© 2022 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by 1992F40, Dec 19, 2003.
what do you guys think?
To remove this ad click here.
I don't care for the design myself.I liked the other one better.
Here is a quote from the article.
Silverstein expects $7 billion to come from insurance proceeds -- an amount that is the subject of a bitter lawsuit between the leaseholder and insurance companies.
$7 Billion from insurance?!?! No wonder it is a bitter lawsuit.
What I find amazing is how things are built in NYC being how crowded it is.
looks likes superman's ice palace.
Only the worlds tallest building can sit on that spot.
It should be the tallest by a good margin too. 1776ft sounds right
A 676 m (2,222 ft) building is slated to be completed by the year 2008 in Katangi, India.
Surely these architects know about this...how can they say it will be the tallest. It won't even be completed before the building in India. I understand that the 1776 number is significant (evoking the year of the establishment of America/freedom) but they should just emphasize that, rather than saying it will be the tallest building in the world.
72 stories? Doesn't add up. 1776 feet tall, with 276 feet of a tower. Still doesn't add up. How many floors?
Art, I believe the top third will be an empty lattice.
The most fantastic thing is that Daniel Libeskind (because he has the ear of Pataki) has been able to more or less stop the horrible "stand alone" design from David Childs. The earlier proposed design was bad because it did not fit in the choosen masterplan. Even though the tower does not look like the design of Libeskind, it now at least behaves not like a stand alone, but as a part of an overall vision.
I did not think it was possible to bend the forces of commercial thought. The only missing thing is the number of office floors. At 72, the top office floor is lower than the offices in the Empire State Building. And this is only so, because the real estate brokers say that it will be difficult to rent out space above 50 floors. That is such a short sighted approach.
I'm much relieved
You can safely assume the Indian building is a pipe dream. It is being financed by a religious leader? The cost of a building this size is in the Billions no matter how cheap the labor is. Has ground even been broken yet? It's been advertised for at least 4 years now. The new tower in NYC will be started next September.
The tallest building that acctually will be completed will be in Shanghi.
We'll see if the freedom tower can beat it.
Good point. But you'd be surprised to learn that some of these spiritual/religious leaders, crooks as they are, can very easily access several hundred million if not billions of dollars. One of the most beautiful temples in New Delhi is built by followers of the Baha'i faith, which is not even a major religion. It is called the Lotus Temple, and it cost several hundred mill, and that structure has virtually zero commercial potential.
I do wonder if this tower is a pipe dream. In India, it's as much to do with the whim of the public/government as it is to do with whether it's commercially viable or not. Kind of the "if you build it, it will flourish" mentality. And if some successful politician embraces the project, you can bet it will be finished. Also, if businesses see potential for leasing commercial space, and latch on to the pyramid, it could very easily become reality. I believe part of the plan is to have commercial space.
The pyramid design I have seen on the websites is certainly not unique or appealing to me. But I remember seeing a fantastic commercial tower rendering a while ago. That would be very impressive indeed. If sold as a symbol of India's new prosperity, it will get built as India's response to the Shanghai, Taipei, and Kuala Lampur towers.
The freedom tower is going to be taller than the Shanghai or Taipei towers. But even if it wasn't, it's certainly got them beat in terms of commercial value, and in terms of what it will symbolize.
Are there any plans for a memorial yet? I heard that some people were opposed to having anything being built on the footprint of the original building.
the fortress of solidude = because no one will want to go there because it is fugly. but it really is difficult to replace an icon such as the twin towers in good taste.
My creative opion.....It looks like a building rapped in a silver netting or spider web.
My sociological analysis.....Can't help but wonder is that netting look was done on purpose? Maybe to leave a hint of protection ( to catch airplanes before they can ever touch the building) or at least leave that feeling in the back of our minds subconsciously?
The world trade center was originally not well recieved at all. People thought them boring and uninspirering. Maybe the new one will look better once completed. I didn't think the 360 looked all that great in pics but once I saw it in person I loved it. Anyway, time will tell.
Can't help but notice the resemblance to the statue of liberty's arm - culminating in a raised middle finger.
I like it.