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

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

As I recall, IBM also seeks 500k sf.

I hope that Morgan Stanley anchors a new tower on Park.

Also, Apple also seeks a lot of space. Their 5 year lease is clearly an interim deal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bus...k-2020-2%3famp

i hear that morgan stanley is full on consolidating and reducing office space where ever they can around the country lately. i dk what that means for nyc offices, maybe nothing, but thats all i got.

[NYguy]

This was in January 2020….

Originally Posted by NYguy

Finally some news...

https://nypost.com/2020/01/15/2-worl...foster-design/

2 World Trade Center getting revamped Norman Foster design

By Steve Cuozzo
January 15, 2020


…now that BIG’s quirky tower of stacked boxes has no takers, the old Foster design is being “significantly modified to be more reflective of contemporary needs and taste,” Silverstein says. (No rendering is available yet as it’s still a work in progress.)

There’s been enough time for this reveal. I don’t know what we’ll see first, 270 Park, or 2 WTC.

[JACKinBeantown]

I'd like to see the original design but taller than One World Trade Center. Foster's original 2WTC is the best design by far (blows BIG out of the water) and to see it as the centerpiece of the complex at a true 1,776 feet would both bring legitimacy to the height claim and add a substantial masterpiece and focal point to the NYC skyline.

[MercurySky]

Does any other building on the site have to have a lower roof than that of One World Trade Center? Is this set in stone?

[JACKinBeantown]

^^^ I could see that being the case for political/tourist reasons. But September 11 was 20 years ago, and One World Trade Center is now almost 10 years old and there are already three taller buildings in midtown, with more on the way. So its claim as the tallest in the city and the country is not valid anymore. With that knowledge, I could see a strong case made to have 2WTC being taller than 1WTC even if there is a statute that 1WTC be the tallest in the complex. Plus it would be such a beautiful building that it would draw a whole new wave of renewed attention, and make the case that we built back stronger.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

^^^ I could see that being the case for political/tourist reasons. But September 11 was 20 years ago, and One World Trade Center is now almost 10 years old and there are already three taller buildings in midtown, with more on the way. So its claim as the tallest in the city and the country is not valid anymore. With that knowledge, I could see a strong case made to have 2WTC being taller than 1WTC even if there is a statute that 1WTC be the tallest in the complex. Plus it would be such a beautiful building that it would draw a whole new wave of renewed attention, and make the case that we built back stronger.

The heights are obviously symbolic. Unfortunately, unlike Midtown I don't the robust demand for office space in downtown that would warrant any the PA to build 2 WTC any taller than 1 roof height. Let's hope that it is built similarly to what was planned by Foster in both height and design, although it may end up with some outdoor terraces, which seems to be a trend now.

[Streamliner]

^ Isn't Libeskind's master plan concept (spiraling downward from 1 WTC) still in effect? I assume that it would be. I think 2 WTC's roof height matching 1 WTC's roof height would still be appropriate. Since 1 WTC technically is 1776 feet, the spiral effect would remain, though if 2 WTC's roof exceeds 1 WTC, the illusion would be broken.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

^ Isn't Libeskind's master plan concept (spiraling downward from 1 WTC) still in effect? I assume that it would be. I think 2 WTC's roof height matching 1 WTC's roof height would still be appropriate. Since 1 WTC technically is 1776 feet, the spiral effect would remain, though if 2 WTC's roof exceeds 1 WTC, the illusion would be broken.

Or they could go with the old 2 WTC height of 1362. The old WTC was slightly taller, 1368, which is the roof height of the new 1 WTC.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=old+wt...78a8e8c0b6d7a4

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

^ Isn't Libeskind's master plan concept (spiraling downward from 1 WTC) still in effect? I assume that it would be. I think 2 WTC's roof height matching 1 WTC's roof height would still be appropriate. Since 1 WTC technically is 1776 feet, the spiral effect would remain, though if 2 WTC's roof exceeds 1 WTC, the illusion would be broken.

Right, so dumb how they'll consider 1WTC a 1776 foot building yet still keep the spiral limit at 1WTC's roof height.

Or they could go with the old 2 WTC height of 1362. The old WTC was slightly taller, 1368, which is the roof height of the new 1 WTC.

This is what I've been saying even though I don't care too much about symbolic numbers, I think if it sloped into a 1362 foot crown, since the visual mass or main roof would be 1250+ something it would still work.

[CHAPINM1]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Right, so dumb how they'll consider 1WTC a 1776 foot building yet still keep the spiral limit at 1WTC's roof height.



This is what I've been saying even though I don't care too much about symbolic numbers, I think if it sloped into a 1362 foot crown, since the visual mass or main roof would be 1250+ something it would still work.

I as well, since the roof of Tower 1 is 1,373 feet (originally tying for the 1,368 mark), I'll take it a step further since Tower 1 is officially a 1,776 structure by height on paper, they could go for a 1,362 foot roof and a spire reaching somewhere between there yet topping out over 100 feet lower than Tower 1's 1,776 mark.

The height of the original Tower 2 was supposed to be recognized and factored into the new Tower 1; however, it never was. With that being said, it would be more appropriate and necessary it gets worked into the new Tower 2.

[MercurySky]

I think they should cut the gimmicks and put a traditional tower there to act as a fraternal twin to One World Trade Center. It would work well on this site. If I could do a mockup I would.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MercurySky

Does any other building on the site have to have a lower roof than that of One World Trade Center? Is this set in stone?

Yes, and in descending order. That’s why the new 5 WTC has a height limit as well.

Originally Posted by DCReid

The heights are obviously symbolic. Unfortunately, unlike Midtown I don't the robust demand for office space in downtown that would warrant any the PA to build 2 WTC any taller than 1 roof height.

The WTC actually is among the best performing towers, as far as leasing goes. But that’s because it’s new space, which is where the market is anyway. The hard height limit is really what would keep it lower than the FT roof. One Vanderbilt has about a million sf less than 2 WTC, but is comparible in height.

Originally Posted by MercurySky

I think they should cut the gimmicks and put a traditional tower there to act as a fraternal twin to One World Trade Center. It would work well on this site. If I could do a mockup I would.

A tower close to the roof height of the FT would go a long way to creating that sense of the original complex. It’s not as rare now, with supertall groupings popping up elsewhere in Manhattan. But we get back more of what was lost.

[TheOWL]

Originally Posted by MercurySky

I thing the best design would be a tall boxy building with no setbacks in the height range of 1,250 to 1,350 feet. It needs to look strong.

Hard disagree, BIG's ugly Boxy design did not fit the location and took away from the other WTCs by just being another squired design building. This is why Foster's Diamond top design is so great with how it complements the other buildings and the memorial. Good thing they scrapped BIG's design.

[CHI -21c]

God bless the USA!!!!!! I knew BIG's facetious toppling blocks were out, but I didn't know Foster's diamond was back!

Very dignified.

https://youtu.be/etWKNAU7jN8?t=39

[iiConTr0v3rSYx]

I had almost forgotten 3 WTC had the corner spires. That building suffered the worse design changes out of all the buildings on site.

[JMKeynes]

https://www.6sqft.com/with-norman-fo...ld-begin-soon/

[gramsjdg]

I believe the final proposed height for Foster's original design was bumped up to 1358'. That would work.

[TonyL]

https://commercialobserver.com/2021/...-trade-center/

I swear if this is another false start on the play.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by CHI -21c

God bless the USA!!!!!! I knew BIG's facetious toppling blocks were out, but I didn't know Foster's diamond was back!

Very dignified.

https://youtu.be/etWKNAU7jN8?t=39

Let's hope so. Although Foster is back, tenant needs and preferences have changed. Now we are seeing building designs with terraces...

[MercurySky]

One and 7 World Trade Center don't have terraces. A podium is fine.