#UC : World Trade Centre Site

Discussion on developments interstate and overseas.
Message
Author
Brando
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:11 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 60 times

#UC : World Trade Centre Site

#1 Post by Brando » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:58 am

http://www.wtcrising.com/main.cfm?s=wtcrising

Some great renders and construction photos inside. Worth having a good look around. Be great to watch this go up..
The whole 9/11 events has really had a huge effect on my life. My nephew had his birthday and i remember being at my sisters house watching foxtel and saw the second plane hit live.
I think they have done a brilliant job with the new designs while maintaining an appropriate memorial site.
Attachments
View of construction Site.jpg
View of construction Site.jpg (176.64 KiB) Viewed 10650 times
Memorial of Twin Towers.jpg
Memorial of Twin Towers.jpg (23.34 KiB) Viewed 10650 times
Once Completed.jpg
Once Completed.jpg (105.67 KiB) Viewed 10650 times

Brando
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:11 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#2 Post by Brando » Wed May 06, 2009 5:39 pm

Some recent updates of the site, April 09. Work is progressing well and some new render too.

User avatar
shiftaling
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Norwood
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#3 Post by shiftaling » Wed May 05, 2010 7:43 pm

This thread hasn't been commented on for a while but I just came across it

Not that I have any issues with the reflecting pools but I always thought a good idea for a memorial to the WTC would be to place high powered lights or lasers closely together around the exact perimeter of the squares where the two main buildings once stood, shining vertically into the sky and giving the impression of two skyscrapers of light reaching far higher than any building in the city. It would forever evoke the original buildings yet its insubstantial nature would act as a kind of remembrance for the people (and buildings) which were lost

User avatar
Splashmo
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:14 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#4 Post by Splashmo » Wed May 05, 2010 8:07 pm

shiftaling wrote:This thread hasn't been commented on for a while but I just came across it

Not that I have any issues with the reflecting pools but I always thought a good idea for a memorial to the WTC would be to place high powered lights or lasers closely together around the exact perimeter of the squares where the two main buildings once stood, shining vertically into the sky and giving the impression of two skyscrapers of light reaching far higher than any building in the city. It would forever evoke the original buildings yet its insubstantial nature would act as a kind of remembrance for the people (and buildings) which were lost
You do realise they do this every year on the anniversary?

User avatar
shiftaling
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Norwood
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#5 Post by shiftaling » Thu May 06, 2010 6:43 pm

Splashmo wrote:
shiftaling wrote:This thread hasn't been commented on for a while but I just came across it

Not that I have any issues with the reflecting pools but I always thought a good idea for a memorial to the WTC would be to place high powered lights or lasers closely together around the exact perimeter of the squares where the two main buildings once stood, shining vertically into the sky and giving the impression of two skyscrapers of light reaching far higher than any building in the city. It would forever evoke the original buildings yet its insubstantial nature would act as a kind of remembrance for the people (and buildings) which were lost
You do realise they do this every year on the anniversary?
Had no idea! Maybe I saw it once and it was in my subconscious, because I just googled it and it looks exactly like what I was thinking. Whoops!

Professor
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Solomon Islands

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#6 Post by Professor » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am

I have been past this site a couple of times in the past 3 days and just dropped my daughter to the adjacent memorial this afternoon (well, as close as you can get!). I am surprised at how little progress seems to have been made above the ground, considering how long the construction has been going. The patriotism evident around the site is pretty stunning with the flags and check points etc.

Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 6770
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 277 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#7 Post by Ben » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:31 am

So the Spire of freedom tower at 124m is roughly the height of our tallest building :/

From the Australian:
One World Trade Center set to lay claim to title of New York City's tallest building


Image

The lower Manhattan skyline shows One World Trade Center which is set to become the tallest building in New York City and in the Western Hemisphere once again, after the twin towers were demolished in the September 11, 2011 attacks. Source: AFP

One World Trade Center, the giant monolith being built to replace the twin towers destroyed in the September 11 attacks, is set to lay claim to the title of New York City's tallest skyscraper.

Workers will workers erect steel columns that will make its unfinished skeleton a little over 381 metres high, just enough to peak over the roof of the observation deck on the Empire State Building.

The milestone is a preliminary one. Workers are still adding floors to the so-called Freedom Tower and it isn't expected to reach its full height for at least another year, at which point it is likely to be declared the tallest building in the US, and third tallest in the world.

Those bragging rights, though, will carry an asterisk.

Crowning the world's tallest buildings is a little like picking the heavyweight champion in boxing. There is often disagreement about who deserves the belt.

In this case, the issue involves the 124-metre-tall needle that will sit on the tower's roof.

Count it, and the World Trade Center is back on top. Otherwise, it will have to settle for No. 2, after the Willis Tower in Chicago.

"Height is complicated," said Nathaniel Hollister, a spokesman for The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats, a Chicago-based organisation considered an authority on such records.

Experts and architects have long disagreed about where to stop measuring super-tall buildings outfitted with masts, spires and antennas that extend far above the roof.

Consider the case of the Empire State Building: Measured from the sidewalk to the tip of its needle-like antenna, the granddaddy of all super-tall skyscrapers actually stands 443 metres high, well above the mark being surpassed by One World Trade Center.

Purists, though, say antennas shouldn't count when determining building height.

An antenna, they say, is more like furniture than a piece of architecture. Like a chair sitting on a rooftop, an antenna can be attached or removed. The Empire State Building didn't even get its distinctive antenna until 1952. The record books, as the argument goes, shouldn't change every time someone installs a new satellite dish.

Excluding the antenna brings the Empire State Building's total height to 381 metres. That was still high enough to make the skyscraper the world's tallest from 1931 until 1972.

From that height, the Empire State seems to tower over the second tallest completed building in New York, the Bank of America Tower.

Yet, in many record books, the two skyscrapers are separated by just 15 metres.

That's because the tall, thin mast on top of the Bank of America building isn't an antenna, but a decorative spire.

Unlike antennas, record-keepers like spires. It's a tradition that harkens back to a time when the tallest buildings in many European cities were cathedrals. Groups like the Council on Tall Buildings, and Emporis, a building data provider in Germany, both count spires when measuring the total height of a building, even if that spire happens to look exactly like an antenna.

This quirk in the record books has benefited buildings like Chicago's recently opened Trump International Hotel and Tower. It is routinely listed as being between 36 metres to 42 metres taller than the Empire State Building, thanks to the antenna-like mast that sits on its roof, even though the average person, looking at the two buildings side by side, would probably judge the New York skyscraper to be taller.

The same factors apply to measuring the height of One World Trade Center.

Designs call for the tower's roof to stand at 417 metres - the same height as the north tower of the original World Trade Center. The building's roof will be topped with a 124 metres, cable-stayed mast, making the total height of the structure a symbolic 541 metres.

So is that needle an antenna or a spire?

"Not sure," wrote Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the building.

The needle will, indeed, function as a broadcast antenna. It is described on the Port Authority's website as an antenna. On the other hand, the structure will have more meat to it than your average antenna, with external cladding encasing the broadcast mast.

Without that spire, One World Trade Center would still be smaller than the Willis Tower in Chicago, formerly known as the Sears Tower, which tops out at 442m (not including its own antennas).

Debate over which of those buildings can truly claim to be the tallest in the US has been raging for years on Internet message boards frequented by skyscraper enthusiasts.

As for the Council on Tall Buildings, it is leaning toward giving One World Trade the benefit of the doubt.

"This is something we have discussed with the architect," Mr Hollister said. "As we understand it, the needle is an architectural spire which happens to enclose an antenna. We would thus count it as part of the architectural height."

But, he noted, the organisation has also chosen to sidestep these types of disputes, somewhat, by recognising three types of height records: tallest occupied floor, architectural top, and height to the tip.

Mr Hollister also pointed out that, technically speaking, One World Trade Center isn't a record-holder in any category yet, as it is still unfinished.

"A project is not considered a building until it is topped out, fully clad, and open for business or at least occupiable," he said.

The debate doesn't quite end there.

Neither of the Willis Tower nor One World Trade are as high as the CN Tower, in Toronto, which stands at 553 metres. That structure, however, isn't considered a building at all by most record-keepers, because it is predominantly a television broadcast antenna and observation platform with very little interior space. The tallest manmade structure in the Western Hemisphere will continue to be the 629 metre-tall KVLY-TV antenna in Blanchard, North Dakota.

As for the world's tallest building, the undisputed champion is the Burj Khalifa, in Dubai, which opened in 2010 and reaches 828 metres.

Not counting about two metres of aircraft lights and other equipment perched on top, of course

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#8 Post by Maximus » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:36 pm

Ben, good article from The Australian. Thanks for posting.

To my mind, 'height to roof' is the most meaningful measurement -- spires and antennae are just 'artificial' height. Using height to roof, 1WTC will become the 9th-tallest building in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_ ... ht_to_roof
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#9 Post by Omicron » Wed May 02, 2012 9:17 pm

My only regret with this building is that it doesn't have a twin. The original WTC was one of the most instantly-recognisable, powerful symbols of New York City, and at the core of that symbolism was its dominating presence. A single bulding just doesn't quite cut it for me; not with the memory of what was there before.

Don't get me wrong - this is very nice indeed:

Image

...but this.....this is......leaving me speechless:

Image

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#10 Post by Omicron » Wed May 02, 2012 9:22 pm

Maximus wrote:Ben, good article from The Australian. Thanks for posting.

To my mind, 'height to roof' is the most meaningful measurement -- spires and antennae are just 'artificial' height. Using height to roof, 1WTC will become the 9th-tallest building in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_ ... ht_to_roof
I'm in full support of height to roof and height to tip, whereas that ridiculous height to architectural tip nonsense that decided the Petronas Towers are taller than the Willis Tower can go away.

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#11 Post by Maximus » Thu May 03, 2012 11:55 am

Omicron wrote:I'm in full support of height to roof and height to tip, whereas that ridiculous height to architectural tip nonsense that decided the Petronas Towers are taller than the Willis Tower can go away.
+ 1,000,000 :applause:

Edit: As you may be able to tell, I quite like the Willis/Sears Tower. :)
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
Thanial
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:54 pm
Location: Mitcham

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#12 Post by Thanial » Thu May 03, 2012 7:41 pm

I've always been in support of architectural tip, at the end of the day antenna's are there as 'add ons', and are not actually part of the proper architectural design, whilst spires generally hold no benefit to the buildings communicational value and are therefore part of the structures design, as for 1WTC though I don't know what to think anymore, as I had always believed that it was merely a spire, and not containing an inbuilt antenna...

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#13 Post by Maximus » Fri May 04, 2012 12:58 pm

Thanial wrote:I've always been in support of architectural tip, at the end of the day antenna's are there as 'add ons', and are not actually part of the proper architectural design, whilst spires generally hold no benefit to the buildings communicational value and are therefore part of the structure's design
Really? :o So you honestly think it makes sense to say that the Petronas are taller than Sears, when the roof of Sears is over 60m higher than Petronas?

I'm not having a go; I just find it very surprising that anyone would think that Petronas is legitimately taller than Sears. Technically, in the strictest sense of 'height to architectural tip' - yes, it's true. But in the land of common sense - surely Sears is the taller building.
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
Thanial
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:54 pm
Location: Mitcham

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#14 Post by Thanial » Fri May 11, 2012 7:02 pm

sorry for taking absolutely ages to reply, I completely forgot that you don't get messaged when someone reply's to a post :lol: Yes I'd consider the Petronas Towers taller considering the spire is a part of the strutural design, and is therefore solid in design, rather than being a possibly temporary piece of technology such as an added mast (which of course I don't consider). I personally consider the Willis Tower to be cut off at roof heigh (like the CTBUH says) because of the fact that it's spires are not a permanent structure, whilst the Petronas is taller as they are! :D

On a more serious note you'll probably be happy to know (Maximus) that the Willis Tower will now remain the tallest building in the US, after the spire of 1WTC has had its casing removed in a redesign, and will now merely be an antenna (which looks horendous). The new design will be 419m, therefore becoming the tallest building in NYC, and third tallest in the US when it's completed in 2013. Though it is likely to lose its title to 432 Park Avenue as tallest in NYC by 2016ish.

Here's the new design.
1WTC Redesign 419m.jpg
1WTC Redesign 419m.jpg (174.83 KiB) Viewed 9650 times
Here's a source which discusses the definition of inclusion of spires and not antennas etc...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 3a50371a11

mutt
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: #UC : World Trade Centre Site

#15 Post by mutt » Fri May 11, 2012 8:08 pm

interesting design

i guess it would've been too obvious if they'd went with a pyramid, so instead they've gone with 2 pyramids, one upright, one inverted

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests