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

[DeSelby]

The sliced diamond crown is what made Foster's original design fit in with the rest of the complex more so than the next two designs. One of the few unifying characteristics of the three built towers is the repeated diagonal motif: the angled setback on 4 WTC, the diagonal bracing on 3 WTC, and the triangular chamfered massing of 1 WTC. Foster 1.0 is the only 2 WTC design that continues this angular theme and thus harmonizes with the rest of the complex. BIG and Foster 2.0 are too blocky. This is one reason why I'm not a big fan of 5 WTC. The curves don't mesh well with the other towers.

[MercurySky]

Originally Posted by DeSelby

The sliced diamond crown is what made Foster's original design fit in with the rest of the complex more so than the next two designs. One of the few unifying characteristics of the three built towers is the repeated diagonal motif: the angled setback on 4 WTC, the diagonal bracing on 3 WTC, and the triangular chamfered massing of 1 WTC. Foster 1.0 is the only 2 WTC design that continues this angular theme and thus harmonizes with the rest of the complex. BIG and Foster 2.0 are too blocky. This is one reason why I'm not a big fan of 5 WTC. The curves don't mesh well with the other towers.

The first design is the best, the second is a total mess and the third would be better with less setbacks.

[rgarri4]

If I owned a huge company today looking for new class A office space, and I wanted my employees to actually show up to use the office rather than working from home, I'd prefer BIGs design. I'd occupy a floor with the outdoor space. I'd have zero interest in the diamond design. The most recent design with the different setbacks, looks like they're taking full advantage of that as an amenity selling point. If I'm spending huge bucks on moving spaces I'd be looking at the amenities and employee wellness and could give two shits if it looks like stacked boxes or how it fits in the skyline. Landing huge tenants is what will actually get something built here.

[HyperPower]

That was the entire point of the redesigns, Fosters 1.0 was for a financial firm like Blackrock or JP Morgan, BIG was for 21st Century Fox and Foster 2.0 was for a mix use market. It all depends on the needs of the tenant like most commercial real estate.

BIG was commissioned to design the tower after 21st Century Fox and News Corp signed on as tenants. The media companies, founded by Rupert Murdoch, were to occupy the lower half of the tower, while the upper portion would be leased to other commercial tenants.

Company leaders requested that BIG redesign the skyscraper – reportedly because they felt the design by Foster was "more suited for an investment bank than a modern media company".

Foster's diamond tower looks the best aesthetically and for the skyline but we all are just hoping something is built as its becoming depressing as years tick away.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by rgarri4

If I owned a huge company today looking for new class A office space, and I wanted my employees to actually show up to use the office rather than working from home, I'd prefer BIGs design. I'd occupy a floor with the outdoor space. I'd have zero interest in the diamond design. The most recent design with the different setbacks, looks like they're taking full advantage of that as an amenity selling point. If I'm spending huge bucks on moving spaces I'd be looking at the amenities and employee wellness and could give two shits if it looks like stacked boxes or how it fits in the skyline. Landing huge tenants is what will actually get something built here.

And that's exactly why Silverstein had Foster rework the design. I've been saying it, but although I liked that design, the diamond topped version was only notable for that diamond top. Remove it, and the design was not noteworthy. BIG's version fit in more with the Freedom Tower, it seemed to lean into it from some angles. People refer to the "stacked boxes" of the BIG design, but in reality, that really depended on what side of the tower you were viewing. In many ways, it too was a tame tower. Had FOX/Newscorp decided to stick with it, we would be looking at actual photos of that version today.

[Zapatan]

All the designs are neat in their own way but I think the newest fits the complex the best.

All I care about at this point is a ~400m building accompanying 1WTC.

[artspook]

Why dump a graceless unimposing shape that does
not deserve the height & spectacle of 1270 feet,
into the Manhattan skyline . . right up against the
venerable symbol of our Tower One icon . .
just to get it over with ? . . Are you kidding me ? . .
It’s disrespectful & ridiculous . .

Foster’s original Tower II design was great & still is.
It should be built . . The only reason it hasn’t been,
is the high cost of its highly complex crown . . angles
galore . . Silverstein can’t afford it . . He should cut
the bullshit, fess up, & hand over the project reins to
an entity with some integrity, wherewithal, and vision . .
The completion of America’s World Trade Center
should not be done on the cheap . . It’s not just any
tower . . It’s not just anywhere . . It’s gotta be Great !

[MAC123]

^
Well we can start with the fact that 1 WTC itself isn't that good of a design.

But you're just objectively wrong. The Foster design (which imo wasn't really that good. The crown was literally the only distinguishing feature) wasn't built not because it was "too expensive", it wasn't built because the tenant it was designed to attract pulled out. Then times changed and so did the needs and wants of tenants, so the design changed as well.

[MolsonExport]

Renderings are always way better than the finished product, alas.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Renderings are always way better than the finished product, alas.

Probably the majority of the time, but not always.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Probably the majority of the time, but not always.

I don't think that's the case for Brooklyn Tower. So far it's been pretty spot on

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MAC123

I don't think that's the case for Brooklyn Tower. So far it's been pretty spot on

I will concede the point here. The Brooklyn tower is probably the best supertall of the past decade (Along with 53W53: what a beauty).

[MercurySky]

I don't have a problem with the upwards stacks of the BIG design, my major issue is the downwards overhangs. If that element was redesigned to be a flush curtain wall it would look much better.

[TonyTone]

Wow this pic is peak 2000's such a simpler time.

The first design is definitely still better, the 2nd design is just unique.

[mrnyc]

i liked the newscorp/fox boxed tower much better than the bland diamond crowned version.

however, i’m glad neither were built as they were not all that interesting and didn’t age well, unlike the other wtc buildings.

[MAC123]

That spire looks a million times better when cladding. Yes yes I know, the design didn't work in the wind. So the solution is to simply design one that works, it's just the owner it too cheap for that

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by MAC123

That spire looks a million times better when cladding. Yes yes I know, the design didn't work in the wind. So the solution is to simply design one that works, it's just the owner it too cheap for that

Was it the wind that was an issue? I thought it was just cost.

I really really hope that someday they cover it in something.

[DCReid]

Well the first two designs that we have been blogging about are dead. I don't like the third design either and kind of hope that this continual delay will kill it too.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Was it the wind that was an issue? I thought it was just cost.

I really really hope that someday they cover it in something.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the issue was the design swayed way too much in the wind. But the real issue is developers being cheap, which sounds funny to say about the most expensive skyscraper constructed in the US, but it's definitely true.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MAC123

That spire looks a million times better when cladding. Yes yes I know, the design didn't work in the wind. So the solution is to simply design one that works, it's just the owner it too cheap for that

The wind wasn't an issue. It's not the first time radome would have been used at great height. But what further proves that issue for the spire not being complete a lie is the fact that not all of the designs for the spire were to include it. They could have just gone with the open, lattice version of the spire. Durst just needed to cut costs on the overall construction, and that's just one way they did it.


https://twitter.com/CNTowerHistory/s...02523517816834