# Twin Towers In NYC



## redbaron_012 (Sep 19, 2004)

Look, I have followed every site on SSC about the WTC...before 9/11 and what has followed. Quite a journey with much respect.
Right now.....to build office space for 220 floors at an acre each floor. It probably didn't make economic sense when they were built but now....not really. 
I make no comment about life or events but for office space ok......New York will build much more office space over time but no building in the world or any city builds that much in one go. The tallest building in the world in Dubai only gets there by making a slimming needle into the sky. 
The original WTC was the only buildings by 2 to go full height with the roof the same area as the ground floor...........praise the WTC. It was one ( 2 ) of a kind !


----------



## deadhead262 (Feb 28, 2012)

windowsoftheworld said:


> The Twin Towers stood for over 25 years gracing New York city's skyline and gaining people's love and respect. 9/11 was indeed tragic but it doesn't overshadow their grandness and legacy and i believe that if they were to be rebuilt, people would see them in a positive light and not in the way some of you pessimists would see it. 9/11 families wanted to see them rebuilt because that would be the ultimate memorial, not of 9/11, but of their loved ones. Because ultimately, the good was better than the bad and i believe that's one of the reasons why people wanted them back (aside from showing the terrorists they can't change us nor win).


Well its not going to happen. If they get built outside of the WTC site then they might as well not be built at all. It will be completely different buildings.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Even at a different site they would still be icons and would still be a worthy memorial. Existing on another site is still far better than not existing at all :cheers:


----------



## Makaveli96 (Apr 4, 2013)

Thanks for your comments everyone, I am honestly not proposing they should be built on the current site as well all no that wont happen for sure. Maybe other locations however, I mean check these images from another topic I have just found on here. Sorry for making a similar topic, I had no idea this one existed. Anyway hope this one turns out better to be honest. 


































































Also if anyone has an answer to this they will gain massive respect off me for real. Does anyone know you make do what the person did in the images above? I was going to do the same thing but place them where the financial center is across the road and a few blocks down from the tall buildings.


----------



## tim1807 (May 28, 2011)

:eek2: Even 55 Water St look tiny.


----------



## Makaveli96 (Apr 4, 2013)

tim1807 said:


> :eek2: Even 55 Water St look tiny.


Impressive huh, question is though how do you even make something like that using Google Earth?

Also tbh they don't look bad there but I would prefer to build them at the Battery Park site where the apartment buildings are located


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

the two twins on the very front of the island reminds me of Chaotianmen :cheers:



patrykus said:


>


----------



## Makaveli96 (Apr 4, 2013)

Yeah they do, but tbh I would prefer them near the original location.


----------



## tim1807 (May 28, 2011)

They can't get any closer than that. Or you have to destroy some landmarks.


----------



## Makaveli96 (Apr 4, 2013)

tim1807 said:


> They can't get any closer than that. Or you have to destroy some landmarks.


I might of understood this completely wrong but if your referring to the Battery Park site, I don't consider them apartments being "landmarks".


----------



## tim1807 (May 28, 2011)

I mean they can't get much closer to the WTC than Battery Park City.


----------



## Makaveli96 (Apr 4, 2013)

tim1807 said:


> I mean they can't get much closer to the WTC than Battery Park City.


Completely agree, could it be done or is it to precious to demolish?

Also what are your thoughts man on the whole idea?


----------



## PaulFCB (Apr 21, 2008)

Why couldn't they just build a 2nd "New WTC", the new one looks much better and 21st Century, they just have to get rid of the memorial at ground zero for that, keep the same position for the towers approximately so the difference won't be very noticeable.

Something like this would be pretty sexy:










Only North Tower with the Antenna though...


----------



## deadhead262 (Feb 28, 2012)

PaulFCB said:


> they just have to get rid of the memorial at ground zero.


Yeah, thats defiantly going to happenhno:


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

PaulFCB said:


> Why couldn't they just build a 2nd "New WTC", the new one looks much better and 21st Century, they just have to get rid of the memorial at ground zero for that, keep the same position for the towers approximately so the difference won't be very noticeable.
> 
> Something like this would be pretty sexy:
> 
> ...


That would have been the best thing they could have done but unfortunately, it won't happen. There are extensive underground facilities and a PATH line under the park that were just recently built and that completely block any further highrise construction on that site. Several years ago I had the same idea but I learned that it is impossible. The WTC site will look exactly like we see it in the official renders. Sadly there will never be any sort of Twin Towers on the WTC site again. That's why the only hope is that they'll be rebuilt on another site


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

In all honesty, twin 1WTCs would have made much more sense than what we actually got.


----------



## Eric Offereins (Jan 1, 2004)

And who is going to lease them. They have enough problems filling the current towers 2-4.


----------



## Kyll.Ing. (Nov 26, 2012)

deadhead262 said:


> Yeah, thats defiantly going to happenhno:


Ain't it fun when a spelling mistake still keeps the sentence meaningful, but gives it an entirely different context? If they were to tear down the memorial, it would require some defiance, indeed.

Regarding a re-erection of the towers, I doubt that we'll ever get them "back". The sight of them will still ewoke terrible memories for many New Yorkers, the site is busy nowadays, and there isn't that much demand for all that floor space. I mean, one thing is rebuilding the towers, another would be finding tenants for them.

Though, I think something similar will be built at some point in the future. The concept of "square twin towers" is rather ageless after all. I wouldn't be surprised if a conceptually identical set of twins were built somewhere in America, maybe as a "homage" to the original WTC, and maybe to satisfy massive demand for office space (whenever _that_ will happen again). After all, the WTC towers each contained roughly an acre of office space for every floor. By building square and straight, you'll get a lot of usable room on your site. The WTC design is extremely space-efficient. Whether it'll happen on Manhattan is another question.

A Chinese city whose name escapes me already has a pair of square supertall twins proposed. I'm not quite sure if the proposal has gone through, but those towers would bear a striking resemblance to the WTC if built.


----------



## deadhead262 (Feb 28, 2012)

Kyll.Ing. said:


> Ain't it fun when a spelling mistake still keeps the sentence meaningful, but gives it an entirely different context? If they were to tear down the memorial, it would require some defiance, indeed.
> 
> Regarding a re-erection of the towers, I doubt that we'll ever get them "back". The sight of them will still ewoke terrible memories for many New Yorkers, the site is busy nowadays, and there isn't that much demand for all that floor space. I mean, one thing is rebuilding the towers, another would be finding tenants for them.
> 
> ...


Haha, I definitely did that on purpose?


----------

