daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers Discussions of projects under construction between 200-299m/650-999ft tall.
» Proposed Skyscrapers



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 11th, 2016, 08:10 PM   #901
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3593

Quote:
Originally Posted by germantower View Post
Seeing all these tall tower popping up in LM makes me sad that the WTC wasn´t designed more ambitiously.
I feel similarly, but you have to remember that when the new WTC was first being designed, 1400ish ft. was still considered massively tall, and the technologies that have enabled true megatall skyscrapers were only just rounding into form.

In fact, the super-strong concrete that was invented to make 1 WTC the sturdiest building in the world has been credited with enabling the subsequent megatall and mega-thin boom. Maybe the developers should have seen what they had on their hands sooner and revised plans for something more ambitious...

But strength came before all else, and stretching this tower out to 2000 ft. may have compromised the integrity beyond what the developers and authorities would have considered acceptable (the bar of course is that something like 9/11 can never happen again and my understanding is that as constructed, it would take no less than a direct nuclear impact to knock the new WTC down.)

Even though it's obviously an important site and still has a long way to go before being "complete," I'm already thinking of the WTC as a capstone project from the previous era of skyscrapers (not to mention American history), and now looking forward to all that's new and exciting. 80 South is already going to surpass One WTC by roof height at a fraction of the width, and hopefully the Downtown Manhattan skyline will be graced by many more, even taller, striking buildings in the years to come.
__________________
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 11th, 2016, 08:23 PM   #902
tokilamockingbrd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 116

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
I feel similarly, but you have to remember that when the new WTC was first being designed, 1400ish ft. was still considered massively tall, and the technologies that have enabled true megatall skyscrapers were only just rounding into form.

In fact, the super-strong concrete that was invented to make 1 WTC the sturdiest building in the world has been credited with enabling the subsequent megatall and mega-thin boom. Maybe the developers should have seen what they had on their hands sooner and revised plans for something more ambitious...

But strength came before all else, and stretching this tower out to 2000 ft. may have compromised the integrity beyond what the developers and authorities would have considered acceptable (the bar of course is that something like 9/11 can never happen again and my understanding is that as constructed, it would take no less than a direct nuclear impact to knock the new WTC down.)

Even though it's obviously an important site and still has a long way to go before being "complete," I'm already thinking of the WTC as a capstone project from the previous era of skyscrapers (not to mention American history), and now looking forward to all that's new and exciting. 80 South is already going to surpass One WTC by roof height at a fraction of the width, and hopefully the Downtown Manhattan skyline will be graced by many more, even taller, striking buildings in the years to come.
good points. I had not thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I would actually say One WTC is the bridge between the previous era and the future. Its dimensions and style are from the previous era, but its engineering is the future. I honestly believe that One WTC will stand forever barring an asteroid strike or a nuclear attack...
__________________
tokilamockingbrd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2016, 11:49 AM   #903
Otto Diesel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 86

Any new pics of the construction site?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Otto Diesel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2016, 02:53 AM   #904
ophizer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 464
Likes (Received): 132

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
I feel similarly, but you have to remember that when the new WTC was first being designed, 1400ish ft. was still considered massively tall, and the technologies that have enabled true megatall skyscrapers were only just rounding into form.

In fact, the super-strong concrete that was invented to make 1 WTC the sturdiest building in the world has been credited with enabling the subsequent megatall and mega-thin boom. Maybe the developers should have seen what they had on their hands sooner and revised plans for something more ambitious...

But strength came before all else, and stretching this tower out to 2000 ft. may have compromised the integrity beyond what the developers and authorities would have considered acceptable (the bar of course is that something like 9/11 can never happen again and my understanding is that as constructed, it would take no less than a direct nuclear impact to knock the new WTC down.)

Even though it's obviously an important site and still has a long way to go before being "complete," I'm already thinking of the WTC as a capstone project from the previous era of skyscrapers (not to mention American history), and now looking forward to all that's new and exciting. 80 South is already going to surpass One WTC by roof height at a fraction of the width, and hopefully the Downtown Manhattan skyline will be graced by many more, even taller, striking buildings in the years to come.
good point about "capstone" building
it's been on my mind for awhile now, you summed it up nicely
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
ophizer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2016, 04:13 AM   #905
DeaconG
Registered Kibitzer
 
DeaconG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 102
Likes (Received): 77

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
I feel similarly, but you have to remember that when the new WTC was first being designed, 1400ish ft. was still considered massively tall, and the technologies that have enabled true megatall skyscrapers were only just rounding into form.

In fact, the super-strong concrete that was invented to make 1 WTC the sturdiest building in the world has been credited with enabling the subsequent megatall and mega-thin boom. Maybe the developers should have seen what they had on their hands sooner and revised plans for something more ambitious...

But strength came before all else, and stretching this tower out to 2000 ft. may have compromised the integrity beyond what the developers and authorities would have considered acceptable (the bar of course is that something like 9/11 can never happen again and my understanding is that as constructed, it would take no less than a direct nuclear impact to knock the new WTC down.)

Even though it's obviously an important site and still has a long way to go before being "complete," I'm already thinking of the WTC as a capstone project from the previous era of skyscrapers (not to mention American history), and now looking forward to all that's new and exciting. 80 South is already going to surpass One WTC by roof height at a fraction of the width, and hopefully the Downtown Manhattan skyline will be graced by many more, even taller, striking buildings in the years to come.
There's a 2000 foot limit imposed by the FAA. I don't think you're going to get clearance for anything approaching 2,000 feet, much less more (outside of the radio towers in the Dakotas that were grandfathered in). Would be nice, though...
__________________
Dawnstar: "You're an ape! And you can talk!"
King Solovar: "And you're a human with wings! Reality holds surprises for everyone!"
-Crisis On Infinite Earths #2

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
DeaconG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2016, 01:42 AM   #906
ophizer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 464
Likes (Received): 132

only a matter of time before they get changed; when were those rules instituted anyway?
probably one of those anachronisms from the 60s
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
ophizer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2016, 05:58 AM   #907
Vortex11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 19
Likes (Received): 15

I'm pretty sure these rules can and will be ignored when the time is right. Here's a link to what seems to be the rules:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../faa7460_1.pdf

Here's a quote where they mention it:
"(c) A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds
2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air
navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant
has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under
the pertinent provisions of this part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000
feet above ground, or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed
that height, must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden.
Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling
showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the
airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination
of no hazard be issued."
__________________
Vortex11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2016, 06:49 AM   #908
tokilamockingbrd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 116

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vortex11 View Post
I'm pretty sure these rules can and will be ignored when the time is right. Here's a link to what seems to be the rules:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../faa7460_1.pdf

Here's a quote where they mention it:
"(c) A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds
2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air
navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant
has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under
the pertinent provisions of this part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000
feet above ground, or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed
that height, must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden.
Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling
showing has been made that it would not result in an inefficient utilization of the
airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination
of no hazard be issued."
ins't Manhattan pretty much a no fly zone anyways? That rule makes sense when you think about radio towers out in the middle of no where. By FAA rules you should be able to fly a small plane at 2K feet and never run into any structure.

This would not apply to Manhattan where I am like 99% sure you can't fly your 2 seater aircraft a 2k feet over it.

A 2300 foot tower would not be a air hazard in Manhattan, but I agree it could be elsewhere. Also the utilization of airspace clause would be pretty easy to prove in Manhattan. Office space or residences at 2200 feet is probably a better utilization of airspace than an empty space no one can fly in anyways.
__________________

ophizer, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
tokilamockingbrd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2016, 08:32 PM   #909
Oatmeal
Registered User
 
Oatmeal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 497
Likes (Received): 476

I read that this is 1356 feet. Is that correct?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Oatmeal no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2016, 07:06 PM   #910
SMCYB
Registered User
 
SMCYB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,111
Likes (Received): 1637

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZ-II View Post
And taller. 1WTC as Land ark with 500m+ roof height and over 600m in total!
If you think back, there was a lot of fear after September 11. There was even talk of building something much shorter, and many people thought the days of skyscrapers were over. Even now the highest occupied floors (aside from the observation deck) are nowhere near the top of the building. But you're right, it's too bad.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
SMCYB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2016, 08:08 PM   #911
punchydj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 166
Likes (Received): 279

Hi guys!

There is the progress during the first quarter of 2016



Thank you!!!
__________________

rikardo_200, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
punchydj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2016, 07:33 AM   #912
ILNY
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 431
Likes (Received): 5314

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Diesel View Post
Any new pics of the construction site?
Yes.

__________________
ILNY no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2016, 06:32 AM   #913
kacnie358
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 556
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaz965 View Post
the old design is good
I'm glad this WTC2 project is gone, (sorry for the OT)
__________________

Hanyuu222, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
kacnie358 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2016, 04:45 AM   #914
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,539
Likes (Received): 4610

Teaser site now online

http://125greenwich.com
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2016, 01:43 PM   #915
tokilamockingbrd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 116

lol. site looks like a mess. guessing we have several months before it starts moving above ground level.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
tokilamockingbrd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2016, 01:42 PM   #916
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,723
Likes (Received): 28365

Which is quite normal for large towers.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Eric Offereins está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2016, 06:05 PM   #917
Torch
Registered User
 
Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 485
Likes (Received): 1015

Model of 125 Greenwich Street:


http://www.6sqft.com/all-engines-shv...-developments/
__________________
Torch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2016, 04:29 PM   #918
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,429
Likes (Received): 10289

I don't get what I'm seeing. On the left-hand side, where's 3WTC? And on the right hand side it shows this tower appearing shorter than 4WTC, no?
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2016, 06:46 PM   #919
Torch
Registered User
 
Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 485
Likes (Received): 1015

On the left hand side, 3WTC is behind 4WTC. It seems as if 3WTC is a bit to short. They merged together in the photo, but you can see the small setbacks of 3WTC.
125 Greenwich street looks definitely shorter in the right picture.
In both cases I don't know if the scales of the buildings are a bit off, or if the perspective is the factor here.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Torch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2016, 07:13 PM   #920
SMCYB
Registered User
 
SMCYB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,111
Likes (Received): 1637

... and apparently the giant tidal wave from the movie Deep Impact.
__________________
SMCYB no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
125 greenwich, 22 thames, new york

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu