NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 770

OptimumPx · #**15381** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

There's a nice rendering of that as well. Don't know if you ever made it up in the original, but the proximity of the other tower enhanced the view.

Sadly I never got the chance to go back then. First trip was in '08.

I know it'll be neat to be so close to another tower at almost the same level, but I would like seeing that famous view of the Brooklyn Bridge too.

Oh well, can't have everything.

Onn · #**15382** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Dino Vabec

From wtc.com

http://www.wtc.com/media/images/s/construction-wtc-site-overview?sid=1

4WTC is going to make a mockery of everything else on the site, you could land a plane on that!

sterlippo1 · #**15383** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 7:49 PM**

^^^ lol, but it's still a stud building

Servo · #**15384** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

4WTC is going to make a mockery of everything else on the site, you could land a plane on that!

I think the perspective makes it look bigger than it is. Not say it's small, but it does (from other pictures) look slender compared to how the renderings made it appear.

justmehere · #**15385** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PUSSY WILLOW

Otie, how do they raise the external crane?

they called it the sliding crane. it has its own tracks that alternates from bottom to top.
so the crane slide up.
it is quite innovative eh:

Otie · #**15386** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 8:17 PM**

Busy spot by Bosc d'Anjou, on Flickr

20110809_003041.jpg by stvtron, on Flickr

Onn · #**15387** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Servo

I think the perspective makes it look bigger than it is. Not say it's small, but it does (from other pictures) look slender compared to how the renderings made it appear.

I know what you mean, but it probably really is that big. The shiny cladding dosen't help anything either. Not complaining, just an observation.

jthornton17 · #**15388** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

I know I'll get a slew of reasons why it "Must Be This Way" to this remark and I also know that they are invalid, considering this whole area was a blank slate 10 years ago...

I never understood why they didn't switch where 2WTC and the Hub are going to be. There are several reasons why it would have been better.

1) It would have preserved that view of the Brooklyn Bridge for the 1WTC observation deck.

2) The diagonal stagger of 1WTC and 2WTC (if it were the Hub will be) would better mimic the original staggers of the Twins. Better replicating the classic view from Brooklyn that so many people are upset will not be. Furthermore, 2WTC would not block 1WTC from so many of the "classic" vantage points.

3) The Hub would be in a more pituresque and "Classic" viewline down Fulton Street, with its "Wings" towering over the trees of St.Paul's Chappel.

4) The Hub would not be squeezed between such tall towers. The Hub would be reflected in 1WTC and 2WTC such that when standing at Vesey and Church you would get an almost 360 degree view of its architecture.

5) The placement of 2WTC where the Hub will be still preserves the stepdown effect from 1WTC that so many people seem to crave.

I agree with you and have always thought the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong and there isn't enough room. You guys could let me know this. But where 5 WTC would go, would almost be a better place for 2 wtc. Now I understand if it's a big deal to have the height decrease. But It's as close as you get to the original twins, just like 1 WTC is. At the very least, having wtc 2,3,and 4 as neighbors next to one another, would be awesome. I'm sure there are legit reasons though why this didn't happen. I'm sure it was something talked about. I would love to know the reasons why it ended up like it is.

RockMont · #**15389** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 9:05 PM**

That thing is starting to really dominate the skyline. And the good news is that it's not done yet. Now I'm looking forward to when it tops out. Lower Manhattan will have its rightful 100+ story building back, even if it just stands alone.

NYguy · #**15390** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OptimumPx

I know it'll be neat to be so close to another tower at almost the same level, but I would like seeing that famous view of the Brooklyn Bridge too.

Oh well, can't have everything.

If that's all you want, then maybe you can have everything
Tower 2 will only block a sliver of that view, and nowhere else will you get the dramatic view of that crown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthornton17

I agree with you and have always thought the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong and there isn't enough room. You guys could let me know this. But where 5 WTC would go, would almost be a better place for 2 wtc. Now I understand if it's a big deal to have the height decrease. But It's as close as you get to the original twins, just like 1 WTC is. At the very least, having wtc 2,3,and 4 as neighbors next to one another, would be awesome. I'm sure there are legit reasons though why this didn't happen. I'm sure it was something talked about. I would love to know the reasons why it ended up like it is.

There's an entire thread for that discussion.

Otie · #**15391** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 11:17 PM**

Nice angle for a postcard.

Ground Zero by Serry Boylan, on Flickr

IMG_1049 by Kirsti Westerbotn, on Flickr

QUEENSNYMAN · #**15392** Posted **Aug 11, 2011, 11:47 PM**

FROM: NYBOY75
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE6u4mzDzf0

Otie · #**15393** Posted **Aug 12, 2011, 12:04 AM**

Queens, don't be shy!

• Video Link

Freedom Tower by GStav, on Flickr

jd3189 · #**15394** Posted **Aug 12, 2011, 12:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otie

Queens, don't be shy!

• Video Link

Freedom Tower by GStav, on Flickr

From that view,I understand truely why one of New York's nicknames are "the city so nice they named it twice. We have two skyline,and two kings that are going to dominate together.

Yankee fan for life · #**15395** Posted **Aug 12, 2011, 2:51 AM**

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2011/08/11/53190/world-trade-back-in-nyc-broadcast-picture

animatedmartian · #**15396** Posted **Aug 12, 2011, 4:29 AM**

pmarella

patrick989 · #**15397** Posted **Aug 12, 2011, 6:38 AM**

^ sorry to be a little OT but it's funny how random and out of place "Trump SoHo" looks in that picture, such an eyesore that doesn't fit its surroundings whatsoever.

RoyalOil · #**15398** Posted **Aug 12, 2011, 12:48 PM**

^^ Which one is that, tall one on the left?

Crawford · #**15399** Posted **Aug 12, 2011, 1:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick989

^ sorry to be a little OT but it's funny how random and out of place "Trump SoHo" looks in that picture, such an eyesore that doesn't fit its surroundings whatsoever.

It won't be "out of place" for long.

That area is zoned for highrise development, and there are proposals for considerably higher towers on some of the underbuilt sites.

And I certainly wouldn't call it an eyesore. IMO, it's one of the best looking buildings in its immediate neighborhood.

And why is it "out of place"? Because it's taller? So the WTC is "out of place"? ESB is "out of place"?

JesseNewYorkCity · #**15400** Posted **Aug 12, 2011, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

You know, I've never understood why they still have those log posts in the water like that.. Why not dig them up and get rid of them if they aren't in use?