HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 9:41 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Hey Incognito, thank you very much for the rendering. I really appreciate your work

I have 2 notes and 1 question about it:



Markers 1 and 2 - These stripes look like they are for short period parking. I think they don't need to be as long as the entire WFC. I think they can be removed where there would be no place for them because of the WFC buildings.

Marker 3 - What is this huge stripe? I mean, I see West Street having 3 stripes in each direction, but then there is this huge stripe, thick as 3 stripes and I simply don't know what it is. I'm really puzzled about it, could anyone plz explain this stripe to me?
__________________
America and New York deserve to have twin towers again! I am boldly resisting the twin towers taboo enforcers - a.k.a. the bullies who harass folks on this forum just because they have different opinions than these bullies do!
Recipe for the best syrup in the world:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191318
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 10:00 PM
Incognito Incognito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9
You're very welcome.

As for your markers, 1 & 2 I think are service lanes for WFC, for truck loading/unloading. But I'm not familiar with the site, they may be used only for parking (#1 might actually be a large sidewalk, but again I'm not familiar with the site). As for #3, my guess is as good as yours.
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 11:04 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,002
Well, you may not feel that the 65ft setback is warranted, but the NYPD does. And since you can't get a building permit without the police department sign-off, the whole thing is a non-starter.

1WTC was ready to go into Construction Documents when the NYPD released their safety report in 2005. The tower had to be moved and the base re-designed as a result. All with the PA and Silverstein griping about it.

So laugh all you want, it's a real issue.

375ft does not = 343ft. It doesn't fit.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 12:42 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,173
Yeah, that image looks like the West St would run right up next to the WFC buildings, which I could never imagine the owners of those buildings letting that happen.
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 10:02 AM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
Yeah, that image looks like the West St would run right up next to the WFC buildings, which I could never imagine the owners of those buildings letting that happen.
Of course the road can't go through the buildings, but it can go close to the buildings. Every company has got it's price. If Brookfield got payed enough, they wouldn't care about the road going close to their buildings
__________________
America and New York deserve to have twin towers again! I am boldly resisting the twin towers taboo enforcers - a.k.a. the bullies who harass folks on this forum just because they have different opinions than these bullies do!
Recipe for the best syrup in the world:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191318
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 4:31 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,002
^Except that it isn't up to Brookfield. Building setbacks are given by the Planning Department for various reasons, but in many cases they also are required by the building code for a large variety of reasons.

In either case, if a building has a certain setback from the public way (i.e. streets), you typically can't build anything in that setback EVER.

I can't comment specifically on the WFC with regard to its type of construction (most likely a Type I, unlimited area building as most skyscrapers are), but I assure you that the setbacks have to be maintained, otherwise it can make their existing fire separations non-compliant.

So reducing the WFC street setback wouldn't be allowed by the building department or fire department.

375ft does not = 343ft. It doesn't fit. Find another site.

Again, I still have two other project killing reasons why this doesn't work, but I won't share them until you get your response back from DOT.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 5:47 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
But keep in mind that West Street has been moved in the past. Here I'll show you where it was during the times of the old WTC and where it is now:

Old West Street:

Pic taken from Wikipedia

New West Street:

Pic taken from panynj.gov

Also, I regularily see buildings being close to streets. Why should the WFC be an exception?
__________________
America and New York deserve to have twin towers again! I am boldly resisting the twin towers taboo enforcers - a.k.a. the bullies who harass folks on this forum just because they have different opinions than these bullies do!
Recipe for the best syrup in the world:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191318
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 6:28 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,002
It was moved based on a disaster occurring which necessitated a re-build to accommodate staging for reconstruction of the WTC site. The new road is still within the existing right-of-way (the blue lines on your aerial). They didn't shift that due to the fact that they didn't need to and that it's extraordinarily complicated (as you will find out if you actually get a response from the DOT).

Yes, there are plenty of buildings built 'right up to the street', however, those setbacks are granted BEFORE construction and the building's fire separation requirements (which dictates a large number of things) are designed around those requirements. You can't alter the setback AFTER the building is built because by code (and therefore by law) it makes the building less safe. The building code is entirely about life safety and life safety trumps any developer whims, payoffs, or attempts to supersede the regulations. That's also why the 65ft setback on the other side (at your proposed location) still holds as well. The NYPD deems it a life safety issue.

375ft (just an estimate, it might be more) does not = 343ft. It doesn't fit.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 6:56 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,002
Interestingly enough, there's a building addition about to be started at the WFC where you propose the shift the West Street right-of-way to.

Go here and see post #1344.

The WFC is building a new food market right where you want to relocate the street.

So not only does your project not fit, the location where you want to move the street is now spoken for.

The other two reasons I have deal with site utility problems and the bathtub, but those two points are moot now...

Are you finally ready to end this pointless exercise?
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 8:43 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
It was moved based on a disaster occurring which necessitated a re-build to accommodate staging for reconstruction of the WTC site. The new road is still within the existing right-of-way (the blue lines on your aerial). They didn't shift that due to the fact that they didn't need to and that it's extraordinarily complicated (as you will find out if you actually get a response from the DOT).

Yes, there are plenty of buildings built 'right up to the street', however, those setbacks are granted BEFORE construction and the building's fire separation requirements (which dictates a large number of things) are designed around those requirements. You can't alter the setback AFTER the building is built because by code (and therefore by law) it makes the building less safe. The building code is entirely about life safety and life safety trumps any developer whims, payoffs, or attempts to supersede the regulations. That's also why the 65ft setback on the other side (at your proposed location) still holds as well. The NYPD deems it a life safety issue.

375ft (just an estimate, it might be more) does not = 343ft. It doesn't fit.
What is with this BEFORE and AFTER? Of course the permissions and setbacks would have to be granted before the construction could start? I mean, that's the case in every construction and that is no drawback for my plan.

As for the NYPD, well, I deem the 65 feet as a mental retardation issue. The terrorists still can strike 1WTC from 2 sides and the other WTC buildings from each side from which there is a street. That's like building a 10 feet wall, with spiked wires on top of it, on one side of your garden and building a 1 foot wooden fence from the remaining 3 sides. Freakishly hilarious

As to the dreaded post 1344, I have 3 ways in which I could react to it:

1, -least feasible- Raze that building to the ground to make room for a far more important project.

2, -averagely feasible- Let's hope that this building will never be built.

3, -most feasible-


Btw, how long do you think it'll take the DOT to answer my question?
__________________
America and New York deserve to have twin towers again! I am boldly resisting the twin towers taboo enforcers - a.k.a. the bullies who harass folks on this forum just because they have different opinions than these bullies do!
Recipe for the best syrup in the world:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191318
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 9:34 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
WAs for the NYPD, well, I deem the 65 feet as a mental retardation issue. The terrorists still can strike 1WTC from 2 sides and the other WTC buildings from each side from which there is a street. That's like building a 10 feet wall, with spiked wires on top of it, on one side of your garden and building a 1 foot wooden fence from the remaining 3 sides. Freakishly hilarious
Your opinion about this the 65ft rule does not matter. I agree, it is a pointless rule, but that is what the NYPD wants, so that is what they get and there is ZERO arguing with that. Case in point, they had to actually move the building from the original plan because of this, they didn't tell the NYPD it was stupid and they are not moving the building, they moved it.

You can laugh at the 65ft rule all you want, but it isn't going to change anything. It is like having a boss tell you your work hours are 8-5 and you laughing at them and saying that is ridiculous and it should be 9-5 so you are just gonna start showing up at 9am cause you think that is better.
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 9:54 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
Your opinion about this the 65ft rule does not matter. I agree, it is a pointless rule, but that is what the NYPD wants, so that is what they get and there is ZERO arguing with that. Case in point, they had to actually move the building from the original plan because of this, they didn't tell the NYPD it was stupid and they are not moving the building, they moved it.

You can laugh at the 65ft rule all you want, but it isn't going to change anything. It is like having a boss tell you your work hours are 8-5 and you laughing at them and saying that is ridiculous and it should be 9-5 so you are just gonna start showing up at 9am cause you think that is better.
I know that rules must be obeyed, but with a nonsencial rule, there is allways the possibility that it'll be canceled. And besides, in the case of 1WTC it was no real problem since it could be moved. If a building couldn't be moved, then it would be a far greater problem and I think that politicians would have something to say about it if the majority of people wanted that tower built.
__________________
America and New York deserve to have twin towers again! I am boldly resisting the twin towers taboo enforcers - a.k.a. the bullies who harass folks on this forum just because they have different opinions than these bullies do!
Recipe for the best syrup in the world:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191318
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 10:36 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,736
The reason for the 65 foot setback is force protection along West Street. The way that this is mitigated for Fulton Street, Vesey, Greenwhich is with access restrictions into those streets with vehicular checkpoints prohibiting non-screened traffic into the areas around the WTC.

The NYPD feels that it can control the other streets. However, you still need to allow access for heavy vehicle traffic, which is the purpose of West Street, and must take the appropriate counter-measures, e.g. stand-off distance, to mitigate the risk. Then you add in some blast-walls and a twenty-story quasi bunker and you've mitigated a lot of the risk of vehicle-borne IED's.

Suicide bombers are another matter...
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein


Last edited by wong21fr; Jun 19, 2011 at 11:56 PM.
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 11:00 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
It will look nothing like the original Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and plus the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is going to go up at the site you proposed, and not to mention the fact that you bulldozed part of the memorial for your plan.
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2011, 11:24 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,173
How about you pick a brand new site for your super tall twin towers, and they can be even taller than this tower...heck, they could even be taller than the 2000ft FAA limit if you want.

Did you know the original plan for the WTC was meant to be along the east side of Lower Manhattan, not the west side. The west side was selected because those blocks were still home to a number of old world businesses when Lower Manhattan was more of a shipping port. The original WTC removed all of that and turned the area into a large office district.

Why does your idea have to have a twin tower here? Especially since you keep stretching your idea so that it wouldn't look like a twin tower anyway. That would be like trying to make a twin tower for the Time Warner center with a couple blocks of buildings in between the two towers, it wouldn't read the same.

Pick a completely different site in NYC, sure it might tear down some blocks of the city, but you might be able to explain your ideas better that way. Seriously, start thinking outside of this box cause this desperate need to have the twin towers be at this one location is just kind of lame.
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2011, 12:15 AM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,002
So now in desperation, you're simply going to keep moving your tower, oblivious to the actual site constraints, in hopes that at some point it'll be OK?

Seriously, how ignorant can you be?

I can think of at least 5 good reasons why this one doesn't work either, but quite frankly I no longer care.

I'm done feeding the troll.

Best of luck with your petition kid. It'll rank right up there with the 'Save the Dinosaurs Society'.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2011, 5:38 AM
ChargerFan's Avatar
ChargerFan ChargerFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 35
He's Got Great Ideas

It's really simple guys. Kanto is a visionary. Respect it.

1.) There is open space, so obviously a tower can be built there.
2.) 65 feet?! That's crazy! Clearly terrorists have learned their lesson and wont try anything again.
3.) Move the road! I don't know what a construction delay is and I don't care.
4.) Who will be in the new tower? Read a book you haters, if you build it they will come.
5.) How will we finance the new tower? Bake sale? Skip that one for now...
6.) When we do figure out that financing problem we will pay the people in the building across the street because as long as they are getting paid they wont mind. Again, the 65 foot rule is not needed.

To all those that fight illogical people with logic you will always lose. Also, I think a statue should be put at the top of the new twin tower of Kanto.
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2011, 5:44 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
So now in desperation, you're simply going to keep moving your tower, oblivious to the actual site constraints, in hopes that at some point it'll be OK?

Seriously, how ignorant can you be?

I can think of at least 5 good reasons why this one doesn't work either, but quite frankly I no longer care.

I'm done feeding the troll.

Best of luck with your petition kid. It'll rank right up there with the 'Save the Dinosaurs Society'.
Don't you think that's a bit arrogant from you? You say you know reasons why it can't be done, but you don't tell them, and as an addition, you throw insluts. You either have no clue what you are talking about, or you're very arrogant
__________________
America and New York deserve to have twin towers again! I am boldly resisting the twin towers taboo enforcers - a.k.a. the bullies who harass folks on this forum just because they have different opinions than these bullies do!
Recipe for the best syrup in the world:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191318
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2011, 8:22 PM
Incognito Incognito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9
I will go with c), none of the above.

He knows more than you, and you don't listen.
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2011, 8:28 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incognito View Post
I will go with c), none of the above.

He knows more than you, and you don't listen.
I don't listen? I already dumped like 6 or seven ideas because of him. Because of that, nobody can accuse me of not listening!
__________________
America and New York deserve to have twin towers again! I am boldly resisting the twin towers taboo enforcers - a.k.a. the bullies who harass folks on this forum just because they have different opinions than these bullies do!
Recipe for the best syrup in the world:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=191318
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:22 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.