NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 657

Alliance · #**13121** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 3:39 AM**

I actually think the cladding looks pretty cheap and generic. At this point I'm kind of pinning my hopes on the base.

robby68 · #**13122** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 7:43 AM**

This thing is getting huge.I will make my yearly trip to Gotham City in August.I cannot wait to see how big this is in August.

sterlippo1 · #**13123** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 10:10 AM**

welcome david, great stuff there

Alliance · #**13124** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

i was just thinking the same thing. so long as it's built in NYC Alliance wont like it...

Hardly true. I just don't think such high praise is warranted on a this building. I think its remarkably average, which is not what I want for a building that has such psychological and cultural importance both to the city of New York and the nation as a whole. I think New York deserves the best and I don't think its getting it (for a myriad of reasons that are for another place and time). Other cities like London are building centerpiece towers that have drastically superior materials and design. It seems to me that praise is too often heaped on any structure that is built, without consideration for an objective comparative analysis. I am just stating my opinion. I believe that when people think critically about architecture, they will demand a higher quality architecture and development. That will only benefit the built environment that is this city.

Just a reminder of how far we have come over the past year.

SDC12507-edit
Photo by me.

aquablue · #**13125** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 7:55 PM**

What the fook is wrong with the glass, Alliance?

Puzzlecraft · #**13126** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 8:18 PM**

I was in NYC for the first time since '02, and had an opportunity to visit the WTC site. Took many pictures, here are a few reduced in size and compressed a bit not to take up too much room. After viewing the site so many times on this forum and elsewhere it was great to see it in person, yet know where everything was! For this posting I selected pictures which for the most part were from perspectives not frequently posted here.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Puzzlecraft · #**13127** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 8:24 PM**

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

pico44 · #**13128** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

Other cities like London are building centerpiece towers that have drastically superior materials and design. It seems to me that praise is too often heaped on any structure that is built, without consideration for an objective comparative analysis. I am just stating my opinion. I believe that when people think critically about architecture, they will demand a higher quality architecture and development. That will only benefit the built environment that is this city.

All well and good Alliance, you are of course free to like or dislike anything for whatever noble reason you choose to do so. But the problem i have with this post is the highlighted word: Objective. If you were such a bastion of objectivity, perhaps you might have found one positive thing to say about a single New York development in you're time here as Alliance or Ordo. Instead, you're posts are seemingly and simply, opportunities to let everyone here know that New York drools and Chicago rules. But it isn't the architecture that folds under objective critical analysis, it's always you're comments. For example, you're complaint that the glass here 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. Perhaps you are voluntarily ignoring a comparitive examination of the glass between the Shard and 1wtc that has been done here and on SSC. If you had seen that, you would know the reason the Shard doesn't have wavy reflections is not because the glass is superior, but because of the inward angle of the building and the lowrise architecture around it. It has no reflectionsof far off buildings! And the reflections it does have are from nearby buildings where distortion will be less prominent. High school optics my dear. By any measure, the glass being used here is some of the finest glass ever hung on a skyscraper. But of course that isn't good enough for you, is it? Because nothing is ever good enough for a troll.

dar124 · #**13129** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 9:07 PM**

Great pics Puzzlecraft!!!

Zensteeldude · #**13130** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 9:33 PM**

Thanks for all the great pics Puzzlecraft !

That last pic clearly shows why they have to install slurry walls to keep the Hudson river out.

I dub it Lake Security Center.

detroitmetro101 · #**13131** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 9:54 PM**

i read a couple of recent articles about the decline in demand for commercial office space in downtown. how will this affect the wtc, and future tower construction?? is anybody out there thats worried about this trend?

STR · #**13132** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

What the fook is wrong with the glass, Alliance?

Nothing. In fact, it's pretty damn similar to the much vaunted glass on the Shard. Only difference is that the geometry (and the fact there's more buildings to reflect) of the WTC tower makes the surface defects more noticeable. Neither building is using polished or ground plate glass, and since all hi-rise windows are heat tempered, there's going to be distortions. Angle of viewing, angle of the reflected object, distance of the reflected object all impact the perception of surface defects. It's why, if you only look at a few photos of each, it looks like they're using cheaper material in the WTC. They are not, in fact they probably overspent on materials given the minor difference between stainless steel (as used at the WTC) and galvanized steel (used pretty much everywhere else). They just didn't go WAYYY overboard and had the plates machine polished like a telescope lens.

Based on my extensive research while working on my models, you're going to get a more noticeable distortion if you're looking straight at the glazing (90* angle)at a reflected object directly behind that's some distance away. If you view the glass at an oblique angle and look at a reflected object that's both close and also obliquely angled from the glass, it's going to look almost optically perfect.

I could probably write a short book on the perceived optical effects of glass and reflective coatings. Most of the work on my models has involved studying how light, reflectivity, angle and other factors alter your perception of the reflections and color of the glazing.

cpaul · #**13133** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 11:04 PM**

This may not be the appropriate place to put this, but I have to say, I was hoping the design of the tower would grow on me more as it was built, and it hasn't been the case. You'd think (well, I'd think, at least), the highlight of the New York Skyline would be architecturally magnificent, and I honestly feel like this isn't. at all. I actually much prefer the other (planned) three towers, especially #4 (the one where the top is sliced down at a 45 degree angle and is split into four separate tips). this isn't meant to be a troll attempt like the guy above me, and I don't know squat about building materials, etc., it just seems like there are so many buildings in midtown being built with so much ingenuity, that there is little recourse for the tallest building having so little.

djlx2 · #**13134** Posted **Apr 13, 2011, 11:36 PM**

meaning that that the design on this one is too "blank" in some way?

cpaul · #**13135** Posted **Apr 14, 2011, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djlx2

meaning that that the design on this one is too "blank" in some way?

I guess you could put it that way. the best I can figure, the boxy shape is supposed to be an homage to the previous towers, which themselves weren't exactly the pinnacle of architectural creativity. It's just disappointing to me that the smaller towers look much nicer.

The Grand Architect · #**13136** Posted **Apr 14, 2011, 1:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpaul

I guess you could put it that way. the best I can figure, the boxy shape is supposed to be an homage to the previous towers, which themselves weren't exactly the pinnacle of architectural creativity. It's just disappointing to me that the smaller towers look much nicer.

I don't think height should play a factor into how "stylish" the tower looks.

Anyways, I drew a quick sketch of the 1 WTC glass, specifically one of the corner pieces on the first office floor. I added the blue color in paint

Just a quick pencil sketch, nothing special, really. But yeah

NYCLuver · #**13137** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 2:29 AM**

April 14th, 2011

The Grand Architect · #**13138** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 12:40 PM**

Great pics NYCLuver!!!

2-TOWERS · #**13139** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 8:33 PM**

Fantastic shots...looking at the cam 14th row of glass going up meaning floor 34...the next lift will be really noticable

TimCity2000 · #**13140** Posted **Apr 15, 2011, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpaul

This may not be the appropriate place to put this, but I have to say, I was hoping the design of the tower would grow on me more as it was built, and it hasn't been the case. You'd think (well, I'd think, at least), the highlight of the New York Skyline would be architecturally magnificent, and I honestly feel like this isn't. at all. I actually much prefer the other (planned) three towers, especially #4 (the one where the top is sliced down at a 45 degree angle and is split into four separate tips). this isn't meant to be a troll attempt like the guy above me, and I don't know squat about building materials, etc., it just seems like there are so many buildings in midtown being built with so much ingenuity, that there is little recourse for the tallest building having so little.

i can see where you're coming from, but i'm actually of the opposite sentiment.

the impact of this tower in my mind comes from its simplicity and subtlety. (its height doesn't hurt either, lol...)