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

[JR Ewing]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

That explains it much better, thanks! So basically there will likely be less overall floorspace and the building will probably taper to have smaller floors?

I now picture a shorter/more tapered building... two things I don't want in this tower.

It was confirmed in the WSJ that BIG's tower will be the same height as Foster's.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by JR Ewing

It was confirmed in the WSJ that BIG's tower will be the same height as Foster's.

That's good, at least it won't mess up the spiral or look awkward.

[soulcapn]

I think everyone is over thinking the meaning of 'redesign' and getting panicked over what will most likely be interior changes only. Now I admit, I have no special knowledge of this process or any hard info that I am sharing. So take this for what it's worth.

The foundation is in. What does this mean.
1. The shape is pretty much set. Not much can change on this front. Sure, good engineers could figure out how to bump this or that part out or in. But for the most part, the building parameters are set.
2. Height is pretty much set. Yes, you can always go down, but pilings and load bearing columns can only handle so much. That engineering is already done.

So what does redesign mean... With talk of media companies taking space in the building, this means they need studio space as well as typical offices. think about 30 Rock. TV studios need height. More than the typical cubical farm office floor. So that will take some modifications to allow for some double floor open spaces throughout the building. Yes they still need offices, but those usually are secondary in a media building. Offices wrap around the moneymaking studios.

I guess the heaviest changes will be in the pedestal where the trading floors will go and make room for some very nice studio spaces. Think the auditorium that overlooks Columbus Circle in the old Time Warner Building (is that what it's still called, I can't remember if it changed.)

Anyway, hold on to your blankets and Don't Panic. I don't see too much changing on this building, at least in how it looks from the outside.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by soulcapn

2. Height is pretty much set. Yes, you can always go down, but pilings and load bearing columns can only handle so much. That engineering is already done.

With the symbolism you'd think they'd just make the new building 1,362'. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with though...

[wpolom]

Is he going to keep the diamonds in the sky?

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by wpolom

Is he going to keep the diamonds in the sky?

Most likely, but no one really knows.

[asharmaearth411]

I hope they do
That was a pivotal marker / element in the sky
Libeskind's Genius and Ingenuity

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

Most likely, but no one really knows.

[Busy Bee]

Personally I hope the entire Foster design is scrapped. I never liked it. Instead let Ingles design a new tallest, reaching 2001'

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Personally I hope the entire Foster design is scrapped. I never liked it. Instead let Ingles design a new tallest, reaching 2001'

Besides the diamonds on the top, the design below the diamonds in all honesty is not "wow" factor. I'd be interested on what a new mind can bring to the table. We know that it will be the same height, same base/dimensions, so if anything, it could be a win-win for all of us if something eclipses the Foster design.

A tower of this magnitude is his career on the line. He will be sure to give it all the effort he can, and smoke some of the finest Copenhagen kush out there to get the ideas rolling. (I read he likes to smoke).

[davidinasia]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Besides the diamonds on the top, the design below the diamonds in all honesty is not "wow" factor. I'd be interested on what a new mind can bring to the table. We know that it will be the same height, same base/dimensions, so if anything, it could be a win-win for all of us if something eclipses the Foster design.

I am keeping an open mind. He is a (relatively) young guy who has done some great work, and it is true that all 4 current tower designs were done by some pretty geriatric (though eminent) fellas. It wouldn't be bad to see what a gen X'er could bring to the site. But I still want him to keep the diamonds and the height. Anything other than those two things, I am fully prepared to be flexible on.

[Busy Bee]

Goodness gracious, what is so great about the diamonds?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Goodness gracious, what is so great about the diamonds?

The thing about the diamons is that they were a very distinctive feature, something very unique for the Manhattan skyline that no doubt would shine and sparkle in the sunlight.
It would be a shame if we ended up with another "flat roofed" tower, which I don't think will really happen.

I think it should have an element that allows it to reach 1,500 ft or so, an element of "equality" with the Freedom Tower on the skyline.

Don't disappoint us Larry!

[alex1217]

I agree with NYguy, looking at the last pic he posted, a taller, thinner 2WTC would look great in that spot. With the Nordstrom tower possibly taking the title of America's tallest tower, this is a chance for 2WTC to quickly get the title back.

If I was in charge of redesigning 2WTC, I would combine the original Libeskind design for tower 1 with what we have slated for 2WTC. I would raise the height to 1500 ft, then I would add a mast like the Libeskind design had, with a glass atrium that would pump fresh air into the tower. Here's a pic of what Libeskind's original tower was supposed to look like. Notice, it has a similar roof to what 2WTC is supposed to have.





Raising the total height to coincide with the completion date of all the buildings, let's say 2021 feet, would be very symbolic.

[MolsonExport]

^wow that was an ugly proposal. Whereas I love Foster's version with the Diamonds. All the way.

[NYguy]

Looking at Foster's tower the way it's designed now, there's a lot of mechanical space at the top. I don't know how much of a height push they can give it other than a spire or large crown of some sort.

But seeing as how 125 Greenwich will throw off the "spiral" effect anyway, there should be some design flexibility to allow it to reach a little higher (at least in roof height) than the Freedom Tower.

I've gotten so used to seeing Foster's version that whatever (if anything) replaces it had better stand out as much. Or we risk the WTC becoming a little too tame on the skyline.

[CityGuy87]

But what if the "News"Corp deal doesn't go through?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Looking at Foster's tower the way it's designed now, there's a lot of mechanical space at the top. I don't know how much of a height push they can give it other than a spire or large crown of some sort.

But seeing as how 125 Greenwich will throw off the "spiral" effect anyway, there should be some design flexibility to allow it to reach a little higher (at least in roof height) than the Freedom Tower.

I've gotten so used to seeing Foster's version that whatever (if anything) replaces it had better stand out as much. Or we risk the WTC becoming a little too tame on the skyline.

We don't know that 125 Greenwich will be taller than 4WTC, it could end up around ~900'. If the new design of 2WTC tapered on a side or two that could push it taller. I'm guessing they don't want to add more space so that option is probably nonexistent.

I hope whoever said that it'll be more or less the same height as the old design is right because it would be too tame on the skyline any shorter and especially narrower (if the base is set we probably don't have to worry about that, unless it tapered which could push it taller so that's good).

I think the main roof of this building should be 1362' just like the old one, or at least have a structural element be imposing to that height.

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

But what if the "News"Corp deal doesn't go through?

Then it's back to the waiting game...

[NYC GUY]

My only comlaint with the diamonds was that it only looked good from the New Jersey side. It didn't look that unique from the rest of New York

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

But what if the "News"Corp deal doesn't go through?

It remains as is.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

We don't know that 125 Greenwich will be taller than 4WTC, it could end up around ~900'.

It more than likely will. But there will be other supertalls sprouting up Downtown, so the spiral really doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

My only comlaint with the diamonds was that it only looked good from the New Jersey side. It didn't look that unique from the rest of New York

The tower absolutely would look unique from any angle in New York. You're just used to seeing renders from the angle where the diamonds are visible.

















It's a gargantuan building, only the presence of the Freedom Tower makes the scale less impressive.

[N830MH]

Is under construction yet?