NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,226 FT | 55 FLOORS - Page 86

STR · #**1701** Posted **May 19, 2011, 8:27 AM**

I just quoted wtc.com. Refresher for the person(s) that clearly didn't bother reading the first time:

Quote:

2 World Trade Center at 200 Greenwich Street, features a sparkling glazed crystalline form and diamond-shaped summit that will create a bold addition to the New York skyline. Designed by Foster and Partners, the 88-story tower will be the second-tallest skyscraper on the World Trade Center site and in New York City. Located east of the proposed performing arts center and north of the WTC Transportation Hub, 2 WTC will rise to 1,349 feet.

http://www.wtc.com/about/office-tower-2/2-world-trade-center-about-the-buildling

NYguy · #**1702** Posted **May 19, 2011, 10:17 AM**

I'm not going to do this song and dance, I'll post it one last time. When its changed on the wtc.com website, we'll change it here.

http://www.wtc.com/about/office-towers

Quote:

Tower 2, also known by its street address, 200 Greenwich Street, features a sparkling glazed crystalline form and diamond-shaped summit that will create a bold addition to the New York skyline. Designed by Foster and Partners, the 88-story tower will be the second-tallest skyscraper on the World Trade Center (WTC) site and in New York City. Located east of the proposed performing arts center and north of the WTC Transportation Hub, Tower 2 will rise to 1,349 feet and be topped by an 80-foot antenna.

People, please don't keep asking the same questions. If you must, send me a PM. There is no reason this thread has to keep getting bogged down.

Crolo · #**1703** Posted **May 19, 2011, 2:50 PM**

This Building will just look great, it's very creative

Zapatan · #**1704** Posted **May 19, 2011, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Tower 2, also known by its street address, 200 Greenwich Street, features a sparkling glazed crystalline form and diamond-shaped summit that will create a bold addition to the New York skyline. Designed by Foster and Partners, the 88-story tower will be the second-tallest skyscraper on the World Trade Center (WTC) site and in New York City. Located east of the proposed performing arts center and north of the WTC Transportation Hub, Tower 2 will rise to 1,349 feet and be topped by an 80-foot antenna.

It could be interpreted that the 80 foot antenna is included in the 1349 figure, if that's true they worded that terribly. But yea enough about this, we'll find out soon enough.

Kanto · #**1705** Posted **May 19, 2011, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crolo

This Building will just look great, it's very creative

Yes, this design is awesome. It is something new but still isn't so modern that it wouldn't look good with the rest of NY.

STR · #**1706** Posted **May 19, 2011, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I'm not going to do this song and dance, I'll post it one last time. When its changed on the wtc.com website, we'll change it here.

They did change it on wtc.com. You're not singing or dancing, you're sticking your head in the sand and refusing to be reasonable. Stomping your foot doesn't pass as a justification for anyone else on this board. You, and everyone here, should be able to justify their position (quite honestly, there isn't much else going on with this building, which is another reason why it keeps coming up). If you can give a reasoning why the new, unambiguous entry should be ignored in favor of the 1429 figure seen nowhere else beyond the headline of this thread, I'd be very curious to read. However, as it stands, it's seems unjustifiable. They deliberately altered 2 pages with the ambiguous wording, basing your case on a single page that hasn't been updated is weak argument.

From your post made on 3/21, you quoted the same page I just did before the update:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Quote:

2 World Trade Center at 200 Greenwich Street, features a sparkling glazed crystalline form and diamond-shaped summit that will create a bold addition to the New York skyline.

Designed by Foster and Partners, the 88-story tower will be the second-tallest skyscraper on the World Trade Center site and in New York City. Located east of the proposed performing arts center and north of the WTC Transportation Hub, 2 WTC will rise to 1,349 feet and be topped by an 80-foot antenna.

The tower will contain five levels of retail; 60 office floors, including a sky lobby, that total 3.1 million rentable square feet; and a 67-foot-high office lobby. It will have a total of eight entrances: five entrances from street level, one below-grade entrances from the WTC Transportation Hub, and two from the retail area.

http://www.wtc.com/about/office-tower-2

Which has since been changed to the unambiguous statement I posted above. The fact that there is another page on the site that hasn't been updated yet is irrelevant. Hell, there's pages on the Willis Tower site that still say Sears.

MadGnome · #**1707** Posted **May 19, 2011, 6:34 PM**

Couldn't find the delete button. Decided to stay out of it.

Kanto · #**1708** Posted **May 24, 2011, 8:49 AM**

This building seriously needs an observation deck. Check out my topic where I discuss this problem in more detail:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191305

Roadcruiser1 · #**1709** Posted **May 24, 2011, 7:08 PM**

There is no room for one anywhere on Two WTC.

Kanto · #**1710** Posted **May 24, 2011, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

There is no room for one anywhere on Two WTC.

Oh, I get it, this is a joke

Roadcruiser1 · #**1711** Posted **May 24, 2011, 8:14 PM**

There isn't room for an open air observation deck, because the roof is going to carry the HVAC Unit.

Kanto · #**1712** Posted **May 24, 2011, 8:32 PM**

I think we should move this discussion to the topic I made, OK?

Kanto · #**1713** Posted **May 25, 2011, 10:28 PM**

Um folks, I don't wanna scare you but on wtc.com there is no word of 1429 feet or a 80 foot tripod spire. The only info written there is that it'll be 1349 feet tall. Since they said about 1WTC that it'll be 1776 feet tall, they might be meaning pinnacle height by those 1349.

animatedmartian · #**1714** Posted **May 26, 2011, 7:14 AM**

Actually, STR pretty much cleared it up. The final height is 1350 (or 1349 but I'm not being picky). The 1429 is based on assuming they put on an 80 ft spire on top of the tripod, which now we know, is not the case as reflected on the official website.

Zapatan · #**1715** Posted **May 26, 2011, 9:45 AM**

it does clearly state that 3WTC is 1170 feet tall, which we could assume is the roof (parapet) height.

I would sadly have to agree that 2WTC is 1350 to the top of the pinnacle (well it's not that sad that's still really tall) who know maybe well be lucky and have a surprise

Zapatan · #**1716** Posted **May 26, 2011, 9:47 AM**

-towers 2 and 3 will be quite close in height, tower 3 might even have more of a punch than 2, which might look kind of silly from some angles

Kanto · #**1717** Posted **May 26, 2011, 10:19 AM**

I'm sad about that. This means that the second tallest building in NY will be shorter than it was before 9/11 in both pinnacle and roof

I think it should be corrected in the name of the thread.

Innsertnamehere · #**1718** Posted **May 26, 2011, 8:02 PM**

toughen up. and stop complaining, the twin towers are never coming back, and there is nothing you can do about it. it is unfortunate that this thread even exists, but you can't change history. either join in and support the 21st century towers that are going up in place here, and stop griping about the past, or just leave. remember that the previous towers had about 2600 feet of total vertical rise, while the new towers will have 5300 feet of total vertical rise. thats a whole lot more.

Zapatan · #**1719** Posted **May 26, 2011, 9:04 PM**

^It'll look stupid though I think, Tower 2 being only 100 feet taller than tower 3 and narrower at the top on 2 of the sides, height doesn't always make a building look better, but in this case it would look good if tower 2 were just shy of tower 1, especially with tower 3 being so close in height. Who knows maybe they did bump it up 80 feet, we'll just have to wait.

Don098 · #**1720** Posted **May 26, 2011, 9:55 PM**

See, now I think that tower one would look bad if WTC2 was built too close to it in height. There wouldn't be a nice, gradual reduction in height from WTC1 to WTC4 if WTC2 was so ridiculously high. I think the balance is much better the way it's been designed. In a perfect world, I think WTC1 could have use another 100 feet in height and then it would have looked perfect.

But none of this matters because everything is set in stone now, so there's no use in thinking about the what ifs and could-have-beens...