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

[OneWorldTradeCenter]

Did they already start with fire proofing?

[37TimPPG]

I'm sure all this potential interest in the WTC site by large Corporations has to be driving the Midtown developers (who can't seem to get their projects off the ground) absolutely nuts!

[Dac150]

^^^I would say yes and no to that. Yes to the short term (though nothing has been officially announced as far as tenants go), but no on the long term given the amount of lease expirations that will take place over the next five years. New York has office space, but aging office space at that; the type that many big name tenants no longer find suitable. New, more modern space will be shortly in demand.

For Durst it won’t be a loss given that if it happens, it’s a matter of relocating a current client to a new setting in the same city. Their only worry would be to fill 4 TS, which by no means should be an issue (it’s still a fairly young building in the heart of Midtown).

[brian.odonnell20]

now if only philadelphia could get its proposed 1500 footer some tenants, then I'd fully support this momentum in downtown...

[Zensteeldude]

Originally Posted by Highrise_Mike

Haha this is a little off subject but I know hot it goes. I used to live in Vegas and when I would go up the Stratosphere Tower they just set a random number of floors to be the official count! It says about 110 floors but the considered 110th floor is only about 900 feet above the ground, it doesn't make sense, but they just like to make the claim, just with 1WTC.

There is a difference there, Tower One has the hight [1,368 feet] to actually make 110 floors, even if there are not going to be 110 actual floors. All of the mechanical floors in the base are actually double hight [26+ feet] as are the mechanical floors above the 90th.

[Zensteeldude]

Originally Posted by OneWorldTradeCenter

Did they already start with fire proofing?

Fire proofing is not weatherproof, they usually spray it on just before the curtain wall goes in.

[sw5710]

As for 900' they use the equivalent of 8' or 9' per floor. Not 13'4" the typical office floor.

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by sw5710

As for 900' they use the equivalent of 8' or 9' per floor. Not 13'4" the typical office floor.

That's still way too short. Buildings these days are not built with floor heights that short, plus they have most people fooled since most people don't take the time to figure out how high it really is in feet. Most people are so stupid they will fall for Stratosphere 110 floors being the same 110 floor equivilant of the WTC for example.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by Zensteeldude

Fire proofing is not weatherproof, they usually spray it on just before the curtain wall goes in.

I thought newer fireproofing used cement based material which would be weather proof.

[Cat 328D LCR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEe9Q1bZ7V8

[sw5710]

[QUOTE=CHAPINM1;4907096]That's still way too short. Buildings these days are not built with floor heights that short, plus they have most people fooled since most people don't take the time to figure out how high it really is in feet. Most people are so stupid they will fall for Stratosphere 110 floors being the same 110 floor equivilant of the WTC for example.[/QUO

I think the Stratosphere uses a smaller floor height like a hotel. Not the equivilant of an office building to get there 110. That is several feet per floor difference.

[CHAPINM1]

[quote=sw5710;4907158]

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

That's still way too short. Buildings these days are not built with floor heights that short, plus they have most people fooled since most people don't take the time to figure out how high it really is in feet. Most people are so stupid they will fall for Stratosphere 110 floors being the same 110 floor equivilant of the WTC for example.[/QUO

I think the Stratosphere uses a smaller equivilant like a hotel. Not the equivilant of a office building to get there 110.

But even today 8 or 9 feet between floors is WAY too substandard and would be as cheap is it could possibly get. Maybe back in the 1970's and 1980's and earlier may developers have gotten away with it, especially in the project highrises where a 30 floor building can be only 250 or 260 feet or in Minneapolis the most povershed project known as the crack stacks tallest tower is 39 floors, yet only 337 feet. I'd easily say that the very lowest floor to floor height you'll see today (even for conventional/cheapest) would be 10 feet per floor, but more likely 11 feet. .

[sw5710]

[QUOTE=CHAPINM1;4907180]

Originally Posted by sw5710

But even today 8 or 9 feet between floors is WAY too substandard and would be as cheap is it could possibly get. Maybe back in the 1970's and 1980's and earlier may developers have gotten away with it, especially in the project highrises where a 30 floor building can be only 250 or 260 feet or in Minneapolis the most povershed project known as the crack stacks tallest tower is 39 floors, yet only 337 feet. I'd easily say that the very lowest floor to floor height you'll see today (even for conventional/cheapest) would be 10 feet per floor, but more likely 11 feet. .

vegas hotels equate to 10 + feet per floor. Put a 50 story hotel 500 + feet and a 50 story office tower 700 + feet. Most people don't know that. Will the WTC have a future hotel ?

[sw5710]

Will they lift steel on Sat?

[BStyles]

After the Marriott Hotel(3WTC) was destroyed, four new hotels sprouted up in the area. Two on Park Place(one is still in the planning stages), 123 Washington, The World Center Hotel, as well as ehe existing Marriott Hotel on West Street and the Millennium Hilton. Placing one on the WTC site would serve no purpose at all.

[uaarkson]

Assuming they don't — up the spire/communications ring and the cladding looks as good as it does on the renders, it'll stand toe to toe with any modern skyscraper, aesthetically speaking.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Assuming they don't — up the spire/communications ring and the cladding looks as good as it does on the renders, it'll stand toe to toe with any modern skyscraper, aesthetically speaking.

Agreed. I think Childs' work is under appreciated. It is corporate, that is certain, and doesn't have the vision of say, Rogers but I find his skyscrapers decent, with 7 WTC even excellent. This might be his best piece, considering the pressure of building the tallest building in a complex that even non skyscraper fans are watching. I feel he will not let us down, and already, I find the base, with all it's steel, pleasing.

[NYguy]

For anyone interested, the thread to rant about the new WTC designs is here...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=166333


g63marty

[Zensteeldude]

Originally Posted by scalziand

I thought newer fireproofing used cement based material which would be weather proof.

Though cement is weather proof the fireproofing really isn't. They want to keep it dry and protected after it cures.

[sw5710]

Outer steel to start on Monday?