# Reasons why a twin complex is better than 1 world trade center



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Note: Save your "it's never gonna happen" bullshit, this thread is made for discussion. If you're not gonna contribute to the topic, save your post for another thread.



1. Twin Buildings are efficient, less construction space in exchange of huge office space skyscrapers as opposed to a crowded area of less tall towers.










_*Your turn.*_​


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

They set a better focal point on the skyline...?


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

True, they definitely add to the uniqueness factor









As opposed to


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

^^ but 2WTC is the most unique tower out of the complex =(


----------



## mwds120 (Jun 29, 2012)

windowsoftheworld said:


> True, they definitely add to the uniqueness factor
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the twin tower version better!


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

As much as I liked the original towers, they are pretty much useless right now. Doubling a tower seems cheap to me and it's just a cheap shot at trying to be different than the rest. As we can see in the renders above, current buildings benefit nothing from being doubled.
It worked a few times (Petronas being the last good example) but right now it's nothing too good to be proud of.


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Kopacz said:


> As much as I liked the original towers, they are pretty much useless right now.


Way to completely ignore my first request for this thread.




Kopacz said:


> Doubling a tower seems cheap to me and it's just a cheap shot at trying to be different than the rest. As we can see in the renders above, current buildings benefit nothing from being doubled.
> It worked a few times (Petronas being the last good example) but right now it's nothing too good to be proud of.


Way to completely ignore my second request for this thread.

It's like people don't take the time to read anymore.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Twins are much easier to identify as a complex.

A non-WTC example:

A lone building can be mistaken for others, and they are harder to identify.
(Eg. IBM Building, Chicago, looks like several other buildings in the city)









But many people can easily identify these buildings as LA's City National Plaza, since identical towers right next to each other are rarer and draw more attention.









Just a suggestion, but maybe you don't have to limit this thread to the WTC.


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Those are gorgeous, it also looks neat and organized. And this topic isn't solely about the WTC, but twin structures in General. The initial comparison being the new WTC.


----------



## Uaarkson (Feb 11, 2009)

windowsoftheworld said:


> 1. Twin Buildings are efficient, less construction space in exchange of huge office space skyscrapers as opposed to a crowded area of less tall towers.


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Uaarkson said:


>


Does the logic of two skyscrapers taking less space than 4 get to you?


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

I normally don't like twins, but I did like the WTC especially because of the antenna on 1WTC. They were so powerful, but elegant. Minimalist.

However, I am completely fine with the new WTC, as I love the difference in the spires on each building. 1WTC has a tall, centered spire. 2WTC has the most unique spire ever: 2 short, 45 degree angled connecting spires. Only thing even similar is Bank of China Tower, _if_ you take off the tallest vertical sections. 3WTC has four short corner spires, and 4WTC has no spire.

Anyhow, I would take either design any day of the week.

Another one to add to the list: Twins put a focal point on the architectural style of the time period they were built in.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Another good reason for twins... sometimes one tower can look ugly, but if paired with a twin, they complement each other and end up looking great.
Twin complexes are some of my favourites.

Don't know if this happens to anyone else, but when I see twin buildings, I sometimes get shivers, especially if they're boxy. They stand like two massive, strong guardians and bring about an awe-inspiring feeling that no lone building can produce. One of the reasons why NYC's twin WTC were some of my favourite buildings of all time. 

And I agree, the complex in LA is beautiful.


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

L.A.F.2. said:


> I normally don't like twins, but I did like the WTC especially because of the antenna on 1WTC. They were so powerful, but elegant.* Minimalist.*


That is what i loved about the old twins, despite being humongous buildings, they looked neat. I don't necessarily dislike the new complex, but i do think it looks quite messy and all over the place. 
I understand why some find it attractive but to me, there's no symmetry in it.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

The only real rational advantage of a twin complex, is probably that two identical towers are easier and cheaper to design and to build than building two different towers. 
(Comparing twin towers to just one single possibly bigger and taller tower usually doesn't really make to much sense. The only really useful comparison is comparing two more or less identical twin towers to two different and unique towers. The question what is generally better, one single skyscraper or two smaller ones, can not really be answered generally and simply depend on individal and local aspects which differ from case to case.)

Architectural advantages may of course be that identical design shows that the two towers are belonging together and make them appear as one complex optically. And some twin complexes really look nice.

My favorite twin complex is one whicht doesn't really appear to look all that much like one, since the two towers don'tquite look like having an identical shape from most view angles, the Deutsche Bank Towers in Frankfurt.

Here a few links to pictures in case you don't know the building:
http://www.adpic.de/data/picture/detail/Deutsche_Bank_Tuerme__Frankfurt_80324.jpg

http://www.banklupe.de/news/wp-cont...-zufolge-mindestens-ein-dutzend-bieter-an.jpg

Only when the complex is being viewed from above does it really get obvious, that the two towers do indeed have an identical footprint: 
http://www.nordpool-media.com/images/f/bigprev/ib/iblblo00968311.jpg


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

windowsoftheworld said:


> Way to completely ignore my first request for this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh then you just cut off your request "this thread is made for discussion". 
I would gladly speak with some people that actually are open for discussion. I gave my reasons as to why it's not a good solution anymore. Looks like it's an old russian exam : "who was the best president and why is it Putin ?"


----------



## tim1807 (May 28, 2011)

If there would be a twin version of 1 WTC I think that one should have a totally flat roof.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

windowsoftheworld said:


> Way to completely ignore my first request for this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is the point of asking for open discussion when you firstly tell everyone they are not allowed to discuss what you don't agree with?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Maybe he's a Republican? :|


----------



## MEMC0282 (Jul 17, 2010)

Certainly the old twins used to be a New York City's icon, I even could say that were actually an american icon, have a new twins would be the chance to increase this landmark as a new icon, and IMO, a truly sign of a fully recovery from those dark days in 2001... and let's be honest, Manhattan's skyline it's not the same without the twins, beyond the economic factor or convinience of two towers, we need to think about what means this place for everybody


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Taller said:


> What is the point of asking for open discussion when you firstly tell everyone they are not allowed to discuss what you don't agree with?


This is what he meant: What are the advantages of twin complexes, in general, as opposed to single or non-twin complexes? Or why aren't they advantageous? This isn't a Twin Towers vs 1WTC thread. He merely used them as the initial comparison, as an example. The thread title can be misleading.
Someone should change the thread title to *Reasons why a twin complex is better than a non-twin complex*

OR: *Which is better, a twin complex, or a non-twin complex?* to allow for more interesting discussion.


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Kopacz said:


> Oh then you just cut off your request "this thread is made for discussion".
> I would gladly speak with some people that actually are open for discussion. I gave my reasons as to why it's not a good solution anymore. Looks like it's an old russian exam : "who was the best president and why is it Putin ?"


No. This thread was made to discuss why twin complexes are better than single towers not why they're worse or how it's useless because then it wouldn't be on topic. If you want to discuss why they're worse or useless, make a thread about it.




Taller said:


> What is the point of asking for open discussion when you firstly tell everyone they are not allowed to discuss what you don't agree with?


The point is to remain on topic, read above.




MEMC0282 said:


> Certainly the old twins used to be a New York City's icon, I even could say that were actually an american icon, have a new twins would be the chance to increase this landmark as a new icon, and IMO, a truly sign of a fully recovery from those dark days in 2001... and let's be honest, Manhattan's skyline it's not the same without the twins, beyond the economic factor or convinience of two towers, we need to think about what means this place for everybody


I agree, i was super surprised when they announced they weren't going for a twin tower complex seeing how that became such a powerful american symbol over the years. _Standing tall and united_ etc


----------



## johnybarkerr (Jul 27, 2012)

As per my opinion, As much as I liked the original towers, they are pretty much useless right now. Doubling a tower seems cheap to me and it's just a cheap shot at trying to be different than the rest. As we can see in the renders above, current buildings benefit nothing from being doubled.


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

johnybarkerr said:


> As per my opinion, As much as I liked the original towers, they are pretty much useless right now. Doubling a tower seems cheap to me and it's just a cheap shot at trying to be different than the rest. As we can see in the renders above, current buildings benefit nothing from being doubled.


Why did you copy my post ? :sly:


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ That profile is most likely a robot... ignore it.


----------



## Gistok (May 24, 2012)

There is beauty in the art of repetition... and the Twin Towers did show that. I agree that the different tower designs all linked together does not quite do it justice.

In Detroit they planned a Hotel Tower and 4 matching office buildings that today is the GM World HQ... also known as Renaissance Center. There's a certain beauty to having 4 matching towers as part of the city's downtown centerpiece....


----------



## 1Filipe1 (Jul 13, 2012)

im glad there not building twins because who wants to look at that and remember what happened, thats not to say that i wouldnt mind seeing 2 tall twins popping up somewhere else in nyc, but i just think for that certain area of land it was good that they changed it and did not make 2 new twins


----------



## LeCom (Nov 29, 2003)

Your thread title says:



> Reasons why a twin complex is better than 1 world trade center


Then you say:



windowsoftheworld said:


> No. This thread was made to discuss why twin complexes are better than single towers


So is this thread is really about the advantages of twin towered complexes vs single towers in general, or is it about why twin towered complexes are better than 1 WTC?

You keep contradicting yourself.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^I explained it in my post above...


----------



## LeCom (Nov 29, 2003)

It's a question to the thread starter, not to you.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ Where do you think I got my answer from?



windowsoftheworld said:


> Those are gorgeous, it also looks neat and organized. And this topic isn't solely about the WTC, but twin structures in General. The initial comparison being the new WTC.


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

Wand another one: We wouldn't have to worry about finding more tenants. We'd only need half. :lol:


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

LeCom said:


> Your thread title says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't the new WTC made up of 5 single towers? I don't see why this is so hard to understand for some of you, the WTC in NY was the only complex i could've used as an example for this thread seeing how the old was Twin towered and the new isn't. However, this thread isn't solely about the WTC, just twin towered complexes in general vs Single towers. Maybe i'm typing in Chinese without realizing it.:colbert:


----------



## Kiboko (Nov 30, 2011)

The old twins were well designed, but they were an eyesore in the skyline. Most people never liked them. The new situation looks more appealing. New York is doing a great job by redevelop the area instead of cloning the originals.


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

^^ They were actually pretty much loved and praised not only in NYC or America, but all over the world.
And they weren't eye sore imo, they gave the skyline an identity.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

They were some of the most beautiful buildings in the world and nothing can replace them. I would have thought this even before 9/11. Perfect design, (I love minimalism), and perfect location. 
But seriously, this thread isn't about the NYC twin towers.


----------



## Chapelo (Sep 4, 2011)

Kiboko said:


> Most people never liked them.


Yeah, no, bullshit. Something tells me you've never been to New York.

Most people *on this forum* never liked them. They are very much alive, to this day, throughout the city, and are _still_ well-loved and missed.


----------



## Hudson11 (Jun 23, 2011)

I wouldn't say they were "well loved" at all, they were just identified with New York. Hence why they're on that old company logo you posted.


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

johnybarkerr said:


> As per my opinion, As much as I liked the original towers, they are pretty much useless right now. Doubling a tower seems cheap to me and it's just a cheap shot at trying to be different than the rest. As we can see in the renders above, current buildings *benefit nothing from being doubled.*


I think he was symbolically referring to his closing statement. In his opinion, there's no benefit of a tower being doubled, so he posted it twice to show there's no benefit from repeating something as well in an attempt to make a point.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ Nice theory...but it's just a spam-bot :lol: Nothing symbolic.


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

^^ :lol: Alright, but what's a spam-bot?

EDIT - Fail! Used the up arrows to point to your comment, but I started the next page and instead they pointed to a Sparkle Juice ad. :lol:


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^Just a program that creates accounts, spams threads and advertises some product. That particular bot repeated comments on several different threads. That one advertised 'E-liquid' (whatever that is)

Keeping on topic, I've noticed that some buildings look isolated and incomplete by themselves. A twin is needed to complement them, for example, NY's WTC and Moscow's Federation Tower. Also, Hudson Yards' twin towers wouldn't look so great if one tower was removed...


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

L.A.F.2. said:


> I think he was symbolically referring to his closing statement. In his opinion, there's no benefit of a tower being doubled, so he posted it twice to show there's no benefit from repeating something as well in an attempt to make a point.


That was deep. :lol:



OT, so far we've got: 
*1.Efficient
2.Improve the Skyline.
3.Easier to identity.
4.They Look neat and organized.
5.Twins complement each other aesthetically.
6.Aesthetically appealing.
7.??



*


----------



## chris123678 (May 21, 2012)

I think many of you are missing the big picture.
I have loved the twins for a long time but they aren't certaintly better than the new complex, safety or looks.

The only thing that made the Twin Towers look unique is the mere fact that they were twins, two of them.
With the new World Trade Center, any of those towers could stand alone and look pleasing and not out of place.
Secondly,these buildings require much less steel, but are 10 times stronger than the twins. 
Thirdly, only 2 have been built, so how can we say the twin complex is better if this one isn't finished.

Please Don't mention that I didn't read your first request, because this is a discussion thread.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ 

The point. You're missing it.


----------



## chris123678 (May 21, 2012)

ThatOneGuy said:


> ^^
> 
> The point. You're missing it.


 
Please elaborate?


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

chris123678 said:


> I think many of you are missing the big picture.
> I have loved the twins for a long time but they aren't certaintly better than the new complex, safety or looks.
> 
> The only thing that made the Twin Towers look unique is the mere fact that they were twins, two of them.
> ...


Let's say you weren't illiterate and your post would be relevant to this thread:



> The only thing that made the Twin Towers look unique is the mere fact that they were twins, two of them.
> With the new World Trade Center, any of those towers could stand alone and look pleasing and not out of place.


Precisely the point of Twin Buildings having the upper edge on a single tower, they're infinitely more attracting than any one tower for the simple fact that there are two identical buildings instead of one or in the case of this complex, a few scattered towers around the area. 
And i disagree about the buildings not looking out of place, in fact, they're modern architecture and aesthetics make them look extremely out of place, however, this is not a bad thing.



> Secondly,these buildings require much less steel, but are 10 times stronger than the twins.


Irrelevant, seeing how if the twins were to be rebuilt today, all the new safety implementations would be added to the buildings.



> Thirdly, only 2 have been built, so how can we say the twin complex is better if this one isn't finished.


We've all seen the model of the whole complex completed, going back to the twins could save money, resources, space, time, etc in the case of twin complexes, less = more.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

Okay, this will be a rather long rant, so I'm warning anybody that this won't be short ....

First I would like to say the good side of the new complex. Its engineering is far superior to that of the Twin Towers and is a prefect example of how buildings should be built. I am very grateful that they took the time and the money to design something that won't collapse if a plane crashes into it. Strength is by far the most important aspect of a skyscraper and I am very grateful that they are making the new buildings sufficiently strong :cheers:

Another good point I would like to add is that each and every tower that is being built is a masterpiece of architecture :cheers:

Now come the bad things, first of all the fact that something other than new Twin Towers is being built is an unforgivable crime and act of treason. Twin Towers are what used to stand there before 9/11 and pride dictates that the Twin Towers must be rebuilt. Rebuilding the Twin Towers would have been the ultimate sign of strength. After engineering pride is the second most important aspect of a skyscraper. Not rebuilding the Twin Towers is a humiliation :rant:

Now we come to the height, which is a humiliation on its own. And a rather big one. The fact that the second tallest building of the new complex is shorter than the second tallest building of the old complex is a huge humiliation. Another humiliation is that 1WTC was originaly planned to be only as tall as the old 1WTC and only the fixing of an error in its height measurement made it taller. Also, all of the new WTC towers are no where near to compete for the title of the world's tallest building. Another aspect the new WTC should have had was to try to claim the title of the world's tallest building, or at least come close to it. As to finances, if they would build 2 buildings instead of 5, they could have the money to achieve this :rant:

Now comes another aspect, the memorial. Two mass graves in the form of two holes filled with water? Excuse me, but that is plain and simple disrespect to the victim families! First of all, each 9/11 victim should have a grave. Mass graves are for long deceased people that have only very few relatives left, not for victims of such a recent tragedy as 9/11. If no lowrises would be made arround new Twin Towers, there would be enough space for both, a normal park and a graveyard with beautiful trees, channels filled with water and other stuff that would make it a beautiful place. Also, new Twin Towers would be the ultimate memorial for the 9/11 victims. No memorial could be better than a memorial resembling what was lost, which is towering over the rest of the city :rant:

Last, but not least comes Libeskind's site plan, which is plain and simply horrible! The buildings don't work with each other, they overshadow each other and it is perfect in assuring that none of them will be dominating. Other than that the worsening fact that it is not a Twin Towers complex applies to it too but I already mentioned that before :rant:

Okay, so now some final words. The new complex is not bad, in fact it is very good, definitely far better than those utterly medicore Hudson Yards. However, it could have been far better and it should have been far better. This is not rebuilding, this is an amnesia inducing drug! I think that the Twin Towers shouldn't be forgotten and I also think that they shouldn't be only a part of the past. I hope a heroic developer will come one day to lower Manhattan and rebuild the Twin Towers on another spot. Land reclamation from the river is an option, just as demolition of old useless buildings is. I really hope that one day, a true tribute both to the western world and to the 9/11 victim families will be made and the only way to achieve this is to build new Twin Towers.


----------



## 1Filipe1 (Jul 13, 2012)

Kanto said:


> Okay, this will be a rather long rant, so I'm warning anybody that this won't be short ....
> 
> First I would like to say the good side of the new complex. Its engineering is far superior to that of the Twin Towers and is a prefect example of how buildings should be built. I am very grateful that they took the time and the money to design something that won't collapse if a plane crashes into it. Strength is by far the most important aspect of a skyscraper and I am very grateful that they are making the new buildings sufficiently strong :cheers:
> 
> ...


i think your the only once concerned with having the worlds tallest building, frankly no one really cares, it would ruin the entire skyline having a 3000 foot building where the freedom tower is tahts just plain ridiculous, and last time i checked were not in any sort of race to get the tallest building in the world because guess what, its not neccesary. The complesx is fine in my opinion you actually people are going to care if the 2nd tallest tower there is like 10-15 feet shorter..seriously how can you even notice that when its 1350 feet in the air. rebuilding the twins would be a horrible idea because they would just be a massive target.. And idk how you can possibly say the memorail is 2 holes with water..have u ever even been there?


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

SHUT UP ABOUT THE NYC TWIN TOWERS. It's not what the thread's about. I might make a thread like this myself without 'wtc' in the title just to stop comments like these. Again, the WTC was just the initial comparison, and he refers to all twin structures in general.
hno:


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

Kanto brought up some excellent points, I will have to say. But, I don't think walking through a graveyard to get to work every day would attract too many tenants. And besides, since it took so long to get plans together, all the victims, that were able to be identified and weren't just body parts, would already be buried. And the ones not identified?



1Filipe1 said:


> i think your the only once concerned with having the worlds tallest building, frankly no one really cares, it would ruin the entire skyline having a 3000 foot building where the freedom tower is tahts just plain ridiculous, and last time i checked were not in any sort of race to get the tallest building in the world because guess what, its not neccesary. The complesx is fine in my opinion you actually people are going to care if the 2nd tallest tower there is like 10-15 feet shorter..seriously how can you even notice that when its 1350 feet in the air. rebuilding the twins would be a horrible idea because they would just be a massive target.. And idk how you can possibly say the memorail is 2 holes with water..have u ever even been there?


 
But as far as being the world's tallest building, it could have easily been done. All they would need to do is use the original plans, but add some modern strengthening, which would save 4 years of time for construction, and since it wouldn't be as complex as the new complex lol, it could be completed in 2009, a year before the Burj. "But that only makes 1,368 feet," you might say. But here's where you are wrong. Instead of using the old 1WTC antenna, make the new one part of the building's design, totalling a height of 1,727 feet on 1WTC, and you have a world's tallest building that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in Lower Manhattan.


----------



## Hudson11 (Jun 23, 2011)

shoulda, coulda, woulda


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

ThatOneGuy said:


> SHUT UP ABOUT THE NYC TWIN TOWERS. It's not what the thread's about. I might make a thread like this myself without 'wtc' in the title just to stop comments like these. Again, the WTC was just the initial comparison, and he refers to all twin structures in general.
> hno:


Um, read the title of this thread. It clearly says that it refers to the World Trade Center hno:



> rebuilding the twins would be a horrible idea because they would just be a massive target


A book, which in my opinion is the best book ever written, says "Fear is the mind killer, fear is the little death that brings total obliteration!" Concern is a wise thing and because of concern the buildings must be built as strong and blast proof as possible, but fear is something completely different. If you fear the terrorists, then they have won. I don't know about you but I would rather die than to be a coward and fear a bunch of moronic loosers like that al quaeeda scum or whatever they are called hno:



> And idk how you can possibly say the memorail is 2 holes with water..have u ever even been there?


Imagine this, you're a 9/11 victim family member and you want to have a few minutes of silent thinking at a grave. Wait, there is no grave, okay, so you have to do with a massgrave. Several other 9/11 families, whose lost relative has got his name next to your lost relative block you path. Very well, you wait. When you finally get to that name you would like to plant some nice looking flowers there, um, wait, you can't, well, okay then, then at least even despite the noise and busy traffic all around you you get to have a few minutes of peace. Oh, but wait, what's that? Some curious tourists photograph you like an animal in a zoo .... Those two holes are horrible memorials. They can't even be seen from a place other than the surrounding buildings, in other words, all to make 9/11 be forgotten. But 9/11 shouldn't be forgotten, the victims should be honored and remembered. New Twin Towers should have been made as a huge, massive memorial that can be seen from far and a silent graveyard should have been built too, where every 9/11 victim will have his/her grave, where people can think and remember in peace and where they can plant flowers to make those graves more personalized. If no remains of a victim were identified, it doesn't matter. Remains are not important, to have a place where families can go and peacefully think and remember, that is what matters and that is something at which those pools horribly fail hno:

One thing I would like to add is that this graveyard, that I think should have been built there, should have been on a 10 meter pedestal to make it isolated from the busy streets and the public and tenant part of the park. This way graves wouldn't bother tourists and employees and tourist and employees wouldn't bother 9/11 families. The park would be enough big for both, public places for recreation and a graveyard if only 2 towers and 1 PATH station were built there hno:

As to water, it's beautiful. breathtakingly beautiful but it could have been incorporated in other ways too, like for example small channels and fountains in both the public and the graveyard part of the park :cheers:


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Kanto said:


> Um, read the title of this thread. It clearly says that it refers to the World Trade Center hno:





windowsoftheworld said:


> *the WTC in NY was the only complex i could've used as an example for this thread seeing how the old was Twin towered and the new isn't. However, this thread isn't solely about the WTC, just twin towered complexes in general vs Single towers.*.:colbert:


Geezus KRIST


----------



## chris123678 (May 21, 2012)

windowsoftheworld said:


> Let's say you weren't illiterate and your post would be relevant to this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I don't appreciate being called illiterate. Yet,there are reasons why BOTH are better than each other. Both complexes have their ups and downs, but personally rebuilding the same two buildings that we're destroyed in the worst terrorist attack on U.S soil since pearl harbor isn't something that would sit well with me. I was in NY the day it happened, the previous night I went to see a MJ concert, and it was horrible watching those people jump. I personally couldn't bare seeing those go up again.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

windowsoftheworld said:


> Geezus KRIST


Then why did you name it the way you did? :dunno:


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Kanto said:


> Then why did you name it the way you did? :dunno:


I just explained it to you in my last post. hno:




chris123678 said:


> I don't appreciate being called illiterate.


And I don't appreciate people derailing my thread.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ I know what you said, I just don't understand why anybody would say in the thread title that it is about the WTC if it in fact isn't about the WTC? hno:


----------



## Bruce.Tenmile (Apr 18, 2010)

windowsoftheworld said:


> I just explained it to you in my last post. hno:
> 
> 
> And I don't appreciate people derailing my thread.


If you consider discussion as derailment, maybe you don't understand the nature of a forum. You just can't say 'agree with me or shut up'. Any opinion either for or against twin towers is on topic and therefore relevant.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

^^ It was derailed because it had nothing to do with what the thread was _actually asking._ Yes, the title is misleading, but this thread is about 'Twin Buildings vs Single buildings _in general._

I suggested the thread title be changed to something like "Twin Towers vs. Single Towers" but nobody seems to care.


----------



## Bruce.Tenmile (Apr 18, 2010)

^^The thread *was* actually asking about the World Trade Center. It's in the title, and in the first post there's an image of the old complex, and it's even specified that any ' "it's never gonna happen" bullshit ' will not be welcome, and that's clearly referencing that particular development. I don't know at what point the OP decided it wasn't about the WTC, but it certainly was originally.

Also it did seem that despite wanting a discussion, there was only annoyance directed at posters who had negative thoughts either regarding twin towers in general or the WTC in particular.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

:deadthrea


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Damn i've explain the reason why i put 1 WTC on the title and why the WTC complex *IS* relevant to this discussion, i never said it wasn't. But, either i'm getting trolled or some of you lack some serious brain cells.
Here i go again:


*The WORLD TRADE CENTER in NEW YORK CITY was the only complex i could've have used as an example CONSIDERING THIS COMPLEX HAS BEEN BOTH TWIN TOWERED IN THE PAST AND SINGLE TOWERED IN THE PRESENT. HOWEVER, THIS THREAD ISN'T SOLELY ABOUT THE WTC, BUT ABOUT TWIN TOWERED COMPLEXES IN GENERAL. THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION IS: WHY DO TWIN TOWERED COMPLEXES HAVE THE UPPER EDGE ON SINGLE TOWERED ESTABLISHMENTS AS OPPOSED TO WHY NOT, SO PLEASE STICK TO THE TOPIC.*​

I'm just happy at least some of you got the point and this thread wasn't a complete mess.


----------



## 1Filipe1 (Jul 13, 2012)

^^^ ok like you just said if wtc site is an example, why can't we talk about it? your contradicting yourself


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Please show me where i have stated that you couldn't talk about the WTC, in fact, there has been some discussion about the WTC all while remaining on topic thanks to a few great members.


----------



## Bruce.Tenmile (Apr 18, 2010)

If somebody came to this thread, and it'd gone the way you wanted, and no one had said a single bad word about twin complexes, they'd have a false impression of what people on this site think.


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

^^ No, because if that somebody had a head over their shoulders, they would know exactly what the topic of this discussion is about.


----------



## Bruce.Tenmile (Apr 18, 2010)

The topic here is twin complexes. If it's any sort of discussion, and you claim you want it to be, both sides must be allowed, or by definition, it's not really a discussion, or at very least, it's a severely constrained discussion. I don't understand really why all you'd want is to have your thoughts on this subject enforced anyway. Surely if you were truly interested in this then you'd want all views on it. You might hear some opinions you disagree with, but you might also hear a point that you hadn't considered or you weren't even aware of. 

If you feel so strongly one way about something, which quite frankly in this case, doesn't really affect you at all, that you can't hear a single dissenting word about it, I don't know what to say.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

This is getting hilarious. 

@windowsoftheworld Would it be okay to list advantages of single towers over twin towered complexes as well?


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

Well i guess a little order is impossible anymore.
Do whatever you all please.


----------



## chris123678 (May 21, 2012)

Personally, I feel that in any discussion, espically in a discussion thread, those with opposing views should be allowed.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Alright, fine. Here's an opposing view that is on topic. If a complex has differently designed towers (non-twins) like, say the new WTC 








or 1 and 2 Prudential Plaza in Chicago,








they are easier to distinguish from one another. You can easily tell which tower is which.

However with identical twin towers, it is harder to differentiate the two.
It is very difficult to tell which was tower 1 and tower 2 for the old WTC (sans antenna) and for, say, the Patronas Towers. 

Anything else?


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

nontwins provide variety.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

windowsoftheworld said:


> ^^ No, because if that somebody had a head over their shoulders, they would know exactly what the topic of this discussion is about.


Seriously pal, what do you expect to achieve with all of this. You make a thread with a certain thread name but plan on making it about something different and if people either talk about what the title of this thread suggests, or about an opinion different than yours, you insult them. According to you this is not a discussion, this is your monologue :hahano:


----------



## LeCom (Nov 29, 2003)

windowsoftheworld said:


> OT, so far we've got:
> *1.Efficient
> 2.Improve the Skyline.
> 3.Easier to identity.
> ...


1._Efficient_ - Efficiency is relative. I know your initial argument claimed that two tall towers save more ground space than a greater number of shorter towers. However, a single tower twice as tall as the Twins would save even more space. At the same time, taller buildings lose economic viability as they rise higher due to elevator shaft sizes and structural constraints, and dense neighborhoods use ground space more efficiently than sparcely built ones anyway. You provide no argument to back your "efficiency" clain, thus your point here is void.
2._Improve the Skyline._ - Highly subjective. An argument could be put forth that diversity is better for the skyline than monotony of twinned structures.
3._Easier to identity._ - Highly subjective. A standalone, single tower can be just as memorable when it comes to identity.
4._They Look neat and organized._ - Highly subjective. Complexes with diverse towers can appear just as organized.
5._Twins complement each other aesthetically._ - Highly subjective. Towers of varied heights and designs can complement each other even more so than dull copies of the same design.
6._Aesthetically appealing._ - Highly subjective. Aesthetics are a matter of personal taste.

So far you've failed to make a _single_ valid point to back up your argument.


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

LeCom said:


> 1._Efficient_ - Efficiency is relative. I know your initial argument claimed that two tall towers save more ground space than a greater number of shorter towers. However, a single tower twice as tall as the Twins would save even more space. At the same time, taller buildings lose economic viability as they rise higher due to elevator shaft sizes and structural constraints, and dense neighborhoods use ground space more efficiently than sparcely built ones anyway. You provide no argument to back your "efficiency" clain, thus your point here is void.


Complexes usually will always have more than 1 tower, that was the ground discussion here. How do twin towers have the upper edge on complexes that have multiple non twin towers buildings scattered around the area a la WTC.
I don't need to back up this argument because it is logic; Two Buildings take less space than 4 or 5 buildings. PERIOD. 
Money and resources also come into play in efficiency, and twin complexes also have the upper edge by needing less of everything in order to erect.
I could go on and on, but i think i've made my point clear.




LeCom said:


> 2._Improve the Skyline._ - Highly subjective. An argument could be put forth that diversity is better for the skyline than monotony of twinned structures.


Yup, but this thread revolves around naming reasons why twin towered complexes are better than non twin towered complexes, not the opposite. Subjective opinions are unavoidable in this case.



LeCom said:


> 3._Easier to identity._ - Highly subjective. A standalone, single tower can be just as memorable when it comes to identity.


Two Burj Khalifa's aren't more memorable than 1?



LeCom said:


> 4._They Look neat and organized._ - Highly subjective. Complexes with diverse towers can appear just as organized.


It's not subjective, you've said it yourself twin towered complexes provide monotony, which would essentially look methodical.

Compare this:

















To this:
(the red highlighting the complex)



















LeCom said:


> 5._Twins complement each other aesthetically._ - Highly subjective. Towers of varied heights and designs can complement each other even more so than dull copies of the same design.


The point of that was to point out how twin towers usually feed of each other's looks and presence to look pleasant on the eye.

EX:





















LeCom said:


> So far you've failed to make a _single_ valid point to back up your argument.


I've made myself pretty clear thus far, and thankfully, a few members understood the point of this thread. To those members, you guys are the best!:cheer:


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

windowsoftheworld said:


> Complexes usually will always have more than 1 tower, that was the ground discussion here. How do twin towers have the upper edge on complexes that have multiple non twin towers buildings scattered around the area a la WTC.
> I don't need to back up this argument because it is logic; Two Buildings take less space than 4 or 5 buildings. PERIOD.
> Money and resources also come into play in efficiency, and twin complexes also have the upper edge by needing less of everything in order to erect.
> I could go on and on, but i think i've made my point clear.


You are aware that the old WTC was a complex consisting of not 2, but 7 buildings, right?


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

^^ Of course he is, but how much space is there in 3WTC, 4WTC, 5WTC, and 6WTC? About 30 floors _total_. And 3WTC was a hotel. Only 1WTC and 2WTC (And somewhat 7WTC) were the office space. *2* main towers vs. *4* main towers now is a monstrous difference.


----------



## chris123678 (May 21, 2012)

L.A.F.2. said:


> ^^ Of course he is, but how much space is there in 3WTC, 4WTC, 5WTC, and 6WTC? About 30 floors _total_. And 3WTC was a hotel. Only 1WTC and 2WTC (And somewhat 7WTC) were the office space. *2* main towers vs. *4* main towers now is a monstrous difference.


But when you think about it alot of the floors are mechanical.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

I just love how they draw attention and how the astetics kan change by just duplicating a structure.




















http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6031/6278654056_74395135f2_z.jpg









http://esquirerealestateny.com/wp-content/uploads/skyline_big.jpg


----------

