Talk:One World Trade Center/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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. 71.91.49.242 (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody have a Construction update?

The last update on the Freedom Tower's construction is from October 10, 2008. The last photo posted is from September 2008. Surely someone has an update they can post....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.59 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to find any news or updates [1] at the link provided to the left. It's the official website for the World Trade Center. 71.91.49.242 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's shameful that it has taken so long to build nothing, and such a hideous design too. What happened to that beautiful shard-like design it was going to have ?

I was going to ask if the photos posted MUST be ours. There is a really good photo taken today on SkyScraperCity's forums taken by someone else. I would imagine permission to use it would be needed by him? 68.51.41.46 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbolic height vs. architectural height

I keep bringing the building's height back down to 1,368 or 1,362 feet at the roof's parapet or at the top of the top floor. One of these two heights is the "height of the building", per usual architectural practice. Communications towers and decorative elements placed atop the roof are not considered when specifying the height of a building. Naturally, it needs to be said that the communications spire was designed such that the total height of it and the building would be 1,776 feet, symbolic of 1776, the year of the United States' Declaration of Independence. This emotional factoid must not be allowed to muddy the standard given height of 1,362 or 1,368, depending on whether the parapet is considered. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the height being architectural or symbolic, the total height of the Freedom Tower is still 1,776 feet. That specific height has been used by every news organization across the globe. Also, that height statistic hasn't been changed prior to your edit. If reputable and revered news organizations like CNN, BBC, and MSNBC all say that the Freedom Tower will rise to 1,776 feet, then the height should be kept as that. Also the organizations that are a part of the construction of the Freedom Tower also state that the building will rise to 1,776 feet. It is one thing to do a personal comparison and editing between the two heights, but it is another thing to take matters into your own hands and not listen to sources like the Port Authority or news organizations altogether. BalticPat22 Pat 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the many reliable sources reporting the height as 1776 feet. Everybody loves the symbolism! It's so much more newsworthy to connect the tower's total height to an emotional number related to the founding of the country than to report that the height is either a) the same as 1 WTC or b) the same as 2 WTC. What's ignored by all of these fine sources is the established architectural standard whereby communications masts and spires are generally not added to total building height. Even though the Chrysler Building's spire was counted as defining its height, most later buildings don't have such masts, communications towers and spires incorporated into the basic height of the building. For instance, the Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong lists its height as a thousand feet even though the communications mast extends to 1,205 feet. The Freedom Tower can't be immune to such longtime standards. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat uses four methods of measurement but the main method of measurement includes the height of the spire. Also Binksternet one of the books you linked to says that "Spires do count in determining total height" while the other book you linked to is from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. If you visit their website you would see that they list 1,776 feet for the height of the Freedom Tower. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand correctly. It isn't a matter of what you think media sources should be saying, it is what they are saying. Not only that, but both the Port Authority of New York and the World Trade Center website's state the building's height to be 1,776 feet. Symbolic or not, that is the height of the Freedom Tower. Now, the height of the building in this article hasn't been changed since it's creation and it shouldn't be changed just because your opinion doesn't agree. It isn't up to you to change an already established fact that has been cited from sources ranging from The Washignton Post to the WTC's own website. You can cite book references all you want, but until the majority of sources suddenly change in your favor, you're argument is done with. BalticPat22Pat 18:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Having the spire included or not is always the subject of debate when coming up with actual height of buildings. Yet, inlcuded seems to be the most used option for any building including Burj Dubai and Petronias Towers. You can debate whether to put top mechanical floor, top occupied floor, celing of top numbered floor, top walkable surface... all day, but 1776 feet is going to be the most common and the most used yardstick. --Triadian (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Freedom Tower Reaches new Milestone

According to a New York Times Blog, the Freedom Tower is Now 100 feet above street level and climbing...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.59 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

The "Freedom Tower" is increasingly being referred to in official documents as 1 World Trade Center. [2] It looks like the Governor Pataki coined name may be fading with his having left office. People need to be aware of which names are being used by the public, press and on official documents to determine if and when an article name change is necessary.Sturmovik (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunlap has been against the name Freedom Tower since July of 2007. If Dunlap wants to call it the 1 World Trade Center (which he does in his blogs) he can do so but unless the name Freedom Tower truly goes out of usage in the press I would be against a name change. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, will the writers consider "whose" freedom this tower will symbolize? Given the MESS we are in, I would hope it would not represent the restoration of the freedom of the few vs. the deprivation of the many. --Gentle reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.165.130 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WCBS the port authority of NY&NJ says it's not the Freedom Tower and is just "One World Trade Center" ([3]). I think we need to retitle the page refering to the previous 1WTC and change this page's name to that. Freedom Tower can redirect to one world trade center, however Wikipedia should side with the owners of the building. (Drumz0rz (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Agreed, Freedom Tower is not the official name anymore. A move is needed. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article should be moved to One World Trade Center. It is the legal name, and the one preferred by the Port Authority. (AP via Google) --Zimbabweed (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the name change is official though I am surprised they announced this at the exact same press conference they announced the news about the China Center. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would fight for the "popular" name, but because the name Freedom Tower was controversial and unpopular among a significant portion of the population the article should reflect the official name. Moreover the tower has not yet been built so Freedom Tower can count as a concept of prototype name.Sturmovik (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article at "1 World Trade Center"? I only ask because I happened to be looking at the WTC website, and saw it referred to as "1 WTC" and "One World Trade Center", but not "1 World Trade Center". Nitpicking perhaps, but I just thought I'd ask. Martin (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question, and I think the page should be moved to to "One World Trade Center". --GrandDrake (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, "One World Trade Center" is a better title for this article. Cheers, Rai•me 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts? Martin (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The official site also uses "1 World Trade Center" [4]. TJ Spyke 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Associated Press article the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states that "One World Trade Center is its address. It's the one that we're using." --GrandDrake (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we account for both "One World Trade Center" buildings?

One thing that should be taken into account...the former North twin tower was also called "One World Trade Center". We have now heard news that the Freedom Tower is now One World Trade Center. It seems as though there should be a way to distinguish this new building from the original one constructed in 1970, either by calling this one One World Trade Center (2013) or the original structure One World Trade Center (1970). Thoughts? Sirkan (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I added an "other uses" statement to the article to distinguish it for now. I can see this getting a little confusing in the future as new buildings are built and renamed. Who knows, there might be another 2, 3, 4 WTC in the future. There should definitely be some sort of protocol in place to figure out how to name the structures. Sirkan (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support suffixing the names with the building construction date and then having a disambiguation page to list both. This will create the fewest bad links for articles referring to the previous building but possibly linking to the new one. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the buildings at the site are unofficially 2,3,4WTC so we'll probably need to do this for those articles once the Port Authority comments on what they should be referred to as. Drumz0rz (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Silverstien asking for a bailout?

I recently heard about Larry S. asking for approximately $4 billion for bailout. Should this be added to the page, or just left out? This update seems important for the "2009 Construction" section. 71.91.49.242 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.213.126.3 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Now that the article has been renamed, should Freedom Tower redirect here? Although it may not be the official name, it is still a very common name, and this building is the common usage of "Freedom Tower" over Freedom Tower (Miami) and Azadi Tower (look at Google as an exmaple of this). I think a redirect with a hatnote link to a hypothetical Freedom Tower (disambiguation) page would be more appropriate than the current set-up. Cheers, Rai•me 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Freedom Tower should still redirect here, with a note for the disambiguation which includes the others. Drumz0rz (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead with the redirect, as there is no opposition and it seems pretty clear that this article is still the primary usage of "Freedom Tower". Cheers, Rai•me 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1 World Trade Center or One World Trade Center

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was no consensus -- Aervanath (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The article beginning says One, but the article has 1. Which one is right? Nicholas.tan (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The official name is "One World Trade Center". --GrandDrake (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The official site says "1 World Trade Center" [5]. TJ Spyke 02:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no it doesn't[6] This is the official site of the property owners (Port Authority of NY/NJ) and while the page is freedom_tower.html, it clearly states "One" not "1". Submitted a request to move the page. Drumz0rz (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify, 1 WTC is the building's address, however it's name is "One WTC" Drumz0rz (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose See WP:MOSTRADE; the funny typography of the owners and their publicity department is not the basis for our article names; follow the sources to see what English-speakers actually call it. The proposed spelling, which is ambiguous between 1 WTC and the Trade Center for One World is unlikely to be it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Associated Press article the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states that "One World Trade Center is its address. It's the one that we're using." --GrandDrake (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a street address, it has an arabic number. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From the sounds of the Associated Press article the legal name of the building is "One World Trade Center". --GrandDrake (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I find enough evidence at the official website that the name is actually spelled out as One World Trade Center, therefore Im wishing to move the article to its proper name. I hope not to meet much opposition.--Pgecaj (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this move; many reliable sources indicate that "One World Trade Center," not "1 World Trade Center," is the official name. Cheers, Rai•me 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also support. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Support I believe that there is enough evidence for "One World Trade Center". --GrandDrake (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I suggest leaving it at 1 World Trade Center. It is not totally clear that the name change is official (I see both Freedom Tower and One World Trade Center used interchangeably) and it is better to use the address for the time being. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, would we relabel the article 1 WTC because that's what it is going to become come 2014? Leave well alone. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it definitely is not Freedom Tower any longer, despite the outcry that created. I suggest moving to One World Trade Center. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Why the name was changed

The New York Post op-ed which I cite is significant and belongs in the article to explain to the reader why after five years, the name was changed. If I, or any other editor, find opinion expressed in a reliable source critical of the decision to change the name, it should be added as well. The Wikipedia is about presenting the controversies not scrubbing them. And in this case, I'm not even certain that the name change is controversial. patsw (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the need to explain why the name was changed but an opinion column is not considered to be a reliable source by Wikipedia. I have replaced it with an Associated Press article with comments about the name change from the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two things here. First, I believe the column in question in not merely Cuozzo's opinion alone but a column which collects expert analysis, and puts it into a readable context the rationale for the name change. However, even if it were merely opinion, a secondary source that lays out the reasons for something to happen in an insightful way can be referenced in the Wikipedia. Hundreds of my contributions to the Wikipedia are tied to this text from WP:RS#News organizations:

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

Cuozzo's column easily satisfies this criterion and he took the effort to identify the background of his sources. The similar articles in the New York Times and New York Daily News do the same with mostly unattributed sources.

Secondly, I added the AP article and Coscia quote days ago diff . It does little to explain the actual reason for the change, and Coscia, being a political appointee, can't afford to be directly critical of Pataki's choice or whatever latent support there is for the old name. I believe that the Wikipedia reader should be able to know what the reader of the Post, News, or Times has read setting forth the reception of the name change. My text does this Individuals involved in commercial real estate development and sales in New York contacted by the New York Post approved the change in name from Freedom Tower to 1 World Trade Center as necessary to attract tenants. patsw (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly are the "Individuals involved in commercial real estate development and sales"? I see one person quoted with a name but who are the others? Also I do not see the need to mention various opinions on why people think the name was changed when we can directly quote from the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Grand Duke, you didn't raise this objection before. The author of the article mentions "most" as follows:

Siegel is hardly alone. Most of the city's leading real-estate players, many of whom lost loved ones on 9/11 and would cheerfully burn Osama bin Laden alive, have long cringed at the "Freedom Tower" moniker.

Do you have a reason to doubt the credibility of Steve Cuozzo of the New York Post -- that, contrary to his reporting, "most" have either no opinion or an unfavorable opinion regarding the name change? Cuozzo makes the point by citing the most prominent of the people he contacted.

If the objection is that the Post seems to be alone here. I think there's a consensus in local media:

1. "Forget Freedom". New York Post.
2. "Freedom to Name the Tower". New York Times.
3. "We don't need Freedom on a building". New York Daily News.
4. "So much for the 'Freedom Tower'". New York Observer.

Coscia's statement is important and belongs in the article. However, it is not sufficient, and every media source I could find also thought it wasn't sufficient. Are you making the argument that "legal name" and "easiest [identification]" are sufficient and completely explain the reason for the rename?

• "Freedom Tower has a new preferred name". Associated Press. 2009-03-26. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey chairman Anthony Coscia says the agency refers to the building as One World Trade Center. He says it's the building's legal name and "the one that's easiest for people to identify with." {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

It's not the mere opinion of the proverbial person on the street that is being reported in the cited articles, but the opinion of those very same experts upon whom Coscia must rely to get tenants into 1 WTC -- and that's the point in letting the Wikipedia reader know why others thought the rename was necessary. patsw (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You ask if I "have a reason to doubt the credibility of Steve Cuozzo" but that question is not relevant to Wikipedia. What is relevant is that his article is an opinion column and that based on Wikipedia policy you can not state something said in his opinion column as a fact. Now if you want to you can quote his opinion column as an opinion from him but based on Wikipedia policy you can not use his opinion column to make statements of fact. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the discussion of Mr. Cuozzo's comment is being debated here. While yes, his comment was the trigger that had this article renamed from "Freedom Tower" to "1 World Trade Center" there are more sources that show that the building's name is "One World Trade Center", such as the official site of the PA of NY/NJ, which is free from any potential subjectivity Mr. Cuozzo might have [7]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumz0rz (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the question is relevant because we are in a dialog over the suitability of his (or any) article for a cite. Where we have an impasse is your reading of Wikipedia guidelines with respect to opinion excludes it. What is fact is the opinions held by the experts in Manhattan commercial real estate, not only enumerated in the Cuozzo article but the Times, News, and Observer (listed above), and over several other news sources. Cuozzo is not cherry-picking. Opinion labeled as such can be included in the Wikipedia especially where the opinion is a consensus and is ubiquitous over all New York real estate media and gives insight into a major event. I dispute that my edit was incorrectly labeled.

Let me also get into Coscia's statement and why I hold that it is a fact that he said what he said, but what could it actually mean?

• Legal name -- a legal name for this building would be a number and one of Washington Street, Dey Street, West Street, or Cortlandt Street. Back in the 1960's the Port Authority filed a legal name change for the buildings of the superblock to be World Trade Center and they would be free now in the 2000's to file for a legal name change for Freedom Tower if their interest in this name was genuine. Their hands are not tied because of an existing legal name.

• Easiest name -- there's no press release from the Port Authority they conducted studies on the public that this was demonstrated.

In short, Coscia's statement was a tactful and diplomatic way of dealing with Freedom Tower as a name for the property which was unattractive to potential tenants, despite the good intentions of people in 2004-2005 who were advocates of the name. This isn't my original research but a consensus opinion of experts reported in reliable sources and labeled as such, it belongs in the article.

It would be misleading to include Coscia's statement as if it were literally true and the complete explanation -- and not include the consensus of real estate experts on the necessity of the name change. patsw (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am simply following Wikipedia policy when it comes to opinion columns and I wish that you were objective about that when requesting comments. To say that I am "insisting on one short quotation as being the only permissible content" is flat out wrong. I have never said that you could not state facts from reliable references but that based on Wikipedia policy "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Once again I am simply following Wikipedia policy and though I can see that you respect the author of this opinion column that doesn't change the fact that it is an opinion column. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Are we back to opinion can never be added to the Wikipedia? The WP:RS guideline I quoted earlier and the WP:CONTROVERSY guideline is even more explicit on how opinion is to be added. Grand Duke, can you directly agree or disagree with the following? It would help me in understanding your position and avoid misunderstanding.

1. Opinion can never be added to the Wikipedia.
2. Opinion can be added to the Wikipedia, but patsw's edit did not label it as opinion correctly per RS and CONTROVERSY.
3. Patsw's edit "Individuals involved in commercial real estate development and sales in New York contacted by the New York Post approved the change in name from Freedom Tower to 1 World Trade Center as necessary to attract tenants." is evident to the reader to be opinion and the cite identifies who holds these opinions, but nevertheless the edit should be deleted. patsw (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I said two days ago that "if you want to you can quote his opinion column as an opinion from him but based on Wikipedia policy you can not use his opinion column to make statements of fact". If you want to you can add an opinion from Steve Cuozzo to the article as long as that opinion is attributed to him but you can not use his opinion column to make statements of fact. This is based on the Wikipedia guideline for reliable sources which states that: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text". --GrandDrake (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"150 feet above street level"?

Did the Port Authority doctor those pictures? I assure you the Freedom Tower hasn't even reached street level yet, as is also shown through the latest 2009 pictures.

Can anyone get to the bottom of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about 150 feet, but it seems it's above street level since late October 2008. Here! --Pgecaj (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you going off that it hasn't reached street level yet? [8] This image is taken from street level, and clearly shows that the core is in fact 150+ feet above street level. Drumz0rz (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was actually saying that it was above street level. --96.232.54.62 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Decades of delay?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/04/16/2009-04-16_world_trade_center_project_wont_be_finished_until_36_years_after_911__pa.html - How legitimate is this? 98.219.35.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

I read this story in the Times and yes, I think it's a legitimate source (don't know if it will actually prove correct). But note it's talking about the complex as a whole, not the individual Freedom Tower/One WTC that is already under construction. i don't think it said construction would halt on that building but it's not totally clear to me. I was surprised the article did not make a comparison to the ESB, which was built very quickly in the Depression and was known for a while as the Empty State Building... it's too bad we don't have people with the ambition to just get it done quickly instead of years of delay and red tape (and it's also too bad the architecture isn't half as good as the ESB, but don't get me started on that).Fletcher (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New site

Could any of our Wikipedia that live in/are visiting NYC please take a new photo of the site construction? Saberwolf116 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reducing Most Of The Buildings In The New WTC Into a Stump

Due to recent news and the Finacial Crisis WTC towers 2,3,and 4 will become stumps and tower 5 will be canceled. I think we should add this to the articles and the other ones. --Trulystand700 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't believe me then check it out on: [http://www.wtc.com/news/port-authority-wants-to-dump-three-of-five-proposed-skyscrapers-for-wtc-site WTC recent info

There is a difference between will and may, whether it will be reduced to stumps has yet to be determined until June.216.213.126.3 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism: Simon Schama

Is it perhaps worth mentioning historian Schama's criticism of "Freedom" being associated with 1776, a time when slavery was still very much in fashion in the US? He is a notable figure, and it would seem to be an important bit of information, given the deliberately symbolic nature of the building's height. Or does it count as trivia? Kelvingreen (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's worthless. We just can't include slavery in every article. --96.232.49.28 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Design

Tower 2 is rather awful for being part of a newer set of buildings (Tower 1 and Tower 2) that looked alike. The design is beautiful, but, I'd like it if they made it part of the complex without naming/making it Tower 2, AND make Tower 2 resemble the Freedom Tower but without the antenna. Or just rebuild the original Towers... Not that my opinion matters... This is PERFECT ^^

• [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.31.213 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of article

The building is named One World Trade Center and not 1 World Trade Center. Please move the article. ctbuh.org and other website call the tower with the One at the beginning and not "1". --Jerchel (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the sections above regarding the name issue. (There are arguments, and sources, for both versions.) I must go offline at this time, but can explain more later about the process of changing an article name. 17:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Floor count

Does anyone have a reliable ref to support a floor count of 105? The images describing the space allotment do not seem to indicate that floor 105 will be the roof. The New York Times article states that the count will be 102, while SkyscraperPage gives the 108 count. It seems strange that the observation deck is on floor 102 but also at 1,265 feet (386 m). Do the remaining 97 feet to the roof really consist of only three floors (an average of 32 feet per floor)? Cheers, Rai•me 13:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I belive, the tower will have 102 floors plus 8 additional floors of mechanical at the top. But the top-floor cannot be 415m (1362ft) high, while the roof is 417m/ 1368ft tall. --Jerchel (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The floor count and the actual numbers each floor well be called is one of the worst reported aspects of this building. I have given up trying to keep the space alotment section correct, due in no small part to the fact that the one true source of correct information can not be properly sourced. I'm refering to the prints for the building. The tower well have 94 floors, including partal mechanical floors. The roof is numbered floor 105. There are no floors 7 through 19 (this solves the floor 13 problem) There are also no floors numbered 94 through 99.---Zensteeldude (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

update needed

The website for the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey reports that the Freedom Tower has now reached 160 feet above street level and is expected to reach the equivalent of 20 stories in the first quarter of 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.59 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tempo of construction

Will there only one floor erected per week? Thats very slow, at the Twin Tower three floors were erected in ten days? Jerchel (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Shame

It's truly a shame that they aren't going to build two Freedom Towers. The design is beautiful. I thought Rudy Giuliani said the skyline would be "made whole again." (67.58.235.120 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

--There is no space to have to have two freedom towers, a lot of the land is being built as the memorial park. --A9l8e7n (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn with that argument though. It's a very plain symbolic building and I don't think it needs to be twinned. I will say, the original twin towers, as far as design goes, were to me very ugly and I've on the record saying that before the event. --Triadian (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Main Image

This new main image is AWFUL compared to the original. It is of low quality and fails to express the full vision of this new tower. I insist that the original image be restored at once. This is unacceptable.Meteorico (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Current Image Free?

Is or Isnt the current image free to use? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is, according to the Website. (67.58.235.120 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

Built to last

I don't see any mention of the features the building will employ to be resistant to any possible repeat of 9/11 apart from the wide stairwell and fortress base. Does anybody know exactly what the developers have employed specifically to withstand another possible attack and how they learned from the design inadequacies of the former tower? I think there should be an enitre section on this. Could someone who knows please add it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

In fact, the building is offically known as One World Trade Center, 1 World Trade Center is it´s adress. Other buildings have an "One" as well at the beginning: for example One Prudential Plaza, One Liberty Plaza and much others. The buildings known as One World Trade Center by it´s developer (owner), the Port Authority: [10], the architect: [11] in the media: [12] & [13] and by secondary sources: [14] and here is listed, that 1 World Trade Center is only the adress. I think that should be enough. Jerchel (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

weird </noinclude> tag with no source under Design heading

In the article text I see a weird </noinclude> underneath the Design heading. Anyone else see that? Strangely, I can't find it in the wiki page source, although it's clearly there in the HTML page source, escaped < > and all. Anyone have any idea where it's coming from and how to remove it?Captain Chaos (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a pic for the finished base

Since the base of one world trade center is now complete, maybe we should add a pic in the construction gallery section representing the next milestone. --A9l8e7n (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New pictures found online:

[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 02:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

1 World Trade Center → One World Trade Center — User:Jerchel has asked me to request this move as the "building is offically known as One World Trade Center, 1 World Trade Center is it´s adress. Other buildings have an "One" as well at the beginning: for example One Prudential Plaza, One Liberty Plaza and much others. The buildings known as One World Trade Center by it´s developer (owner), the Port Authority: [20], the architect: [21] in the media: [22] & [23] and by secondary sources: [24] and here is listed, that 1 World Trade Center is only the adress."

I find the argument to be fairly compelling, but I feel that consensus needs to be established as the previous request failed to do so. Hopefully, now that a year has passed, we can make a firm decision about this article's name. Rje (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment this isn't the primary usage of either "one WTC" or "1 WTC", since that would be the destroyed tower... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Move as per suggestion, the only concern which was pointed out in the comment above mine is telling the two articles apart (Old tower vs New). If this article is to be moved both articles should lead to a disamb page or One world trade center can lead to the new one world trade center's article page and have a link to the old world trade centers article be accessable there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, move. One World Trade Center is the buildings name, 1 World Trade Center the adress. Jerchel (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Relooking at the other article I was mistaken the article for the old tower is simply World Trade Center I see no problem with this move as long as the old WTC article is linked to the new one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Addresses are listed numerically and not with letters, look up any directory. Gryffindor (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please move, buildings name is One, 1 is the adress. --85.216.31.147 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Distance from Ground Zero?

I've never been to New York, and I'm not familiar with the layout, so I'm hoping someone can tell me how far Freedom Tower is from Ground Zero? Approximately, like across the street or is it right at the edge? 209.40.210.222 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The new WTC is being built ON Ground Zero, which has been cleared. Search for "World Trade Center" in Google Maps, switch to "Satellite" and you'll see that Ground Zero is now a construction site, where they will build the four towers, the memorial, and the PATH train station. Leo-Roy! ^review/gb 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: The building itself is not going to be built in the exact same spot as its predecessor, instead there will be a memorial where the towers once stood as you can see here:

National_September_11_Memorial_&_Museum

Some folks may mistakenly refer to the exact position of the Twin Towers as 'Ground Zero' as opposed to the entire WTC site, and being unfamiliar with the site myself, I can see where there might be some confusion. I just wanted to clarify this a little bit. XDB (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ship found at construction site needs mentioned

Just read about this today. I think it needs mentioned here.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/14/ship-buried-th-century-unearthed-wtc-site/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.175.14 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay  Done =). Please feel to help improve on it if you can. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over Existing Design

This article reads like a puff piece in the real estate section. There is substantial (and I mean substantial) controversy and acrimony in the architectural world about the discarding of Libeskind's design in favor of the current One World Trade Center design. If Wikipedia can't be bothered to cover that, perhaps folks should spend more time reading newspapers and architectural / urban planning publications. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Two additional points:

One: As the article briefly alludes to, Larry Silverstein's (the current holder of the land lease) quest to maximize profit from the new site at the expense of Daniel Libeskind's design and at the expense of the consensus of the citizenry and urban planners. This goes back to before 9/11, as Silverstein was already calling for the WTC to be substantially rebuilt (in part due to the original WTC's structural flaws highlighted by the 1993 attack -- the buildings were not up to code) in order to maximize profit from the site. The new tower is of a piece with those efforts. That is why there was no attempt to respect, recreate or allude to the design of the pre-existing center.

Two: Good luck finding a single New York citizen who likes the current design. Its unpopularity is notable as that is a public critical reception, same as a film or artwork. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"No attempt to respect, recreate, or allude to the design of the pre-existing center" - aside from the fact that I completely disagree with you, this point is pure opinion and irrelevant. With regards to your second point, again irrelevant. This discussion page is not meant for you to express your own opinion regarding One WTC, but rather to discuss the proper layout and content for the article. FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not about either of our opinions. You may disagree with critics of the design (of course one might naturally want to exclude mention of controversy from the article as a result), but the fact remains that the design controversy is notable, extensively written-up in the literature (newspapers and journals), and the article as written is insufficient content-wise due to the absence of said information, it reads like a real-estate puff piece. This discussion page is the place for discussing improvements to the article, not declaring how you feel an issue isn't relevant to the subject. Yclept:Berr (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbolic height

I have removed the following bit:

... "a figure symbolic of the year of the United States Declaration of Independence."

Per WP:V, Is there any reference out there to back up that this was intended by the designer? Personally I think it is true, but throwing something like this in sounds like it could have been coined by the media. A similar building I found Wilson Brothers & Company also is 1,776 feet in length and was built in 1876 during the Centennial Exposition, again though I see no mention of that being a symbolic length in that article. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The height is referred to as symbolic here, so yes, it was intended by the designer. 92.202.108.45 (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay fair enough I will add that reference to the article to source it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

Collapse the images

I know the pictures are exciting to see but is there an editor that knows how to collapse the images so they do not make the page look like an image gallery? The more pictures people add the more the page will look cluttered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of Freedom Tower?

Should all the references be renamed to "One World Trade Center"? Now that that whole arguably jingoistic term is out of the picture and all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.67.158 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BUILD TWINS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.249.220 (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Elevators: Why?

Why ThyssenKrupp? Why not OTIS? --84.61.155.241 (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Location?

Shouldn't the location in the infobox be something like "New York City, New York, United States"? I know someone took out a similar edit to this but I think it's more encyclopedic to list the full location, as many other buildings in Wikipedia have the full location. I know "New York" is automatically associated with the City of New York, but the full location looks and sounds more encyclopedic.

Read WP:PLACE#United States--JOJ ^Hutton 16:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

105 floors

Sources give different information for what the top floor will be numbered. This source seems pretty definitive: [25] since it is from the Port Authority, and agrees with footnote 4. As I understand it, it will work this way: The indoor public observation deck will be on the 101st floor. The Skyline Restaurant will be on the 102nd floor. Then there will be 3 more floors devoted to mechanical equipment, so the highest will be the 105th floor. I have seen various sources state that there will or will not be an outdoor observation deck on the roof of this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

History of construction doesn't flow

The history of the construction of the tower doesn't flow at all. If you read it from beginning to end, the cranes appear to arrive on three different dates and the height goes up and down. The height issue is mostly when approaching and passing street-level. At one point it goes from being at street level, to be 17 feet above it, and then the next paragraph is "approaching street-level."

I think someone who knows more about the topic than I do needs to go through and delete the redundant and erroneous sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.189.196 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Each month a picture is posted of the advance of the Tower. March is over and there is no picture. April is also heading for the end and still no picture. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.239.239 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidently no one has uploaded or taken one. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Darn, I just got back from snapping photos of this and now I see someone uploaded a photo already. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The pictures from the vantage of the hudson are really telling at this point, see if you can include those eximo (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

PHOTOS = GONE

where are all the photos :( ? they are all gone this better be back cause those photos showed progress  ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.151.116 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

See Construction of One World Trade Center, a better place for that sort of thing. Acroterion (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

'Symbolic'

While the lead mentions that the height of the tower will be a 'symbolic' 1,776 feet this symbolism isn't explained until several paragraphs later. I think that the symbolism should be explained in the lead (in brackets) or not mentioned because we shouldn't assume that readers will make the connection between the height and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Any comments? raseaC^{talk to me} 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, maybe we should also refer to the previous building of that name in this article

Or maybe have articles titled "One World Trade Center (old building)" and "One World Trade Center (new building)". 68.37.254.48 (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Completion Date

All the citations and external sites claim a "2013" completion date, yet every time I try to change it to that someone changes it back to 2012. If anyone still believes the 2012 date, could they include citations or stop reverting the changes? --Sam (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also there's a 2016 in the image caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.12.165 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Scheduled completion

Should the sentence in the opening paragraph read "It is scheduled to be completed in 2013" rather than "It will be completed in 2013"? There are always the possibility of delays, and we also have to observe WP:CRYSTAL. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done You're absolutely right. N419BH 18:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Tense issue?

From criticisms: "The overall office space of the entire rebuilt World Trade Center will be reduced by more than 3,000,000 square feet (280,000 m 2 ) as compared with the original complex."

This is within a crticism about an older design, so is this only refering to that? If so, it should be worded:

"The overall office space of the entire rebuilt World Trade Center would be reduced by more than 3,000,000 square feet (280,000 m 2 ) as compared with the original complex[if they had done the 82 floor version]."

Or

"The overall office space of the entire rebuilt World Trade Center would have been reduced by more than 3,000,000 square feet (280,000 m 2 ) as compared with the original complex."

Someone had figured the floor space of the new one to be a couple million sq ft more than the old one, which makes more sense. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No update?

Does any body know why the tower's progress remains at 82 floors? Since September 11th, the tower remains steady at 82 floors. Is it on delay or something? Thank you for replying. -steven1098s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven1098s (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You can follow this link here [26] under "Daily Activities" and update the article when the information changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:1WTC-Willis Height Comparison.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1WTC-Willis Height Comparison.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Old Freedom Tower.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Old Freedom Tower.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Date format

Just so people are not confused I reverted the edit 2012 - 2013 to just 2012 for now, when 2013 rolls in then I feel it can go with the other dates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reduction of Construction History section

I think the Construction History section is too detailed and filled with a lot of irrelevant information that readers really don't care about. I propose shrinking the section to include only notable construction milestones (such as groundbreaking, laying of foundations, and the steel structure being half-way done) and omitting useless information such as exactly what floor the tower was on at a random date. It can still be updated to include what floor the tower was on at the most recent date, but if this is done, it must replace the last date and not accumulate. I also want to place it as a subsection under the general History section since it won't be so big once I'm done with it. I am going to go through with this anyway, but maybe some of you can give me some input first. If you don't agree with me you are free to reply so we can work something out, but I definitely don't think the section is fine as it is. Cadiomals (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the Construction History section has grown more than it needs, the detailed bits can and should be moved to Construction of One World Trade Center. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I forgot to mention that there is already a separate main article on 1WTC's construction history. Therefore, the section in this article should be more concise, and as always point the reader to the main article should they want more info. I'm currently working on shortening the section right now. Cadiomals (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

IPs keep essentially vandalizing with unverified information and its really annoying me to keep reverting their edits. How can I get this semi-protected? Cadiomals (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Goto WP:Requests for protection, use "la" as this is an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I will hold off for now since the vandalism was only coming from a couple of IPs and its sort of stopped. Thanks though. Cadiomals (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN premature?

In the films section it explicitly prohibits people from nominating films that haven't been released, on account of the fact that the articles would require extensive rewrites after being released. By that logic, shouldn't we wait until after the building is completed (2013) before going through the GAN? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, that was what I was worried about. But is there any harm in just leaving it, and if it doesnt get GA we'll just re-nominate it later? This is, after all a building, not a film, there's a big difference. In films, most details aren't found out until after it is released. In this building almost all the plans have already been released. It will just be confirmed in 2013 and we'll change the future tenses to present tenses, and add any new details as they are released. It shouldn't derail it from GA. I feel like it's the best it can be at this point. Let's just see if it doesn't get GA, then we'll renominate it after the building is complete. Cadiomals (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Article was quickfailed since it's still under construction. See this page. 206.15.252.30 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm fine with it failing for right now, since it is still under construction and we considered that but took the chance anyway. We'll simply re-nominate it in a year or so. But what I think is weird is that you're an IP. I didn't know IP's could do this kind of stuff. Cadiomals (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It was worth checking, anyway; quality-wise I'd say its GA or close, but fair enough if only completed buildings can qualify for GA. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Clear

The clear template was used reasonably to make the article look neat and organized and so text doesn't flow where it isn't wanted. It seems that Patrickneil is the only one who has a problem with it because this has stood for a while and no one has objected to it. Why would the clear template exist in the first place if there weren't situations where it could be reasonably used? There aren't large areas of white space in this article. Now with the way Patrick got rid of the template and moved the picture the article just doesn't look as neat. Cadiomals (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, its fine and a good idea to use the clear template when there's a buildup of images or exotic tables, I removed it because its only one image in the section, and the template wasn't being used with it, but just between subsections. Its okay if an image overlaps into a lower section, and I don't think its confusing for readers. In terms of looking neat, I'd have to say that's in the eye of the beholder, and would particularly be dependent on the reader's browser resolution or thumbnail setting, among other factors. In some cases, Template:Clear and Template:- can be an issue for odd resolution browsers, like on a mobile. I won't remove it again if editors do want to use it, but we don't need it.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Estimated cost and funding: Reasons?

Why has it become "... the most expensive single building in the world"? 93.220.62.21 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't your average skyscraper. 1) it is exceptionally tall 2) It was designed to be safer, stronger, and more secure than other skyscrapers because of its status as a potential terrorist target 3) conflicts among the developers and owners of the building and the world trade center site. Cadiomals (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's being built in a very expensive city where space is at a premium, and a lot of effort has been expended on worker safety during its construction. Unlike, say, Dubai, 1WTC isn't built by zero-wage migrant workers, but by fairly well-paid unionized labor. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Height configeration

I have read the article and it has falsely stated that the tower WILL be reduced in size due to the redesign of the antenna. This has not been confirmed yet, according to the tab that was used, we will have to wait until the building is fully constructed to see the obvious. I truly think that this needs to be corrected because it is kind of misleading, especially with Durst stating that it WILL be a spire rather than an antenna.(Dhussa (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

Pinnacle Height

In the second paragraph of the article it states that One World Trade Center will become the third tallest building by pinnacle height. I think that it's a bit misleading. It makes it sound like it won't be third tallest by official height when in fact One World Trade Center will become third tallest by official height too, since it has a spire (which is still a spire according to Durst). So shouldn't it just say that One World Trade Center will become the third tallest building in the world? Informed Person (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We'll see what happens in the end and what is decided when this building is finally completed. For right now we are relying on the sources which still say it will be the tallest by pinnacle height and currently it is still debatable but that could change in the future. Many unexpected changes have happened to this building through the course of its history, after all. Cadiomals (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture - Fringe

Hi,

since the article is protected I can't correct the entry for Fringe in the popular culture section.

The year it plays in is 2026 and not 2021. 2021 is just the date on the memorial. Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Day_We_Died I'd also add the information that 1WTC returned in Season 4, Episode 19 "Letters Of Transit". The episode takes place in 2036. You can see 1WTC in Lower Manhattan. Source: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Letters_of_Transit (Season 5 will continue in 2036 so it will return there aswell, I guess).

Regards, Paxnos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxnos (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Descriptions of Height

When used to measure the height of a skyscraper, non-functional spires are counted in the total height, functional antennas are not counted. Durst may claim all they want that there still is a spire, but independent news sources such as the New York Times (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/world-trade-centers-symbolic-1776-foot-height-is-at-stake-in-a-redesign/) have made it very clear that the "spire" has been scrapped, and instead a bare antenna remains. Thus, the pinnacle height will remain unchanged for the purposes of measuring the skyscraper, but in ranking skyscrapers by "height," One World Trade Center should be listed at 1,368 until determined otherwise. I would imagine it is Durst's burden to prove that the unadorned antenna now topping the building should also be counted as an architectural spire, and not everyone else's burden to prove that the unadorned antenna is in fact an unadorned antenna and not a spire. The 1,776 ft. height is outdated and should be changed to reflect the accurate height, as opposed to the PR version of the height provided by its builder, who has a vested interest in keeping it billed at that height. Wikipedia is about accuracy, and where accuracy is untenable (because there is no official measure of height, although people often defer to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat), Wikipedia should report what appears to be the most accurate figures based on comparable buildings. For comparable buildings, antennas are not counted in the "height," but are counted in "pinnacle height." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.130 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Independent news sources such as the New York Times state that the 1,776 foot height figure may be at stake, pending the CTBUH ruling after the building is completed; the articles you linked above also state that the Port Authority is confident that the modified antenna will be included in the building height as a spire. The 1,776 ft figure is not outdated - all reliable sources, including SkyscraperPage, Emporis, and the CTBUH database, continue to list the building's official height as 1,776 feet (541 m). Accuracy is not "untenable" in this case: these three major third-party websites that serve as the main reference sites for skyscraper heights all continue to report 1,776 ft as the official height. Therefore, this article and List of tallest buildings in New York City also use this sourced official height; if the CTBUH and other reliable sources alter their official calculation for the building, then the articles will follow suit. Cheers, Rai•me 20:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The World Trade Center's official website categorizes the antenna on top of the building as an antenna, not a spire. http://www.wtc.com/about/freedom-tower The language used is "The crown of the project is a communications platform and a 408-foot, cable-stayed antenna, designed in collaboration with artist Kenneth Snelson." Similarly, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, who owns the world trade center site and One World Trade Center, classifies the structure as an antenna, not as a spire. http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/one-wtc.html The language used by them is "New York's tallest skyscraper, antenna mast rises to 1,776 feet." The wikipedia article states "One World Trade Center will be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere and the third-tallest building in the world by pinnacle height, with its spire reaching a symbolic 1,776 feet (541.3 m)" At the very least, without changing the clearly disputed height, the use of the word "spire" throughout the article is outdated, inaccurate, and at the very, very least, imprecise. The word "spire" should be replaced with "cable-stayed antenna" to reflect the developer's and owner's classification of the structure on top of the building. And the three websites you directed me to are similarly outdated and imprecise. Their renderings are old and still include the decorative spire that was eventually scrapped. They also similarly incorrectly reference the 408-foot structure as a spire as opposed to an antenna. I imagine they will eventually get around to changing the renderings and information about the building to reflect the most current information available. Although, unlike Wikipedia, those websites are not in the business of keeping information as current and accurate as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.130 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It was always classified as an antenna mast, as the structure always (both before and after the redesign) was going to contain an antenna. So, it is unsurprising that it is being marketed as such. Since the developer has stated that the final antenna structure will be included in the building's official height as defined by the CTBUH, it is obviously still being considered a spire on their end. And how are the websites "outdated" and "imprecise"? They continue to use "1,776 ft" as the architectural (spire) tip, as that is still the height being quoted by the developer and CTBUH has not yet said anything to the contrary. Wikipedia is only in the business of keeping confirmed information as current and accurate as possible - your arguments about the building's height needing to be reduced are premature, as no reliable sources are confirming 1,368 feet as the official height at this time. Cheers, Rai•me 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that this article sums the issue up nicely, describing the antenna mast as a "needle" that will certainly function as a broadcast antenna, but that hasn't yet been "officially" classified as an antenna or a spire by the CTBUH. I agree that the article (particularly the lead and Height secctions) could use some clarification on this issue - even though the height has never been officially reduced, plenty of reliable sources have noted that its future claim to tallest building in the US may be in jeopardy, and this should be mentioned more prominently. Cheers, Rai•me 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In the sixth sentence of the fourth paragraph under Construction history - concerning dates and colors of illumination - the sentence truncates before completing the reference to Flag Day, June 14, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.164.61 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction with opening and completion part

Why this needs to be corrected

It says the completion (in the main article text) is 2013, it is 2012-2013 actuaally, and the opening is late 2012-early 2013 (what it NEEDS to be). I need this edit NOW.

The page may be true

Due to the fact that the stocks or the cost of the building, construction status may turn to on hold, and let the building there until 2013.

--VerizonWritePedia (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012

Under "External Links" please add as first item "Official website for One World Trade Center" linking to onewtc.com.

(The site has been live for a couple of months, but was subject to a press release by the Port Authority on Sept 24)

Thanks

Mattyflynn (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done by somebody already.. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2012

The estimated completion time is, in fact, 2014. The existing ETA has already passed, and it's not complete.

Morgans303 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The article states "late 2013." We're just entering late 2012. Do you have a source indicating that it's now going to be 2014? Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Unsourced request. User also needs to format as "please change 'x' to 'y' because (reason)". gwickwire | Leave a message 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden Death not Relevant

How is "the death of Osama Bin Laden" relevant to the date of its completion? Co-incidental surely? 94.192.147.211 (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

1 World Trade Center

wtc.com refers to "1 World Trade Center". I added this to the article. - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirect Request on 15th May 2013

Any chance of a redirect being created from One World Trade Centre (as opposed to Center)? Clearly as an American landmark, center is the correct spelling, but some of us Brits are set in our ways!

78.86.242.162 (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. (I've seen most of the British media refer to it as "centre", and there are redirects for things like "Pearl Harbour", so I don't think this would be a problem.) AlexiusHoratius 13:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy about not building two

Hi, I noticed the article lacks any mention of the initial debate and controversy in the media about the decision to only rebuild one tower, not two. Should this not be included somewhere?Oxr033 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

I used to visit this page fairly often to keep up on the progress of Freedom Tower's construction. There used to be a photo gallery that was updated whenever a new picture was available. We should add this back in, especially now that the tower is near completion and a true time lapse can be established.--173.76.46.132 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You can have the information you are looking for on the commons webpage : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center . Regards, Freewol (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory info

In the opening, it says it is the 4th-tallest building in the world, then under Construction history, it says it's the third-tallest...which is it? 75.138.157.244 (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

One or 1?

I have noticed that for the other World Trade Center buildings, they are named 2 World Trade Center (for example), not Two World Trade Center (with Two spelled out). Why are the articles for 1WTC and 6WTC titled with the number written out, whereas the other buildings have the digit. Thanks. GeoG93 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Because that is how they are described in reliable sources [27]: we recently had a discussion about this at Talk:3 World Trade Center. One is the only one that's spelled out, the others are numbers according to their owners and reliable sourcing. I'm not sure about 6/Six: perhaps it needs to be checked. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That had always confused me. I suppose the owners of the other buildings may choose the words instead of the digits in future. Could I also ask another thing? When the new World Trade Center is complete, will the current article for World Trade Center be changed or not? And why where there never articles for the individual buildings of the original World Trade Center, when there are for the new World Trade Center? Thanks! GeoG93 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Evolution of the Freedom Tower" picture: Any PNG images?

The image depicting the evolution of the freedom tower is a JPG, and with its small text it is very hard to read in a lossy format. Is there a lossless image (perhaps PNG) available from the same source?Tgm1024 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we come to a consensus on what the lead image should be?

The lead image has recently been changed by an IP, and it reminded me that it was actually being changed almost every week and sometimes twice in one week. Can we just agree to keep one image here until the building is completely finished, then come to a consensus on what the permanent image should be later? Cadiomals (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Technical mis-statement

I believe that the sentence ending "...a symbolic height of 1,776 feet (541 m) in reference to the year of the United States Declaration of Independence." ought to be re-worded, because the Declaration of Independence was in fact written - and signed - in 1775! When citing the DoI in academic essays, for instance, it must be referenced as a 1775 text (typically as "Hancock, John: 1775"). In light of this, the above sentence should, at a minimum, be edited to clarify that this height was chosen because 1776 was the year when the DoI was adopted by the Continental Congress. Without this clarification, the text as it stands is technically incorrect. I did not feel, however, that such a change ought to be made unilaterally here, as I believe this issue warrants discussion among the community - especially as a consensus agreement to make this change may also affect many other articles as well: indeed, any that refer to the US DoI with similar imprecision. Pompeiixavier (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been googling for a while, and I'm not seeing anything you're talking about. I even went onto some sites for citation and they all have the DoI listed as 1776. The draft wasn't even begun until June of 1776. Ideas for Independence may have surfaced long before 1776, but I'm finding no evidence of such a thing. My $0.02: leave the wording in this article as is, and take this debate up on the article for the Declaration of Independence. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Kjscottie34, remarks above. I too can find no reference to any DoI before 1776, so leave wording as it is - unless someone can find properly sourced proof. David J Johnson (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

1 WTC Finish Status

Just a reminder that One World Trade Center is considered to be opened once the construction is finished through this year. I think this article will be updated for the status from "Topped out" to "Complete". The whole new World Trade Center site (including two, three, five and six) can be completed through this year or later until 2016. --Allen Nguyen ^Talk 00:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@AllenHAcNguyen: It is generally not considered complete until it is opened. Regards, Epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it will be opened once it's finished for the whole building structure including the antenna finished. --Allen ^Talk 00:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 is half-over...

... So, where's the specific opening date? Might want to add it... ―2602:306:BCA6:8300:5C5E:6BFE:8F36:FB71 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Most wiki articles still mention "early 2014"Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

One World Trade Center, almost complete

Hello and this is Allen here and this structure building is almost complete until like around this year. I reply to this article if the official 1 WTC building is finished and opened. --Allen Nguyen ^Talk 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 05:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That'll probably be in November 2014, though I'm not so sure of that. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Umm... November 2014 that might be right. --Allen Nguyen ^Talk 02:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Open in 2015 per http://www.rionegro.com.ar/diario/el-one-wtc-el-edificio-mas-alto-de-eeuu-en-la-recta-final-para-su-apertura-1791917-64341-nota.aspx Is that just being conservative or should completion date be changed to 2015? crandles (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I'm looking over the status of this building, if it completes then it opens. --Allen Nguyen ^Talk 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

[28] looks a reasonably reliable source for "Opens in November 2014 when Conde Nast moves in" crandles (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:One World Trade Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 02:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Problems:

• "Visitors to the National September 11 Memorial currently undergo airport-style screening as part of the "Interim Operating Period", which was expected to end on December 31, 2013." The use of the word currently is warned against in the Manual of Style. Maybe replace with as of <insert date>?
• "He allegedly dressed like a construction worker, then snuck in and convinced an elevator operator into giving him a lift to the tower’s 88th floor. according to court papers." What court papers? Weasel words are warned against in the Manual of Style.

Final commentary: On hold for now, because of the Manual of Style issues. Passed. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 03:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

1. @Acalycine: I inserted the date "as of early 2014".
2. I removed the weasel word "court papers" and added "according to news sources".

Thank you for taking the time to review this article (that was pretty quick, considering that I just nominated it three days ago). I have addressed these problems, as well as added some more references and fixed a few dead links. I believe that all MOS issues have now been fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Complete

I changed the stats from "Topped-out" to "Complete" because of the building construction was finished estimating July 2014. Does One World Trade Center building was finished yet? --Allen ^talk 20:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Building complete

The new 1 World Trade Center building was finished, so can I update the building status of it from "Topped-out" to "Complete"? Upon finished construction, it opened already? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 00:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

94 floors

http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/one-world-trade-center/98/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.25.62 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the source used by the infobox. However, Emporis has 104 as does skyscraperpage.com and other sources too. The mystery will probably be resolved when the building officially opens. Astronaut (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please correct the number of floors to 94, as CTBUH has it in the reference, which this Wikipedia article uses as a source. The confusion is caused by the numbering of the floors in the building, which is not consistent with the number of actual floors. CTBUH is usually considered as the authority, which determines the "official" heights and floor counts. 128.141.41.21 (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only the CTBUH says it 94 floors but their own website as well. They just skipped some of them in the numbering to let it look taller. - User:Supercarwaar/signature 18:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

when clicking on the link, click on the "Floorplans"-section after. - User:Supercarwaar/signature 18:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

One World Observatory at One World Trade Center

There has been new information about the "One World Observatory" observation deck at One World Trade Center. I was asking you editors, should somebody add this new information to One World Trade Center article page or make a new page for it, or none of these options? I would like to have a reply soon about this topic. Thanks! -Cookie Monster (talk)

Chung, Jen (28 October 2014). "One World Trade Center Observatory Sets Admission At $32". gothamist. Retrieved 28 October 2014.

 Done Epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Airplane attack diagram

Do we really need a diagram of the airplane attacks on the previous WTC? There is a separate WP entry dedicated to the September 11th attacks in detail. Does this add to the current article about the new building? The diagram showing the reflecting pools yes, the airplanes, no. 152.133.7.130 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This is not only about the new WTC, it is also about the older 1 WTC. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Image request

The article mentions controversy surrounding the "fortified base" of the tower, but there is no photo illustrating this here or on Wikimedia Commons. If anyone could supply a photo depicting the way the tower meets the ground I think it'd be a valuable addition to the article. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There is detail at the bottom of this image: File:1 WTC from botton 2013.jpg. Epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The image doesn't show how the tower meets the ground, the pedestrian experience, the entrances, etc. There isn't enough context to tell where the "bottom" is in relation to this photo. Citobun (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Then we have to put {{Image requested}} up. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

<copyvio removed>

I upload an image to Wikipedia Commons that you may want to see if its useful for you to use Citobun CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

@CookieMonster755: Looks good, except that it's very close up. This can be used to illustrate the fortified entrance instead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this work?

size

PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)