NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,270 FT | 80 FLOORS | ON HOLD

[Vertical_Gotham]

World Trade Center starchitect Bjarke Ingels would have built the twin towers back the way they were
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.2254683

[Hudson11]

I don't like how BIG made it so 2 WTC mimics 1 WTC's geometry. From several angles, it makes the tower look like half of one that's standing right next to it.
also, penis joke.

[Zapatan]

I like the model a lot in that second pic. With due time I could start to like this thing, but only from some angles.

[NYC GUY]

One thing for me remains I hated the views of both Foster's and Ingel's from the north side. And no one said 3 WTC lost it's spires. It's a model for 2 WTC not 3 WTC.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Foster design is dead. It was designed for investment banks, and the WTC is all media companies. Investment banks are almost all in Midtown. It's a 10-year old design that, whatever the relative merits, is not going to happen, especially in an era of building collaborative, open commercial spaces. Foster's design is a dated concept.

There's something fundamentally wrong with this statement, in that supertall skyscrapers aren't disposable items. Can't throw it away and get a new one every decade or so.

So what if the Foster design had been built ten years ago? It'd be obsolete and uneconomical today? What stops this design from being obsolete and uneconomical ten years from now. Say Fox decides that Midtown is then the place to be? Will anyone want this building?

Just the concept of a custom use supertall seems absurd on its face.

[forj]

the news tickers on the bottom of the cantilevers... just thinking about the fact that those are going to be fox "news" tickers is kindof funny to me. fair and balanced right? imagining people craning their necks to try to read them is also pretty hilarious.

from the memorial side perspective this looks kinda cool.. from the north it looks terrible, like a stack of cardboard boxes. but i totally get it from the perspective of someone working in the building.. it might not be pretty, but those terraces are a nice feature you have to admit. and i can see how the design lends itself to the open floor plans. i really dont like the way the stacked boxes sit on the podium, again from the north perpective. just seems totally off to me. not sure what else to say about it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by aaron38

There's something fundamentally wrong with this statement, in that supertall skyscrapers aren't disposable items. Can't throw it away and get a new one every decade or so.

Skyscrapers are a product of the era in which they were built. The fact is that this design is of its era, and the Foster design isn't.

Originally Posted by aaron38

So what if the Foster design had been built ten years ago? It'd be obsolete and uneconomical today?

Of course not. But it would be designed differently. And its older design would likely make it less efficient, less desirable and less valuable.

Originally Posted by aaron38

What stops this design from being obsolete and uneconomical ten years from now.

Absolutely nothing. You can be sure that this building will be outdated at some point too. That's the nature of buildings.

Originally Posted by aaron38

Say Fox decides that Midtown is then the place to be? Will anyone want this
building?

That's absurd. Just because a building is outdated doesn't mean it's worthless. You renovate/reconfigure and do the best with what you have.

Originally Posted by aaron38

Just the concept of a custom use supertall seems absurd on its face.

Most supertalls are custom use. The Foster design was custom use, for a major investment bank. But banks and the like have been gravitating to Midtown and especially Hudson Yards.

This design is a flex layout, and not primarily intended for Fox (the majority of the space won't be for Fox). For better or worse, it's trying to replicate the suburban campus format in the sky.

[hunser]

The new World Toy Center ... behold:



VS



------------------------
------------------------



VS



What a disgrace.

[chris08876]

The people of Legoland summoned me to express their gratitude for glorious block tower.



Although Hunser, maybe you might think differently once its up. I mean, its not a total loss. Just make sure your at the right angle when viewing it in the future, and all is well.

While Foster was king, we have to accept reality. This is not the blue pill. The story does not end. This is the red pill, and down the rabbit hole we go. Will this turn out great, who knows, but that's the damn risk when taking the red pill.

In this case, red = fox. This is the no spin zone!

[Roadcruiser1]

This building is now ugly. This was not what I was expecting from B.I.G. which designed that amazing pyramid on 57th Street. Instead it turned out to be a mess. The structure leans as if the building is going to collapse. Even if you got rid of that feature it looks dull. The building will probably end up looking as a bunch of stairs. There is no saving grace. Maybe what might help the design is to bring back Foster's crown. However it will look too bulky still with those huge setbacks too so you will have to make them narrower. There now we have a masterpiece. .

[photoLith]

Im at a loss as to how clunky glass boxes pay homage to Tribeca... which is an 1840's-1890's neighborhood full of beautiful and ornate Victorian buildings. So glass boxes and Victorian buildings doesn't compute. I understand that some of the Tribeca buildings are box like in shape but still, its a dumb comparison just trying to make this terrible tower of Fox News seem more edgy.

[chris08876]

Bjarke Ingels: Advice to the Young

Video Link

[JayPro v.2]

I swear to my Deity that the roughly 90% of this buildings detractors loathe it if for nothing else than the *politics* that the future anchor tenant of this big, beautiful monster espouses.
This shouldn't even enter into the debate; and TBH I'm shocked that there hasn't been one ban yet. Leave. It. Alone. Already.

In addition, all this folderol about the inverted setbacks making the tower look ready to fall to one side is just that...and with no sound scientific proof, either. Certainly you all have noticed by now (as have I on second glance) that the southwest corner is untouched, making the boxes seem to twist on a right-angled fulcrum.

To date I've heard no clamor from anyone here about any engineering risks taken by the magnitude of the resultant cantilevers. The hue and cry seems to have been solely based on the degree each one takes as the structure rises.
However, I suppose that if current engineering would allow for the safe implementation of this sort of design element, I can't really see why all the fuss.
And again: As much as I loved the diamond theme, the fact that it could only be appreciated from one side of the hudson and that *alone* didn't make sense to me the more I thought about it.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by JayPro v.2

I swear to my Deity that the roughly 90% of this buildings detractors loathe it if for nothing else than the *politics* that the future anchor tenant of this big, beautiful monster espouses.
This shouldn't even enter into the debate; and TBH I'm shocked that there hasn't been one ban yet. Leave. It. Alone. Already.

Saids the man who made 2 accounts in the last 3 days.



But yes, I'm surprised the mods haven't caught on yet because I do believe that's against the rules.

[ih8pickingusernames]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Skyscrapers are a product of the era in which they were built. The fact is that this design is of its era, and the Foster design isn't.

Wth

The Foster design was very much from this era, it was 2007 when it was proposed. It's not that old...

The new tower is probably going to be less marketable in the future when fox chooses to leave, because this tower has been customized for a very specific industry. Or maybe i'm wrong, but I don't know?

[Hudson11]

of course it won't fall over. That;s ridiculous. It just looks weak given its context - it is surrounded by strong looking towers and the reverse tapering effect caused by the cantilevers makes it look flimsy from certain angles.

[O-tacular]

I don't hate this building like many on here seem to but I have to admit it is awkward looking. It's like architectural masturbation. Interesting conceptually but not so much aesthetically. Here is a B.I.G. tower that's currently at excavation phase in my home town of Calgary in Canada. It's called Telus Sky. The reason I post it here is a comparison to this one. Ours has some awkward angles too but overall I think it's cleaner and more elegant. Mind you it's not a supertall.





It's the opposite shape of what he's done for Vancouver House in Vancouver.


As you can see he's a big fan of twisting and deconstructing towers. With this one I think his hands were tied by the existing foundation and Fox's demands though.

Edit: I think a big thing that's missing is the texture you see on these other buildings. Perhaps he was limited by the News channel wanting unobstructed views outside or something?

[hunser]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Although Hunser, maybe you might think differently once its up. I mean, its not a total loss. Just make sure your at the right angle when viewing it in the future, and all is well.

The north side bugs me the most ... it just looks . Sure there was the initial shock, but I looked at this thing for hours ... and I'm not convinced. I don't hate it, no, but the WTC deserves better - much better. I'm fairly sure that even BIG can come up with a far superior design ... which makes me believe that Fox & Newscorp had a LOT to say in the design process, unfortunately.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ih8pickingusernames

Wth

The Foster design was very much from this era, it was 2007 when it was proposed. It's not that old...

The proposal dates from 2004. Not the final design, but the proposal.

The fact is it's an outdated proposal. Doesn't matter if you think so, but the office market thinks so. And that's why the old design, intended for a user that no longer exists, was junked.

Originally Posted by ih8pickingusernames

The new tower is probably going to be less marketable in the future when fox chooses to leave, because this tower has been customized for a very specific industry. Or maybe i'm wrong, but I don't know?

I'm guessing the developer knows a bit more about office building marketability than anyone on SSP. Silverstein has only been building office buildings for 60 years, and is only one of the wealthiest real estate developers on the planet.

[JR Ewing]

Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham