NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 17

CoolCzech · #**321** Posted **Mar 6, 2007, 9:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Not only complete, but it will feel larger. Where before there was a "mere" two 1,000 footers, there will now be 3. Joined by a near 1,000 footer, and a near 900 footer. (Oh, and the new Goldman and residential towers that will surround the site).

Not to mention the fact that the entire surrounding area will be far, far nicer than it ever was, what with all the streetscaping, waterfalls & park, and oh yeah, a Calatrava train station.

BTW, when I was in NYC last night I walked down 8th avenue (saw the NY Times tower with some of the floors lit up, as the snow began to fall in the middle of the afternoon - sorry, it looked better than in broad daylight, but STILL nothing to write home about). As the snow began to fall, I ducked into what appeared to be an arcade in front of an older building, judging by the essentially classical style. The place was a circular hall lined by shops, and reminded me of Trajan's Market in Rome... just like the Time Warner Center's curved shopping arcade fronting Columbus Circle does. Sure enough, I came out thru a side exit and it turned out I was a Worldwide Plaza!

I think I've figured out something about Childs: the man is a frustrated classical architect; deep down, I think he really wishes he could design buildings using historical styles. I think it gives a clue how he came up with a design for the FT that looks strongly like an obelisk on a square base: it's classical in conception, and bears a striking similarity to cemetery monuments:

versus:

Now, Childs has admitted to an obelisk theme, but never mentioned obelisk-shaped tombstones... but given the history of the site, and the Memorial being built there... I think using the square base as a stand for an obelisk is too obvious an allusions to a funerary monument to be mere coincidence...

Daquan13 · #**322** Posted **Mar 6, 2007, 10:51 PM**

Well, at least we are getting the tower, and it will be a beautiful and sleek one as opposed to the previous designs.

Lecom · #**323** Posted **Mar 6, 2007, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Not only complete, but it will feel larger. Where before there was a "mere" two 1,000 footers, there will now be 3. Joined by a near 1,000 footer, and a near 900 footer. (Oh, and the new Goldman and residential towers that will surround the site).

True, even if it's debatable which will have a stronger effect - two enormous 1300 foot obelisks rising straight to their flat tops or a larger yet overall shorter spiral eventually reaching the same height, yet accentuated by rising spires rather than flat walls. Only time will tell.

One thing is certain - it will be a whole new era for New York. It is true that we won't get the symbolic and memorable look that dominated the 80's and 90's, but we will get a whole new symbolic, and futuristic, look instead. It's time to move on.

CoolCzech · #**324** Posted **Mar 6, 2007, 11:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daquan13

Well, at least we are getting the tower, and it will be a beautiful and sleek one as opposed to the previous designs.

Hey, I didn't mean that as a slam: I like the current design. I just think that I've figured out what makes Childs tick, and what made him go with an obelisk motiff for the FT, that's all...

NYRY85 · #**325** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 12:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

True, even if it's debatable which will have a stronger effect - two enormous 1300 foot obelisks rising straight to their flat tops or a larger yet overall shorter spiral eventually reaching the same height, yet accentuated by rising spires rather than flat walls. Only time will tell.

One thing is certain - it will be a whole new era for New York. It is true that we won't get the symbolic and memorable look that dominated the 80's and 90's, but we will get a whole new symbolic, and futuristic, look instead. It's time to move on.

hopefully the big badass NYC feel that was lost before comes with it.

Lecom · #**326** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 12:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRY85

hopefully the big badass NYC feel that was lost before comes with it.

True, but in such case New York would need to regain its true big badass feel. Currently, as the city is experiencing its Golden Age, lowest crime rates in decades and commonplace gentrification, it's becoming a great city yet personification-wise, I rather see it as a sophisticated yet somewhat pansy dude who's afraid to get his hands dirty. The abundant nimbies don't make the situation better. I'm not saying that we should bring back badassery by allowing the plight of the 70's to return, but perhaps we should bring it back through other means, such as reinforcing certain industries in the area, strengthening the economy (for instance, bringing back the once very powerful role the Stock exchange played in the city's economy), support certain types of light industry in certain zones, etc.

Lecom · #**327** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Hey, I didn't mean that as a slam: I like the current design. I just think that I've figured out what makes Childs tick, and what made him go with an obelisk motiff for the FT, that's all...

Pure superficiality. Comparing buildings to objects and refering it to certain motifs has been done to death. You might as well argue that Taipei 101 was influenced by a stack of Chinese Food boxes. I think you are forgetting that the reason for the base, as well as the entire redesign, have been NYPD's complaints, and the current base isn't even square but is rather a reflection of the tower's upper part, complete with cut corners.

CoolCzech · #**328** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 1:26 AM**

Well, yeah... but just because he HAD to have the square base didn't mean he HAD to have an obelisk, did it? But I think it's not superficial to note Childs's affinity for classical forms. And the base was altered slightly later on, after the initial obelisk form was established. I just thought it was an interesting observation, that's all...

Daquan13 · #**329** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 6:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Hey, I didn't mean that as a slam: I like the current design. I just think that I've figured out what makes Childs tick, and what made him go with an obelisk motiff for the FT, that's all...

Oh, I wasn't accusing you of complaining against the tower at all.

I just like it over the previous designs, and felt that if they had done this right the first time around, that the tower would have at least had its steel frame in the air by now.

NYguy · #**330** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 1:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

True, even if it's debatable which will have a stronger effect - two enormous 1300 foot obelisks rising straight to their flat tops or a larger yet overall shorter spiral eventually reaching the same height, yet accentuated by rising spires rather than flat walls. Only time will tell.

If the Twin Towers were 200 ft shorter, they still would have had a dominance on the skyline. Certainly from street level, that difference wouldn't have been noticeable. Now, we will have 3 towers of the same scale, with a tower taller than Citicorp Center thrown in for good measure (forget about tower 5 for now). All you need do is look at the prominence of the Citicorp on Midtown's skyline, and you realize we're getting something NY has never had in it's history - construction of so many large towers, simultaneaously, side by side. It exceeds the original construction.

NYguy · #**331** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 1:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRY85

hopefully the big badass NYC feel that was lost before comes with it.

Has it ever really been lost? I don't think it has.

DUBAI2015 · #**332** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 3:59 PM**

Can we get some Freedom Tower updates?

Daquan13 · #**333** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 4:08 PM**

Not much there since the last report. Only that the core has risen a little bit.

NYguy · #**334** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DUBAI2015

Can we get some Freedom Tower updates?

They're on the 40th floor...

Lecom · #**335** Posted **Mar 7, 2007, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Has it ever really been lost? I don't think it has.

On Downtown skyline silouette, it has.

On a side note, I think the current overall design is in many ways better than the original's sculpturality, in a sense that it provides a much more organic set of highrises that are better integrated with the Downtown skyline. A new building elsewhere in Downtown would create much more of an impact than it would have with the Twin Towers around, which would still have dominated the skyline unless the new tower was even more of a sculptural piece than the original WTC.

hoosier · #**336** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 3:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daquan13

Not much there since the last report. Only that the core has risen a little.

That is definitely newsworthy!! Anything rising from that site is big news!!

BINARY SYSTEM · #**337** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 7:21 AM**

As of March 4, 2007.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67628243@N00/

NYguy · #**338** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 12:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

On Downtown skyline silouette, it has.

To the extent that Downtown's skyline is all you see, maybe. Whenever I see Downtown's skyline, from whereever I see it, Midtown is also in view. That's why I feel NY has never lost it's "bigness".

Dac150 · #**339** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 3:27 PM**

Nothing has really changed, but the cranes keep to momentum going.

Daquan13 · #**340** Posted **Mar 8, 2007, 3:38 PM**

Where in the Sam Hill are those two tall cranes that were supposed to be brought in and erected? Last month, I might add.