HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    One World Trade Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #34701  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 3:43 PM
weidncol weidncol is offline
weidncol
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 386
^^ Just wait until they light the mechanical floors. Hopefully that will make it look like the spire isn't floating.

I never understood why they don't put something such as strip lighting around the entire communication rings... That would give the top of the building a very nice aesthetic feel at night.
     
     
  #34702  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 4:24 PM
randy1991 randy1991 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 72
Earthcam

Progress 3-3-2014


Last edited by randy1991; Mar 3, 2014 at 9:05 PM. Reason: Refresh picture
     
     
  #34703  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 4:27 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmatero View Post
Comparing the two is NOT ridiculous. They were building the bridge and late in construction cut costs (the depression) and left the towers naked... Just the skeletons showing... To this day.
It is ridiculous, because you can't compare a skyscraper to a bridge. As I've pointed out, the bridge will be a bridge regardless, and the aesthetics of the bridge aren't nearly as important.


Quote:
SOUND FAMILIAR? They didn't redesign the skeleton. They just left it naked. SOUND FAMILIAR? And the result of this is FAR more significant (and noticeable) than WTC.
Again, it is not the same thing at all. And the bridge itself didn't "shrink".


Quote:
You (and I) think the Chrysler Building is a masterpiece. Guess what? When it went up, a lot of New Yorkers HATED it. My Grandfather and his brother worked on both the dismantling of the Waldorf Astoria and construction of the ESB. They used to tell us people joked for years about the Chrysler Bldg making fun of the hubcaps and hood armaments. New Yorkers used to call it "The Swordfish".

Few buildings get universal praise as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Again, it's done. Over. Get over it and celebrate. Children today (and future generations) will accept this building as-is.
You speak of what people may have thought a century ago, and disregard it. Yet somehow seem to think because you are okay with how the mast looks today, future generations will do the same. Not only do I find that hypocritical nonsense, it just isn't so. (I also find it laughable that you compare the two).


Quote:
The ironic part of this? NOBODY in NY liked the twin towers when they went up. Everyone felt they looked like nothing in the city and ruined the skyline. When they replaced the antenna with the larger one, a lot of people were even ticked off. A generation later, nobody cared. Today, we wish they were back.
People didn't care about the original antenna, it was rarely if ever considered for anything. And that was appropriate, because it was just there. And don't tell me that nobody in NY liked the originals when they were built, because many did. I know this personally.

This spire/mast is not only supposed to be considered the crowning part of this tower, it is the single most important element of the rebuilding of the WTC itself.

You wanna talk about what future generations will think? When they look back at 9/11, and look on our tepid and uninspired response to it - a wasted opportunity here - it will not be looked on favorably at all.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #34704  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 4:34 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #34705  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 9:40 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
The trash talking of the lighting begins. Who will own the night?


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...ght?news-image

Winning the night

By Dana Rubinstein
Feb. 24, 2014


Quote:
“Let’s be clear,” said Anthony Malkin, the chairman, president and C.E.O. of the publicly traded company that owns New York’s most famous skyscraper. “The Empire State Building has always been the progenitor and leader in any number of different things.”

He was talking about computer controlled, vibrantly-colored L.E.D. tower lights, and how since 2012 he has had some 1,200 of them on top of his skyscraper.

“The L.E.D. lights have so radically changed the game that it already has brought many other landlords and companies to change the lighting at the tops of their buildings,” he said.

As far as I can tell, there’s no entity out there that keeps track of how many skyscrapers have swapped out white incandescent tower lights for their more versatile, efficient counterparts (even the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat was at a loss).

But aside from the Empire State Building, New York City has at least four others with L.E.D. lights capable of brightening the night skyline with countless color combinations: the old Helmsley Building at 230 Park Avenue; 4 Times Square; One Bryant Park; and in a recent addition, 1 World Trade Center.

“We put them on One Bryant Park and Four Times Square way before Tony [Malkin] even thought of L.E.D. lights,” said developer Douglas Durst, whose Durst Organization owns those two buildings and co-owns 1 World Trade Center, adding: “Whatever Tony can do we can do better.”

In 2010, Durst put elegant sprays of L.E.D. lights along the trestle spires of 4 Times Square and One Bryant Park. And this year, 1 World Trade Center, which the Durst Organization co-owns with the Port Authority, got into the L.E.D. game too. In advance of the Super Bowl, its spire was lit orange and green in honor of the Broncos and the Seahawks, and then green in honor of the winning team.

The tradition of putting blazing lights on top of skyscrapers goes back to at least 1890, when Joseph Pulitzer built a headquarters for his New York World newspaper on Park Row near City Hall. It was called, aptly, the World Building, and at the time, it was the world’s tallest, topping out at more than 300 feet.

On a clear night, ships at sea could spot the small electric lights illuminating the World Building’s golden cupola, according to Carol Willis, the founder and director of the Skyscraper Museum.

The Empire State Building first got colored incandescent lights—red, white and blue lights achieved by manually putting filters on top of white lights—in 1976, in honor of the bicentennial.

wners of the Empire State Building have since made it their business to light the tower in honor of Australia Day and Nelson Mandela, World Diabetes Day and Communist China’s 60th Anniversary. But not, oddly, in honor of Mother Teresa, which at the time earned Malkin reams of bad press.

“We try and avoid getting into the box that Tony keeps getting himself into,” said Durst.

What does that mean?

“I was referring to his fight over Mother Teresa.”

How will he avoid that?

“We’re going to light it for Mother Teresa,” he said laughing, referring to 1 World Trade.

Actually, Durst hasn’t yet figured out what he wants to do with any of his L.E.D. lights, aside from the occasional honorific. Though he says his skyscrapers are capable of choreographing light shows to live performances of Alicia Keys, like Malkin did in 2012, he “doesn’t find it interesting.”

“We’ll leave that to Tony,” he said.


Not that Malkin is not concerned.

“I feel very comfortable and confident that they are the most extraordinary lights in the most extraordinary city in the world,” said Malkin of his own atop the Empire State. “And I think the only thing that even comes close are the lights on the Eiffel Tower. But frankly they’re in Paris, they’re not in New York City.”
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #34706  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 10:23 PM
supertallchaser's Avatar
supertallchaser supertallchaser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 219
honestly Manhattan could use some more l.e.d lighting accents on the crowns and spires of the buildings,not a whole lot ,but enough to give it a slightly more interesting night skyline,with the addition of 1wtc downtown looks cool(which gives me a reason to like the spire) and one 57 and 432 and all other billionaire buildings should look nice as well .But already built structures should be lit as well!
__________________
432 Park Ave. is life
     
     
  #34707  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 6:34 AM
jmatero jmatero is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
It is ridiculous, because you can't compare a skyscraper to a bridge. As I've pointed out, the bridge will be a bridge regardless, and the aesthetics of the bridge aren't nearly as important.

Again, it is not the same thing at all. And the bridge itself didn't "shrink".

You speak of what people may have thought a century ago, and disregard it. Yet somehow seem to think because you are okay with how the mast looks today, future generations will do the same. Not only do I find that hypocritical nonsense, it just isn't so. (I also find it laughable that you compare the two).

People didn't care about the original antenna, it was rarely if ever considered for anything. And that was appropriate, because it was just there. And don't tell me that nobody in NY liked the originals when they were built, because many did. I know this personally.

This spire/mast is not only supposed to be considered the crowning part of this tower, it is the single most important element of the rebuilding of the WTC itself.

You wanna talk about what future generations will think? When they look back at 9/11, and look on our tepid and uninspired response to it - a wasted opportunity here - it will not be looked on favorably at all.
Some folks said the same thing as you when they built the Arizona memorial in Hawaii. Uninspired, insulting, ugly, disrespectful. Now, it's one of the biggest tourist attractions in the state and beloved by veterans and citizens alike. Look back at what people said about the Vietnam Veterans memorial in DC when it opened. Stark, insulting to those who lost their lives, not majestic enough. Today, it's one of the most popular destination spots in all of DC for tourists.

Look, we're never going to agree on this. I point to history as a guide to how this usually plays out. You're angry and project your feelings onto the rest of the world as if everyone has your particular taste and shares your opinion. They don't. Just read this forum. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I've been to the WTC site MANY times and everyone looks up, smiles, and takes pics of that building TODAY. Not a negative word to be heard. I have no doubt in my mind that people from all over the world will continue to come to this site and be inspired and in awe when they look up at 1WTC. I know you're disappointed in this building and you are entitled to your opinion. How about you and I meet up for coffee in 10 years and we'll see how this plays out.

They look up from the memorial and see this... Every day.... And are in awe... Not a peep about an antenna as it is such a tiny part of the package from below.


Last edited by jmatero; Mar 4, 2014 at 7:08 AM.
     
     
  #34708  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 7:06 AM
ArtDecoRevival ArtDecoRevival is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Durst was only interested in the broadcasting nature of the mast, not what it looked like. It was a cost issue, disguised as a maintenance one.
The covering will live on in renderings and "what if's", but we'll never see it.






To be honest, that…. doesn't look that good. It could be just that picture, but it looks like a wealthy beachfront property off some coast in California (or even worse Dubai). People have elevated the mythical spire to martyr status. Yes, it probably would have looked marginally better with the spire. But it didn't really reflect New York's grittiness. Something too clean and sanitized about it. At least with the stripped-down antenna the WTC fits in with the other spires and antennas in the skyline.

I'm not super-happy about the finished building, but if the spire was kept we'd just be complaining about something else. The spire wasn't some stroke of architectural genius and it certainly didn't make or break the building. It was one part among many that contributed to a whole. It's amazing how much over emphasis has been put on this one aspect. Like someone said in a few years no one will even care or, outside of this forum, even remember.
     
     
  #34709  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 8:44 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtDecoRevival View Post
To be honest, that…. doesn't look that good. It could be just that picture, but it looks like a wealthy beachfront property off some coast in California (or even worse Dubai). People have elevated the mythical spire to martyr status. Yes, it probably would have looked marginally better with the spire. But it didn't really reflect New York's grittiness. Something too clean and sanitized about it. At least with the stripped-down antenna the WTC fits in with the other spires and antennas in the skyline.

I'm not super-happy about the finished building, but if the spire was kept we'd just be complaining about something else. The spire wasn't some stroke of architectural genius and it certainly didn't make or break the building. It was one part among many that contributed to a whole. It's amazing how much over emphasis has been put on this one aspect. Like someone said in a few years no one will even care or, outside of this forum, even remember.
The spire is so much nicer in that render than the current spire. The tower as a whole really needed that spire covering to make it look more substantial up top.
     
     
  #34710  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 6:52 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
The tower as a whole really needed that spire covering to make it look more substantial up top.
The people who like it as is don't understand that, they're just happy for anything. The antenna atop the original towers was more substantial, but it was just that, an antenna,
it wasn't meant to look like anything. The spire on the other hand was designed to be a piece of the architectural puzzle that makes this tower not only rise to 1,776 ft, but stand
as symbolic as the upraised torch on the Statue of Liberty. If I'm to believe that this is a 1,776 ft building, I want to see all 1,776 ft of it, and all 1,776 ft of it is open to criticism.
Are we glad there is something rebuilt on the skyline? Certainly. That doesn't mean it's without major faults.



http://www.metro.us/newyork/news/loc...ork-city-news/

__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #34711  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 8:31 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
I definitely think it's going to look better with stuff on the communications ring but it still boggles my mind that they would invest in a 3.5 billion dollar building and skip out on one of the most important parts for a relatively low cost of 20 million. It's sad they don't care about appearances at all.

I guess this country is run by idiots so what do you expect.
     
     
  #34712  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 9:20 PM
weidncol weidncol is offline
weidncol
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 386
Something you all have to know is that the average visitor to the WTC doesn't give two shits about what the spire looks like. Do you know why? It's because they never seen or heard anything about the original plan. Point being, it happened and there's nothing we can do about it. Just get over the slight design change.
     
     
  #34713  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 9:45 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by weidncol View Post
Something you all have to know is that the average visitor to the WTC doesn't give two shits about what the spire looks like. Do you know why? It's because they never seen or heard anything about the original plan. Point being, it happened and there's nothing we can do about it. Just get over the slight design change.
How would they not have seen the original plan for the most hyped skyscraper in America? Steven Spielberg made a documentary about it for the Discovery channel for shit sakes! Believe me, people at large may not be skyscraper nerds, but they definitely will notice the difference between what was shown and what is now built.
     
     
  #34714  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 9:58 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post
How would they not have seen the original plan for the most hyped skyscraper in America? Steven Spielberg made a documentary about it for the Discovery channel for shit sakes! Believe me, people at large may not be skyscraper nerds, but they definitely will notice the difference between what was shown and what is now built.
I've definitely heard people who I know are not skyscraper nerds say things like "That's the new WTC? It's so lame/ugly/tacky etc."

I'm not saying I agree (maybe a little) but people definitely notice and it does effect the city... so yes, the appearance of this project IS important to everyone.
     
     
  #34715  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2014, 10:00 PM
NewYorque's Avatar
NewYorque NewYorque is offline
Sukaitsuri
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 95
You know what?
When looking at 1WTC, I've always felt like there was something wrong with the upper part of the tower...

Now I found out !
X-ray filter !!


     
     
  #34716  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2014, 12:46 AM
weidncol weidncol is offline
weidncol
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 386
Podium lighting test!

     
     
  #34717  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2014, 2:52 AM
jmatero jmatero is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
The people who like it as is don't understand that, they're just happy for anything.
That's downright insulting. To suggest people who like this building "don't understand" and are "happy for anything" is ridiculous.

I love the way this building turned out. It screams NEW YORK. To me, the plastic antenna cover (that's what it was) always looked like a unicorn horn and added too much mass above the parapet. It always looked oversized to my eye.

I'm not settling. Neither are any of the folks on the ground looking up and smiling every day. For the hundredth time, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What you find attractive others don't. The same goes for me. Be respectful of others. Life is too short to be spending your time being angry over an antenna cover.

You are entitled to your opinion but please don't tell the rest of the world they don't care and their love of this building (and site as a whole) isn't real.

     
     
  #34718  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2014, 3:06 AM
1Boston's Avatar
1Boston 1Boston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 370
^now that lighting is something to get excited about, looks very elegant.
     
     
  #34719  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2014, 3:08 AM
Silverfox's Avatar
Silverfox Silverfox is offline
Gigatall Skyscraper
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by weidncol View Post
Podium lighting test!

That looks very, very nice. I like it much more than 7 wtc's base lighting.
     
     
  #34720  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2014, 4:05 AM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
The base lighting is really nice.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:54 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.