HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2011, 9:10 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
But this plan shows that there is still open space underground and that there are no imovable instalations below my 2 proposed sites.

__________________
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
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2011, 9:24 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,176
That is not an official plan, that is just a document available to the public. You do not have access to the information you are looking for.

Also if you look at Level B4 and B5, you would see that nothing within any of the levels is actually open space or space available for another tower to be built.

Again, you are probably not going to realize this for a few more years, but no twin tower is going to be built on this site, and there is nothing you can do to make it happen. This whole thing is a done deal that is already in motion. Now I am sure you are going to disagree with me the about all of this, but that is just a fact you are eventually going to have to accept.
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2011, 9:33 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Of course I disagree with you. You haven't disproven anything. Also, only instalations pose a problem to construction, if there is just street concrete, there's no problem at all. So you see, there indeed is the space for my proposed twin
__________________
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
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2011, 9:45 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
You aren't even an architect nor do you know anything about architecture, and yet you are still ranting, and saying you know more about the World Trade Center site then the people like me which have had studied, and taken classes. Like yeah that attitude won't help you in life. Listen Kanto I don't know where you live, but I live in New York City & I have had been to the site a couple of times myself, and you will not be able to build a twin to the Freedom Tower/One World Trade Center. You know why? The Memorial already occupies the entire area of the former site of the Twin Towers. The museum will exist underneath the park, and not to mention the fact that you can't do anything about the pools. The pools go all the way to the museum level, and there isn't anything you can do about it. Not to mention the fact of the PATH tunnels and stations along with the 1 train's. You can't remove highways, and streets for the sake of your twin, and you can't get rid of 7 World Trade Center to build your twin, because it's already done.

You can't build a twin next to One World Trade Center because of the ramps, and the Performing Arts Center which if we are lucky would be renamed building 6 of the World Trade Center, and a vehicle security center is going up at 5 World Trade Center which might later on feature a building most certainly smaller then Four World Trade Center. You can't tear down existing construction like 1 & 4 World Trade Center to build your twins, because their construction is far up in the sky, and you can't build at the World Trade Center Hub, because of the station. Not to mention the fact you can't build a twin at either 2 or 3 World Trade Center, because the foundations doesn't match the foundations required, and altering them would be extremely expensive, and you can't build it anywhere near 5 World Trade Center, because of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. Face the facts your idea will never exist. Build it elsewhere, buy your own land.

Last edited by Roadcruiser1; Jun 16, 2011 at 9:58 PM.
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 2:46 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
Of course I disagree with you. You haven't disproven anything. Also, only instalations pose a problem to construction, if there is just street concrete, there's no problem at all. So you see, there indeed is the space for my proposed twin

(It is just clear that you haven't done any studying of architecture or how buildings stand up yet...if you are seriously interested about that topic, you should go learn more about it first.) You have yet to prove that it could happen because you can't show me real documents that prove that nothing is in the way of where you want a twin tower to be built...plus no one will finance this twin tower so it doesn't matter anyway, unless you are rich. You are just a 21yr old kid who thinks you know more than someone who actually has an education in this field.

Last edited by urbanlife; Jun 17, 2011 at 3:53 AM.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 12:29 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife View Post
(It is just clear that you haven't done any studying of architecture or how buildings stand up yet...if you are seriously interested about that topic, you should go learn more about it first.) You have yet to prove that it could happen because you can't show me real documents that prove that nothing is in the way of where you want a twin tower to be built...plus no one will finance this twin tower so it doesn't matter anyway, unless you are rich. You are just a 21yr old kid who thinks you know more than someone who actually has an education in this field.
That's quite funny, cause I never ever said that I know more than somebody else. I never issued such a statement, so please, first read what I post before making a statement about my posts. That goes for Roadcruiser too, since he regularily issues identical untrue statements.

And as to me proving it could happen, you have yet to prove that it can't be done, so you are in the exact same possition in which I am. And since detailed plans won't be released to the public, I doubt any of us could do this task.

Then there is the question of financing, my plan involves the same financing model used in towers 2 and 3. A developer financing them with some help from the PA and the government. Since so many people want to see twins again, it would be in the interest of the government to give them what they want and to lend some money to a developer. As to why the developer would make this building, well, I said it very many times before, if the current towers will rent well, it is in the best interest of a developer to build more of that kind.

And as for studying, so far I'm not planning any college. Right now I'm glad I finished high school (on the second try ). Right now I'm working and my wife studies. When she'll finish college, maybe then I'll go on a college too.

And for Roadcruiser, here is my plan:



Here you see that:

1, I don't plan to do anything to the pools.

2, I don't plan to do anything to the major part of the museum.

3, Under my location there is no PATH and no subway.

4, I'm not planning to remove any street, just to reroute a 300 feet section of it.

5, I don't plan to do anyhting to 7WTC.

6, I don't plan to do anything to the ramps.

7, I don't plan to do anything to the PAC.

8, I don't plan to do anything to 5WTC and the vehicle security center.

9, I don't plan to do anything to 1WTC and 5WTC

10, I don't plan to do anything to the station.

11, I don't plan to do anything to 2WTC and 3WTC.

12, I don't plan to do anything to any other existing or planned building.

There, is that enough detail for ya?
__________________
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
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 3:43 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
\
And as for studying, so far I'm not planning any college. Right now I'm glad I finished high school (on the second try ). Right now I'm working and my wife studies. When she'll finish college, maybe then I'll go on a college too.
Well, since you lack any real kind of knowledge set, i.e. engineering, architectural or financial, that would allow you to actually objectively evaluate your visions to actually determine their feasibility. You may want to look at a different approach.

If you do want to really honor the sacrifices of the first responders, rather than waste your time with some pointless citizen's initiative for what should be a private-sector effort, you might look at the following methods:

http://www.volunteerfd.org/become-a-...er-firefighter

http://www.reservepolice.org/

But, since you sound like you aren't quite ready for college, which the above usually require in some form, and require a more structured environment I suggest the following instead:

http://www.goarmy.com/

http://www.marines.com/#default

http://www.navy.com/navy/

http://www.airforce.com/

Punk-ass, 21-yr old kids who haven't done anything with their lives need to experience the world a bit in order to really develop their visions. As others have said. You need to broaden your vision and imagine a new WTC, not even at this location, that is truly bold. Not the same cropped image you're dragging around in MS Paint.
__________________
"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

     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 4:49 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
That's exactly the problem. Your plan is on the West Side Highway. I pointed out that fact, but you are ignoring what I am telling you.
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 6:13 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
That's quite funny, cause I never ever said that I know more than somebody else. I never issued such a statement, so please, first read what I post before making a statement about my posts. That goes for Roadcruiser too, since he regularily issues identical untrue statements.

And as to me proving it could happen, you have yet to prove that it can't be done, so you are in the exact same possition in which I am. And since detailed plans won't be released to the public, I doubt any of us could do this task.
I think you say you know more than other people when you tell people to disprove something you can't actually prove yourself....and for some reason, I actually do read your posts before making a statement.

For starters, your tower is too close to the pool, it is too close the road. I know you were young when all of this happened, but the actual tower got knocked for that, being too close to the road and had to be moved further within the site.

Also your building takes up land from the WFC by moving the street like that. I am pretty sure the owners of the WFC are not looking to sell any of their land in front of their buildings just so the West St could be pressed up against their buildings causing the loss of their loading street they have in front of them.

So this site would be a no go too, and seeing that you show no actual interest in knowing how anything about architecture actually works, other than moving around a cut and paste image, I am not sure what your point with all of this is. No one in the real world is going to listen to you about this, you show no sign of willingness to actually do anything about this other than post your cut and paste projects in here trying to pass them off as real proposals rather than understanding how things actually work, then telling us that they will so we have to disprove everything you say must be right.

Well when you can actually prove something can be built in real life, then maybe I will listen. And what you have done so far does not prove it can actually be built, it just proves you have some knowledge in working MS Paint.
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 6:19 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,004
This discussion was actually interesting the first three times we had it. Now you're just grasping at straws. This doesn't work. I could easily give you a number of reasons (three in particular) that would automatically kill this project...but I won't.

...and in your next post you'll accuse me of being a bully because I won't...

...but I'll give you a homework assignment:

Call the local district office for NYC of the New York Department of Transportation. Ask for the engineer in charge of Road Encroachment Permits. Ask the following question:

"What is the feasibility of moving the West Side Highway NY9A about 100ft in a westerly direction for about a 500ft stretch in Lower Manhattan?"

That is the question you are asking. And since this would be a person who would and could answer your question effectively, that'll be all you would need. Would that be proof enough for you?

Call the City of New York Streets Department, ask for the engineer in the same position, and ask him about abandoning those sections of Liberty and Washington Streets.

Do that, let us know how it works out, and I'll be happy to fill you in on the rest of the reasons why this doesn't work. I'm tired of giving out free advice to people who won't listen.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 6:30 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,176
Lower Manhattan Borough Commissioner Luis Sanchez
(212) 839-7250

He would be able to answer your question if you are actually serious about this.
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 9:54 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
I indeed listen to folks. I know about West Street. And once again I say that I don't wanna close it, only reroute it.

And as to contacting DOT, I will send them an email tomorow. In that email I'll ask them about this rerouting. Once I have an answer, I'll post it on this forum.
__________________
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
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2011, 11:04 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,004
^Great! Their answer will be interesting.

The abandonment I was suggesting was for Washington and Liberty streets (the relevant sections) for your alternative site down by 5WTC.

Obviously West Street (9A) would only need to be shifted slightly, just the stroke of a pen...

Best of luck!
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 11:39 AM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
I just wrote this to the NYCDOT:

Quote:
Thank you for reading my message, I have a small question. What is the feasibility of moving the West Side Highway NY9A about 50ft in a westerly direction for about a 300ft stretch in Lower Manhattan, in case of there being free space for this move, owned by the developer who would pay for this move, because of making space for a building?

Yours faithfully
John
When I'll get a reply from them, I'll let you know
__________________
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
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 5:20 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,004
You need to move it farther west than that. Remember that NYPD had specific setback requirements that actually caused them to move the 1WTC location farther back from West Street due to safety concerns. I would imagine that would apply here as well? From what I've read, the setback is 65ft from the base of the tower to the right-of-way at West Street.

I've also noticed on your plan that your 2nd tower actually sits slightly within the North Tower footprint. You need to shift it further west to be adjacent as the footprints are a no-go area.

Also note that West Street is likely under the jurisdiction of the New York STATE Department of Transportation as it is a state highway. Typically they have much different requirements for right-of-ways.

Notation: approx. 343ft from the SE corner of the North Pool to the WFC (perpendicular to the North Pool). If a tower is 200ft at the base with a 65ft setback and West Street is 85ft wide and the city requires the 25ft setback for the WFC to be maintained...
200+65+85+25 = 375ft.

Hmmmmm.......
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...

Last edited by plinko; Jun 18, 2011 at 5:38 PM.
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 5:48 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,176
375ft sounds like the WFC would have to come down for that much room be provided for this tower. Plus that would create and odd elbow curve through lower Manhattan that would create traffic problems.
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 6:36 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
You need to move it farther west than that. Remember that NYPD had specific setback requirements that actually caused them to move the 1WTC location farther back from West Street due to safety concerns. I would imagine that would apply here as well? From what I've read, the setback is 65ft from the base of the tower to the right-of-way at West Street.

I've also noticed on your plan that your 2nd tower actually sits slightly within the North Tower footprint. You need to shift it further west to be adjacent as the footprints are a no-go area.

Also note that West Street is likely under the jurisdiction of the New York STATE Department of Transportation as it is a state highway. Typically they have much different requirements for right-of-ways.

Notation: approx. 343ft from the SE corner of the North Pool to the WFC (perpendicular to the North Pool). If a tower is 200ft at the base with a 65ft setback and West Street is 85ft wide and the city requires the 25ft setback for the WFC to be maintained...
200+65+85+25 = 375ft.

Hmmmmm.......
If it can't be seen clearly in my map, I apologize, but I planned the east wall of my twin to be the west wall of the North Pool, so they would be directly next to each other.

As to the distance, I'm not quite sure where ya have this 65 feet figure from, since 1WTC is far closer to both Vesey Street and Fulton Street. Also, towers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are all far closer to streets than 65 feet.

Btw, if NYCDOT won't be able to answer the question I sent them, I'll ask NYSDOT
__________________
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
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 7:13 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,004
Do some research on the NYPD safety concerns published in 2005. They moved 1WTC specifically off of West Street due to security concerns. The new 1WTC is 65ft from the edge of the West Street right-of-way per the NYPD. If you're building a twin, it's just as much of a target and subject to the same security requirements. Thus a 65ft setback.

Towers 2,3,4,5 and 7 are not targets in the same way.

BTW, I was estimating on the 85ft right-of-way for West Street. It may actually be more than that. I'm not sure.

Put simply, your tower doesn't actually fit between the North Pool and the WFC.

There are two substantial other reasons as well that this doesn't work, but I'll wait for your e-mail answer to be posted...
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 7:25 PM
Kanto's Avatar
Kanto Kanto is offline
Twin Towers crusader
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 197
Towers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are no targets and tower 1 is only a target from West Street, not from Vesey Street and not from Fulton Street? Sorry, I know you didn't make this 65 feet idea, so please don't take any offense from me laughing at it, but that's the silliest thing I've ever heared

Of course the other towers will be a target and of course can a bomb truck come from Vesey and Fulton Street. This 65 feet thing is ridiculous and I bet that if a developer will rant about it, they'll stop with this nonsense
__________________
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
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2011, 8:25 PM
Incognito Incognito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9
I attempted a very crude experiment using a satellite image off Google Maps, Kanto's proposal and PS to see how a re-alignment of West St. would work to fit in the new proposed tower.

First I had to scale the proposed image and rotate it to fit the image from Google Maps. Then I made a rough attempt to move West St. exactly as is, in order to by-pass the new proposed tower. This is what I got...

Satellite image:


Kanto's proposal overlay:


Re-alignment of West St:


As you can see my rough attempt to re-align West St., there is not enough room between the proposed tower and WFC.
     
     
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 11:13 PM.

     

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