Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NYC Freedom Tower Construction Begins Today  
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/412525p-348812c.html

After months of fighting about the plans for the former WTC site, The PANYNJ and Larry Silverstein reached an agreement yesterday on the plans.

A few trucks and excavators headed into the construction zone this morning to mark the ceremonious beginning of the rebuild. Apparently it will take only a month to prep the site for utilities, then the new foundation will begin... Construction should be completed in 2011

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3563 times:

They're going to build that ugly eyesoar after all.  Sad


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3548 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
They're going to build that ugly eyesoar after all. Sad

I don't think it's that bad... It's a lot better than starting at a huge hole in the ground



User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

It's horrific! Look at all of the fake height and wasted space on top. I liked the Donald Trump idea much better.
What does this tower have anything to do with freedom anyway?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4124 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3533 times:

Actually this is the final design:


I think it looks nice and will fit with its surroundings. Anything more dramatic and it would start looking like an eyesore, IMO.

Does anyone know when construction of the remaining towers is going to start?

PS: Anyone see the outline of a middle finger from the new towers?

[Edited 2006-04-27 23:43:36]


"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3522 times:

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 4):

Hmm I guess they changed the design again... I really like the latest one since it doesn't have all the extra fake height as Superfly pointed out


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3517 times:

I dont mind the look of the new building, but I think they should have built the twin towers back similar to the old ones must modernized and improved. Anyways, I am glad construction has begun, 5 years it will take to build it, which seems like a long time, but I guess it is a big building. Hopefully this will heal some of the wounds left after that terrible tuesday morning.

User currently offlineFlyVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

Fly:

What was the Trump idea again?



Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3502 times:

I with Trump 180% on this one. Not only from the sky line stand point but psychologically also. They are essentially building a massive memorial on the site. I say raise the Towers again!!!! Do what they did at the Pentagon. Send our own message to the Terrorists or potential ones. You might knock us down, but are we out?

I mean no disrespect in any way shape or form to the families/victims, the attacks make my blood boil to this day, but to me, this sends the wrong message. Development could be done so much better. It almost sends out a "whoa is me" (?) signal.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 4):
PS: Anyone see the outline of a middle finger from the new towers?

Not til you pointed it out.  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineDeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Is the height still set at 1776 ft, or is that final design diagram to scale?

User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4864 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

The look of the new building(s) on the site is kind of like an aircraft livery, you're not ever going to find one universally loved but if you keep it tasteful, sober and powerful I think it will be a fitting tribute to those who perished and will send a strong "eat shit" meassage to the spineless individuals who conducted the 9/11 attacks.

Quoting DeltaOwnsAll (Reply 9):
Is the height still set at 1776 ft, or is that final design diagram to scale?

On this note is it true that man made structure must be less than 2000 ft tall. I heard a guy mention on Discovery channel that this restriction applied to communication towers and was imposed by the FCC and FAA, does this apply to building too?

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Quoting FlyVirgin744 (Reply 7):
What was the Trump idea again?

Trump proposed to basically rebuild the old WTC. It might have been modified, but I'm not sure.

AAndrew


User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3445 times:

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 4):
PS: Anyone see the outline of a middle finger from the new towers?

Not before you mentioned it.  Big grin

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 6):
Hopefully this will heal some of the wounds left after that terrible tuesday morning.

Bah! The wounds will remain open and festering until we get Bubba on his way. Even then it will take a long time to heal all the damage that's been done. At least that's my view.

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 8):
Send our own message to the Terrorists or potential ones.

Yeah, we all saw how well "Bring it on!" worked. Maybe we just need to add more emphasis.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 10):
On this note is it true that man made structure must be less than 2000 ft tall.


Not if you drop it in the ocean! (3,250 ft) Big grin



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21513 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 3424 times:

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 2):
I don't think it's that bad... It's a lot better than starting at a huge hole in the ground

That design has been changed, thankfully. Now they just need to ditch that awful concrete block at the bottom.

Quoting DeltaOwnsAll (Reply 9):
Is the height still set at 1776 ft, or is that final design diagram to scale?

Pataki is still in love with the number 1776 for some reason.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 3414 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
It's horrific! Look at all of the fake height and wasted space on top.

I dunno. From Cory's picture in Reply #3, it looks like a big middle finger, facing east and screaming "F**K YOU!" Big grin


User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3499 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Quoting YOWza (Reply 10):
On this note is it true that man made structure must be less than 2000 ft tall. I heard a guy mention on Discovery channel that this restriction applied to communication towers and was imposed by the FCC and FAA, does this apply to building too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_tallest_structures

There are currently seven structures in the world (built or planned) that are over 2,000 feet tall, so no. I do know however, that the FAA does have a say in height restrictions in some areas. Columbia Center in downtown Seattle was originally designed to be 1,005 feet tall, but the FAA forced the plans to be redrawn for the current 967 foot structure because it lies directly in the flight path to/from SEA. I'm not sure what difference that 38 feet made to them, but there you have it...



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineCopaair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

I would have rather had the old WTC twin towers rebuilt. The NYC Skyline doesn't look the same witht them missing from it. Yeah, the new Freedom tower will be nice, but Trump had the right idea. It would have been a rock in the terrorists faces building that. It is nice to see a new building going up there though.

-Copa


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 15):
There are currently seven structures in the world (built or planned) that are over 2,000 feet tall, so no.

My guess is that 2000 feet tall marks the point were the srtucture's height begins to have problems that make it more impractical to build.

For example: Frank Lloyd Wright designed a Mile high tower for Chicago. He abandondoned the idea becasue at a certain point the building would need to be pressurized. Likewise the Elevators. How do you pressurize a mile long elevator shaft? Heat on the upperfloors is year round while the lower floors need air conditioning and heat.

In other words at a certain point the logistics of Super tall buildings becomes impractical, and uneconomical. If that hieght at this time is 2000 ft it would not surprise me. Structures closing in on the 2000 mark have only done so with decorative spires.

For Example, to the best of my knowlege the Sears Tower remains the tallest building in terms of floors at 110. The only buildings to beat it have done so with spires, as this freedom tower will do, as the drawing above shows the actual floor space is no higher than the original twin towers its the spire that keeps going.


User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3499 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 3355 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 17):
My guess is that 2000 feet tall marks the point were the srtucture's height begins to have problems that make it more impractical to build.

For example: Frank Lloyd Wright designed a Mile high tower for Chicago. He abandondoned the idea becasue at a certain point the building would need to be pressurized. Likewise the Elevators. How do you pressurize a mile long elevator shaft? Heat on the upperfloors is year round while the lower floors need air conditioning and heat.

In other words at a certain point the logistics of Super tall buildings becomes impractical, and uneconomical. If that hieght at this time is 2000 ft it would not surprise me. Structures closing in on the 2000 mark have only done so with decorative spires.

For Example, to the best of my knowlege the Sears Tower remains the tallest building in terms of floors at 110. The only buildings to beat it have done so with spires, as this freedom tower will do, as the drawing above shows the actual floor space is no higher than the original twin towers its the spire that keeps going.

All good points. I was merely demonstrating that structures (not neccisarily habitable buildings) can be built over 2,000 feet. All of the structures on that list are uninhabitable.



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16818 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 3):
I liked the Donald Trump idea much better.

There's a reason why Donald has never developed an office building, asking Donald Trump about commercial office development is like asking Henry Ford about aviation.

Trump builds simple but pricey apartments, and tacky casinos.

Besides he's a media whore, the only reason he "unveiled" his WTC proposal was to drum up interest in himself and his apprentice show which tanked this season.

This is what is going to be built..

http://www.som.com/resources/projects/5/1/3/harbour750x750_513.jpg



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3499 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 3325 times:



Anyone else think it looks a bit like the Bank of America Tower going up on 6th between 42nd and 43rd?



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 19):
is like asking Henry Ford about aviation.

Poor analogy. Appreantly Henry Ford did have pretty good knowledge of aviation.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sergey Riabsev
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © O. W. Nichols




Anyhow, the terrorist have won.
They changed the Manhattan skyline, a much uglier and smaller building is going up in it's place. We as Americans have fewer 'freedoms' than before the horrific acts of 9/11. The Freedom Tower has nothing to do with 'freedom'.
If the US really wanted to show the terrorist that we wern't beat would be to rebuild the twin towers using the original blue-print and same materials. If I had things my way, I'd have every square inch rebuild from the frame down to the toilet seats.

A good observation my friend Matt D brought up the last time this topic showed up; if the terrorist destroyed the Effel Tower in Paris, the French would have it rebuild the same within 12 months.
But NO! We have to many bean counters here that want to make a quick profit out of it.
So what if Donald Trump has an ego?!?! I happen to like Donald Trump and his idea for the WTC site.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCessnapimp From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 3315 times:

I think it looks very nice! I like the idea of rebuilding something very different and at the same time bigger in size. A good way of showing the steadfastness of Capitalism. Same thing for the movie on UA93. Was against it at first, thinking it was inconsiderate towards the victims; but I think now, what better way to show them you are unchanged in your way of life than to take the tragedy, turn it into a movie, and make money off it. But please...do they HAVE to call it the Freedom Tower? Not a very good name.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39693 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

Quoting Cessnapimp (Reply 22):
I think it looks very nice!

For Dallas or Los Angeles

Quoting Cessnapimp (Reply 22):
and at the same time bigger in size.

...but not actual floor space.

Quoting Cessnapimp (Reply 22):
But please...do they HAVE to call it the Freedom Tower? Not a very good name.

Agreed!

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
Pataki is still in love with the number 1776 for some reason.

To hell with that lame duck!

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14):
From Cory's picture in Reply #3, it looks like a big middle finger, facing east and screaming "F**K YOU!"

Perhaps the immature 9 year kid inside of us wants to believe that but I see no 'middle finger'. I see a cheap pole pointing in the air giving the building fake height.

The terrorist have changed the Manhattan skyline forever.  Sad



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21513 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 17):
My guess is that 2000 feet tall marks the point were the srtucture's height begins to have problems that make it more impractical to build.

If I'm not mistaken, after the KVLY TV tower in North Dakota went up, the FAA said "ok, enough", and put a cap on height at 2063 feet (the same height as the tower). In addition, one of the flight paths to LGA goes up the Hudson River right next to Manhattan, so that's another thing to consider.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 23):
Quoting Cessnapimp (Reply 22):
But please...do they HAVE to call it the Freedom Tower? Not a very good name.

Agreed!

Agreed on my part as well. But that's Pataki's doing, and he's invested his entire political capital on making sure that there is a Freedom Tower in NYC that is 1,776 feet tall. That is the only thing that's important to him - the name and the height, and that it has to have a spire. I think he could care less about the important stuff - heck, he was onboard with Liebeskind's original design (the one that Corey07850 has a lot of the elements of it, particularly the fact that most of the top third is open) just because it looked somewhat like the Statue of Liberty (and, of course, that it was going to be called the Freedom Tower, that it would be 1,776 feet high, and that it had a spire). It's enough to make the architect in me want to slay him.

STT757 posted this in the other thread:


That's what should be there, since it's obvious that they're not going to rebuild the towers the way they were. In my mind, when the Twin Towers get knocked down, building one in it's place just doesn't cut it. Heck, all you had to do was say "the Twin Towers" and everyone knew what you were talking about (and it wasn't the Petronas Towers) - the name was attached to the place, it was clearly identifiable with New York. "The Freedom Tower" could be anywhere. Pataki can go on about symbolism all he wants, but New York is not the place for symbolism. New York is an in-your-face kind of city, and the buildings there reflect that ("look at me, I'm f*cking huge!" as opposed to "look at me, I'm big, but more importantly, I'm precisely 1,215 feet tall, which not so coincidentially is the year that the Magna Carta was signed, and the Magna Carta translates to 'great paper', and my owner is a paper company that makes great paper - you see, it's all connected...."). Want to show the terrorists that their mission to change the city failed? You damn well better build two of them, because they're sure as hell not going to be swayed just because it's callled the Freedom Tower and that it's 1,776 feet tall. Nor will I - the number 1776 means very little to me, but the number 2 does.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 PHLBOS : That one would be a good compromise between old & new; otherwise, Trump's idea is the best one IMHO. Kind of like what happened w/the Pentagon. The g
26 ORFflyer : I think Superfly is correct. They should be rebuild exactly as they were. Although with the latest in building technology. I do like the picture poste
27 UALPHLCS : I agree. The single structure is kinda boring. But twins have a nice elegance to them. I can't define it. Frankly, I never liked the architecture of
28 Post contains images Mir : Here's the current site plan: The only things that are fixed in there are the footprints and the rail terminal. Even the streets inside the area are
29 STT757 : Construction started on the Freedom tower yesterday, everything is set with the plan. The whole project will be complete by 2012, the first major mil
30 Mir : I know. I'm just saying that with the current state of things, they could (and should, IMHO) amend the plan to include two big towers instead of one
31 UALPHLCS : Thank you for the map. It confirms my suspicion that my idea wouldn't work. My thought would be to have the new twin towers right next to the foot pr
32 Post contains links and images STT757 : It would be nice..
33 Dcbat2072 : What a waste of space...what better way to say f--- you to those hijackers than to rebuild them exactly the way they were? What moron came up with tha
34 Garri767 : How the freaking heck does this mean the terrorists have won? by building another (larger) building in the towers place, we are telling them we aint
35 Jacobin777 : living in NYC a year before 9/11, I loved the way the Twin Towers characterised NYC..more so than the Empire State Building... though they weren't the
36 Post contains images Superfly : Look at the Manhattan skyline. Look at the Manhattan skyline 10 years from now. Look at the Manhattan skyline 20 years from now. Look at the Manhatta
37 UALPHLCS : I dont think you can look at it that way. Terrorists have altered the way the airline industry works over the past 40 years. With all the various sec
38 Garri767 : Welcome to my ru list UAL Garri767
39 Post contains images Superfly : UALPHLCS: Duh, we all know that. I was only talking about the Manhattan skyline. Thanks for your patriotic soliloquy. Now I feel like lighting some fi
40 UALPHLCS : OK. I'll take that on faith. However, when you say something like "the terrorists have won" it doesn't sound like your talking about a skyline. So wh
41 Soylentgreen : For those not from NYC, the WTC towers were approved for construction in the 60s, with completion about 1973. A bad time for NYC real estate, resultin
42 Post contains images PHLBOS : Actually, Trumps's design had the rebuilt towers adjacent to the location of the original towers; the latter would serve as 2 memorials encased with
43 UALPHLCS : OMG Donald Trump and I had the same idea!!!! Well at least I tell my barber to cut my hair better than he does, so I'll be able to sleep tonight! Ser
44 Superfly : I liked the Twin Towers better than the Empire State, Chrysler and Woolworth buildings. Architectural pundits don't appreciate 1960s and 1970s archit
45 Mir : I think it's because nobody really cares how the Pentagon looks (so long as it's pentagonal). Also, perhaps it's because the building wasn't entirely
46 Flight152 : On the same note, has anyone found pictures of the rebuilt section of the Pentagon? I'm assuming it's about finished by now..
47 UALPHLCS : The portion of the Pentagon that was damaged was rebuilt in less than a year if memory serves. I think they had an opening ceremony on the 1 year ann
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Freedom Tower Begins Climb posted Sun Jul 4 2004 16:52:06 by Jfklganyc
Brick Laying Ceremony For Freedom Tower Today posted Sun Jul 4 2004 15:11:00 by Yanksn4
Freedom Tower Design Revealed posted Wed Jun 28 2006 23:55:57 by Tbar220
Yeah, Champions League Begins Today! posted Tue Sep 13 2005 16:18:37 by Sabena332
Cricket: Champions Trophy Begins Today posted Fri Sep 10 2004 10:38:18 by Banco
Man Parachutes From Eiffel Tower (6AM Today) posted Fri May 19 2006 13:03:03 by Birdwatching
Boy Is Today A Great Day For Freedom posted Sun Dec 14 2003 13:18:09 by L-188
Border Of Mexico=freedom...a Myth? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 09:53:52 by RootsAir
Pearl Harbor Bombed 65 Years Ago Today posted Thu Dec 7 2006 19:19:53 by Tom in NO
Cargo Bay Please - Kieron747 Is 29 Today! posted Thu Dec 7 2006 10:24:53 by Kieron747