Reply With QuoteYesterday they were using the big crawler to remove some of the steel from the roof. It can reach easily by crawling to the end of the ramp.Originally Posted by BiggieSmalls
how are they breaking down the south PATH roof without crane support?
the large crawler to the east seems to be occupied with steel erecting. though it could probably reach.. and the tower crane n the north pool hasnt moved.
Yesterday they were using the big crawler to remove some of the steel from the roof. It can reach easily by crawling to the end of the ramp.
This is getting interesting... Fulton St temporary decking is being extended now over the canyon between temp PATH station and memorial North Pool to that temporary roof... Never imagined it would go like that! I mean, looks so fragile (to me) to be the access road for trucks delivering steel and second PATH tower crane parts! Or probably I underestimate steel strengthOr would it serve some other purpose perhaps?..
Yeah, I see the new platform. Is a crane going to actually go out on that?
I'm not up on this project too well. What are the differences between the current planned design of the structure and the original proposal? I know it was watered down a bit.
The big difference is the addition of (2?) columns to the mezzanine, as well as other differences such as the use of regular concrete as opposed to architectural concrete, and I think they changed the design of the columns in the WFC connector passageway. I'm sure there is other less notable stuff done too to keep the budget down.
The biggest is that the roof will be staionary. It was originally supposed to open up creating an even greater sense of a bird taking flight. Now, we get to feel like Jonah in the belly of the whale. however, it beats the hell out of Penn Station and Atlantic Terminal.
The wings have been shortened. And the skeletal columns that meet the plaza have redesigned (they used to split and hit the plaza as two columns -- sort of like and ulna and a radius -- but are now thicker and solid).
looking back through this thread it's kind of shockingto see that lots of the early images have been replaced by those noxious little blue boxes.
But here's some of what remains, showing some of the changes starting in 2004 and moving up through 2008 ...
February 1, 2004
The World Trade Center PATH terminal, designed by Santiago Calatrava.
September 7, 2005
Citing Budget Concerns, Port Authority Plans for More Modest Hub at Trade Center Site
April 16, 2008
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
An artist’s rendering of the architect Santiago Calatrava’s plan for the PATH terminal.
It has been slightly simplified twice, but officials said they were committed to retaining it.
A Twisted Path for a Curve-Filled Terminal
October 7, 2008
(Renderings: Santiago Calatrava/Port Authority of New York and New Jersey)
The latest design shows conical columns added to support the roof — a measure
that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said would make the structure
easier and more economical to build.
The second design removes the structure’s skylights.
The first design for the underground mezzanine of the World Trade Center Transportation
Hub showed daylight flooding the space through glass paving blocks above the ribbed vaults.
soaring wings before:
after wing clipping:
or is it this one?!
It went from a light, delicate bird to stegosaurus fossil,
I think the clipped wings will be better as it is really jammed into that site.
Like THIS one?
Couldn't resist. Ha!!
Last edited by Daquan13; March 16th, 2010 at 03:37 PM.
whens excavation supposed to end, any estimates
The last one and the first one are one in the same. Honestly I prefer the middle one, the version being built the best. They didn't clip any wings, they are going to be the same height, Calatrava added more piers which make it look far more dramatic and really quite beautiful. It reminds me of a gothic church with flying buttresses. The reason this version will cost less is because there won't be any glass between the piers, good riddance, Calatrava is notorious for designing buildings with needless, unnecessary, and very expensive frills, I'm all for extravagence but its purpose needs to make sense in engaging an audience, millions of dollars worth of glass over an outdoor space is wasteful, it is his constant practice of function following form and that all of his buildings look like something he has already built elsewhere that is why he ranks as one of my least favorite architects. That said this building is drop dead gorgeous and I'm glad New York will have a soaring, inspiring transit hub.soaring wings before:
after wing clipping
or is it this one?!
Aren't you a Gehry fan?
Sure am. Gehry's buildings are very expensive but with few exceptions they actively engage a captive audience, his billowing forms don't just look good on the outside but they usually form uniquely shaped rooms on the inside, the same goes for his windows which are faceted and unique but are usually placed so that people can interact them and look outside them. Gehry is guilty of carrying some lines just to complete a the design which serve no purpose as all expressionist architects are, but there are no flying wings, large expanses of glass not covering anything, and giant bridge like structures that serve no structural purpose, all of which might look great on the outside, but cost millions of dollars, are only experienced from a safe distance, and serve zero purpose to the indoor experience. I just came back from Los Angeles and enjoyed the Disney Concert Hall along with hundreds of other people who were sitting on the steps, and actually walking on the exterior of the building as a pathway winds up and around the entire building allowing people to touch the building, enjoy every angle and the skin as it changes with the sun, as well as hidden litte oasis that suprise and greet an engaged audience.
Last edited by NoyokA; January 19th, 2010 at 01:43 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks