Talk:2 World Trade Center

Second tallest building?

Are you sure we should say this will be the second tallest building in NYC? I'm not sure if a building's spire counts toward its height, but if that's the case then the Empire State Building's "full structural height (including broadcast antenna) reaches 1,472 feet". Do you know if the height 1300-1450 ft includes any spire or such feature? or not? Will the building even have a spire? -Aude (talk contribs) 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this List_of_skyscrapers, the Empire State Building is 1250 ft tall, which references Emporis. So, it seems that the "second tallest building" stands up to fact-checking. That being the case, I think this fact that "200 Greenwich Street will be taller than the Empire State Building" is worthy for the main page Did you know... feature. -Aude (talk contribs) 02:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points...the height comments made here and in 175 Greenwich Street and 150 Greenwich Street are mine...based solely on what they say will be the finished heights...I suppose until I can cite this as something that was stated by someone else, it is a violation of WP:OR. Looking at the diagrams of this building though, it appears that there will be no spire. I was pleased with some of the design changes to the Freedom Tower...now that the spire will be centered on the top, rather than offset.--MONGO 04:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also not opposed to a retitle of these articles, but was scared to mess up disambiguations with the original WTC 2, 3 and 4...there is also a WTC 5 that is planned, but the final verdict on this structure, as far as the architect, has not been determined, as far as I know. By 2007...4 huge office buildings will all be under construction at the WTC site at the same time...big bucks....hope they set up some webcams.--MONGO 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that more fact-checking is needed. I think how building heights are determined is subject of some controversy. Other aspects of this article are perhaps a bit too speculative and uncertain, as well, for this to be on DYK. I'll look into the facts some more, too. -Aude (talk contribs) 04:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 4 official ways of calculating a building's height. From how the article reads, it seems that it is #2 in highest habitable floor, and that's all I can tell at the moment. But I'm sure we can find out. CoolGuy 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo

How about putting the photo from the Freedom Tower page on here too. Does that seem like a good idea? CoolGuy 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The previous photo was of Lord Foster's Conceptual Design phase render for 200 Greenwich Street. This is the new and improved render for use in the Design Development phase of development for the new World Trade Center.klepto 02:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in support of changing the image to an updated version, but not to a blatant copyright violating rendering. The image is appropriately tagged now as non-free, but was previously tagged as released into the public domain, which is clearly not the case. Rai-me 02:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The proper copyrights are in place now, the new render should stand. klepto 03:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree for the most part. However, the image needs to list its source. As a fair use image, source and appropriate author attribution are required. Without either of these, the image could easily be nominated for deletion. Rai-me 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

These are the author and source, can you put them in...?

Summary: Image of New York City's proposed 200 Greenwich Street, also known as 2 World Trade Center

Author: Silverstein Properties (building's developer), Sir Norman Foster (architect)

Source: Gallery of Architecture

URL: [1]

klepto 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in everything except the URL. Could you please either post it here, or simply add it to the description box in the "Source" entry? Thanks, Rai-me 04:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Put the URL link in the "Source" section in the description box. Thanks klepto 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the fair use rationale slightly to comply with WP:NFC criterion 10, and now everything looks good. :) Rai-me 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Completion

The article says it will be finished in 2011 and the sidebar says 2012. Any new updates? We should reconcile these numbers even if they are subject to change. DaronDierkes (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. The date of 2011 seems to be from an outdated press release. The official site and SkyscraperPage both give a completion date of 2012, so I have changed the article accordingly. Cheers, Rai-me 12:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Next question then, should the date be linked to 2012? The Freedom tower is listed there. A lot of construction, especially in the west, tends to be abandoned or delayed constantly. So the 2012 article is dubious, but interesting. Shall I enter this there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaronDierkes (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, non-full dates (such as years alone) are usually not wikilinked, per MOS:UNLINKYEARS: Links to date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month are not required; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links must not be used unless the reader needs to follow the link to understand the topic. I really don't think a link to 2012 is "needed" for a reader understand the topic of this article. If the article had a full completion date, such as June 20, 2012, then this would be appropriate to link. Cheers, Rai-me 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Change of status

I just watched the news and they said that only buildings 1 and 4 will actually be built, while the other buildings will be canceled. So to reflect that I think we should change the status for the other buildings, including this, from "approved" to either "proposed" or (more correctly) "canceled". --96.232.48.191 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Source... http://www.wtc.com/news/port-authority-wants-to-dump-three-of-five-proposed-skyscrapers-for-wtc-site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.48.191 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits and reverts

Since so many IP addresses have been editing this article recently for the same purpose of stating the building is under construction/adding information about why the WTC needs the amount of original office space, it is probably best to bring this up here as opposed to inidvidual user talk pages where the editor(s) may not see it.

Reagrding this edit, and addressing 76.224.117.89: I have no problem including the information about opposition to the "stump" plan in the article, but please do not revert my edits simply for the sake of reverting them, as it is appears you (whether it is one person working form different computers or several individual people, I am not sure) are trying to make a point. My rewording does not significantly change what you originally wrote, minus the "news report" mention - an article titled "Build ‘Em Now NYC Needs Modern Offices" is clearly an opinion piece and not a news report that has been researched and investigated. Grant it, the article still contains valuable information, and that is why I referenced and cited it, but your recent revert removed this citation. If you want to revert my edit again, it would be good to discuss your reasoning here first. Please, let's not get into an edit war. Cheers, Rai•me 17:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not two Freedom Towers instead of this...how do I put it delicately...thing? (66.116.9.68 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC))