Page 804 of 968 FirstFirst ... 304704754794800801802803804805806807808814854904 ... LastLast
Results 12,046 to 12,060 of 14513

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

  1. #12046

    Default

    Taken 5/6 from Eagle Rock Reservation in West Orange NJ


  2. #12047
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Talking to each other ...

  3. #12048

    Default


    May 7, 2012

    Bidders Compete to Run Trade Center Observatory, 1,200 Feet Up

    By CHARLES V. BAGLI

    Seven companies submitted bids Monday afternoon to operate what will be New York City’s highest and largest observatory, at 1 World Trade Center, according to real estate executives.
    Observation decks like the two at the Empire State Building have become so lucrative that the bidding for the three-level attraction on floors 100 through 102 drew bidders from as far as Canada and France, as well as a local restaurant owner.
    Under the plans, five high-speed express elevators will transport visitors more than 1,200 feet above the street to a perch near the top of the tower, for $20 and $25 per person. The observatory will offer unobstructed views of the city, Long Island, New Jersey, and Westchester and Rockland Counties.
    Annual revenues could exceed $100 million.
    But the trade center observatory will have to compete not only with the Empire State Building, which draws four million visitors annually, and Top of the Rock, the observatory at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, but also with the Statue of Liberty and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.
    The seven companies, which were ordered not to discuss their offers, submitted bids to the Durst Organization, which owns 1 World Trade Center with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The owners did not return calls seeking comment, but real estate executives briefed on the submissions identified the following bidders:
    ¶ Montparnasse 56 USA, an affiliate of the French firm that runs an observatory and roof terrace at the Montparnasse Tower in Paris.
    ¶ Legends Hospitality Management, which runs food services and merchandising at Yankee Stadium and the Dallas Cowboys Stadium.
    ¶ Danny Meyer, who owns a string of local restaurants, including Union Square Cafe, Blue Smoke and Shake Shack, and concessions at Citi Field and the Saratoga Race Course. He teamed up with GSM Projects, a Canadian firm.
    ¶ Aramark, a large food services company.
    ¶ Anthony E. Malkin, who operates the Empire State Building. Its 86th- and 102nd-floor observatories generate over $60 million a year in profit, more than any other deck. In the last decade, annual attendance has climbed to four million, from three million.





  4. #12049
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    This observatory offers a distinction of the other 2 observatories.... complete floor to ceiling glass enclosure (with filtered climate controlled air and all). Different than its inner city counterparts? Yes. Better? Absolutely not.

    Not often does the latest iteration of a product ends up coming in as the worst option.

  5. #12050
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    277

    Default

    FROM: NYBOY75

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv6Yf...ature=youtu.be

    Yes I do talk about 1 World Trade and the future of my page on this video.

  6. #12051

    Default

    Source: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...in-a-redesign/

    May 9, 2012, 2:21 pm

    World Trade Center’s Symbolic 1,776-Foot Height Is at Stake in a Redesign



    Left: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; right: Durst Organization Rendering on the left shows 1 World Trade Center as it would have appeared with a steel-and-fiberglass structural enclosure, known as a radome, over the central mast. Rendering on the right shows the spire without a radome, as it is now planned.

    By DAVID W. DUNLAP

    Seventeen-seventy-six will never lose its place in the history books, but its claim to the record books has been undermined by a decision not to build a sculptural fiberglass-and-steel enclosure for the central mast atop 1 World Trade Center.

    It is the addition of that mast that would elevate an otherwise 1,368-foot skyscraper into a 1,776-foot structure whose defining measurement was meant to express American spirit and resolve in the face of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the private body that serves as a worldwide arbiter of building heights, will ultimately count or discount the mast in its height determination for 1 World Trade Center based on whether it is considered a functional antenna or a nonfunctional spire.

    The decision to remove the cladding from the mast was made in January, said Douglas Durst, who is codeveloping 1 World Trade Center with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It is now coming to light with all the attention paid to the fact that the building has reached a height of 1,271 feet, making it the tallest in New York City.

    If the unclad mast is regarded as an antenna, the Council on Tall Buildings will almost certainly not allow it to be included in the calculation. That would mean that 1 World Trade Center would lose both its symbolic dimension and its claim to unseating the Willis Tower in Chicago as the tallest building in America. Should the mast be regarded as an ornamental and nonfunctional spire, however, the equation would change in favor of 1 World Trade Center.

    “This definitely raises questions,” Kevin Brass, the public affairs manager for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, said in a statement Wednesday. “Our criteria are very specific. We include spires and not antennas. If this is an antenna, it won’t be part of the height measurement. The cladding was an integral part of the design and made the extension part of the permanent look and feel of the building.”

    The chief architect of 1 World Trade Center, David M. Childs, now a consulting partner to the firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, plainly called the resulting structure an antenna in a statement Wednesday. He also took a rare step for any architect in questioning a client publicly.

    “We are disappointed that a decision has been made to remove the sculptural enclosure at the top of 1 World Trade Center,” Mr. Childs said. “Eliminating this integral part of the building’s design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate. We stand ready to work with the Port on an alternate design that will still mark the 1 World Trade Center’s place in New York City’s skyline.”

    Though eliminating the cladding will save about $20 million in construction costs, Mr. Durst said that what doomed the enclosure, known as a radome, was the prospect of maintaining such a complex structure — itself nearly as tall as a 40-story building — more than a quarter-mile in the sky.

    “There was no real method to maintain or repair the radome,” Mr. Durst said in an interview Tuesday, as his colleagues in the Durst Organization likened any such effort to something out of “Mission Impossible.” They said that if one of the hundreds of fiberglass panels in the radome were damaged by lightning or ice, climbers would have to scale the radome, winches would have to be installed in the upper reaches of the tower, and cables would have to be lowered to the 9/11 Memorial plaza, where replacement pieces weighing thousands of pounds would await.

    A spokesman for the Port Authority confirmed that the decision to eliminate the radome “was reviewed by current leadership and reaffirmed” in January, and that the savings would be $20 million, of which the Durst Organization would receive a percentage as part of its agreement with the authority.

    Though the difference between the clad and unclad mast may be hard to discern at the scale of a rendering only inches high, it is worth keeping in mind that the mast alone is more than 400 feet tall. Because Mr. Childs regarded the radome as such a critical element in the building’s appearance, he collaborated with the sculptor Kenneth Snelson in its design.

    For its part, the Durst Organization expressed confidence on Wednesday that the mast would be treated as an architectural element, preserving 1 World Trade Center’s claim to superlatives.

    “We never have, never will, refer to it as an antenna,” said Jordan Barowitz, the director of external affairs at Durst.

    “When the building is complete in 18 months or so, there will be no broadcast equipment on the spire,” he added. “It will be a spire, lit with LEDs. I don’t know how you could call that an antenna. It’s a spire from which broadcast equipment will be suspended.” He referred to the three steel rings at the base of the mast, which will contain communication equipment.

    Mr. Durst said the mast would “still be a fairly robust structure.”

    “I don’t think it will affect the visual appearance,” he said. “I try not to get involved with the aesthetics. We’re here to discuss how it’s built and how it’s maintained.”

  7. #12052
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Put a fork in it, 1,776 is done. Solution: re-design plans for 2 WTC to make it much much taller

  8. #12053

    Default

    If the New York Times building can get away with an "architectural" spire, this one will come away fine. This spire has been designed on the building from the beginning. I doubt they'll lose the height.

    It's all a bunch of hogwash to begin with.

  9. #12054

    Default

    Wow so it's the one on the right, & even the the spire is non-functional except for lights. In that case there's no need for it to look so beefy. The right one is fine.

  10. #12055

    Default

    Lame looking watered down base. It really needs those chamfered corners.

  11. #12056
    Senior Member DUMBRo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Out Yonder...
    Posts
    180

    Default

    An antenna is not in any way an architectural element. 1WTC isn't the only supertall out there fraudin'. And everything about that '1776 ft' number was just empty hype and garbage. It needed to die a death along with "Freedom Tower".

  12. #12057

    Default

    The following information was last updated on May 4, 2012.

    • Tower steel is now above actual floor 98 (1271 feet). It is expected to top out at 1368 feet) in late spring/early summer 2012.
    • Facade installation is now above floor 71
    • Concrete is now being installed above floor 93
    • Installation of the 408-foot-tall telecommunications spire in summer 2012 (bringing total tower height to 1776 feet)

  13. #12058

    Default

    The decision to remove the cladding from the mast was made in January, said Douglas Durst, who is codeveloping 1 World Trade Center with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It is now coming to light with all the attention paid to the fact that the building has reached a height of 1,271 feet, making it the tallest in New York City.

    If the unclad mast is regarded as an antenna, the Council on Tall Buildings will almost certainly not allow it to be included in the calculation. That would mean that 1 World Trade Center would lose both its symbolic dimension and its claim to unseating the Willis Tower in Chicago as the tallest building in America. Should the mast be regarded as an ornamental and nonfunctional spire, however, the equation would change in favor of 1 World Trade Center.

    “This definitely raises questions,” Kevin Brass, the public affairs manager for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, said in a statement Wednesday. “Our criteria are very specific. We include spires and not antennas. If this is an antenna, it won’t be part of the height measurement. The cladding was an integral part of the design and made the extension part of the permanent look and feel of the building.”
    You could see this coming, as I said two months ago

    It's really funny, because aesthetically, official height numbers mean nothing. But it becomes important if you accept all the baggage that's been attached to this building; so if the building is declared to be 1368 ft tall, a company will counter with, "We never have, never will, refer to it as an antenna."

    So there!!!

    Ant the PA is caught between a major tenant and the public.

    I think the important question now is - which looks better?

  14. #12059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I think the important question now is - which looks better?
    I can't understand why the spire is earth tone-y in the second rendering... it looks like a sunset rendering and I doubt that's the final color of it. It's a close call but I give the edge to the new spire. I think the potential for lighting is much more promising.

  15. #12060

    Default

    I like GordonGecko's proposal

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