

ya i remember that but this was said by NYguy....:D


Once again, these numbers are all over the place. The official numbering of the floors changes again, (the height seems to change also).

http://www.wtc.com/about/office-tower-2So, depending on how it's interpreted, that's a 1,349 ft to roof tower with the remaining 80 ft spire going to 1,429 ft or a 1,269 ft to roof tower topped by an 80 ft spire. Still scheduled to reach street level by the beginning of next year.


I agree with him just because the PA has always said the roof height and then said it would be topped by an 80 foot spire. Besides i'm also confident because of the slight altering of Tower 4's height and floor numbering. And until something comes from Chris Ward or Norman Foster that this was a mistake, ill accept the new numbers.

[Don098]

Why would you trust the PA's website when it's been proven multiple times to have been wrong and maintained by careless staffers? The building has not been redesigned. If it was, wouldn't it have been picked up by reputable new outlets? Also, adding height to 200 Greenwich would completely throw off the gradual reduction in height from tower one to tower four, respectively, which makes zero conceptual sense. Not to mention it would look like absolute crap with T2's roof exceeding the rooftop of Tower One.

The steel has already been ordered and the foundations have been laid. There's no way that those numbers are correct. I mean your "source" (NYGuy) BEGINS HIS POST by saying, "Once again, these numbers are all over the place" almost as if to warn against silly rumors stemming from notoriously shoddy reporting by the PA.

Come on man, use your critical thinking skills a little here.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Why would you trust the PA's website when it's been proven multiple times to have been wrong and maintained by careless staffers? The building has not been redesigned. If it was, wouldn't it have been picked up by reputable new outlets? Also, adding height to 200 Greenwich would completely throw off the gradual reduction in height from tower one to tower four, respectively, which makes zero conceptual sense. Not to mention it would look like absolute crap with T2's roof exceeding the rooftop of Tower One.

The steel has already been ordered and the foundations have been laid. There's no way that those numbers are correct. I mean your "source" (NYGuy) BEGINS HIS POST by saying, "Once again, these numbers are all over the place" almost as if to warn against silly rumors stemming from notoriously shoddy reporting by the PA.

Come on man, use your critical thinking skills a little here.

i understand what your saying and im not disagreeing. this is probably 98% an error. Though if thats what they posted i'll stick with it until the next update. Just to make sure.

[djlx2]

This building is going to be so big, that it will require two cores. Obviously one isn't enough.

Requoting a very old post, I know, but I agree with the thought on this page of a twin-towers novel. Re: cores, and no more destruction.

[NYYskyline]

according to NYguy there is

WTC 2. 1429'

WTC 3. 1270'

WTC 4. 977'

Is this a hight increase or an accident?

[Don098]

Is this a hight increase or an accident?

READ!:hell:

[jthornton17]

READ!:hell:

LOL. I have to agree with DON here. I mean, the base of the other two buildings (wtc 2 and wtc 3) are under construction. If you were going to add physical floors, the support structure would have to change. It's just kind of common sense at this point. Unless you were going to add a light weight external structure to the building. WTC 2 would be very hard to do with it's pointed top and WTC 3 really has that already in the design. Obviously wtc 4 is past the underground stage. So it's really silly to think they could add extra floors at this point.

[Onn]

LOL. I have to agree with DON here. I mean, the base of the other two buildings (wtc 2 and wtc 3) are under construction. If you were going to add physical floors, the support structure would have to change. It's just kind of common sense at this point. Unless you were going to add a light weight external structure to the building. WTC 2 would be very hard to do with it's pointed top and WTC 3 really has that already in the design. Obviously wtc 4 is past the underground stage. So it's really silly to think they could add extra floors at this point.

And what do you know about support structure design and the loads those bases are built to carry? :rolleyes:

[The Grand Architect]

Did anyone notice the live camera on wtcprogress' site? It was moved to the west, near the side of West St, with a dead-on view of the south side of the 1WTC.

[Zapatan]

If the official WTC website changed the figures recently there is probably a reason.

A. there are probably no more actual floors, they just number them 88, 80, 72

B. the buildings where probably always this height(If they indeed are), sometimes figures get misconstrued

C. tower 2's rooftop is NOT higher than tower 1's, it says 1429 to the pinnacle, tower 1 is 1776.

Of course it's possible that there were no changes but I'll go with what the official website says for now. I do remember when the final design for 1WTC was released 6 years ago that there was an article stating the other towers could potentially be as tall as 1450 feet. This doesn't mean that they are or aren't, none of us know, just wait until the figures are officially released.

[nydavid]

Hello everyone, I'm new here but have been following this forum for a couple of years now and have decided to finally get in on the action =) . I took a ride down to Brooklyn this past Sunday (4/10/11) from Westchester to visit my aunt and took a few pictures of 1 wtc with my phone:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/11a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/12a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/13a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/14a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/15a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/16a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/17a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/18a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/19a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/20a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/spookykid520/21a.jpg

[jd3189]

I know the heights are fixed,but you guys never know what may happen during construction. Some event may happen in which 2 WTC's height is increased to almost the same height as 1 WTC, but a little bit lower to resemble the close height the Twin Towers. Plans can change,but I'm just glad that all of them are going up.

[colemonkee]

Great series, nydavid, and welcome to the forum. I think those are the best photos of the corner node glass with the four window panes that I've seen to date.

[vandelay]

Those pictures are great. The glass looks fantastic in them. You also get a sense of how much more interesting the design is in three dimensions. This tower is going to be amazing.

[UrbanImpressionist]

The glass looks fantastic in them.

Was thinking the same thing. Something we don't exactly see in the renderings and won't see till it's completely clad; the reflections of the sky and clouds at various times of day, weather conditions, and colors are gunna provide limitless variations of incredible views.

[Alliance]

I actually think the cladding looks pretty cheap and generic. At this point I'm kind of pinning my hopes on the base.

[robby68]

This thing is getting huge.I will make my yearly trip to Gotham City in August.I cannot wait to see how big this is in August.:banana:

[sterlippo1]

welcome david, great stuff there:tup:

[Alliance]

i was just thinking the same thing. so long as it's built in NYC Alliance wont like it...

Hardly true. I just don't think such high praise is warranted on a this building. I think its remarkably average, which is not what I want for a building that has such psychological and cultural importance both to the city of New York and the nation as a whole. I think New York deserves the best and I don't think its getting it (for a myriad of reasons that are for another place and time). Other cities like London are building centerpiece towers that have drastically superior materials and design. It seems to me that praise is too often heaped on any structure that is built, without consideration for an objective comparative analysis. I am just stating my opinion. I believe that when people think critically about architecture, they will demand a higher quality architecture and development. That will only benefit the built environment that is this city.

Just a reminder of how far we have come over the past year.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4360093232_ab2ccb3094_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23169212@N07/4360093232/)
SDC12507-edit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23169212@N07/4360093232/)
Photo by me.

[aquablue]

What the fook is wrong with the glass, Alliance?

[Puzzlecraft]

I was in NYC for the first time since '02, and had an opportunity to visit the WTC site. Took many pictures, here are a few reduced in size and compressed a bit not to take up too much room. After viewing the site so many times on this forum and elsewhere it was great to see it in person, yet know where everything was! For this posting I selected pictures which for the most part were from perspectives not frequently posted here.

1
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_01.jpg

2
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_02.jpg

3
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_03.jpg

4
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_04.jpg

5
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_05.jpg

6
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_06.jpg

[Puzzlecraft]

7
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_07.jpg

8
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_08.jpg

9
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_09.jpg

10
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_10.jpg

11
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_11.jpg

12
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_12.jpg

13
http://www.custompuzzlecraft.com/wtc/wtc_20110403_13.jpg

[pico44]

Other cities like London are building centerpiece towers that have drastically superior materials and design. It seems to me that praise is too often heaped on any structure that is built, without consideration for an objective comparative analysis. I am just stating my opinion. I believe that when people think critically about architecture, they will demand a higher quality architecture and development. That will only benefit the built environment that is this city.




All well and good Alliance, you are of course free to like or dislike anything for whatever noble reason you choose to do so. But the problem i have with this post is the highlighted word: Objective. If you were such a bastion of objectivity, perhaps you might have found one positive thing to say about a single New York development in you're time here as Alliance or Ordo. Instead, you're posts are seemingly and simply, opportunities to let everyone here know that New York drools and Chicago rules. But it isn't the architecture that folds under objective critical analysis, it's always you're comments. For example, you're complaint that the glass here sucks. Perhaps you are voluntarily ignoring a comparitive examination of the glass between the Shard and 1wtc that has been done here and on SSC. If you had seen that, you would know the reason the Shard doesn't have wavy reflections is not because the glass is superior, but because of the inward angle of the building and the lowrise architecture around it. It has no reflectionsof far off buildings! And the reflections it does have are from nearby buildings where distortion will be less prominent. High school optics my dear. By any measure, the glass being used here is some of the finest glass ever hung on a skyscraper. But of course that isn't good enough for you, is it? Because nothing is ever good enough for a troll.

[dar124]

Great pics Puzzlecraft!!! :tup:

[Zensteeldude]

Thanks for all the great pics Puzzlecraft !

That last pic clearly shows why they have to install slurry walls to keep the Hudson river out.

I dub it Lake Security Center.:)

[detroitmetro101]

i read a couple of recent articles about the decline in demand for commercial office space in downtown. how will this affect the wtc, and future tower construction?? is anybody out there thats worried about this trend?

[STR]

What the fook is wrong with the glass, Alliance?

Nothing. In fact, it's pretty damn similar to the much vaunted glass on the Shard. Only difference is that the geometry (and the fact there's more buildings to reflect) of the WTC tower makes the surface defects more noticeable. Neither building is using polished or ground plate glass, and since all hi-rise windows are heat tempered, there's going to be distortions. Angle of viewing, angle of the reflected object, distance of the reflected object all impact the perception of surface defects. It's why, if you only look at a few photos of each, it looks like they're using cheaper material in the WTC. They are not, in fact they probably overspent on materials given the minor difference between stainless steel (as used at the WTC) and galvanized steel (used pretty much everywhere else). They just didn't go WAYYY overboard and had the plates machine polished like a telescope lens.

Based on my extensive research while working on my models, you're going to get a more noticeable distortion if you're looking straight at the glazing (90* angle)at a reflected object directly behind that's some distance away. If you view the glass at an oblique angle and look at a reflected object that's both close and also obliquely angled from the glass, it's going to look almost optically perfect.

I could probably write a short book on the perceived optical effects of glass and reflective coatings. Most of the work on my models has involved studying how light, reflectivity, angle and other factors alter your perception of the reflections and color of the glazing.

[cpaul]

This may not be the appropriate place to put this, but I have to say, I was hoping the design of the tower would grow on me more as it was built, and it hasn't been the case. You'd think (well, I'd think, at least), the highlight of the New York Skyline would be architecturally magnificent, and I honestly feel like this isn't. at all. I actually much prefer the other (planned) three towers, especially #4 (the one where the top is sliced down at a 45 degree angle and is split into four separate tips). this isn't meant to be a troll attempt like the guy above me, and I don't know squat about building materials, etc., it just seems like there are so many buildings in midtown being built with so much ingenuity, that there is little recourse for the tallest building having so little.

[djlx2]

:previous:
meaning that that the design on this one is too "blank" in some way?

[cpaul]

:previous:
meaning that that the design on this one is too "blank" in some way?

I guess you could put it that way. the best I can figure, the boxy shape is supposed to be an homage to the previous towers, which themselves weren't exactly the pinnacle of architectural creativity. It's just disappointing to me that the smaller towers look much nicer.

[The Grand Architect]

I guess you could put it that way. the best I can figure, the boxy shape is supposed to be an homage to the previous towers, which themselves weren't exactly the pinnacle of architectural creativity. It's just disappointing to me that the smaller towers look much nicer.

I don't think height should play a factor into how "stylish" the tower looks.

Anyways, I drew a quick sketch of the 1 WTC glass, specifically one of the corner pieces on the first office floor. I added the blue color in paint :)

http://i53.tinypic.com/kceagz.jpg

Just a quick pencil sketch, nothing special, really. But yeah :D

[NYCLuver]

April 14th, 2011

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2604.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2605.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2606.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2607.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2608.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2609.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2612.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2614.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2616.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2617.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2635.jpg
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy111/DKNY618/IMG_2636.jpg

[The Grand Architect]

Great pics NYCLuver!!!

[2-TOWERS]

Fantastic shots...looking at the cam 14th row of glass going up meaning floor 34...the next lift will be really noticable

[TimCity2000]

This may not be the appropriate place to put this, but I have to say, I was hoping the design of the tower would grow on me more as it was built, and it hasn't been the case. You'd think (well, I'd think, at least), the highlight of the New York Skyline would be architecturally magnificent, and I honestly feel like this isn't. at all. I actually much prefer the other (planned) three towers, especially #4 (the one where the top is sliced down at a 45 degree angle and is split into four separate tips). this isn't meant to be a troll attempt like the guy above me, and I don't know squat about building materials, etc., it just seems like there are so many buildings in midtown being built with so much ingenuity, that there is little recourse for the tallest building having so little.

i can see where you're coming from, but i'm actually of the opposite sentiment.

the impact of this tower in my mind comes from its simplicity and subtlety. (its height doesn't hurt either, lol...)

[The Grand Architect]

Another quick pencil sketch with added effects in photoshop:

http://i52.tinypic.com/2lwu49t.png

[Romanwtc]

These buildings will look great! It will definatly change the skyline! But the thing that really hurts me to say is that basically the terrorist won. no, I'm not trying to start a debate. (it's too late for that) but the terrorist obviously didn't want the Twin Towers, so they took them from us. And now we won't rebuild them. Meaning they got what they wanted. It really hurts me to say this. I am personally a Huge fan of the WTC towers. I never got a chance to see them I'n person. And now I will never have that chance..

[djlx2]

These buildings will look great! It will definatly change the skyline! But the thing that really hurts me to say is that basically the terrorist won. no, I'm not trying to start a debate. (it's too late for that) but the terrorist obviously didn't want the Twin Towers, so they took them from us. And now we won't rebuild them. Meaning they got what they wanted. It really hurts me to say this. I am personally a Huge fan of the WTC towers. I never got a chance to see them I'n person. And now I will never have that chance..

I thought this was about the construction, and the idea from that was taking the misery and turning it into something beautiful. Like angels from ashes. I didn't like having the most beautiful idea of city architecture destroyed. It was heartbreak. I don't know what you're saying about the terrorist but I guess everyone has their own view on winners and losers. So I guess everyone has their own idea of architecture too and what the new buildings really mean.

[Troubadour]

These buildings will look great! It will definatly change the skyline! But the thing that really hurts me to say is that basically the terrorist won. no, I'm not trying to start a debate. (it's too late for that) but the terrorist obviously didn't want the Twin Towers, so they took them from us. And now we won't rebuild them.

There is some truth to this, and I felt exactly the same for many years. The terrorists hated those towers with a special passion above and beyond their other targets because of how truly awesome their design was - they stood as pillars of the sky rather than tenuous abstractions like most skyscrapers. Al Qaeda bore an almost personal grudge against them, because they represented a modern incarnation of the Hellenic sensibility of human proportion and simplicity: Something deeply and intrinsically offensive to religious fundamentalists.

Contrary to the opinions of many stick-up-the-ass art critics, the towers were not soulless corporate edifices, but tributes to mankind - because they looked from a distance like mere children's blocks rather than anything pretentious or self-important. That combination of internal humility and fearless assertiveness captured the soul of what is best in Western civilization. They were a thoroughly human construct on a superhuman scale, and so it infuriated the sensibilities of people whose minds are anti-human. So yes, in a superficial sense they won by taking away those towers, but in another they lost more completely than they could have had their attack failed: The towers are now immortal in human memory. It was an Obiwan Kenobi-like sacrifice.

But there is another positive side to the new WTC that shouldn't be overlooked: We're moving on instead of being enslaved to the past. If we absolutely insisted on rebuilding the towers - safer and stronger, but outwardly the same buildings in the same location - then we would essentially be allowing terrorists to dictate the future instead of keeping our eyes forward. Who says the greatest towers in NY must eternally be in that location? Who says they must look a certain way? The Parthenon we revere today was built after the Persians destroyed an earlier incarnation. So who is to say what glories await the New York sky? Looking how the new 1 WTC is shaping up, I am quite optimistic.

[djlx2]

There were many things that were beautiful about the original twin towers: they were a thoroughly human construct at greater heights, which was greater because they weren't ostentatious. Their duality in purpose is what made them stand out on the skyline despite the appearance of simplicity, which was also in ways construct for that duality. Part of it for reflectivity, because part of the nature of skyscrapers is for what they reflect.

The WTC complex isn't the same by the reality of its own construct. Part of it is testament, or memorial, because that's what hallows the site. The structures of the complex are going up at different heights, on a different timeline, because the hallowed nature of the site itself is conflicted as well as what memorial means for its future. I would like to look up at the new constructions and only be amazed at the fact that they're taking place; but there are times when there is so much uncertainty about what stands behind their future that I'm unsure whether or not I should be embracing the uncertainty, or whether I'm staring at an idea that won't take place in my lifetime.

Part of the simplicity of the twin towers is because they were an innocent idea. That idea was more children's blocks because there wasn't an idea then of a scarred future. When you look at the site now you see the scar of the surface as much as you see the idea of construction; until the full complex takes hold you can't see the brightness of the future without seeing what damage history made. We only see stages of construction.

[Tower X]

I didn't really like the WTC twin towers. They looked rather plain and boring.

But i really like this one! One of my fav buildings!

[Troubadour]

until the full complex takes hold you can't see the brightness of the future without seeing what damage history made. We only see stages of construction.

This is true, but future generations won't see "damage." They will not smell the ashes of the past, even if they appreciate its memory from a distance as a sacred tradition. Most people alive today can't see WW2 for the urgency, fear, horror, and desperation it engendered, but mainly as a dramatic prelude to the present. The same will be true of 9/11: It will not be seen as the day we lost the towers by generations that never knew them in the present tense, but as the beginning of the new WTC, conceived in the ashes of its godlike predecessors.

They will not judge Freedom Tower and its colleagues by how well they reflect on the fallen, but rather vice-versa: Critics of future generations will judge the old towers through the lens of their children, and say either "The old towers captured an immortal magic that shone even more brightly in its risen phoenix," or "They were a bland and meaningless corporate edifice transformed into something magical by their destruction and resurrection."

The new 1 WTC is shaping up to be something new in the world. It does not replace, and does not seek to replace, what its predecessors were, but taps into something else entirely. Some of the reflected cloudscapes we've already seen in the cladding to date border on the divine, and it can only get more awesome as the exterior work moves forward. It is my solemn opinion that this building will come to achieve a status beyond even that of the Empire State Building, and will reach the kind of deep cultural reverence reserved for things like the Notre Dame and the Colosseum. I think we may be witnessing the rise of something whose true depth we cannot appreciate in the day-to-day construction details and incremental progress.

In its reflections, it does not paw at the sky like so many spindly buildings; it does not reject the sky like Brutalist hulks; and it does not express a lonely equality to the sky, like the confident and well-proportioned fallen towers; rather, it becomes the sky. It melds with it, like a vertical river - sublime music in the form of a skyscraper. And that's just the one tower of the complex: Who knows what wonders will be revealed in the real-world presence of buildings we've only seen as renderings? If the revelations of those cloudscape reflections are any omen, the new WTC will be like the Ode to Joy personified in walls of glass.

[djlx2]

:previous:

I agree with these entirely.
To make this vision complete, you need to enable growth and construction in harmonious way, even if it's not seamless. Like a river, it has to have its own natural pulse and duration. For the colossal greatness you describe, structures should learn from one another's pattern, in a way that's not necessarily identical in form or construction, that doesn't involve mirroring, and is guided rather than rushed but with an ultimate goal or trajectory in mind.

"Pawing" is a little rough a term for many structures in the landscape, "hurrying for" would be a better way to describe spires, since this all has to do with duration, and not trying to fulfill archetypes. Unlike Brutalism, you don't want a style that reflects its surrounding environment of urban decay, or disregarding historic growth with a focus on more recent destruction. In terms of lonely equality, you don't want the buildings to be lonely. And given the different growth of the various sites on the WTC construction site it's more difficult to reconcile the loneliness of each current individual structure in progress with the vision of the site's harmony as a whole.

The idea for the site is reverent and it is something that aspires to greatness, again, in a harmonious way. If we want it to be better than its now-wrecked godlike predecessors, we have to have a better god's-eye view of how that's possible, which involves understanding the motives behind other architecture, in order to evolve beyond it without focusing upon it; focusing instead on what we would like to have happen and the ways it might be accomplished, without allowing design for these methods to feel rushed into venues that take away, rather than give to the structure; enabling harmony altogether through mutual effort rather than restriction; and, in short, not necessarily have mirrors looking down at poor foundational decisions but reflecting ways it might be able to climb higher. You can have beautiful dreams for an architectural landscape. When it's an actual site rather than a vision you also have the difficult of developing it in a way that mutually supports all of the projects within the landscape.

In a consistent way, that allows them to all be constructed simultaneously without the focus involving evolution of one at the setback to another, possibly at the detriment of them both. It's about having a vision instead of a focus on just one or another project. Harmony isn't insisted to be created; harmony is natural reciprocation; harmony is key.

[sterlippo1]

In its reflections, it does not paw at the sky like so many spindly buildings; it does not reject the sky like Brutalist hulks; and it does not express a lonely equality to the sky, like the confident and well-proportioned fallen towers; rather, it becomes the sky. It melds with it, like a vertical river - sublime music in the form of a skyscraper. And that's just the one tower of the complex: Who knows what wonders will be revealed in the real-world presence of buildings we've only seen as renderings? If the revelations of those cloudscape reflections are any omen, the new WTC will be like the Ode to Joy personified in walls of glass.

beautifully stated Troubadour, well done indeed:tup:

[STR]

Preview:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8193/pano11p.jpg
Pano: http://www.mediafire.com/?vm1i2apr6231tp6

Requires Quicktime

[TAK]

WOW STR!!! Very nice work. I love it, fun to look at and play with :). Thanks for your work.

[twintowersII-2011]

gives a good idea how the new top of the world wil be

[The Grand Architect]

Remember, It's rebirth- Not rebuilt.

[pico44]

This is true, but future generations won't see "damage." They will not smell the ashes of the past, even if they appreciate its memory from a distance as a sacred tradition. Most people alive today can't see WW2 for the urgency, fear, horror, and desperation it engendered, but mainly as a dramatic prelude to the present. The same will be true of 9/11: It will not be seen as the day we lost the towers by generations that never knew them in the present tense, but as the beginning of the new WTC, conceived in the ashes of its godlike predecessors.

They will not judge Freedom Tower and its colleagues by how well they reflect on the fallen, but rather vice-versa: Critics of future generations will judge the old towers through the lens of their children, and say either "The old towers captured an immortal magic that shone even more brightly in its risen phoenix," or "They were a bland and meaningless corporate edifice transformed into something magical by their destruction and resurrection."

The new 1 WTC is shaping up to be something new in the world. It does not replace, and does not seek to replace, what its predecessors were, but taps into something else entirely. Some of the reflected cloudscapes we've already seen in the cladding to date border on the divine, and it can only get more awesome as the exterior work moves forward. It is my solemn opinion that this building will come to achieve a status beyond even that of the Empire State Building, and will reach the kind of deep cultural reverence reserved for things like the Notre Dame and the Colosseum. I think we may be witnessing the rise of something whose true depth we cannot appreciate in the day-to-day construction details and incremental progress.

In its reflections, it does not paw at the sky like so many spindly buildings; it does not reject the sky like Brutalist hulks; and it does not express a lonely equality to the sky, like the confident and well-proportioned fallen towers; rather, it becomes the sky. It melds with it, like a vertical river - sublime music in the form of a skyscraper. And that's just the one tower of the complex: Who knows what wonders will be revealed in the real-world presence of buildings we've only seen as renderings? If the revelations of those cloudscape reflections are any omen, the new WTC will be like the Ode to Joy personified in walls of glass.




Wow, that was a nice read.

[Traynor]

Wow, that was a nice read.

While it was a good read and nicely composed prose, it was also hyperbolic, inspirational, American-centric boosterism. It may all be true and actual sentiments for residents of New York and partially true for the rest of the United States but for the rest of the world it will most likely not think about buildings or architecture when looking back historically at 9/11. It will most likely be viewed as a turning point in how the world works and its loss of innocence.

This a nice complex and any city would be proud to have it, but the critics have a point about its impact.

The original was on twice the scale to its surroundings and ahead of its time for the technology available. These new ones are on par with what was there before and where we are presently technologically. There are countless Supertalls worldwide that equal these. Now If they had been half again as high and used materials and design which had never before been seen, you would have the impact on today's skyline that the originals had on the world of 1972.

[animatedmartian]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5620714614_9a09cae4e5_b.jpg
By david_levin (http://www.flickr.com/photos/61570926@N03/5620714614/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5622819972_af1da7a661_b.jpg
By dentarg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dentarg/5622819972/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5261/5621613427_8c192e0197_b.jpg
By Solandria (http://www.flickr.com/photos/solandria/5621613427/in/photostream/)

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5030/5621610891_efe53a29c1_b.jpg
By Solandria (http://www.flickr.com/photos/solandria/5621613427/in/photostream/)

I particularly like the helicopter shots.

[Onn]

Ready or not, here it comes! :yes:

[djlx2]

It's beautiful.

[Fabb]

April 16

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/8413/p1060825.jpg

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8541/p1060823l.jpg

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/1205/p1060817g.jpg

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/6715/p1060830.jpg

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9582/p1060844u.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6480/p1060837x.jpg

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/7623/p1060836y.jpg

[pico44]

While it was a good read and nicely composed prose, it was also hyperbolic, inspirational, American-centric boosterism. It may all be true and actual sentiments for residents of New York and partially true for the rest of the United States but for the rest of the world it will most likely not think about buildings or architecture when looking back historically at 9/11. It will most likely be viewed as a turning point in how the world works and it's loss of innocence.

This a nice complex and any city would be proud to have it, but the critics have a point about its impact.

The original was on twice the scale to its surroundings and ahead of its time for the technology available. These new ones are on par with what was there before and where we are presently technologically. There are countless Supertalls worldwide that equal these. Now If they had been half again as high and used materials and design which had never before been seen, you would have the impact on today's skyline that the originals had on the world of 1972.


So you're saying we should have constructed something without the slightest concern for commercial viability? And I assume, without any concern for what was there before? And when you say there are so many towers out there that equal these, are you complaining because there are taller towers out there; or because the architecture is uninspired? Regardless I say no, no, who cares and no.

[Big Towers]

Wow, great work both to STR and Grand Architect. It's amazing how you guys simply use computer programs to make a Tower come to life.

:tup:

[patriotizzy]

14 rows of glass already. I can't wait to see how enormous it'll be by September's opening of the memorial.

[Alliance]

While it was a good read and nicely composed prose, it was also hyperbolic, inspirational, American-centric boosterism. It may all be true and actual sentiments for residents of New York and partially true for the rest of the United States but for the rest of the world it will most likely not think about buildings or architecture when looking back historically at 9/11.

I agree with this. The complex as a whole is already part of the promotional identity of New York, but even the general population here doesn't really care about the architecture. They want to see something built, the healing of rebuilding. We complain in every other thread that people don't take the time to look up and ponder about architecture, yet suddenly this building is going to change their minds? I don't think so. The people of the world use smaller structures to identify cities, not skyscrapers. The Statue of Liberty is and will always be a more powerful symbol of New York. Other buildings like Houses of Parliment or the Syndey Opera House can achieve such a status if they are distinct and dont have much competition from other sources, but I find that rarely (and sadly) skyscrapers have that clout.

I think the only skyscraper in the world that has ever achieved icon status is the Empire State Building. The UN building might have as well. I think that has to do with its sheer size and the time it was built, and its duration as the worlds tallest building. I don't think any other skyscraper in the world will ever again achieve a similar position. Every nation now has its own "signature" towers and to the average person they can't tell one from the other. Among people on this forum, or observant people in New York, it may achieve such a status, but certainly that wont happen on a societal or global level, simply because thats not how the average person looks at skyscrapers or thinks about iconic representations of cities.

[Space Cowboy]

so it's above 7wtc and goldman sachs now is it? if not it looks incredibly close

[sterlippo1]

I think the only skyscraper in the world that has ever achieved icon status is the Empire State Building. The UN building might have as well.

the UN building in the same breath as the ESP as an icon status type building?:shrug::shrug::shrug: with all due respect that is unfathomable, IMO.
and , yes, i know you said "might" but no way. I think 1WTC will because of what it represents and because it is New York

[hunser]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5626472628_21a9222f70_b.jpg
1 World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shieldcastle/5626472628/in/photostream/) by Cruise1989 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shieldcastle/) on Flickr


1.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5143/5624799737_b8aeb40ba9_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5624799737/)

2.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5625388140_6a30f73152_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625388140/)

3.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5146/5625386738_994f42bc5a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625386738/)

4.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5028/5624792971_9d26aac763_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5624792971/)

5.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5190/5625365618_b038e7d780_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625365618/)

6.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5624776021_795e11e326_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5624776021/)

7.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5028/5625363674_16e9cba52c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625363674/)

8.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5625362854_d8006f849d_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625362854/)

9.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5181/5625362036_cb71a26607_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625362036/)

10.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5303/5624772427_abaff42573_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5624772427/)

11.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5625359750_9e6743b385_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625359750/)

12.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5103/5625358048_7d6354695d_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625358048/)

13.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5264/5625357362_2cbfa91729.jpg

(http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625357362/) World Trade Center Construction (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhawkins/5625357362/) by Jonathan_Hawkins (http://www.flickr.com/people/jhawkins/), on Flickr

[The Grand Architect]

Thanks for sharing those interior pics; they really give us an idea of what it would look like in the future. Plus, we (the public) really don't get to see photos of the inside of the building that much, so this is a nice treat for us.

[animatedmartian]

Looks awesome from the inside and on the outside.

[Tower X]

awesome photos hunser!

great view of the construction and other parts of the city :D

[hunser]

even CTBUH (http://buildingdb.ctbuh.org/?do=building&building_id=98) seems to make mistakes because 1WTC is listed as a 100 storey tower:

local name Freedom Tower
address 1 World Trade Center
location click for map.
city New York City
state New York
country United States
material composite
status under construction
use office
proposed 2005
start of construction 2006
completion 2013
height 541.33 meter / 1776.02 feet
highest floor 400.50 meter / 1313.98 feet
height to tip 541.33 meter / 1776.02 feet
observatory height 400.50 meter / 1313.98 feet
floors 100
top elevator speed 10.2 m/s
gross floor area 241,546 m² / 2,599,980 ft²

[upNaway]

earthcam is back up and running and it looks so clear and crisp maybe a new camera?

[NYguy]

April 17, 2011

Like a slice of sky brought down to earth...


c0fUCTCuTIo


K7FM0WOSx_U


VepdbU6pT0Y



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311589.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311590.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311591.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311592.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311593.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311594.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311595.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311596.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18573/1311597.jpg

[Zapatan]

even CTBUH seems to make mistakes because 1WTC is listed as a 100 storey tower:

Quote:
local name Freedom Tower
address 1 World Trade Center
location click for map.
city New York City
state New York
country United States
material composite
status under construction
use office
proposed 2005
start of construction 2006
completion 2013
height 541.33 meter / 1776.02 feet
highest floor 400.50 meter / 1313.98 feet
height to tip 541.33 meter / 1776.02 feet
observatory height 400.50 meter / 1313.98 feet
floors 100
top elevator speed 10.2 m/s
gross floor area 241,546 m² / 2,599,980 ft²


Well it technically has less, like 94 or something like that, but some big ones are just counted twice, plus the observatory is at 1,270 ish not 1313, that's just the highest enclosed floor. The roof is also enclosed so the highest real floor slab is 1334'


anyway, sorry for splitting hairs, but this tower is really taking shape, can't wait to see it in person this summer! it hopefully will be 800-900 feet tall by then
:banana:

[Traynor]

I finally resolved to think of this tower as 102 floors high...Here's my reasoning:

If the majority of the floors are 13'4" (and so are the exterior glass panels covering all the office and mechanical floors above the podium) and the top of the parapet is at 1368 feet, then 1368 divided by 13 feet 4 inches gives you just over 102.6 floors for the whole building.

So visually, if 1WTC were clad from the very bottom to the parapet in 13'4" glass, there would be 102 rows of them.

So despite the actual floor count (as well my own personal obsessive compulsion to accurately number floors) when all is said and done this tower will visually equal 102 floors of its own floor height.

Just don't get me started on the spire! LOL

:D

[MadGnome]

I finally resolved to think of this tower as 102 floors high...Here's my reasoning:

If the majority of the floors are 13'4" (and so are the exterior glass panels covering all the office and mechanical floors above the podium) and the top of the parapet is at 1368 feet, then 1368 divided by 13 feet 4 inches gives you just over 102.6 floors for the whole building.

So visually, if 1WTC were clad from the very bottom to the parapet in 13'4" glass, there would be 102 rows of them.

So despite the actual floor count (as well my own personal obsessive compulsion to accurately number floors) when all is said and done this tower will visually equal 102 floors of its own floor height.

Just don't get me started on the spire! LOL

:D

Now, which entrance are you starting from?

[Onn]

Some sweet video from many angles, including 7WTC!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc8YUm-zjnw

[Zapatan]

awesome video man... crazy to see how tiny the people in the tower are.

[alphachapmtl]

I find the new 1 WTC to be a quite unremarkable building, in every respect.
I remember 4 projects selected and abandoned soon after 9/11.
Each of those 4 projects was far superior to what is currently being built.
They reminded me of the Rockefeller center, a lasting masterpiece.
If you have a link to those 4 discarted projects, let me know.
It is sad for New York to go ahead with such a weak and unsatisfactory project.
It certainly reflect the decline of New York and of the US. :(

[Plokoon11]

^ Ohh noes, WTC iz nottt perfecktt, itsz aa ddiscrace, twin towrs 4evar!!!11!

Man you guys make no sense.

[Onn]

I find the new 1 WTC to be a quite unremarkable building, in every respect.
I remember 4 projects selected and abandoned soon after 9/11.
Each of those 4 projects was far superior to what is currently being built.
(they reminded me of the Rockefeller center, a lasting masterpiece).
It is sad for New York to go ahead with such a weak and unsatisfactory project.
It certainly reflect the decline of New York and of the US. :(

I think you have it all wrong, this is the best project New York could ask for. Wait until it's finished before you judge. :)

[steveve]

I find the new 1 WTC to be a quite unremarkable building, in every respect.
I remember 4 projects selected and abandoned soon after 9/11.
Each of those 4 projects was far superior to what is currently being built.
(they reminded me of the Rockefeller center, a lasting masterpiece).
It is sad for New York to go ahead with such a weak and unsatisfactory project.
It certainly reflect the decline of New York and of the US. :(

what would you prefer? this?
http://www.thecityreview.com/wtcfree5.jpg

and i agree that all the haters should wait till the whole complex is completed. these things will be stunners with their scale and all.
i bet no one will be complaining in 2015, they'll be amazed.

[NYguy]

Picture from wtc.com (April 7)

http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18589/1318655-T800600.jpg



http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/18589/1318655.jpg

[Fishman92]

Yeah, every one seemed to hate the twin towers as they were going up and before, but now they say they want them back. They should face it: They're not coming back. Put yourself in the position of someone directly effected by 9/11. Would you want to go out, see those buildings and be forced to remember what happened every day?

I think this is a fitting tribute. It brings back life to the place.

[Jay in Cowtown]

Yeah, every one seemed to hate the twin towers as they were going up and before, but now they say they want them back. They should face it: They're not coming back. Put yourself in the position of someone directly effected by 9/11. Would you want to go out, see those buildings and be forced to remember what happened every day?

I think this is a fitting tribute. It brings back life to the place.

Well said.

[patriotizzy]

Yeah, every one seemed to hate the twin towers as they were going up and before, but now they say they want them back. They should face it: They're not coming back. Put yourself in the position of someone directly effected by 9/11. Would you want to go out, see those buildings and be forced to remember what happened every day?

I think this is a fitting tribute. It brings back life to the place.

I agree everyone should move on, however, your argument doesn't really make sense. There is going to be a a giant memorial in the WTC complex, that is going to be a reminder of the events of 911. So saying that they shouldn't bring them back because of the memories is kind of pointless. Just to make things clear, I fell in love with the new WTC the instant I saw the first renders of the chosen design.

[yarabundi]

It seems like there ner will be a consensus about these new towers -especially this one !! I personally find it horrible but it really doesn't matter. The real and only important opinion is the one from the citizens of the Big Apple. After all, they are the one who will look at it all the time. If most of the New-Yorkers are agreeing with the design then all have been said !!

[sw5710]

You will never find a consensus in any building. :sly:

[mrnyc]

what a ridiculous exaggeration -- noone finds this tower "horrible" and i bet you dont either. bland maybe, but nothing worse.

i thought it bland myself from the renders. however, if you have no done so yet you really ought to get down to the site and take a good look. the glass and materials they are using are first class and already it really shows. it will be handsome tower just like stern's cpw apt building is a handsome cpw building.

[NYYskyline]

what would you prefer? this?
http://www.thecityreview.com/wtcfree5.jpg

and i agree that all the haters should wait till the whole complex is completed. these things will be stunners with their scale and all.
i bet no one will be complaining in 2015, they'll be amazed.

that design was just flat-out horrible. If that went forward and built, the terrorits would have won.

[gramsjdg]

I think the design of WTC1 is fine, what bothers me is the roof height. Back in the 70's, or even the 80's, 1300-1400 ft was pretty significant, but in light of the last 20 years, and China, Dubai, and Singapore, it's an also-ran. Spire or no spire, its still a 1300ft building. In that sense, those who destroyed the original towers did win. But that's just my opinion. If I had my drothers, this building would be scaled to the 2000 ft U.S. height limit, putting the roof at around 1540ft, and the observation deck at around 1440 ft -nothing extreme about that kind of a height bump- but its way to late for that now. I just hope someone is willing to break the 1400 ft roof barrier in NYC before the next ice age.:shrug:

[sw5710]

I don't go for the im taller so im better then you thing other cities around the world are doing with eachother.

[Zapatan]

^yea but it should have been at least a little taller than the old WTC, even 100 feet would have been nice... but it's not that big of a deal and it's a little late for could'ves


There are still only a handful of buildings in the world that are really that much bigger than 1368 feet,(let alone 1776) it in itself is massive and will make the 750 foot buildings nearby look like lowrises, like the original twins. In any case, I'm all down for 4 skyscrapers instead of 2 (maybe 5)

[sw5710]

7 WTC it looked tall till 1 WTC passed it 2 weeks ago. The next 2 floors of steel could start in the morning. These floors onward will really start to change that 750' skyline in that part of town now.

[The Grand Architect]

There isn't any point to be arguing about it now- the entire complex is already being built, and there's no turning back. I mean you could, and you could get some agreements on your point of view, but overall, your argument isn't going to change the outcome of the entire project.

[RockMont]

what would you prefer? this?
http://www.thecityreview.com/wtcfree5.jpg

and i agree that all the haters should wait till the whole complex is completed. these things will be stunners with their scale and all.
i bet no one will be complaining in 2015, they'll be amazed.



My thoughts, and response exactly. I wasn't happy that the restaurant was taken out of the equation, but when the #1 tower is done in '13 or '14, I'm anticipating seeing an observation deck or something in it that outdoes the original twin towers. I don't know what it is yet, but there is bound to be something that takes us by storm.

[aquablue]

I agree. The roof height is dissapointing. I think the ideal height would have been around 500m to roof close to Shanghai WFC/HK ICC in size. I mean, it is entirely underwhelming when Shenzhen has 1 600m tower U/C another proposed, and Shanghai is doing the same!

Also, the USA having a height limit is pathetic! If other countries can operate planes safely and have buildings over 800m (Dubai with its very busy airport) so is Shenzhen, etc. the silly height limit is just another example of silly overly cautious approach. The USA will never match up to its Asian peers in building heights, even if we had the financial ability or need to.

For skyscraper enthusiasts who want to be around the future of construction, it seems you really have to be in the Middle East or East Asia. The USA has become the country of continual sprawl and low rise office parks will continue as suburbanization will. If you love watching your city be competitive and ambitious in building these super structures, your out of luck unless you move.

[Onn]

I agree. The roof height is dissapointing. I think the ideal height would have been around 500m to roof close to Shanghai WFC/HK ICC in size. I mean, it is entirely underwhelming when Shenzhen has 1 600m tower U/C another proposed, and Shanghai is doing the same!

Also, the USA having a height limit is pathetic! If other countries can operate planes safely and have buildings over 800m (Dubai with its very busy airport) so is Shenzhen, etc. the silly height limit is just another example of silly overly cautious approach. The USA will never match up to its Asian peers in building heights, even if we had the financial ability or need to.

For skyscraper enthusiasts who want to be around the future of construction, it seems you really have to be in the Middle East or East Asia. The USA has become the country of continual sprawl and low rise office parks will continue as suburbanization will. If you love watching your city be competitive and ambitious in building these super structures, your out of luck unless you move.

Oh clamor down, you don't know anything about the future of skyscraper construction! 75% of the supertalls going up in Asia and Dubai have been fueled by an easy credit binge and artificially low currency. It's not going to last and they’re going to pay for the mess they’ve created. Just be patient. The new WTC will be far more amazing than you realize, and will be more iconic around the world in decades ahead than anything else. :yuck:

[Zapatan]

^Agreed, I don't know if "dissapointing" is the right word. If you had ever seen one of the twin towers in person, they were fing HUGE. SWFC and ICC are huge yes, and they are barely 200 feet taller than 1WTC, that doesn't make 1 WTC a small building.


I feel like NYC could see more supertalls of the 1400 range in our lifetime so I wouldnt worry about it. I feel like the development of supertalls going up will eventually spur more supertalls, helping to get over NIMBYISM ect. ..if that makes any sense

[bunky]

Why don't we reserve judgment till: a) It's finished, and b) we've seen it in the flesh.

As of right now, its a monster already. It's final height will fit the context of downtown Manhattan nicely.

15th row of glass going up.

[aquablue]

The Asian skyscrapers may be fueled by easy credit, etc, but at least they don't have the government limiting the ambitions of developers with ridiculous phony height limits that are no longer needed to protect aircraft. If so, how do a cities with a mega hub airport and massive air traffic like Dubai and Shenzhen/HK deal with keeping planes away from their mega talls? It is a dinosaur of a law. Scrap it.