Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
this is my favorite render of 2wtc
This is weird, but my favorite renders of 2WTC are from the 432 Park promotional material on their website:



...and...




They're obviously hilariously far, but they're some of the only renders of the completed complex, in the context of the whole skyline... like it was just caught in the background of a photo. It really feels like it belongs.

I guess it also goes to show how important the WTC is, that they go to the trouble of showing it completed in other developers' renders. People are going to be paying a lot of money for that view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Wow, they really do. Their website is about as spare as possible, but just doing a google search for "dbox render" pulls up some of the most impressive renders out there.

Although, I can't get over how much "dbox" reminds me of a certain SNL Digital Short featuring Lonely Island.

And in that search, I found one more render... or maybe you'd call it more of a drawing, from Foster & Partners, that shows the crown of this building in really excellent detail. Unless someone can confirm otherwise (certainly possible this is outdated), I never noticed that the "diamonds" aren't actually diamonds at all, but oblong parallelograms. And does anyone know whether the floors within the crown -- I'm specifically talking about the spaces in the X-shaped gap between the "diamonds" -- are open to each other inside like an atrium? That's what it looks like to me.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
That's what I keep seeing when I look at One57. I love it :cheers:
Heh, except an Armani suit wouldn't have a random pixel pattern down the sides and a blank, lighter-colored back. Although maybe I shouldn't put it past those zany Italians.

I agree about the stripes, anyway. When done right they can make any tower look taller and more dignified. I think 2WTC shares a similar DNA with the Chow Tai Fook tower in Guangzhou (which is why that tower is probably my favorite going up in China). I'd stopped thinking about it too much -- the wait being what it is -- but my excitement for this tower is growing again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Why? I can't think of a more evil company in the world than Newscorp. With any luck the entire company will collapse and be forgotten by time.

How about a positive force for good anchors 2WTC, instead of literally Sauron.
No? Not Gazprom, Halliburton, or maybe any number of arms makers that actually profit off of destruction and death? I have worked for Twentieth Television for several years and found it to be one of the best employers around. News Corp. is a vast and diverse family of companies -- Fox News and the phone-hacking publications make up a small part of it.

They're one of a handful of companies best poised to anchor this great tower in the coming years and allow it to resume construction (which we all want). To categorize the whole corporation as "evil" and somehow not deserving of the privilege is narrow-minded and irrational.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
I'm just curious... why would a tenant prefer 2WTC over 3WTC?
Hudson11 is right that there is an amount of publicity that goes into having your headquarters in an iconic tower, but the primary consideration will usually be a practical one.

If I recall correctly, the floorplates in the base of the tower are the largest in the WTC complex, and would be ideal for big trading floors. Can't speak as much to the specifics of the upper floors, but every company has its configuration needs (think about Google's open floorplan, for instance.) I'm certain one tower is better for certain types of layouts than the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
^^ I think that's the plan, to focus on leasing out 1, 3 and 4, before shifting focus to 2. BUT, I do think that if JPM really is in the market, Silverstein would be crazy not to go after them hard. It's only so often that one of the top i-banking firms (ones that can actually use 2 WTC's gigantic trading floors) relocates headquarters. May as well go all out trying to nab them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
I really hope the anchor tenant doesn't rename the tower. They can do that?
To the best of my knowledge, there's been no discussion of selling the naming rights to the WTC towers -- certainly not by the current tenants of towers 1 and 4 (although they're largely governmental), or GroupM at Tower 3. If there were, it'd be a waste of the millions the developers spent on their branding campaign (not to mention tacky to stick signage up on these gorgeous towers). Anyone know any different?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
I think most of us have been using those terms colloquially; the expectation isn't that the official name would become "Fox Tower" or "Google Tower," but that's probably what a number of people would call it out of convenience (much like we talk about 10 HY as "Coach Tower" even though it's a specific stipulation of their lease agreement that they may not name the tower).

Ultimately, people call buildings by the name that's most familiar and convenient to them, no matter what's official. It's why it was always "Candlestick" for me even when it became "Monster Park" for a few dark, dreary years; and why different people say "30 Rock," the "RCA Building," the "GE Building" or the " Comcast NBCUniversal Building." (Kidding -- no one will ever call it that)

No one (except, I guess, broadcasters, by their legal departments) is required to call a building by the name a tenant paid for. All that's required is that, whatever name you use, the people you're talking to know (or can find out) what the hell you're talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
^^ Agreed. If they were going to do twins, they would've had to do it with either non-tapering boxes like the originals, or some other shape. Copying and pasting 1 WTC into the 2 WTC plot looks incredibly awkward (especially if you remove the spire). But that ship sailed long ago anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Yeah I don't mean to make a big digression. Suffice it to say that the political climate is going to be more pro-bank than it has been, and whatever that means for the rest of us, it will likely encourage more big leases.

If that gets 2 WTC off the ground, everyone in the forum will have at least that to cheer about. Heh, that diagram with Tower 2 titled vaguely "future" was just too depressing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Both of them are big office buildings for rent or for sale and both of them are part of Silverstein bussiness, so what's the problem ? Could You explain ? :)
There wasn't (and frankly, still isn't) enough demand to absorb that much office space being dropped on the FiDi market all at once. That's over 6 Million square feet, over half of which would have sat empty while the towers accrued expensive property tax and utility bills. So Tower 4 first made the most sense, because it would be the simplest to find tenants for.

Even building WTC 1 was more symbolic than it was a great business decision at the time, and Silverstein is paying a price for that as the tower remains only about half-leased. This isn't China or the Emirates where the government can just make the thing happen; plans unfold as the market allows. The market isn't idealistic and it isn't patriotic. We should honestly be happy that enough office demand has come back to Downtown to get WTC 3 underway, and (if the rumors bear out) WTC 2 shortly thereafter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Silverstein has no relationship with 1 WTC, which was built and is owned and operated solely by the Port Authority. If Silverstein wanted to build 2 WTC before 3 and 4, which he did build and does own, there was nothing stopping him.
That's my mistake, I always forget about the PA/Silverstein relationship and who's on the hook for what. In any case, the point remains that the decision to go with 4 first was always a financial one, dependent on the whims of the FiDi office market. Even if Larry desperately wanted to build 2 first, for aesthetic reasons, patriotic reasons or whatever, to do so before finding tenants would've been to take a big financial hit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Very exciting news! The persistence of this rumor seems to be warranted. Crossing my fingers very tightly that this goes through and that the tower gets underway.

Is this a good thing? What would be changed?

Edit: I guess it's converting the trading floors to television studios? I'm just hoping it's not a height reduction or changing the overall design.
^^ only the base of the tower would change, which I don't mind, it looks a bit odd.
It does sound like they're only discussing adjusting the base, likely to something more rectangular. I don't mind that at all, as long as it doesn't affect the rest of the tower, since that would mean a more even street wall.

I'm curious about what type of studios they will be incorporating. Sound stages can have extraordinarily high ceilings (I've seen them anywhere from 30 to 60 or even 70 feet) to accommodate lighting rigs and catwalks. This could make the base significantly taller/bulkier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Though in order to make the building itself as tall as the old one, they need to add 92 feet. Funny thing is, I always considered the fact that the building itself is 1 270 feet tall without the spire on top of it as a form of merciful euthanasia. If it were truly just 12 feet shorter my blood would be boiling seeing how close that would be - but still lower. 1 270 feet is easier to swallow, the closer you get to the desired height (while still being below it), the more the rage about a wasted opportunity grows. If something is far shorter one can try to convince himself/herself that the building was never intended to have comparable height to the original :dunno:
Kanto, I know you're getting on about roof height vs. spire height, but you're entirely missing the point. This is about matching aesthetics, not matching numbers. The tip of 2 WTC's spire culminates at the height of the corner where the South Tower's vertical wall met its parapet.

I can't find the 3D model someone made to illustrate the relationship, but take a look at the diagram below. If you superimposed the two towers, and line up the tip of 2 WTC with that corner of the South Tower, they snap together perfectly. The idea is to give the impression of the massing of the original tower, if you slashed off a chunk of it, starting at that corner -- the tip of the highest vertical face.

Why choose that point versus the height of the top of the roof? It seems slightly arbitrary, but looking at it visually, I understand it.



So Kanto, taking all that in mind, if you added 92 feet like you suggest, 2 WTC wouldn't match up with anything visually. Something like this:



Of course, from your roof height numbers-only point of view, the issue would be resolved or much closer to resolved, if they were to clad the spire in glass. I think most of us would prefer that anyway, and I don't know why they chose the open air frame, but when you think about it, that measurement is pretty arbitrary too.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top