Page 101 of 968 FirstFirst ... 5191979899100101102103104105111151201601 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,515 of 14513

Thread: WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

  1. #1501
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    Not so and deep down you know it. You're letting your anger at Libeskind get the better of you I think.

    Libeksind originally propose a 95 story tower attached to his spire but he was told to shorten it by Silverstein before public presentation. Even afterwards he pushed an 80 odd story proposal as was leaked by the Post.

    Libeskind may be responsible for the spire but Silverstein is responsible for the height limit as stated in his public letter to Newsday. To say otherwise is disengenious. What's more, Childs originally idea, as stated in the press, even before the very first public "designs" were unveiled was a tower half building/half lattice. In fact of those, design 4 was based on his ideas.
    Not as far as the Frontline special. Libeskind saw the original Childs design and went to Pataki complaining. Then Pataki went back to Silverstein and had him reaffirm the 1776 limit.

    While it is probable that Silverstein is responsible for the 80 story occupied height, although I have never heard anyone talk specifically about it. Its a nebulous subject that is hush hush due to the obvious planes-into-buildings precedent.

  2. #1502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tonyo
    Not as far as the Frontline special. Libeskind saw the original Childs design and went to Pataki complaining. Then Pataki went back to Silverstein and had him reaffirm the 1776 limit.

    While it is probable that Silverstein is responsible for the 80 story occupied height, although I have never heard anyone talk specifically about it. Its a nebulous subject that is hush hush due to the obvious planes-into-buildings precedent.
    Silverstein wrote an open letter to Newsday just before the end of the competition stating that the office space should be 900-1000 feet tops for safety reasons. It was not at all hush hush.

    Also, Childs original design had the top of the building portion almost 200 feet lower than it was ultimately raised to. The whole big compromise came at the top of the cabled area between Childs' wedge of antennas and Libeskind's spire. In both cases the building ultimately reached 2000 feet to its pinnacle.

  3. #1503
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    Silverstein wrote an open letter to Newsday just before the end of the competition stating that the office space should be 900-1000 feet tops for safety reasons. It was not at all hush hush.

    Also, Childs original design had the top of the building portion almost 200 feet lower than it was ultimately raised to. The whole big compromise came at the top of the cabled area between Childs' wedge of antennas and Libeskind's spire. In both cases the building ultimately reached 2000 feet to its pinnacle.
    There wasn't a push from anyone to raise the occupied height, that's my point. The only push came from Libeskind/Pataki to lower the overall height to 1776 and not be "out of scale" with the rest of downtown (Frontline).

  4. #1504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    I've a feeling you're right. Especially since he started complaining about who is going to pay for all that stuff above his 900 feet of office building.
    I think that his complaints are directed more towards the spire. Haven't they already lined up people who are involved with the lattice portion?

  5. #1505
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Phila / Connecticut
    Posts
    521

    Default

    LOL I just heard that the commity board of the 2012 olympycs said they were hesitant to build it in NYC because of the freedom tower! I wonder if that will have any impact for Ken Gardner?


    JM if the 900 feet limit still applied then why is the office building now 1150 feet with a top floor of at least 1070'

  6. #1506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PHLguy
    LOL I just heard that the commity board of the 2012 olympycs said they were hesitant to build it in NYC because of the freedom tower! I wonder if that will have any impact for Ken Gardner?


    JM if the 900 feet limit still applied then why is the office building now 1150 feet with a top floor of at least 1070'
    Because Libeskind insisted on and won (with Pataki's backing) the sloped roof which had to be tacked on to Childs flat topped office tower otherwise he would lose office space. Its very apparent in the renderings. There is a small set back where the tacked on portion is.

    Take a look here... http://www.renewnyc.com/images_WMS/g...l_sw_final.jpg

  7. #1507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TomAuch
    I think that his complaints are directed more towards the spire. Haven't they already lined up people who are involved with the lattice portion?
    Well, he needs something high enough for the broadcasters its true, but he was complaining about the "public" spaces which sounds to me like everything above the office section including the obs deck.

    No doubt he is just using this as a red herring to explain away design changes (because of cost) and hopefully to get some public money for it too.

  8. #1508

    Default

    As long as the broadcasters and windmill people are signed up, then the public spaces will likely be built.

  9. #1509

    Default

    Why not have the intenna be on the top-most corner of the tower?

    That way, it saves money and helps in proportioning the buliding becasue you don't have to worry about the spire.

  10. #1510

    Default

    Isn't the spire already on the top-most corner? I know that the roof is slanted.

  11. #1511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex ballard
    Why not have the intenna be on the top-most corner of the tower?

    That way, it saves money and helps in proportioning the buliding becasue you don't have to worry about the spire.
    What do you mean, the spire on one corner, and antenna on another? Very tacky.

  12. #1512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    Not so and deep down you know it. You're letting your anger at Libeskind get the better of you I think.

    Libeksind originally propose a 95 story tower attached to his spire but he was told to shorten it by Silverstein before public presentation.
    You know as well as I do that is false. Blatantly false. Libeskind's proposal wasn't Silverstein's. Silverstein really had nothing to do with the design proposals because he had his own architect (Childs) working the entire time. What Libeskind came up with was his own idea. Lets not revise history.

  13. #1513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    Also, Childs original design had the top of the building portion almost 200 feet lower than it was ultimately raised to.
    That's exactly right - the height of the office tower in Libeskind's misguided 70-story and spire plan.

    The height was raised (to 1,150 ft) to include the sloped roof without lessening the floor area of the building. In fact, Libeskind would have been more pleased with a lower slope if it somehow decreased the size of the office building. He has been constantly complaining of too much office space being squeezed into the tower by Silverstein.

  14. #1514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NYguy
    What do you mean, the spire on one corner, and antenna on another? Very tacky.
    No no no....

    The top most corner would simply have a small intenna rising from the corner. All the other corners have nothing on them. This gets rid of that horrible spire and at least allows for some more flexability.

  15. #1515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex ballard
    No no no....

    The top most corner would simply have a small intenna rising from the corner. All the other corners have nothing on them. This gets rid of that horrible spire and at least allows for some more flexability.
    If you check this rendering that JMGarcia just posted, it seems that the spire is already on the top most corner:

    http://www.renewnyc.com/images_WMS/g...l_sw_final.jpg

Similar Threads

  1. New 51-story tower Downtown
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: January 17th, 2006, 09:20 PM
  2. Renderings CIBC Tower
    By NoyokA in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 19th, 2003, 07:17 PM
  3. 3 Buildings From 1830's Threatened By a Tower - Downtown
    By Kris in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 29th, 2003, 11:08 AM
  4. A Home Depot in the Bloomberg Tower?
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 15th, 2003, 03:16 AM
  5. Special Issues for Merrill, the Landlord
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2002, 12:04 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