NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,079 FT | 80 FLOORS

[dropdeaded209]

an awkwardly massed, blue glass dud. not one of rodgers' best.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

an awkwardly massed, blue glass dud. not one of rodgers' best.

It's actually very nice in person.

[NYguy]

^ It is, but still too close to tower 4 for me.


https://www.instagram.com/p/Be1yl_0D...y=taratoldmeso

[NYguy]

Taun Deverill

[NYguy]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BeytPDHA...ken-by=nyonair

[dendenden]

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

an awkwardly massed, blue glass dud. not one of rodgers' best.

It is nice in person. But any designer or artist will tell you that they hate to hear their work called, "nice."

This building could have been an icon.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by dendenden

It is nice in person. But any designer or artist will tell you that they hate to hear their work called, "nice."

This building could have been an icon.

This tower, as it is, would be an icon in any US city other than NY. When the king's crown has so many amazing jewels, it's not easy to get attention.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by dendenden

It is nice in person. But any designer or artist will tell you that they hate to hear their work called, "nice."

This building could have been an icon.

It’s not supposed to be an “icon,” it’s supposed to be part of a larger complex, of which 1WTC and the memorial are supposed to be the iconic elements. The design changes to this tower have resulted in a building that relates much better to the other parts of the complex, particularly the minimalist form of 4WTC next door. So many people criticize this tower for being unlike Rogers’s other work, but a typical dainty (for lack of a better descriptor) Rogers building would have been extremely out of place here. Yes, simplifying the design also benefited Silverstein and the Port Authority by making the building cheaper to construct, but the extra money would have been wasted on features that would have made it look overly busy and a poor relation to the other buildings in the complex. This tower as built is unapologetic about its bigness, as is appropriate for the scale of the WTC.

[Prezrezc]

^
Stated 100x more succinctly that I could have.

Just an additional note that may have a horse's bludgeoned corpse chained to it:

The idea to have everything in a tower complex laid out in "opposite" order (that is the shortest as the most striking, as if to convey the notion of increasing visual impact with vertical ascent), usually falls on its face.

But looking at the Four Towers as originally conceived, the idea described above would have indeed worked...to wit, the vaunted "Libeskindian upward spiral".

@PhyllisJerry71:

IMO perhaps we wouldn't be having this sidebar discussion if Lord Foster's original 200G design were still intact. His version's "four diamond" architecture seemed the perfect visual continuation of 175G's original quad-spire/X-brace motif...and these two would've obviously provided the link between WTC1 and 150G.

However, Bjarke's amazing 200G is somehow more "in keeping" with this tower's ostensibly calculated "dumbing down"/value engineering/whatever you wish.

As I've suggested before, from we have seen over the past decade and a half in this complex, reality has been known to stage an intervention or two.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71

It’s not supposed to be an “icon,” it’s supposed to be part of a larger complex, of which 1WTC and the memorial are supposed to be the iconic elements. The design changes to this tower have resulted in a building that relates much better to the other parts of the complex, particularly the minimalist form of 4WTC next door. So many people criticize this tower for being unlike Rogers’s other work, but a typical dainty (for lack of a better descriptor) Rogers building would have been extremely out of place here. Yes, simplifying the design also benefited Silverstein and the Port Authority by making the building cheaper to construct, but the extra money would have been wasted on features that would have made it look overly busy and a poor relation to the other buildings in the complex. This tower as built is unapologetic about its bigness, as is appropriate for the scale of the WTC.

I agree with most of this, though I would have preferred this tower retained it's greater height, mainly because I think it's too similar in size to tower 4. If tower 4 had been on another sight, say tower 5, it would have more room to breath on its own. But still, this is primarily an office building that is a part of a larger complex, the World Trade Center. As far as the "spires", I could take it or leave it. Some people seem to want to have it both ways, depending on who you speak to, there are either too many spire elements or not enough on the city skyline. I don't think the WTC needs more, but it wouldn't hurt things overall. I'm pleased with what we have here, there is so much going on in this city, so much to compete with. This complex is still a force to be reckoned with, and when Tower 2 is complete it will become much more clear what we have here.

[NYguy]

Steve Molder

[NYguy]

subherwal

[M. Incandenza]

"He waited a little, looking after his brother. He suddenly noticed that Ivan swayed as he walked and that his right shoulder looked lower than his left. He had never noticed it before. But all at once he turned too, and almost ran to the monastery. It was nearly dark, and he felt almost frightened; something new was growing up in him for which he could not account."

--Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

[NYguy]

AC365

[Prezrezc]

^
Righteous. I've actually never seen it look so tall from that high up.

Weird.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Prezrezc

^
Righteous. I've actually never seen it look so tall from that high up.

Weird.

You can see how the bulkiness fits in with the other bulky towers of Downtown, but I can't wait until the higher, more slender towers like 45 Broad and 80 South St go up to give more balance.

[NYguy]

http://rew-online.com/2018/03/15/sil...stretch-3-wtc/

Silverstein enters home stretch at 3 WTC





BY KYLE CAMPBELL
MARCH 15, 2018

“The idea is that you walk into the lobby and it’s a filter for New York City,” Silverstein Properties Vice President Carlos Valverde said. “You walk in here and all of a sudden you’re transported into a futuristic, digital world where you’re going to be able to … really have a sense of calmness.”

The 1,079-foot tower is three months from its grand opening. The largest tenant, media investment company GroupM, has begun building out its 700,000 s/f of office space and is targeting a July move-in date.

The 2.5 million s/f office tower was built on speculation and, despite commitments from several media companies, more than half of the building remains unleased. To fill out its remaining floors, it must go head to head with another rising office district nearing completion three miles to the north in Hudson Yards.

However, Silverstein brass is not concerned with local competition.

“[Three World Trade Center] is the most advanced office building in America and it’s very exciting to me, personally, to open this building in June and welcome in our first tenant, GroupM, in July,” Jeremy Moss, the company’s executive vice president, said. “We have had such great success with 7 [World Trade Center] and 4 [World Trade Center], and I have no doubt this new building will be just as successful.”

With Building 3 nearing completion, Silverstein is able to shift more of its focus toward finding an anchor tenant for its final office, 2 World Trade Center, and constructing the area’s performing arts center, which just secured funding from Albany last month.

Both projects could be finished as early as 2021, bringing the historic site’s two-decade-long renovation to a close.

[chris08876]

Credit: Michael Lee

[Prezrezc]

In those first two Subherwal pics, I see a red crane mid-photo.

Would that be for 130 William?

[Guiltyspark]

That picture makes me realize Verizon could be ok (or at least not offensive) if they had reclad the whole thing...