New WTC Complex Tower Designs Unveiled

[Praetorian Cohort 0]

I like the new design a lot.  While it is quite a bit different from the old WTC, I think it will look much better in person and actual photos than the models and renderings we have right now.  Anyone know how far along they are right now?

[BurroDiablo 222]

I think they started making steel girders for the building in June or July.

[Yoman3 5]

Yeah it started but only just barely.

[coolotter88 2]

they're blasting the foundations or something.

[manman99 2]

Yoman3- your last post with the pictures, very well said, I couldnt have said it better myself, and being in a family in the metro area, and seeing the WTC everyday from across the bay, I also think that it is time to move on.   Sure not having the WTC is like NYC missing its 2 front teeth, but as I say, NYC is always full of surprises and is always changing.   

                              Manman99                   

[bixel 1,228]

Personally I think they should just rebuild it exactly the way it was. Twin Towers...the same ones, I agree the new buildings look good..but I cannot erase from my mind the majesty of the Twin Towers...I just want the originals again...it could be done...they rebuilt the White House, they can rebuild the Twin Towers.

[JDRCRASH 53]

So they still haven't started the first floor?!

Man thats dissapointing.

[StegSC 40]

I don't like it all too much, but it's way better than the previous design.

I honestly think they should build the towers so they conform with the rest of the New York skyline.

[coolotter88 2]

they did not have to rebuild the white house entirely, a torrential rainstorm saved the main structure. otherwise we may have a different looking white house.

[bixel 1,228]

cool! I didn't know that..but I think that strengths my point..The White House remained...was repaired but otherwise was not changed (at least not cosmestically). I think it would really send a positive message to the world when the Twin Towers as they were..were rebuilt.

[K1A 0]

On September 5th on PBS theres gonna be a show about the WTC and rebuilding it. also they have a narrated slideshow about why and how the WTC Towers Collapsed from an expert who studied the colapse of the Towers. The link to the site is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

[mightygoose 92]

im surprised america didnt pick a taller design to be totally honest...

[manman99 2]

actually  mightygoose when the tower was first designed, it was destined to be the tallest building in the world...........................UNTIL the Burj Dubai came into action.   

                             Manman99                

[MrFingers 0]

25% of that height is a stick though, that's cheating really.

[lrfox 2]

StegSC... the best part of the New York skyline is that nothing conforms. that's what makes it completely unique. How does the Empire State Building conform with the Citigroup tower? or the Chrysler with the Trump World Tower, or the GE building w/ the Conde Nast Building? They're all entirely different. the thing about NYC that sets it apart from skyscraper cities like Hong Kong, Shanghai, Dubai, Frankfurt, etc is that New York's towers span a time from the beginning of the skyscraper to the present with no intervals (not even the great depression).

Most cities have boom and bust periods. Take Detroit, while it's a great city (i've been lucky enough to catch a Tigers game AND a lions game) with an incredible history (and a HUGE following here on Simtrop), most of the buildings there are from an era of booms... only 3 of the top 20 tallest in detroit were built after 1990, and the vast majority of highrises were built in either the 20's or the 70's...aka, eras of peak economy for that city. Many Asian cities are seing a boom now in highrises and are going newer and taller just over the past decade. Boston, my hometown, has had the same tallest two buildings since the 70's w/ nothing competing.

NYC has a key tower or two from EVERY generation, with no bust periods or skyscraper lull. The twin towers were the ULTIMATE in 60s-70s box skyscrapers, but unfortunately they're gone for reasons we all know about. i would love to see them back, but in TRUE NY spirit, it's time to rebuild with a model structure of the times and that's what these buildings are. New York will make its mark on a new time period with these towers by showing that just like every decade before, is a leader in architecture, economy, and everything else.

This design is representative of NY. i support it. it's supposed to represent a move forward... building the old ones is clinging to the past. i love the plan to turn the footprints of the last two into reflecting pools. what a way to remember those who perished with the new tower in the background... a Phoenix rising out of the ashes, it doesn't get much more New York than that.

[bixel 1,228]

well said Irfox...you just may have changed my opinion.

[MrFingers 0]

yeah the reflecting pools really are a good idea. and that post was well said.

[canuck3360 14]

Irfox I absolutly agree with what you said and I am glad to hear someone enjoyed Detroit as a city(besides someone who lives here that is). That was a well put piece and I would have to agree that the only way to build new in New York is to Build as the Future and Present Dictate not build like they did 30 years ago and with the inherant design flaws that were found in the Twin Towers I think that Design was shown to be outdated(I Love the Towers but alot of problems with that design led to a collapse) I like the new Desgn Idea It looks like it will fit nicely into the skyline

[lrfox 2]

MrFingers, Canuck3360, and Bixel... thanks. it took a long time following this thread to finally make up my mind, but that's pretty much it. thanks for taking the time to read through it... i got rather long winded.

[MrFingers 0]

actually canuck, there was no issue with its design that led to its collapse. that building was over-engineered to withstand almost anything, it had 47 vertical iron supports in the middle and over 250 around the outside. it was so sturdy that an airplane flying into it was described as "a pencil puncturing a mosquito net". They were also the first two skyscrapers in human history to collapse because of a 'fire', and the fire was tiny in comparison to others that have happened.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: MrFingers 25% of that height is a stick though, that's cheating really.quote>

 

Huh? More like only 4%.

Also, do you know what the tallest structure is in the world? 

A "stick", or radio tower, in North Dakota!

All other tall buildings have those radio towers. Even the original WTC had a radio tower.

 

From the Sears Tower to Taipei 101 to the Petronas Towers to the Empire State Building to even the Burj Dabai, all of them have radio towers.

So the new WTC isn't any different when it comes to the radio towers compared to all the other tall buildings in the world.

[DanWalker8 3]

I'd rather they build the old ones, just taller, and maybe three of them. I don't like any of those designs

[MrFingers 0]

just because everyone does it doesn't make it not cheating. a metal pole should not qualify as added height for a building.

[Jasoncw 11,949]

yay Detroit! The two key terms (Detroit and World's Tallest) trigger me to say that in 1929 there were plans for the world's tallest building to be built in Detroit. Unfortunatly the depression put an end to that, although it would have been beaten by the Empire State Building anyway.

MrFingers, some lists don't go by spires, so you'll be able to see what the "true" worlds tallest is. You can probably search google and find something pretty fast.

[Micah 16]

Yeah, not all stats include radio towers into the equation. There are some out there that go only by the height of the real building.

[lrfox 2]

If i'm not wrong, the list of categories for worlds tallest includes three things...1) Top of structural height (height to the top of the roof/ spire) this is how the Petronas Towers were listed as taller than the Sears Tower. 2) highest inhabitable floor (sears tower for longtime, even after petronas had the highest inhabitable floor... now i THINK it's Tapai 101, correct me if i'm wrong). and 3).. height to top of antenna (i.e. any radio tower).

Tapai 101 is currently the tallest in structural height, and highest inhabitable floor (i think). the third category is controversial... the CN tower in toronto is the tallest FREESTANDING structure in the world. before you argue about radio towers, let me explain... the the CN is some 1800+ feet tall, it's primarily an observation and transmission tower with only a few floors making it a different category than office towers (i.e. petronas, sears, tapei 101). it has floors, so it's not like a radio tower. the heighest FLOOR is at some 1200 ft. still shorter than the Sears among others.

The CN is listed as the tallest tower though because it is FREESTANDING. all of those radio towers (inc. the one in ND) are supported by cables, therefore making them NOT free standing structures. this is where the CN is in its own category. it's not a normal TV tower (many of which are over 2000 ft. but supported by cables) and it's not an office tower, so it's a "freak" if you will. but those three categories are the OFFICIAL ways of measuring.

but again, isn't this a new WTC thread? we should probably get back on topic

[JWUT 2]

Skyscraperpage.com allows you to look at lists of buildings arranged by all those different categories...

Anyway, Irfox, those are really great posts. As I said in an earlier post, I think people will grow to like these new designs more over time, as happened with the old Twins. But you really brought up a great point about the eclectic nature of New York architecture. So, perhaps the new designs are in keeping with the style of the city, after all. And I suppose never will everyone like them, but since when has any building had such a distinction? A lot of people like Boston City Hall. I personally do not find it aesthetically pleasing. Most Parisians despise Tour Montparnasse passionately. I like it.

The World Trade Center has had a love/hate relationship with architecture enthusiasts, from the day they started demolishing Radio Row, onward. And it will always be that way.

In my mind, the questions to ask of these new towers aren't whether they look good alone (I feel that they do), or whether they look good in New York (I now agree that they do), but rather, does this New World Trade Center's design really work, as an effective memorial to the nearly three thousand people who died right there, and does it evoke memories of the old towers?

I think the current (hopefully final) design of Freedom Tower is reminiscent of one of the old Twin Towers, but I am uncertain how the other four towers will fulfil that same responsibility. The actual footprint memorial, Reflecting Absence, works, I think, very well in that respect. Time will tell us the accuracy of our opinions.

[MrFingers 0]

I would far rather a 300 story artistic monster that covers the entire site, and has the reflecting pools inside the vast lobby. make it HUGE

[Yoman3 5]

You clearly have no sense in architecture. As said before I think that these towers are fine.

lrfox - Great posts

[JDRCRASH 53]

@Yoman:Agreed.

@Irfox:I say just make one record....the highest structure above sea-level made by humans.

@MrFingers:  Its not always about height, it has to be something that represents that city, state, country or Union/Federation.