150 Greenwich Street - WTC Tower #4 - by Fumihiko Maki

**lofter1** · September 7th, 2006, 12:48 PM

I'm confused ... which of these is the design??

Flat roof for 4WTC:

Sloping roof for 4WTC:

**pianoman11686** · September 7th, 2006, 12:52 PM

These are literally being uploaded as I type:

**lofter1** · September 7th, 2006, 12:56 PM

More confusion ...

More slope:

more flat:

**krulltime** · September 7th, 2006, 12:59 PM

Those renderings suck... Where is the love for this tower?

**kz1000ps** · September 7th, 2006, 01:02 PM

This is just copied from the 175 Greenwich thread..

Lofter, take another look. I believe with the rendering you're confused ovefr, it's just the camera lens angle making things look more angular and dynamic. All the other renders show a flat roof.

...please note with all the renders that the floor lines are all parallel to the roof line.

**TallGuy** · September 7th, 2006, 01:04 PM

You are right of course about the slope. No way of telling. This building looks almost identical to the placeholders we have had since 2003. Perhaps there is much work to be done on it yet and it was rushed out so WTC 2 & 3 could be introduced on time. WTC is clearly nothing special; it's just there. But it is not some Gehry attrocity either. It bookends the sight adequately.

**lofter1** · September 7th, 2006, 01:06 PM

Street level at 4WTC ...

Atrium:

Atrium:

Church St. Level:

Greenwich Office Lobby:

Greenwich St. Level:

Ground Floor Plan:

**krulltime** · September 7th, 2006, 01:06 PM

I hope we get a sloped roof, else it will be another 7WTC.

**lofter1** · September 7th, 2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by TallGuy

You are right of course about the slope. No way of telling.

I much prefer it with the slope giving focus into the WTC site.

**kz1000ps** · September 7th, 2006, 01:13 PM

I'm sorry but that is just pure BS. That's great and all that they managed to justify a bunch of disparate tops with a supple curve, but who here would have ever seen that? Then ask yourself what typical architecturally uneducated tourist from Minnesota will ever make that connection. Unless this line was there long before the buildings were designed, then it's just pointless and stoopid.

Sorry for the rant, but I hate it when architects try to put meaning where there is none. Too thinky for their own good.

**kz1000ps** · September 7th, 2006, 01:19 PM

I'll say it again: note that every floor line on this building continues from the south side to the north, meaning there is no sloped roof. It's just a combination of camera lens tricks, and the play between the lower portion of the western wall (which angles out to the west) against the upper portion (which angles in).

**lofter1** · September 7th, 2006, 01:33 PM

To add to the confusion from the NY Times:

The upper part of the facade inclines toward the towers to the north and is meant as a unifying gesture.

"inclines toward" ???

slopes up ???

WTF???

**Eugenius** · September 7th, 2006, 01:36 PM

Does this tower remind you of 599 Lexington? Same "contextual" architecture, same cut away reshaping of the building...

**Vengineer** · September 7th, 2006, 01:37 PM

It's a flat roof.

**NoyokA** · September 7th, 2006, 01:46 PM

This isnt a particularly good or exciting building. Maki must have thought the design program was to emulate Edward Larabee Barnes, either way this building is an ELB 1980's throwback.

599 Lex:

535 Mad:

IBM Building (In relation to the atrium spaces)