Why not lobby to have them anchor 200G?

It was an earlier design.





http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/152984358/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157583033/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157583034/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/154475820/original.jpg




Just realized you're talking about tower 2. That's part of Westfield WTC also.

Well why did he let that design go? It was very much a great design.

The reason from Skyguy_7:

Crane logistics. That rarely stops skyscrapers in many parts of the world today, but okay.

Make of it what you will. The bottom line is, that version won't be built. Barnett clearly liked it, but it's just not to be.



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157583035/original.jpg

Where else in the world do you have similar types of towers being built in similar urban environments?

Almost all supertalls worldwide outside of NYC are built as stand-alone structures. This tower is being built right in the middle of an existing block, as just another building in the urban ensemble.

The logistics around crane operation are very different when dealing with adjacent buildings. I could see a scenario where the unique environment puts limitations on the potential designs.

^^^^

Exactly. If we look at some supertalls, most of them are standalone. Pick a city and you are sure to find them. Exceptions of course, but not at the risk level presented in NYC. NYC is a very tricky environment for cranes. A lot can go wrong, and the risk is very high safety wise and also in terms of logistics.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...n_2886888c.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...m_2886884c.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...r_2886883b.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...1_2886894c.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...a_2886912c.jpg

Standalone, and not hugging or close by to an ajacent structure such as in Midtown.

Even in Shenzhen, most of the supertalls are away from other structures.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/l...dian/zhen5.jpg

Superblocks as they call them. :)

No, I totally understand what you guys are saying! I just don't think its impossible to do, even in an urban environment. Yes of course there are major challenges but its worth the trouble in my opinion. This is a pretty big site to be working in, there certainly isn't a lack of space for cranes.

Just my thoughts, I could be wrong.

It probably wasn't technical impossible. But it may have required a significant cost that they didn't want to deal with.

Cost probably had to do with it. Its possible, but like anything else, complexity demands money.

Yes, you're probably right on that. Its just such a shame to see the good design go. I think the current design is going to turn out great anyway, its just not quite to the level of that one. I can see why Barnett wants to keep the model around his office for show. :)

Keep in mind that when the clip was filmed, that was the version of the tower Barnett intended to build. Other things have changed along the way, including Vornado's 220 Central Park South potentially blocking some views.

He needs to build it somewhere. The TQ parcel, maybe?... :slob:

That won't happen, but it'll be nice to see the finished product with the same sense of landmark that version had. They're already moving in the right direction in terms of the catilever treatment.



http://i.picasion.com/pic78/3e52a6d8...292fe300e2.gif



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157713309/original.jpg

10.5.14

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3927/...e0dce7bf_b.jpg

That's a pretty steep drop from 58th street.

If THAT's not the definition of "Under Construction" I don't know what is! :shrug:

They're still digging...

It's site prep.

I get what you're saying and if it were up to me I would count this as "under construction" but the rules of this site dictate that full foundation work (or something to that effect) has to be going on before it can be considered under construction.