WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

**stache** · May 29th, 2012, 10:49 PM

Not me -

**Sherpa** · May 29th, 2012, 11:08 PM

no longer private

**lofter1** · May 29th, 2012, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp

I received a PM yesterday from a new register who didn't post on the forum. Anyone else get one?

Not I. But you're the Top Chimp around these parts.

**scumonkey** · May 30th, 2012, 12:23 AM

I got one as well

Chamfered corners

The chamfered corners were removed by SOM in order to accomodate their new design for the base

**TallGuy** · May 30th, 2012, 08:40 AM

What gets me about the chamfered corners is that the steel underneath will still be chamfered as well as the bomb-proofing. I would think that would be the major expense of that design feature. I'd imagine in 50 years they could easily go back to it during a major renovation.

**antinimby** · May 30th, 2012, 08:58 AM

Unfortunately most of us won't be around in 50 years to enjoy that.

**ZippyTheChimp** · May 30th, 2012, 01:17 PM

Has there been any explanation as to why the PA can't chamfer the corners? If it's money, how much?

This is a $3 billion building.

**arcman210** · May 30th, 2012, 01:19 PM

Not as many picky enthusiasts as us that even know about them (or the reason behind them) to begin with.

**JSsocal** · May 30th, 2012, 02:06 PM

I'll be honest I'm glad the chamfered corners are removed, simply because it takes some of the weight off the bottom of this tower. It does look peculiar seeing this structure get wider and then smaller at the top, which this decision alleviates.

Another note I'm surprised more comparison is not being drawn with the Shanghai World Financial Center, it has a giant pedestal that's encased in slat stone, which looks very similar in concept to this project, though far less appealing. I'm very happy with what's being implemented here.

IMG_9568 by junefoo, on Flickr

**scumonkey** · May 30th, 2012, 02:45 PM

I'll be honest I'm glad the chamfered corners are removed, simply because it takes some of the weight off the bottom of this tower.

I disagree- it actually achieves quite the opposite...it ADDS weight- both visually and in reality to the base- making the building lose what little grace it had going for it.

**ZippyTheChimp** · May 30th, 2012, 02:59 PM

I think the chamfer unified the base with the rest of the building. Like it or not, at least it appeared more like one design theme.

Now I think it's going to look like an obelisk that was supposed to continue to ground, but they changed their minds and cut it off straight.

Come to think of it, an outward slope all the way to ground may have been best.

**lofter1** · May 30th, 2012, 03:17 PM

To my eye the chamfered corners really increased the upward thrust of the building. And the cut-aways at the corners also made it more pedestrian friendly at street level, offering small glimpses around the edges.

The square block of the current base plan is really an inert shape.