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

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Submariner

A terrible loss overall.

I now think that, with the changes to the 175 and 200 building to a more boxy shape, 1 World Trade Center now looks out of place in the context, especially the circular spire on top.

[jayden]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I now think that, with the changes to the 175 and 200 building to a more boxy shape, 1 World Trade Center now looks out of place in the context, especially the circular spire on top.

1WTC is the focal point of the entire complex. It's supposed to stand out.

[ih8pickingusernames]

Originally Posted by jayden

1WTC is the focal point of the entire complex. It's supposed to stand out.

Yea, but now it really doesn't look good in context with its surroundings, and it already looked out of place to begin with.

Also, it is a huge disgrace that fox news is going to be the main tenant. Honestly, it's a mockery of the site. Fox news is known for its right wing propaganda, even in Canada! Probably going to get in trouble for saying this by the moderators, but screw it-- This is a very political site, and this building IS a political statement.

[timpdx]

My silly graphics aside: I say build it and build it NOW. Complete the WTC, lets get 'er done already.

This is not the end of lower Manhattan supertalls, either.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

I just said yesterday to stop the city vs city 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and the bashing of other users and its begun again. As a resut someone has been banned and the next person to do it will also be banned.

[artspook]

Give it to Brooklyn.

[hunser]

You need to update your signature SkyscrapersOfNewYork.

200m+ buildings in NY:

- 62 completed & T/O
- 20 U/C
- 50 pro & prep

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Originally Posted by hunser

You need to update your signature SkyscrapersOfNewYork.

200m+ buildings in NY:

- 62 completed & T/O
- 20 U/C
- 50 pro & prep

Why thank you Hunser you just saved me a bunch of time counting the diagrams. Its so hard to keep up lately, I truly appreciate it.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Why thank you Hunser you just saved me a bunch of time counting the diagrams. Its so hard to keep up lately, I truly appreciate it.

Hence the New York Supertall thread. (the first page gets updated on a daily basis).

[BoM Trespasser]

I have been thinking about the changes to 2WTC and 3WTC. The buildings now are not as "pretty", but they have more mass. (And it is not clear to me, but also more height? ) Especially of course 2WTC. With the re-design, we are closer to something that looks, from the Hudson river, like the twin towers. And interestingly I feel that the cantilevers only work for me if you go all out blazing and use the moving billboards. A bit of a futuristic, science-fiction feel. And finally, I would like to say, I like the roof lines of WFC/Brookfield Place: they do not "🞵🞵🞵🞵" either.

[aquablue]

I think I have an idea why I have reacted so poorly to this tower. I'ts the flat roof. Another flat roof reduces the drama of the complex and 2WTC had that inspirational rising peak/spire. More so than the boxy star-stepping on the North Side, the lack of a spire really disappoints me because this complex is becoming more and more heavy and ponderous - too much large squared-off geometry without pinnacles. I found the Foster design rather powerful with it's strong vertical lines, and not just the top, the whole thing had that feel. I'm sure the tower is a decent looking building and will be interesting as a diversion from most of NY's straight lined towers, but I don't see it as a star attraction despite Bjarke's reputation. In fact, I just don't understand why he went flat roof here. The Spire on WTC1 is just not substantial enough for me to obviate the need for more interesting crowns.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Lower Manhattan's skyline is done.

Everyone has their opinion, that's fine. I don't think it's done, it will look pretty impressive overall. However I do agree it needs more imagination for future buildings and less flat roofs.

[Kurtz]

Originally Posted by jayden

1WTC is the focal point of the entire complex. It's supposed to stand out.

jayden has the point i full agree!

[Kurtz]

Originally Posted by aquablue

I think I have an idea why I have reacted so poorly to this tower. I'ts the flat roof. Another flat roof reduces the drama of the complex and 2WTC had that inspirational rising peak/spire. More so than the boxy star-stepping on the North Side, the lack of a spire really disappoints me because this complex is becoming more and more heavy and ponderous - too much large squared-off geometry without pinnacles. I found the Foster design rather powerful with it's strong vertical lines, and not just the top, the whole thing had that feel. I'm sure the tower is a decent looking building and will be interesting as a diversion from most of NY's straight lined towers, but I don't see it as a star attraction despite Bjarke's reputation. In fact, I just don't understand why he went flat roof here. The Spire on WTC1 is just not substantial enough for me to obviate the need for more interesting crowns.

yeah, they wrong all the complex at wtc, they had to put only spires on the ground without buildings

[Hemeroscopium]

Originally Posted by aquablue

I think I have an idea why I have reacted so poorly to this tower. I'ts the flat roof. Another flat roof reduces the drama of the complex and 2WTC had that inspirational rising peak/spire. More so than the boxy star-stepping on the North Side, the lack of a spire really disappoints me because this complex is becoming more and more heavy and ponderous - too much large squared-off geometry without pinnacles. I found the Foster design rather powerful with it's strong vertical lines, and not just the top, the whole thing had that feel. I'm sure the tower is a decent looking building and will be interesting as a diversion from most of NY's straight lined towers, but I don't see it as a star attraction despite Bjarke's reputation. In fact, I just don't understand why he went flat roof here. The Spire on WTC1 is just not substantial enough for me to obviate the need for more interesting crowns.

What you say is highly interesting and I would have agreed with you if One WTC was not actually the focal point of the complex.You have that huge mast on one plus you got a nice spiraling effect:much better for the all concept than the previous design!...I am truly amazed about Bjarke!That guy looks like a hefty peasant from rural northern Europ but he's got such a subtlety and creativity!I am hundred percent sure that most of the ones who denigrate his baby(some are really hateful!)are gonna fall in love with the final product.
That jewel is a new milestone is the architectural history of lower Manhattan.

[JR Ewing]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Everyone has their opinion, that's fine. I don't think it's done, it will look pretty impressive overall. However I do agree it needs more imagination for future buildings and less flat roofs.

The greatest old towers downtown (eg, 4O Wall) have crowns, as do 1, 2, and 3 WFC, 111 Murray, 5O West, 3O Park Pl, 56 Leonard, 390 Greenwich, 60 Wall St., etc.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Hemeroscopium

What you say is highly interesting and I would have agreed with you if One WTC was not actually the focal point of the complex.You have that huge mast on one plus you got a nice spiraling effect:much better for the all concept than the previous design!...I am truly amazed about Bjarke!That guy looks like a hefty peasant from rural northern Europ but he's got such a subtlety and creativity!I am hundred percent sure that most of the ones who denigrate his baby(some are really hateful!)are gonna fall in love with the final product.
That jewel is a new milestone is the architectural history of lower Manhattan.

Denigrate? No, some of us just don't like the basic form despite whatever subtle genius mr. Ingles has come up with. I don't think I'll ever be falling in love with it.

Also, wtc1 for me is not good enough to be the focal point. Its pinnacle, the climax of the group, is lacking. The spire too ephemeral. The skyline will be weaker without the foster tower which created some drama amongst the other more sober towers. From street level it could be better, for some, but I don't like the clunky boxes or the straight vertical from the south.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by Cynicism

Lower Manhattan's skyline is done.

It's far from done. There are other supertall projects on the way (125 Greenwich, 42 Trinity Place, 80 South Street to name a few), which will enhance the overall skyline. Also, Lower Manhattan is filling up quite nicely with all those new hotel / condo towers (30 Park, 50 West, 5 Beekman, 56 Leonard, 111 Murray,...).

In 10 years' time, the WTC won't be the only focal point in Downtown anymore.

[NYC GUY]

Don't be surprised if this gets redesigned again. Even Foster's tower got some redesigns before BIG came along.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

Don't be surprised if this gets redesigned again. Even Foster's tower got some redesigns before BIG came along.

Be careful of what you say.