NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,226 FT | 55 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpressionist

I think I'm in the minority for not being in love with this one.

Forgive me for not finding anything in the search and reading all 80 pages but why is the top diamond not finished like the rest? Exhaust? Cranes? Isn't there anyway clever to circumvent that/those necessity(ies) to 'finish' the building properly?

Doesn't matter. If you don't like it, you don't like it. That's allowed. But you are not forgiven for not bothering to try and read anything.
For more specifics though, you'd best voice your concerns here...
http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Contact/Address.aspx

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by JMGarcia

It's the best piece of architecture at the WTC IMO but it just doesn't work with the other towers. It'd be better off somewhere else.

Oh I don't know about that: other people think N0. 3 is the odd man out. I think once all 4 towers standing, the various designs will be held together by a) sheer scale, and b) Libeskind's inspired "city crown" layout.

[Fishman92]

I think they all fit the place in their own way.

Also, I read this today:

It has since then been decided that the less expensive Three World Trade Center will be built as long as Silverstein Properties meets certain market triggers, and 2 WTC will likely be built as the economy improves.

Which means YAY, we might actually get this one built . I think the wtc site definitely needs two really tall towers on the site. It doesn't look right without them.

[meh_cd]

It already will have two very tall towers on the site. Tower 4 is nothing to laugh at, even if it isn't technically a supertall. If 2 and 3 get stuck for a bit, 1 and 4 will make a great pair for a few years.

But yes, if they can build all of the towers without stopping - that'd be fantastic.

[Ilsaz]

I think it looks great. I have no complaints about this, other than it isn't happening fast enough for me.

[Kippis]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpressionist

I think I'm in the minority for not being in love with this one. Perhaps it's exactly what JMGarcia points out ...it doesn't fit in with the rest. Poor composition overall.

or perhaps it's because the top diamond doesn't get finished with a similar facade.

I actually think that's just one of the new complex's many strengths. There were several conceptual master plans that had the WTC complex clustered with similar looking towers -- I absolutely hated that. The nice thing about the composition of these towers, other than their stellar designs overall, is the fact that they aren't going to be "dime a dozen" blase towers.

I'm even going to go as far as saying that 2WTC is my favorite design out of all the new towers going up, and that certainly includes 1WTC...or Freedom Tower. Whatever the hell they're calling it these days

[Zapatan]

I think the design is pretty decent, it's something out of the ordinary, which is kind of cool. If the tower does end up being 80 feet taller than we've expected it will have nearly the skyline impact of tower 1, kind of like having two twins again.

[Fishman92]

I hope that happens ^.

[Zapatan]

^my guess would be that it will since the official WTC site changed the figure, but part of me worries that they mean 1350 to the tip of the antenna with another little point on top of it but I doubt that's the case.

Since tower 3 is 1170 feet, nearly 200 feet higher than tower 4, I think it would look silly if tower 2 where only 100 feet higher, especially as it gets narrower on two of the sides as it reaches the top. Personally I think tower 1 should have maybe been 100 feet taller but there's no use in getting worked up over something like that. This complex will still be one of the beastiest collections of supertall buildings in the world for sure.

[UrbanImpressionist]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Doesn't matter. If you don't like it, you don't like it. That's allowed. But you are not forgiven for not bothering to try and read anything.
For more specifics though, you'd best voice your concerns here...
http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Contact/Address.aspx

NYguy that's fair. Now I've read. However, the only subjects there were the concerns over the PA getting the site excavated in time to avoid paying daily $300k fines, some funny back and forth with 'Aluminum,' and discussion of the 'Survivor Stairs.'

Unless I missed it; I saw no discussion of the design aspect I inquired about. Thank you for posting the link but I'll pass. Years ago I actually (quite politely) wrote SOM and Kenneth Snelson regarding pleading to have the broadcasting crown's arrangement on One WTC to be considered in a squared and tapered fashion instead and never received a reply. So I'm guessing writing Foster would be a waste of time as well. I'm not an architect, but I do have years of education and experience in industrial design (and frequently comingled with architect students while in college) so I understand quite well form and factor, cohesiveness, and juxtopositon (i.e. a beautiful rectilinear building; topped by a circular crown with no blending transition = poor design from my schooling/experience).

I hope you realize that I am not here to flame; but to have an intellectually stimulating conversation about the design and a willingness to understand any reasoning behind why the design is as it is (and perhaps change my mind about this building as I am very reasonable man).

So if anyone knows why the gap is included in the upper diamond and would be so kind as to reply here and educate me I would be greatly appreciative. If not I will assume no one knows why or doesn't care and I'll just go on enjoying my life in an imperfect world

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Kippis

I actually think that's just one of the new complex's many strengths. There were several conceptual master plans that had the WTC complex clustered with similar looking towers -- I absolutely hated that. The nice thing about the composition of these towers, other than their stellar designs overall, is the fact that they aren't going to be "dime a dozen" blase towers.

I think thats exactly what ended up happening anyway.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpressionist

NYguy that's fair. Now I've read. However, the only subjects there were the concerns over the PA getting the site excavated in time to avoid paying daily $300k fines, some funny back and forth with 'Aluminum,' and discussion of the 'Survivor Stairs.'

Unless I missed it; I saw no discussion of the design aspect I inquired about. Thank you for posting the link but I'll pass. Years ago I actually (quite politely) wrote SOM and Kenneth Snelson regarding pleading to have the broadcasting crown's arrangement on One WTC to be considered in a squared and tapered fashion instead and never received a reply. So I'm guessing writing Foster would be a waste of time as well.

Maybe you haven't read as well, but it hardly matters. If you don't want to or can't get what you are looking for from the source, I don't know why you would bother here. Repeating the same questions here aren't going to help. My only other suggestion to you is to get down to 7 WTC, wait for Larry Silverstein, and insist on an explanation of Norman Foster's design.

[Don098]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Maybe you haven't read as well, but it hardly matters. If you don't want to or can't get what you are looking for from the source, I don't know why you would bother here. Repeating the same questions here aren't going to help. My only other suggestion to you is to get down to 7 WTC, wait for Larry Silverstein, and insist on an explanation of Norman Foster's design.

Why are you so rude to newcomers on here? I mean this is ridiculous...the man's just trying to ask a question, and your demeanor makes people walk on eggshells. Just because you basically live on skyscraperpage doesn't mean you should let your fatigue out on everyone else...

[Big Towers]

Originally Posted by Don098

Why are you so rude to newcomers on here? I mean this is ridiculous...the man's just trying to ask a question, and your demeanor makes people walk on eggshells. Just because you basically live on skyscraperpage doesn't mean you should let your fatigue out on everyone else...

I couldn't agree more. I mean seriously, people with lots of experience on these forums should learn to be a leader, and not blow off steam on people that don't possess that experience.

Appearently, I'm not the only one that experienced a rude welcoming from NYGuy.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpressionist

... intellectually stimulating conversation about the design and a willingness to understand any reasoning behind why the design is as it is (and perhaps change my mind about this building as I am very reasonable man).

Dear UrbanImpressionist,

First of all, let me welcome you to the forum. I hope you enjoy your time on SkyscraperPage. There are thousands of pages to fulfil your love of skyscrapers.

I appreciate your desire to spark thoughtful conversation about design. Many others have tried to do the same in these threads only to learn the sad truth about their nature. The New York threads have been moderated to death and watered down so far, that they have been diluted to nothing more than Oooohs and Ahhhs about the latest pictures. Saying anything else will be construed as off topic. Trying to engage other forumers in a conversation about the building will enrage the powers that be. They will label you a troublemaker and warn you to cease asking questions.

Fear not, many other threads on this site are much friendlier and encourage healthy debate about design, impact on the environment, overall critiques of the projects and so forth.

In the mean time, I suggest you join the lockstep of the rest of us watching the new World Trade Center complex in the silent awe they expect. That is the only acceptable way of following the New York threads...

...Oh, except the occasional Ooooh and Awwww at a picture update.

Yours Sincerely,

Traynor

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Don098

Why are you so rude to newcomers on here? I mean this is ridiculous...the man's just trying to ask a question, and your demeanor makes people walk on eggshells. Just because you basically live on skyscraperpage doesn't mean you should let your fatigue out on everyone else...

Ditto

[jackster99]

Guys, I have two points in this discussion.

First, you shouldn't be giving NYGuy a hard time. He constantly posts pictures and information on these threads, which is arguably what keeps the discussion moving. Without his great pictures and updates, we wouldn't even have much to discuss, so I think you ought to give him a break.

Second, is in regards to Big Towers. The reason you got a rude welcoming is becuase you stole STR's renders and tried to cliam them as your own, and as if that weren't insult enough, you tried to sell them. Speaking of which, i'm surprised you even had the nerve to show up on these forums again, let alone to insult NYGuy, a trusted forumer.

[UrbanImpressionist]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Maybe you haven't read as well, but it hardly matters. If you don't want to or can't get what you are looking for from the source, I don't know why you would bother here. Repeating the same questions here aren't going to help. My only other suggestion to you is to get down to 7 WTC, wait for Larry Silverstein, and insist on an explanation of Norman Foster's design.

@Big Towers, sorry but if what they said is true I have to agree with jackster99.
@Zapatan @Don098 thanks for courtesy check.
@Traynor - thanks for the welcome & heads up. I won't pursue it again after this response unless it turns for the positive.

@NYGuy I respect the time you spend on here, your pics, and apparent knowledge of the subject matter, and kind words relating to the painting I'm currently working on; so frankly I was quite amazed/disappointed that you either:

A. Don't know
B. Are unwilling to share you knowledge
C. Or are offended somehow by my question (that was asked politely IMO) If the manner in which I asked somehow offended you; I apologize.

Why I bother is because I am interested AND willing to learn and my understanding is that's what a forum is for. And if you don't care to provide an answer that's your right. But that doesn't mean anyone else won't be so kind as to provide enlightenment on the subject. I may be new to this site, but I've been around the block in life, so I sure as hell am not going to take being be bullied or talked to in a condescending manner. Dig?

I again hope that you forgive me if I offended you somehow and hope we can move forward amicably; otherwise...

[aquablue]

LOL, NYGuy may have a gruff personality, but I don't mind him at all. He's a wealth of knowledge and he gives so many updates here to keep us entertained.

As for the sometimes curt responses that he gives out, juust pretend you are meeting your average NYer on the street when arriving in NY for the first time

[The Grand Architect]

Originally Posted by jackster99

Speaking of which, i'm surprised you even had the nerve to show up on these forums again, let alone to insult NYGuy, a trusted forumer.

In my opinion, there isn't anyone known as "trusted forumer", not even the most prestigious and respected forumers, such as NYGuy. Remember, we are in a world ruled by the internet, and this forum is part of the internet, where no one knows the true identity of the person you're speaking to on the internet- unless you know them in person.

I don't know NYGuy in person, and I bet most of you don't know him in person either. Even though he is highly known for his ability to post construction updates and photos in a timely manner, I do not know the true identity of him. Therefore, I have respect for him, but not trust. Trust isn't in my vocabulary when it comes to the internet. To tell you the truth, I could go on and on about life back in the 70's, where the people I talk to are people that I actually know in person- and NOT behind a computer screen with a username and avatar.

Sorry if I sound off-topic here, but I don't have any new construction statuses or photos to post. Might as well throw my thoughts out there.