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

[ChicagoSpire2000]

Was there an accident?

[meh_cd]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

They gave the occupants ear muffs and they even put noise screens on the windows yet in the end everything is about the money.

The noise is almost nothing compared to a few years ago. Someone "important" must have complained.

[Otie]

2011-08-06 61 by in.formed, on Flickr

[Brian Dino Vabec]

B1 floor will be interesting..Eastern part is higher than Western..Also, that's the lowest floor for podium elevator which will be on that eastern part..

[Yankee fan for life]

Wiki says that pinnacle height for 2 wtc is 1350 but this forum description says 1429 what height is 2 wtc going to be.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by yankee fan for life

wiki says that pinnacle height for 2 wtc is 1350 but this forum description says 1429 what height is 2 wtc going to be.

...

1350.

[uakoops]

^^ Otie's Picture:

Check out the "bent" column on the truck at top.

[brian.odonnell20]

not quite sure which ny proposed u/c I like better, this or torre verre

[JesseNewYorkCity]

The 4 diamonds at the top are going to look AWESOME at night!

[Guiltyspark]

While I think that the diamond structure on the top is going to be absolutely stunning, especially when it is lit at night; I think there is a major problem with this tower. Most pictures I have seen of it are from the memorial side, which is its best side by far. However, when I see renders from say, the ESB, II WTC ends up looking very plain. Personally, I think buildings that have all their tricks on one side are fine, as long as they do not dominate the skyline and mostly will be viewed from that side. For example the Smurfit-Stone Building in Chicago (which II WTC has already been compared to) has the same type of interesting slant, but the boring back of the building is basically hidden. I doubt there will be anything in our lifetime to hide the back of II WTC from midtown.

In summary, I think this design might have actually been better if it was shorter and in the location of WTC IV. Then the back would have been hidden by the rest of downtown. Overall, I give it a B+.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

I doubt there will be anything in our lifetime to hide the back of II WTC from midtown.

In summary, I think this design might have actually been better if it was shorter and in the location of WTC IV. Then the back would have been hidden by the rest of downtown. Overall, I give it a B+.

I like the view of the diamonds being oriented towards the river, but that is just one aspect of the design. I believe the true nature and scale of the building is best seen from the north where it actually complements the Freedom Tower better.

[Servo]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I like the view of the diamonds being oriented towards the river, but that is just one aspect of the design. I believe the true nature and scale of the building is best seen from the north where it actually complements the Freedom Tower better.

I agree, and remember that this tower is facing the memorial for a specific purpose. It's really a symbolic gesture. Moving it anywhere else would defeat the gradual slope in height between the buildings, and it wouldn't allow for the buildup to Tower 1. I think the design is genius. The diamond part of the building may seem bland from other parts of Manhattan, but it draws the attention to Tower 1 and the unseen memorial - the former home of the Twins. It's not as subtle as 4 WTC, but it isn't overpowering either.

[STR]

^Bland? People talk about Citicorp as being a breath of fresh air that breaks up the monotonous collection of flat roofs in Midtown.
I can't possibly fathom why anyone would think anything else about 2WTC.
It is a singularly unique pinnacle in a city that has examples of just about every finial ever stuck on top of a hirise.

[Guiltyspark]

Well, my idea would be to have II be the height of IV and in the location of IV with the building turned so that it would still be sloping down toward the memorial. Then whatever building they put on the site of II would be the same height as the current design of II. I guess I just don't like the way II peaks away from I. Like I said, I think it is a great design, I just don't think it holds up as well from the north and east views. It just seems like a design suitable for a shorter building that leads the eye up to a taller building.

[Guiltyspark]

Actually, after thinking about it more, I think the best solution would have been to keep everything the same, except to switch the locations of I WTC and II WTC. Then the diamonds of II would lead the eye up to the peak of I, instead of leading the eye away from it.

[animatedmartian]

From WTC's Twitter...

https://twitter.com/#!/WTCProgress

http://t.co/LZXote6

[NYguy]

Looking at those columns, I can almost feel this tower rising.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by STR

^Bland? People talk about Citicorp as being a breath of fresh air that breaks up the monotonous collection of flat roofs in Midtown.
I can't possibly fathom why anyone would think anything else about 2WTC.
It is a singularly unique pinnacle in a city that has examples of just about every finial ever stuck on top of a hirise.

STR,do you have 99 Church Street in those renders?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by jd3189

STR,do you have 99 Church Street in those renders?

It's in the first one.

[JesseNewYorkCity]

Originally Posted by STR

^Are they actually going to build those buildings? And if so, when?