Talk:One World Trade Center

@Sj, I noticed you recently removed a bunch of content from this page without an edit summary. First of all, it would be helpful if you can please use a edit summary, particularly for edits like this. It would help users decipher your intentions in removing the content.

That being said, I agree with some parts of the edit and disagree with others, so I'll describe my quibbles in more detail:

• The removal of the scaffolding incident - This is fine. It's arguably a minor incident that violates WP:NOTNEWS.
• "This led Advance Publications, parent company of Conde Nast, to start withholding rent payments in January 2021. By March 2021, Condé Nast had filed plans to reduce the amount of office space that it leased. After a prolonged impasse, Condé Nast agreed in late 2021 to pay almost $10 million in back rent." → " This led Advance Publications, parent company of Conde Nast, to start withholding rent payments and filing plans to reduce the amount of space that it leased" - I disagree with both the removal of the second source from each claim, and, to a lesser extent, the combination of these sentences.
  • For the second source, the extra sources can be combined using a WP:CITEBUNDLE.
  • As for the combination of the sentences, this eliminated some detail about what exactly happened, including the fact that the actual rent dispute was resolved. I'd say at a minimum that we should mention that these happened in early 2021
• "The PANYNJ has approved all the revisions." → "The PANYNJ approved all the revisions." - In isolation, this is inconsistent with the use of the present perfect in the preceding sentences. But I don't think the present perfect should be used anyway, so I've retained this change and also changed the rest of the paragraph.

– Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes I was removing trivia (the incident is mentioned at the end anyway). Thanks for the improvements re: the back rent, it looks good now. Cheers, – SJ + 19:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "A seventh building was built in the mid-1980s." to "A seventh building was built in the mid-1980s." I'mfixinganerror (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1 World Trade Center (1970–2001) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The sidebar states:

94 (+5 below ground) (28 mechanical)

But I can't find any reference to mechanical floors in either of the cited sources. The only other mention of mechanical floors in the existing building leads to KSAT, which states "the 90th through 100th floors are for mechanical purposes." This indicates only 11 mechanical floors, not 28. A quick search leads me to WSP, the tower's structural engineer, which states:

On entering, workers are immediately faced with the interior’s most impressive feature: a 50-foot high atrium. Above that, there are four levels of mechanical space, before the office floors begin on the 20th story. After 71 stories, there are further mechanical floors topped by a three-story public observation deck on levels 100-102.

This seems to indicate 4 mechanical floors above the base and another 9 near the top, for 13 floors total. If every floor below the 20th counts as "mechanical", that makes for 19 floors at the bottom and 9 near the top, which gets us 28 floors. But should atrium space really be counted as a "mechanical floors"? (Is the atrium even divided into "floors" at all?)

The article Mechanical floor says:

One World Trade Center: Floors 2–19, 92–99, and 103–104 – total 28/104, 26%.

However, there is no citation for this claim.

Adding further confusion, "floors 94 through 99 don’t exist"

From that same source:

“It is fairly common practice in the design of high-rise towers to see variable floors counts,” a spokesman for the Port Authority said told The Journal.

Is the number of floors just fundamentally unknowable?

Sonicsuns (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply