Jump to content

Talk:2 World Trade Center/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

Twins

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))

Status

I will be changing the status back to Approved.

March 07,2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.117.63 (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

200 Greenwich Street → Two World Trade Center — Name is much more common. Websites and media use this name. Page has been moved at German Wikipedia after a long discussion. Jerchel (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article needs an update

I was down at the WTC site and tower two is already 3 or 4 stories high. A new picture and update would be nice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Design

When was this design released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.249.220 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello? (67.58.249.220 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

Progress?

Looking at this link here from February 2011: [1], it looks like Two World Trade Center is already taking shape, are there any pictures out there that can be added to the article of the progress made so far? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This tower will have 88 and not 79 floores !!!!!!! 151.75.3.51 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To correct also the phrase " The 79-story building was designed by Foster and Partners, London." in " The 88-story building was designed by Foster and Partners, London." Thank you. 151.75.114.181 (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated frequently with current status. The "as of" wording quickly becomes outdated. "According to the current schedule, the structure will be built to street level by mid-2012, .." -- Take note that mid-2012 cannot be referred to in the future tense. Stop wording article as if building is on schedule!

Building Status

Apparently an editor is changing the status from On hold to Under construction, which is not the case. The building indeed is On hold until tenants are found and the economy improves. Each time I have changed the status, an editor changes it back to Under construction, which is not true. Please reply if you have concerns. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Two World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Issue on completion year and construction status

We aren't sure when and what year 2 World Trade Center tower will be completed within this decade, and the construction status that should be under construction at this point. Can I change the construction status from "On Hold" to "Under construction", because we haven't got latest construction updates for this building yet? They should be building it right now. At least Norman Foster's diamond-topped tower design is not being scrapped for BIG's box tower design, which this is a complication between two building designs what they and the city of New York prefer to build. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 20:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's not under construction - and it's not, it's stopped - then we can't say it is. It's on hold. Acroterion (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Another thing while the construction for 2 World Trade Center remains on hold until they announced that they will resume construction with some possible tenants announced, is there a reason why we can't include a completion year (estimated & expected completion) in this building article right now? I may have to re-insert completion_date in the infobox with the text "Unknown" in there. Is it okay if I can put "Unknown" in there for not yet determined expected completion? --Allen (talk / ctrb) 01:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: Is there a reason why we can't include a completion year in the infobox right row? Not even 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, 2029 or whatsoever would be the expected completion year of the new 2 World Trade Center until they said from the latest sources that the construction is resumed, probably after the pandemic and finally announce the completion year. Those future years are the uncertainty for completion of the building right now. Also, how about I put "Unknown" in there for the expected completion date if that's okay? If you're going to revert that edit with "Unknown" in completion_date, then you may have to respond to this why we can't include that kind of status as well. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 20:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We can't because there are no reliable sources that report when it will be finished. The foundations are in, nothing else is happening. I'm not a fan of filling in infobox fields just to fill them, better to leave it out. Infoboxes are summaries, not text replacements.Acroterion (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Construction

When will wtc 2 resume it’s construction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't know. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2_World_Trade_Center/Archive_1&oldid=1215174946"