NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,270 FT | 80 FLOORS | ON HOLD

[Enigmatism415]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

tower 2 cannot exceed 1 in height

That's fine! 1WTC is officially 1,776 feet tall, remember? I wouldn't mind something more humble like 1,500 feet.

Originally Posted by franktko

Rebuilding the foundations for the Ingels' design: has this been confirmed publicly or is everyone taking this for granted after someone posted "Hey, I know a guy who works there and he says they will have to start from scratch"?

The latter. I trust whoever that guy was because I want to believe that he's an honest fellow. Also, his story sounds totally plausible, even rather likely.

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by Enigmatism415

That's fine! 1WTC is officially 1,776 feet tall, remember? I wouldn't mind something more humble like 1,500 feet.



The latter. I trust whoever that guy was because I want to believe that he's an honest fellow. Also, his story sounds totally plausible, even rather likely.

I believes it's a security guard on site that he knows and said security guard heard from the foreman that Foster's foundation would have to be demolished for BIG's design if the deal was finalized.

[Kurtz]

my opinion, but at this point i see well a tower more or less the same size of tower 4 and similar looking, a bit more original.
Anyway the 2 wtc should be less expensive than before for tenants, elegant and very very..very smart looking.
need a smart architect for a smart tower for a smart solution

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by Kurtz

my opinion, but at this point i see well a tower more or less the same size of tower 4 and similar looking, a bit more original.
Anyway the 2 wtc should be less expensive than before for tenants, elegant and very very..very smart looking.
need a smart architect for a smart tower for a smart solution

That would totally throw off the master plan though.

[TREPYE]

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Looks like they're not doing it:

Fox, News Corp. to keep HQs in Midtown
http://nypost.com/2016/01/15/fox-new...qs-in-midtown/

If there is a design change we dodged an atrocious architectural design bullet.

THANK GOD Fox is no longer involved. Those insipid stack of boxes would have been hard to look at!

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

If there is a design change we dodged an atrocious architectural design bullet.

THANK GOD Fox is no longer involved. Those insipid stack of boxes would have been hard to look at!

Even if BIG was to be kept on as the architect, we'd still be looking at a new design from them, obviously with more input from Silverstein as he doesn't need to cater to any potential anchor's design demands.

I'm still banking on the Foster design being the tower that ultimately gets built.

[chris08876]

Interesting read if you want to know the history and reason behind WTC2's Ingels fail. From Larry himself.

When he saids we will build tower two, I hope that means the Foster design.
=================================

Silverstein talks 2 WTC, languishing luxury market

When Larry Silverstein saw the design for 2 World Trade Center, he did not respond positively, especially given the site’s history.

“My first reaction was, ‘Wow, this building looks like it’s going to topple. It’s going to fall over,’ ” the developer said during a panel Thursday on the 40th floor of another one of his buildings, 7 World Trade Center. The 84-year-old eventually warmed to Bjarke Ingels’ design — a series of stair-like boxes rising more than 80 stories tall — but in January, another crucial part of the building’s future fell apart. After 15 to 16 months of discussions, the building’s anchor tenant, News Corp., backed out.

“At the last moment, it was Rupert Murdoch who called and just let me know that they were concerned about the state of the world and the magnitude of the commitment that it would require if they were to go forward with the transaction,” Silverstein said. “He felt that the timing was bad from their vantage point.”

Silverstein reiterated previous assertions that it won’t take long for a replacement tenant to materialize. The building represents the “new language” of buildings in New York City and the creativity of its architect — qualities that will swiftly attract future occupants, he said.

“We’ll build tower two,” he said. “We will find a user for that building, and it won’t take up a lot of time. That’s a good building.”

During the Anchin Construction and Development Forum, Silverstein touched on other design decisions made over his career. He said that he has learned from many mistakes, including the original 7 World Trade Center, which ended up “a very pedestrian building,” due to the developer’s desire to save on construction costs.

“It was devoid of architectural quality, and amassed to a bulk of heaviness that was not what I really aspired to accomplish here, but I was intent on building as inexpensive as I could, and so that’s what we did,” he said. “But I learned as a result of that experience that it makes all the difference in the world to do first-class architecture because it will make all the difference in the world to prospective users.”

Silverstein, prompted by moderator Rosemary Scanlon, former dean of New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate, also touched on the slowing of the luxury condominium market. He said that the city has seen a tremendous influx of foreign capital, due to investors seeking a more secure market. But developers have been overzealous in their response to the demand, creating “five, six, maybe seven years” worth of supply in a very short period of time. As a result, activity in the ultra-luxury market “fell off the cliff,” he said.

“The flow has been incredible. It has made its way into the easiest form of hard asset acquisition. What is that? Condominium apartments.” he said. “What it’s caused, however, is an incredible movement in the condominium cycle, and what you have is a record number of condominium developments all over the city such that we suddenly find ourselves that the development community overdid it.”

Still, Silverstein said he doesn’t expect the flow of foreign investments to stop pouring into the U.S. anytime soon. It will just take some time for the overflow of luxury properties to be absorbed, he said.

As for new office buildings in the city, Silverstein believes there’s a lot of demand for modern office buildings. But he said his company, Related Companies and Brookfield Property Partners are the only developers pulling their weight in replacing the aging stock.

“Other than the three of us, there’s no creation of new office space certainly of any quantity or quality,” he said.

======================
http://therealdeal.com/2016/02/12/si...luxury-market/

[NYguy]

Silverstein reiterated previous assertions that it won’t take long for a replacement tenant to materialize. The building represents the “new language” of buildings in New York City and the creativity of its architect — qualities that will swiftly attract future occupants, he said.

“We’ll build tower two,” he said. “We will find a user for that building, and it won’t take up a lot of time. That’s a good building.”

Certainly doesn't sound like he's changing architects or design at the moment.

As for new office buildings in the city, Silverstein believes there’s a lot of demand for modern office buildings. But he said his company, Related Companies and Brookfield Property Partners are the only developers pulling their weight in replacing the aging stock.

“Other than the three of us, there’s no creation of new office space certainly of any quantity or quality,” he said.

That's why we're going to have to get used to seeing new office construction for a while. Even if there are a couple of years where things slow down, the stock is just being rebuilt.

[CityGuy87]

Even if Silverstein retains BIG, I don't think we'll necessarily see the same exact design that was meant for Fox/News Corp.

Considering the very likely possibility that this tower won't be anchored by a major media conglomerate, there's certain aspects of the current design that will probably be eschewed such as: the large studio floor plates, the flat-roof for all the broadcasting equipment and the underside news tickers.

If the whole situation with the foundation is true, Silverstein will probably keep the Foster design available if any financial institutions are interested in leasing there. However, I can also see Silverstein having BIG create a new design scheme that might fit on the foundation better as well as having more input into the design considering he was essentially making concessions to the Murdochs in that regard. But obviously the Foster design is the most practical since its foundation is already built and it would probably be much cheaper to build than BIG's, it's just that financial firms have no interest in the WTC anymore which is kinda ironic in a way.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

Even if Silverstein retains BIG, I don't think we'll necessarily see the same exact design that was meant for Fox/News Corp.

Considering we never saw the final version of THAT one, I would say yes, it could be a little different.

Considering the very likely possibility that this tower won't be anchored by a major media conglomerate, there's certain aspects of the current design that will probably be eschewed such as: the large studio floor plates, the flat-roof for all the broadcasting equipment and the underside news tickers.

You may or may not be aware, but the new WTC has become a media center, the news tickers were a reflection of what it has become. Again, whether or not they remain will have to be seen.

If the whole situation with the foundation is true, Silverstein will probably keep the Foster design available if any financial institutions are interested in leasing there.....obviously the Foster design is the most practical since its foundation is already built and it would probably be much cheaper to build than BIG's, it's just that financial firms have no interest in the WTC anymore which is kinda ironic in a way.

If you listen to Silverstein, he couldn't make it any more clear that he considers the Foster design a design for the past, not the current market. This is a man who has leased for years, and knows more about the ins and outs of what his tenants and potential tenants are looking for. So if he says the newer version is it, then I believe him. Nothing wrong with holding on to hope of Foster's return, but it would be wise to listen to the man who is building the skyscraper.

The building represents the “new language” of buildings in New York City and the creativity of its architect — qualities that will swiftly attract future occupants, he said.

This is the design Silverstein is working with, and apparently marketing to potential tenants.

[CityGuy87]

^ I'm not doubting that retaining BIG is a likely situation but the design we've seen was tailor-made for an anchor tenant that ultimately never was. Now with the Murdochs out of the way, having BIG as the architect would be more of a Silverstein commission as opposed to the Murdochs so Silverstein would have more input into the design. We'll probably see smaller-scale media and advertising companies lease space in 2 WTC who don't have specific design requirements for their operations.

On the other hand, I don't see why he wouldn't keep the Foster design as an option if any financial institutions express interest. But if Silverstein keeps BIG, the tower will most likely will be redesigned in some capacity.

As for the foundation issues, if true, Silverstein will definitely want more of a say in the design so that it could fit properly instead of having the re-arrange the core and whatnot.

[newyorker]

Why don't they just build another WTC1, but without the spire? We'd have somewhat of a return of the original skyline. ..just a thought.

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by newyorker

Why don't they just build another WTC1, but without the spire? We'd have somewhat of a return of the original skyline. ..just a thought.

The foundation has already been built for the Foster design which means that the design for that could still be on the table considering he's not obligated to build the BIG design that Fox/News Corp commissioned. Apparently for the BIG design, Foster's foundation had to be fully demolished after all instead of being retrofitted, which would mean the slated completion of BIG's tower would be pushed back about 2 years. Obviously that process would be expensive and time consuming so from that perspective, Foster's tower is the most logical way to go but when it comes to 2 WTC or the complex in general, you can never be too sure about anything. But even if Silverstein keeps BIG on, it's probably not gonna be the design he made for the Murdochs. I'd expect Silverstein would wanna be more involved in the redesign process since he really he no say when it came to the News Corp/Fox deal.

[jsbrook]

It does not seem to me from Silverstein's quotes like he wants to go back to the drawing board with a new design. Rather, he wants to take one of the existing designs (Foster's could make sense given the above-said timeframe for retooling the foundation for BIG) and market and pitch it to tenants with minimal or NO changes and get this thing done ASAP. Guess we'll have to see.

[Dac150]

I’m sure the ultimate design will be contingent on the type of tenant that anchors the tower. The Foster design is one that is fit for a financial services firm with a significant trading operation – perhaps they’ll go after BlackRock. While Larry is partial to Foster’s design, he’s clearly demonstrated that he’ll make drastic concessions in order to land an anchor tenant. I'm not sure the Foster design would not be optimal for a law firm, management consulting firm a media company or an ad agency. I think Larry is keeping an open mind on design at this point and will take what he can get.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

^ I'm not doubting that retaining BIG is a likely situation but the design we've seen was tailor-made for an anchor tenant that ultimately never was. Now with the Murdochs out of the way, having BIG as the architect would be more of a Silverstein commission as opposed to the Murdochs so Silverstein would have more input into the design. We'll probably see smaller-scale media and advertising companies lease space in 2 WTC who don't have specific design requirements for their operations.

On the other hand, I don't see why he wouldn't keep the Foster design as an option if any financial institutions express interest. But if Silverstein keeps BIG, the tower will most likely will be redesigned in some capacity.

Again, quote the man's words over and over in your mind. There is absoulutely nothing about what he said that would make you think 1: He's going back to Foser's design, or 2: The BIG design that he's marketing will be very different from what we've seen. Obviously it could be considering we haven't seen the final version anyway, but it is what it is. Whatever the design, we should be greatful that it gets built at all.

[Zapatan]

While going back to Foster's design is pure speculation it makes more logical and probably economical sense.

I guess there's still a good change for BIG's though.

[newyorker]

For anyone who cares what the design of the new WTC2 will be, please see the following link and sign the petition:

https://www.change.org/p/larry-silve...freedom-towers

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by newyorker

For anyone who cares what the design of the new WTC2 will be, please see the following link and sign the petition:

https://www.change.org/p/larry-silve...freedom-towers

Signed and shared.

[Enigmatism415]

During the Anchin Construction and Development Forum, Silverstein touched on other design decisions made over his career. He said that he has learned from many mistakes, including the original 7 World Trade Center, which ended up “a very pedestrian building,” due to the developer’s desire to save on construction costs.

“It was devoid of architectural quality, and amassed to a bulk of heaviness that was not what I really aspired to accomplish here, but I was intent on building as inexpensive as I could, and so that’s what we did,” he said. “But I learned as a result of that experience that it makes all the difference in the world to do first-class architecture because it will make all the difference in the world to prospective users.”

No wonder he wanted to infamously "pull it." The building suffered severe damage, there were no people left inside, and he never liked it in the first place! Luckily for him, it (supposedly) came down all on its own.