View Poll Results: Construction is underway, how do you feel about the final design for the WTC site?

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am more than satisfied; I believe that the final design surpasses that of the original World Trade Center. 10/10

    50 26.04%
  • While nothing may ever live up to the Twin Towers, I am wholly satisfied with the new World Trade Center; it is a new symbol for a new era. 7/10

    55 28.65%
  • I have come to terms with the new World Trade Center; although it has a number of flaws, I find the design to be acceptable. 5/10

    48 25.00%
  • I am wholly disappointed with the New World Trade Center; we will live to regret the final design. 0/10

    22 11.46%
  • I am biased, but honest, and hate anything that is not a reincarnation of the original Twin Towers.

    17 8.85%
Page 212 of 406 FirstFirst ... 112162202208209210211212213214215216222262312 ... LastLast
Results 3,166 to 3,180 of 6089

Thread: World Trade Center Developments

  1. #3166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Street level retail is supported by the majority of residents and CB1.


    That it was much loved was not universal. It was all we had, so we were a captive audience.

    Hardly a theory. It has been proven time and time again in all successful urban centers: cities exist and function on their streets.

    No matter what, the planned mall space in the new WTC will be comparable to what existed. And hopefully, will not have the ambiance of a basement.

    The issue at hand is whether the failed street experience of the original will be repeated.
    Street level is supported, but the conditions and compromises necessary are not made clear. As is often discussed, the concourse was sometimes steet level and sometimes not. The question is never properly posed. And besides, a lot of people in CB1 are from Tribeca and have always wanted the WTC to be just like Tribeca.

    There is a lot of street level retail around the area that didn't do all that well. In fact, people complained that the mall drained life from surrounding streets. The logical implication of that is that shoppers prefered the concourse to surrounding street level retail. The covered retail of the WTC was a destination, as well as convenience shopping for commuters.

    There are lots of pedestrian only areas that thrive in cities. Walkways are more important than streets in many areas. Streets need to get you close, they don't need to get you to every doorstep.

    I'm sure the indoor retail will have a better feel than the old, but it will not be the same. It will be on multiple levels, not nearly as much space on one contiguous level. One rule of retail is that people don't like moving up or down to get to stores. In that sense, the retail will be much less convenient.

    The issue with Cortlandt has nothing to do with fixing the old configuration. The planned configuration corrects the old problems by allowing pedestrian access to the site from adjacent blocks without a change in elevation. Covering or uncovering Cortlandt doesn't change that.

  2. #3167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davestanke
    As is often discussed, the concourse was sometimes steet level and sometimes not.
    Street-level retail does not just mean it is at street level, but open to the street. Similarly, a mall is not street-level retail because it is on the first floor.

    There are lots of pedestrian only areas that thrive in cities. Walkways are more important than streets in many areas. Streets need to get you close, they don't need to get you to every doorstep.
    Street does not necessarily mean vehicular traffic.

    There is a lot of street level retail around the area that didn't do all that well. In fact, people complained that the mall drained life from surrounding streets. The logical implication of that is that shoppers prefered the concourse to surrounding street level retail. The covered retail of the WTC was a destination, as well as convenience shopping for commuters.
    We've gone over this before, but you're missing the point about the success of the structure of the retail.

    Malls are easy to make successful, They are self-contained environments. The crucial factor is getting people to go to them. The Roosevelt Mall on Long Island is commercially successful. There are highways nearby and parking lots/garages.

    You could put that mall in Manhattan and it would still be a success, maybe more so, given the density of people. However, from a cityscape viewpoint, such a configuration would be a failure.

    That describes what the WTC was.

    And besides, a lot of people in CB1 are from Tribeca and have always wanted the WTC to be just like Tribeca.
    How would you go about making the WTC site "just like Tribeca?"

    One of Tribeca's big problems is that stretches of major streets (Worth from Church to Hudson, and West Broadway north of Worth for example) are devoid of any retail and somewhat barren of activity.

  3. #3168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
    It would have been something like this,

    1 Freedom Tower 1776
    2 Empire State 1250
    3 BOA 1200
    4 Tower 2 1150
    5 Tower 3 1050

    with those old figures....

    1. 1 WTC (1776)
    2. 2 WTC (1350)*
    3. ESB (1250)
    4. BOA (1200)
    5. 3 WTC (1150)*
    6. Chrysler (1046)
    7. NY Times (1046)

    Theres going to be SEVEN of them. I did not realize this. This is absurd.
    Last edited by Vengineer; September 1st, 2006 at 09:27 PM.

  4. #3169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    You could put that mall in Manhattan and it would still be a success, maybe more so, given the density of people. However, from a cityscape viewpoint, such a configuration would be a failure. That describes what the WTC was.
    I know that's what we've been told by the Dan Doctoroffs and Amanda Burdens of the world for the last five years, but that is not how I remember it, and when I speak with pre-9/11 neighbors, that's now how they remember it either. In any event, it is a moot point. As Dave points out, the new retail set-up will be nothing like the old, for better or for worse.

  5. #3170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vengineer View Post
    1. 1 WTC (1776)
    2. 2 WTC (1350)*
    3. ESB (1250)
    4. BOA (1200)
    5. 3 WTC (1150)*
    6. Chrysler (1046)
    7. NY Times (1046)

    Theres going to be SEVEN of them. I did not realize this. This is absurd.
    Doesn't tower 4 have the possibility of being 1000 feet tall as well? We may well be looking at 8.

  6. #3171

    Default

    I hardly count 2 needles in the sky as being 1,000 footers. I give it to Chrysler because that spire is historic....and a crown like that needs to end in a spire. I mean, BOA taller than John Hancock? It shouldn't be.

    For that reason the Freedom Tower is not 1,776 feet in my eyes, and will not be the tallest building in America.

  7. #3172
    King Omega XVI OmegaNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clifton, NJ
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfenn1117
    I hardly count 2 needles in the sky as being 1,000 footers. I give it to Chrysler because that spire is historic....and a crown like that needs to end in a spire. I mean, BOA taller than John Hancock? It shouldn't be.

    For that reason the Freedom Tower is not 1,776 feet in my eyes, and will not be the tallest building in America.
    You said a mouthful there, sfenn

  8. #3173

    Default

    Well if counting the spire, 80 South Street is 1,123 feet tall. As long as the building has a website up and Sciame is located in the building I'll consider it proposed.

  9. #3174

    Default

    80 South Street isn't going to happen and sadly WTC 4 will not break the 1000' mark.

  10. #3175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfenn1117 View Post
    I hardly count 2 needles in the sky as being 1,000 footers. I give it to Chrysler because that spire is historic....and a crown like that needs to end in a spire. I mean, BOA taller than John Hancock? It shouldn't be.

    For that reason the Freedom Tower is not 1,776 feet in my eyes, and will not be the tallest building in America.

    That argument is nothing new, just a step away from reality. What would you consider the height of the Freedom Tower to be? I wouldn't call that ring (or the spire, itself larger than the old antenna) a needle in the sky. Look at a list of the world's tallest skyscrapers. Even the Burj Dubai is basically a giant spire. I don't like excuses like "fits in with the design". A spire's a spire. It either counts, or it doesn't. But officially they do.

  11. #3176

    Default

    Just put Sears next to Petronas and my point will be proven. It's bs that a pole no more than 10 feet in diameter suddenly makes it a worlds tallest building. Have the gall to really send something soaring into the sky, not a flagpole barely discernible 10 blocks away, which is what the Times Tower will be.

  12. #3177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfenn1117 View Post
    Just put Sears next to Petronas and my point will be proven. It's bs that a pole no more than 10 feet in diameter suddenly makes it a worlds tallest building. Have the gall to really send something soaring into the sky, not a flagpole barely discernible 10 blocks away, which is what the Times Tower will be.

    There's no point to prove. We all know Sears Tower has a higher roof height. But the fact of the matter is that spires count. And as long as they do, buildings like the Petronas Towers will be considered taller than Sears. Even the Trump Tower Chicago was considering extending its spire to top Sears, a spire that was demanded by the mayor by the way.

  13. #3178

    Default

    Spires dont really bother me, although the only appropriate one I can think of at the moment is Chrysler. I cant imagine that building topping out without one, its necessary. What matters is structural height, top to bottom. I dont see how you can not include antennaes as part of the height, they serve more of a purpose than the spire although spires may be more aesthetic. Using that, Sears is still the tallest building in the world, and the ESB itself is 1,471 ft. Putting all these buildings next to eachother would still prove Sears being taller, which is more realistic than some silly height guideline that only means something on paper. meh to each his own I guess.

  14. #3179
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Look at the diagrams on skyscaperpage.com and come to your own personal conclusion.

  15. #3180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RS085 View Post
    meh to each his own I guess.
    That's just it. It's not to each his own. Guidelines are set up that determine the heights of buildings and what the tallest are. It's what gives buildings their official rankings in the march to height. It's why the Petronas were indeed the world's tallest for a few years. And its why the Burj Dubai will likely be the tallest for longer. Spires count.

Similar Threads

  1. Winter Garden of World Financial Center - Recent pictures
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: August 31st, 2016, 12:04 PM
  2. Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 21st, 2010, 09:17 PM
  3. Building Art at Rockefeller Center
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: June 26th, 2009, 02:40 PM
  4. East 57th Street Tops Retail List Highest Rents In the World
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 30th, 2008, 12:33 PM
  5. Jazz at Lincoln Center - Time Warner Center
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 12:47 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software