World Trade Center reopens for business

NEW YORK (AP) — Thirteen years after the 9/11 terrorist attack, the resurrected World Trade Center is again opening for business — marking an emotional milestone for both New Yorkers and the United States as a whole.

Publishing giant Conde Nast will start moving Monday into One World Trade Center, a 104-story, $3.9 billion skyscraper that dominates the Manhattan skyline. It is America's tallest building.

World Trade Center reopens for business

It's been pointed out that the new Center bears more than a slight resemblance to "The London Shard," of which Wiki says, "The Shard was developed by Sellar Property on behalf of LBQ Ltd and is jointly owned by Sellar Property and the State of Qatar."

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: KAOStheory

If anyone knows how to imbed the images here, please do, and thanks - they are quite similar buildings.

Hey KAOStheory this is the new WTC:



This here is The Shard:

a reply to: KAOStheory

It may resemble other structures but what is your point?

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme
Thanks!

a reply to: notquiteinsane

Well for one, just that it's open - i missed the news this a.m. but i hear it's not being heavily covered, which is strange if true...
second, the Shard is owned by a bank of another country entirely, and this one at that - from Qatars' wiki: "Qatar is the world's richest country per capita and has the highest human development in the Arab World; furthermore, it is recognized as a high income economy by the World Bank."
And our new WTC looks just like it. Idk, just coincidence i'm sure...

How long till it is targeted? And did they have to put the Muslim spire on the top? I don't think that will prevent them from trying again.

a reply to: stosh64

I was going to say...

That looks very "Islamic" on top of the tower. It has a very middle-eastern vibe to it. Really odd, and kind of gives me the heebie jeeibes for some reason.

I'm with Chris Rock. I ain't EVER going in there.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: stosh64




I'm with Chris Rock. I ain't EVER going in there.

Ditto to that! At least not without a parachute. I still cant get the "falling man" out of my head every time I think about it.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that in order for the building to be considered 1776 feet tall, all of the measurable height had to be structural. So they adapted the top of the tower to fit the parameters.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Reminiscent of the Transamerica building in San Francisco.

a reply to: stosh64

Just found this while trying to research the spire -
this was in March, hopefully they've tightened security just a smidge since then...

nypost.com...

a reply to: beezzer

You are correct. That is why it is a 'spire' and not an 'antenna'.

Even though it serves as an antenna.

One part of the city I'll never go to.

Nothing like knocking down two towers and putting up one. Talk about one world government.

Awesome! I worked on the new WTC for about a year as a Tig/ Mig welder when I got out of the Marines. I'd like to go see the final product at least once.

a reply to: KAOStheory

Who developed and owns the wtc?

a reply to: ckhk3

The Port Authority. And/or Silverstein Properties.

I don't particularly like the look of the building but then my opinion doesn't matter anyway.

a reply to: beezzer

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that in order for the building to be considered 1776 feet tall, all of the measurable height had to be structural. So they adapted the top of the tower to fit the parameters.

I'm not an expert but I did make a 3D model of the building for the flight simulation program X-Plane, as a user-made custom scenery add-on.
That means I had to do a lot of research to get it right.
(you can right click the picture and open in a new tab, to get a larger version of it that gives better detail)
What happened is that they planned to have a shroud around the antenna to comply with the "structural" requirement, but I think it was decided that it wasn't feasible to ether do it in the first place, or to be sure that it would stay in place in rough conditions.
At the final stages, it was decided to leave it as the bare structure and to state the height with a sort of asterisk that it would have been so high, but lets just say that it is, anyway.
So what there is that you see is a bit odd, but if you got up close to it, you would see that it is round platforms at different levels that at a distance takes on this look that seems to be globes. It was not intentional.

a reply to: jmdewey60


thanks for clearing that up!