NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 480

Dac150 · #**9581** Posted **Aug 24, 2010, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

they just built a tower and now they need more space!

I think many people undervalue what the Merrill Lynch acquisition brought in terms of expansion to BofA’s capital markets business. BofA is still hungry for new space.

Dac150 · #**9582** Posted **Aug 24, 2010, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by winlinmac001

I bet JP Morgan Chase is still interested.

I wouldn’t exactly hold your breath on that one; they’re pretty cozy in their Midtown campus.

BofA, Merrill, Morgan Stanley, Oppenheimer, BNY Mellon are all major financials in play for new space. Keep your eye on them.

Pbellamy · #**9583** Posted **Aug 24, 2010, 7:52 PM**

Just came past the site with my iphone and noticed more steel going up today...

Also this contraption is getting huge...

Plokoon11 · #**9584** Posted **Aug 24, 2010, 7:58 PM**

I remember when it took 4 weeks just to see it rise just a floor now look at it, its 1/4 the official hieght!

winlinmac001 · #**9585** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 3:46 AM**

Are there any such "load-bearing" columns on this tower? The base of the Towers only seems to support the weight of the structure as a whole. In a event where the load would have to be redistributed, how would that work with this engineering marvel?

colemonkee · #**9586** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 4:14 AM**

^ The super columns at the bottom of the building are all load-bearing. The vertical beams rising above them transfer weight straight down from the floors above, and the diagonal beams rising up from them transfer weight from the vertical columns in between. So there are plenty of load-bearing columns outside of the core. This is an exceptionally well-engineered building, and should be, given the circumstances that led to its need in the first place.

RobertWalpole · #**9587** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 4:16 AM**

It's amazing to see the amount of greenery that has been added to NY. Who would have thought that tree and flower-lined bike and walking paths would spring up everywhere.

Jay Fine

Aleks · #**9588** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 4:55 AM**

it will look even better when the trees around the memorial are planted!

Kamatzu · #**9589** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 7:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

It's amazing to see the amount of greenery that has been added to NY. Who would have thought that tree and flower-lined bike and walking paths would spring up everywhere.

Jay Fine

That's going to be a really touching picture to see some years from now. Captures the essence of a behemoth renewal project in harmony with the city life. Already looks futuristic.

MadGnome · #**9590** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 12:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by winlinmac001

Are there any such "load-bearing" columns on this tower? The base of the Towers only seems to support the weight of the structure as a whole. In a event where the load would have to be redistributed, how would that work with this engineering marvel?

The lower level doesn't need to worry about crossbracing to redistribute the load if the tower moves because of the sheer size of the columns. There's very little chance those monsters are ever going to flex.

NYguy · #**9591** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 12:52 PM**

teaboneski

cmduffin

uaarkson · #**9592** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 4:55 PM**

What's with all the backseat engineers on this forum?

Traynor · #**9593** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

What's with all the backseat engineers on this forum?

Said by someone who is most assuredly an armchair quarterback, or amateur movie critic or art critic, etc...

Just like we all are. That's what humans do. We observe, question and comment. Without that, you have complacency and eventual stagnation. Civilization would never have evolved out of the stone age, if every bystander just accepted what was going on without question.

Speaking of armchair engineering...

Tower 1 is designed with a bunker base for blast protection, but towers 2,3 and 4 are not. Ostensibly because Tower 1 would be a potential primary target for an attack. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the onus has now shifted to the other 3 towers? Are their occupants more expendable? Or for that matter the occupants of World Financial Center across the street.

wong21fr · #**9594** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 7:27 PM**

Tower 1 also fronts West St and I believe that it's the only street in lower Manhattan open to heavy vehicle traffic. The streets that Towers 2,3, and 4 front are access restricted.

That could be a partial explanation.

Traynor · #**9595** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Tower 1 also fronts West St and I believe that it's the only street in lower Manhattan open to heavy vehicle traffic. The streets that Towers 2,3, and 4 front are access restricted.

That could be a partial explanation.

As I asked in my post... Don't the occupants of World Financial Center have any value? They are also on West Street. I don't buy that response.

wong21fr · #**9596** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

As I asked in my post... Don't the occupants of World Financial Center have any value? They are also on West Street. I don't buy that response.

Obviously not, so you probably don't want to visit the World Financial Center, you may get knocked around by a car bomb or two.

Or maybe Brookfield Properties doesn't see a positive trade-off in heavily retrofitting existing buildings that have never been a target of terrorist attacks and having to do so with their own funding and not a huge pile of public money.

But 1WTC, I do recall a couple of things happening there.

Zensteeldude · #**9597** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

^ That seems like a non-answer to me.

Either the floors exist and there is something on them or they don't and the numbering of floors is exaggerated. If the latter is the case then I could say that the top floor of my four floor walk-up is the 75th floor. I have a first and second floor but floors 3-73 are not numbered and then there is 74 and 75.

You see how that explanation makes no sense.

If there are spaces that roughly equate to a floor and take up vertical space, then they must have something on them, even if they are mostly empty. For example: Saying there are no numbered floors 7-19 or 94-99, is not an explanation. Do they exist but are not accessible to the public or is the 20th floor actually the 7th floor and the 100th then actually the 81st floor?

Furthermore a cross section of WTC 2 has no such waste of floors. Does that building not require all that space for chillers and such as well?

You are making this far more complex than it is.

In the end they are just numbers on elevator buttons. Say 5 years from now you were to step onto a service elevator, there would be no buttons numbered 7 thru 19. Not because the elevator doesn't go to those floors but because there are no floors numbered as such.

Believe me, there are no empty spaces in this tower, except office floors not yet leased out.

If you were to sit down with the prints and count the floors, the Lobby being 1 and you stopped at the roof you would come up with 92 floors. What those floors are called is really of no consequence.

Zensteeldude · #**9598** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by winlinmac001

Are there any such "load-bearing" columns on this tower? The base of the Towers only seems to support the weight of the structure as a whole. In a event where the load would have to be redistributed, how would that work with this engineering marvel?

There is redundancy factored into all of the columns in the unlikely event that columns are destroyed. Also, weight re-distribution is taken care of by moment connections at every beam/ column connection.

Exactly how many columns can be lost before structural failure (the tower falls down) is a secret.

PS: I doubt the entire tower could ever collapse, due to the massive core.

JSsocal · #**9599** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 9:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

As I asked in my post... Don't the occupants of World Financial Center have any value? They are also on West Street. I don't buy that response.

Remember that 1 WTC is far closer to the street then WFC is, and also the WFC isn't a target. You can't bomb-proof every fairly large building in New York. As for towers 2, 3, and 4, they seem to have this covered. You'll notice that the actual 4 WTC is set back from Church Street a ways. The only thing on the street is the retail hub. As for Liberty Street, you can see there is a concrete wall facing the street in the recent pictures, (part of the reason for the hold up in construction). You can't make a building invincible, you just have to make sure it stands in a traumatic event.

JACKinBeantown · #**9600** Posted **Aug 25, 2010, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

Please forgive a question that I am sure has been asked and answered already a hundred times, but scanning through nearly 500 pages of this thread to find my answer seemed impossible.

Why is so much of WTC 1v2 unable to be occupied?

By my count there are only 70 floors you can have an office, restaurant or observation deck on, out of a listed 108.

No building needs that much mechanical floorspace or broadcast floors. (Unless you are housing a secret CIA bunker)

So what is really going to occupy floors 7-19? Please don't answer mechanical. The only way that much floor space could be all mechanical, is if it's a General Motors assembly plant. LOL

The best answer I can give is that in my lifetime the truth has become less and less valued all the time. In the media, in politics, in the business world, in everyday life, and yes, in skyscraper floor count.

edit: The following comment isn't about me, it's about the argument that took place between two other forumers and just happened to occur after my answer. Just an FYI.