NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1486

Surrealplaces · #**29701** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 7:29 PM**

Excellent shots of the spire/antenna going up.

JMGarcia · #**29702** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 7:55 PM**

The shape is sort of interesting but couldn't they have at least painted the freaking thing white. It's kind of an embarrassment the way it is now.

Well, NY remains unique among cities at least. I can't imagine this sort of BS "value engineering" happening anywhere else in the world.

I'm currently consulting in offices in Jersey City right across the river from the tower. A number of people, none of whom have any clue about the whole process and haven't followed anything to do with the reconstruction, have had negative things to say about it.

Enigmatism415 · #**29703** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thaniel

Dunno if anyone's asked this yet but: Why haven't they covered over the center of the east right side up triangle wall with windows yet? That service elevator was taken down a longggg time ago. Are those missing windows going to be used to take down the roof cranes or something?

Yeah, what gives?

Onn · #**29704** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnapp1

WTC Progress: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/wtcprogress

This is some crazy base cladding. I never would have expected a horizontal pattern like that. Seems like they're breaking new ground here, I don't think this has ever been done before.

uaarkson · #**29705** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 9:18 PM**

Oh please. Wait till they pop the fins out at least, before you bitch.

aquablue · #**29706** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Oh please. Wait till they pop the fins out at least, before you bitch.

I don't think he was being critical...

Anyway, what are the fins?

meh_cd · #**29707** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMGarcia

I'm currently consulting in offices in Jersey City right across the river from the tower. A number of people, none of whom have any clue about the whole process and haven't followed anything to do with the reconstruction, have had negative things to say about it.

Good, they should. Despite what the small minority on these fans sites have said, this thing looks bad when compared to almost anything else around the world. It's a discombobulated mess without the radome.

kpdrummer82 · #**29708** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Notice how the section around the guy wire pick-up points actually carries the frame for the radome. Sadly, the closest we will get.

That's for the guide wires not the randome

NewYorque · #**29709** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 10:35 PM**

Oh please, I have a question; I'm sorry, but I am quite ignorant about the financial aspect of 1WTC construction:

The building is said to cost around 4 billion dollars.

My question is simple:

Who pays the four billions? The city of New York? the State? public spendings? Private company?

Once again, sorry if it has been already answered. I really wonder about that question..

laser110 · #**29710** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Exactly!!! And when several of those parts are downgraded it downgrades the entire building. I think it was Eames who said "the details aren't the details, they are the design."

I don't think a thing has been downgraded here. Things change for various reasons when constructing a building. Again, I don't see the point of making issues of it here, nothing is going to change, and nothing any of us say or do WILL change it.

Scott

kpdrummer82 · #**29711** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorque

Oh please, I have a question; I'm sorry, but I am quite ignorant about the financial aspect of 1WTC construction:

The building is said to cost around 4 billion dollars.

My question is simple:

Who pays the four billions? The city of New York? the State? public spendings? Private company?

Once again, sorry if it has been already answered. I really wonder about that question..

Silverstein pays 1 billion, NYS pays 250 million, and the PA pays 1 billion, the rest will be payed with taxes and toll hikes.

kpdrummer82 · #**29712** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 10:38 PM**

The skyline looks gorgeous tonight

gramsjdg · #**29713** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpdrummer82

That's for the guide wires not the randome

It may have something to do with supporting the pickup points. Either way, I'm pretty sure those triangular sections around the pickup points are for the radome, as is the very top cone-shaped section of the antenna. NYguy will probably be able to confirm/deny that however.

CCs77 · #**29714** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 11:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpdrummer82

Silverstein pays 1 billion, NYS pays 250 million, and the PA pays 1 billion, the rest will be payed with taxes and toll hikes.

But later, I guess the PA will get a percentage of the rents generated by this buiding, won't they?

aquablue · #**29715** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by meh_cd

Good, they should. Despite what the small minority on these fans sites have said, this thing looks bad when compared to almost anything else around the world. It's a discombobulated mess without the radome.

The thing does not look bad. Looks pretty fantastic actually, despite the antenna issue. The building itself is the most important thing, and it looks great.

PMadFlyer · #**29716** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

It may have something to do with supporting the pickup points. Either way, I'm pretty sure those triangular sections around the pickup points are for the radome, as is the very top cone-shaped section of the antenna. NYguy will probably be able to confirm/deny that however.

No, its not the frame for the actual panels (they were to be 2 inch foam). I think there was to be a section at the height of that piece which did not have radome panels over it. Basically, the panels start on either side of that section so it has to be architectural and structural at the same time. I think another possible cause for the removal of the radome was the lighting scheme. Durst likes lattice antennas with colorful displays. The panels at the top would have been back-lit, the lighting would probably have produced over saturated areas next to overly dim ones. It would require LEDs to be fitted behind every face instead of localized on mounts.

aquablue · #**29717** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 11:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Oh please. Wait till they pop the fins out at least, before you bitch.

Explain the pop out of the fins please.

aquablue · #**29718** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 11:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMadFlyer

No, its not the frame for the actual panels (they were to be 2 inch foam). I think there was to be a section at the height of that piece which did not have radome panels over it. Basically, the panels start on either side of that section so it has to be architectural and structural at the same time. I think another possible cause for the removal of the radome was the lighting scheme. Durst likes lattice antennas with colorful displays. The panels at the top would have been back-lit, the lighting would probably have produced over saturated areas next to overly dim ones. It would require LEDs to be fitted behind every face instead of localized on mounts.

Durst likes antennas with colorful displays? What is he now, a lighting designer?

NYC GUY · #**29719** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 11:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

Explain the pop out of the fins please.

It's the icing to the cupcake Im not the best at explaining it but they will be like pieces of glass sticking out of the cladding. They will look something like this.

-Filipe- · #**29720** Posted **Feb 15, 2013, 11:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenfromjersey

1 wtc by drken10003, on flickr