The New WTC?

http://archrecord.construction.com/wtc/newWTC.asp

this is another link....

comments????

It's not all that bad....a bit predictable in a lot of ways....I just wish I was the supplier of all the glass.....I'd be retiring along with a few thousand colleagues after a contract like that one...

I think it's kind of ugly. The old WTC was by no means pretty, but it was dull enough to be inoffensive. While the size of the structure will certainly make it an impressive sight, I can't really say I'm keen on the design.

An efficient escape route is a sensible idea, and something that should have been implemented in the first (nothing to do with terrorist attacks, that just showed us what a nice hot fire could do to the structure), but the "airplane repeller" is one of the most ridiculous ideas that I've ever heard.

AJC

Maybe an enourmous "bug zapper" device instead of the sonic repeller

Now you're thinking Dangeruss, my only fear would be that a giant fluorescent lamp hanging from the eaves of the building might attract mindless pilots who would swarm around it until they got electrocuted. If you have any doubts as to the lack of intelligence in pilots, please bear in mind that the starting pay for a pilot at Delta is about 15k, Continental gets around 13k, and American Eagle gets a whopping $17k, out of which they must pay for their own uniforms and their own first year of training. As I read somewhere, never trust your life to a man who earns less than the kid at taco bell.

AJC

AJ,

I'm sure where you got your facts form but Airline pilots are very well paid. This is especially true for "Captains" who are the senior officer on the plane. I doubt if you could find a Captain of any large jet aircraft for any of the major airlines making less than six figures. Most airline pilots are recruited form military retirees and start at way above those figures mentioned above. Pilots are paid by the minute and pay scales above $3.00 are common. I can almost guarantee you that you have never flown in a plane piloted by someone making less than a kid at taco bell, well maybe if you've been on Aeroflot... With mandatory retirement at 60 you have to earn it while you can! Feel safe you are in good hands...

Here's a link:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos107.htm

cough... make that:

"I'm not sure where you got your facts from..."

I should not type when this low on caffeine.

quite true bill.. one of my cousins is a pilot, and he is quite well off.

the 6 figure pay packet doesn't cover mechanical failure...

They seem to be missing the point though. Why build the biggest building ever, and not just a park or a memorial in the place.

I'm not familier why NY, but are they planning on building it in the same place?

I wouldn't really fancy living or working where so many people have been left to rest. And they should be left to rest.

It's nice to see they are including a memorial and trees inside, shows some heart at least.

Also the fact that it's another WTC, paints a huge target on the side of it.

My 2 english pence.

Chris.

The problem with designing the site is that it is a place of work and school and living. So just having a park or a fenced memorial only will most likly not happen. My Mom doesn't like working down there but she does, and so do some other hundreds of thousand people. Some people moved but others stayed. What about them?

It is a really tough site to design in the first place. Now it will definatly be tougher and everyone will have a opition about it... and as they should.

I think they might leave the foot print of WTC alone. But frankly I do not know how they are going to do it. The tower itself did not take up that much of a footprint but it is a prime spot for biulding. That is why they put it there.

Smaller towers might work. 50 or 60 stories... but then the question os open space comes into play. A cluster of biuldings is the reason why the Zoning code was designed and so many biuldings taper off as they get taller or are set back from the street wall of other biuldings.

We will see what will be biult. It will probably take about 10 years to design and biuld. Normal design and biuld usually takes 7 years.

it's interesting. i can't help but be reminded of the hours i spent on simcity 2000, and the self-contained arcologies. it's the first thing i thought of when i saw some of the new designs, and i think it's a fine goal.

manhattan really wouldn't be helped ecologically by trying to create greenspace in the area, and i'm sure any building constructed there will incorporate a heartfelt and prominent memorial.

but what's the best memorial? trying to make something shorter? not building? incorporating fear into the planning? i don't think so.

i think it's an excellent time to experiment with the idea of real-world arcologies.

Economics would put the WTC footprint in such a developed city into the realm of dollars-per-square-millimeter....and with land values such as that, nothing cost-wise short of the Original towers would be economically viable. That means it's gotta be 'big' [tall], preferably more so than the previous, to re-establish its prominence in the World Scale of Phalluses....so it obviously becomes a 'target' again, but with clever form/design, can be made 'survivable'.

When the Towers were built originally, they conformed to a code of building standard which has never been accepted in Australia, for example, where a similar construction method was proposed for a contemporary building here in Melbourne, but was flatly rejected...purely for fire-standards. Around 1970, there was a high-rise residential tower in England where one flat had a gas explosion, blowing out one wall, and like a deck of cards, the tower disassembled itself, along with a few hundred tenants. Panic spread through the Architecture/Building fraternity in Aus because we, too had these 'Housing Commission' towers, but, being from 'Down-under' we did things a bit different....linking the pre-cast concrete panels with re-inforced concrete 'joints' - a sort of continuous weld, rather than a simple bolting method...and a quarter scale model was built [it was 4 storeys tall]..to test wind stability, but after the disaster in the UK, it was to test equivalent explosion-damage as well...

The way the WTC mk.2 is set-up, it certainly looks like a similar occurence as Sep 11 would be highly survivable.....though the 'Bug-zapper' is about as corny as you can get...

The one thing that caught my eye in the description of their plan is the requirement of a mandatory 5-mile no-fly zone around Manhattan. Then it goes on to say that the escape plan will be aided by using helicopters from the various levels. I take it the no-fly only pertains to planes and not 'copters...

And while I'm not familiar with the Manhattan area, isn't a couple major airports within 5 miles of Manhattan???

down here in New Zealand, nobody ever flies planes into buildings, there's just nothing valuable enough to destroy
besides, when all the buildings are only 30-45 floors high, it becomes rather difficult to take one out without getting the rest. Why not just build flack cannons or sam sites on the tops of all the big buildings?

This is real pretty and I would like to see a building like that. But I was watching on the news some of the proposals and there was one with twin towers and I kind of liked the feeling that seeing those gave me. Kind of a missing piece that was all filled back in...

Does anyone think they'll have trouble leasing the higher floors? After all, there are a great many people still afraid to fly, because of 9/11.

No...it'll be seen as thumbing one's nose at the events of 9/11.....and besides, people have short memories....even over things of this magnitude...

They just came out with 6 proposals. I really do not like any of them but I guess what I want biult is not really cost effective.

Any way here are the links. Check it out and give your opinion.

I know I will.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/779908.asp?pne=msn

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan/concepts.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/18/nyregion/18REBU.html