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

[Rail>Auto]

Have they begun selling replicas of this tower in the souvenir shops like they do with the old wtc?

[Floydian]

Will the antenna be painted white?

From some of the most recent pics it looks like 2 of the top sections of the antenna are white.

[NYguy]

Have they begun selling replicas of this tower in the souvenir shops like they do with the old wtc?

Yeah, I posted an article on it a while back.



picturemeinnyc (http://www.flickr.com/photos/taliblankfeld/8869214975/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7313/8869214975_d82a86bff5_b.jpg



aka Buddy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/officegeek/8953559593/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2814/8953559593_aa8680f402_h.jpg

[alex4apple]

FINALLY!! The one of the tower cranes is being taken down :cheers: http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/worldtradecenter/

[pnapp1]

... Of course it's just the picture... why would they remove a lightning rod :facepalm:

Did I say they removed it? It's just an observation looking at the photo. It looks like it's missing, does it not? :facepalm:

[Design-mind]

I know this question has been answered before, but I could not find it in previous posts.

How are they going to remove the second crane? By airlift or piece by piece down the freight elevator, or other means.

[soulcapn]

I know this question has been answered before, but I could not find it in previous posts.

How are they going to remove the second crane? By airlift or piece by piece down the freight elevator, or other means.

They will build yet another crane on the roof, assembled out of smaller pieces that can be easily transported down on construction elevators.

Here is an image of the system they built on top of One57 to fix the crane that had been damaged in Hurricane Sandy.

http://enr.construction.com/images2/2013/04/ENR04292013_ETT_a.jpg

you can see a bunch of pictures of the system in action over at: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6115214&postcount=4110

[Ninja Man]

Why is there a glass panel missing on the bottom of the mechanical floor panels? Was there an accident or something?

[Design-mind]

Thanks soulcapn! Ah yes I forgot about the stiff leg derrick cranes.

[deepen915]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2814/8953559593_aa8680f402_h.jpg

this angle makes it look so much like the twins! like a combined north and south tower wrapped up in one!

[deepen915]

I really do hope they can paint the spire white or silver! it looks rust colored for most of the day in sunlight! not starting a spire/radome argument, just want some paint on the current design! at least a silver color like the beacon or a white like that 3rd to last piece!

[YankeesfaninUT]

I really do hope they can paint the spire white or silver! it looks rust colored for most of the day in sunlight! not starting a spire/radome argument, just want some paint on the current design! at least a silver color like the beacon or a white like that 3rd to last piece!

I received an email last week from the Director Of External Affairs for the Durst Organization. He told me that the spire would not be painted another color but would be architecturally lit with the L.E.D.'s. I know the lights wont do anything for the color in the daytime but I'm excited to see it all lit up at night.

[NYguy]

He told me that the spire would not be painted another color but would be architecturally lit with the L.E.D.'s. I know the lights wont do anything for the color in the daytime
but I'm excited to see it all lit up at night.

No such thing as "architecturally lit". We already knew it would be lit up and there would be a light show. I'm sure it will look nice. But no, lighting doesn't qualify as architecture.
If so, we'd have another supertall in the Conde Nast.



Pola Damonte (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pablodamon/8960394839/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3691/8960394839_aafaf95c61_h.jpg



johnnyevil (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanjkeller/8848603041/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5470/8848603041_9fec328168_h.jpg

[Zapatan]

If floors 100 and 101 are the observatory what's on the 102nd floor?

[randy1991]

Love this shot!

by www.facebook.com/wtcprogress

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/945346_480267568717153_1601337483_n.jpg

[jd3189]

If floors 100 and 101 are the observatory what's on the 102nd floor?

It's another floor for the observatory since a restaurant couldn't be included.

[DURKEY427]

It's another floor for the observatory since a restaurant couldn't be included.

Are they still opening a cafe like they showed in the videos?

[jd3189]

Are they still opening a cafe like they showed in the videos?

Yep, but it won't be a full fledged restaurant. It will be just like the food court that was included in the observation deck of the original Two World Trade Center.

[Traynor]

No such thing as "architecturally lit". We already knew it would be lit up and there would be a light show. I'm sure it will look nice. But no, lighting doesn't qualify as architecture.
If so, we'd have another supertall in the Conde Nast.



I hate when you say things that are blatantly wrong just because you either haven't heard of it or disagree with it personally:

Architectural Lighting highlights the architectural features of a building at night (Which may include a building's roof elements and spires.) and is often designed by highly paid professionals or artists. Alternatively, Architectural Lighting may refer to professionally lit interiors designed to create task areas or various kinds of ambiance.

I am sure all those artists and professionals will be interested to find out that their profession doesn't exist because you said so.

Try typing "Architectural Lighting" in Google Images and see the examples yourself.

http://www.iguzzini.co.uk/media/immagini/714_z_Mitchell%20library%20Paul%20zarne%20024.jpg
(Image found HERE (http://www.iguzzini.co.uk/Mitchell_Library) )

[StrongIsland]

Are they still opening a cafe like they showed in the videos?

Well yes, but it's not going to be a food court either, most likely it will be a cafe of some sorts, considering they are building a kitchen there.

[sbarn]

Distant Manhattan:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8409/8903477108_434cd8fb44_h.jpg
John Moyers (http://www.flickr.com/photos/66719916@N02/8903477108/)

[ih8pickingusernames]

I hate when you say things that are blatantly wrong just because you either haven't heard of it or disagree with it personally:

Architectural Lighting highlights the architectural features of a building at night (Which may include a building's roof elements and spires.) and is often designed by highly paid professionals or artists. Alternatively, Architectural Lighting may refer to professionally lit interiors designed to create task areas or various kinds of ambiance.

I am sure all those artists and professionals will be interested to find out that their profession doesn't exist because you said so.

Try typing "Architectural Lighting" in Google Images and see the examples yourself.

http://www.iguzzini.co.uk/media/immagini/714_z_Mitchell%20library%20Paul%20zarne%20024.jpg
(Image found HERE (http://www.iguzzini.co.uk/Mitchell_Library) )

I think he just meant it doesn't make it an architectural element. For example it doesn't make an antenna a spire.:runaway:

[Guiltyspark]

Two top most removed. Eight temp circular catwalks remaining.

Nope, he was saying all the round ones would be removed and the would only be a few left. That is not a few...

[Nexis4Jersey]

my WTC photos...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7384/8955461814_8fa6418df3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/8955461814/)
160 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/8955461814/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2880/8954268025_5bba29e510_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/8954268025/)
163 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/8954268025/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

WTC seen from Cranford,New Jersey - 15 miles away...

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3820/8972829557_5240597f12_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/8972829557/)
009 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/8972829557/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

[PNWestGuy]

Nope, he was saying all the round ones would be removed and the would only be a few left. That is not a few...

Traynor posted a superb graphic showing the spire and catwalks. There were 17 of catwalks. 10 temporary and 7 permanent. Now the spire crane has removed the 2 topmost temporary catwalks, leaving 8 temps to still be removed. This will leave the 7 permanent circular catwalks. Actually the bottom one is that huge assembly for holding the support cables. Above it will be 6 permanent catwalks.

[jd3189]

Distant Manhattan:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8409/8903477108_434cd8fb44_h.jpg
John Moyers (http://www.flickr.com/photos/66719916@N02/8903477108/)

Whoa. Never knew the city was that hilly. Awesome view.

[AusTex]

Because I am tired of seeing this question on every page and the very bad answers that follow.

http://i.imgur.com/99ung3K.jpg

Here is the post.

[Ninja Man]

I say that the new spire design is better than the original, because the new one gives it a realistic look. Does anyone agree with me?

[jmatero]

I say that the new spire design is better than the original, because the new one gives it a realistic look. Does anyone agree with me?

I agree with you. I was never a fan of the radome, primarily because the building tapers upward... and the radome was small at the bottom/top, wide in the middle, and to my eye looked "heavy". The installed spire tapers upward to a point and matches just about every other spire/antenna in Manhattan: unclad, metal, unpainted, "raw". It looks very tall now but once the cables are attached, I think it will break it up nicely!

[NYguy]

I hate when you say things that are blatantly wrong just because you either haven't heard of it or disagree with it personally:

Architectural Lighting highlights the architectural features of a building at night (Which may include a building's roof elements and spires.) and is often designed by highly paid professionals or artists. Alternatively, Architectural Lighting may refer to professionally lit interiors designed to create task areas or various kinds of ambiance.
,


Yeah. When there are no architectural features present, there is no such thing as architectural lighting. Obviously you can light up a building. I hate it when you chime in with nonsense
just because you don't understand a statement. The mast is not an architectural feature of the building.



Six Sigma Man (http://www.flickr.com/photos/79791500@N05/8963649699/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/8963649699_14032c0190_h.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7286/8964842094_aa493b0867_b.jpg



This photo shows one of the reasons I don't like the decision to scrap the design around the antenna...

Animcolate (http://www.flickr.com/photos/animcolate/8974462894/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8560/8974462894_dca57609a1_h.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7393/8964427591_52fa703332_h.jpg



sarahvinall (http://www.flickr.com/photos/19135425@N04/8968256399/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7393/8968256399_ff51cd9178_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7393/8968256399_979a8aca58_h.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7287/8968252231_d66d51007b_h.jpg



vyktureous (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vyktureous/8945257474/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7443/8945257474_d86a88d552_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7443/8945257474_a6c449ac5e_h.jpg

[drumz0rz]

Anyone know why there's a missing window just below the vents on the North face of the building now? It wasn't like that a few days ago. Can they easily remove windows for repair or did it break? There's also a broken/missing window on the West face as well much lower.

[-Filipe-]

Mast is great better then with the randome closure.

[Fishman92]

Mast is great better than with the randome closure.

Well everyone will have to get used to it. They won't clad it, won't paint it either. So this is what we've got, and we just have to appreciate it as is.

[-Filipe-]

Well everyone will have to get used to it. They won't clad it, won't paint it either. So this is what we've got, and we just have to appreciate it as is.

yea its great fits the building well

[ih8pickingusernames]

Mast is great better then with the randome closure.

Not like we'll actually know what it looks like. We're just basing are assumptions off of an artist's/computer render.

[Hudson11]

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/8979302209_54c821b34d_b.jpg
DSC_2747 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/8979302209/) by bomlodr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/with/8979302209/) on Flickr

check out his photos, they're awesome.

[Noll]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7328/8971074234_677f53e6fc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonyshi/8971074234/)
World Trade Centers Today (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonyshi/8971074234/) by Tony Shi. (http://www.flickr.com/people/tonyshi/), on Flickr

[QUEENSNYMAN]

My video this morning:

By: QUEENSNY121

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjECu6R8QE&feature=youtu.be

[pattali]

I like watch QUEENSNY121-TV , be carefull when you cross the street !

[QUEENSNYMAN]

I like watch QUEENSNY121-TV , be carefull when you cross the street !

Sure will thanks ;)

[StrongIsland]

,


Yeah. When there are no architectural features present, there is no such thing as architectural lighting. Obviously you can light up a building. I hate it when you chime in with nonsense
just because you don't understand a statement. The mast is not an architectural feature of the building.

That's not true. You don't as well as any of us know whether the mast will be considered Architecural or not so let's stop beating the dead horse already until the OFFICIAL ruling is made.

[gramsjdg]

The Spire consists of two essential parts, the structural part--which is what we have-- and the architectural part, which is the radome. The architect, David Childs, made that very clear. You can try and argue with him all you want, but in the end, its HIS design, not mine and not yours.

What we have is an incomplete spire. Nothing more, nothing less. Adding lights doesn't change that fact.

The radome is the sole architectural feature of the spire. By definition, that is what makes it a spire. No radome, no spire. Period.


Imagine a tower with the core and structural steel, but no curtain wall, windows or facade materials. Now put fancy lighting in it. Is that a completed building? No. That's what we have with the top of WTC-1

[Tectonic]

06.08.13No watermarks today

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/8989850529_6e0396a981_b.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img39/4825/dsc0567sm.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img841/7458/dsc0564smbw.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img39/64/dsc0561smm.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/5623/dsc0560sm.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img707/5084/dsc0559sm.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img195/7411/dsc0558sm.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img577/2236/dsc0557sm.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img259/6458/dsc0556sm.jpg
©tectonic

[IntoTheLens827]

'

[Hudson11]

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5463/8979302209_54c821b34d_b.jpg
DSC_2747 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/8979302209/) by bomlodr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/with/8979302209/) on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7339/8980505028_6af1f289c4_b.jpg
DSC_2742 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/8980505028/lightbox/) by bomlodr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/with/8979302209/) on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3732/8980446212_77c87c994a_b.jpg
DSC_2584 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/8980446212/sizes/l/in/photostream/) by bomlodr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/with/8979302209/) on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3693/8980453562_af639b0f1a_b.jpg
DSC_2627 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/8980453562/sizes/l/in/photostream/) by bomlodr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bomlodr/with/8979302209/) on Flickr

[CityGuy87]

I know that the broadcast dishes won't be added until sometime after the tower's completion but how are they gonna get them on the ring after the building is already finished and occupied?

[Bazzelijn]

I've spend the last 8 days in New York, and I was absolutely stunned by the size of the tower! It feels much bigger when you stand next to it then it looks on photo's.

[MadGnome]

I've spend the last 8 days in New York, and I was absolutely stunned by the size of the tower! It feels much bigger when you stand next to it then it looks on photo's.

Those buildings around it look small in photos, but they're not little. Some of them are 7 or 800 feet and #4 is almost 1000. You should have seen the originals before #7, the WFC, Goldman Sachs and all those were there.

[Otie]

I know that the broadcast dishes won't be added until sometime after the tower's completion but how are they gonna get them on the ring after the building is already finished and occupied?

There will be a small permanent crane at the roof that will do the job.

[PMadFlyer]

There will be a small permanent crane at the roof that will do the job.

Originally posted by the late ZenSteelDude and reuploaded by me to be kept accessible.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5446/8950524073_9f60f9fde8_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmadflyer/8950524073/)
3984663571_ed12f9dbc0_z (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmadflyer/8950524073/) by PMadFlyer (http://www.flickr.com/people/pmadflyer/), on Flickr

[jd3189]

^^^ That crane could also be used to place the radome if ,in the future, Durst leaves. There may always be hope.

[CityGuy87]

^^^ That crane could also be used to place the radome if ,in the future, Durst leaves. There may always be hope.

I have a feeling that whenever the building undergoes major renovation work in the future, the radome may be installed then. That's just my gut-feeling though.

[JayPro]

It's not happening. Period.
Childs and others involved in the architectural process essentially conceded that fact to begin with.
My emerging gut feeling is that Durst scrapped the radome not because he's some kind of cheapskate with a shit-level appreciation of urban aesthetics. Rather it was a cost-prohibitive measre taken simply because even normal maintenance would be too much of a hassle and hence not worth the expense. Matter of fact, the more thought I put into it, the more the phrase "value engineering" becomes more a pragmatic issue than anything else.
A fellow veteran poster went into greater detail much earlier in this thread vis a vis this particular reason(s) why the radome was not feasible.
If that member could refresh my memory in that regard, I'd be grateful.

[alex14469]

One World Trade Center

http://imageshack.us/a/img836/4157/89540581.jpg

Three World Trade Center

http://imageshack.us/a/img59/8702/77463525.jpg

Four World Trade Center

http://imageshack.us/a/img27/4596/32550355.jpg

Transportation Hub

http://imageshack.us/a/img818/456/39132643.jpg

[Kevin Scott Koepke]

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5325/9005420744_12a65f26bc.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/9005420744/)
Titans Of New York; 6/9/2013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/9005420744/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

[NYguy]

That's not true. You don't as well as any of us know whether the mast will be considered Architecural or not so let's stop beating the dead horse already until the OFFICIAL ruling is made.

I don't need an official ruling to tell me whether I like something or not. And I do know that the mast as is was never intended to be visible as such with this tower. I don't need a ruling to tell me that either. Now, whether or not the antenna is ruled a spire down the line when the building opens, it changes none of that.



My emerging gut feeling is that Durst scrapped the radome not because he's some kind of cheapskate with a shit-level appreciation of urban aesthetics. Rather it was a cost-prohibitive measre taken simply because even normal maintenance would be too much of a hassle and hence not worth the expense. Matter of fact, the more thought I put into it, the more the phrase "value engineering" becomes more a pragmatic issue than anything else.
A fellow veteran poster went into greater detail much earlier in this thread vis a vis this particular reason(s) why the radome was not feasible.
If that member could refresh my memory in that regard, I'd be grateful.

I don't find Childs and Co. to be a bunch of amateurs out to try and design a building just for the hell of it. These are professionals on every level, with a resume of work to prove it.

Now, whether or not you believe they were capable of designing a spire capable of being built, surely you don't believe that there was no one else on earth who could. Surely. Furthermore, this whole idea about the "radome not being feasible" as a reason for the spire being scrapped is nonsense. Simply because the radome covering is a concept that was added later, ironically for the very reason Durst now claims it had to be removed. By no means was it the only option for building the spire.



Roblawol (http://www.flickr.com/photos/roblawol/9001294102/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/9001294102_63b65d481d_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/9001294102_47372ebc46_h.jpg



fnystrom (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28708588@N04/8997750547/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5465/8997750547_f747473830_h.jpg



http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2864/8998931018_ef114f6235_b.jpg



beanhead4529 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379824@N07/8997000121/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7392/8997000121_7fb2f806a9_b.jpg

[islandxtreme26]

I can't compete with half of the photos posted on here and found on Flickr, but I'll throw my hat into the ring with these photos I took of 1WTC from Citi Field - 9 miles away ATCF - on Saturday.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2854/8992390273_8b34af9485_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28612242@N08/8992390273/)
1WTC Seen From Citi Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28612242@N08/8992390273/) by chrisswann26 (http://www.flickr.com/people/28612242@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2854/8993583654_9620b91bfb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28612242@N08/8993583654/)
1WTC Seen From Citi Field (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28612242@N08/8993583654/) by chrisswann26 (http://www.flickr.com/people/28612242@N08/), on Flickr

[islandxtreme26]

1WTC made an appearance near CDI's Implosion of Building #877 on Governors Island yesterday...skip to 3:32 to see 1WTC. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FsgEN666NY&feature=player_detailpage#t=212s)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FsgEN666NY

[StrongIsland]

[QUOTE=NYguy;6159333]I don't need an official ruling to tell me whether I like something or not. And I do know that the mast as is was never intended to be visible as such with this tower. I don't need a ruling to tell me that either. Now, whether or not the antenna is ruled a spire down the line when the building opens, it changes none of that.

Lol pretty sure I wasn't talking about what you do and don't like you've made it pretty clear consistently how much you despise the mast all I'm telling you is to stop shooting people's ideas/thoughts down so negatively like you know everything about this project when you don't. Simple as that.

[NYGrail]

I love this shot from Jovonie21 on flickr. Gives the building such a massive quality in the background (like the old towers).

http://i41.tinypic.com/2vsi4xe.jpg

[babybackribs2314]

I love this shot from Jovonie21 on flickr. Gives the building such a massive quality in the background (like the old towers).

In real life, it is nowhere near as domineering, and its presence from the Village is actually quite minimal unless you happen to be looking down Washington.

Here's a cameo from today's construction update (http://www.yimbynews.com/#/2013/06/construction-update-calatravas-transit-hub.html/0) on the WTC Transit Hub.

http://www.yimbynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/wtc3.jpg

[chris123678]

Did anybody notice that the doghouse has seemed to be taken down?

[marvelfannumber1]

In real life, it is nowhere near as domineering, and its presence from the Village is actually quite minimal unless you happen to be looking down Washington.

I suppose it depends on what size of buildings you are usally used to. Because to me the thing is absolutely awe inspiring when I stood next to it. It even looks massive when viewing it from Midtown to me.

[Zapatan]

In real life, it is nowhere near as domineering, and its presence from the Village is actually quite minimal unless you happen to be looking down Washington.

Well, at least NYC is one of the few cities where you can lose a ~1400 foot building

[TouchTheSky13]

1WTC is domineering yet graceful. The Twins were massive, dominating monoliths; they symbolized brute power and strength. 1WTC is still a very powerful building, but is more graceful in that it tapers as it reaches into the sky. The Twins were beautiful up close, but form far away almost appeared to be windowless. 1WTC is impressive from every angle and from every distance. Yes, it did get value-engineering a bit, but overall it is still a lovely building.

[NYdude]

Yeah I am always amazed whenever I stand next to this building. The last time I was next to it was November, though. I can't wait to see it up close again. I only live 35-40 minutes from the city, and whenever I see the skyline on RT. 17 in Ramsey, NJ, I am awe-inspired.

[deepen915]

Yeah I am always amazed whenever I stand next to this building. The last time I was next to it was November, though. I can't wait to see it up close again. I only live 35-40 minutes from the city, and whenever I see the skyline on RT. 17 in Ramsey, NJ, I am awe-inspired.

you live in NJ and have not been to the WTC since November? COME ON MAN!

:shrug:

[Roadcruiser1]

You see as a New Yorker that lived in the days before 9/11 I still miss and love the Twin Towers a lot more than One World Trade Center, and the reason is in the original World Trade Center there were two dominate buildings anchoring the sky. Every other building at the original World Trade Center were low rise buildings except for Seven World Trade Center, but even then it was small compared to the Twin Towers. There was that strong dominant feeling that made it as American as the Empire State Building. It was a symbol of strength.

One World Trade Center doesn't evoke that feeling. Up close it's massive sure, but it feels like something is missing. It just doesn't do it. It's pretty and all and it is a rebirth of the skyline, but of a different rebirth. It feels rough to me like a housing project on steroids. I feel that David Childs built something that Minoru Yamasaki wouldn't have. It just doesn't evoke that human scale that the original World Trade Center did. Instead of the Twin Towers you now have three skyscrapers at roughly the same height (One, Two, and Three World Trade Center) and three high rise buildings (Four, Five, and Seven World Trade Center). It takes away that dominance the Twin Towers had. It's sad to me.

[Towersteve]

You see as a New Yorker that lived in the days before 9/11 I still miss and love the Twin Towers a lot more than One World Trade Center, and the reason is in the original World Trade Center there were two dominate buildings anchoring the sky. Every other building at the original World Trade Center were low rise buildings except for Seven World Trade Center, but even then it was small compared to the Twin Towers. There was that strong dominant feeling that made it as American as the Empire State Building. It was a symbol of strength.

One World Trade Center doesn't evoke that feeling. Up close it's massive sure, but it feels like something is missing. It just doesn't do it. It's pretty and all and it is a rebirth of the skyline, but of a different rebirth. It feels rough to me like a housing project on steroids. I feel that David Childs built something that Minoru Yamasaki wouldn't have. It just doesn't evoke that human scale that the original World Trade Center did. Instead of the Twin Towers you now have three skyscrapers at roughly the same height (One, Two, and Three World Trade Center) and three high rise buildings (Four, Five, and Seven World Trade Center). It takes away that dominance the Twin Towers had. It's sad to me.

cosign.

[vandelay]

"Human scale" is something no one ever claimed was a quality of the original WTC or the Twin Towers. The plaza and buildings of the WTC were the opposite of human scale. The main difference between the Twin Towers and 1WTC (besides number), is the effect of the materials. The aluminum-skinned Twin Towers looked like two huge blocks of weathered concrete. 1WTC, which is mainly glass, reflects the atmosphere, allowing it to stand out less. It may lack the impression of solidity of the old towers, but it's also far less of a deadening presence.

As we all know, the "image" of strength didn't quite hold up. 1WTC is probably superior to the Twins in this regard as well.

[patrick989]

You see as a New Yorker that lived in the days before 9/11 I still miss and love the Twin Towers a lot more than One World Trade Center, and the reason is in the original World Trade Center there were two dominate buildings anchoring the sky. Every other building at the original World Trade Center were low rise buildings except for Seven World Trade Center, but even then it was small compared to the Twin Towers. There was that strong dominant feeling that made it as American as the Empire State Building. It was a symbol of strength.

One World Trade Center doesn't evoke that feeling. Up close it's massive sure, but it feels like something is missing. It just doesn't do it. It's pretty and all and it is a rebirth of the skyline, but of a different rebirth. It feels rough to me like a housing project on steroids. I feel that David Childs built something that Minoru Yamasaki wouldn't have. It just doesn't evoke that human scale that the original World Trade Center did. Instead of the Twin Towers you now have three skyscrapers at roughly the same height (One, Two, and Three World Trade Center) and three high rise buildings (Four, Five, and Seven World Trade Center). It takes away that dominance the Twin Towers had. It's sad to me.

Well...it's probably because they are 2 totally different architects, ya know? :)

I understand what you mean about the dominance. But honestly, even if the Twins were still here, I'm sure other very large buildings would have eventually been built nearby (like another unnecessary 1700 ft condo for billionaires), and probably would have significantly impacted their dominance anyway.

[Blaze23]

To each its own, I personally think this building looks more dominant than the Twins and will be even more so when 2 and 3 get built. 1WTC is quite striking in person, but I think even more so when you see it from a distance. But I'm with Patric989, 1373' doesn't cut it these days as we can expect taller towers to eclipse it in the not too distant future.

[ILNY]

From last Sunday.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3768/9019445884_46cbed4e17_c.jpg

[AusTex]

...I still miss and love the Twin Towers a lot more than One World Trade Center, and the reason is in the original World Trade Center there were two dominate buildings anchoring the sky. ...It was a symbol of strength.

...It just doesn't evoke that human scale that the original World Trade Center did. ... It's sad to me.

I like the new World Trade Center much better because it is human scale in so many ways the original was not...including a public street where an utter barren plaza was before. This new tower, as mentioned before, tapers and reflect the sky. It ascends into the sky with a strong mast reaching upward. The twins were blocky and gray. They were out of proportion with there neighbors, and they were a miss matched pair. One had an ugly mast/antenna on top the other did not.

I will wait to comment on the finished "World Trade Center" until all the building is complete. I never liked the twin towers. The memorial is quite moving....:happysad:

[NYguy]

jovonie21 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26479711@N05/9010655650/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2850/9010655650_410cc2d859_b.jpg



http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2850/9010655650_0a8fdcc98d_h.jpg



Joe Josephs: 248,000 views - thank you (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joejosephs/9020024648/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8260/9020024648_69d9ad8648_h.jpg



BlueVoter (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_wasserman/9008653897/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5450/9008653897_fcd83764c5_b.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5450/9008653897_421be211f5_h.jpg



Quentin Biles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/quentinbiles/9008218573/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7433/9008218573_bc0df61748_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7433/9008218573_1e4e94b14d_h.jpg



toth1618 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thoth1618/9004114251/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8415/9004114251_5e0724992c_b.jpg



http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8415/9004114251_1e25359e7f_h.jpg

[Phat Stanley]

Quentin Biles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/quentinbiles/9008218573/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7433/9008218573_bc0df61748_b.jpg





jeeessus... tell me again how this building does NOT dominate? :koko:

[kpdrummer82]

This is an odd and crazy question but at the same time pretty necessary...does anybody know the angle of the sloped faces of the building by any chance?

[PMadFlyer]

This is an odd and crazy question but at the same time pretty necessary...does anybody know the angle of the sloped faces of the building by any chance?

I think I do. I'll post a proper answer in the morning. I'm rendering a project on this computer so I'll either start my other one in the morning or use this one if I'm done to open one of my models and I'll measure it.
but here is what I can tell you from Zen's blueprints.
496'-2" is the deflection point.
1386'~0" is the top of the parapit.
Both are elevations above datum
parapit width at 45 degree angle from base is ~140'
width of base is ~200'
I'm too tired to do the math, but if anyone feels like doing some trig, be our guest.

[Arthurmiles]

You see as a New Yorker that lived in the days before 9/11 I still miss and love the Twin Towers a lot more than One World Trade Center, and the reason is in the original World Trade Center there were two dominate buildings anchoring the sky. Every other building at the original World Trade Center were low rise buildings except for Seven World Trade Center, but even then it was small compared to the Twin Towers. There was that strong dominant feeling that made it as American as the Empire State Building. It was a symbol of strength.

One World Trade Center doesn't evoke that feeling. Up close it's massive sure, but it feels like something is missing. It just doesn't do it. It's pretty and all and it is a rebirth of the skyline, but of a different rebirth. It feels rough to me like a housing project on steroids. I feel that David Childs built something that Minoru Yamasaki wouldn't have. It just doesn't evoke that human scale that the original World Trade Center did. Instead of the Twin Towers you now have three skyscrapers at roughly the same height (One, Two, and Three World Trade Center) and three high rise buildings (Four, Five, and Seven World Trade Center). It takes away that dominance the Twin Towers had. It's sad to me.

I totally agree with you! Sadly, many people are simply "rationalizers" and they rationalize everything. People always rationalize what is currently happening.

You can see this psychological trend from everyday example. When you buy smaller clothes that do not fit, but when it's hard to get a refund, you somehow rationalize this situation such that it will motivate you to lose weight, etc. People will NEVER ADMIT that he/she made a poor choice.

Since the twins no longer exist and all they see is current 1WTC, no wonder they disregard twins and think 1WTC is superior.

FACT: 1WTC has less floor count of 105 compared to 110 of the original 1WTC, and 1WTC has much less floor space of 3,501,274 sq. ft. compared to 4,300,000 sq. ft. of the original 1WTC.

It's clearly less dominating and has a bit 'diminished' and 'defeatist' nature because it's missing its own twin, but people simply ignore this fact and decorate this type of inferiority with such self-rationalizing words like 'elegant', 'sleek', 'slender', 'friendly-scale', or '21st century-looking', etc.

[sterlippo1]

you live in NJ and have not been to the WTC since November? COME ON MAN!

:shrug:

+1 :koko:;)

[speedbird2]

I understand that 1 WTC may very well lose its status as being the future tallest building in the Western Hemisphere because the builders want to save $20 million by not building the radome. This was part of David Child's approved plan. As a result, to me, the new spire looks ugly full of catwalks and spheres, ressembling the New Years' Eve Ball. The height will only be 1368 feet making it only the third largest in America. What a disappointment. What else did the builders cut back on? That large crane on the roof also is very ugly. Incidentally, the spire on the old 1 WTC, that was never cladded either as I recall. What was its official height.

[AusTex]

I totally agree with you! Sadly, many people are simply "rationalizers" and they rationalize everything. People always rationalize what is currently happening.

You can see this psychological trend from everyday example. When you buy smaller clothes that do not fit, but when it's hard to get a refund, you somehow rationalize this situation such that it will motivate you to lose weight, etc. People will NEVER ADMIT that he/she made a poor choice.

Since the twins no longer exist and all they see is current 1WTC, no wonder they disregard twins and think 1WTC is superior.

FACT: 1WTC has less floor count of 105 compared to 110 of the original 1WTC, and 1WTC has much less floor space of 3,501,274 sq. ft. compared to 4,300,000 sq. ft. of the original 1WTC.

It's clearly less dominating and has a bit 'diminished' and 'defeatist' nature because it's missing its own twin, but people simply ignore this fact and decorate this type of inferiority with such self-rationalizing words like 'elegant', 'sleek', 'slender', 'friendly-scale', or '21st century-looking', etc.

WOW...harsh words; And personal. This is a forum to encourage discussion not judge and diss others. Expressing ones opinion needs to be welcomed. We all have differing points of view. For the Forumers commenting on buildings that were destroyed by people who reject…Others way of life and points of view…I would hope some basic respect would prevail; Even if you disagree. :cheers:

And an honest Welcome to you Arthurmiles.

[jmatero]

I understand that 1 WTC may very well lose its status as being the future tallest building in the Western Hemisphere because the builders want to save $20 million by not building the radome. This was part of David Child's approved plan. As a result, to me, the new spire looks ugly full of catwalks and spheres, ressembling the New Years' Eve Ball. The height will only be 1368 feet making it only the third largest in America. What a disappointment. What else did the builders cut back on? That large crane on the roof also is very ugly. Incidentally, the spire on the old 1 WTC, that was never cladded either as I recall. What was its official height.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think the radome looked like a giant joint and am happy to see it scrapped. The current "naked" design matches almost every other spire in NYC.

[pnapp1]

This is an odd and crazy question but at the same time pretty necessary...does anybody know the angle of the sloped faces of the building by any chance?

I think I do. I'll post a proper answer in the morning. I'm rendering a project on this computer so I'll either start my other one in the morning or use this one if I'm done to open one of my models and I'll measure it.
but here is what I can tell you from Zen's blueprints.
496'-2" is the deflection point.
1386'~0" is the top of the parapit.
Both are elevations above datum
parapit width at 45 degree angle from base is ~140'
width of base is ~200'
I'm too tired to do the math, but if anyone feels like doing some trig, be our guest.

If I'm not mistaken and I am understanding your question correctly, it is 2 degrees.

[islandxtreme26]

1WTC making appearances in artwork for MLB's All Star Game, to be held at Citi Field this July.

http://mlb.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pMLB2-15276146dt.jpg

[NYguy]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think the radome looked like a giant joint and am happy to see it scrapped. The current "naked" design matches almost every other spire in NYC.

Hardly. But that's irrelevant anyway, as the spire was to complete the vision of the tower it stands on.


1WTC making appearances in artwork for MLB's All Star Game, to be held at Citi Field this July.


I've seen it on a lot of advertising lately, at least as a part of the skyline.



jlbruick (http://www.flickr.com/photos/97260052@N06/9021787490/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3774/9021787490_0512bc0371_h.jpg



jlbruick (http://www.flickr.com/photos/97260052@N06/9021621364/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5466/9021621364_22d692d257_b.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5466/9021621364_1873702a7d_h.jpg



Keith Michael NYC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8992586028/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5459/8992586028_9bca08e960_b.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5459/8992586028_122112590c_h.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5466/8991374263_d3c78ef084_h.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5448/8991375791_7e910fdb47_b.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5448/8991375791_4ced3a998b_h.jpg

[Otie]

jlbruick (http://www.flickr.com/photos/97260052@N06/9021787490/sizes/h/in/photostream/)


http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5459/8992586028_9bca08e960_b.jpg


Ugh, it bothers me the missing of the culminating pieces that should be on the very tip of the triangles.

[speedbird2]

Any word if the owners plan to use lighting effects, like the Empire State currently does, to mark holidays?

[PMadFlyer]

Any word if the owners plan to use lighting effects, like the Empire State currently does, to mark holidays?

From what I understand, yes they do. They will otherwise leave the base and spire white, but will change to holiday colors when needed.

[PMadFlyer]

This is an odd and crazy question but at the same time pretty necessary...does anybody know the angle of the sloped faces of the building by any chance?

I checked one of my models and ended up with 3.360 degrees.

[hunser]

Thanks to iiConTr0v3rSYx for finding this great shot:

New York Sunset (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yogesharora/) By Yogi.Arora (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yogesharora/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3767/9020901495_286f41e1e8_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3767/9020901495_74b96c7bf4_h.jpg

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Yes Great shot indeed!

[NYguy]

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/nyc-stations-brace-for-wtc-tower-battle/219805

NYC Stations Brace for WTC Tower Battle
Current Empire residents eye new home


http://www.tvtechnology.com/portals/4/13_final-5.jpg


Scott Fybush
06.11.2013


Eleven years, seven months and thirty days after most of New York City’s TV transmission infrastructure was destroyed in the attack that demolished the World Trade Center, crews completed hoisting the spire of the new One World Trade Center into place on May 10. At a symbolic 1,776 feet above ground, the tip of the spire makes the new 1WTC the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere. It also touches off a fight for broadcast tenants between the new building and its long-established competitor in midtown Manhattan, the Empire State Building.

After the 9/11 attack displaced nine TV stations and four FM stations that had been using the original World Trade Center as a transmission site, Empire became a crowded, complicated place as building management scrambled to reconfigure antennas in the limited mast space available and to add transmitter rooms on two additional floors of the historic building. Eight blocks north and two blocks west, the Durst Organization quickly reconfigured its own 4 Times Square skyscraper, which had just been completed with a limited FM auxiliary facility on its roof. Project Manager John Lyons, now a Durst vice president, spent much of 2003 overseeing the installation of a new 300-foot mast and new transmission facilities now used for either main or backup purposes by 11 FM stations and four TV stations.

When Durst became a co-developer of the new 1WTC in 2010, Lyons ended up in charge of the high-profile task of designing and attracting tenants for the new broadcast facility. “It’s definitely different from 4 Times Square. It’s easier in one respect because you’re building from scratch,” Lyons said, with no existing broadcast facilities in place that have to be maintained during construction.

Like 4 Times Square, Lyons says the new 1WTC broadcast facility is being built as a “plug-and-play” operation. “The Durst Organization is putting in all the infrastructure,” he says. “As in 4 Times Square, we’re providing HVAC and electrical. The emergency generator is physically in the building already. We’re going to be putting in main and backup power. The chiller plant is already in the building, and we’ll have dedicated service from all the telecom providers.”

Unlike 4 Times Square, where most broadcasters ended up in individual transmitter rooms that were carved out of mezzanine space during the 2003 rebuild, the transmitter area at 1WTC will be an open area surrounding FM, VHF-TV and UHF-TV combiners. “The only thing for broadcasters to do will be to put in their transmitting equipment and their combiner modules, and we’ll be ready to go,” Lyons said of the new facility, which he expects will be ready for broadcasters to sign on sometime in 2015.

Whether broadcasters will be rushing to move their facilities downtown is, quite literally, a multi-million dollar question. In a prospectus filed last year for an initial public offering, the Empire State Building disclosed that it earned more than $16 million in 2010 from broadcast leases, which on average had about seven more years to run. With its status as the city’s tallest building soon to expire, Empire’s operators warned investors in the prospectus that the completion of 1WTC “could have a negative impact on revenues from our observatory operations and/or broadcasting revenues.”

“We’ve talked to everybody as a group and now we’re going back and having individual discussions,” is all Lyons will say about the state of Durst’s negotiations with potential tenants at 1 World Trade Center. If that seems terse, it’s one sentence more than anyone else in New York is willing to say for the record. Aside from its IPO prospectus, Empire State Building management has consistently declined to comment at all on the building’s new competitor. Broadcasters are also keeping quiet about their plans, with many citing confidentiality agreements they were asked to sign during negotiations.

“In the closing days of analog TV, the coverage from Empire never approached what they had from the World Trade Center, or even what they had at Empire back in the days before the World Trade Center was built out,” said veteran New York engineer Bob Tarsio, now owner of Broadcast Designs Inc. Tarsio, who had FM experience at both Empire and the World Trade Center, acknowledges that each site has its strength: Empire is more centrally located over the city’s population core, while the greater height at 1WTC offers better broad-area reach for stations at that location.

Tarsio says TV stations that move to a brand-new antenna at the new 1WTC could see big benefits. “The VHF antenna at Empire just isn’t doing the job,” he says. “It would probably be just as expensive a job to redo it at Empire as to do it at the World Trade Center.”

[b][color=blue]“They’ll go out further than they’re covering now,” Lyons says of the pitch he’s making to potential TV tenants. “But because it is so much higher, we also have to pay attention to the immediate urban market so they can keep the population coverage they presently have.” Lyons says he’s also reminding potential tenants that a move downtown can give them more space and more reliable backup power than they now enjoy at Empire, which still lacks a central backup power supply if Con Edison’s power goes out.


In the world of 2013, far from the post-9/11 urgency that prompted the intense infrastructure building boom of the early 21st century, there are factors that go beyond the purely technical. “The repack is really throwing the ‘monkey wrench’ into this,” Lyons agrees, adding that the issue of refarming the UHF spectrum is creating plenty of questions and very few answers. “Everybody’s talking about what’s going to happen, when is it going to happen, is it going to take a second pass or a third pass before things get ironed out,” he said.

That uncertainty is keeping Lyons from being able to specify a final antenna configuration for the upper 280 feet of the 408-foot mast that now rises from the 1368 foot rooftop. (The lower portion of the mast is ringed by three platforms that will support ENG receivers, cameras, point-to-point microwave, STL and other non-broadcast uses.)

As at 4 Times Square, Lyons plans to put up broadband antennas to cover FM and the entire TV spectrum, but he’s hesitant to place any orders until he—and his potential tenants—can get a better idea of what that spectrum will be, especially at UHF. “We’ve had discussions with a lot of the manufacturers,” he says. “There have been no orders placed yet. We’re still waiting for repacking.”

[MadGnome]

If I'm not mistaken and I am understanding your question correctly, it is 2 degrees.

I get 3 degrees. At 1368 feet it moves in 70', since the corner is 140' from the center at the bottom of the tower and the side is 70' from the center at the top. Didn't really need trig. Just figure a circle with a radius of 1368 and divide the result by 70 to get 1/122nd of 360 degrees.

[Noll]

From Cameron Michael Productions' page on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cameron-Michael-Productions/160014703460):

Hitting the ground running at a multimillion dollar penthouse.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/994800_10151473051783461_242033201_n.jpg

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151473051783461&set=a.161390433460.119923.160014703460&type=1&theater

Not a bad view.

[pnapp1]

I get 3 degrees. At 1368 feet it moves in 70', since the corner is 140' from the center at the bottom of the tower and the side is 70' from the center at the top. Didn't really need trig. Just figure a circle with a radius of 1368 and divide the result by 70 to get 1/122nd of 360 degrees.

3 is correct. My bad! :tup:

[NYguy]

car3race (http://www.flickr.com/photos/david-janice-vacation/9023852709/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3810/9023852709_b0e11bc2f8_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3810/9023852709_487a973a2b_h.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7416/9023849879_5f345b6cf3_h.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/9026291758_2bae91a17a_b.jpg



KatieWhitaker (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katie_whitaker/9027084202/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2816/9027084202_a4a83ddf60_h.jpg

[vandelay]

Anyone else starting to like the spire more with the removal of more temporary platforms?

[Tectonic]

No, ha! Just getting used to it. The WTC looks like a small family in the shot above.

[StrongIsland]

Anyone else starting to like the spire more with the removal of more temporary platforms?

I do, I just wish they would paint it white or something but oh well, we will all learn to love it or deal with it just like what happened when the twins were built.