NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,226 FT | 55 FLOORS - Page 184

blacktrojan3921 · #**3661** Posted **Jul 3, 2015, 7:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATLksuGUY

If you guys could keep your politics out of this forum, it would elevate its status. I'm also pretty sure that is a forum rule around here.

Regardless of the tenant, I don't think they have as much say in the facade as you believe.

You would not argue if this was in the hudson yards as you do here. A 1300 footer is exactly that. Be greatful!

C

I think that is the big problem; this design is much more suitable for Hudson Yards then the WTC grounds :/ .

Jerseyviews · #**3662** Posted **Jul 3, 2015, 12:53 PM**

I think this could end up looking good when finished and may even have the twin effect from some angles in Jersey. The real problem, as so many have pointed out, is that the Foster tower was iconic. After the spire and redesign issues at 1 WTC, 2 was a chance to have something amazing to anchor lower manhattan. 4 does look great and 3 will be great looking in the city, but with the loss of the spires it won't have the same impact on the skyline as it would have with a more distinctive roof.

Pete8680 · #**3663** Posted **Jul 3, 2015, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

IMO, the spires where okay, but something about them never really fitted in with the site. WTC2 sure, WTC1 sure, but WTC3 looked somewhat out place, and this being with the cross bracing too. Since they've removed it, and recently, the spires, it looks a little more professional and blends into the site a little better. Before, it was to busy. Now one thing that was a tragedy was WTC1's spire cladding removal, but the changes in WTC2 and 3 seem to work for the better. Theres a sort of elegance about the whole complex depicted in the rendering.

I liked the cross bracing better then the spires but oh well. it is wut it is.

Pete8680 · #**3664** Posted **Jul 3, 2015, 11:13 PM**

Sorry 2 sound like a 5 year old but id rather c a "twin" of 1WTC then theses boxes set on each other.

TechTalkGuy · #**3665** Posted **Jul 8, 2015, 10:55 PM**

2 World Trade Center

JR Ewing · #**3666** Posted **Jul 8, 2015, 11:35 PM**

I love it. I hope that News Corp seals the deal.

mt_climber13 · #**3667** Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 12:04 AM**

I loved the original proposal so much that I scoffed when I first saw this new rendering. But I think I love it now that I am seeing all of its different angles. Such a creative and also logical structure. Love the optical illusions from different angles. And from some angles it will look like the twin towers are back, albeit covered in glass. Love that! Smart architecture is my favorite.

JR Ewing · #**3668** Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 2:39 AM**

Interesting article:

http://www.afr.com/real-estate/are-iconi...-cites-look-all-the-same-20150709-gi84r0

chris08876 · #**3669** Posted **Jul 9, 2015, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR Ewing

I love it. I hope that News Corp seals the deal.

I wonder if its even possible, that let's say as a hypothetical, News Corp doesn't seal the deal, and Larry somehow lands a financing tenant, and we wind up with the Foster design, and it finishes by 2020?

Probably slim to none, but I think it could be possible as the WTC site is pandora's box, and we never know what to expect.

Michagain · #**3670** Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 2:45 AM**

My feeling is that whoever comes to the table will want to maximize space on the site, since the site is zoned and prepped for a large structure.

Anything can happen, but I'd expect this tower to be built more-or-less, since they've gone so far as to work up a nice promo campaign and designs.

If this falls through, I'd expect the Foster tower to be a default backup choice, but for how long? If there's no deal w/ Fox then I'd expect a much more hurried push by the developers to find a tenant asap, who might find themselves in a different negotiating position than those we've already witnessed.

I would suspend judgement, and emotional investment, until steel rises one day. Almost 14 years of watching this process has taught me that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

I wonder if its even possible, that let's say as a hypothetical, News Corp doesn't seal the deal, and Larry somehow lands a financing tenant, and we wind up with the Foster design, and it finishes by 2020?

Probably slim to none, but I think it could be possible as the WTC site is pandora's box, and we never know what to expect.

jayden · #**3671** Posted **Jul 10, 2015, 4:21 PM**

Yeah I don't see the deal falling through at this point with all the work and millions that has been spent to accommodate them.

Even if it were to fall through, you guys should NOT want that. That would possibly delay the tower another two years, which would be a nightmare.

Just be grateful for what we got, keep your eye out for confirmation that the deal has been finalized, and watch this massive tower rise.

M. Incandenza · #**3672** Posted **Jul 11, 2015, 3:31 AM**

Well, I see that the one quality design for the WTC site has been chucked in the trash. That's too bad.

Kenchiku desu · #**3673** Posted **Jul 11, 2015, 4:09 AM**

One door closes another opens.

pico44 · #**3674** Posted **Jul 11, 2015, 10:17 AM**

On fifteenth look, I feel more and more sure that I like this one. It's no masterpiece, but neither was Fosters tower. Less pretty sure, but more appropriate I think. And less potential for value engineering.

RobEss · #**3675** Posted **Jul 11, 2015, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

...And less potential for value engineering.

You're more optimistic than myself - given the complexity of the site, I can't help but see this being value engineered in the face of ballooning construction costs. I do hope you're right, though.

JR Ewing · #**3676** Posted **Jul 11, 2015, 5:27 PM**

If News Corp signs a binding contract, it will be built as is. If having cheap space was the primarily goal, they'd have many options elsewhere.

gramsjdg · #**3677** Posted **Jul 12, 2015, 2:18 AM**

Not working for me. definitely a placeholder design: you would never see something like this as a signature tower that stands by itself. Its a space filler for the original Liebskind wtc complex plan of a rising spiral. Fosters design was much better. Plus, now someone is going to eat the cost of demolishing the base built for the Foster design...

JR Ewing · #**3678** Posted **Jul 12, 2015, 2:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Not working for me. definitely a placeholder design: you would never see something like this as a signature tower that stands by itself. Its a space filler for the original Liebskind wtc complex plan of a rising spiral. Fosters design was much better. Plus, now someone is going to eat the cost of demolishing the base built for the Foster design...

BIG's tower uses Foster's base. He discussed it on Charlie Rose. Bjarke said that the structural columns which support the tower on the existing foundation are hidden inside these structures.

gramsjdg · #**3679** Posted **Jul 12, 2015, 5:08 AM**

I guess that helps then

Zapatan · #**3680** Posted **Jul 14, 2015, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

On fifteenth look, I feel more and more sure that I like this one. It's no masterpiece, but neither was Fosters tower. Less pretty sure, but more appropriate I think. And less potential for value engineering.

I think Foster's was a borderline masterpiece but in a way lacked the sheer behemoth size of the old 2WTC since it got narrow past 900 feet or so. This new design certainly does not lack that and is even wider from some angles than the old WTC so it'll have an immense impact. Why it's not 22 feet taller to reach the old 2WTC's height is beyond me, I think that's my biggest beef with this tower now. But hey 1340 of solid building is pretty beasty.