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

[hunser]

Best thing ever would be if Trump Chicago ends up being taller than 1WTC! :haha:

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=61464765

[Thunderpriest]

IF the CTBUH is consistent, and adheres to their own guidelines, the spire will be counted towards the final height.

From their web site:
http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/HeightStatistics/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx

1. Height to Architectural Top
Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment.5

Footnote 5. Functional-technical equipment: this is intended to recognize that functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies, as is often seen in tall buildings (e.g., antennae, signage, wind turbines, etc. are periodically added, shortened, lengthened, removed and/or replaced).

So, the spire is not an antenna...it does not radiate electromagnetic energy, though other antennae may indeed be installed upon it. It does not meet the stated definition of Functional-technical equipment.
It is permanently affixed to the structure as a guyed mast.
If they are consistent with their own standards, the spire will be counted.

[Yankee fan for life]

That roof height comparison diagram between Willis/Sears, and 1wtc is way off Willis/Sears is not that much taller than 1wtc, especially with 1wtc communication platform ring the two are only a 50 foot height difference!

[Silverfox]

That roof height comparison diagram between Willis/Sears, and 1wtc is way off Willis/Sears is not that much taller than 1wtc, especially with 1wtc communication platform ring the two are only a 50 foot height difference!

The problem is that whoever made that diagram didn't realize that it's the top of the parapet that's at 1368' and not the communication ring.

[NYguy]

IF the CTBUH is consistent, and adheres to their own guidelines, the spire will be counted towards the final height.


Footnote 5. Functional-technical equipment: this is intended to recognize that functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies, as is often seen in tall buildings (e.g., antennae, signage, wind turbines, etc. are periodically added, shortened, lengthened, removed and/or replaced).
.


If they go by their own rules, it would be ruled an antenna.


1. Height to Architectural Top

Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment

The mast will be functional. Let's stop pretending it won't be.

If they use current guidelines, the only way it would be tallest in the US is in the "Height to Tip" category...

3. Height to Tip:

Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the highest point of the building, irrespective of material or function of the highest element (i.e., including antennae, flagpoles, signage and other functional-technical equipment).

http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=IESu3ki7POA%3d&tabid=446&language=en-US


However, it seems to me from reading that article that the council is just putting Durst and SOM through the motions. I don't think they want to make waves by declaring the mast an antenna, thus removing the symbolic 1,776 ft height. The funny thing is, that height designation will be removed anyway if they stick by current guidelines, due to the 5 ft elevation change. So either way, that 1,776 ft height is out the window. Unless the council decides to cave on that too.

[CCs77]

IF the CTBUH is consistent, and adheres to their own guidelines, the spire will be counted towards the final height.

From their web site:
http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/HeightStatistics/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx

1. Height to Architectural Top
Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment.5

Footnote 5. Functional-technical equipment: this is intended to recognize that functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies, as is often seen in tall buildings (e.g., antennae, signage, wind turbines, etc. are periodically added, shortened, lengthened, removed and/or replaced).

So, the spire is not an antenna...it does not radiate electromagnetic energy, though other antennae may indeed be installed upon it. It does not meet the stated definition of Functional-technical equipment.
It is permanently affixed to the structure as a guyed mast.
If they are consistent with their own standards, the spire will be counted.

What we call antennas in buildings, are really masts were they attach the real antennas, i.e. the actual things that radiates electromagnetic energy.
That said, I think the key is the phrase I highlighted:
functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change
So, the intention of not including antennae, as being purely functional, is that those things are likely to change as technology or necessities do.
It is true that this one will be a functional antenna, but the real deal for them is not really whether it is a functional antenna or not, it is if the element is subject to change, and in it this case it won't change It is a closed design. If they want to add or remove any portion of the Sears Tower antenna, for example, they will do, since its purpose is just to hold transmiting devices. In this case, they can't modify the spiretenna because of the beacon.
And we also have to keep in mind, that the height of this thing was not set for any technical reason, but for the relatively arbitrary reason of making it matching its height in feet with the year of US independence.

[Thunderpriest]

However, it seems to me from reading that article that the council is just putting Durst and SOM through the motions. I don't think they want to make waves by declaring the mast an antenna, thus removing the symbolic 1,776 ft height. The funny thing is, that height designation will be removed anyway if they stick by current guidelines, due to the 5 ft elevation change. So either way, that 1,776 ft height is out the window. Unless the council decides to cave on that too.

I don't think they will rule in that manner due to the 2nd footnote regarding a significant entrance.
"2 Significant: the entrance should be predominantly above existing or pre-existing grade and permit access to one or more primary uses in the building via elevators, as opposed to ground floor retail or other uses which solely relate/connect to the immediately adjacent external environment. Thus entrances via below-grade sunken plazas or similar are not generally recognized. Also note that access to car park and/or ancillary/support areas are not considered significant entrances."

I think they will go with the entrance that accesses the main memorial plaza...if for no other reason than to ensure the symbolic height is retained.

[UTEPman]

There is no way this tower should be considered 1776ft. I however feel that the CTBUH will rule in their favor since they don't want to start a big controversy and kill the building's symbology.

The sad thing is, the symbology is already tainted with that giant stick on top. I honestly can't believe that's what this country has come to. We say we are going to build bigger and better, so we plant a giant 400ft mast on top of the building and claim victory. What a joke...

[H4vok]

October 22, 2013
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2844/10429341566_bc2e96c268_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25196404@N05/10429341566/)
One World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25196404@N05/10429341566/) by H4vok_13 (http://www.flickr.com/people/25196404@N05/), on Flickr

[NYguy]

I don't think they will rule in that manner due to the 2nd footnote regarding a significant entrance.

"2 Significant: the entrance should be predominantly above existing or pre-existing grade and permit access to one or more primary uses in the building via elevators, as opposed to ground floor retail or other uses which solely relate/connect to the immediately adjacent external environment. Thus entrances via below-grade sunken plazas or similar are not generally recognized. Also note that access to car park and/or ancillary/support areas are not considered significant entrances."

I don't know what you're talking about. The entrance on the northern side is a main entrance. And it's on the street. The argument that SOM is using in that case is that those rules were inacted after the building was designed, which is absurd.



There is no way this tower should be considered 1776ft. I however feel that the CTBUH will rule in their favor since they don't want to start a big controversy and kill the building's symbology.


It won't be 1,776 ft, no matter how you slice it. But I do feel that they are going to give in on counting the mast.

Originally One World Trade's mast was meant to have a geometric white shell. But Mr. Durst and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Mr. Durst's partner, dropped it from the plan over cost and maintenance concerns, leaving a steel structure not designed for public view, ringed by service platforms.

But Mr. Durst and the Port Authority say a tall spire was a key component of the design, regardless of its outer shell, and the mast should count toward the height

This is the heart of the argument. What we have here was never meant as a visual piece of the design. Furthermore, Mr. Durst himself has repeated over and over that the mast will serve as the focal point of his new broadcasting empire, with the mast at 4 Times Square serving as backup. This one should be no more included in the height of this tower than that mast is there.


"We are caught between a hard rock and a stone," Antony Wood, the Chicago-based building council's executive director, wrote in an email this month to landlord Douglas Durst, a part-owner of One World Trade.

The email points out that if the council, composed largely of top architects and engineers from around the world, rules in favor of the developer, it will upset a constituency that thinks the issue of defining height by a spire's reach has "got out of control." If it rules against the developer, it will upset "the vast majority of the entire USA public for whom the 1,776 symbolic height is sacred," says the email, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Just ridiculous. It is a spire or it isn't, trying to appease anyone shouldn't be an issue. That's why I feel they will rule it a spire - why put on this show.


Architects at Skidmore Owings are scheduled to travel to Chicago to appear before the council's height committee on Nov. 8 to make their case. Peter Weismantle, an architect and the committee's chairman, says the architects "just have to prove to us that it's been designed."

[chris123678]

It's not an antenna and should not be ruled as one, I'm more than sure that the CTBU will rule in favor of 1WTC

[NYC2ATX]

I think it'd be terribly hysterical if they declared the final height to be 1,368 ft, because then Durst would really feel like an asshole and be in a "now what?" position where he may have no choice but to throw some money at the thing to fashion it into some kind of spire. If for no other reason than to avoid becoming a national pariah.

I certainly didn't care for the original spire design, but I'd be down for a new design that perhaps channels the metal cap at the very top and carries that style down the entirety of the mast...something like a 21st-century reinterpretation of the deco spires that New York's skyline is famous for. That's what should've been done in the first place.

Bottom line though, I think this all goes back to how bastardized the notion of a spire atop a building has become in the past 50 years. There's no denying the fact that the spires of the Empire State and Chrysler are part of those buildings through and through. Then you get the NYT Tower, Bank of America, and now this...it's like...did we totally forget the purpose and design vernacular of adding such an ornament to a building?

:shrug:

[GeorgiaBoy24]

^^^The thing is spires have traditionally been steeples of churches or graceful peaks of buildings which blend in wonderfully with the rest of the structure. It's tougher to say a piss poor stick on a flat roofed building has the same qualities. That's why NYTT, One WTC, or even BOA are hated on. They're not ornaments as much as height cheats that just aren't necessary to complete the building.

[ArtDecoRevival]

Best thing ever would be if Trump Chicago ends up being taller than 1WTC! :haha:

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=61464765

By best thing if you mean "worst thing" then yeah. Man, I can't stand Trump, his ego or his idea of architecture. :(

Plus, it was really self-serving how he tried to hijack the rebuilding process a few years ago and make it all about him.

[21bl0wed]

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BY570_WTC_NS_20131021183005.jpg

Just logged in to say wow what a joke. My mind is truly blown that some here are pro-spire, emphasis on this building in particular.

[chris08876]

If the CTBUH rules that the spire/mast does not count, i don't think it will really be a big blow for us here in the community as there are so many more projects that are taller/planned for the city roof height wise.

Although I do have a feeling that the "symbolic" nature of the tower will be a key factor in the decision when it comes to the nation finding out the news. More of a covert factor, but I'm positive it will count.

[detroitmetro101]

i am kinda hoping for the CTBU to rule in oppisition to 1WTC, so that it will shame the developers to build the spire.

[MadGnome]

They didn't have any trouble counting those pencils on the Petronas towers which were added on in a ridiculous attempt to take the title from the Sears tower.

[Traynor]

... There's no denying the fact that the spires of the Empire State and Chrysler are part of those buildings through and through. Then you get the NYT Tower, Bank of America, and now this...it's like...did we totally forget the purpose and design vernacular of adding such an ornament to a building?...

To be clear, the parts of the ESB and Chrysler Building that count to their heights are ALWAYS confusing to most people and often contentious and to use your vernacular denied...

...And so is the Spantenna of 1WTC. You will find as many opinions as there are people on whether 1WTC's spantenna should count or not. I honestly can't predict what the CTBUH will decide. They could go either way. (Though personally I say without the radome covering, it certainly does NOT count.)

http://i.imgur.com/5PJ192E.jpg

[Traynor]

http://i.imgur.com/RD8KrEQ.jpg

To be even clearer on the above picture:

The reason The Empire State's antenna doesn't count isn't just because it serves to broadcast signals but because it can be changed at any time for a taller antenna.

If Chrysler added broadcast equipment to its spire, it would still count to its height because it is permanent and part of the original architectural design of the tower. Plus it cannot be changed or added to to increase its height.

This is where the contention lies with 1WTC. Can the antenna be extended in the future for added height and more broadcast equipment? If the CTBUH decides 'no it can't', then it might rule the antenna DOES count. Only time will tell.

[Traynor]

They didn't have any trouble counting those pencils on the Petronas towers which were added on in a ridiculous attempt to take the title from the Sears tower.

Nor did they have trouble counting The Chrysler building in its day. Same skinny spire counted for the same reason as the Petronas... Because they were designed as part of the original building as a natural conclusion of the lines of the top of the tower, they were permanent structures and their main function was for aesthetics not broadcasting. Petronas beat Willis fairly to its highest architectural top for all the same reasons. Just as Chrysler beat its competitors in its day.

(The exact reasons the antennas on the Willis building never count to its official height. They were added later and can be changed at any time for added height and are strictly for broadcast.)

[NYguy]

They are leaning in favor of ruling it a spire. The symbolic height of 1,776 ft is what will be the bigger loss as far as the PA is concerned. It's very interesting that initially, both Durst and the PA insisted the official height designation was no big deal. But there is a certain prestige with laying claim as "America's tallest", I think it helps to inflate the rents. Suddenly they're all on board with insisting this thing count as part of the height.


The first part of the Freedom Tower that we watched begin construction will open Thursday.


http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/wtc_walkway_to_reopen_thursday_for_first_time_since_911.html

WTC walkway to reopen Thursday for first time since 9/11


http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/13630591-large.jpg


Steve Strunsky
October 23, 2013


A walkway that linked the World Trade Center site to the old World Financial Center and the Hudson River waterfront will reopen on Thursday for the fist time since the walkway was damaged on 9/11, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced Tuesday.

The Port Authority said restoration of the "key pedestrian link will improve access for tens of thousands of daily travelers," many of whom use the New York Waterway Ferry Terminal at the financial center, across the Hudson River from Jersey City.

Known as the West Concourse, the underground walkway will let travelers cross the Lower Manhattan's broad and heavily traveled West Street unhindered by traffic or weather.

[r18tdi]

I'd have no problem counting WTC1's spire... if it were well-designed and attractive.
It's a hideous utility mast; designed to an entirely arbitrary patriotic footage.

[WonderlandPark]

Maybe going up to the rings will be the compromise. Its an antenna, its awful. IMO antennas and spires needs to be revisited (look at NY Times, that is a stick on a building, I don't care if it broadcasts anything, it is not the architectural top of that building, NY Times is a 900 footer)

[gramsjdg]

They are leaning in favor of ruling it a spire.

...probably because Durst is paying them off

counting 1WTC's unclad and hence unfinished spire is beyond ridiculous :hell:

[drumz0rz]

I mean, he pocketed $15 million by cutting the radome, so he has plenty of money to buy out the CTBUH

[sw5710]

Do they have a reputation of favoring projects, or have even been payed off on other ones before?

[The North One]

Its such a joke that they're willing to count 1WTC's spire but Sears tower's fully clad iconic white antennas are totally out of the question.

Once again Chicago gets f*%ked out of a tallest title by a technicality.

[Onn]

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1377621_229652120528387_245088218_n.jpg

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1393602_229652343861698_543490259_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/487578_229653300528269_1047529172_n.jpg

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1382388_229653013861631_892708193_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1390489_229652240528375_741271043_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1045041_229652273861705_947652289_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1385124_229652210528378_1589528294_n.jpg

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1375011_229652183861714_1979940613_n.jpg

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1375948_229652313861701_1869581974_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1378677_229652103861722_600485616_n.jpg

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1378380_229652153861717_168468733_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1381543_229652143861718_587421291_n.jpg

The new glass pavilion creates a seamless pedestrian link between the World Trade Center site and the New York Waterway Ferry Terminal. It serves as Brookfield Place’s stunning new front door, welcoming workers, visitors and residents.

Brookfield Place is now connected to the WTC PATH station, completely underground!

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.229652093861723.1073741836.155529144607352&type=1

:cheers:

[nyc7]

Nice photo sequence onn

The new walkway looks good. Im glad they decided construct MOST of this complex with quality building materials

[Traynor]

We have seen images of this space many times throughout construction from this same vantage point, but I have never been clear what it is.

To the eye, the lower level it looks like it goes nowhere. Just a large open space. The upper level is never described nor mentioned where it leads.

For all those outside of New York and unfamiliar of the geography of the underground WTC, perhaps someone who is knowledgeable could describe the layout. Perhaps by explaining the direction we are looking (I assume Easterly), the way the corridor connects to the PATH Station and 1WTC etc...

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1390489_229652240528375_741271043_n.jpg

[jd3189]

This is a mere foretaste compared to what the WTC transportation hub will look like.

[NYguy]

We have seen images of this space many times throughout construction from this same vantage point, but I have never been clear what it is.

To the eye, the lower level it looks like it goes nowhere. Just a large open space. The upper level is never described nor mentioned where it leads.

For all those outside of New York and unfamiliar of the geography of the underground WTC, perhaps someone who is knowledgeable could describe the layout. Perhaps by explaining the direction we are looking (I assume Easterly), the way the corridor connects to the PATH Station and 1WTC etc...



It's basically the area between the Freedom Tower and the memorial. That is the view east (memorial on the left).

In this animation, it will be visible at :32 (walking west)

jhrIfd2nZaQ

[Traynor]

Ok, I've seen that video before but as I mentioned, the photo has a wall at the end (now I know it to be a temporary construction wall) but if the walkway is open now, where does it go if it ends at a construction wall?

[Blaze23]

Ok, I've seen that video before but as I mentioned, the photo has a wall at the end (now I know it to be a temporary construction wall) but if the walkway is open now, where does it go if it ends at a construction wall?

The temporary PATH station, there's an opening towards the end of the walkway.

[Matt]

That roof height comparison diagram between Willis/Sears, and 1wtc is way off Willis/Sears is not that much taller than 1wtc, especially with 1wtc communication platform ring the two are only a 50 foot height difference!

I find it strange that both the original twins *as well as* the new One World Trade Center didn't surpass the Sears/Willis in roof height. Granted the twins were built prior, but still. Seems that no matter how tall New York builds, we can't surpass the roof height of the Willis Tower in Chicago.

I personally believe the CTBUH should rule against the "spire". At one point it was nice, but then it was stripped of anything even remotely architecturally-related, and it deserves the demotion. It is nothing more than a skeletal mast erected for the purposes of broadcasting, period. I'm willing to put aside my pride to be honest.

At least we will have 432 Park Ave. :tup:

[Traynor]

That roof height comparison diagram between Willis/Sears, and 1wtc is way off Willis/Sears is not that much taller than 1wtc, especially with 1wtc communication platform ring the two are only a 50 foot height difference!

Agreed. Using the Diagrams page it is clear they are way closer:

http://i.imgur.com/0FZE4yR.jpg

[eleven=11]

Ok, I've seen that video before but as I mentioned, the photo has a wall at the end (now I know it to be a temporary construction wall) but if the walkway is open now, where does it go if it ends at a construction wall?

also just wondering about the retail and what it looks like
along that long hallway/walkway
is there a PDF file or web page that shows the retail layout
also that second level is that more retail ?

[MadGnome]

We have seen images of this space many times throughout construction from this same vantage point, but I have never been clear what it is.

To the eye, the lower level it looks like it goes nowhere. Just a large open space. The upper level is never described nor mentioned where it leads.

For all those outside of New York and unfamiliar of the geography of the underground WTC, perhaps someone who is knowledgeable could describe the layout. Perhaps by explaining the direction we are looking (I assume Easterly), the way the corridor connects to the PATH Station and 1WTC etc...


It's been there for 5 years.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2516/77173605sb3.jpg

You can tell which way you're looking by the fact that the south wall is the short one.

Originally Posted by NYguy
From Action Jackson
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/2707584501_cb93789973_b.jpg

[Gargarensis]

For those confused about the layout of the West Concourse, here is a map from the Tribeca Citizen:

You can see that the West Concourse connects to the temporary PATH station via a detour off the man east-west axis of the passageway.

http://tribecacitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/map.jpg

[NYguy]

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131024/financial-district/photos-underground-walkway-opens-at-world-trade-center

http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/photo/2013/10/wtc-west-concourse-13826309832299.JPG/extralarge.jpg



http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/photo/2013/10/west-concourse-13826311909581.JPG/extralarge.jpg



http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/photo/2013/10/wtc-west-concourse-13826307265413.JPG/extralarge.jpg



http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/photo/2013/10/brookfield-place-pavilion-13826322202076.JPG/extralarge.jpg





http://news.yahoo.com/wtc-concourse-opens-area-shut-since-9-11-193835097.html

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/RMvHTQekl0LJXHu0qj74Qg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTY0MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/343492ccdd5a2423410f6a706700f74b.jpg



http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Ga0Dm7GvRDT6Begj26cqRA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTY0MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/23ec5d28dd5e2423410f6a70670002ed.jpg



archidose (http://www.flickr.com/photos/archidose/10477730306/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3686/10477730306_2a0f9aa255_o.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3683/10477718334_b8f07f6f68_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7403/10477720024_7979aae6e1_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3770/10477716644_faae385d60_b.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5515/10477703185_81a26b879d_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7442/10477731656_f797122583_b.jpg



Chris D Wood (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53037935@N04/10476085346/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3740/10476085346_bc24d912cf_h.jpg

[dar124]

Stunning pics!!! :tup: It's nice to see some of these interior shots.

[Adam1998]

When do you think they will lite up the spire again?

[JayPro]

I just have to make this observation on how crazy 150G/WTC4 is:
From the looks of it, this seems to be the only facade treatment that can capture a high-noon hued sky at freaking dusk.
I mean the reflection is 2x brighter than any light turned on there.

[chris08876]

When do you think they will lite up the spire again?

Christmas definitely or New Years Eve.

[chris08876]

I just have to make this observation on how crazy 150G/WTC4 is:
From the looks of it, this seems to be the only facade treatment that can capture a high-noon hued sky at freaking dusk.
I mean the reflection is 2x brighter than any light turned on there.

Just waiting for a car to melt because of the reflection. From the bay, it looks like a giant mirror. Amazing.

[JayPro]

Just waiting for a car to melt because of the reflection..
IIRC that was from the concavity of Sr. Viñoly's Walkie Talkie/45 Fenchurch in London.

[Hudson11]

Christmas definitely or New Years Eve.

neither are definite.

[tdawg]

that walkway is chic.

[cadiomals]

Just waiting for a car to melt because of the reflection. From the bay, it looks like a giant mirror. Amazing.

For a car to "melt" the facade would have to be concave to focus light, and all the facades of the WTC will be flat, thank goodness. The developers of the concave walkie talkie tower clearly forgot about that.

[eleven=11]

that walkway is chic.

yeah , cant wait to see what type of retail goes there.......

anybody know what the second level is for ???
there is even a bridge that looks like it goes to ONE WTC

[weidncol]

yeah , cant wait to see what type of retail goes there.......

anybody know what the second level is for ???
there is even a bridge that looks like it goes to ONE WTC

I'm not sure, but I think the second level is for restaurants and some more retail.

[NYguy]

Better view of the west concourse...

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/wtc-site-plan.html


http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/img/site_plan.gif



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153079923/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153079924/original.jpg



Underground retail layout (in pink)

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153080070/original.jpg

[weidncol]

Damn the WTC Complex is complicated! Do you know if the underground West Concourse Hall will also lead into One World Trade Center or only the Transportation Hub?

[Thaniel]

So the new WTC shopping mall will be on B1 and B2 level under 3 and 4 WTC?

[NYguy]

Damn the WTC Complex is complicated! Do you know if the underground West Concourse Hall will also lead into One World Trade Center or only the Transportation Hub?

It looks like there will be an office connection at the B2 level...

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/index.html

Workers commuting to One World Trade Center will enjoy unprecedented access to mass transit service. Dazzling new climate-controlled corridors will connect One World Trade Center to the WTC Transportation Hub and the new PATH terminal, 11 NYC Transit subway lines and the new Fulton Street Transit Center, the World Financial Center and ferry terminal, underground parking and world-class shopping and dining.



So the new WTC shopping mall will be on B1 and B2 level under 3 and 4 WTC?

Yes. However, the Freedom Tower won't have as much retail as the others.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/123875677/original.jpg

[QUEENSNYMAN]

My latest video, from this morning, I cant wait to make a video with the Spire lit and show what it looks like from Rockaway, anyway here is my video:

By: QUEENSNY121

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaa1ojRuz6Y&feature=c4-overview&list=UUa3fF4f0jp_YrtzeCuNTf5A

[mdsayh1]

Sadly I agree completely with Banksy on this one. The following is a quote from the artist. I'm certain that most of you here will disagree and you can happily disregard it. I only post it because I hope that some developer somewhere may see this and understand that they are completely devoid of inspiration. It's a business opportunity for any developer who finally figures it out.

See the World Trade Center posting today at:


http://www.banksyny.com

It just below today's Greenpoint piece.

[weidncol]

Sadly I agree completely with Banksy on this one. The following is a quote from the artist. I'm certain that most of you here will disagree and you can happily disregard it. I only post it because I hope that some developer somewhere may see this and understand that they are completely devoid of inspiration. It's a business opportunity for any developer who finally figures it out.

See the World Trade Center posting today at:


http://www.banksyny.com

It just below today's Greenpoint piece.

You know, at first I didn't like the tower either. But the more I look at it, the more I realize just how amazing it truly is. While it could have been better, it certainly is not bad. Do you remember the old designs of the Freedom Tower? :yuck:

[The North One]

This picture looks a lot better, it seems like the lights are at full intensity.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/RMvHTQekl0LJXHu0qj74Qg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTY0MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/343492ccdd5a2423410f6a706700f74b.jpg

[franktko]

The retail spaces on B1 & B2 are also under construction for tower 2 & 3?

[NYguy]

The retail spaces on B1 & B2 are also under construction for tower 2 & 3?

Retail opens in 2015. Tower 2 at a later date.


http://wtc.westfield.com/videos/westfield-world-trade-center-video

4kYXD1cXyF8



http://wtc.westfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/nyc-skyline-edited.jpg

[The North One]

I have no idea how to properly post articles but I found this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/banksy-nytimes-op-ed-one-world-trade-162728695.html

Ouch.:uhh:

[Submariner]

I have no idea how to properly post articles but I found this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/banksy-nytimes-op-ed-one-world-trade-162728695.html

Ouch.:uhh:

"One World Trade declares the glory days of New York are gone."

He must have missed the four decades of mediocrity starting in the 1950's.

That's a silly statement. 1 WTC isn't an outlandish building, but I think it's quite lovely especially when viewed as part of the WTC campus as a whole. Furthermore, I think it's tough to say One 57, BofA, Spruce Street, Leonard street, 111w 57th street, 432 park, 2WTC (when it's completed, god willing), Hudson Yards north and south, etc are without "glory". New York has decades worth of turd brown brick buildings with zero imagination put into them and he is complaining about 1WTC? :shrug:

[Jonboy1983]

You know, as much as I love (and MISS) the Twin Towers, I'd have to say that this complex as a whole is a massive upgrade over the old Twin Towers complex. I honestly have to say that.

I just hope that somebody can commit to 2 WTC. That tower will bring the whole complex together; it will have that look and feel as something complete...

[weidncol]

You know, as much as I love (and MISS) the Twin Towers, I'd have to say that this complex as a whole is a massive upgrade over the old Twin Towers complex. I honestly have to say that.

I just hope that somebody can commit to 2 WTC. That tower will bring the whole complex together; it will have that look and feel as something complete...

I feel that 2WTC is one of the better looking towers on the site. Too bad it will be the last one to get built... (Unless they are still doing 5WTC)

[QUEENSNYMAN]

My latest video with from this afternoon,

By QUEENSNY121

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpnPCjATNPY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUa3fF4f0jp_YrtzeCuNTf5A

[NYC GUY]

I have no idea how to properly post articles but I found this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/banksy-nytimes-op-ed-one-world-trade-162728695.html

Ouch.:uhh:

Sorry but I disagree with Bansky, One World Trade Center is still in my eyes a damn good building and replaces the twin Towers perfectly.
Also Why does everyone just look at 1WTC and go "Oh we only built one" It's like yeah did you look at the other 3 towers they're building?

[mrjoanofarc]

I have no idea how to properly post articles but I found this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/banksy-nytimes-op-ed-one-world-trade-162728695.html

Ouch.:uhh:

I know where Banksy's coming from... But I have to disagree with him.

I've posed the question: has 9/11 altered our architectural boldness? And the answer is Yes. The WTC was a world wonder.

He's showing frustration at our lack of boldness... But-- if we built, for instance, something AS bold-- say, a safer Twin Towers along with the memorial... the way the world is now... What do you think would happen? It would be a magnet for another attack.

The idea that we had to lower our sights, "play it safe," with the new WTC site is sad, but... that's the truth.

The answer-- what Banksy wants-- is another Twin Towers. Maybe not EXACTLY the same, but... something matching that level of vision/audacity/boldness.

Ideally, what I personally thought would've been amazing was to build two "Freedom Towers," right next to the towers' footprints. I knew it was unlikely, but, I thought it would be a beautiful tribute and restore the iconic skyline.

The new WTC *IS* beautiful as it is-- and I'm very excited when it will all be completed. I think it's exactly what it needs to be at this time. What Banksy can't come to terms with is, we can't do that right now... I wish we could, but we can't build like that at this time.

We can build big again, but the world isn't ready for it. It's still too soon. But one day, we'll be able to build with that vision again. It just stinks to wait.

Here's a short Tumblr blog I wrote (http://samjackson.tumblr.com/post/52408897031/has-9-11-hindered-our-creative-ambition) on the topic 4 months ago.

[LMich]

The concourse reminds me of a corridor in an Imperial Star Destroyer. Oh, that's a good thing. lol

[deepen915]

I know where Banksy's coming from... But I have to disagree with him.

I've posed the question: has 9/11 altered our architectural boldness? And the answer is Yes. The WTC was a world wonder.

He's showing frustration at our lack of boldness... But-- if we built, for instance, something AS bold-- say, a safer Twin Towers along with the memorial... the way the world is now... What do you think would happen? It would be a magnet for another attack.

The idea that we had to lower our sights, "play it safe," with the new WTC site is sad, but... that's the truth.

The answer-- what Banksy wants-- is another Twin Towers. Maybe not EXACTLY the same, but... something matching that level of vision/audacity/boldness.

Ideally, what I personally thought would've been amazing was to build two "Freedom Towers," right next to the towers' footprints. I knew it was unlikely, but, I thought it would be a beautiful tribute and restore the iconic skyline.

The new WTC *IS* beautiful as it is-- and I'm very excited when it will all be completed. I think it's exactly what it needs to be at this time. What Banksy can't come to terms with is, we can't do that right now... I wish we could, but we can't build like that at this time.

We can build big again, but the world isn't ready for it. It's still too soon. But one day, we'll be able to build with that vision again. It just stinks to wait.

Here's a Tumblr blog I wrote (http://samjackson.tumblr.com/post/52408897031/has-9-11-hindered-our-creative-ambition) on the topic.

agreed also.. but we didn't scale back anything! The new tower is a rock solid piece of steel and concrete! we built a tower with better materials than the old twins. Anyone criticizing this tower is a disgrace to society. The hard work, blood and sweat put into building this thing has to be appreciated! to bash this gorgeous tower is just sad. And if you have some sort of grudge b/c the spire was scaled down without the radome, as it seems the op-ed writer feels, then too bad. Most of us on the forum and those of us who live in the NY/NJ area love the tower and see it as a rising from ashes. Let the critics say what they want, but once towers 2 and 3 are built along with the opening of the transit hub in 2015-2016, the true vision will be seen.

[deepen915]

sorry but i disagree with bansky, one world trade center is still in my eyes a damn good building and replaces the twin towers perfectly.
Also why does everyone just look at 1wtc and go "oh we only built one" it's like yeah did you look at the other 3 towers they're building?

amen.

[deepen915]

You know, as much as I love (and MISS) the Twin Towers, I'd have to say that this complex as a whole is a massive upgrade over the old Twin Towers complex. I honestly have to say that.

I just hope that somebody can commit to 2 WTC. That tower will bring the whole complex together; it will have that look and feel as something complete...

I agree also, the attack was tragic, but I feel as if it gave us a chance to re-build and make something more high tech. The new glass and steel technology used in new skyscrapers is way better than what the twins were made of. I was hurt a lot by the 9/11 attacks, just seeing the destruction and the aftermath, but in a way we can now build better and stronger towers in the area, as we see with the solid steel and concrete 1 WTC.

[Traynor]

agreed also.. but we didn't scale back anything! The new tower is a rock solid piece of steel and concrete! we built a tower with better materials than the old twins. Anyone criticizing this tower is a disgrace to society. The hard work, blood and sweat put into building this thing has to be appreciated! to bash this gorgeous tower is just sad. And if you have some sort of grudge b/c the spire was scaled down without the radome, as it seems the op-ed writer feels, then too bad. Most of us on the forum and those of us who live in the NY/NJ area love the tower and see it as a rising from ashes. Let the critics say what they want, but once towers 2 and 3 are built along with the opening of the transit hub in 2015-2016, the true vision will be seen.

Classic American Patriotism

"If this is what America gets then we love it!" (Even if it's crap and a cop-out). "And if you disagree then you're un-American." It's the standard "You're either with us or against us." mentality. No room for honest criticism or an open dialogue. No acceptance of a fair and balanced viewpoint. How very Republican of you.

And yes, the new WTC is scaled back from what it would have been if conceived in the 2000's. Bare with me on the explanation:

If they were building the World Trade Centre today, for the first time as if the original never existed and 9/11 also never happened, then to be as impressive and domineering as the original was to contemporary architecture and engineering circa 1966, today it would have to be on the scale of two Burj Khalifas only with comparable bulk as the Willis Tower.

When, what you got (and are getting when complete), is something that looks like it could be built today in ANY major World city. At the time, (c1960's-70's) only New York was big enough and bold enough to build the Twins and its surrounding complex. It shocked the world of architecture and made architects re-think what "big" was. The new complex is nice, however it fails to "shock" anyone. Nor will it cause architecture to re-think itself around the World.

That is what Banksy is implying. And from a World-view, he is correct.

You are allowed to like, love, respect this tower with all your being, but professing it is the equivalent or even surpasses the impact of what the original did, is delusional. The truth is a bitter pill for deluded patriots to swallow. So I assume you will most likely avoid this medicine and continue in your delusions. Good luck with that.

[Thaniel]

I have no idea how to properly post articles but I found this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/banksy-nytimes-op-ed-one-world-trade-162728695.html

Ouch.:uhh:

While I do think One World Trade Center is a blatant ripoff of the NYSE Tower which was never built I have to respectfully disagree with some of his opinion of the tower. I did enjoy reading his opinion of it though. It could be worse (see original Freedom Tower design for details on worse). I originally hated the design of the building but like proverbial stockholm syndrome it 'grew on me' over time. Watching it grow in pictures and in person from a literal hole in the ground. I think it fits better in the skyline than the original towers did which I think is part of his criticism. The building blends too well to the buildings around it and doesn't make enough of a statement other than being insanely tall. Or that it just looks like 'that awkward really tall guy at a party' as Banksy put it. The original towers were hated for a couple decades after being built. I think this building will go through a similar awkward fitting in with some people especially lovers of the old towers.

[O-tacular]

I have no idea how to properly post articles but I found this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/banksy-nytimes-op-ed-one-world-trade-162728695.html

Ouch.:uhh:

I take exception to the part where he says it looks like something they would build in Canada. I think it looks like something they would build in the former Soviet Union! :haha: Moreso just the iron toothpick on top.

[O-tacular]

agreed also.. but we didn't scale back anything! The new tower is a rock solid piece of steel and concrete! we built a tower with better materials than the old twins. Anyone criticizing this tower is a disgrace to society. The hard work, blood and sweat put into building this thing has to be appreciated! to bash this gorgeous tower is just sad. And if you have some sort of grudge b/c the spire was scaled down without the radome, as it seems the op-ed writer feels, then too bad. Most of us on the forum and those of us who live in the NY/NJ area love the tower and see it as a rising from ashes. Let the critics say what they want, but once towers 2 and 3 are built along with the opening of the transit hub in 2015-2016, the true vision will be seen.

I think that's a tad melodramatic. Contrary to your belief, there are plenty of people who see the newest 'design' changes as a serious compromise of the original vision. What it all boils down to in the end is saving a few million bucks for that real 'disgrace to society' Durst to line his greedy little pockets with. To me that is the true disgrace: that some avaricious little weasel is able to shit on the symbolism of the site of our early century's greatest terrorist disaster, and proclaim the site a 'memorial for the victims'. Now all I see is a memorial for greed and corruption and general incompetence.

[jd3189]

If they were building the World Trade Centre today, for the first time as if the original never existed and 9/11 also never happened, then to be as impressive and domineering as the original was to contemporary architecture and engineering circa 1966, today it would have to be on the scale of two Burj Khalifas only with comparable bulk as the Willis Tower.

When, what you got (and are getting when complete), is something that looks like it could be built today in ANY major World city. At the time, (c1960's-70's) only New York was big enough and bold enough to build the Twins and its surrounding complex. It shocked the world of architecture and made architects re-think what "big" was. The new complex is nice, however it fails to "shock" anyone. Nor will it cause architecture to re-think itself around the World.

That is what Banksy is implying. And from a World-view, he is correct.

.

I agree to agree and disagree at the same time. Yes the WTC today would have been much bigger than what we really have, but you have to recognize the fact that we are in a different time period. New York is still big, but to be big now doesn't hold the same meaning anymore. We have to concentrate on other problems than to waste time building skyscrapers that will remain empty for most of their existence. The difference between the 1970s NYC era and this NYC era is 9/11. 9/11 changed a lot of things, and no matter how much we may want this new complex to make as much as a statement as its predecessor, it will not.

[O-tacular]

It looks like there will be an office connection at the B2 level...

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/index.html







Yes. However, the Freedom Tower won't have as much retail as the others.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/123875677/original.jpg

Wow. To me this is the most amazing part of the rebuilt WTC site.

[NYguy]

And if you have some sort of grudge b/c the spire was scaled down without the radome, as it seems the op-ed writer feels, then too bad. Most of us on the forum and those of us who live in the NY/NJ area love the tower

Nonsense. Most people in the area don't even know what the building looks like, those who I do point it out to aren't impressed. (You may be surprised at how many people want the Twin Towers back). Are we happy to get something back on the skyline? Yes. But that's a far cry from saying people are satisfied with what is built. Sure, the complex isn't complete, but saying most people love it is simply not true.

As far as Bansky's piece goes, it's just another opinion, from another person, so I don't see what the big deal is. It's as ridiculous to be offended by it as it is to be offended by any other opinion piece on architecture. Even the Times has an architecture critic. It's too bad the Times rejected the piece.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153125116/original.jpg



That being said, it's easy to say something "grander" should have been built - more than a decade removed from 9/11. Had we just been starting the discussion of what should be built now, perhaps we would have had something more impressive. As far as the glory days of New York being behind, well that's obviously not the case.


Meanwhile, there is other official business to finish...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/23306653-452/where-will-willis-tower-one-world-trade-center-stand-as-vote-on-tallest-building-nears.html

Where will Willis Tower, One World Trade Center stand as vote on tallest building nears?

By NEIL STEINBERG
October 26, 2013


.....the people who built the WTC have dubbed the 406-foot-tall mast they’ve bolted atop the building a “spire” — aka, an integral part of the building’s architecture that should count as the structure’s official height — and through a combination of politics and misplaced Sept. 11 pity might just pull it off, as the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat ponders whether to accept the deception, which can be easily seen by just looking at the damn thing.

Among the charmed arguments that its builders have floated is the novel notion that since the building originally was designed with an actual spire, but alas, economics whittled it down to the needle of nothing actually atop the actual building in the actual world of the real, that means the design should somehow factor into the decision....



st_hart (http://www.flickr.com/photos/st_hart/10464861476/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7360/10464861476_f3fdb89265_b.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3819/10460212116_a3a5b3b087_b.jpg



http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5510/10465025533_83394f21e7_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7448/10464931646_7211c0efaa_b.jpg

[jsr]

I have no idea how to properly post articles but I found this on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/banksy-nytimes-op-ed-one-world-trade-162728695.html

Ouch.:uhh:

Pff... like that narcissistic hooligan knows anything about anything. :rolleyes:

Very little substance behind that poorly written op-ed.

[gttx]

Pff... like that narcissistic hooligan knows anything about anything. :rolleyes:

Very little substance behind that poorly written op-ed.

Easy to criticize someone else's work. Harder to put your own out there for judgment.

Banksy is doing all sorts of things in the art world. Where's his redesign of the WTC? Until then there isn't much he can say about it.

[Traynor]

Easy to criticize someone else's work. Harder to put your own out there for judgment.

Banksy is doing all sorts of things in the art world. Where's his redesign of the WTC? Until then there isn't much he can say about it.

Oh Puh-leeeease

That old chestnut?

So all movie critics must make their own movies? All art critics must paint their own masterpieces? And all critics of architecture must build their own buildings?

You seem to be approving of the new WTC without having built your own. What makes you not have to live up to your own standards?

:shrug:

[WonderlandPark]

I agree with him.

I have ALWAYS thought the Freedom Tower was, well, bland....sure its tall, but, er, that is about it.

and, yes, I have seen it recently and been to the memorial, which is great, but the tower...meh. Its particularly soulless, but all is not lost in NYC, there is the much better Hudson Yards project, the fantastic SHoP and Nouvel towers in Midtown. There is incredible depth and interest to the recent architecture in Manhattan. Sorry to say WTC 1 is not one of them.

Never cared for WTC 1, so shoot me.

[antinimby]

No building will ever satisfy everyone. If it was more extravagant, then you'd have critics saying it's too ostentatious and not respectful of the site. Too plain and you have people griping about not enough effort put into the design.

Just accept what we got and be grateful some of those cringeworthy early designs never saw the light of day.

[jsr]

Easy to criticize someone else's work. Harder to put your own out there for judgment.

Banksy is doing all sorts of things in the art world. Where's his redesign of the WTC? Until then there isn't much he can say about it.

He's entitled to his opinion just like anyone else. It's juvenile and amateurish writing however... hardly worthy of the publicity he's apparently seeking.

[599GTO]

I just can't get over that antenna.

Why would anyone care what Banksy thinks? Most of his work is hideous and he is hardly an example of good taste. IMHO, One World Trade Center is/was a perfectly handsome (although a bit muted) tower, but that horrid exposed antenna at the top has pulled my opinion of the building way down.

In any case, there are so many exciting buildings going up in Manhattan.. and in a decade from now, One World Trade Center will be old news. It's just too bad that all of the action is Uptown rather than Downtown. It would be amazing if something much taller and more stylish than One World Trade Center went up Downtown and stole its crown.

[Traynor]

He's entitled to his opinion just like anyone else. It's juvenile and amateurish writing however... hardly worthy of the publicity he's apparently seeking.

His writing skills are not the issue. Why is that even being considered? He delivered a cogent argument whether he crafted his prose worthy of a Pulitzer or not.

It is WHAT he is saying not HOW it's said that is important.

In an adult conversation we argue the facts at hand, not the way someone speaks. Challenge his viewpoint with an alternative viewpoint, don't call his mama fat just to win an argument.

[NYdude]

What's the point of arguing with opinions? There is no point. An opinion is just that, an opinion. And can't be argued.

[sw5710]

Everyone has the right to there opinion or point of view. Negative or positive. The same thing is happening over at SSC now. Can we get construction info again?

[jsr]

His writing skills are not the issue. Why is that even being considered? He delivered a cogent argument whether he crafted his prose worthy of a Pulitzer or not.

You really need to put up a better building up in front of it right away.

I'm sorry I was wrong. Controversy is his shtick, and I fell for it hook-line-and-sinker. His fake Times op-ed is really just another piece of attention whore art - cleverly crafted with seemingly outlandish, unsubstantiated, childish complaining. It's actually rather ingenious. He got me. Three posts of my life wasted. :uhh:

[21bl0wed]

I dislike his art and dislike the spire. Everyone's opinion is equal unfortunately

[gramsjdg]

WTC-1, regardless of the fact that it is a result of a compromise, is a solid design to the parapet. The real issue is the unclad spire, and in my opinion, the unclad communication rings as well. People here seem to conveniently forget that the original intention of the spire and base (correct me if I am wrong, NYguy) was to create a "complement" to the Statue of Liberty's torch. To that end, not only is the radome on the spire crucial, but the original radome covering the communication rings which serves as the "sconce" which holds the "flame" of the spire.

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/QS/freedom-tower-0710-lg.jpghttp://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-SX363_SPIREl_G_20120509212310.jpg


These images show how far away the top of WTC-1 is from the coherent package of SOM's original design. Its actually like the frog and boiling water analogy as the architectural elements were removed piece by piece over time. If CTBUH counts this "thing" as a spire, then Willis towers' antennas should by all logic and reason be counted as well; otherwise its just willfull, blind patriotism like Traynor said...

[CityGuy87]

Is it possible that the CTBUH would rule it as spire under the condition that the developers complete the spire as originally planned or risk having the building's height demoted? I personally think that would be a great ultimatum but I don't think that's very likely. Anyone else have any thoughts on this idea?

[LMich]

Wow. To me this is the most amazing part of the rebuilt WTC site.

Totally agree. The underground "guts" of this site have always interested me. To me, the above-ground portion of 1WTC is probably one of the less interesting parts of the complex.

[Camstonisland]

I agree with him.

I have ALWAYS thought the Freedom Tower was, well, bland....sure its tall, but, er, that is about it.

and, yes, I have seen it recently and been to the memorial, which is great, but the tower...meh. Its particularly soulless, but all is not lost in NYC, there is the much better Hudson Yards project, the fantastic SHoP and Nouvel towers in Midtown. There is incredible depth and interest to the recent architecture in Manhattan. Sorry to say WTC 1 is not one of them.

Never cared for WTC 1, so shoot me.

Well, hopefully 2 and 3 WTC will balance out the blandness. Cant wait for them to be built!

[Guiltyspark]

One Thousand foot tall? Banksy doesn't even know the height of the tower he is trashing. :sly:

[Onn]

The design for 1WTC wasn't the greatest that could have been proposed for the site. However I blame that more on post 9/11 paranoia (huge factor in why the base is the way it is), than the failure of the architect or the creative process. There were only so many ways this tower could go, and it had to be somewhat representative of the twins without being a direct successor to them (explains the shape of the tower). The antenna was entirely botched up, biggest letdown of this entire project.

The good news is that appreciation of the tower will probably grow over time, much like it did for the Twin Towers.

[cadiomals]

Tower 2 will be this entire site's saving grace, it's too bad it's being built last. I think we should focus on how beautiful the entire complex is going to look once its all done, and how all the elements of it work together quite seamlessly, rather than focusing on the flaws of one building. Once everything's done the focal point will shift from Tower 1 to admiring the complex as a whole. :cheers:

And let's all at least agree it could have turned out a LOT worse: http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/images/thumb/a/ab/FreedomTower_Primera.jpg/250px-FreedomTower_Primera.jpg

[Hudson11]

People here seem to conveniently forget that the original intention of the spire and base (correct me if I am wrong, NYguy) was to create a "complement" to the Statue of Liberty's torch. To that end, not only is the radome on the spire crucial, but the original radome covering the communication rings which serves as the "sconce" which holds the "flame" of the spire.
that design was done away with when Libeskind and Childs were forced back to the drawing board after this debacle.

http://0.tqn.com/d/architecture/1/0/y/z/Freedom-Tower-December-2003.jpg

The spire and the beacon was retained from the original Freedom Tower plan. What one could argue in favor of the mast being counted is that the mast was always part of the building's design, from the above design to this improved one

http://project.millerhare.com/public/image/publicimage.asp?1161228

and of course now to this bare one

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/526eb1d7e8e44e88a00005ca_bansky-critiques-one-world-trade-as-shyscraper-_1-530x798.jpg

what most argue for against counting the mast is that by getting rid of the radome, you rid the mast of a critical architectural element to the point where it cannot be considered a spire by the standards of the CTBUH.