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 May 11th, 2012, 10:05 AM   #1861
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDC1987 View Post
Look at the top of this tower. Exactly how would it be "easy" to add 100 feet to the top and maintain the design and proportions?
He seems to have a lack of logical reasoning. First off, why would they make 2 WTC taller then 1 WTC ? Second, why would they add 100 feet to a building that already is having trouble getting tenants ? Third, why is he so obsessed with passing the Sears Tower ?

He doesn't realize that America builds off of economic need, not bragging rights.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 11th, 2012, 01:04 PM   #1862
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooddude View Post
F-it yo! Make it a MEGA-tall Silverstein... we all know you want to

Making it and changing it to a 2100' design would work well and be super simple with this design too.. as the building just goes perfectly straight vertically upwards anyways, with its' "special/unique" feature on the very top with its' "slant"... just add more floors and about 700' and we will all be very very happy.
This is not possible. The foundations have been already made and they were made to support a 387 meter building. Adding a bit of height is possible but not much. In the case of the Shanghai WFC they added 32 meters to make it 492 meters which was already pushing the foundations to the limits. Adding 250 meters is plain and simply impossible

The height increase I hope for is that they put glass on that tripod spire and make it therefore a part of the building and countable in roof height. Then they could add 2 floors with 10 meters so that the building ends to be 421 meters tall. That would still be within possible limits
__________________
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 May 11th, 2012, 01:21 PM   #1863
dfiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 355
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
He seems to have a lack of logical reasoning. First off, why would they make 2 WTC taller then 1 WTC ? Second, why would they add 100 feet to a building that already is having trouble getting tenants ? Third, why is he so obsessed with passing the Sears Tower ?

He doesn't realize that America builds off of economic need, not bragging rights.
That's going a bit far. It is possible to add 100 feet of architectural height. This is true from both an engineering perspective and financial perspective. I'm not saying it should or will be done, but it is possible. Also, attacking someone personally and asking if they are young, is ironically a juvenile debating tactic.

As for America building for need and not bragging rights. That is obviously not true. We aren't in the mega tall race, but the tall buildings we build are still for bragging rights. Claiming otherwise is a sour grapes denial. If we werent building ar least partially for prestige, there would be no need for this tower. It would be cheaper to build wider and multiple skyscrapers or high rises. This is true even in the density of NYC.
dfiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 12:50 AM   #1864
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
This is not possible. The foundations have been already made and they were made to support a 387 meter building. Adding a bit of height is possible but not much. In the case of the Shanghai WFC they added 32 meters to make it 492 meters which was already pushing the foundations to the limits. Adding 250 meters is plain and simply impossible

The height increase I hope for is that they put glass on that tripod spire and make it therefore a part of the building and countable in roof height. Then they could add 2 floors with 10 meters so that the building ends to be 421 meters tall. That would still be within possible limits
Oh shit somebody learn something lol. I remember why you wanted this to be a mega tall lol.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 12:54 AM   #1865
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
That's going a bit far. It is possible to add 100 feet of architectural height. This is true from both an engineering perspective and financial perspective. I'm not saying it should or will be done, but it is possible. Also, attacking someone personally and asking if they are young, is ironically a juvenile debating tactic.

As for America building for need and not bragging rights. That is obviously not true. We aren't in the mega tall race, but the tall buildings we build are still for bragging rights. Claiming otherwise is a sour grapes denial. If we werent building ar least partially for prestige, there would be no need for this tower. It would be cheaper to build wider and multiple skyscrapers or high rises. This is true even in the density of NYC.
Agree. if we were only building for need, all of our buildings would look the same.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 09:22 AM   #1866
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
I 1000% agree with you. 2WTC should be as tall by roof as 1WTC
Absolutely agree with that.

2wtc should be little more taller, 411 meters is a good height but I would unfortunatly see the tower as the 387 meters. Why not just add and make the actually roof/floors up to 400-415 meters and than the pinnacle that would have been sweet and 2wtc deserves it.
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 09:24 AM   #1867
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

The building itself is much more impressive than 1wtc if you see to the architectural. This is a more uniqe building around the world than 1wtc.
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 11:41 AM   #1868
semman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3
Likes (Received): 0

lol wow could start in December, that's great.
semman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 12:32 PM   #1869
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsc View Post
Oh shit somebody learn something lol. I remember why you wanted this to be a mega tall lol.
Wrong, I never said I want 2WTC to be a megatall, I only said that I want a megatall on the site of 5WTC
__________________
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 May 12th, 2012, 10:24 PM   #1870
babybackribs2314
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 560
Likes (Received): 545

Still nothing!

Full update: http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/201...rade.html#more

__________________
My blog with photo updates and development news: New York YIMBY

& follow YIMBY on Twitter! New York YIMBY Twitter
babybackribs2314 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012, 11:40 PM   #1871
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,490

And there won't be anything for a while...
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 07:34 PM   #1872
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

MEGATALL ALL OVER NEW YORK CITY
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 11:07 PM   #1873
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,624
Likes (Received): 28178

2WTC like the others is part of a masterplan that states that 1 should be the tallest and the others increasingly lower in such a way that it spirals down.
I have yet to hear any sensible argument to break that concept and build a (mega)tall that wont be leased in the first place.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2012, 11:22 PM   #1874
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Building a megatall on those foundations is impossible cause they are built to house a 387/327 meter building
__________________
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 May 14th, 2012, 12:56 AM   #1875
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,490

I wonder if it's even possible to build a megatall on reclaimed land?
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2012, 12:58 AM   #1876
marsh
Registered User
 
marsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 25

Again, it seems highly doubtful at this point whether 2wtc will ever be more than a few stories in height..There has to be guaranteed tenants..I think a strategic mistake was made in planning not to make 2WTC a twin of 1WTC, that way the two could have had a symbiotic relationship as the twins had, this way, 2WTC is on its own. I personally don't care for the design of 2WTC at all, as I've made clear in other posts, but I do think building something on the site is probably better than nothing. It may just be several more years, after 1WTC proves what a cash cow it will be in terms of tourism and attractiveness.
marsh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2012, 01:15 AM   #1877
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I 1000% agree with you. New Twin Towers would have been by far the best option
__________________
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 May 14th, 2012, 01:18 AM   #1878
meh_cd
Registered User
 
meh_cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 874
Likes (Received): 123

Quote:
Originally Posted by marsh View Post
Again, it seems highly doubtful at this point whether 2wtc will ever be more than a few stories in height..There has to be guaranteed tenants..I think a strategic mistake was made in planning not to make 2WTC a twin of 1WTC, that way the two could have had a symbiotic relationship as the twins had, this way, 2WTC is on its own. I personally don't care for the design of 2WTC at all, as I've made clear in other posts, but I do think building something on the site is probably better than nothing. It may just be several more years, after 1WTC proves what a cash cow it will be in terms of tourism and attractiveness.
2 WTC is being put on the backburner because Silvertein does not want the thing to be value engineered into a hunk of junk, and I'm fine with that. The foundations are there - it will be built in the next decade.
meh_cd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2012, 01:20 AM   #1879
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Isn't that a bit pessimistic? In my opinion it'll take maximally like 4 years for 2WTC to get truly under construction
__________________
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 May 14th, 2012, 01:24 AM   #1880
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,490

I loved the twin towers II design but the double 'freedom tower' just looks bad. I'm still glad they chose 4 beautiful towers to rise, anyway.
ThatOneGuy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
200 greenwich st., 2wtc, foster and partners, lower manhattan, new york, nyc, silverstein, 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 02:45 AM.


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