# Addition to the new World Trade Center



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

As many other people around the world, I too was disappointed by the new WTC.

I actually like all of the buildings they're building but what I don't like is that they are building only a replacement for the North Tower (1WTC). Yes, they'll build three other skyscrapers but all of them are shorter than the old South Tower. Replacing one larger tower with several smaller ones is simply unnatural. It is the nature of skyscrapers to rise higher and higher, not drop lower and lower.

Also there is the thing that New York has become famous for it's twin towers and replacing them with just one simply doesn't feel right.

Therefore I propose that a second 1WTC be built. This one without a spire. It would keep the project of the new WTC intact, yet NY would again have it's twin towers and would show the terrorists that they can't destroy their twins.


Here are some pictures how it might look:

Original plan:









New plan:









Original view:









New view:










I made this topic for people who think that NY deserves to have new twin towers. I didn't make this topic for haters who feel offended whenever somebody says the word "twin", so please, if you are a hater don't come here just to tell us how you hate everybody who wants new twin towers.

I would like to get opinions about this idea from as many people as possible. Tell here if you like it or not, if you see it as possible or not, and simply everything else related to my idea


----------



## Uaarkson (Feb 11, 2009)

This concept is impossible politically, logistically and financially, so I'm very confused as to why you keep bringing it up.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

Uaarkson said:


> This concept is impossible politically, logistically and financially, so I'm very confused as to why you keep bringing it up.


Really? Tell me the exact reasons, then I will consider your point.


----------



## UrbanImpact (Jan 10, 2005)

Uaarkson said:


> This concept is impossible politically, logistically and financially, so I'm very confused as to why you keep bringing it up.


He's probably young and doesn't understand the politics of construction especially a complicated construction site like this one....let's give him a break.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

UrbanImpact said:


> He's probably young and doesn't understand the politics of construction especially a complicated construction site like this one....let's give him a break.


I admit that this might be true. But before I'll think about admiting this I'll want some detailed information about why this would be impossible.


----------



## Otie (Dec 16, 2010)

Understand the complexity of the area. The entire space of the entire area is occupied either for the Museum, the Transportation system, the ventilation/electrical installations, everything. There's not a single place to build another skyscraper, it's structurally imposible.









Larger version


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

Is it not possible to reroute the transportation and ventilation so that enough space could be created? Also, is it not possible to place the contents of the museum in the proposed tower?


----------



## Traynor (Oct 22, 2009)

Yes people... Before you throw around the word "impossible", consider what can be built with modern engineering technologies and not be so obstinate.

If you mean it would be impractical or expensive, then state that. In this age of modern engineering, almost nothing is "impossible".


----------



## Plokoon111 (Apr 26, 2011)

Kanto, let me ask you this. Why would the workers/construction project managers; who spent time building that memorial support the idea of knocking down newly made steel, space, wiring, pipes, and other expensive items in favor of clearing space for a twin tower. 
And also the fact they would have to shutdown the subway which runs along it and move it somewhere else in the land which will effect moving more steel and pipes since that subway line has to go somewhere else.
It would be cool and a lot easier if it was like Simcity 4 where you could demolish a building and plop another. But the grim reality is that it is very expensive and time consuming to do something like create room for a twin tower.


----------



## UrbanImpact (Jan 10, 2005)

Kanto said:


> Is it not possible to reroute the transportation and ventilation so that enough space could be created? Also, is it not possible to place the contents of the museum in the proposed tower?


It's true that it can be theoretically done, but in reality it is not possible because of the cost and bureaucracy. Structures have already been planned, drawn, permitted, and built. Also towers aren't just built for joy or pride here in the USA........you need tenants, which is why the other WTC towers are still up in the air let alone your proposal.


----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

I'm sorry, I'm new to the discussion. I don't know what's underground on the site, I suppose one or several layers of metrostation? 

But with a site of this size it can hardly be impossible to build another tower, can it? You could fit another three if necessary.

For the rest I agree it's a pointless discussion of course, since whether or not people want it is hardly the reason why those things get built.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

True about needing tenants. Turns out many companies don't want to locate in a building that actively taunts our enemies. 

And yes, adding this tower would require several years of planning, design, entitlements, moves, etc., before breaking ground. Hell, if it requires moving a subway, it would require several years before _that_ project broke ground, followed by its construction to a certain point, followed by groundbreaking for this new tower.


----------



## Otie (Dec 16, 2010)

*
Delays
*The erection of a replica of 1WTC would represent to remove white oak trees that are already on site, cement, wires, pipes, soil, concrete, amounts of steel beams, and other materials. I'm not an engineer, but with my poor knowledge, the removal and replacement of a tiny steel beam would perjudice the ones near. The World Trade Center is a very complicated area, in structural issues. Everything is connected and each project depends on the other. (For example: The Hub and the Memorial). The removal of what's already done would represent clear away part of watterfall's skeleton. Then excavate the site until get to bedrock, after that, replan everything and build. That would take, without political issues, ~3 years. Relocate the West Vent Structure to another site would decrease more the area for the Memorial. In summary, this would take several years to make it true.

*
Aesthetic (Design)
*Because of the form of 1WTC, a replica located just south/east would make look both of them rare from some angles. Arquitecture also studies the esthetic of buildings, and with all 6 towers the entire site from different angles would look too saturated.

*
Security
*If the replica has the same width of the base (205' x 205' [200' between columns]) the space between the base and the South Pool would be too narrow and would represent a diversity of problems. The mayor concern would be between the base and West Street. Remember that 1WTC needed to be redesigned because NYPD's request about security issues. The final version is now 65ft away from West Street at its closest point. While the replica would be only ~20 ft away from West Street.

*Now add the structural problems with the Slurry Wall, the design of the Memorial & Museum, the location of the ventilation system, as well as water and other systems; and finally add other problems that we folks don't understand about engineering.


----------



## Traynor (Oct 22, 2009)

All very good points except the 65 foot distance from West Street. This was always a random number thrown about when people heard the NYPD wanted the tower farther from roads. 

The tower, as it stands, is a lot closer to Vessey Street than 65 feet. Can the driver of the theoretical bomber truck not turn corners? Silly thinking. That distance was irrelevant in the redesign. The redesign spoke to moving the first office floors to the 20th floor and reinforcing the lobby with blast-proof materials. That is what effectively moved the building's occupants farther from a bomb blast.


----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

Don't be too affraid of small spaces. Lower Manhattan has skyscraperstreets of only 12 meters wide. 20 feet = 6m? That's two car lanes, I'd say a more than descent sidewalk. The other width is 7,5 meter, really, perfectly comfortable. A bit more use of space can possibly enhance the pedestrian quality of the plot. 

But on the other hand I'm not too convinced it's a good idea to begin with. Aestetically. And it's not going to happen anyway.


----------



## Plokoon111 (Apr 26, 2011)

Good point if there was a second freedom tower it would also have blast walls as well.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

All of this would be only possible if the buildings rented well. Even the planned 2WTC, 3WTC, 4WTC and 5WTC won't be built if 1WTC would rent badly. My suggestion is for the possible event that all of the currently planned WTC buildings would rent very well and they would have crowds of tenants interested in them and that the demand would be bigger than the space of the currently planned buildings. In this case it is concievable that they would be interested in building more buildings.

As to the technical problems, they are all important and I thank you folks for posting them. I have thought about how to solve them and I think I may have a possible solution. The idea is to not build the replica where I first suggested, but instead to build it on the footprints of one of the destroyed towers:

Either on the North Tower site:









Or on the South Tower site:









In these cases the memorial would remain unaffected. Also, from what I know, no new metro routes were built there so if the old towers could have stood where they did, a new tower can as well. Besides, I don't think that they would build any instalation for support of the buildings below a pool (I certainly wouldn't). I think that one pool is enough. Rather have a second tower than a second pool. Also, both the distance to the street and the distance to other structures is reasonable in this new model.

I personally favour the building standing on the North Tower site, because the South Tower site seems to me to be too far away from 1WTC. However, it still would be okay if the building stood there and not on the North Tower site.


----------



## Plokoon111 (Apr 26, 2011)

Who would want to work on the foot print of the north tower? I'll bet it would be haunted.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

Plokoon111 said:


> Who would want to work on the foot print of the north tower? I'll bet it would be haunted.


ROFL :lol:


----------



## dmarney (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm happy with what's being created there with the space and budget they have, you have to take in many things in mind, most importantly the economic impact of what's being built. Although the idea of two brand new twin towers to remember the legacy of the last ones is nice, it just wouldn't happen in the current economic climate, where you have to take so many things into account. No one is going to build two main towers if it is a stretch to build just one.


----------



## The tallest building (Aug 2, 2011)

guys, just stop fighting. Cuz silverstein properties and the PA still have time to make taller 2 WTC, 3 WTC, 4 WTC, 5 WTC, and add a 6 WTC.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

By a couple meters maybe. 5WTC has a height limit of something like 900 feet. And we don't know anything about anything about any possible 6WTC. Kanto just can't comprehend that everything here is basically set. There is no changing it. There won't be any twins. The sooner he gets that through his head, the sooner we might have some peace on this board.


----------



## WTCNewYork (Jun 9, 2011)

I would love to see a second Tower 1, however I just don't think it's going to happen. 



azn_man12345 said:


> 5WTC has a height limit of something like 900 feet.


I personally would like to see 5 WTC redesigned. I didn't particularly like the original proposal.


----------



## JordanEDunston7789 (Oct 9, 2011)

All of this would be only possible if the buildings rented well. Even the planned 2WTC, 3WTC, 4WTC and 5WTC won't be built if 1WTC would rent badly. My suggestion is for the possible event that all of the currently planned WTC buildings would rent very well and they would have crowds of tenants interested in them and that the demand would be bigger than the space of the currently planned buildings. In this case it is concievable that they would be interested in building more buildings.


----------



## azn_man12345 (Dec 24, 2010)

They won't add any buildings to the site already because there's no room left. There may be buildings next to the site, but as for the actual WTC, all there is is the Memorial/Museum, the Performing Arts Center, Towers 1-5, and 7. There will NEVER be a 1WTC twin named 6WTC. 

Oh, and 2, 3, and 4 aren't "planned". They are well under construction and will be complete within the next 4-5 years, assuming they aren't put on hold due to lack of tenants. But even then, they would likely only be on hold for a few months, maybe a year at the most.


----------

