Skyscraper City Forum banner
7061 - 7080 of 7154 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts

View attachment 2396095

I'll admit, I miss the diamonds.

Also first post. Only been lurking for a decade.
👀
I see this as the chaotic neutral design. It has the same foundation as what's already been built, which means it can get built in less time. It's more or less the same height too.
It's just that the top part almost kind of gives off One Vanderbilt/Bank of America Tower vibes, and I'm not so sure about if it's going to "flow" well with the other towers in the complex.
Honestly I still like the diamonds better but I'd easily take this over the boxes. For the purpose of getting the thing built, this is okay I guess.
But also, this article says that the photos were taken by an anonymous tipster. I'd say wait for the official reveal to know for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
👀
I see this as the chaotic neutral design. It has the same foundation as what's already been built, which means it can get built in less time. It's more or less the same height too.
It's just that the top part almost kind of gives off One Vanderbilt/Bank of America Tower vibes, and I'm not so sure about if it's going to "flow" well with the other towers in the complex.
Honestly I still like the diamonds better but I'd easily take this over the boxes. For the purpose of getting the thing built, this is okay I guess.
But also, this article says that the photos were taken by an anonymous tipster. I'd say wait for the official reveal to know for sure.
Oh yeah, for sure. If this in fact the final design it definitely feels like it was designed to be built. The diamonds were probably going to be expensive and Silverstein in his infinite wisdom probably just wants the building to get done at this point, and honestly I don't blame him.

There are some elements in there which could prove to look really quite nice, like the façade on the mech floors or the what I presume would be a glowing lantern crown, and frankly if I had never seen the purely iconic diamonds before, I would love the design. As it stands though, I'd take it... but I'd take it with a subtle shake of the head.
 

·
Super Moderator
Excelsior!
Joined
·
20,735 Posts
It looks like Foster took his original concept and eliminated the cutaway to allow for more space towards the top of the tower. This opens up the design further for setbacks to create outdoor tenant amenities. While much more visually stunning, the original Foster scheme was not very efficient, it cutaway the top quarter of the tower for the sake of an architectural feature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,789 Posts
This is more or less what we’ve been expecting, realistically: the same basic profile as the original, but with a simplified upper section to make a more efficient use of space.

Given the constraints (i.e. the foundation already exists, the need to attract a tenant and turn a profit) I think this is decent. The setbacks seem to work harmoniously with the other towers in the master plan, and the massing is as imposing as you could want for a WTC tower.

I don’t love the “fin” up top, but I don’t hate it. Mainly I find it odd that it seems almost perfectly level with the roof of One WTC. As has been discussed here ad nauseum, the “illusion” of Twins doesn’t work when viewing the site from the North given how far apart 1 & 2 are spaced; in silhouette 1 & 2 may appear like two roughly identical goalposts. I would have rather this be either a little shorter that One WTC, with an upward gesture at the crown (in keeping with the original spiral plan) or much taller.

Edit: looking at it again, I’ve realized the fin is oriented North/South rather than East/West, so I guess it will appear like a spire reaching the roof height of One WTC, as opposed to the illusion of a flat roof. Still feels odd to me but less than if it were turned the other way around.

And I see too that the upper setbacks are offset so there is an upward gesture towards One WTC. Now that I’ve had my morning coffee this is looking more cohesive than I’d originally thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
That’s not bad at all. I like it. If changing to this design is necessary for a tenant to sign on, or get financing secured, so be it.
For me its a situation where I certainly like the design. It's elegant, much like Foster is used to. The issue is they showed us for years what would have been an insanely iconic design. It's really just we know exactly what could have been.
 
7061 - 7080 of 7154 Posts
Top