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 63 of 407 FirstFirst ... 135359606162636465666773113163 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 945 of 6091

Thread: World Trade Center Developments

  1. #931
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    no firms seem interested in freedom or 7 wtc and i bet that this wont change, firms and mainly employees dont want to work on a graveyard, its sad to admit this but its got to be on the minds of some firms

  2. #932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kliq6
    no firms seem interested in freedom or 7 wtc and i bet that this wont change, firms and mainly employees dont want to work on a graveyard, its sad to admit this but its got to be on the minds of some firms
    That stigma will unfortunately be there for a while, but that does not mean nobody will work there in the long run. Last I heard, Silverstein is still in negoiation with Verizon to rent 7 WTC. Since 7 WTC is due to open at the end of this year we'll probably see some companies show up. As for the FT its height will make it harder to rent out because of that "it's a target" bullshit (anything built on that site will be a target regardless of size) , but it will be occupied eventually.

  3. #933
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    297

    Default

    I wouldn't worry about it-I believe 7 WTC and the Freedom Tower will be occupied soon enough.

  4. #934
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Phila / Connecticut
    Posts
    521

    Default

    I dont see how people could be afraid of freedom tower over 7WTC...theyre office portions are the same height...Freedoms offices dont even reach 900 feet!!! Theres ilke a 200 foot difference.



    Yes they will be jam packed occupied down the road no matter if its the current 60 stories or 100...Cowardly silverstein doesn't get it.

  5. #935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PHLguy
    I dont see how people could be afraid of freedom tower over 7WTC...theyre office portions are the same height...Freedoms offices dont even reach 900 feet!!! Theres ilke a 200 foot difference.



    Yes they will be jam packed occupied down the road no matter if its the current 60 stories or 100...Cowardly silverstein doesn't get it.
    Yeah but most people don't know the difference. Everyone I know thinks the FT will be occupied with offices going up to 1,776 ft. Also, the site will still be a target after it is rebuilt...but that would be still be the case even if there were no office buildings there. Won't the Memorial and the PATH station be targets?

  6. #936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NyC MaNiAc
    I wouldn't worry about it-I believe 7 WTC and the Freedom Tower will be occupied soon enough.
    They will, especially now that Silverstein has the insurance money to keep the rents low. Now if he can a hold of the Liberty Bonds he may be able to subsidize towers 3-4 (he will be able to pay for tower 2 but I don't think he will even start building that until next year at the earliest).

  7. #937

    Default

    As for the FT its height will make it harder to rent out because of that "it's a target" bullshit (anything built on that site will be a target regardless of size) , but it will be occupied eventually.
    There's considerable interest in the Freedom Tower, a number of smaller firms are lined up for pehaps the World's most prestigious address. All the more reason why a 70 storey ceiling is inappropriate.

  8. #938

    Default

    Do know of any? (not to be skeptical, it's just that I haven't heard news beyond Verizon and 7 WTC) My speculation though is that the larger firms may be harder to persuade and Silverstein is trying to woo them over.

  9. #939

    Default

    What sort of space is Verizon looking for?

  10. #940

    Default

    Verizon is looking for a new headquarters. They recently sold their current one at 6th and 42nd.

  11. #941
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    Time
    ARCHITECTURE
    Dec. 27, 2004

    Kissing the Sky

    It used to be that the only way to build a skyscraper was up. But now the tall building is being totally reimagined and taken in some very unusual directions. Look out below

    DANIEL LIBESKIND IS ALL SMILES. THEN AGAIN, when is he not? Even during the worst parts of the past two years, when his master plan for the World Trade Center site was being squeezed and adulterated, when the vivid spike that was his design for its centerpiece Freedom Tower was being reworked by other hands, Libeskind kept up a pretty chipper demeanor in public. It's only when you leaf through his memoir Breaking Ground: Adventures in Life and Architecture, in which the bitterness seeps through and he takes swipes at everyone who tried to push him aside in the design process, that you know for sure that sometimes the laughs came hard.

    But today, in the lower-Manhattan headquarters of his worldwide architectural practice, Libeskind is smiling because he actually has a reason to. All across one large wall of a workroom are images-architectural drawings and computer renderings-of a project that's going very much Libeskind's way, which means into the future at full throttle. What they show from various angles is an office tower he has designed for a parklike setting in Milan, Italy, one of three that will be built there as an ensemble, each by a brand-name architecture star, each an announcement that the tall building is going places it has never gone before.

    Libeskind pauses before one large image near the center that says it all. It shows the three towers as they will appear at completion. On the left is a dashing, torqued configuration by Zaha Hadid, the London-based architect who was this year's winner of the Pritzker Prize, architecture's most prestigious award. On the right is Japanese architect Arata Isozaki's furrowed wafer of glass and steel, buttressed by diagonal struts that seem almost too slender for their supporting role. And between them is Libeskind's contribution, a supreme bit of architectural legerdemain. It's a curving tower doing what should be, for a building, the impossible. Doing it very suavely too. It's taking a bow.

    By shifting his parabolic floor plates gradually forward, floor by floor, but always keeping them tethered to an upright concrete core, Libeskind achieves the seemingly impossible: a supple tower that can gently bend toward us. "It's sheltering," he says. "Like the PietÓ." Like the PietÓ? Just about every tall building ever built says, "Who's your daddy?" Are we ready for a world in which a few can say, "Who's your mommy?"

    "Towers became banal because they lost their sense of surprise and joy," Libeskind says. "Over time they became formulas. The architectural element was reduced to questions like 'What patterns are we gonna use for the windows?'" Now the formulas have all been cast to the wind. The past decade or so has been a time of virtuoso architects, not just Libeskind, Hadid and Isozaki but also Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Norman Foster, Renzo Piano and many others, all of them working in very different styles but with the common impulse to knock apart the familiar glass-and-steel box and put it back together in unheard of ways.

    Piano and Foster have been building tall for much of their careers, but until recently many of the others worked closer to the ground. Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, reclines like Venus on her couch. Calatrava's Olympic Stadium in Athens, seen by billions on television during last summer's Games, is a voluptuous, low-slung bowl. But in recent years, even these architects have been moving into the vertical mode, taking their mambo wiggles and thunderbolts with them. The square-shouldered glass-and-steel boxes of Modernism are giving way to silhouettes that once seemed inconceivable but are coming soon to a skyline near you.

    In the months right after Sept. 11, when smoke was still rising over the ruins of the Twin Towers, there were people ready to write the obituary for skyscrapers. Tall buildings were too inviting as targets for terrorism, too disruptive to the urban fabric and not even particularly profitable, since so much of the rentable floor space was taken up by elevator shafts. The only clients still interested in building them were in nations that wanted a symbol of their arrival as a contender in the global market, mostly in Asia's Pacific Rim. The honor of having the world's tallest building passed from the U.S. in 1998, when the 1,483-ft. Petronas Towers in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur overtook the 1,450-ft. Sears Tower in Chicago. And then there is the endlessly ambitious city of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, which architecturally is the mouse that roared: in the past five years, three of the world's 25 tallest buildings have been topped off there, and two more are in the works.

    But the urge to go higher is as old as the Great Pyramid (482 ft.). Or the Washington Monument (555 ft.). Or the Eiffel Tower (984 ft.). Is Osama bin Laden any match for our deepest impulses? "The skyscraper seems to have even more power now as a symbol of modernization" says Robert A.M. Stern, dean of the school of architecture at Yale University. And from the point of view of environmentalists and regional planners, tall buildings are the best alternative to suburban sprawl and the best means of getting more people and businesses into a smaller footprint on the ground, putting less pressure on whatever stretches of nature remain. "I think the skyscraper is back," says Stern. "But is it back in the same way? No."

    What Stern means is that it's not just the silhouettes or the altitude that's changing. After Sept. 11, security and safety became much larger issues in the thinking of architects. More lives might have been saved at the Twin Towers if the plaster-wallboard interiors of the exit stairwells had not collapsed, blocking some exit routes. The Trade Center depended on a complicated structural system of interior and exterior steel columns. Many new towers favor superstrong concrete cores that not only brace more firmly against wind-and at 2,000-plus feet, you don't want to sway much-but also enclose emergency stairwells in solid concrete as well. Tall buildings are now more likely to have duplicated communications systems: if one goes out in an emergency, another can still transmit directions to people and rescuers inside.

    "There's a tremendously heightened sense of structural safety," says Anthony Vidler, dean of architecture at the Cooper Union in New York City. "Structures used to be designed like bridges, perfectly designed to meet the required need, such as getting a person from one side to another. Now we have a lot of redundancy in structures. If one thing fails, then another will hold, and if that fails, another will hold. It's akin to having five or six engines on a jet plane."

    Though new American skyscrapers are not going to the same height as the supertails being built in other nations, more complicated profiles are finally making their way into the U.S. skyline. Calatrava will be building a tower soon in New York City. His plan is for a structure that separates a dozen condos into discrete four-story modules-town houses in the sky. Each apartment is a $30 million, 10,000-sq.-ft. package that's separately cantilevered from an 835-ft. central core, then further supported by exposed trusses that attach to steel piers running the full height of the building. The effect is a dynamic oscillation of forms, with alternating voids and volumes, something utterly unlike the inert slab that is the typical tower.

    "I have an approach to the skyscraper as a sculptural element," says Calatrava, who likes to recall that when sculptor Constantin Brancusi set eyes on the New York skyline in the 1940s, he declared it looked just like his studio, a bristling collection of abstract statuary.

    Sculptural would be a good way to describe Gehry's work too. If all goes as planned, ground will be broken next year in lower Manhattan for what will be by far the tallest building of his long career, a residential tower rising as much as 800 ft. (about 75 stories). Though the design is still incomplete, Gehry expects it will feature some vertical adaptation of his trademark curves and arabesques. Not too many years ago, those features would have given pause to the structural engineers assigned to make sure buildings stand up even when they rise along irregular lines. In the late '80s, Gehry proposed a design for a new Madison Square Garden in Manhattan-which was never built-with an office tower in the shape of a vertical fish. "The construction people said you couldn't do it," he recalls. "But since then it's become easy to do forms that have that much curvature and complexity. It's normal now."

    It's normal because architects are working more closely with engineers, bringing them in at the very start of the design process to assure the stability of their daredevil schemes and superhigh altitudes. "As the buildings get taller and taller, you really need the input of the structural engineer at the beginning," says Ysrael Seinuk, whose firm, Cantor-Seinuk, is the structural engineer for the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site. Towers have got not just taller but stranger-asymmetrical and askew. No need to worry though, says Charles Thornton of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers, which worked on a new tower in Taipei, among many others. "Two new developments allow us to produce any shape anyone wants to do," he says. "One is the ability to 'build' a building on the computer with programs that even factor in the dimension of time. We can see how components react to stress over the years, so that building doesn't go out of plumb." The second is that with computers, engineers and architects can also produce accurate three-dimensional designs, then a 3-D model, which is easier for subcontractors to follow accurately than the old two-dimensional blueprints or specs. "We give that to the fabricators, the steel erector, the exterior wall fašade supplier," says Thornton. "The 3-D model makes for less error in the construction phase."

    No matter what the exterior looks like, the skyscraper can be a problematic building-isolated, aloof from its neighbors and boring inside, a pancake stack of identical floor plates with a lobby at the bottom and maybe a restaurant at the top. For years now, Rem Koolhaas, the oracular Dutch architect and urban theorist, has conducted an unrelenting rhetorical campaign against the skyscraper. "The promise it once held," he wrote recently, "has been negated by repetitive banality [and] carefully spaced isolation."

    Anybody who rides the elevator in an office or apartment building knows how true that is. So the interior space of the tall tower is lately subject to a complete reimagining. The most famous answer from Koolhaas has been his cantilevered proposal for the CCTV tower, headquarters of China's government television operation in Beijing. It's a building that somersaults over itself to provide the maximum space in which people can connect with one another. This year United Architects, an alliance of several architectural offices, entered a no less astonishing submission in a competition to design the Frankfurt, Germany, headquarters of the European Central Bank-an undulating sphere, 504 ft. high. Although it wasn't the winner, it made plain the radical direction in which things are moving.

    The competition for the World Trade Center site, held in 2002, also made people aware, as never before, of how quickly architects are moving the skyscraper into uncharted territory. United Architects entered a widely seen proposal in the competition, an ensemble of five slightly inebriate towers. Some of them rise on the diagonal, and all of them eventually lean into one another and touch at their 60th floors. At that juncture they produce their most spectacular feature, a five-story corridor spanning the length of all five towers horizontally, making a fully enclosed loggia hundreds of feet long-a city street in midair.

    "Tall buildings are turning into urban fabrics" says Greg Lynn of FORM, one of the members of United Architects. "Architects are thinking about how to pull the qualities of the street into the building." The United Architects design was too massive and audacious to have any real hope of winning the competition. And to a public looking for stability after Sept. 11, it was also too tilted. But the firm's ideas about the ways public space can be brought inside a tall building were very much, well, in the air. One of the most talked about skyscrapers of the past year, Norman Foster's 30 St. Mary Axe building in London-better known as "the gherkin" because of its shape-is a glass-enclosed vertical torpedo with sizable interior light wells and gardens scattered throughout its circular floor plates. Those permit each floor to communicate visually with others. "We can compose completely different organizational structures in terms of how you move through a building vertically," says Thom Mayne, of the forward-looking firm Morphosis, based in Santa Monica, Calif. "It would be much more like how you would move through a city horizontally. We can make buildings with streets, walks and piazzas inside."

    "A tower is a spiritual quest," says Libeskind. "Whether it's San Gimignano or the Freedom Tower, it's about the ancient poetic desire to reach the sky." And even sometimes to reach it by pretzeled means. Twelve years ago, the very visionary architect Peter Eisenman was commissioned to design a showcase building for the recently unified Berlin, a combination of offices and hotel and retail space to be called the Max Reinhardt Haus, after the also very visionary German theater producer. For inspiration, Eisenman turned to nothing less than the M÷bius strip, the 3-D geometric form produced by a single twisted surface. Had it been completed, his 34-story tower would have folded, buckled, twisted and gazed in on itself.

    "It twists through itself in such a way that inside becomes outside," says Eisenman. "We were looking at that building as a frame for looking at the city, a three-dimensional way of looking." Eisenman's unbuilt design has continued to resonate in architectural circles. Earlier this year a freshly minted large-scale model appeared in a show of new skyscraper design at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Fifteen years ago, it seemed an impossible dream. Now it looks more like a plan for further action.

    I have seen the future. And it's taking a bow. -With reporting by Carolina A. Miranda

    [Sidebar]
    STOOPING TO CONQUER In this computer rendering of a proposed office park in Milan, Italy, Libeskind's curving tower is flanked by Hadid's torqued flourish on the left and Isozaki's slim wafer

    [Sidebar]
    CURVEBALL For the European Central Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, United Architects proposed a new silhouette for a tall building-an undulating sphere with views right through it

    [Sidebar]
    "Tall buildings are turning into urban fabrics. Architects are thinking about how to pull the qualities of the street into the building."
    -GREG LYNN

    [Sidebar]
    OUT OF THE BOX Foster's 30 St. Mary Axe, London, far left, is a vertical torpedo. To stack a dozen four-story town houses, Calatrava's 80 South Street, New York City, left, alternates Jengalike solids ans spaces
    "Where going tall does make sense is in the inner city, where buildings are densely packed and there is little green space."
    NORMAN FOSTER

    [Sidebar]
    SHAPES OF THINGS Eisenman's proposed Max Reinhardt Haus fer Berlin, with its prismatic walls and looping form, was prophetic

    [Sidebar]
    "A tower is a spiritual quest. Whether it's San Gimignano or the Freedom Tower, it's about the ancient poetic desire to reach the sky."
    -DANIEL LIBESKIND

  12. #942

    Default

    I say make freedom tower the headquarters for NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX, S&P and other international stock exchanges. Attract some high-tech companies like Dell, Google, and Microsoft. Some healthcare and insurance companies would be nice. Try to lure some Asian and European companies there. Rent some of the space as a large small-company/venture capital space! Then go after the large corporations like Exxon and Wal-Mart.

    What I'm getting at is why does it have to be all financial companies? They seem very happy and expanding in Midtown. I'm sure some small buisness, Chinese newcomer or Successful american coproration like Wal-Mart would love to have their address read "WTC". Heck, even lure some of the Media companies and Biotech!

  13. #943

    Default

    PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:39 am Post subject:
    I say make freedom tower the headquarters for NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX, S&P and other international stock exchanges. Attract some high-tech companies like Dell, Google, and Microsoft. Some healthcare and insurance companies would be nice. Try to lure some Asian and European companies there. Rent some of the space as a large small-company/venture capital space! Then go after the large corporations like Exxon and Wal-Mart.

    What I'm getting at is why does it have to be all financial companies? They seem very happy and expanding in Midtown. I'm sure some small buisness, Chinese newcomer or Successful american coproration like Wal-Mart would love to have their address read "WTC". Heck, even lure some of the Media companies and Biotech!








    Nahh, that would be ludicrous; with all of those predominant companies all in one building it would be a building with a drawn target sign; they should spread out those corporations; not put all of them in one superstructure, for it is attacked, you can kiss the economy good bye for a very long time, and that would suck .

  14. #944

    Default

    Also, quick diversion; are the other libenskin towers (1-4) still on track? because i haven't heard word about them in quite some time.

  15. #945

    Default

    January 6, 2005

    BLOCKS

    Foundation May Keep Trade Center Talks Out of Public View

    By DAVID W. DUNLAP

    DON'T look now - actually, you can't look now - but a great deal of decision making about the public realm at the new World Trade Center may disappear from public view behind closed boardroom doors.

    The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation board met yesterday for the first time, before emerging for an introduction to the site by the architects Daniel Libeskind and Michael Arad. Since the board includes Robert De Niro and Barbara Walters, there were many cameras and microphones to capture that moment in the Winter Garden of the World Financial Center, overlooking ground zero.

    Images and sound bites convey a false sense of accessibility, however. The truth is that the two-hour meeting was closed to the public and the press, since the foundation is a private corporation.

    Officials have long complimented themselves - sometimes with good reason - on the openness and transparency of planning efforts at the trade center site. But the future may hold opacity, or at least translucence, as the nonprofit foundation assumes more of the role that the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has performed until now.

    The impact of this shift has not received much attention, perhaps because the very name "Foundation" understates the new body's role and potential clout. On the face of it, it sounds like a genteel, cup-in-hand group that will solicit charitable contributions that the development corporation, a state agency, cannot.

    Indeed, the foundation will be a fund-raising organization. "All levels of gifts - from $1 to $100 million - will be sought and accepted," said its September 2003 application for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. (With about $3.5 million now in hand, it only has $496.5 million to go.)

    But the foundation was given a broader range of powers in its April 2003 certificate of incorporation, beginning with its purpose: "To own, construct, operate and maintain a memorial and related structures and appurtenances on the site of the World Trade Center."

    Own. Construct. Operate. Maintain.

    That is a lot of responsibility, with many implications for the way the public will experience the memorial, the interpretive memorial center and the museums and the theaters, since the foundation is also charged with "encouraging the development of cultural facilities as part of the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site."

    The foundation has a lot of power to do these jobs. It will be able to "solicit, accept, hold, invest, reinvest and administer any gifts, bequests, devises, benefits of trusts and property of any sort, without limitation as to amount or value, and to use, disburse or donate the principal or income." (A devise is a gift of real property by will.) It may also "purchase, lease, receive, own, sell and convey real and personal property of all kinds."

    But it does not have to let the public listen in.

    "There is no law that requires that the board must be open," said Ira M. Millstein, a senior partner in the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges, who is counsel to the development corporation board and one of the foundation's directors.

    The board could choose to operate more openly. "This is a decision for the board to make," Mr. Millstein said. "It's very difficult to have a hair-down discussion with everyone watching. On the other hand, we want to be completely transparent."

    Yesterday's session was largely procedural, according to those who were there. Deputy Mayor Patricia E. Harris became the 33rd director and Jason R. Lilien was named counsel. Ms. Walters, the one reporter in the room, raised the issue of openness. John C. Whitehead, the interim chairman, told board members that meeting minutes would be made public.

    The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation maintains a virtual library of important planning documents at www.renewnyc.com , and opens its monthly board meetings to the public and the press. True, almost all the substantive work goes on behind the scenes. But several useful civic purposes are served.

    FOR one, the principals almost always attend. This means that citizens who show up to register their unhappiness with the corporation - particularly for its failure to finance more job-creation and lower-income housing programs - may be assured at least that their placards, banners and lapel buttons are being read by the people in charge.

    One can argue whether these quiet protests have any meaningful effect but the board can never adjourn under the impression that its policies are uniformly popular.

    Last month, for instance, members of the Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York showed up to criticize the corporation for not helping finance a restaurant planned downtown to employ displaced workers from Windows on the World. The matter was not even on the agenda but the workers had a chance to make their grievance felt.

    Reporters are given about 10 minutes after each meeting to ask questions of anyone on the board, particularly those who would otherwise be hard to reach. The principals typically stay for this question-and-answer session, even though they are sometimes put on the spot.

    Meetings can be revealing. Though they are tightly organized, with little freewheeling discussion, it is possible to see fissures within the board by paying attention to the questions, objections and exceptions that members register, even as they vote - generally unanimously - to adopt the items before them.

    Kevin M. Rampe, the president of the development corporation and a foundation director, said, "The board clearly understands the public trust which they have undertaken and are committed to the same level of transparency as the L.M.D.C."

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

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