WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

[NYguy]

we NEVER NEEDED A BUILDING INSPIRED BY THE STATUE OF LIBERTY, BECAUSE THE DANG STATUE IS RIGHT THERE!!!! She's inspiration enough.

I agree with that one. Everyone pretends the real thing isn't standing right there, in full view no less. How about building a skyscraper inspired by New York's skyscrapers. It is what we are supposed to be replacing afterall.

But that would make too much sense in a process that has seen little of it.

[JMC]

...NyatKnight...that was funny. I think you have a point...AND a saving grace will be:

HOW WIDE THE BUILDING IS

Anyone know what the dimentions across are? Anyone care to show it Vs. the WTC ?

If it's wide enough, it'll look ballsy, not flimsy. IMHO.

[Gulcrapek]

The building's ground plan is pretty big.

[NYguy]

The building's ground plan is pretty big.

It's larger than the "footprint" of one of the Twins...

[JayW]

It's larger than the "footprint" of one of the Twins...

True dat. Take a look at the full NYC diagram at skyscraperpage.com and you'll see that according to the dimesnions set forth by the model's designer, the structure widens out a good deal more than *either* Twin.
However, I'm not sure if that degree of massiveness will be quite visible from whichever vantage point one chooses. It very well may considering its placement further north than the footprints; so a view from, say, the Brooklyn/Queens side might show.

[Christopher X]

A little more insight on the height debate...

The antenna will likely bring the entire structure to 2,000 feet, the limit imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Kenneth Lewis, SOM's project manager. It needs to be that high to widen the television broadcast area. Even PBS has joined this cause, because the poor can't afford cable educational programs. But at the 1,776-foot mark the materials used to build the spire will change, and it will be illuminated. "The 1,776-foot mark will definitely be acknowledged. The bottom part of the antenna will be like the Statue of Liberty's torch and the upper part like the flame," he said.

Hey JM. Is that clipped out of something broader that you can steer me to? I'd like to read it.

[JMGarcia]

It was posted as a link earlier. Here it is again...

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0401/ebaard.php

[Zzed]

this whole debate seems to be getting very silly. the 1776 foot level can be marked structurally in any of several different ways, for example giant numbers on each face or an observation deck. making the antenna as commercially high as required and part of the structure would go a long way to sensibly claim WTB status. wasn't the original TV tower set for 2100 feet including an observation platform? height restrictions should be easily waved as no one is going to be allowed to fly anywhere near that building.

[ZippyTheChimp]

FAA height limits are not easily waived. The broadcasters would have to provide a substantial case that the extra height was absolutely necessary.

[LuPeRcALiO]

You, though, are beginning to sound like you don't want it to have an antenna beyond 1776, even though the project manager says it will. hmmmm....

my point is that wishful thinking has no bearing on the facts unless your name is George Pataki but for the record I'm pretty indifferent to how high the spire goes or whether there's a flagpole on top -- just helping you cut through the SSPin.

[JMGarcia]

Better call it the SOMspin from now on don't you think?

Plus, if you think Pataki is going to over rule an antenna height when he can still claim his 1776 feet for the building then I think you're engaging in a little LuPeRsPin of you're own.

[DougGold]

Oh for crying out loud. This is starting to sound like some kind of bad amusement park attraction. Can we drop the 1,776 crap already? If the spire's going to be taller than 1,776 feet, than we're done. Marking it is stupid. Might as well mark every damn important number in american history along the building's height. And I really want to retch every time I hear the building's going to be symbolic of the statue of liberty. Putting the spire offcenter doesn't mean it's like the statue's arm, and we NEVER NEEDED A BUILDING INSPIRED BY THE STATUE OF LIBERTY, BECAUSE THE DANG STATUE IS RIGHT THERE!!!! She's inspiration enough.

Whoa! Turn that frown upside down! I can understand taking the position that the tower isn't what you hoped, or that the meaning is hokey, but I really can't see the sense in your raging little hissy-fit. But you originally came from the twin towers replication club, so I guess that's my answer. You all sound like crying, spoiled children who didn't get their way - pardon me, but it's true, you all have nothing at all nice to say about this tower. I personally don't care if they want to change materials at 1776 feet or that the architect wants to evoke the Statue of Liberty in the antenna - as long as it looks great in the end. Complain on, and enjoy your ulcer.

Well thanks for your well-thought out response. I still ask the same two basic questions: 1. If the building is not going to be 1776 feet high, then what the hell is the point of marking 1776 feet along its height? It's now irrelevant, and I'll bet somewhere along the way, it's dropped. 2. Putting the spire off-center isn't going to remind anyone of the statue of liberty, and I stick to it when I say it's silly to build a building 'inspired' by something that's right next to it anyway. Doesn't anyone build anything that's a singular vision anymore--that might inspire others? I can marvel that the beautiful spire of the Chrysler building was inspired by the grill of a car, but this latest "inspiration" is pretty dang weak by comparison. Oh, and yes I was a proponent of rebuilding the twin towers (I think when that ship sailed it still had my luggage on it), but that's not why I'm disappointed in this building. I'm mostly bummed that every time we say we have the world's tallest building, we're going to be a little bit embarassed, because we've weakly claimed that title with latticework and windmills. If I lived elsewhere, I wouldn't accept our claim.

[LuPeRcALiO]

Better call it the SOMspin

I'd say that's a pretty good guess.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Well thanks for your well-thought out response. I still ask the same two basic questions: 1. If the building is not going to be 1776 feet high, then what the hell is the point of marking 1776 feet along its height? It's now irrelevant, and I'll bet somewhere along the way, it's dropped. 2. Putting the spire off-center isn't going to remind anyone of the statue of liberty, and I stick to it when I say it's silly to build a building 'inspired' by something that's right next to it anyway. Doesn't anyone build anything that's a singular vision anymore--that might inspire others? I can marvel that the beautiful spire of the Chrysler building was inspired by the grill of a car, but this latest "inspiration" is pretty dang weak by comparison. Oh, and yes I was a proponent of rebuilding the twin towers (I think when that ship sailed it still had my luggage on it), but that's not why I'm disappointed in this building. I'm mostly bummed that every time we say we have the world's tallest building, we're going to be a little bit embarassed, because we've weakly claimed that title with latticework and windmills. If I lived elsewhere, I wouldn't accept our claim.

If you consider marking 1776' irrelevant, then why all the sarcasm? I don't care if it is marked either, but certainly don't mind it. Is it really SO cheesy? Likewise, if the off-center spire isn't going to remind anyone of the Statue of Liberty, then what's the problem? Especially if it looks good. I don't see the Statue of Liberty when I look at the FT renderings, but if Libeskind says he was somehow inspired by it.....whatever. I certainly don't think of the grill of a car every time I look at Chrysler, but if that was Van Alen's inspiration then who cares, it's an awesome building.

I don't mind the idea of an off-centered spire, nor do I mind my eyes being drawn upward to 1776' - as long as it looks really good. That, I am hoping, is being worked on. They aren't there yet, but will give them a chance to make improvements before a final judgement.

As for calling it the world's tallest building, I'm with you on that one. They ought to either drop that claim or design it so there is no argument, but don't do it with cables and poles and unoccupied space just for the sake of claiming the height. And don't try to pass it off as "reclaiming the skyline" unless it really does, they won't be fooling anyone.

[DougGold]

If you consider marking 1776' irrelevant, then why all the sarcasm? I don't care if it is marked either, but certainly don't mind it. Is it really SO cheesy? Likewise, if the off-center spire isn't going to remind anyone of the Statue of Liberty, then what's the problem? Especially if it looks good. I don't see the Statue of Liberty when I look at the FT renderings, but if Libeskind says he was somehow inspired by it.....whatever. I certainly don't think of the grill of a car every time I look at Chrysler, but if that was Van Alen's inspiration then who cares, it's an awesome building.

I think my sarcasm is coming from fear that this process has gotten a bit sloppy, perhaps because of the speed and pressure they're under. I did think that if the building were 1776 feet tall, it would be an important mark. When they announced that they're forced to build higher to accomodate the transmitters, but would still mark the height of 1776 somehow, it seems like they're not getting what they want design-wise and are coming up with a quick compromise to keep that 1776 designation intact. If they took more time with it, and weren't under deadline constraints, perhaps they could come up with something stronger. I'm really afraid that in years to come, we'll be looking at aspects of this building and saying "well, they built it that way because at the time they were forced into such and such a decision, etc. etc."