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

[Kevin Scott Koepke]

one world trade center by kevin scott koepke photography, on Flickr


lady liberty and the city; 6/13/2011 by kevin scott koepke photography, on Flickr

[2-TOWERS]

i don't see a building taller then the BURJ in manhattan, WTC #1 will be awesome and lets stay back on the topic here !!!!!!!!!

[Fishman92]

On topic? OK! I see splices going up.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

cmon guys,use your brains. In a place like NYC do you honestly believe that 1 WTC will be the tallest thing in the city in the next 50-100 years?

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

cmon guys,use your brains. In a place like NYC do you honestly believe that 1 WTC will be the tallest thing in the city in the next 50-100 years?

Agreed not a chance, someone is going to want to push that 2000ft barrier sooner than later in NYC. With every where else in the world seeming to surpass the US in this regard someone is going to want to make a statement.

[animatedmartian]

Oh hay, what's going on here?


in.formed



Johnny Banjo


Johnny Banjo

[Fishman92]

anyone notice that this has gone up another elevation?

[Matt]

Have to love these comments from people who are absolutely obsessed they're going to see a building taller than 1 WTC, particularly on the basis of "other countries are passing us by, so naturally America will have to build taller". In case you haven't noticed, that means nothing to American developers anymore; the United States is no longer in a "skyscraper race". We have already proven ourselves over the last 100 years to be a global economic titan, we have no need to build empty office towers ala Dubai or China to prove to the world we are somebody. We are, in fact, what other emergeing world economies hope to become. The theory behind and image associated with emerging countries building supertalls is to prove that they are "just as advanced as America". Plain and simple.

Just take a look at the mundane quality of high-rise architecture being built in the US today - pretty much boring glass boxes, nothing nearly as cutting edge and sophisticated as these grandiose and fancy skyscrapers being built in Asia and the Middle East. The US high-rise market works solely on market demand and financial feasibility; we don't have any oil-rich sheiks in the US building monuments to themselves, and we don't have skyscrapers funded by the government to prove our third-world society is advanced and sophisticated. We build functioning, justifiable real estate projects here, not monuments at any cost just to make a point. Let's be real here.

That being said, those who believe the US will be in the skyscraper race again are basing their beliefs solely on what they hope to see. Sadly, logic trumps hope here. A simple analysis of the US commercial real estate market will reveal the US can no longer be in a skyscraper race, nor do we need to be. Would it be nice to have the tallest building in the world? Sure it would, I'd be all for it. I'd love for us to reclaim the title. But would the numbers work for any developer who would want to bring home the trophy again? Probably not. And it's not just numbers proving to be the obstacle; it's also reverence for the Freedom Tower, NIMBYism, federal restrictions, difficulty getting a waiver from the 2,000' height limit, etc., etc. I hate to say it, but unless the market fundamentals shift drastically in our favor, New Yorkers can accept a building over twice as tall as the ESB, and the FAA-imposed 2,000 height limit is done away with (among many other obstacles)... New York will never hold the "world's tallest building" title again.

[Traynor]

All very sound logic and entirely true for the present

However...

You are being extremely pragmatic and only extrapolating all of these factors into the future as if all of them are static and unchanging.

-America's economy WILL ALWAYS be based on what it is based on now. (No possibility that some unseen discovery or invention by the US could once again propel the US to an economic explosion of ridiculous wealth?)

-America WILL NEVER AGAIN have Robber Barons who wish to build monuments to themselves. (No possibility that some man will come along who's ego is almost as large as his pocketbook?)

-There will ALWAYS be a 2000 foot limit imposed by the FAA. (Rules and regulations will never again be able to be amended in the US? What you have now you will always have for eternity?)

Some of these "wishful thinkers" on here, used to be called dreamers and they were the ones that founded and designed a great America. Not the pragmatists. They were the ones left to figure out how to get it done. They didn't get to run things unless the economy was bad. (As it is now) And that is why your argument seems to make sense in these times.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Kanto

. It is desirable to surpass 1WTC because 1WTC is small when compared to nowadays skyscrapers.

Don't know if I would go that far, you can count on one hand the buildings that actually make WTC look small. If something makes the WTC look small it would also make the sears tower look small, and that building will always be a massive titan no matter what. Just because 2 or 3 2000 footers exist doesn't make a 1400 foot tower short, in any way. People need to be happy with what they have, and sooner or later, more massive skyscrapers will pop up in NY

[aquablue]

There is really no room now for such large towers that Hudson yards is being built with small supertalls. NY will turn its attention to livability issues and becoming a more livable city rather than a place for ground breaking tall towers or a place where ego statements are made with tall buildings. NY is the new London. It will learn to find its new place in the world as other cities grow at much faster rates and become the future centers of the world (just as NY surpassed London years ago as the center for world finance). However, NY will hold its own just like London has. It will also be a better place to live than those other cities that are putting ego and prestige ahead of livability issues.

Asian cities usually build their 2k+ buildings on superblocks. Manhattan is too crowded for those now and I doubt nimbies would tolerate such a tall building along the street in super dense midtown. Due to airports and nimbies, the outer boroughs won't see anything like that either. Also, lower manhattan is out of room now for all intents and purposes. WTC1 is likely to be the new height limit out of respect for 9/11. How silly would it look if the 1776 pinnacle were surpassed by a new tower right next door?

[daHawk]

Originally Posted by Kevin Scott Koepke

I cant wait to see this fully constructed and lit up at night.

[aquablue]

There is also the consideration of light pollution and there are people living close to this building. Thus, I do not believe there will be any amazing lighting schemes going up

[Kanto]

LOL, the arguments that it would be disrespectfull to 1WTC or ESB if a taller building would be built make me laugh. I mean, the people who built these buildings wouldn't want them to be the tallest forever. No true skyscraper enthusiast would want that. It is the way of nature that new things overcome old things. How would the world look like if there was no evolution? Imagine nature saying about microbes that out of respect to them it won't evolve into more complicated life forms. That would be weird, wouldn't it? It is the nature of skyscrapers that they grow taller and taller, and I don't see any reason why this should end with ESB and 1WTC. Sure, the economy isn't skyscraper-friendly right now, but there have been depressions before and they were overcome. Nothing lasts forever, not even economical depression

Well, and now to get back to the progress. These night shots are amazing. I'd really like to see 1WTC lit with those construction lights when it reaches it's full roof height

[aquablue]

Sorry, but what sites would be available for such a tall tower in NYC? I don't see large skyscrapers being demolished because that is very expensive. Hudson yards was the place for such large towers, but even there Nimbies wouldn't allow anything very tall nor is it practical to build that tall in NYC anymore. I can't imagine a 1700-2000 footer in midtown unless MSG is demolished. Nowever else can i think of such a tall tower going foward with the nimbies shouting so loudly.

Lower manhattan is not as desirable as midtown and I doubt any developer will be willing to risk so much there on a sub-par location. Anyway, Lower Manhattan will soon be fully built out as a residential district outside of a few areas and more residents do not equal megaltalls.

The outer boroughs are out due to airport issues and low rise residential areas. NYC NIMBIES are very vocal. They just stopped the great plan to close of 3rd avenue to traffic for 6 nights a year. 6 nights for god's sake!! As you can see, they are conservative and do not like change. I doubt you'll see Pudong on Hudson any time soon.

I like to follow NYC, but my interest is now on NYC being able to produce better design rather than height, because really NYC has lost the height race to China and the Middle East and will never catch up. Even Trump won't be building that tall in NYC because he isn't a fool and he knows that NYC could not get such a tower built at that height.

The focus now should be on better city plans, like congestion charges, transportation or other schemes, greening the city, parks, and better building design and urban design (pedestrian streets, plazas, etc). NYC city is still not very innovative when it comes to design of modern buildings. It needs to focus on beautifying the city and becoming more innovative with its land use and transportation.

[Roadcruiser1]

Unless if Brooklyn sees massive skyscraper development. That might be possible in Downtown Brooklyn in 20-30 years from now. The slow Manhattanization of Brooklyn with residential skyscrapers has already begun, and it won't be a rare coincidence to see skyscraper proposals higher then 1,000 feet in Brooklyn for Residential, and Office use in the next economic boom we might sooner or later see in NYC. In fact a 1,000 footer was proposed in Brooklyn back in 2008. It was called the City Tech Tower, but it was never built due to NIMBYISM.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Sorry, but what sites would be available for such a tall tower in NYC? I don't see large skyscrapers being demolished because that is very expensive. Hudson yards was the place for such large towers, but even there Nimbies wouldn't allow anything very tall nor is it practical to build that tall in NYC anymore. I can't imagine a 1700-2000 footer in midtown unless MSG is demolished. Nowever else can i think of such a tall tower going foward with the nimbies shouting so loudly.

Lower manhattan is not as desirable as midtown and I doubt any developer will be willing to risk so much there on a sub-par location. Anyway, Lower Manhattan will soon be fully built out as a residential district outside of a few areas and more residents do not equal megaltalls.

The outer boroughs are out due to airport issues and low rise residential areas. NYC NIMBIES are very vocal. They just stopped the great plan to close of 3rd avenue to traffic for 6 nights a year. 6 nights for god's sake!! As you can see, they are conservative and do not like change. I doubt you'll see Pudong on Hudson any time soon.

I like to follow NYC, but my interest is now on NYC being able to produce better design rather than height, because really NYC has lost the height race to China and the Middle East and will never catch up. Even Trump won't be building that tall in NYC because he isn't a fool and he knows that NYC could not get such a tower built at that height.

lest we forget the entire west site that needs to be redeveloped. Theres plenty of stuff to tear down in Manhattan,though demand is the key. If the market demands the 2000 ft tower then it will happen.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Unless if Brooklyn sees massive skyscraper development. That might be possible in Downtown Brooklyn in 20-30 years from now.

Downtown Brooklyn? Nope, too many Nimbies around there in RICH areas. I doubt it. Maybe a supertall or two. A mega-tall? Not likely.

I thought this was about 2000 footers +. I'm sure more smaller Supertalls will be built.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

lest we forget the entire west site that needs to be redeveloped. Theres plenty of stuff to tear down in Manhattan,though demand is the key. If the market demands the 2000 ft tower then it will happen.

Perhaps but the west side plan shows most of the plots to allow buildings no higher than 400m.

[aquablue]

To be honest, I think that if NYC wasn't as restricted for space it would be easier to get such buildings done. It seems that most of those hypertalls are done in less dense areas away from residential areas.