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 > Supertalls > Proposed Supertalls



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 6th, 2014, 12:01 AM   #421
McSky
Registered User
 
McSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 708
Likes (Received): 1875

4 WTC was designed as it is precisely because of where it is. The architect himself said so. I think it's an excellent design, as the simplicity plays off the more dramatic or detailed buildings around it.

As for the Hudson Spire, I'd love to see a combined plot and a megatall, but with acquisition costs of about $450 million for both plots, it might be safer for a developer to build two supertalls to maximize profit and minimize risk.
__________________

Tower Dude liked this post
McSky no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 6th, 2014, 03:40 AM   #422
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

sucks no one wants to take risks anymore, I'm sure a mixed use ~500 meter tower could be profitable in NY
__________________

Kanto liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 01:10 PM   #423
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I followed this discussion during the last days but I didn't have enough time to write a response since it'll be a long one, but today I should be able to get the time I need to write my thoughts in detail.

I mostly agree with Blue Flame on this one. I do think that all of the WTC buildings are masterpieces of architecture, however their height is very medicore. And height matters. If it didn't, this page would be called buildingcity or structurecity but not skyscrapercity.

327 meters is a very medicore height by today's standards. If we would count only buildings that are finished or under construction as of this moment, 3WTc would be approximately on the 97th place in the world. Nobody would be interested in an athlete that would go to the olympic games and end up on the 97th place. Don't get me wrong, I love the new WTC, but I love it criticaly, not conditionlessly. Its a complex completely devoid of any visionary value. Even though the buildings look very good, the masterplan is horrible and the height of this complex is even inferior to the old WTC. I think we shouldn't just settle for an inferior product only because of pride and the WTC could have been so much better, in fact, it should have been so much better. The old complex reached to heights beyond anything ever built at that time, this new shy complex just tries hard to be invisible and unmemorable. And what is unmemorable can't reach truly iconic status. 3WTC will be essentially invisible in Libeskind's poor master plan, so even though it's a beautiful building, its contribution to the skyline will sadly be close to nil.

Now I do think that the debate of which one will be built first is pointless, because the Hudson Spire is in the earliest phase of a proposal, while 3WTC has the most difficult part of construction finished and has already an anchor tenant, so it is for certain that it'll be built first. But if I should pick a favorite it would definitely be the Spire. Even if there would be a choice between the entire new WTC and the Spire I would still pick the Spire. So far we have only a massing model, but that one is a masterpiece of architecture, however, unlike the WTC, it has the height and dominance to be a landmark.

I think US developers shouldn't settle for defeatistic mediocrity. The US should once again be on the top of the height race. That why I love projects likt the Hudson Spire and Chicago Spire so much. They have vision, they aim high, and they don't plan on settling on averageness. That is what defines the skyscraper race for me and that is what the new WTC should have done, but didn't ........
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 01:29 PM   #424
omarabid
A~Guy
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 27
Likes (Received): 4

I agree with Kanto. We are building tall buildings not for height sake, but for vision.

Today, most people can work from their homes using an Internet connection. Why the heck even build a 20m office?

It's all about vision and evolution. We need to grow and progress. If we don't, we can simply get back to our animal level and live in the forest.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
omarabid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 05:50 PM   #425
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
Oh, spare me, really. Only a pretentious artist would claim 4 WTC is a great design. Elegant and understated is one thing, underdesigned is another. The Chrysler Building is an elegant design, 4 WTC is boring. I've reviewed through all the details on 4 WTC and if it weren't in NYC, it would be practically ignored.
The misinformed one here is you. I'm not the one that feels I need to defend the WTC against someone else's personal opinion. And you and several others have managed to twist my opinion into an off-topic rant.

Secondly, not everyone just complacently agrees with your blind support for the WTC. And my opinion, that it is not up to par with what NYC deserves, is a perfectly valid position. You are the one losing your cool here.
I'm sorry for you that you are content to settle for less. You really believe that "height is temporary, but design lasts forever"? Design is as temporary and subjective as height. This argument is proof of that. Besides, I never said design is less important than height, I simply noted that that both 3 and 4 WTC are lacking in both. Anyone with a legitimately erudite opinion would recognize that height is part of design, not some separate entity.
The very nature of this thread is proof of the importance of height- we don't even have the final design and just the potential for a building ~1800ft. tall has everyone excited. What's wrong with that? I think you forget this is a skyscraper forum.
Anger makes for a poor argument. Keep that in mind.
3WTC and 4WTC are the height they are needed to be. They are not being built in isolation. They are part of the World Trade Center complex. They are brothers. 4WTC has a giant mirror on its front for the sole purpose of reflecting 1WTC and the rest of the WTC site.

2WTC, when it's finished, exemplifies this even more. All four buildings spiral upwards to the pinnacle of 1WTC, surrounding the memorial.

The people who have designed these buildings are smarter than you, more appreciative than you. They could have made 3WTC and 4WTC massive. they could have been 500m monsters. But they didn't because the cohesion of the entire project matters more. 4WTC compliments 3WTC, which enhances 2WTC that rounds off the spiral with 1WTC and the memorial.

'Lacking in height'? Jesus H Christ. Think a bit more about these things. If every building was its own ego trip, living in isolation and answerable to no-one, you'd end up with a garish, chintzy nightmare like Dubai. A disparate, messy cluster**** of a city with no overall aspiration.

4WTC is perfect because it doesn't overextend. It's not too complicated, not too busy. Nor is it too tall. It exists as part of an ever-increasing sequence of influences. It's part of the WTC project, which sits within Lower Manhattan, which nestles as the foot of NYC. These all influence each other, an unbroken chain of architectural support. You'd rather every building was a supertall, overdesigned and overengineered. Less is more.
__________________
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 07:20 PM   #426
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
I followed this discussion during the last days but I didn't have enough time to write a response since it'll be a long one, but today I should be able to get the time I need to write my thoughts in detail.

I mostly agree with Blue Flame on this one. I do think that all of the WTC buildings are masterpieces of architecture, however their height is very medicore. And height matters. If it didn't, this page would be called buildingcity or structurecity but not skyscrapercity.

327 meters is a very medicore height by today's standards. If we would count only buildings that are finished or under construction as of this moment, 3WTc would be approximately on the 97th place in the world. Nobody would be interested in an athlete that would go to the olympic games and end up on the 97th place. Don't get me wrong, I love the new WTC, but I love it criticaly, not conditionlessly. Its a complex completely devoid of any visionary value. Even though the buildings look very good, the masterplan is horrible and the height of this complex is even inferior to the old WTC. I think we shouldn't just settle for an inferior product only because of pride and the WTC could have been so much better, in fact, it should have been so much better. The old complex reached to heights beyond anything ever built at that time, this new shy complex just tries hard to be invisible and unmemorable. And what is unmemorable can't reach truly iconic status. 3WTC will be essentially invisible in Libeskind's poor master plan, so even though it's a beautiful building, its contribution to the skyline will sadly be close to nil.

Now I do think that the debate of which one will be built first is pointless, because the Hudson Spire is in the earliest phase of a proposal, while 3WTC has the most difficult part of construction finished and has already an anchor tenant, so it is for certain that it'll be built first. But if I should pick a favorite it would definitely be the Spire. Even if there would be a choice between the entire new WTC and the Spire I would still pick the Spire. So far we have only a massing model, but that one is a masterpiece of architecture, however, unlike the WTC, it has the height and dominance to be a landmark.

I think US developers shouldn't settle for defeatistic mediocrity. The US should once again be on the top of the height race. That why I love projects likt the Hudson Spire and Chicago Spire so much. They have vision, they aim high, and they don't plan on settling on averageness. That is what defines the skyscraper race for me and that is what the new WTC should have done, but didn't ........

Dear sweet Jesus, first of all, 3WTC will not even be the second tallest building on the WTC site, and not even in the top 5 city-wide. and I'm going to guess you've never seen a ~330 meter building if you "don't think it's that big by today's standards." By your logic every building needs to be over 500 meters.

What does that even mean? China builds a bunch of Supertall buildings? One country? Why don't you go live in China? Seriously, go live there.

For example Jin Mao Tower is my favorite of the three-supertall cluster in Shanghai and it's the smallest, a building doesn't need to be the biggest to be awesome.

And last but not least this thread is not about 3WTC, sorry to contribute to the OT.
__________________

Eric Offereins liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 07:50 PM   #427
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I never saw an expolanet, does it mean none exist? I never saw Australia, does it mean it doesn't exist? I never saw the US, Argentina or Spain, does it mean you don't exist? First hand experience is a subjective matter that should play no role in deciding what height is impressive and what height isn't. Numbers are what counts and numbers place 3WTC at arround place 97. This isn't the place to discuss 3WTC, but the discussion started about whether people like more the Hudson Spire or 3WTC, so I gave in my 2 cents and said that I like the Hudson SPire far more

I would also like to offer my view on the description of the master plan of the WTC site that was posted here after my initial post. That master plan is a major part of what is wrong with the new WTC. That master plan is essentialy an atempted justification made to justify why Larry can build several medicore sized skyscrapers at the most important site in American history and get away with it. That site plan focuses maximally on making the new WTC as uniconic and shy as possible and the only reason why the new WTC still looks very, very good is that the architecture of the individual buildings is so amazing. Trust me folks, if the Twin Towers would have graves, they would roll in them like crazy by the mere mention of the name Larry SIlverstein
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/

lwetli liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 07:57 PM   #428
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

I guess you didn't read my post.

3 WTC IS NOT THE TALLEST IN THE WTC LET ALONE IN NYC.

I hope that makes it clearer, China has buildings in the 330 meter range too does that mean they suck? Illogical.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 08:00 PM   #429
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

There is a full spectrum between "sucking" and "being the champion" and 3WTC is between these two terms

I wasn't compleining that 3WTc isn't the tallest in the city or the tallest on the WTC site, I was complaining that it just isn't tall enough to be awarded such an iconic name as the "World Trade Center".
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 08:40 PM   #430
Blockitect_John
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1
Likes (Received): 1

You have no idea what you are talking about. Everything went into consideration when designing the new wtc towers. The whole idea of the new towers were to reflect . The old wtc height was honored whilst subtly puttin in a patriotic height. These buildings aren't just any buildings you would find in Dubai, one wtc two and four World Trade Center were designed around the idea of simplicity with simple polygonal shapes that don't glorify or make an obnoxious super-egoed memorial , but rather reflect daylight quietly on the sight below and don't detract attention from the site below, the reflecting pools.
__________________

Eric Offereins liked this post
Blockitect_John no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 09:42 PM   #431
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
There is a full spectrum between "sucking" and "being the champion" and 3WTC is between these two terms

I wasn't compleining that 3WTc isn't the tallest in the city or the tallest on the WTC site, I was complaining that it just isn't tall enough to be awarded such an iconic name as the "World Trade Center".
How tall does a building have to be considered a "WTC"? ~1350 feet? The two tallest on the site will be and the two smallest are still pretty tall.

There are few places on the planet where you can find a complex like the WTC with four towers like that right next to each other, or even Hudson yards for that matter.

The WTC is pretty amazing by US and world standards alike and if you like height taller buildings (to roof) are being built in Midtown. (Not that ~420 meters isn't tall)
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 10:06 PM   #432
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
There is a full spectrum between "sucking" and "being the champion" and 3WTC is between these two terms

I wasn't compleining that 3WTc isn't the tallest in the city or the tallest on the WTC site, I was complaining that it just isn't tall enough to be awarded such an iconic name as the "World Trade Center".
It's not the World Trade Center. It's a World Trade Center. There are many. There are literally hundreds.

And the old NYC World Trade Center wasn't even the first one destroyed in a terrorist bombing. Over here we've been living with domestic terrorism for literally hundreds of years.

Once again, the only reason you are unsatisfied with the WTC buildings is because - through ignorance of the outside world - you've placed an unreasonable amount of prestige on a project that is, in global terms, ordinary.

Or to put it another way, 'World Trade Center' is not an iconic name in any sense, so your annoyance that 3WTC doesn't live up to that name is silly. So you can rest easy and go back to your life. This is a non issue, conjured in your mind through naivete alone.
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 10:09 PM   #433
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Well, a building, to be considered worthy of the name WTC by me, must be at least 1 368 feet or 417 meters tall. That means it must be at least as tall as was the North Tower, which was the tallest building of the old complex. A building that is shorter than what it replaces is in my opinion an unworthy replacement.

As to the complex being a unique complex in the world, you are kinda right. But this uniqueness is not a good thing, it is quite a bad thing I would say. You see, if you have one or twin buildings that are far taller than everything else arround them, you get a clear classification of the kind "these are the landmarks and the others are background". Yet with the new WTC, you can't do this. If you say, the WFC, 7WTC, and other 22x meter buildings arround are background, then what about 4WTC? It's only slightly taller than those buildings so it should be background too, but then, 3WTC is only slightly taller than these so it must be background too, but then again, 2WTC is only slightly taller than 3WTc so it must be a background too, and in the end, 1WTc is only slightly taller than 2WTc so it must be background too. This works in the opposite direction too. If you consider 1WTc a landmark, then 2WTC should be one too since it's only slightly shorter and so it goes down until you determine that even the WFC and 7WTC should be landmarks. Yet all can't be background and all can't be landmarks. this is the travesty of Libeskind's site plan. It creates essentially a cloaking device for these buildings where an optical illusion will just tell your eyes that there is nothing extraordinary at what you are looking at, even though 1WTC alone would be a clear landmark. That is the reason why a beautiful building like 3WTC will have zero effect on the skyline. I love construction and I want to see the WTC site finished, however 1WTC might be better off without 2WTC and 3WTC.

As to the Hudson Yards, they are essentially a far worse version of the new WTC. They have even more medicore height and unlike the WTC, the design of the individual buildings is medicore too. However the Hudson Spire changes all of that. Suddenly, when the currently built Hudson Yards buildings are just a background, they become much more bearable and, even more importantly, the Hudson Spire gives the yards something, which they don't have without it and which the WTC has not, namely a clear landmark. That is why I love the Hudfson Spire proposal so much, because it would transform a complex that is medicore in every possible way to the best cluster in the world.

Ipd like to note that if the Hudson Spire would be built at the WTC site, I would be even far more happier than I would be if it would be built on the Hudson Yards site. Because this way the WTc would get a landmark, which would bring it to an all new level of iconic value and vision. To put the long story short, I like a landmarkless Hudson Yards the worse, a landmarkless WTC a little better, the Hudson Yards with a landmark far better and the WTC with a landmark I like the best. The only thing we can do is hope that the 5WTC site will remain empty as long as possible and one day it will be there for a building with Hudson Spire scale height. But that is just my personal hope.

EDIT: Btw, if the name World Trade Center means nothing and is not iconic in any way, then why did the US and many other allied countries, including Slovakia, gone to war for it? Thousands of good soldiers died for the WOrld Trade Center, yet that is nothing? The war with terror was necessary, I'm a supporter of the war in Afghanistan, however I do think that what caused it can't be considered something ordinary and unimportant. 9/11 certainly was no minor event, not for the US, not for the whole world
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/

Last edited by Kanto; April 6th, 2014 at 10:15 PM.
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2014, 10:16 PM   #434
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,042
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
several medicore sized skyscrapers
Here's the thing:

One hundred years ago, 300 metres wasn't 'mediocre'. It was earth-shattering.

Height is not independent of inflation. No matter what height the WTC buildings were constructed to (be it 300m, 500m, 1000m, or beyond), eventually - in time - their impressiveness would fade.

So you can never win that arms race. If the height of a building is the most important aspect to you, then you will never be satisfied. There will never be a height tall enough.

Let's say 3WTC was 800m. Wow. That's amazing. That's one of the tallest things ever built. It dominates the New York skyline like nothing else. It's mesmerizing. It's amazing. It will never be topped.

Except, people were saying the same things about the Empire State nearly eighty years ago. It was the eighth wonder of the world, remember? Now it's merely the 16th tallest. And by the end of the decade, not even in the top 50.

But in a thousand years, when New York is buried beneath a hive of thirty mile high megatowers, arcologies housing billions of people into the upper atmosphere, the Empire State building will be down in its bowels, beneath trillions of tons of steel and glass, sitting like a piece of cut grass on the long forgotten wastes of Manhattan Island. And it will still be impressive because of how beautiful it is. Nobody is going to bulldoze it because 'it's not tall enough'.

Ha, how primitive they were. 300 metres? Remember when that used to be considered tall? Unbelievable. These days, you have to break five-hundred-thousand feet just to get noticed.
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2014, 08:48 PM   #435
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,510
Likes (Received): 22489

NYGuy over on SSP noticed this, it's in contract:

http://www.masseyknakal.com/listings...aspx?lst=22598

looks like someone might've snagged the site, or will soon. probably Tishman Speyer if recent rumors prove to be correct.
__________________
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2014, 09:06 PM   #436
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Hmm that's good right? I don't know much about Tishman Speyer.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2014, 09:14 PM   #437
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,510
Likes (Received): 22489

they were one of the candidates to be the developers of the Hudson Yards master plan. If they do acquire the site along with Sherwood Equities' they could develop a massive tower to shaft Related. They might not do that, but its food for thought.
__________________
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2014, 09:16 PM   #438
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,339
Likes (Received): 3585

Great news! Now how can we check in on Sherwood's site?
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2014, 09:23 PM   #439
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Great news! Now how can we check in on Sherwood's site?
Great news indeed.. Unfortunately I don't think there will be anyway knowing the status of Sherwood site probably until the details of the Spire deal is finalized.

Sherwood would only offer their site to a developer that purchases the Hudson Spire site if interested in combining, therefore Sherwood's site would not be officially listed in the market so there would be no way of knowing unless someone leaks the info out to the press.
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2014, 09:26 PM   #440
RobertWalpole
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,607
Likes (Received): 2508

Sherwood does not develop sites this large. It will sell.
__________________

Subsequence liked this post
RobertWalpole no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
435 10th ave., hudson spire, hudson yards, new york, nyc

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 12:14 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