Talk:One World Trade Center

Miami Freedom Tower

I don't really love that the article I started some time ago on the famous Freedom Tower in Miami has so the Manhattan building which does not even exist yet and may end up with another name altogether according to published sources.

Comments please?

Caltrop 18:39, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly above it says a link to Freedom Tower (miami) so users can easily access it. Firstly the name is not going to change. Secondly the reason I made the Freedom Tower was because various articles linked directly to it and nothing linked to the Freedom Tower (miami) and I thought that the Freedom Tower was too big of an article and issue to make a joint article such as before. To me, doing anything else would create a big mess of confusion. ZackDude 22:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello AGAIN ZackDude

It's your old nemesis Louis Epstein (an opponent in principle of registration for website use,I do my Wikipeding from the IP address 12.144.5.2 and can be readily contacted at le@put.com). Whether Pataki's nickname formally sticks to this not-yet-past-environmental-approval structure is a different issue...but how many times must I SCREAM at you that the two buildings in China will have WALLS AND ROOFS HIGHER THAN THE LATTICEWORK THAT EXTENDS HUNDREDS OF FEET ABOVE THE FT'S ROOF before you realize that ONLY THE SPIRE AND ANTENNA...NOT THE LATTICEWORK...have any claim whatsoever to be "world's tallest"?? You seem determined to turn this article into a promotional brochure for this project,and you don't answer me at my talk page,your talk page,or the Conflicts Between Users article.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Re: Hello AGAIN ZackDude

OK, firstly please cut the attitude and calm down. I am not your nemesis or enemy and just a fellow wikipedian, but before you write something make sure you have your facts correct. FYI the Freedom Tower's spire will reach 1776ft, not the antenna which will reach 2000ft. Secondly I find it no use that you keep changing the article around especially so the related topics links won't work for absolutely no reason without any discussion. Third, I was instructed from an administrator (here) that this problem could be easily solved by just putting which source claims this and that. I have already included your point of view in the article however you do not have the authority to say without research what height this and that will be and I have searched the web and found nothing on it. If you get what I am saying I am not trying to be in any way annoying or anything to you and I would not like you to escalate something minor to something major. Also I find it insane that you think I want to turn this article into some brochure. I have made various contributions and plan to make many more on articles including the top 50 tallest buildings in the US. I have taken an interest in the Freedom Tower since the plans were first released and the fact that it is soon to be #1 in US and besides I have started the main Freedom Tower article since it was a stub including making the interactive image on the bottom and was following it very closely ever after to make sure everything is professional (like your space/punctuation) and their is no wrong or slandered info. I find it hard for anybody to disagree with me and the contributions I make and have made and if you do not then I'm sure you can go to the complaints page. I also wish to point out that there is no need to compare the Freedom Tower with almost every single building ever built which I'm getting the impression you are doing. That is for the user to notice or have a link to compare the Freedom Tower's height to other building. Please if anybody wants to add to this discussion I would greatly appreciate it if they do so.

- ZackDude 06:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wrote articles on the Shanghai World Financial Center and Union Square Phase 7 that link to detail pages with their specifications that show they are taller to the roofs than the tops of the FT latticework.It's your saying that the latticework is taller than any other building when the buildings taller than the latticework will be completed first that I'm objecting to most.--L.E./12.144.5.2

Thank you again for cooperating in the convo, 12.144.5.2. I think there is a basic concept that you do not understand. It is true that the two towers you mentioned will be as tall as you mentioned and there is no argument over that. However, to my knowledge, you continuously state that the Freedom Tower will not be the tallest building in the world when completed. I have asked you to find a single source that says such a thing but so far you have not posted one. A good neutral source that explains everything is an article I found here. It explains the difference between tall buildings and tall structures and the official regulations (what not to count and what to count) and declares the Freedom Tower the world's tallest (assuming another skyscraper hasn't been built higher by its completion which is unlikely at this point). There is incredibly more proof if you just simply do a news or web search for Freedom Tower on the internet.

Also 12.144.5.2, I notice that on your talk page you make note of using the Lynx Browser. I suggest if contributing to Wikipedia, it is appropriate to use a web browser which supports images. If you do, you will notice a few Freedom Tower images, the Freedom Tower article format, and an interactive picture which explains in detail how high the Freedom Tower will be and what reaches 1776ft and what is where. The interactive specification picture also includes a real-life picture comparison between the Petronas Towers, the Sears Tower, the Empire State Building, and the Freedom Tower including mentioning their heights and a measurement of their height on the image. This is a part of the article which I have a feeling you are missing and possibly your argument is just a big misunderstanding.

- ZackDude 22:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well,we continue to differ on which of us "just doesn't get it".There will be no one "tallest building" if everything now planned or building gets built as planned.FT would be tallest to spire and antenna and Shanghai WFC to roof and occupied floor.Those are the four CTBUH measurements.I have looked at your image in Netscape and am not unaware of the chart of comparisons carefully chosen by FT promoters.There was no secret that the Sears Tower had a higher roof and occupied floor than the Petronas Towers,just as there is no secret that the buildings under construction in China will have higher roofs and occupied floors than the Freedom Tower (and will not be the first to have higher roofs,unless you count the obs deck way above the solid structure as a roof).--L.E./12.144.5.2

---

Engineering-based critics however contend that taller buildings would actually be safer - can someone explain what is meant - why that would be safer etc. PMA 22:35, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

good point. I do not understand that at all. I believe 12.144.5.2 put that in so he will have to explain that. -ZackDude 03:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy to explain that.As Eli Attia wrote in [1] "as an architect who has devoted his life to designing tall buildings I can state without reservation that any 100-story building is in every respect safer than any 50-story building".

He goes on to explain the structural engineering imperatives that make this necessarily true...the exponentially increasing stresses that taller buildings must be built to withstand and smaller buildings can not economically be built to withstand,and the laws of physics that allow only larger objects to withstand certain forces.--L.E/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

I've gone on to add the reference to the page, and to specify that the critique comes from an architect who believes taller buildings should have been considered. Actually, this may not go far enough -- part of me thinks that more context needs to be given about Attia (he appears to have been very vocal in trying to get more architects considered for the site), but part of me thinks this needs to happen in the space of an article 9/11 memorial/Ground Zero planning rather than here.Tom 22:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

thumbnails

Is it really necessary to have thumbnails if the Freedom Tower picture sizes do not get bigger? - ZackDude 19:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here we go again

I used to explicitly link to articles on the two buildings whose roofs and occupied floors will be higher than the latticework,and you didn't like that. So now you say they don't exist?

FT latticework=1500 feet.
Union Square Phase 7 roof=1555 feet.
Shanghai World Financial Center roof=1614 feet. I've seen renderings where people go over the hole in the top, right below the roof of the Shanghai WFC.

What part of that don't you understand?(The "broad-shouldered building" quote from the article was made to me at a presentation sponsored by the Skyscraper Museum in New York, that's where I saw the rendering). Also, at World's tallest structures see "The World's tallest habitable buildings" for the four CTBUH criteria, which definitely include "height to the top of antenna".--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Construction costs

Greetings, I'm interested in finding details of the cost of reconstruction and who is paying for what - e.g. the port authority, or larry silverstein's property group. Do any of you know where I might find such information? I've googled to my wits end! email: ostralopithicus@yahoo.com.au

Cheers,

PJ --124.254.121.182 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sysops,

This article needs to be protected. The same edit wars keep perpetuating themselves.

That is true. It can be protected however I thought 12.144 gave up on trying to change the article around. He continues to put in facts without any proof at all and has some bad habits and does not consult this talk page if a major change is done. I've been trying to tell him that and revert it back but its no use. I've kind of given up on this topic which I pretty much started and tried to montior, but because of the argument, I guess its time to move onto other Wikipedia projects that I'll get to soon. - ZackDude 17:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What in the world does ZackDude consider "proof" that he is wrong?I spell out explicitly numbers that don't lie that show that what he says is clearly wrong,and he says I have no proof?--L.E./12.14.5.2/le@put.com

Here is something that could set everyone OK. I have found a cool website about high buildings (including skyscrapers, bridges, antennas and even churches and stadiums) : http://skyscraperpage.com It offers diagrams of towers in construction, at this URL  : http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?2063133 These diagrams shows a 700 m heigh skyscraper called Burj Dubai (website : http://www.emaar.com/new/projects_burjdubai.html) that should be finished in the same time as Freedom Tower, located in Dubai. I think that, according to the difficulty to define how high a skyscrapper is and to the numerous record beating projects all around the world, Freedom Tower should be considers as "among" the highest skyscrapers, and tell the other challengers in the same time (Burj Dubai, Union Square 7, Shanghai World Financial Center and maybe others). However, my mother tongue is not English, so I prefer no to do this by myself. --helldjinn, from the fr.wikipedia.org

Image permission statement

I don't believe that it's necessary to have this statement on the article itself. Usually permission statements go on the image page, and that's sufficient. An actual copy or mention of the permission received (email? letter?) would be very useful, however. — Asbestos | Talk 08:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC) I too feel it is unnecessary. You can keep it with the picture. But not with the article. As it is not giving any information

Images, symmetries, energy generation

Images produced for the developer are intended to sell the design - they are not necessarily neutral or realistic, and this needs to be acknowledged and explained.

Describing symmetries as 'clean' is less neutral than saying they are 'simple'. Saying that the tower will fit 'naturally' into the context of Manhattan is not neutral. Some precedents have been respected while others have been disregarded.

20% of energy use generated on site was a significant feature of the old design that is now lost - this is a useful fact for readers who may wish to compare this design with the previous design and I believe that it should stay in the article somewhere.

However, I can see that it would be better to keep comments about popularity / competitions etc. in the 'Controversy' section from now on.

Hello, 194.70.144.61. Your comments are fair enough except about the images. Unless you wish to "acknowledge and explain" that images produced for the developers are intended to sell the design on all the other tower pages such as the Shanghai World Financial Center and the Burj Dubai, I see no reason to single out the Freedom Tower images. In fact, when the Freedom Tower design was one that you liked, you didn't point out any flaws in the developer renderings at that time, which were equally "unrealistic". It is generally accepted that all renderings of this type are art produced for the developers, not realistic depictions like photographs. The captions you replaced were neutral, the ones you inserted were negative. Most of your other changes are more neutral, and no one tried to remove the 20% of energy use that would have been generated by the turbines (though they would have taken up 30% of the building height, this fact shouldn't be lost either). -Uris 30 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is generally accepted that all images are created equal, especially when it comes to images based on photographs. See this link for an description of a 'verified view' process: http://www.2d3.com/jsp/company/press-article.jsp?id=99. Obviously I can't go around putting the world to rights on this (or any issue) but that doesn't mean that images should go without comment: they are as much a contribution to the article as any written content, and therefore just as debatable. Perhaps we should strike them altogether? It's also not strictly true that the turbines would have taken up 30% of the building's height: the supporting lattice also had a symbolic function and so was larger than necessary: hence I think it's misleading to connect the figures directly. Finally, I don't remember expressing a view on the previous proposal, although I'll make no secret that I think the present state of affairs has resulted in a travesty of the competition process (if you held this competition again, who would waste time and money on it?) and a comparatively conservative design.

Hi there, 194.70.144.61. I don't have any complaint with these tamer edits you have made to the captions. I'm not sure what the "symbolic function" of the latticework was, but it would have made sense to me to use even more turbines in an effort to generate a more significant amount of energy for the building.

And I do believe, as you do, that the contest was a sham. There was never any vote either to decide the finalists, or to decide the winner. And when the winner was so arbitrarily selected, the masterwork of his design (the "vertical gardens") didn't seem to have ever been seriously considered. How this design went from those beautiful green gardens hanging in the sky to that empty wind skeleton of the compromise is beyond me. As you know, I am a fan of the redesigned tower, but I believe that removing the vertical gardens was also a sham, as well as a shame. -Uris 30 June 2005 17:42 (UTC)

(Cynicism on) It doesn't matter anyway. All these big public architecture projects are all the same. At the point when public support is being garnered, the project is always going to have all this wonderful stuff. But when they are actually built, there are cost overruns, and mysteriously the money always runs out before the promised amenities get built. The gardens had about the same chance of materializing as the Botanical Gardens prominently featured in every description, rendering, and map of Boston's Big Dig--until the actual completion date for the project started to approach. (Cynicism off) Dpbsmith (talk) 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

The design contest was a sham. The field was narrowed to the nine groups that got $40,000 grants early in 2002. One can judge the Conic-all-Connect vision I had, prompted by living those years in the neighborhood, for oneself - Libeskind, on seeing it, said "you're very talented". However, I came to realize that all those mass meetings and town hall events the fall and winter of 2002/2003 were window dressing; Only those architects who had received the initial grants were being seriously considered. Given my experience of the dominence of politics at the time, the chaos since and relative mediocracy compared to the world class skyscrapers being constructed elsewhere has been no surprise. --Bob Armstrong 07:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Point of view" indeed: what will it look like from the ground?

I've been Googling like mad, and every picture I can find of the darn thing seems to have been rendered from a distance, with the lower portion discreetly hidden by surrounding buildings.

I'm completely flabbergasted by the idea of thirty feet of windowless wall.

What is it going to be like walking past that thing? Will there be any texture, decoration? A mural?

Will it just be a blank wall? (Won't that attract graffiti?)

I'd really like to see a rendering of what the building will look like from a pedestrian, rather than a distant, aerial point of view.

The pedestal of the Statue of Liberty is windowless, and it looks fine. But the Statue of Liberty isn't planted in Manhattan...

Will all new skyscrapers in Manhattan follow suit and be windowless for security? Dpbsmith (talk) 30 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

P. S. this picture at least shows the lower portion, but it still isn't a pedestrian's view. I can't be the only person who finds this disturbingly ugly. Dpbsmith (talk) 30 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)

You're not. But get used to it. As the US government becomes increasingly totalitarian, ever more public architecture will convey this kind of faceless oppression.Ribonucleic 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

P. P. S. Why were the wind turbines abandoned? Dpbsmith (talk) 30 June 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Howdy, Dpbsmith. I don't find the base disturbingly ugly, and if I were a prospective tenant in the building I would rather it be safe than pretty. The base even if concrete would be no uglier than the Washington Monument. Although the artwork does not seem to depict it, the base will be encased in "luminous materials" such as reflective stainless steel and titanium, not concrete. The whole windowless base idea was likely a design choice demanded by the NYPD rather than desired by the architects. A passing automobile won't be able to climb up to a higher floor, and so this building will be virtually impenetrable to truck bombs (a large threat to any city superstructure in the modern age).

As far as the wind turbines, I doubt this could have been a safety concern of the police. I think it likely has more to do with the latticework's unpopularity and growing criticism (particularly Donald Trump recently addressing the nation with "it looks like the skeleton of a building") than with safety precautions. I for one, feel all that latticework was a huge waste of space to generate a mere 1/5th of the building's power. And we all know that if the designers say 20%, it means more like 10-15% when it comes down to it. Also, who was to say that there would never be taller buildings close to the Freedom Tower? In 100 years, with 3000-foot buildings surrounding it, the turbines would have no longer worked anyway because of turbulence. Then you might just be left with this ugly, useless skeletal frame of a building at that time! That's my 2 cents. Cheers! -Uris 30 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)

While I see your points, Uris, there are some problems. For one, the Washington Monument isn't in the middle of a city, with sidewalks around it. The only reason you would approach the monument is to go up it. Anyways, it's made of stone, not concrete. A titanium base just sounds blinding. As for the wind turbines, maybe the lefties on the committee killed themselves when Kerry lost the election. If you ask me, they oughta put a fission reactor up there. The blue glow would look awesome at night. David McCabe 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I recall there being quite an outcry from some groups that one way to increase the "usable space" in the Freedom Tower designs was to include residential condos - something lower Manhattan desperately needs. Maybe someone more familiar with the history wants to address why the idea of making it multi-use with residential was discarded? SchmuckyTheCat 4 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Predicting the future

• When completed (possibly by 2010 after the redesign unveiled on June 29, 2005), the Freedom Tower will surpass ... and will be .... Its spire will rise to a symbolic height .... Construction will begin in the first quarter of 2006, ...

How do we know that these things will happen? Our langauge is too definite that these things will happen (not "may" happen, not "might" happen, not even "will happen if x, y, or z"). Instead we need to say that construction is "scheduled to begin", the spire is "planned to rise", the height is "designed to be". Beyond the orbits of the planets there is very little that is certain about the future. The date of a large, controversial construction project starting a year away is not definite, nor is its height down to 1/3 of a meter. This is still a plan on paper, not a building. -Willmcw 01:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• On a related note, shouldn't the infobox mention that the specs it gives are projections? -Fsotrain09 17:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[..] whose predecessors WAS destroyed [..]

I'm not quite sure... but shouldn't it say WERE destroyed instead of WAS ? Thank you ;D.

--GTubio 11:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitary Symbolism

...When completed by 2008 or 2009, by some measurements the Freedom Tower might become the tallest building in the world, with its spire rising to a symbolic height of 1776 feet (541 m) (1776 is significant as the year of the United States Declaration of Independence). Witness in the tower a bold reminder of the United States' stubborn refusal to adhere to the International system (SI) of length measurement, the meter.

One World Trade Center linking

One World Trade Center is the name of the old north tower of the WTC and is not the name of this 'freedom tower'. The link page should be dropped even though nothing exists at it, just because it's a case of mistaken identity (World Trade Center Tower 1 isn't the same as One World Trade Center!)

I don't know about that, but I have updated the link here just so that the article doesn't link to itself any more. I know there used to be detailed pages for the old WTC towers - what happened to them? Vashti 15:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on the Future Plans

I believe that the designers should realise that making something bigger and better will only make terrorists more eager to attack it again, despite our high security. I myself, think that there should be several small buildings for offices in a circle, with a semi high tower of the names of the victims and a memorial garden surrounding it with the smaller office buildings around the outside. That would be nice.

*I do not wish to argue, this is just my opinion, so just read it and add your opinions, thanks. <3 ;]* Nepegg89 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)nepegg89

They better make this building terrorist-proof.

• Boy am I glad you didn't have control over the design then, because my opinion is exactly the opposite. If "targets for Terrorism" is your only standard, there are plenty of tall buildings to hit and if a terrorist is intent on causing damage, they will pick one and try to blow it up. So, because the conclusion is that ANY structure of significant symbolism is a target, you may as well make the most kick butt and totally sweet super tower that you can while designing it with the security aspects required to make it as safe as possible. I'd much rather have a symbol of our resilience and determination than a bunch of lame 30 story boxes that add no cultural or unique characteristics to the city in which they are built. I'm just mad they didn't make it taller...

And by the way the statement "They better make this building terrorist-proof" is ridiculous. J Shultz 20:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that's a pretty ridiculous criticism; height doesn't make the building much more at risk from terrorist attack, and not building it out of fear is surely contrary to the entire concept of sticking it to the terrorists. It's much more likely that terrorists will strike at relatively unexpected locations in the future than that they'll converge on the same place over and over again just to win a "symbolic" victory. What concerns me (sorry for this digression, feel completely free to delete it since it doesn't directly relate to Wikipedia) is that the entire tower project seems more concerned with bravado and posturing than with memorializing the victims of 9/11. This is not a project to remember the past; it is a project to taunt and say "fuck you" to our enemies, which is a rather more puerile and lacking in subtlety (1,776 feet? come on, on one level that's kind of cool, but on another it's just cheesy) than is really appropriate for a project to put the ground of the twin towers to new use. To put things in context, imagine if the Vietnam Memorial was in the shape of a giant badass-looking gun instead of a simple, elegant and moving wall. Freedom Tower is a monument to how badass and tough America is, not a memorial to the fallen. I'd have hoped that we'd have enough maturity to create a simple and contemplative memorial, not a childish "well we'll rebuild it even bigger! so there!" declaration. Rather than build a tower, how about plant a tree? But ah well. At least it's shiny. :/ -Silence 11:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Height accuracy: 1,776 feet?

Can building heights actually be measured to the accuracy of one foot? I've been wondering ever since I noticed that officially, the (old) John Hancock Building on Berkeley Street in Boston is supposed to be exactly one foot shorter than the Custom House tower. Are ththereeir good technical reasons for thinking that a building is really exactly the number of feet high that the plans show, or is it, as I would imagine, subject to "tolerance stacking" (to say nothing of ground subsidence, compression of materials over time, etc.) Plus, I would have thought that it would be very common for the level of the surrounding terrain to vary by more than a foot from one side of the building to another, so where is the height measured from?

I know nothing about construction engineering, I'm just wondering. Given that developers in my home town got away with building an low-rise apartment building five feet taller than the zoning board had allowed--45 feet instead of 40 or something like that--and it was apparently not discovered until after construction was complete, it cannot be all that easy to measure the height of a building. Or perhaps some kind of nontechnical issues were involved. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't say for sure, but perhaps the height of the building could be measured by laser/radar on the top talking to a ground station a distance away. Then, Pythagorean theorem gives you the height. Speculation. Sir Elderberry 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Measuring the height of things above sea level is simplified by GPS and similar technical means. But how do you properly measure the height of a building? From the street in front, the sidewalk, the alley behind, the bottom garage? Do you include the air conditioners, the antennas, the airplane warning lights? All of these esoteric questions are answered by those for whom "Tallest buildings" are of interest.

Civil engineers are VERY good at getting things VERY accurate. There is no way a building like this would have a tolerance of anything near as large as 1 foot. Bridges, for example, have tolerances around the order of ONE 16th of an INCH! For the entire structure! 70.29.29.158 23:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not really still thinking in inches and feet though, surely? --202.161.21.29 14:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would hope not but you never know with Americans. NASA screwed up due to their use of imperial units after all [2].

Having said that, in the case of the construction company that got away with an illegal construction, while I don't know the case, I highly doubt it was an inaccurate construction. Almost definitely, the height was in the plans. Either they lied to the people in charge of approving their plans (provided false plans or modified their plans without telling) or they people in charge of approving their plans didn't do their jobs properly. Or perhaps they didn't have to provide plans (which sounds highly unlikely but who knows). In any case, I think we can safely say the height was in the plans and the constructed height was the intended height. I'm not an engineer or involed in construction but I'm pretty sure it would be very worrying if a building ended up 5 feet higher then the plans specified. Of course it would be easy to check the height once it is completed. This may have been done as part of certification of the building at which point the person certifying the building would have realised something was wrong. Most likely, they would have then realised the plans they were given were wrong or perhaps they would have realised they hadn't checked the plans properly for compliance. Either way, the building was almost definitely built according to the plans Nil Einne 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

The height is purposely 1776 units because of the year of American independence; the US is hardly metric. 216.179.123.109 (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FINALLY!!hello

This has been a long time coming! I recently went to New York, and my tour guide said that they would never see a building there again, because so many different groups had to come together to achieve one common idea. I hope that they make a sort of remembrance plaque for why the original thing isn't there, though. Also, what about that steel cross that has been standing there for four, soon to be five, years? What will they do with that? That should be listed somewhere.--70.124.132.176 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia rocks~

Date Of completion

In the introduction, it says "The building is projected to be ready for occupancy in 2010.". However, in the 'Construction begins on NY's Freedom Tower' section, it states that construction is scheduled to be finished by 2011 or 2012. Rosa.blaus

I remove the following section:

It is projected that steel for the building will be visible above ground in 2007, with a topping out in 2009. The building is projected to be ready for occupancy in 2010.

Reason being, as you say it is inconsistent with another part of the article and the info in the infobox. I guess the later date of 2011 or 2012 is more accurate since it's later and I assume they original date was outdated. My personal speculation is if they eventually stop arguing, it will be completed by September 11th 2011. Probably not 2010 or 2012 because that will make it either the 9th anniversay or the 11th anniversary... Nil Einne 17:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial name?

I remember hearing that some people didn't like the name because it sounded somewhat Orwellian. Supposedly, a lot of communist countries use words like "freedom" and "the people's" and "democracy" as part of keeping their citizens "in the dark". The same goes for "Democracy Plaza" (Rockefeller Center). Should that be mentioned?
198.38.10.1 16:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Any references for those "communist" comments?

-G

Well, there has been criticism that calling it the "Freedom" Tower was a result of jingoism. Personally, I found the "World Trade" name to be more inviting to the world, as well as more suggestive of cooperation with the rest of the world. Simply put, the "freedom" label seems more politically charged than the previous name. But it's expected that people will have varying opinions. If the naming turns out to be a large source of debate, it may very well be worth mentioning in the article. Gordeonbleu 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is jingoism. It's uncreative and bland. We should have named it...Moira Tower. 71.68.17.81 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article under "Freedom Tower" if that isn't its name? What is this american idea of putting "freedom" in front of everything at the moment? Cokehabit 13:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're asking two different questions. The answer to the first, however, is that "Freedom Tower" is the most commonly used name for the dominating structure of the new World Trade Center complex. Since the North Tower of the destroyed WTC was also known as "World Trade Center Tower One", there's room for confusion in the use of that name. Additionally, since there's really only one tower of such dominating size in the new design, it's probably something of a misnomer to identify it as "WTC Tower One" given the original context of the name. Gpotter511@yahoo.com 03:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I also feel "Freedom Tower" is most definitely Owellian, and it is distasteful in my eyes. I think this should certainly be included. --Jabba27 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Tower? :) I'd love that name!!! N. Y. has a State of Liberty, and so there's the tower to it! Perfect fit, isn't it? :) -andy 80.129.74.36 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think its just stupid. A tower is something I don't really associate with freedom. Some of the most famous towers were in fact prisons, after all. Wolf ODonnell 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what freedom is. They can call the tower whatever they want to. It is ironic that a tower is symbolic of freedom; in the past, towers have been usually associated with tyranny, slavery, communism, empires, etc. (i.e. Great Pyramids, Palace of Soviets, Tower of Babel, Tower of London). Yet, it makes sense; the tower is supposed to be a symbol of resiliency. I guess it could also be called the "Tower of Freedom", but that doesn't really make much sense. --TinMan 11:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Freedom is Slavery. Remember you heard it here second. Ribonucleic 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

After so many freedoms were revoked from us by the Patriot Act in direct response to events which occurred at the site of this project, the name Freedom Tower clearly adds insult to our injury. Rearden Metal 09:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling it "Freedom Tower" implies that freedom has something to do with the attack. It’s purely political, and has nothing to do with business.

The best symbol of strength is to rebuild what you lost. Rebuild what you lost strong and better, and it is a big statement to our opponents. At least rename the building. The word "freedom" now has a negative ring to it for the majority of the world. Although I am pretty conservative, I really dislike the name of the building.

I dislike the name, I dislike the design. It does not fit well w/ the overall architecture of classic New York. I just wish they made the originals, and made it Twin Towers II. The whole concept and name sounds way too sentimental. It doesn't sound professional, nor business-like. As a business symbol, it royally sucks. It will be more of a tourist attraction now than an imposing symbol of business success.

I hate it how the NY skyline will now be tarnished by some "new-age" politically-driven-named tower. It shows that we are weak in that we rather have a symbol than get things done. I want the get-down-to-business attitude back that the Twin Towers seem to symbolize.

I hope someone stalls the project, or it runs out of money, or Trump/NY'ers aggresively lobbies for the reconstruction of the Twin Towers. Yes, they are building something at least, but only the two towers should be there, and not some new-age western pacific-rim design of a building. Why build something totally new? Rebuild what we lost. That sends more of a statement of strength, and portrays a professional business attitude that this country pioneered.

I hate how something that has to do with a symbol of business strength and success is now going to a tourist attraction, museum, and a political statement. Yes, they should have a memorial, definitely. But, we must honor those who perished by making a statement that we are successful and more professional than ever before.

The freedom towers definitely do not convey the professionalism and business attitude that we wish to portray to the world.

Can anyone find a reliable citation for which person/panel/body decided on the name and a public explanation of their rationale? I find the absence of this more controversial than the name itself i.e. did a minor city official just decide the name was a good idea without there being a formal decision process open to feedback? If so who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.7.39 (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

I'm going to take some photographs. What do you think, what should I photograph? The bulldozers? Or something more attractive? Maybe the Eyewitness News van.  ;) --VKokielov 23:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Was this article plagiarized?

While researching a source for the comment about taller buildings being safer, I stumbled across this article from October 1, 2005 in Computer Business Review by Jason Stamper. Note the following paragraph:

In addition, the building will have 'only' 82 occupied floors due to concerns of another possible terrorist attack, whereas the previous twin towers had far more floors, and the Empire State Building has 102 occupied floors. The limit to the number of floors has been incredibly controversial, as some commentators have argued that the tower should have more floors than the twin towers so as not to be seen to be bowing to the terrorist threat. Some architects have even argued that a taller building would actually be safer for engineering reasons.

Now compare that with the September 30, 2005 revision of this Wikipedia article (a day before the preceding paragraph was published):

The design of the Freedom Tower has generated some controversy due to the limited number of floors (a maximum of 70) that were designated for office space and other amenities. The floor limit was imposed by Silverstein, who expressed concern that higher floors would be a liability in a major accident or terrorist attack. The redesigned tower is set to have 82 floors, more than the initial limit, but still far fewer than various comparable towers (even the much shorter Empire State Building has 102). Additionally, some architects contend that a taller building should have been considered, suggesting that for reasons of cost and engineering, taller buildings may actually be safer.

Awfully similar! So I researched where Wikipedia's content came from. It has been there since July 5, 2005, when it was (properly) referenced in a revision by Thomas_Mills_Hinkle from a May 20, 2002 write-up by architect Eli Attia.

The facts suggest that the content in Stamper's article looks suspiciously to content from a Wikipedia article that was added over a year before Stamper wrote his article. By contrast, Wikipedia appropriately cited the original author from 2002. Anyone else have an opinion on this? MaxVeers 03:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea: You're reading too far into it. There aren't too too many ways to formulate a sentence with the intention of getting across the point that taller buildings were argued for because they may be structurally safer. 82.83.8.92 11:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the last sentence. Both paragraphs contain the same content structured the same way. Even the numbers (82 and 102) are the same. Anyway, I'll drop it. MaxVeers 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, when we speak of plagiarism, it's only plagiarism of content we speak of...unless form is itself content -- never on an encyclopedia. --VKokielov 04:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The claims of "plagiarism" seem a little mysterious... this is Wikipedia, and it's supposed to be a free encyclopedia. Sure, if you copy the whole article without following the GFDL terms it would be a violation of the GFDL (I think). But as long as you're not literally violating copyright law, is it possible to plagiarize the work of editors who agree to have their work "mercilessly redistributed by others"? 204.186.19.105 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article?

Should we promote this to "Good Article" status? The article is quite well written as well and has a couple of references. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I do have one problem with it: the Design section makes many references to facets of the "original design" as if they were common knowledge, without ever having detailed them in the article.

• The Freedom Tower will not have the "skeletal frame" of latticework and wind turbines: these have been abandoned. - What skeletal frame?
• The Freedom Tower will now consist of simple symmetries and a more traditional design intended to bear comparison with selected elements of the existing New York skyline - as opposed to what?

82.83.8.92 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Some pictures of the original design being referenced would be quite helpful.

Plane Proof?

Naturally, the new building will attract airplanes and other missiles, as it is a symbol of America, as were the Twin Towers. Will the new building withstand attacks better than the old ones? An inferno should not decouple floor joists from bearing walls.

• First of all, that question is totally loaded and hardly makes sense. The new building has been designed to withstand street level blasts, to have thicker and wider stair wells, improved sprinklers, etc. All of which you would have gathered if you read the article. Secondly, what the hell does "An inferno should not decouple floor joists from bearing walls" really mean to you? Are you suggesting that the new building should be constructed from unubtanium 18ft. thick and buried 2,000 meters underground in the Nevada desert to avoid future attacks? Give me a break. The original Twin Towers, which I gather you are making some kind of poke at, were constructed to withstand far more than code, but there is a limit to any design. J Shultz 18:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question, though. As you may know, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the impact of Flights 11 and 175; it was destroyed due to the fuel-accelerated fire, which was exacerbated by the fact the impact blew away the spray-on fireproofing on load-bearing trusses between floors. This was the cause of the pancaking effect evident when both towers came down. If anybody feels that's not an accurate representation of widely-accepted explanations for the collapse, feel free to correct me, but I think a more specific reading of the OP's question is worth answering: will the Freedom Tower have a fireproofing protection adequate to deal with a fuel-fire in the event of an attack by a civilian airliner? Will the sheetrock protecting the emergency stairways, which was also destroyed in the North Tower and most of the South Tower, be enhanced or replaced for a similar level of survivability?

Some good questions to ask. Looking at the design of the building, I have a feeling the answer is probably, "No." That, however, is an entirely unscientific opinion, so I hope somebody can answer it, "Yes." Anyway, just this poster's two cents. Gpotter511@yahoo.com 03:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Any references that jet fuel burns at a high enough temperature to melt steel?

-G

• The Jet Fueled Fire did NOT!!! melt the steel. What it did was soften it enough, to make it breaking from the core of the tower easier.--Subman758 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Original Design

As we know this project has undergone lots of changes since the original 2002 competition (see the section on 'Controversy.' Unfortunately there's now no images and little description of the original Liebskind competition-winning entry for the site. I think it's important to include an image of the original proposed design in the article, or a spin-off article about the original scheme based on an old version of this page. Comparing the architect's original vision with the committee's banal compromise is highly educational and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galemp (talk • contribs) 17:35, May 6, 2006

It's funny you should mention this. I was just looking through my old Popular Science magazines last night and I happened to stumble upon the April 2005 issue, which contains a detailed fold out of the initial freedom tower design, with the TV spire, lattice work, etc. I could attempt to scan in the four page-spanning image, fix it up, and put it into WP. If I don't get a response, from you or anyone else soon, I'll just go ahead and do it. → J@red  11:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Copyright just dawned on my. I'll actually have to look into PopSci's copyright before I use the image. → J@red  11:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of "security concerns?"

The article says:

However, owing to security concerns, the first 30 feet (9 m) up will now lack windows...

However, WTC 2 was hit at a height of about 1000 feet, WTC 1 even higher. How exactly is removing windows from the first thirty feet supposed to protect against an airliner hitting it at 1000 feet? Just wondering... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't protect against airlines. There's not much you can do about those. The no windows below 30 ft thing is "supposed" to minimize the effect of car bombs or suicide bombers or something like in 1993. That's the same reason why the tower base is futher from the street. Maybe that should be clarified. If you ask me, I think that's just being paranoid and going crazy with kneejerk reactions. --TinMan 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"controversy"

Yet another section of acceptable POV, rife with weasel words. When will it all end?

---

In this respect it will have more in common with the Empire State Building, which, despite its 102-floor total height has almost no usable space beyond the 86th floor observation deck.

The source's on the Empire State Building article right? I'll add {{Fact}}, anyways.

Other Freedom Tower opponents saw the previously-proposed latticework and antenna on top of the tower to be a mask of the reality that the tower's inhabited stories were to have been fewer than the Twin Towers, and in this way would therefore have been shorter than its predecessors. These critics saw replacing two towers with a single, shorter tower to be inappropriately humbling and contrary to the proud nature of New York and the United States, even as a symbolic retort in the face of terrorism.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Many of them believe the absence of the iconic Twin Towers creates an ongoing emotional wound that can only be healed by rebuilding the towers as they looked before, as tall or taller.

Uhhghhh... Getting a bit uncomfortable here! Who're the critics? I'll go scout for some articles+sources, help would be great!

Gunbolt 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section about the flag decal. When reading the reference, it states the decal was correct when the beam was on the ground. When they lifted it into place, it changed the orientation. They corrected the orientation within 4 days. Can anyone honestly call that a controversy? Furthermore, it's not mentioned at all in the controversy article. --MartinezMD (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

New Design REvision

See http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=80141&page=42 for details.Seamus215 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't get to that page without registering and, well it won't let me use my email service.--TinMan 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The design is definitely altered though, I have seen it. It should definately be taken into consideration. Jamandell (d69) 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WTC 6

Ok, where is WTC Building #6? I've seen plans for WTC Buildings 1 (Freedom Tower), 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 which is already built. Where is #6? Are they just going to skip a number? Is the Performing Arts Center going to be WTC #6 or is it the Transportation Hub or the 9/11 Memorial Visitor Center/Cultural Center? Anyone know? TinMan

"Freedom Tower" vs. "the Freedom Tower"

I'm not sure why, but throughout most (if not all) of the article, the tower is referred to as "Freedom Tower", is if it was being referred to as a sentient object; for example, you wouldn't say, "I'm going to Freedom Tower", you'd say "I'm going to the Freedom Tower", whether it's its name or not. (PS: I am not an English professor, though I am a grammar Nazi.) — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "I'm going to "the" Freedom Tower"; I would say "I'm going to Freedom Tower"... well, honestly, I could say either one. This same situation applies to ships. The Air Craft Carrier Enterprise is often called "The Enterprise". The "the" in that case seems to signify its importance. Ships named after people seem to also have "the" in from of them... possibly as a means to distinguish between person and ship. However, the ship, Poseidon, from "The Poseidon Adventure" seems to only be pronounced as Poseidon. Also, the two rovers on Mars, Spirit and Opportunity do not have "the" in front and are not pronounced with a "the" in front. I remember channel surfing one day and watched an episode of Firefly and someone pronounced the name of the ship "The Serenity". One of the crew members got offended and said "It's pronounced 'Serenity'". Objects that are named after nouns like that without a "the" in front suggest that the nouns are being used as metaphors with more simplistic and sometimes more powerful meanings. Since Freedom Tower is being constructed after the 9/11 attacks, "Freedom" is a powerful word associated with the tower and the memorial site. Therefore, I imply that the prounciation of "Freedom Tower" is used to emphasize freedom and say that the tower IS freedom (or at least a symbol of freedom)... and a tower. I hope that makes sense. Although I think it should be said "Freedom Tower" because I think it is more meaningful, "The Freedom Tower" pronunciation seems to be correct as well. --TinMan 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bit late replying to this, but... Eh. I guess if it's being referred to in general as just "Freedom Tower", WP should have it this way too, though in my opinion there shouldn't be a "freedom tower" at all, as Bush has blown terrorism way out of proportion. But as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I'll stop here. — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cost

How much is the estimated cost? Dudtz 7/20/06 7:49 PM EST

"Also planned are three other high rises plus a residential tower that will surround the World Trade Center Memorial that is currently also under construction, a museum and a cultural center." This sentence makes no sence. I've re-read it 20 times and I still don't fully get it.

Same picture twice same picture twice

Why does the same exact picture appear twice in the article?--Loodog 15:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for two pictures, but when the old "feature picture" was deleted due to lack of copyright material, a picture that was already in the article was chosen to fill the blank infobox spot. That's how it got there; whether it needs to be removed or not doesn't matter to me. --TinMan 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing large portion of "Controversy" section 8/28/06

I removed most of the "Controversey" section, which is nothing more than an unsourced essay of accusations and speculation. "Cite needed" tags have been up for months, but nothing has been done about it and I can't find anything online to back this stuff up. The burden is on the person who posts the information, not on everyone else, to source this content. If someone wants to repost the deleted material with adequate references, be my guest. Aplomado ^talk 06:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous sentence

Detractors have claimed that this is a snub to the United Kingdom at a time when that country is one of the few staunch allies of the United States in the War on Terror, itself sparked by the attacks on the World Trade Center.

This melodramatic sentence stinks of left-wing interference and unsubstantiated, biased retoric. It should be removed immediately or at a minimum toned down to represent the two sided fact that 1776 also just happens to be the year that um ... AMERICA WAS BORN!!. Jsimeon75 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

While I think this statement ought to be sourced or removed--what detractors?--I have to say that without knowing the source I'm darned if I know what end of the political spectrum would think this.

What do these detractors suggest be done about this? Reduce the tower's height to 1066 feet? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

P. S. The United States was born in 1776. America, by that name, was born in 1507. The land mass now known as "America" is somewhat older. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws to make yourself look more knowledgable than others. The US is commonly referred to as America, as everyone well knows. Someone mentioning America in the Eastern Hemisphere is understood to be referring to the US. Just go to the "America" wiki entry and you'll see the disambigutaion page, which includes the United States. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to "Terrorism"

Should I add one, I'm not sure.

--Maxasus 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Address

Does anyone know the proposed address of the building? --CoolGuy 16:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

roof/top floor measurements

Hi...never commented about an article before so don't snap if this is the wrong place for this but...

In the quick info panel thing on the right-hand side it says that the height to the roof is 1,368 ft (417 m) and height to the top floor is 1,432 feet (415 m). The measurement can't go higher in feet and lower in meters. I would have edited it myself but 1) I couldn't quickly figure out how to change that part of the article and 2) after spotting that error I don't know if any of those numbers are correct. 415 meters is about 1,362 feet so I guess that's my best guess for an edit there. Rubberchicken 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for an alternative name: Liberty Tower

What about calling this future monument Liberty Tower? Liberty sounds much more like State of Liberty and thus something that everyone knows in this world. There is a Pet Shop Boys song, "Liberate". Yes, that is much much stronger than "setting someone free"! NY will thus have a State of Liberty (Part 1 of 2) and the Liberty Tower (Part 2 of 2). This will make people associate the landmark with this magnificent State of Liberty and not with some horrible distress that happened few years ago!! Please comment. -andy 80.129.122.241 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Floor count

It's 78. Just because the numbering skips a few floors, this doesn't increase the floor count. The floor count should include mechanical floors, which are already included in that total. CoolGuy 03:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the 78 number doesn't add up. It ignores base, which although doesn't have a floor count of 20, does have more than one floor. If it means anything, I used this picture [3], and counted from the ground all the way to the top floor and I get a floor count of 87... go figure. 78 is too small and 102 or 108 is just flat wrong. --TinMan 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only place I've seen the 78 floor heighth is with Tower 2, not Freedom Tower. --TinMan 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people say there are 82 floors, but there are really more than that; it's somewhere around 90 physical floors (and we've yet to know since we don't have the final blueprints for the skyscraper), but, officially, there will be 102 floors. The observation floor, over 1,300' above grade, will be called floor 102, no matter if you like it or not, and there will be several floors on top of the observation floor, for a total count of 108, but officials are sticking with a count of 102, from what I've read. The new 7WTC only has something like 49 floors, but it's commonly accepted that it has 52 floors; the same thing goes for the Freedom Tower. That building (even mentioned in this thread!) u/c in HK will only have 108 floors, but its official count will be 118 floors. A lot of buildings do this. And that brings up another point: I don't feel like reading a list and description of towers that will be taller than Freedom Tower, in terms of height and even floor height, in Freedom Tower's own height section. I don't really see it on the pages of other skyscrapers and all of that crap is already on the bottom of the page.

> 1st-19th floors - Podium

> 20th-63rd floors - Offices

> 64th floor - Sky lobby

> 65th - 88th floors - Offices

> 89th and 90th floors - Transmission equipment

> 91st - 100th floors - Mechanical

> 100th - 101st floors - Restaurant

> 102nd floor - Observation deck

> 103rd - 108th floors - Mechanical

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail.php?ID=439

-E

So the question is, which one to use so the edit warring will stop? --TinMan 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Race for the tallest

This is clearly another selfish New York City-like effort to be the "number one" at something. And this time, it's to build the tallest tower in the entire Earth, despite how the height of the formal World Trade Center(s) (of New York) had effect on the city. Another sign is that it builds the antenna to a whopping 408 feet, then uses the "1776" idea as a cover-up. But hey, if it pleases the New Yorkers, why not? For they are the superior people of this country? The clear motive of this tower is sick and a complete disgrace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.203.233 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Umm... For one thing, Freedom Tower will not be the tallest building in the world when it is completed. The people of the United Arab Emirates will soon have that honor when Burj Dubai is completed. As far as I am aware, living very close to New York City, the World Trade Center was never actually detrimental to the city (although the towers were often called the ugliest buildings in Manhattan) until its destruction, and targeting the WTC was more due to its incredible worldwide economic importance than its size (else surely the Sears Tower would have been the target). —Cuiviénen 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TALK. This is the talk page for the article, not the Tower. Kelvinc 10:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Architect

Who is the architect of the current design? Is it still Daniel Liebeskind? --Richy 11:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please someone update the thumbnail pictures

Wikipedia offers one of the best opportunities in the public domain for the construction status of the Freedom Tower to be tracked by the public. However, this opportunity is not being realized at this site because no one is updating the construction pictures as often as they should be updated. The last picuture currently shown is many months old.

Certainly, there must be someone visiting this site that can provide digital picture updates to the thumbnails about once per month. I would add some myself, but I only get to visit the site about once every 12 months. The next time I'll be there is probably in November.

There are some other websites that do have video cameras where you can see the latest status images on an almost realtime basis, however, those sites that I have seen are all low resolution video frame captures - not higher resolution camera images. What we need on this site is a high resolution image added to the thumbnails about once per month or more often.

I guess you're talking about the webcams available from this site...I'll ask around and see if anyone has some more recent shots they have taken with a camera and ask them to share the images if possible.--MONGO 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All those thumbnails are mine. I get them whenever I'm in NYC and can stay at the Millenium Hilton. I will won't be up there again until late August at the soonest. More definitely September, as I'm normally there at the anniversary. Unfortunately, probably won't be staying at the Millenium Hilton, since the going rates are now $600/night. Wikipedia is awesome, but not that awesome that I can afford or willing to spend that much, just so I can get more pictures! I'll stay there if I can get rates ~$200/night or less, as was the case all those other times, including 9/11/2006. Not sure what I'll do this time. --Aude (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also have this - Image:Wtcsite_2006-0911.jpg, but it doesn't show much different than October 2006, and may have other dates. --Aude (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No Credit to SOM

This article does not give any credit to Skidmore Owings and Merrill LLP (SOM) as the architectural firm responsible for carrying out this building. This information probably belongs (at the very least) in the box at the right of the page, as it is in the article for the Burj Dubai.

• • It actually was there all along in the infobox, except "architect" was not spelled correctly, so it did not show up in the article. I've also added Silverstein Properties as the developer. Should Daniel Libeskind still be listed as an architect, underneath SOM? He may not be the architect of the final design, but he has certainly been involved with the project's design in the past. Raime 04:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No Height Records?

Not true. The Freedom Tower (1WTC) will indeed hold the title for the tallest office building on Earth when completed. There is no other taller office building proposed or under construction, or even on the drawing board. Buildings like the Burj Dubai are considered mixed use buildings; therefore, the Freedom Tower is unquestionably the tallest office building in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.116.125 (talk) 17:35:55, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Earlier designs?

Why aren't there any pics of the earlier designs? SharkD 02:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no free images available of those designs. Rai-me 23:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"would have been the tallest office"

There is a major error within the height section. Once completed, Freedom Tower will best Taipei 101 as the tallest office building in the world. There is no question about it. Burj Dubai IS NOT an office building; it's mixed use. Why must some imbecile always try to make it seem like Freedom Tower is wholly insignificant on the world stage? The Council on Tall Building will recognize the Freedom Tower as the world's tallest office building. On a side note, this project, as a whole, is by far the largest skyscraper building project in American history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.117.77 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about the Freedom Tower surpassing Taipei 101 as the tallest office building, although it would probably not hold that title for long due to the under construction Russia Tower. Burj Dubai will not be an all-office building, so that information should be changed. However, as for the Freedom Tower being the largest skyscraper in American history, are you forgetting about the Chicago Spire? Rai-me 23:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

1- The Russia Tower IS NOT an office building either; it's also mixed! LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE NO OTHER TALLER OFFICE BUILDINGS ON EARTH/PLANNED. It's almost impossible to make people realize that simple fact. Can you tell me why people can't understand it? I can say without doubt that Mr.FT will hold the title of world's tallest office building for at least 6 years, thanks to it's amazing showy spire. 2- I didn't say FT was the biggest skyscraper in America. It's the tallest office skyscraper in America and the world. I said the WTC PROJECT was the biggest skyscraper project in American history. I've tried correcting the information twice before, but idiots always put incorrect information! It's so annoying. Some people have a personal agenda to make this tower seem as insignificant as possible. At least it will rise within weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.117.77 (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, you need to calm down. WP:CIVIL. I really don't think that many people who edit this article necessarily have a personal agenda against this building, although I do admit the "the Freedom Tower will not be as tall as...." was getting ridiculous. It could just be that people edited on good faith, and were incorrect. That was the case with my post; I apologize. I thought the Russia Tower was all-office, and I stand corrected. But that does not mean that I have a personal agenda to make this tower appear insignificant. If you meant that the entire WTC project is the largest skyscraper building project in American history, your post was not worded well, at least IMO. But this is really not relevant to the topic at hand. And will it rise within weeks? If so, that is great, but I thought that we were not supposed to see above-grade steel rising for months. Anyway, while it should without a doubt be noted that this will be the world's tallest office building, it might also be worth pointing out that the Freedom Tower will not hold the earth's highest offices. One reason this topic is getting so heated is likely the fact that this is a 417 meter (please do not take this comment to be writing of the Freedom Tower as "insignificant"; I am only pointing out a fact) building that is claiming the title of tallest office tower simply with a spire, which many skyscraper addicts do not agree with. Rai-me 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, and I agree, but the fact that it doesn't have the tallest office floors was already established in the the plethora of buildings that would be 'taller' in the height section. I've tried to edit with correct information several times, and each time, it was edited into something negative; I've seen first hand how childish people act about heights on SkyscraperCity. In articles of other tall towers, you don't see a list of a dozen buildings that will be taller than the tower in the article. All that needs to be said here is that Burj Dubai will be the tallest because Freedom Tower was once supposed to be the tallest. The rest of the height section is a waste of space and should be used to compare FT to other buildings of NYC and other WTC towers. It ahould also explain why the Gov. of NY and David childs picked the spire and roof heights for the new version of the skyscraper. I added a sentence to the bottom of the height section and fixed the incorrect sentence quoted in the title of this discussion section. The articles for the other WTC towers are quite light. Maybe I'll join Wikipedia next week and upgrade them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.117.77 (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Was that fact established? It should be, but I couldn't find it. But I completely agree; sentences like International Commerce Center, Shanghai World Financial Center, and the Burj Dubai will have roofs and floors higher than Freedom Tower's highest roofs and floors seem ridiculous. I would tend think that comparisons to the Chicago Spire and maybe even to Crown Las Vegas (along with the obvious Burj Dunai) are warranted, as this building was originally planned to be the tallest in the Western Hemisphere. And please join Wikipedia; it is easy to sign up, and it sounds like you have a lot to contribute :) Rai-me 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, it looks much better now! This was productive and skyscrapers are always the best. Yes, I'll join within a few days and make sure to make a commet here so you know. Tower 3 rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.117.77 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I just realized that the picture of FT on the top is the old version! The newest version (as of Sept. 2007) has a different crown. Most people seem to like it but I think the old one was better. I have to get going now, but I'll be back to help fix anything else wrong some other time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.117.77 (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the image at the top is the only one relased by the government so far, and this thus the only free image avaialble for use at the top of the article at this time. Rai-me 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Usama Bin-Haddad

Erm....I've searched for this name on Google and there is not a single website about him. The name is suggesting to me Wikipedia might have been vandalised here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.125.157 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism. I searched "Usama Bin-Haddad" and "Holvernstein Architects" (where he supposedly works) and got no results. It cited no sources, so I deleted the entry. (75.50.101.192 00:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

I would tend to agree that this is vandalism, but as at least one editor disagrees, I have added fact tags on the uncited and questionable information. If references are not provided soon, the section can be deleted. Rai-me 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough time has passed, and there have been no attempts to cite the section. I have therefore deleted it. I think it is safe to assume that this information is vandalism. Please do not re-instate the section without reliable references, of which none seem to exist. Rai-me 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the Usama Bin-Haddad was removed, and was generally considered to be vandalism, I removed the other reference to Bin-Haddad in the David Childs section as well. Cg-realms 11:14, 18 October 2007 (EST)

Construction gallery

Removal of August 7th picture

I removed the August 7th picture from the Construction gallery box because it was already featured under the 2006 to 2007 section and obscured the value of the box. Assuming User:Aude continues to post pictures from that specific angle over time, it will provide a valuable insight into the evolution of the site. The August 7th picture, taken from a completely different location and angle, breaks up the linear progression of Aude's pics. The August 7th picture remains a valuable contribution to the article, however, which is why I left it in alone in "2006 to 2007".

Removal of Freedom Tower Site on March 8, 2008 picture

I removed the March 8th picture from the Construction gallery because it was already featured in the current progress in 2008 section, and obscured the value of the box much like the earlier removal. The March 8th picture remains a valuable contribution to the article, however, which is why I left it in alone in "Current progress in 2008". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New-wtc.jpg

Image:New-wtc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Official building title (1 World Trade Center vs. World Trade Center Tower 1)

1 World Trade Center refers to the North Tower of the pre-9/11 complex, whereas World Trade Center Tower 1 specifies the 'Freedom Tower' currently under construction. The title 1 World Trade Center is cited in the majority of press releases originating from Silverstein Properties or the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey concerning the rebuilding of the complex post-9/11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.220.232 (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"1 World Trade Center" is used on the official WTC website as the official name of the Freedom Tower: see this. So I think it is the best choice to use in this article. Cheers, Rai-me 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another recent picture?

I think we need another picture of the construction, from sometime this month, i heard construction is really speeding up, and i want to see what that concrete wall is (its not very clear from project rebirth) 10:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In popular Culture - Freedom Tower in movie "I Am Legend" - Sure?!

Where is the Freedom Tower in I Am Legend? I can´t find it so im wondering if the information is correct...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.78.62 (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I will hide the information for now, unless someone can confirm that is is true with a source. Cheers, Rai-me 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Get a Freedom tower, Lost your.

Hello, sorry to say that from Taiwan, I think about this "Freedom tower"'s name for months, and I want to notice that when goverment start to set big buildings, groups, or states with great names such "Stadium of the People", "German Democratic Republic", and such names that Communist China and Russia had use for decades... that's often exactly what people is losting. Frankly, I'm sad for the american people, sorry to say it, but How US goverment can lie to american to launch under the same president vote the "PATRIOT" ACT (liberticid: yes, Patriotic : in what?, "Uniting and Strengthening America" they said : -__- did them believe we are cow ?), the Irak War, and launch the "Freedom tower" project.

Sorry to add this here, but really, that upset me, and today I anonymously type 8 lines to say it. 140.122.97.3 (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep your Liberal anti-Americanism off of here. This is not a discussion board. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this IS discussion page Woden (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes: I admire, respect, and worry for american people, and so I oppose political propaganda. That's anti-american ? 140.122.97.3 (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you do not 'admire' or 'respect' us; it is not political propoganda, we have always named things after ideals that we aspire too (Liberty, Freedom, etc.) What is anti-American is you trying to pass this off as something wrong with us. Keep to your buisness. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Opposing political propaganda doesn't seem very anti-american, this anonymous user does not seem to have anything against american people, but the way american goverment is presenting things. Travis, you really should calm down with all your comments about "anti-americanism". Not that i agree with this anonymous user, but your comments also in other pages seem a bit too biased to be taken seriously. Woden (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

One section of this article states that the tower will emerge above street level by "Spring 2008," while another states that the tower will emerge in "Summer 2008." Someone who is more knowledgable about this project than I should correct the discrepancy. --Quintin3265 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the article, and the only contradiction I could see was where the "Current progress in 2008" section said "The tower's concrete core is currently on the basement floors, but it is expected to begin rising in the spring of 2008. The tower's steel will begin to rise above street level during the summer" while the "Future progress" section said "The steel is expected to be visible at street level by spring 2008." All reports I've read indicate that the steel should be above street level by the end of spring. The "summer" reference appeared to be a misinterpretation of the cited Port Authority press release. The statement actually says: "Major construction on 1 World Trade Center, the Freedom Tower began in mid-2006. The tower’s footings and foundations are nearly complete, and steel will begin to rise above street level during the first part of 2008." (emphasis mine) The first part of 2008 could as easily be spring as summer, so I'm going to change the "summer" reference to "spring" and remove your contradiction tag. --Cg-realms (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Footprint of the new tower?

How much bigger/smaller will the footprint be compared to the WTC? This would be a good bit of info in the article. Building height is nice enough, for stats, but I've always been fascinated by the width and girth of buildings. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Tower 2010 or 2012 ... or 2013

Hi, I was just wondering on this Wikepedia article some places it says the Freedom Tower will be built by 2012 and other places it says September 11, 2010. I find this contradictory and misleading. You should only quote either 2010 or 2012, but not both. You have to choose. Please get rid of one date and keep the other, but don't list both 2010, and 2012 and completion dates. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per this ref and several other sources, inclusing the official WTC site, the estimated completion year and opening year of the building is neither 2010 or 2012, but 2011. Thank you for highlighting this issue. I believe that I have corrected all of the instances in the article where the date of completion is given, but I could have easily missed some. Cheers, Rai•me 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC

According to the first listed reference :

The Freedom Tower and other skyscrapers planned for ground zero aren't expected to open until 2013 at the earliest.

Originalname37 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A Piece of Trash?

What is meant by the following: 1 World Trade Center,[1] or the Freedom Tower, is the building of the new World Trade Center complex currently under construction in Lower Manhattan in New York City. It is a useless piece of trash. Why is that written there?--Goldwing 5000 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was vandalism that was added a few minutes prior to your reversion. Thank you very much for removing it. Cheers, Rai•me 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was searching the web and I found this article from CNN. It states that the Freedom Tower will topout in 2009 and be opened for occupany in 2010. This is two year later than previously thought in 2008. I don't know I am not sure where the official source for the date of completion of the Freedom Tower is.

New WTC tower design made public From Phil Hirschkorn CNN New York

Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Posted: 4:29 p.m. EDT (20:29 GMT)

Here is a night view of the redesigned tower, which will emit a beam of light from its spire. Image:

RELATED Gallery: New WTC design

• Interactive: Previous Freedom Tower design • Animation: WTC memorial "Reflecting Absence" • Lower Manhattan Development Corporation YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS

New York 
September 11 attacks 
George E. Pataki 
or Create Your Own 

Manage Alerts | What Is This? NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York officials released the latest design for the signature building at the World Trade Center site Wednesday after revising it to make the tower more secure.

Gov. George Pataki ordered the design changes because police were concerned that the tower's placement adjacent to West Street, a major thoroughfare along the west side of Manhattan, would make it vulnerable to a truck bomb.

Instead of being 25 feet from West Street, the tower will be set back 90 feet, and its 200-foot base will be a reinforced concrete wall covered in steel and titanium.

"I think it's simpler and at the same time a lot more elegant," Pataki said in an interview with CNN. "The footprint is smaller, which leads to more open space and it doesn't quite dominate over the memorial ... It's not about doing it today, it's about doing it right for tomorrow."

"The Freedom Tower," will retain the height of the earlier design -- at 1,776 feet, symbolizing the year the United States declared its independence.

But it will also include reminders of the twin towers it will replace.

The roof above the public observation deck will be at 1,362 feet, the height of old South Tower, while a glass wall will rise 1,368 feet, the height of the old North Tower.

"In subtle but important ways this building recalls what we lost," said architect David Childs.

The building will bear a spire that will emit light at night to echo the Statue of Liberty's torch.

The tower will be also more slender and occupy a smaller footprint in the northwest corner of the 16-acre site -- a footprint the same size as the old twin towers' base, 200 feet by 200 feet.

The revised tower design takes up the same amount of commercial space, one-quarter of what was lost on September 11, 2001, and many of the same features.

Above an 80-foot lobby and 120 feet of floors housing mechanical equipment, there will be 69 office floors, the highest at 1,120 feet.

The new construction timetable calls for the steel frame to rise above street level in 2007 and be topped out in 2009, with the tower ready for occupancy in 2010. That's two years later than originally planned.

"The new Freedom Tower design incorporates standards the police department had sought to protect the building against bomb blasts, which our counterterrorism experts agree present one of the greatest threats to such iconic structures," said NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, in a written statement.

Real estate developer Larry Silverstein said the tower will have a solid concrete core and state-of-the-art fireproofing on its steel beams.

Silverstein, who leased the Trade Center six weeks before it was destroyed, said he embraced the recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which found that the dislodging of fireproofing material when the hijacked planes crashed into the towers contributed greatly to their collapse.

The tower was originally conceived by architect Daniel Libeskind, whose master site plan was chosen in February 2003 to guide the rebuilding process.

Libeskind later was forced to collaborate with Childs, hired by Silverstein, to refine the design, which was unveiled in December 2003.

The 2003 Freedom Tower model featured a torqued glass-and-steel design with a steel cable netting. It had 2.6 million square feet of commercial space, including more than 60 floors for offices, an indoor observation deck above and a sky restaurant to replace Windows of the World.

A cornerstone was laid July 4, 2004.

No tenants, other than the governor and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the transportation agency that owns the site land, have expressed interest in moving offices into the tower.

Childs said the tower is "bold and simple" and would be a "marker in the sky for the memorial below."

The memorial, Reflecting Absence, featuring two reflecting pools where the towers stood, will occupy 4.5 acres and will be the first project completed on the site.

Groundbreaking will take place early next year, with construction scheduled to be finished in September 2009.

CNN's Jonathan Wald contributed to this report.

This was the article that claimed that constuction on the Freedom Tower will be finished in Septemeber 2009.Maldek (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Spire

Hey now it says that the Chicago Spire will be completed in 2010, which contradicts its own site that says 2011. Anyone know why?Maldek (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

misleading?

The article states...

"The chosen name of the 'Freedom Tower', attributed to Pataki, has been criticized as Orwellian by a critic for The New York Times.[34][35]"

...but the source is not referring to the Freedom Tower, but to the memorial garden in front of the tower.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.71 (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: 207.237.228.71 (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Tenants" wikitable

I removed the wikitable giving a floor by floor breakdown of the building because it was very long and full of largely redundant information. The same information was featured far more succinctly and intuitively in the "Floor breakdown" section. Once actual tenants start being locked down to individual floors, I would not be opposed to bringing the table back. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

False and Misleading Statement about Freedom tower of N.Y.

Who is the idiot that keeps adding a sentence that the Freedom Tower will be replaced by Twin Towers 2 ???? The statement gets deleted then he puts it back in again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.209 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So why can't you remove it? Fletcher (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FALSE?

what do you mean? Freedom tower was indeed canceled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.247.133 (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Source? Fletcher (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It was never cancelled. If it was, there would have been relevant media coverage as well as a press conference about the status of the site.