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 > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



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 October 21st, 2010, 06:17 PM   #17001
DinoVabec
Worldwide
 
DinoVabec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 5,900
Likes (Received): 752

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiyardo View Post
I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. Thought since I didn't see this posted before, I'd shared this link with you. The first look at WTC glass. I'm surprised this hasn't been posted before.

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/im...tc-glass&num=1

We all know that, it was posted...
__________________
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
-Roger H. Lincoln
DinoVabec no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 21st, 2010, 06:20 PM   #17002
DinoVabec
Worldwide
 
DinoVabec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 5,900
Likes (Received): 752

Quote:
Originally Posted by 600West218 View Post
"Is it me or WTC1 really looks thinner than the twin towers?"

It is thinner. Even at the base it is thinner and as it goes up it gets much thinner than the original twin towers.

That is why this is a much dimminished building compared to what was there before and that is what some of us don't like.
Only sides that are thiner are those 45° corner sides... East, west, south and north sides goin' straight up..200'x200'...
__________________
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
-Roger H. Lincoln
DinoVabec no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 06:24 PM   #17003
kiyardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 40
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoVabec View Post
We all know that, it was posted...
My apologies. I went through and looked and didn't see it. Must have missed it.
kiyardo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 06:26 PM   #17004
DinoVabec
Worldwide
 
DinoVabec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 5,900
Likes (Received): 752

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiyardo View Post
My apologies. I went through and looked and didn't see it. Must have missed it.
No need for apologies...No one can know those 800 pages..
__________________
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
-Roger H. Lincoln
DinoVabec no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 08:06 PM   #17005
Hanyuu222
NO CURE FOR LOVE
 
Hanyuu222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Anchorage
Posts: 143
Likes (Received): 1212

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipz View Post
Is it me or WTC1 really looks thinner than the twin towers?
It might look that way, but if you see it in real life it's easier to realize just how big it is. The part that's built is basically the same size as the old WTC. I think that the reason why people think it looks smaller is because the old WTC had many exterior columns that were closely spaced and the new WTC has fewer exterior columns that are not as closely spaced; I get the feeling that this may create the illusion that makes the new tower seem thinner.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Hanyuu222 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 08:23 PM   #17006
600West218
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,734
Likes (Received): 1574

"Only sides that are thiner are those 45° corner sides... East, west, south and north sides goin' straight up..200'x200'... "

I don't believe this is correct. In fact, it was discussed in this thread a few weeks ago and I believe it tapers to about 170 by 170 at the top or maybe even less.
600West218 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 08:27 PM   #17007
600West218
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,734
Likes (Received): 1574

tapering to top

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zensteeldude View Post
The Twins were almost 212 feet square, Tower One is going to be 205 feet square.

The demotions you quoted are column centers.



145' column centers, 150' overall.
Ok here we go from back in that discussion. It is dropping off to 150 feet. Note even at its widest point the new tower is seven feet less than the original.

It is substantially smaller than the original buildings. That is pretty obvious when you go and look at the actual builiding under construction. I of course remember the originals well and when I go to this construction site it is obvious that it it smaller. In fact, it is mainly the netting that covers off the tapering that helps it seem a bit bigger than it is in reality.
600West218 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 08:28 PM   #17008
DinoVabec
Worldwide
 
DinoVabec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 5,900
Likes (Received): 752

Quote:
Originally Posted by 600West218 View Post
"Only sides that are thiner are those 45° corner sides... East, west, south and north sides goin' straight up..200'x200'... "

I don't believe this is correct. In fact, it was discussed in this thread a few weeks ago and I believe it tapers to about 170 by 170 at the top or maybe even less.
Yes, at the top sides are smaller..because they're 45° rotated at the top...But diagonals "east-west" and "south-north" are still 200' x 200'

I'm not good at this system, I'm in metric, so I wont calculate now dimensions here, so 170' might be wrong, I'm not sure right now, this is just for example...


__________________
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
-Roger H. Lincoln

Last edited by DinoVabec; October 21st, 2010 at 11:43 PM.
DinoVabec no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 09:54 PM   #17009
600West218
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,734
Likes (Received): 1574

Counting diaganols is something totally different. The diaganols of the old twin towers were about 300 feet.

So again, the new tower is much smaller.
600West218 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 10:45 PM   #17010
AUTOTHRILL
chill
 
AUTOTHRILL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London | Liverpool
Posts: 4,732
Likes (Received): 1953

When on earth is the cladding to be fitted?
__________________
I hate this username
AUTOTHRILL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 10:56 PM   #17011
Innsertnamehere
insertoronto
 
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,954
Likes (Received): 678

Quote:
Originally Posted by 600West218 View Post
Counting diaganols is something totally different. The diaganols of the old twin towers were about 300 feet.

So again, the new tower is much smaller.
that would be from the corners..... not from the middle of one of the walls.
Innsertnamehere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 11:02 PM   #17012
hellrazor650
Registered User
 
hellrazor650's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 320
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by AUTOTHRILL View Post
When on earth is the cladding to be fitted?
dude, i know....starting to get annoying when you get all these promises and they never really come through with them
hellrazor650 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 11:12 PM   #17013
600West218
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,734
Likes (Received): 1574

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
that would be from the corners..... not from the middle of one of the walls.
Yes, from the corners, just as the 200 feet marked off above is from the corners (dont' be confused by the superimposed base floor).

If you are having trouble visualizing how the top of the new WTC1 is much smaller than the base and much much smaller than the old WTC just calculate the area of the floor. To do that you will have to multiply the side by side to get the area of the floor. You will get a much smaller number.

So don't be confused into thinking this is issue of the floor being rotated. yes it is rotated, but it is also much smaller in total area and in equivalent dimensions (side versus side or diagonal by diagonal)>
600West218 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 11:31 PM   #17014
DinoVabec
Worldwide
 
DinoVabec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 5,900
Likes (Received): 752

Quote:
Originally Posted by 600West218 View Post
Yes, from the corners, just as the 200 feet marked off above is from the corners (dont' be confused by the superimposed base floor).

If you are having trouble visualizing how the top of the new WTC1 is much smaller than the base and much much smaller than the old WTC just calculate the area of the floor. To do that you will have to multiply the side by side to get the area of the floor. You will get a much smaller number.

So don't be confused into thinking this is issue of the floor being rotated. yes it is rotated, but it is also much smaller in total area and in equivalent dimensions (side versus side or diagonal by diagonal)>
Yes, that is true..And by the numbers, new tower IS smaller...But we were talkin' is it thiner..And that's what I'm tryin to say..When you look at it from the south, it's the same size as the old twins...The same story for the west, east and north side...Only sides where it gets thiner are corners (south-east, east-north, north-west and west-south)..
__________________
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
-Roger H. Lincoln
DinoVabec no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 11:35 PM   #17015
Nomadd22
Registered User
 
Nomadd22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere in New Jersey
Posts: 250
Likes (Received): 1

Somebody needs to go back to Pythagoras 101. The diagonals, or sides at the top are more like 140'.
Nomadd22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 11:45 PM   #17016
DinoVabec
Worldwide
 
DinoVabec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 5,900
Likes (Received): 752

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomadd22 View Post
Somebody needs to go back to Pythagoras 101. The diagonals, or sides at the top are more like 140'.
Thanks..I'm in metric system, so it's a bit complicated for me to calculating feets now..This 170' was just for an example...
__________________
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
-Roger H. Lincoln
DinoVabec no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 21st, 2010, 11:54 PM   #17017
AJM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 31
Likes (Received): 0

Looks like they added a 40' section of boom to the STD 1500 tower crane on the corner.
AJM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2010, 12:52 AM   #17018
dfiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 355
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomadd22 View Post
Somebody needs to go back to Pythagoras 101. The diagonals, or sides at the top are more like 140'.
Yes, thank you.

Another way too look at it is that the square footage of the roof is less than half of one of the original towers. The same is true of the upper-most floors, they are about half the square footage of the same floors in the original towers.

The base is quite similar in dimension but the top is half the size.

But of course, if you look at it from the right angle, the silhouette is roughly the same size.
dfiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2010, 01:02 AM   #17019
percy07
Shallow & Pedantic
 
percy07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 553
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
But of course, if you look at it from the right angle, the silhouette is roughly the same size.
I find it fascinating that one hardly notices the taper toward the top. It's a bit of an anomaly since, as you say, it's roughly half the area but the profile is so similar!
percy07 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2010, 03:24 AM   #17020
600West218
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,734
Likes (Received): 1574

"But we were talkin' is it thiner..And that's what I'm tryin to say..When you look at it from the south, it's the same size as the old twins...The same story for the west, east and north side...Only sides where it gets thiner are corners (south-east, east-north, north-west and west-south).."

No, this isn't a valid comparison. When looked at head on from a side it will be 140 feet at the top. The old towers would have been 208 feet looked at from the same perspective, a head on view from the side.

Now you are talking about looking at it from an angle, obliquely and from that perspective it appears wider, about 200 feet from such a perspective.

That is true. But that is equally true for the old towers. If you had looked at them from an angle (ie, looking towards one of their corners instead of their side) they would have appeared to be approximately 300 feet across. (and btw, that the oblique perspective for the new tower may be south or north or east while for the old tower it was southeast or northwest, etc, is completely irrelevant).

The old towers were much bigger and look much bigger from any comparable vantage point. Only when you are comparing the vantage that makes the new tower look widest to the vantage point that makes the old tower look the narrowest does it seem as if there is some similarity. But that is simply because you are comparing things that are not the same.

Compare things that are the same and you get 300 to 200 or 208 to 140 or what have you but the old tower was always bigger.

This is why I wish they would have made the base 230 feet or 240 feet across and let it taper to say 190 or 180 on the top. Then it would have been more imposing like the old towers were.
600West218 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
construction updates, development, ground zero, manhattan, new york city, nyc, port authority, supertall, world trade center

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 09:39 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