'What about building 7'?

[JSanderO]

That's not the reason... it made no sense to build on that lot when a less costly lot and build solution was across the corner... Kind of insane to build over a major power station.

 

[jaydeehess]

OT but wasnt one consideration the high cost of relocating the substation?

 

[Fizzard]

My question for years has been... why didn't they build 7wtc on the vacant lot across West Street... and instead use the *air rights* to the Con Ed property? That.... to me seems insane.

I'm not sure the vacant lot was available for development at the time Silverstein won the Port Authority contract to develop the substation site. The vacant lot was part of Battery Park City, which was still mostly barren landfill and was controlled by a different agency (Battery Park City Authority, not the Port Authority).

 

[Animal]

Maybe... but I doubt it... non of your reasons make sense and of course the site was built on later.

Just because a building was later built on the other site does not mean it made economic sense at the time to not build over Con Ed. The reasons quoted were several factors that come into play on every development. For you to dismiss them with a wave of the hand is as bad as the troofers. Economic and time impacts are major factors in deciding on a site....even more so in a city like NY.
If the right infrastructure is not available it may take months to years to get it in place.....often a development cannot wait that long. Obtaining air rights could easily be cheaper and quicker to obtain than a vacant parcel......if a developer has a tenant on the hook, he may not have the time to deal with a property sale. I knew one developer that spent hundred of thousands a year on property options on farm land just in case they landed a deal. Have seen potential development go to other sites because fiber optic was not nearby and another because of sourcing for the electrical grid.

 

[carlitos]

That's not the reason... it made no sense to build on that lot when a less costly lot and build solution was across the corner... Kind of insane to build over a major power station.

Your inexpert, unsourced speculation is noted. So what.

 

[GlennB]

That's not the reason... it made no sense to build on that lot when a less costly lot and build solution was across the corner... Kind of insane to build over a major power station.

Do you know it was less costly? I'd imagine the politics and economics of major building projects around S Manhattan get very complicated indeed.

Meanwhile a prime spot is undeveloped ....

 

[JayUtah]

My dabblings in small urban real estate have convinced me of two things regarding that business: (1) people do things for reasons that make sense to them but seem to have no objective validity, and (2) I don't understand a frakking thing about that business.

 

[jaydeehess]

My dabblings in small urban real estate have convinced me of two things regarding that business: (1) people do things for reasons that make sense to them but seem to have no objective validity, and (2) I don't understand a frakking thing about that business.

I have worked for both gov't buracracy as well as a large private company and both of those sentiments also apply to both of these types of organization.

 

[DGM]

That's not the reason... it made no sense to build on that lot when a less costly lot and build solution was across the corner... Kind of insane to build over a major power station.

Do you know it was less costly? ....

I'm wondering this myself. The ConEd site had ~2/3 of the foundation already in place.

JSanderO. What is your source for the alternative being less costly? If memory serves the Battery park location required extensive site work before it became viable.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm wondering this myself. The ConEd site had ~2/3 of the foundation already in place.

JSanderO. What is your source for the alternative being less costly? If memory serves the Battery park location required extensive site work before it became viable.

Probably the extra engineering and unique iron work that would have to go into a structure with an elevated foundation over an existing structure.

 

[DGM]

Probably the extra engineering and unique iron work that would have to go into a structure with an elevated foundation over an existing structure.

Not a big deal now a days( even in the late 80's when WTC 7 was built). Virgin site work is expensive. They need to start from scratch, on the ConEd site they knew the conditions and it was an engineering issue to make it work, plus part of the foundation was already in place.

I'm wondering where he got the notion the other site would have been cheaper. I find that hard to believe.

 

[Redwood]

Wasn't the ConEd substation built to a design specification that a structure could go on top of it? I thought it was just that Silverstein wanted a bigger structure than what it was designed for, necessitating the odd design.

Who knows; maybe Silverstein originally was intending a smaller structure but changed his mind.

 

[DGM]

Wasn't the ConEd substation built to a design specification that a structure could go on top of it? I thought it was just that Silverstein wanted a bigger structure than what it was designed for, necessitating the odd design.

Who knows; maybe Silverstein originally was intending a smaller structure but changed his mind.

Yes, It was designed for a 22 story structure. Economics required building larger so the foot-print and foundation needed to be larger. WTC 7 was born. Actually considering land cost and permitting, that site was a bargain. If not for 9/11, Silverstein Properties would have made out like a bandit.

ETA: The ConEd was built in 1967 and a 22 story building then likely had the same mass as a 40 story in the 1980's. WTC 7 was not a ridiculous stretch.

 

[Fizzard]

Who knows; maybe Silverstein originally was intending a smaller structure but changed his mind.

Yep.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/31/business/real-estate-expansion-at-trade-center.html

"the floors at 7 World Trade Center...were originally planned to be 25,000 square feet each. But as financing for the buildings was being arranged, company officials perceived a shift in the downtown market that called for the floors to be significantly larger."

"In 1981, the Silverstein company decided to enlarge the planned tower, nearly doubling the floor size to 48,000 square feet...while maintaining the 47- story height.... The change necessitated considerable engineering and construction work."

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, It was designed for a 22 story structure. Economics required building larger so the foot-print and foundation needed to be larger. WTC 7 was born. Actually considering land cost and permitting, that site was a bargain. If not for 9/11, Silverstein Properties would have made out like a bandit.

ETA: The ConEd was built in 1967 and a 22 story building then likely had the same mass as a 40 story in the 1980's. WTC 7 was not a ridiculous stretch.

Now that that is settled......wonder if MM can answer why it is that we must expect all audio tracks of WTC1, 2, and 7 to not record the concussive sounds of the large number of heavy explosives required to sever the columns( apparently core and perimeter).

 

[Miragememories]

Now that that is settled......wonder if MM can answer why it is that we must expect all audio tracks of WTC1, 2, and 7 to not record the concussive sounds of the large number of heavy explosives required to sever the columns( apparently core and perimeter).

My position has been clearly explained.

The sound of WTC7's high speed collapse would have been extremely loud. Certainly loud enough to compete with that of explosives.

We have no audio tracks that a person with their eyes closed could readily identify as a building collapse.

Yet, we have eyewitnesses on camera who immediately react to what the camera did not hear, as well as other witnesses who claim to have heard what the camera did not hear.

If the recording devices used, were unable to accurately record the sound of the collapse, it is only logical that they would also fail to record the loud sound of the explosions which preceded it.

 

[DGM]

The sound of WTC7's high speed collapse would have been extremely loud. Certainly loud enough to compete with that of explosives.

Except the explosives come before the collapse.

Remember you said you have to remove the structure for a free-fall. Doing it during adds time slowing the free-fall.

You debunked yourself again.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Except the explosives come before the collapse.

Remember you said you have to remove the structure for a free-fall. Doing it during adds time slowing the free-fall.

You debunked yourself again.

Not to mention that I doubt the sound of a collapsing building - loud as it may be - could compete with the sharp, supersonic reports of detonating explosives.

Give it a rest, MM, your nanothermite/thermite/explosive/OMGWTFBBQCD hypothesis is dead in the water.

 

[LSSBB]

Except the explosives come before the collapse.

Remember you said you have to remove the structure for a free-fall. Doing it during adds time slowing the free-fall.

You debunked yourself again.

Just to clarify, MM is not saying both sounds occurred simultaneously. I read it that way at first also, however his subsequent paragraph does say "preceded".

That said, he is still "Making things Up". It is complete and utter conjecture on his part that the sound of collapse is as loud as an explosive. I have not seen any collapse videos where that is the case, and it also makes no sense. An explosive sets off a compressive shock wave, with an entirely different noise characteristic. In addition, it would be echoed from the other building surfaces in the area, much more so than a lower frequency rumble, I believe.

 

[DGM]

Just to clarify, MM is not saying both sounds occurred simultaneously. I read it that way at first also, however his subsequent paragraph does say "preceded".

That said, he is still "Making things Up". It is complete and utter conjecture on his part that the sound of collapse is as loud as an explosive. I have not seen any collapse videos where that is the case, and it also makes no sense. An explosive sets off a compressive shock wave, with an entirely different noise characteristic. In addition, it would be echoed from the other building surfaces in the area, much more so than a lower frequency rumble, I believe.

He's certainly reaching. The collapse sound is not loud. I've been to several. It's a deep rumble (more like a vibration) .

Maybe that's what his special nano-thermite was engineered to sound like. Those perps were so clever, only GWB could mastermind this (or was it Cheney).