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.

A little something to read for you folks into concrete...

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES368527563

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=ES281147198

^Nice, 12000 psi. That's some really soupy stuff too, with a 20 inch slump.

I knew somebody would appreciate it...:cool:

October 17, 2014



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157863290/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157863291/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157863292/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157863293/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157863294/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/157863295/original.jpg

Concrete pump?

No! Nothing to see here. :yes:

Can we NOW please move this to the Under Construction Thread? :cool:

^
I concur.

Yeah right. :D

They've been pouring concrete for weeks. After they started pouring concrete they moved the thread from the under construction section to the proposal section, in almost reverse order.

Yea patience is a virtue. We won't know how to contain our excitement when the supertall U/C section is full of yellow smileys. Another 7 smileys will soon transfer sections. :haha:

Actually, its good that we have the highrise compilation thread. If we actually went by the guidelines for the proposal section, we would probably have 7 pages of just New York threads.

Just to give an idea of the boom, we have 343 proposal threads over at YIMBY. At 50 threads per page on SSP, thats almost 7 pages of projects. And thats just for proposals. The city has something like 160+ towers u/c. Emporis is woefully outdated on that section btw.

Hunsers supertall thread is always a good source for happiness.

If I had my choice, there would be no threads for buildings under 500 ft in Manhattan (minus lowrise areas). That would be my cutoff, but there's a lot to cover if strictly covering highrise construction. Not all of this is on my radar because its insignificant. The rise of the outer boroughs though is significant change.

Here we go guys... the currently known king to them all soon to be... it begins. This will be exciting to watch like 432. And to think it will rise simultaneously to many others like Steinway Tower, 30 HY, and Torre de Verre!
Salut!

They have been pouring concrete for two months now. I brought this up back then, and others said that wasn't the standard for u/c.

So honestly, I have no idea why SSP has differing standards for u/c depending on project.

I toured AS+GG's Chicago office on Saturday and they were much more elusive with this project than they were last year. No models or drawings anywhere to be found. I did speak to an architect who told us to look for an official rendering release early first quarter, 2015. When remarking on the expected height, he told me not to anticipate any change; that there is an unwritten gentleman's agreement, of all firms, not to exceed Freedom Tower's mark at 1776' [+5']

They're killing me with that rendering release NEXT YEAR, but as far as the 1776 ft mark goes, somebody will top it. It's nonsense. It needs to be topped for that reason alone. That would be effectively "capping" the skyline. Anyway, thanks for the info.

Which is stupid - there are already several U/C or proposed towers with higher roof heights...which is what really counts.

Besides, the best way to say f**k you to those terrorists pieces of s**t is to build bigger and taller.

^^^

Exactly! ;)

Plus, if viewed from the right angle, the whole complex (WTC) looks like a hand with 1WTC being the middle finger. Well, at least when its finished. It wasn't too long ago that they said that skyscrapers where dead in NYC. The whole we can't build tall anymore due to the fear of terrorism. Now, we are building way to tall and I love it.

Your going to be waiting a little while for 1775 feet to be topped in New York, sorry to disappoint.

I doubt you're right. Would not be surprised if it were surpassed within 5 years, if that.

The economy isn't going to hold out that long. Just like most skyscraper booms in the past in the US following it there's going to be a significant lull in activity.

Except that we haven't had a long economic boom, we haven't had much new construction relative to past economic booms, and your prediction that "you probably won't see this boom again" runs against thousands of years of human history. Economies go up and down and back up again.

And we're talking tall buildings, not economic booms. They aren't that closely related.

You and I both know we don't know that. So no disappointment here. I don't even think this tower needs to be 1,775 ft. I don't get the point of stretching a spire that high just to cut short. Either it's a worthy addition to the design, or it isn't. Personally, I would have been much more pleased with that earlier 1,550 ft design.

Almost always there is an economic boom that proceeds the tallest skyscrapers. The boom of the 1920s gave away to the tallest buildings of the 1930s, the 1960s boom gave way to the tallest buildings of the 1970s, there were almost no tallest buildings in 1983-2008, largely boom times. The closest you're going to get are the 2010s. Although I will say if 9/11 hadn't happened New York City and Chicago probably both would have gotten new tallests during the 2000s, as there were strong proposals put fourth.

I wish they had the original design back, which probably would have topped out at 1,550 feet. The spire here is a little baffling, but its pretty much assures Nordstrom Tower (at least on paper) will be the tallest residential building in the city for the foreseeable future.

Again, we don't know that. Nordstrom itself has yet to be built, so it's a little ridiculous to make those assertions. As it is now planned, yes Nordstrom will be the tallest. Is it possible that a taller residential will be proposed and built? Absolutely. No one is certain that it will happen, just as no one is certain that it won't happen.

I think Garret Kelleher has a better chance making it to the top right now...But your right, you never know. :)

Well, that's your opinion, but itself no guarantee. It's the only current taller proposal in the US at least.

The current cycle has at most one more year, so for the next decade, I doubt anything tops One WTC, though I will try to lobby Barnett to do so! :)

We're not talking immediately, though that's not out of the question. But still...



I've been watching the skyline long enough to know that we just don't know what will happen. We had no reason to suspect this tower would have a spire rise as high as is planned, especially given that the developer specifically said there would be none. But if some developer comes along and wants to build a tower higher than 1,776 ft, and has the ability to do so, its not the architect who will decide what gets built.

So we'll just keep watching the skyline and the developments as they make progress. No need worrying about unknown developments, they'll reveal themselves if and when the time comes.

How does that make sense?

I could understand if this statement referred to more than just one building. In that situation a healthy economy is key. But in this situation we are only concerned with one building.

Furthermore, just one building need be built to top 1WTC. That one building could be Nordstrom Tower or even other proposed or U/C. In fact they need only clear several hundred feet more.

Does this really call for "disappointment" or rather encouragement?


Interesting. What else do you see in your crystal ball? Do you realize that there are 3-4 major constructions in consideration for NY higher than Nordstrom Tower? Do you think we would just build one tower the height of the original WTC and that's it? A better prediction for s future NY(in 5-10 yrs) might include anything in m\Midtown east, Shvo tower(central park), or H3 Hardy. Let's not forget Hudson spire. I should also mention Liberty Rising even though it's in Jersey city.

Guys, let's chill. Only time will tell if WTC1 gets topped. Here is something to lighten the mood!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wfYIMyS_dI