SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Engineering (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=53)
-   -   A small question about streets (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191767)

Kanto Jun 12, 2011 12:31 PM

A small question about streets
 
I would once again have a small question. This time it's about streets. I would like to ask if it's feasible to reroute streets a bit to make room for a building. To better understand what I mean I have made a small scheme about it. The original is no. 1 and the new would be no. 2. Is this feasible?

http://i53.tinypic.com/124tyrd.jpg

brian.odonnell20 Jun 13, 2011 12:43 AM

Does this have anything to do with making room for a new twin freedom tower?

urbanlife Jun 13, 2011 2:38 AM

Depends on the location of the street, and what the rerouting of the street would effect with other property rights. There are lots of variables depending on the streets. If this is about urban streets, usually the patterns of the streets don't really change much or make changes like that without there being a lot of money from a developer to help pay for a change like that.

Kanto Jun 13, 2011 1:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 5313202)
Depends on the location of the street, and what the rerouting of the street would effect with other property rights. There are lots of variables depending on the streets. If this is about urban streets, usually the patterns of the streets don't really change much or make changes like that without there being a lot of money from a developer to help pay for a change like that.

Yes, I'm talking about an urban street. How much do you think it would cost a developer to make such rerouting of an urban street of about, let's say, 300 feet?

You Need A Thneed Jun 13, 2011 4:02 PM

Rebuilding the road isn't the problem. It's the surrounding properties that would be affected, the utilities that would have to be moved, etc.

There's so many factors that estimating costs and considering feasibility don't really have value unless you are looking at a specific site.

If there is a building where you want the road to go, it would obviously require removing that building. If the land is still empty, it would still require the land to be purchased, and perhaps swapped with the city.

If there's many utilities under the road, with lots of connections to other buildings, it would really be a logistical nightmare to move a road.

The situation reminds me a little bit of the BOW tower in Calgary, although the road was not moved. Google maps shows the permanent bridge, which the public will never suspect as being a bridge when the development is complete. The road could likely have moved here, had they wanted to, the limited distance to use allowed no discussion of moving the road to ever happen.

In this case, the company building the tower, bought the public street in an agreement with the city, with the condition that the road would be built there again (with parkade underneath) and would be open to the public. The road was closed for about a year, and has been open to the public ever since, with construction happening on both sides of the road, as well as underneath.

I think the only real way to get what you propose done would be for the developer to own all of the affected land, and then make a similar agreement with the city in question.

Rizzo Jun 13, 2011 5:41 PM

BTW, I've always been impressed with how the buildings had to be moved back in Detroit to accommodate the widening of Woodward Ave. As you can see, the road doesn't run perfectly straight either, it's got a bit of sway. Not all buildings were moved, and some were just truncated, and then the facade pushed back into place. But on the ground, you'd never notice the difference. Can you imagine the cost of trying to do something like that today?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/...efff8bf4_b.jpg
Photo Credit: me

urbanlife Jun 13, 2011 6:50 PM

Hayward, good mention, actually about 100 years back when the city of Portland built the Burnside Bridge and connected it to a two lane street that needed to be expanded to a six lane street, the city actually cut off those portions of the buildings that were effected and ran the road through. Which is why we have some odd shaped building along that street and a number of those buildings have basements that run under Burnside because of this.

vid Jun 13, 2011 10:45 PM

It's surprising how often they moved buildings back in the 1800s. Almost all of the buildings in my area built at that time were moved to their present locations after being built elsewhere. The hotel that used to be across the street from where I live now (burned down in 2000) was moved three times in its history, but the railway station it was trying to stay across from was rebuilt every time its position was moved. The city's oldest house was moved over 2 miles away from its original location.

uakoops Jun 14, 2011 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 5313781)
Hayward, good mention, actually about 100 years back when the city of Portland built the Burnside Bridge and connected it to a two lane street that needed to be expanded to a six lane street, the city actually cut off those portions of the buildings that were effected and ran the road through. Which is why we have some odd shaped building along that street and a number of those buildings have basements that run under Burnside because of this.

You can see something similar in Brooklyn NY, where 3rd Avenue was widened considerably when the Gowanus Expressway was built on top of it. There are places where some buildings were demolished, exposing what once was a shared foundation wall, or an interior wall that is now the outside of the building.

Kanto Jun 14, 2011 11:22 AM

So it looks like street rerouting happens all the time. That's nice to know. Thanks folks.

Tolbert Jun 14, 2011 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5314588)
So it looks like street rerouting happens all the time. That's nice to know. Thanks folks.

Am I the only one who has a bad feeling about this? :haha:

Wizened Variations Jun 14, 2011 4:19 PM

Despite our having had a different federal government system in the 19th and early 20th century than the Chinese do today, the US used to get things done in a hurry like in contemporary China.

Now, enormous sums of money payoff bureaurocracies from the city through the federal level.

In addition, in the US, we have lost much of private enterprise complex that was capable of building on a vast scale.

100 years ago, property owners and politicians would get together at a fancy bar and broad brush major construction plans in one evening. Newspapers would carry the story a week or two later with 'do' or 'don't' editorials, voters would gather and talk about it and communicate desires to their precinct chairman, and, in a short time the dirt would be flying.

And the results built often were better designed and engineered than what our processes end up building now.

Oh, well, keeps desk jobs, even if nothing gets done now days.

Besides, a desk jocky with a PC does not have the expenses of steel and concrete...LOL

vid Jun 15, 2011 5:18 AM

Today it takes 2 years to pave a residential side street. In the 1920s, my city paved them before houses were built on them, and even provided a streetcar to them.

Lecom Jun 15, 2011 5:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20 (Post 5313120)
Does this have anything to do with making room for a new twin freedom tower?

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5316279)
I still don't think that all about this issue has been said. There are still open possibilities. The last debate on this subject has shown that the people are divided into 2 groups. One sees the pools as the memorial, the other one sees the Freedom Tower and it's potential twin as a memorial. This plan of mine tries to satisfy both groups.

In order to make space for a twin I have made plans which show a small rerouting of streets. This way there can be twins without the North Pool going down. Here are my 2 renderings:

1, Harder (since land must be bought from Brookfield), but better looking alternative

http://i54.tinypic.com/15weamh.jpg

2, Easier, but not as good looking as the last one, alternative

http://i56.tinypic.com/awkf4.jpg

I'm looking forward to hear about other people's ideas and opinions, but please, keep it civil :tup:


Kanto Jun 15, 2011 6:11 PM

LOL, if it means making room, then I mean making room for a twin. After all, I'm the Twin Towers crusader :tup:

urbanlife Jun 15, 2011 6:25 PM

Wow, this has gotten beyond stupid...if we keep telling Kanto this is the greatest idea ever, will it go away??

Kanto Jun 15, 2011 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 5316369)
Wow, this has gotten beyond stupid...if we keep telling Kanto this is the greatest idea ever, will it go away??

Why are you insulting me? I haven't done anything to you :sly:

urbanlife Jun 15, 2011 7:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5316376)
Why are you insulting me? I haven't done anything to you :sly:

I am not insulting you, I am insulted by all of these random threads about the same topic. You only need one and it needs to be in the fantasy art section. If we tell you your idea is the greatest since sliced bread will you let it go? Or go off and try and tell someone important that could make your dreams happen or something?

Kanto Jun 15, 2011 7:09 PM

Well, in my opinion "stupid" is an insult :no:

urbanlife Jun 15, 2011 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5316459)
Well, in my opinion "stupid" is an insult :no:

Well then it is a fantastic idea, you are a genius for coming up with this idea for the twin towers and should totally run with it. :tup:

Kanto Jun 15, 2011 7:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 5316473)
Well then it is a fantastic idea, you are a genius for coming up with this idea for the twin towers and should totally run with it. :tup:

I think it is possible to disagree with somebody without insulting him.

urbanlife Jun 15, 2011 7:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5316483)
I think it is possible to disagree with somebody without insulting him.

:brickwall: :pet: Well I disagree with you, but you seem to think this is possible, so you really should do something about it. Have you tried writing letters or calling those involved. You should be calling every congressman to tell them about this and how they should support it for the good of the country...you are just wasting valuable time in here debating with us non-believers when there is a twin tower out there than needs you to help build it!!! :tup::tup::notacrook::notacrook:

Kanto Jun 15, 2011 7:31 PM

I don't see anything funny on your sarcasm. It's exactly the bullying I talk about in my signature :superwhip

urbanlife Jun 15, 2011 7:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5316516)
I don't see anything funny on your sarcasm. It's exactly the bullying I talk about in my signature :superwhip

WTF do you want us to say, I will say whatever you want...clearly you love the idea of a twin tower, great for you, I see nothing wrong with that, but why do you need to flood this forum with several threads about the same topic??? I find that to be insulting. Make one thread and stick with it. On top of that, what do you expect to get from all of this? Do you think you can make this twin tower happen? I am not asking that in a sarcastic way or insulting way, I am seriously curious. You have been going on about this one topic nonstop since you came to this thread, are you planning on actually doing anything to making a twin tower happen or are you going to continue making up these fantasy ideas about why it would be possible to do when it will never happen?

Seriously, what do you hope will come from all of this???

Kanto Jun 15, 2011 7:39 PM

1, Always I had only one topic at a certain time about my idea. The other topics are closed because of the intense flaming that many forumers did towards me.

2, Yes, I plan to do something for it, I plan to make a petition. That's about all I can do about it.

urbanlife Jun 15, 2011 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5316536)
1, Always I had only one topic at a certain time about my idea. The other topics are closed because of the intense flaming that many forumers did towards me.

2, Yes, I plan to do something for it, I plan to make a petition. That's about all I can do about it.

Then go make your petition, you are just wasting time posting on this thread because none of us think it is possible...we are not your audience to making this happen...hell, go start a forum and petition that is all about this idea and I am sure you will find thousands of people online that love this idea of a twin tower....you are just not going to find it on this site, which is something you should of learned by now.

Kanto Jun 15, 2011 7:49 PM

I only wanted to learn here if it is possible or not. That's all. I think that is a wise move to make before starting the petition. Please tell me your reasons why you think it is not possible.

urbanlife Jun 15, 2011 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5316560)
I only wanted to learn here if it is possible or not. That's all. I think that is a wise move to make before starting the petition. Please tell me your reasons why you think it is not possible.

Please tell me your reasons why you think it is possible?

Why should we have to debunk every one of your ideas? I went to architecture school and never once was I able to tell my professor to tell me why something isn't possible, I constantly had to prove why it could be possible.


But the biggest reason why it is not possible, is who is going to build it? Buildings are not free and someone has to pay for it and someone has to lease the space, if those two factors are missing then the building is not going to happen.

Portland currently has a hole in the ground in the middle of downtown that should of been a tower that should of been completed by now, but instead it is just a hole. I would love to see that tower under construction again, but no amount of wishing is going to make that happen until someone wishes to lease enough space in the building to get the developer to be able to take out a loan to cover the cost of it....this same theory applies to the WTC...until you can prove to me that someone is going to lease that space to afford the developer to get the loan for it, it's not going to happen.

Besides you shouldn't be looking to an online forum to see if your idea (that is nothing more than a cut and paste job, not trying to insult, just pointing out an obvious fact), you should be looking to actual education in learning how buildings stand, how projects like these actually get built, the amount of people that are actually involved in them. There is no such thing as one people involved with a project this size, it requires teams of people making decisions.

Kanto Jun 15, 2011 9:33 PM

Why it could be built? Because there are no major instalations beneath my latest proposed locations and the streets wouldn't have to be closed, just rerouted.

Who would pay for it? A developer. Who would have offices in there? Dunno, but I know that much of it must be pre-rented in order to get a loan for it. And as I said many times before, this could only be possible if the other towers would rent well and if there would still be demand for offices in lower Manhattan.

Roadcruiser1 Jun 15, 2011 9:35 PM

It's the same thing in Chicago with the Chicago Spire. It has been nothing more then a big hole since 2009, of what was supposed to have had been a 2,000 foot tall skyscraper.

Roadcruiser1 Jun 15, 2011 9:40 PM

You can't reroute the West Side Highway. Seriously what makes you think you can move a 6 lane highway? Seriously be real. What would make you think that someone would lease room? Larry isn't having a easy time looking for tenants for the current buildings at the World Trade Center let alone a twin. If he can't find any tenants for Two or Three World Trade Center they would never be built, and lets not forget the fact that looking for tenants isn't as easy as pie. If it was the world would be perfect.

Kanto Jun 15, 2011 10:16 PM

I never said that looking for tenants is easy. I merely said that if he would find tenants, all of this might be possible. Also I don't see any problem about rerouting a small part of the street. it would be just a very small part, 300 feet would be enough.

urbanlife Jun 15, 2011 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5316745)
I never said that looking for tenants is easy. I merely said that if he would find tenants, all of this might be possible. Also I don't see any problem about rerouting a small part of the street. it would be just a very small part, 300 feet would be enough.

Well then, there you go, there is the answer you are looking for. All of this might be possible. So now what are you gonna do about? Should we continue with this who thing that doesn't really mean anything or are you gonna do something constructive about it.

It seems like you are getting a kick out of beating a dead horse, unless you have some masterplan you are currently working on to go along with all of this.

So there is your answer, it is all possible, but the question is is it going to actually ever happen?? Majority of us believe that answer is a "no" which is why this has been a long going beating of a dead horse.

urbanlife Jun 16, 2011 12:42 AM

Okay, seeing that I now know a little bit about you, which by that I mostly mean age. When 9/11 you were barely a teenager and during your teen years this topic of what should be built at the WTC went on. Now you are starting to get to that age that you are understanding on what is going on around you, yet don't fully understand what goes into what makes things happen, you have basically arrived at this conversation several years late.

Like you, there are plenty of people out there that want to see the twin towers back, to forget about that day and the people that died there, but that can't happen, and like anything in the business world, these buildings are different and built during a different time than the original ones. And I understand where you are coming from, I remember being your age and wishing my hometown wouldn't of leveled 17 acres of its downtown back in the 50s long before I was born to replace all those turn of the century buildings into a large parking lot in the name of progress.

I remember looking at historical photo books and dreaming of what it would be like if the city never tore those buildings down and what could be done to recreate what was lost, but instead the city worked with a developer that built a massive, semi-suburban mall on those acres that basically cut off the downtown from the rest of the city and eliminated the urban street grid.

Now when I was your age I would draw maps and things to think about how the mall could be cut up and the street grid that was lost could be recreated. Will this ever happen? Doubtful, it would require a lot of money and a huge risk to take to make it happen for everyone involved...and honestly a risk most developers are not willing to take. Could it happen? Sure, there have been times when old malls have been turned into urban projects, but the chances of this happening with this mall and my hometown creating that urban center it lost is basically zero chance because even if anything like this were to happen, those buildings that were torn down are completely lost, as well as that craftsmanship that went into making them.

So while I understand you are late to this conversation and wish it wasn't already set in stone, but it is and what is planned to be built there is what is going to be built there. If you are seriously taking a real interest in this, you should look into college degrees that would point you in this direction of being involved with buildings and development. But if this is nothing more than a passing curiosity for you that you have no real interest in fully pursuing, then I suggest you do what most people who enjoy architecture is by enjoying what has been built and what is being built and what architects are proposing and leave the designing to those who have a real interest in designing.

Also another important factor that will serve you well in life, you are a 21 yr old, no one in the world wants to listen to a 21yr old who thinks they know what they are talking about. It is better for you to assume you don't know what you are talking about and always be willing to learn from those that do know this kind of information rather than trying to make them have to prove to you when something is wrong.

Roadcruiser1 Jun 16, 2011 2:55 AM

Listen Kanto. I am going to explain my story one last time. I am a New Yorker. I was born on September 5th 1993 on Manhattan Island (I study architecture in my architecture classes so I do know what I am talking about). I was born, and raised as a young New Yorker underneath the mighty shadows of the original World Trade Center Towers before 9/11. I saw them everywhere. They had a presence that no other building in the history of New York City will ever have. Although they weren't the pretties buildings on the block they were unique. They held Manhattan together. I have pictures which features them in the background. There are night pictures, day pictures, and pictures in between. Yet although I loved them since I was young I had no idea of their impending doom, and their fate.

On September 11th 2001 I was in School at the time the planes impacted the North Tower. I was only 8 years old. I didn't realize what was going on. All I saw was the World Trade Center standing there in front my face from my school window looking all normal with the sun hitting it, and the next thing the North Tower was on fire with smoke filling the clear blue sky. The school was evacuated, and my grandfather now deceased picked me up from school. Of course I had no knowledge of what was going on, and I just kept asking questions. My brother faced the worse part of it. He helped my grandmother sweep up paper out on the driveway. The paper blew in from the World Trade Center along with the smoke. There was blood on the paper, and my family had to clean it up. Not just that we saw the entire thing on TV. Everyone in my family saw it live including the plane impacting the South Tower, and the collapse of both buildings on TV.

Afterwards my family never talked much about it. We lost family members that witnessed the event, and we had people that were born that never saw the event, but for the people like me that witnessed the event we don't talk about it. It left a hole in the skyline with smoke pouring out for months afterwards. In my family we had members that were traumatized by 9/11. Me and my brother had nightmares for months afterwards, but for many people this would answer your question. Many people I know were traumatized by what happened, and we still don't talk much about it. It isn't something even I take lightly on, and I only talk about it when I teach my little cousins about the history of the World Trade Center. I don't think most of the people I know would like to see the two buildings back in the skyline. It would only evoke the pain and the suffering everyone that had suffered that day. Even if you build it elsewhere in New York it would create painful memories, but again we all have memories of the Twins and the Twins still stand in every New Yorkers heart. We give those buildings a special treatment, and had put them in an area where the terrorist can never destroy. In our hearts, but if you want to build them elsewhere in NYC it won't be a bad idea. Just treat the buildings with respect as we lost a lot of special people that day.

mhays Jun 16, 2011 5:14 AM

I find it amusing that anyone thinks moving a surface street is a large percentage of the problem. It's a political and cost issue but very simple. The bigger problems are what's below the current street, what's on and under the site of the new tower, the fact that the site already has a long term plan figured out years ago, and the fact that designing and financing the new tower would take a very long time even if pre-leasing wasn't an issue, which it would be unless there was a massive subsidy, which there wouldn't.

Kanto Jun 16, 2011 10:25 AM

Well, I too first didn't understand what has happened there. I was 11, nearly 12 at 9/11 and things like that were just too complicated for me at that time. Later when I grew up, I begun to understand the horror of that day. I don't want to ever forget that day, because I see it as my duty, to honor the people killed there, to remember this tragedy for the rest of my life. I think it should be remembered and taught in schools just as WW2 is, because in my opinion the holocaust and 9/11 are really the same, insane killing of innocent people. It is hard to imagine that somebody could be that insane and that evil, to do such a thing.

However, one thing that I remember the most, are the people, who helped other people that day and who became heroes. These people are, for many years now, my inspiration, on how to live my life. I feel that the current memorial, as it is now planned, is insufficient to remember 9/11 and the heroes of 9/11. That's one of the reasons why I proposed my twin, because I want the new twins to be a tribute to the 9/11 heroes. My inspiration on how this should be done came from the pyramids. For example, in the underground levels of my proposed twin I would make a burial chamber, with graves of unidentified 9/11 victims and in the concrete base I would make a hall of heroes. This hall would be full of statues and paintings about the 9/11 firefighters and civillian heroes as well.

As to me wanting to disprove a plan before I dump it, I see nothing wrong with that. I just want to be sure that it's not possible before I dump it. This isn't meant as disrespect, it's only meant as knowledge gathering.

urbanlife Jun 16, 2011 4:18 PM

But the point that we are all trying to make is that what you see going up is what is going to happen, the plan isn't going to change now, it is a done deal that has already been set in motion.

I agree with you, I am not fully sold on the memorial myself, and truth be told, memorials are probably the hardest thing to get right because there is never a clear answer for the correct way of doing one, but there is always so many ways to mess one up. But at this stage, this is what is going to be built whether you like it or not.

And again, pointing out your age, all of this topic that you are talking about with wanting a twin tower happened years ago, you seriously showed up late to that party, and you can wish and dream all you want about a twin tower being built, but it is never going to happen at the WTC site...end of story. I am not telling you that because I don't want it, I am telling you that because it is the truth. There are some things in life that will never come back.

My hometown isn't going to get back that 17 acres of buildings they destroyed downtown, and NYC isn't getting back the WTC twin towers. You can kick and scream and create all the possible images you want, but nothing you do will ever change what is going on there right now. I am sorry if this crushes any of your hopes, and I am sure you don't want to believe a word I am telling, and I am sure it will take you a few more years of learning before you realize that I am right about this, but that is just a fact of life.

So feel free to continue with this dream of yours, but nothing you do is going to change what is currently in motion.

Kanto Jun 16, 2011 8:58 PM

But I don't plan on changing anything that is in motion. My plan only involves adding something to it, not destroying something. That is why I think it is possible, because the whole WTC can be built, as it is currently planned, and there will still be empty space to build on, without compromising anything underground except a few parking spots and a bit of the museum.

Why I think this can be done? There is still some space underground to compensate the parking, and since I would turn part of my proposed twin into a memorial, some things from the museum could go in there.

urbanlife Jun 16, 2011 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5318216)
But I don't plan on changing anything that is in motion. My plan only involves adding something to it, not destroying something. That is why I think it is possible, because the whole WTC can be built, as it is currently planned, and there will still be empty space to build on, without compromising anything underground except a few parking spots and a bit of the museum.

Why I think this can be done? There is still some space underground to compensate the parking, and since I would turn part of my proposed twin into a memorial, some things from the museum could go in there.

That is the problem with what you keep trying to propose...everything within the WTC site is already spoken for, even if you think it is open space, it is already spoken for. Nothing in that plan is going to change from here on out, what you see is what you are going to get. What is frustrating everyone here is that it seems like you don't get that.

Kanto Jun 16, 2011 9:10 PM

But this plan shows that there is still open space underground and that there are no imovable instalations below my 2 proposed sites.

http://i56.tinypic.com/rvj6fn.jpg

urbanlife Jun 16, 2011 9:24 PM

That is not an official plan, that is just a document available to the public. You do not have access to the information you are looking for.

Also if you look at Level B4 and B5, you would see that nothing within any of the levels is actually open space or space available for another tower to be built.

Again, you are probably not going to realize this for a few more years, but no twin tower is going to be built on this site, and there is nothing you can do to make it happen. This whole thing is a done deal that is already in motion. Now I am sure you are going to disagree with me the about all of this, but that is just a fact you are eventually going to have to accept.

Kanto Jun 16, 2011 9:33 PM

Of course I disagree with you. You haven't disproven anything. Also, only instalations pose a problem to construction, if there is just street concrete, there's no problem at all. So you see, there indeed is the space for my proposed twin :notacrook:

Roadcruiser1 Jun 16, 2011 9:45 PM

You aren't even an architect nor do you know anything about architecture, and yet you are still ranting, and saying you know more about the World Trade Center site then the people like me which have had studied, and taken classes. Like yeah that attitude won't help you in life. Listen Kanto I don't know where you live, but I live in New York City & I have had been to the site a couple of times myself, and you will not be able to build a twin to the Freedom Tower/One World Trade Center. You know why? The Memorial already occupies the entire area of the former site of the Twin Towers. The museum will exist underneath the park, and not to mention the fact that you can't do anything about the pools. The pools go all the way to the museum level, and there isn't anything you can do about it. Not to mention the fact of the PATH tunnels and stations along with the 1 train's. You can't remove highways, and streets for the sake of your twin, and you can't get rid of 7 World Trade Center to build your twin, because it's already done.

You can't build a twin next to One World Trade Center because of the ramps, and the Performing Arts Center which if we are lucky would be renamed building 6 of the World Trade Center, and a vehicle security center is going up at 5 World Trade Center which might later on feature a building most certainly smaller then Four World Trade Center. You can't tear down existing construction like 1 & 4 World Trade Center to build your twins, because their construction is far up in the sky, and you can't build at the World Trade Center Hub, because of the station. Not to mention the fact you can't build a twin at either 2 or 3 World Trade Center, because the foundations doesn't match the foundations required, and altering them would be extremely expensive, and you can't build it anywhere near 5 World Trade Center, because of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. Face the facts your idea will never exist. Build it elsewhere, buy your own land.

urbanlife Jun 17, 2011 2:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5318275)
Of course I disagree with you. You haven't disproven anything. Also, only instalations pose a problem to construction, if there is just street concrete, there's no problem at all. So you see, there indeed is the space for my proposed twin :notacrook:


(It is just clear that you haven't done any studying of architecture or how buildings stand up yet...if you are seriously interested about that topic, you should go learn more about it first.) You have yet to prove that it could happen because you can't show me real documents that prove that nothing is in the way of where you want a twin tower to be built...plus no one will finance this twin tower so it doesn't matter anyway, unless you are rich. You are just a 21yr old kid who thinks you know more than someone who actually has an education in this field. :sly:

Kanto Jun 17, 2011 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanlife (Post 5318623)
(It is just clear that you haven't done any studying of architecture or how buildings stand up yet...if you are seriously interested about that topic, you should go learn more about it first.) You have yet to prove that it could happen because you can't show me real documents that prove that nothing is in the way of where you want a twin tower to be built...plus no one will finance this twin tower so it doesn't matter anyway, unless you are rich. You are just a 21yr old kid who thinks you know more than someone who actually has an education in this field. :sly:

That's quite funny, cause I never ever said that I know more than somebody else. I never issued such a statement, so please, first read what I post before making a statement about my posts. That goes for Roadcruiser too, since he regularily issues identical untrue statements.

And as to me proving it could happen, you have yet to prove that it can't be done, so you are in the exact same possition in which I am. And since detailed plans won't be released to the public, I doubt any of us could do this task.

Then there is the question of financing, my plan involves the same financing model used in towers 2 and 3. A developer financing them with some help from the PA and the government. Since so many people want to see twins again, it would be in the interest of the government to give them what they want and to lend some money to a developer. As to why the developer would make this building, well, I said it very many times before, if the current towers will rent well, it is in the best interest of a developer to build more of that kind.

And as for studying, so far I'm not planning any college. Right now I'm glad I finished high school (on the second try :shrug: ). Right now I'm working and my wife studies. When she'll finish college, maybe then I'll go on a college too.

And for Roadcruiser, here is my plan:

http://i54.tinypic.com/15weamh.jpg

Here you see that:

1, I don't plan to do anything to the pools.

2, I don't plan to do anything to the major part of the museum.

3, Under my location there is no PATH and no subway.

4, I'm not planning to remove any street, just to reroute a 300 feet section of it.

5, I don't plan to do anyhting to 7WTC.

6, I don't plan to do anything to the ramps.

7, I don't plan to do anything to the PAC.

8, I don't plan to do anything to 5WTC and the vehicle security center.

9, I don't plan to do anything to 1WTC and 5WTC

10, I don't plan to do anything to the station.

11, I don't plan to do anything to 2WTC and 3WTC.

12, I don't plan to do anything to any other existing or planned building.

There, is that enough detail for ya?

wong21fr Jun 17, 2011 3:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5319013)
\
And as for studying, so far I'm not planning any college. Right now I'm glad I finished high school (on the second try :shrug: ). Right now I'm working and my wife studies. When she'll finish college, maybe then I'll go on a college too.

Well, since you lack any real kind of knowledge set, i.e. engineering, architectural or financial, that would allow you to actually objectively evaluate your visions to actually determine their feasibility. You may want to look at a different approach.

If you do want to really honor the sacrifices of the first responders, rather than waste your time with some pointless citizen's initiative for what should be a private-sector effort, you might look at the following methods:

http://www.volunteerfd.org/become-a-...er-firefighter

http://www.reservepolice.org/

But, since you sound like you aren't quite ready for college, which the above usually require in some form, and require a more structured environment I suggest the following instead:

http://www.goarmy.com/

http://www.marines.com/#default

http://www.navy.com/navy/

http://www.airforce.com/

Punk-ass, 21-yr old kids who haven't done anything with their lives need to experience the world a bit in order to really develop their visions. As others have said. You need to broaden your vision and imagine a new WTC, not even at this location, that is truly bold. Not the same cropped image you're dragging around in MS Paint.

Roadcruiser1 Jun 17, 2011 4:49 PM

That's exactly the problem. Your plan is on the West Side Highway. I pointed out that fact, but you are ignoring what I am telling you.

urbanlife Jun 17, 2011 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto (Post 5319013)
That's quite funny, cause I never ever said that I know more than somebody else. I never issued such a statement, so please, first read what I post before making a statement about my posts. That goes for Roadcruiser too, since he regularily issues identical untrue statements.

And as to me proving it could happen, you have yet to prove that it can't be done, so you are in the exact same possition in which I am. And since detailed plans won't be released to the public, I doubt any of us could do this task.

I think you say you know more than other people when you tell people to disprove something you can't actually prove yourself....and for some reason, I actually do read your posts before making a statement.

For starters, your tower is too close to the pool, it is too close the road. I know you were young when all of this happened, but the actual tower got knocked for that, being too close to the road and had to be moved further within the site.

Also your building takes up land from the WFC by moving the street like that. I am pretty sure the owners of the WFC are not looking to sell any of their land in front of their buildings just so the West St could be pressed up against their buildings causing the loss of their loading street they have in front of them.

So this site would be a no go too, and seeing that you show no actual interest in knowing how anything about architecture actually works, other than moving around a cut and paste image, I am not sure what your point with all of this is. No one in the real world is going to listen to you about this, you show no sign of willingness to actually do anything about this other than post your cut and paste projects in here trying to pass them off as real proposals rather than understanding how things actually work, then telling us that they will so we have to disprove everything you say must be right.

Well when you can actually prove something can be built in real life, then maybe I will listen. And what you have done so far does not prove it can actually be built, it just proves you have some knowledge in working MS Paint.

plinko Jun 17, 2011 6:19 PM

This discussion was actually interesting the first three times we had it. Now you're just grasping at straws. This doesn't work. I could easily give you a number of reasons (three in particular) that would automatically kill this project...but I won't.

...and in your next post you'll accuse me of being a bully because I won't...

...but I'll give you a homework assignment:

Call the local district office for NYC of the New York Department of Transportation. Ask for the engineer in charge of Road Encroachment Permits. Ask the following question:

"What is the feasibility of moving the West Side Highway NY9A about 100ft in a westerly direction for about a 500ft stretch in Lower Manhattan?"

That is the question you are asking. And since this would be a person who would and could answer your question effectively, that'll be all you would need. Would that be proof enough for you?

Call the City of New York Streets Department, ask for the engineer in the same position, and ask him about abandoning those sections of Liberty and Washington Streets.

Do that, let us know how it works out, and I'll be happy to fill you in on the rest of the reasons why this doesn't work. I'm tired of giving out free advice to people who won't listen.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.