WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

[fluffypolly]

i agree, but i dont thinlk childs and silverstine are dumb enough to build something like that at the world trade center. as far we know it childs has to propose the the most impressive structure because his career as an architect can be at stake. btw didnt he say that the actual building tapers into a laticcework/antennae combo

[JMGarcia]

Tapers means "gets thinner" not to be confused with morph or dissolves as in "morphs (or dissolves) into a lattice work/antenna".

[NYguy]

Only time will tell if Childs' building is more impressive than Libeskinds current vision.

It seems to me that Childs' version is much more likely to have the office space and thus the enclosed space stop lower than Libeskind's. Therefore, it all depends on Childs' spire. It may be a large lattice work like THINK's WCC with an observation deck embedded in it..

I'm already convinced Childs has the more impressive tower. I don't care about the office space, because neither will reach 110 stories (and Silverstein likely won't build higher than 70 anyway).

But Libeskind's garden/spire will basically be a sharp lattice work point at the top, supporting one mass antenna. It will be thinner than Childs' design mainly because Libeskind wants to keep the "raised torch" effect of is tower. His garden/spire is mainly the "raised arm", which is why Childs' design doesn't work for him. Child's tower on the other hand is massive enough at the top to include the multiple antennas and is likely the reason there was a deck proposed at 1,776 ft. Libeskind's tower will top out at that height, and will hardly offer enough room at that point.

But the biggest issue with the two designs is basically that the needs of the tower have changed since Libeskind first came up with his concept - the building was going to basically be a spire. When the broadcasters signed on, that changed things a lot. It is now as much a broadcasters tower as it is a skyscraper. That says a lot about what the top of the tower will look like. Libeskind's puny spire won't be sufficient as is.

[JMC]

Any structural engeneers on here, who could tell us how big the top of the tower would need to be, to support those 3 or 4 antennae?

[NYguy]

It probably wouldn't have to be huge, but it would be larger than Libeskind's spire (unless Libeskind's design was altered, something he himself won't do)...

[JMGarcia]

Time will tell but waiting's a bitch.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I wonder how much input the Broadcasters have over the location of the observation deck - remember they wanted no part of it in the Bayonne tower.

[NYguy]

I wonder how much input the Broadcasters have over the location of the observation deck - remember they wanted no part of it in the Bayonne tower.

I remembered that as well, but I guess they had to make some concessions about that. The height of 1,776 ft has to be made significant in some way, especially if they insist on calling it the 1776 Freedom Tower...

[NYguy]

quote from Downtown Express...

Developer Larry Silverstein, who owns the W.T.C. leasing rights and brought Childs into the project, said last week the tower will retain the symbolic height proposed by Libeskind: “1776 is where its going to be.”

[JMGarcia]

It should be clear by now that not all of Larry's pronouncements necessarily come to pass. What height is he talking about anyway? Antenna? Sturctural? Roof?

[Agglomeration]

In short, if that rendering is built, we may end up with a rehash of the original WTC North Tower. You know, the one with the 350-foot broadcasting antenna on top. So I believe the concept of the "Freedom Tower" isn't new at all.

[NYguy]

It should be clear by now that not all of Larry's pronouncements necessarily come to pass. What height is he talking about anyway? Antenna? Sturctural? Roof?

Who knows. Everyone involved in the rebuilding so far have been cryptic in their remarks. I believe its deliberate. Most likely though, the antenna height will be at least 2,000 ft.

[NYguy]

Libeskind's "statue of liberty" tower...

The two sides agreed that their joint design would have to somehow mark the 1,776-foot height that was a selling point of Mr. Libeskind’s original site design; that the "spiral feature" of the design should be preserved; that the Freedom Tower ought to read in some way as asymmetrical; and that the shape of the building would in some way reference the Statue of Liberty, as in Mr. Libeskind’s original design. But both sides already believed their separate designs for towers achieved those objectives.

I wonder what Childs' take on the "statue" looked like....

[JMGarcia]

Just flatten off the tower at a lower height a put the side spire own top with as twisting lattice work.

[NYguy]

Just flatten off the tower at a lower height a put the side spire own top with as twisting lattice work.

Hmm...the twisting lattice work could be the gown....