NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 656

sterlippo1 · #**13101** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

If it is really official, then I'll break out the Lower-Manhattan checklist:

(Culminated from the Diagrams section found here: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=8 )

interesting that 8 of these 13 buildings are within 74 feet of each other

soon, we wont have the lower manhattan skyline any longer without an anchor, and what an anchor it will be!

Don098 · #**13102** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 1:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

That last rendering almost makes the new complex look better than the old one, and with the new height increases it definitely will. (if they are true)

There are no new height increases.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**13103** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don098

There are no new height increases.

according to NYguy there is

WTC 2. 1429'

WTC 3. 1270'

WTC 4. 977'

aquablue · #**13104** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 1:50 AM**

Wohooo, height increase

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's get this party started

Don098 · #**13105** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

according to NYguy there is

WTC 2. 1429'

WTC 3. 1270'

WTC 4. 977'

No...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

Wohooo, height increase

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's get this party started

and no.

Sorry to break the news, but the PA released the wrong numbers. PLEASE go back and read the discussion beginning with NYGuy's post #1547 (pages 78 to 79) on the 200 Greenwich thread and all of your questions will be answered.

Man STR is going to scream. I can hear him now, especially after he explicitly said, "I'm trying to beat this rumor down before it even gets legs."

So...yea...

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**13106** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don098

No no no!!!!!

The PA released the wrong numbers. PLEASE go back and READ.

Man STR is going to scream. I can hear him now. There were like 15-20 posts around this topic about a week ago.

ya i remember that but this was said by NYguy....

Quote:

Once again, these numbers are all over the place. The official numbering of the floors changes again, (the height seems to change also).

http://www.wtc.com/about/office-tower-2So, depending on how it's interpreted, that's a 1,349 ft to roof tower with the remaining 80 ft spire going to 1,429 ft or a 1,269 ft to roof tower topped by an 80 ft spire. Still scheduled to reach street level by the beginning of next year.

I agree with him just because the PA has always said the roof height and then said it would be topped by an 80 foot spire. Besides i'm also confident because of the slight altering of Tower 4's height and floor numbering. And until something comes from Chris Ward or Norman Foster that this was a mistake, ill accept the new numbers.

Don098 · #**13107** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 2:48 AM**

Why would you trust the PA's website when it's been proven multiple times to have been wrong and maintained by careless staffers? The building has not been redesigned. If it was, wouldn't it have been picked up by reputable new outlets? Also, adding height to 200 Greenwich would completely throw off the gradual reduction in height from tower one to tower four, respectively, which makes zero conceptual sense. Not to mention it would look like absolute crap with T2's roof exceeding the rooftop of Tower One.

The steel has already been ordered and the foundations have been laid. There's no way that those numbers are correct. I mean your "source" (NYGuy) BEGINS HIS POST by saying, "Once again, these numbers are all over the place" almost as if to warn against silly rumors stemming from notoriously shoddy reporting by the PA.

Come on man, use your critical thinking skills a little here.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**13108** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don098

Why would you trust the PA's website when it's been proven multiple times to have been wrong and maintained by careless staffers? The building has not been redesigned. If it was, wouldn't it have been picked up by reputable new outlets? Also, adding height to 200 Greenwich would completely throw off the gradual reduction in height from tower one to tower four, respectively, which makes zero conceptual sense. Not to mention it would look like absolute crap with T2's roof exceeding the rooftop of Tower One.

The steel has already been ordered and the foundations have been laid. There's no way that those numbers are correct. I mean your "source" (NYGuy) BEGINS HIS POST by saying, "Once again, these numbers are all over the place" almost as if to warn against silly rumors stemming from notoriously shoddy reporting by the PA.

Come on man, use your critical thinking skills a little here.

i understand what your saying and im not disagreeing. this is probably 98% an error. Though if thats what they posted i'll stick with it until the next update. Just to make sure.

djlx2 · #**13109** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 7:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockMont

This building is going to be so big, that it will require two cores. Obviously one isn't enough.

Requoting a very old post, I know, but I agree with the thought on this page of a twin-towers novel. Re: cores, and no more destruction.

NYYskyline · #**13110** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 2:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

according to NYguy there is

WTC 2. 1429'

WTC 3. 1270'

WTC 4. 977'

Is this a hight increase or an accident?

Don098 · #**13111** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYYskyline

Is this a hight increase or an accident?

READ!

jthornton17 · #**13112** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don098

READ!

LOL. I have to agree with DON here. I mean, the base of the other two buildings (wtc 2 and wtc 3) are under construction. If you were going to add physical floors, the support structure would have to change. It's just kind of common sense at this point. Unless you were going to add a light weight external structure to the building. WTC 2 would be very hard to do with it's pointed top and WTC 3 really has that already in the design. Obviously wtc 4 is past the underground stage. So it's really silly to think they could add extra floors at this point.

Onn · #**13113** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthornton17

LOL. I have to agree with DON here. I mean, the base of the other two buildings (wtc 2 and wtc 3) are under construction. If you were going to add physical floors, the support structure would have to change. It's just kind of common sense at this point. Unless you were going to add a light weight external structure to the building. WTC 2 would be very hard to do with it's pointed top and WTC 3 really has that already in the design. Obviously wtc 4 is past the underground stage. So it's really silly to think they could add extra floors at this point.

And what do you know about support structure design and the loads those bases are built to carry?

The Grand Architect · #**13114** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 11:49 PM**

Did anyone notice the live camera on wtcprogress' site? It was moved to the west, near the side of West St, with a dead-on view of the south side of the 1WTC.

Zapatan · #**13115** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 11:54 PM**

If the official WTC website changed the figures recently there is probably a reason.

A. there are probably no more actual floors, they just number them 88, 80, 72

B. the buildings where probably always this height(If they indeed are), sometimes figures get misconstrued

C. tower 2's rooftop is NOT higher than tower 1's, it says 1429 to the pinnacle, tower 1 is 1776.

Of course it's possible that there were no changes but I'll go with what the official website says for now. I do remember when the final design for 1WTC was released 6 years ago that there was an article stating the other towers could potentially be as tall as 1450 feet. This doesn't mean that they are or aren't, none of us know, just wait until the figures are officially released.

nydavid · #**13116** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 12:17 AM**

Hello everyone, I'm new here but have been following this forum for a couple of years now and have decided to finally get in on the action =) . I took a ride down to Brooklyn this past Sunday (4/10/11) from Westchester to visit my aunt and took a few pictures of 1 wtc with my phone:

jd3189 · #**13117** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 12:30 AM**

I know the heights are fixed,but you guys never know what may happen during construction. Some event may happen in which 2 WTC's height is increased to almost the same height as 1 WTC, but a little bit lower to resemble the close height the Twin Towers. Plans can change,but I'm just glad that all of them are going up.

colemonkee · #**13118** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 1:02 AM**

Great series, nydavid, and welcome to the forum. I think those are the best photos of the corner node glass with the four window panes that I've seen to date.

vandelay · #**13119** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 2:11 AM**

Those pictures are great. The glass looks fantastic in them. You also get a sense of how much more interesting the design is in three dimensions. This tower is going to be amazing.

UrbanImpressionist · #**13120** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 3:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandelay

The glass looks fantastic in them.

Was thinking the same thing. Something we don't exactly see in the renderings and won't see till it's completely clad; the reflections of the sky and clouds at various times of day, weather conditions, and colors are gunna provide limitless variations of incredible views.