SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
User
Joined
·
5,634 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Should be interesting to see how he incorporates this into the live show and what he says. This is more great exposure to a national audience.

To gain even more exposure for the Twin Towers II plan, Trump announced that he would include the architectural model in Thursday night’s finale of his TV program, The Apprentice, on NBC at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,987 Posts
What a pretentious, money grubbing bastard that is using the WTC to gain more notoriety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Oh come on now. Sure, he may come off as somewhat of a jerk, but did you ever stop to think that he just honestly misses the twin towers. To put it in his own words, he already has his name on enough buildings. I mean, if I was in his position, I'd do the exact same thing. Please don't jump to conclusions. Besides, the Rockefellers were the driving force behind the original twin towers in the first place, so Trump persuading the city to build the Gardner-Belton twin towers is really no different from what David Rockefeller did back in the 1960s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,994 Posts
wait wait up,so hes been quoted in the miami newspapers saying that on the finale of the apprentice he would be revealing hes newest sunny isles towers,hes supposedly going to talk about the toronto tower also the chicago tower andnow the twin towersII also...i think this is b.s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
nick_the_rupper said:
Oh come on now. Sure, he may come off as somewhat of a jerk, but did you ever stop to think that he just honestly misses the twin towers. To put it in his own words, he already has his name on enough buildings. I mean, if I was in his position, I'd do the exact same thing. Please don't jump to conclusions. Besides, the Rockefellers were the driving force behind the original twin towers in the first place, so Trump persuading the city to build the Gardner-Belton twin towers is really no different from what David Rockefeller did back in the 1960s.

Oh that brought a tear to my eyes. Please. The guy is the most pompous and pretentious man in New York, and that says a lot.


And who the **** wants the Twin Towers anyway. They were hideous, and a blight to the New York skyline, as are most of Trump's boring and over-wrought buildings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,088 Posts
I don't know. I guess some of us prefer hideous blight (albeit powerful) to the limpid half-highrise with buddhist windmill farm genre.
 

·
Lurker
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
alexx02 said:
Oh that brought a tear to my eyes. Please. The guy is the most pompous and pretentious man in New York, and that says a lot.


And who the **** wants the Twin Towers anyway. They were hideous, and a blight to the New York skyline, as are most of Trump's boring and over-wrought buildings.
Uhh - Most of fuckin NYC wants the 'hideous' twins back.
 

·
Lurker
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Architorture said:
well 'most of nyc' didn't want the originals either... fortunately 'most of nyc' doesn't decide what gets built in nyc...
Maybe in the 70's and, by the way, 'most of NYC' was supposed to decide what was to be built at the World Trade Center.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,994 Posts
richardsonhomebuyers said:
I would say it's not just NYC that want them back. America wants them back.

i don't,but i must say that i began to get intrested in skyscrapers after 9/11.
 

·
Professional
Joined
·
764 Posts
NewYorkMantle said:
Maybe in the 70's and, by the way, 'most of NYC' was supposed to decide what was to be built at the World Trade Center.
well its a good thing they didn't have their way... so we could have 2 100+ story buildings that are half empty sitting in manhattan, wasting space, money, concern
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
I love how many non-New Yorkers are saying what they want in NY. I realize this is America here and we are one, but I can't respect the opinion of people who don't live in NY that say Trump is stupid or the towers were hideous. They don't see the NY skyline all the time. I do. Growing up, I loved looking at the skyline. I started from the right with the slanting roof of the citcorp building to the Empire State Building ending with the twin towers at the tip. I never got tired of looking at it.

Yeah, the Twin Towers may be a little bland to some, but how many buildings in the world can say that the 110th floor is the same size and shape as the 1st floor? Not many. The fact that there's 2 of them standing next to each other is amazing. Bring them back.
 

·
Lurker
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Architorture said:
well its a good thing they didn't have their way... so we could have 2 100+ story buildings that are half empty sitting in manhattan, wasting space, money, concern
I'll take that over a skyscraper thats literally half-empty. - Anyday
You have to realize that anything built on the World Trade Center site is going to have a very hard time finding tenants.
 

·
Professional
Joined
·
764 Posts
but at least the current plan takes that into consideration... it is a scalable plan, they can choose to build more or less office space as they choose... if you build twin towers with the intent of having twin towers, then you HAVE to build both of them and let them sit there empty....

the lattice work on the FT doesn't need to be heated, maintained, services, lighting, ect ect light the occuppied office floors below... where as in a twin tower situation all of those empty floors would still need some level of heating and maintainence even when they are empty...

it costs a whole lot less to build and maintain an unoccuppied floor than an occuppied one
 

·
Lurker
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Architorture said:
but at least the current plan takes that into consideration... it is a scalable plan, they can choose to build more or less office space as they choose... if you build twin towers with the intent of having twin towers, then you HAVE to build both of them and let them sit there empty....

the lattice work on the FT doesn't need to be heated, maintained, services, lighting, ect ect light the occuppied office floors below... where as in a twin tower situation all of those empty floors would still need some level of heating and maintainence even when they are empty...

it costs a whole lot less to build and maintain an unoccuppied floor than an occuppied one
There are also the four other 50-70 story towers surrounding the site.
 

·
Professional
Joined
·
764 Posts
i know, but if the signature piece is going to be twin towers, then you have to at least build those twin towers... which would be a hell of a lot more square footage than is contained in the FT plan signature piece...

it isn't a matter of having enough space, it is a matter of having way too much space
 

·
Lurker
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Architorture said:
i know, but if the signature piece is going to be twin towers, then you have to at least build those twin towers... which would be a hell of a lot more square footage than is contained in the FT plan signature piece...

it isn't a matter of having enough space, it is a matter of having way too much space
One thing i can agree with you on is that filling two 111 story towers will probably be near-impossible for several years.
 

·
Professional
Joined
·
764 Posts
thats what i mean, the economics of it are going to be very complex...and that goes for anything built there...but i think building twins would be particularily complex and difficult

even the buildings themselves would probably be significantly more expensive than their counterparts since they wouldn't be able to use many of the pre-manufactured and lightweight systems that made the WTC affordable in the first place...

i'm not trying to be a dick about this stuff, i just think people really need to get some perspective on the issues... i totally understand the romantic appeal of rebuilding twin towers, but i really just don't think its realistic or necessarily ethically appropriate
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top