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

[Troubadour]

The size comparison of the original WTC with the new towers makes the new ones look pitiful. The terrorists hated those towers for a reason - their grandeur was godlike.

[aquablue]

Their design was also very 1970's. The new towers will bring NY into the 21st century with their modern, sleek designs and interesting facades. The glass will create amazing effects with changing lighting, something the old WTC won't be able to compete with. Yes, the old WTC had greater bulk it appears, but I'd take these 4 towers as they represent a modern looking city and a design style that reminds me of great Asian cities like Hong Kong. NY needs more airy skyscrapers of glass to even out the brick and concrete that dominates.

I have to say, my favorite tower must be Tower 4. It just oozes Tokyo or Osaka. A zen like approach that many don't appreciate. Think of the building as a meditating zen bhudist. Really, this building is a true masterpiece.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

The size comparison of the original WTC with the new towers makes the new ones look pitiful. The terrorists hated those towers for a reason - their grandeur was godlike.

Not as much heightwise but their massive bulk, 1 and 2 WTC will be about as tall as the twins, just not as massive, especially near the top, which I agree is very dissapointing but there are also 4 towers instead of 2.


I would rather have the Twin Towers back than these buildings however this plan is not really that much worse.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Not as much heightwise but their massive bulk, 1 and 2 WTC will be about as tall as the twins, just not as massive, especially near the top, which I agree is very dissapointing but there are also 4 towers instead of 2.


I would rather have the Twin Towers back than these buildings however this plan is not really that much worse.

Bulk gets old after a while. I'd much rather a glistening 21st century tower, even if a little thinner, than an old gray bully of a box that harks back to a time not known for its architectural taste.

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Not as much heightwise but their massive bulk, 1 and 2 WTC will be about as tall as the twins, just not as massive, especially near the top, which I agree is very dissapointing but there are also 4 towers instead of 2.


I would rather have the Twin Towers back than these buildings however this plan is not really that much worse.

Look, this debate has been hashed and rehashed many times over. The FT exceeds the height of the original by its spire, and matches the roof height. 2WTC will be just shy of the roofline of the original twins, 3WTC weighs in as a legitimate supertall, and 4 WTC would be the tallest tower in lower Manhattan but for the other three. So we are "settling" for 3 outstanding supertalls and one very well done near-supertall. Starchitects designed the new complex (ironically, I think that 1 WTC a/k/a FT is probably the best design, but was designed by arguably the least "starish" of the 4 architects. I think the FT should help lift Childs's overall reputation).

Remember: 9 years ago there was serious talk of putting up a few 50 story towers topped, maybe, by a giant "skyline element."

Once all four are standing, it won't be long before people instantly identify Manhattan by the mere sight of them just as much as the old towers were the instant symbol of NYC. And THAT is the mark of a true "icon."

[sw5710]

When you look at 1 WTC from the ESB when it is complete. It will look like a 200' or 205' wide rectangle up to the parapet at 1368' + Just like the original 1 WTC!.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Look, this debate has been hashed and rehashed many times over. The FT exceeds the height of the original by its spire, and matches the roof height. 2WTC will be just shy of the roofline of the original twins, 3WTC weighs in as a legitimate supertall, and 4 WTC would be the tallest tower in lower Manhattan but for the other three. So we are "settling" for 3 outstanding supertalls and one very well done near-supertall. Starchitects designed the new complex (ironically, I think that 1 WTC a/k/a FT is probably the best design, but was designed by arguably the least "starish" of the 4 architects. I think the FT should help lift Childs's overall reputation).

Remember: 9 years ago there was serious talk of putting up a few 50 story towers topped, maybe, by a giant "skyline element."

Once all four are standing, it won't be long before people instantly identify Manhattan by the mere sight of them just as much as the old towers were the instant symbol of NYC. And THAT is the mark of a true "icon."

I totally agree, If WTC does indeed end up being 1350 feet tall (with a 1430 foot spire) and 3WTC 1170 this plan is probably slightly better than the twins.

I personally liked the big grey boxiness of the original twins, because of how powerful looking they were.

[aquablue]

TBH, I've started to see a major missed opportunity with this tower. I feel the roof height isn't tall enough in relation to the other towers.

They should have raised the perceived roof height to around 500m and left off the spire. It should have been around Shanghai IFC height. The roof could have ended lower down, but the 8 sides could have continued up surrounding a vacant interior space to give the appearance of a taller structure. In that way, there would be no oversupply of space.

It is a pity that the antenna had to be there. I don't like the spire at all, and I think it looks silly. I never count spires when I compare heights. Also, i find the 1776 marker rather tacky and really melodramatic. Building a taller tower than before to roof (or percieved roof) should have been enough to restore American pride.

[STR]

Originally Posted by sw5710

When you look at 1 WTC from the ESB when it is complete. It will look like a 200' or 205' wide rectangle up to the parapet at 1368' + Just like the original 1 WTC!.

Not quite. The old 1WTC was not 1,368 to the parapet, but to the top of the hat truss in the middle of the roof (1,368'2 to be exact). The parapet on the old tower was 1,362'10" and both numbers were exactly 6' lower for the other tower (1362'2" & 1356'10) As for the rest of this nonsense, the new complex is bigger and denser than what came before. There's vastly more underground space, and more buildings that combine to choke a very large amount of sunlight. If you dislike it architecturally, whatever, but if you're calling it smaller, it's simply not true.

-Signed the only person on the f'ing planet that can walk through both.

[Zensteeldude]

Yes, the 1,368 Feet is the total overall hight of the North Tower.

Top of the "bump".

The South tower had no such "bump" thus the hight discrepancy between the two.

The new Tower One is as much a memorial to the Twins as the Memorial and Museum, and should be regarded as a visual aid to the hight and grandeur of the Twins . (I always thought it to be some kind of sick joke to rebuild the Twins. They are gone, long live there memory.)

STR, bloody great stuff ! I wish to thank you once again for all of your great renderings !

[STR]

Originally Posted by Zensteeldude

The South tower had no such "bump" thus the hight discrepancy between the two.

Actually, it did. In fact, structurally, it could have mounted an identical antenna to the other tower, though it wasn't built with the broadcast facilities on the 110th floor.

The height discrepancy was due to two floors being taller in Tower 1, due to special needs by the Port Authority.

With all the crap removed from the roofs:

[Troubadour]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Not as much heightwise but their massive bulk, 1 and 2 WTC will be about as tall as the twins, just not as massive, especially near the top, which I agree is very dissapointing but there are also 4 towers instead of 2.

Unfortunately, not all 4 are guaranteed to happen. I hope they do though.

Originally Posted by aquablue

Bulk gets old after a while.

The old WTCs were perfectly-proportioned. They had the psychological effect of Doric columns: Massive without being elephantine; imperious without being oppressive; aspiring without being abstract. I think ancient architects and Renaissance artists would have loved those towers.

Originally Posted by aquablue

I'd much rather a glistening 21st century tower, even if a little thinner, than an old gray bully of a box that harks back to a time not known for its architectural taste.

Taste is rarely amicable to inspiration. How many times have we seen critics with a stick up their rear-ends deprecate landmark Asian skyscrapers as gaudy, sci-fi prop toys? According to "taste," everything should be designed either like a Baroque church or a meaningless amorphous shape (god forbid simple geometry!). No tasteful person would ever have built the pyramids.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by STR

Not quite. The old 1WTC was not 1,368 to the parapet, but to the top of the hat truss in the middle of the roof (1,368'2 to be exact). The parapet on the old tower was 1,362'10" and both numbers were exactly 6' lower for the other tower (1362'2" & 1356'10) As for the rest of this nonsense, the new complex is bigger and denser than what came before. There's vastly more underground space, and more buildings that combine to choke a very large amount of sunlight. If you dislike it architecturally, whatever, but if you're calling it smaller, it's simply not true.

-Signed the only person on the f'ing planet that can walk through both.

Cool to see both rooftops for comparison.

I think quibbling over less than 6' when talking about a tower which rises over 1300' is rather unnecessary given the intent of sw5710's comment... stating simply how it will appear like the original 1WTC.

Sure, the new WTC will be bigger and denser than the original given that there are 4 huge towers, instead of the 2 even larger towers. However, there is no denying that the design of the original massive twin towers communicated greater mass and absolute verticality than the new version does. Maybe once all 4 towers are standing, that will not hold true, considering that there is only so much one can interpret from renderings - no matter how painstakingly-detailed they are.

If you want to be "Mr. Correct", fine. But that doesn't mean you have to be arrogant about it, with your "only person on the f'ing planet that can walk through both" tagline. Give us a break and stick to producing your nice drawings for our nerdy entertainment.

[Zensteeldude]

Originally Posted by STR

Actually, it did. In fact, structurally, it could have mounted an identical antenna to the other tower, though it wasn't built with the broadcast facilities on the 110th floor.

The height discrepancy was due to two floors being taller in Tower 1, due to special needs by the Port Authority.

With all the crap removed from the roofs:

DOE !!!!!!!!!!!!! I should stop disseminating and just go with the facts.

[jsr]

Originally Posted by STR

Actually, it did. In fact, structurally, it could have mounted an identical antenna to the other tower, though it wasn't built with the broadcast facilities on the 110th floor.

The height discrepancy was due to two floors being taller in Tower 1, due to special needs by the Port Authority.

With all the crap removed from the roofs:

Was there an enclosed floor numbered 110? I've always heard floor 110 was the actual rooftop.

BTW I know you hear this a million times, but this is really excellent work you are doing, and great way to keep an accurate memory of these buildings alive.

[STR]

There was a 110th floor in both buildings. In tower 1, it housed all of the TV stations. In both buildings it housed mechanical equipment and the window washing robot. It was ~15 feet high, though there was a depression in the ceiling of the 110th for the window washing tracks. The WTC towers were one of the few skyscrapers that didn't skip any floors. There were 116 floors (6 subgrade) from the foundation to the concrete roof. That includes the 13th, 42nd, 110th, the 1st and every one in between.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Maybe once all 4 towers are standing, that will not hold true, considering that there is only so much one can interpret from renderings - no matter how painstakingly-detailed they are.

If you want to be "Mr. Correct", fine. But that doesn't mean you have to be arrogant about it, with your "only person on the f'ing planet that can walk through both" tagline. Give us a break and stick to producing your nice drawings for our nerdy entertainment.

That first half of your comment is why I added the tag line. You don't understand the scale. You just don't, because of the simple fact you can't. The renders don't convey the scale of the new buildings. You have to sit yourself down at ground level and look around. Go inside. Experience it as you would the real thing. The old complex had the low rise buildings to contrast with. It allows you to better grasp the monumentality of the larger buildings, because you have something "normal" to compare them to.

The new WTC doesn't have that. You start with a giant building, and they get larger from there. Just showing an abstract render, especially one without benches, cars, doors and other human scale objects (which I may or may not ever get around to adding) doesn't convey mass or scale of the superhuman. Sure, they still show color and proportion, and to an extent how things will integrate into their surroundings, but that's it.

So you totally missed the point, my friend. That line wasn't a boast. It was the exact opposite, the admission that the works I made and posted here are utterly inadequate. You can't really convey scale with a photo either, as anyone who has taken photos of this building will attest to: it's bigger in real life. It's bigger virtually too, you just can't take a snapshot (which is all a render is) and still fill in all of the blanks.

So no offense taken, and I hope none was given. It really was a misunderstanding.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Troubadour

Unfortunately, not all 4 are guaranteed to happen. I hope they do though.
.

They're all under construction

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

today

[Troubadour]

And that is why I'm on board with this tower, however awesome I felt its predecessors to be. Reflected cloudscapes like that are priceless.

[Roadcruiser1]

Since people were talking about this. First at least we are building there. If we just left the skyline with nothing it would be the most depression thing we would have ever seen. Plus Lower Manhattan would never have recovered from the loss of office space. The memorial would offer dedication to the dead, and the new buildings would show recovery. It's like the story of the phoenix. The phoenix was alive, it burned to death, and in the end it was reborn into a new bird.

Another thing is between the original World Trade Center with the Twin Towers, and the new World Trade Center with One, Two, Three, Four, and Five World Trade Center is the old WTC were like two sliver anchors that held down Lower Manhattan. They pierced the skyline while being visible. Those gray boxes were instantly noticeable. You could tell what that building was. You could as long as you could see them. In fact people in the state of CT could even see them as two thin gray lines in the skyline. They certainly fitted in with the designs of the 1970's.

For the new WTC the best way to describe it is it's a giant glassy obelisk that fits the modern day 21st Century. It's beautiful in it's own way. It would hopefully be as visible as the original Twin Towers were, and hopefully unique in the same way. From STR's rendering you could tell that these glassy buildings would be extremely shiny, and interesting to look at.