3

In reading the Wikipedia article about the new World Trade Center, 6 WTC is conspicuously absent. It doesn't show up in the navigation sidebar:

Rebuilding of the World Trade center navigation sidebar on Wikipedia

And there's no mention of it in the list of planned or built buildings:

List of new WTC buildings on Wikipedia

Each WTC building has a dedicated article that describes the original building and its replacement, but the article for 6 WTC makes no mention of its history after 9/11.

Someone noted the lack of 6 WTC on the talk page for the 6 WTC article in 2012, and someone else on the talk page for the main WTC article in 2016, but both inquiries went unanswered, and I can't find any mention of a "new" 6 WTC in my Google searches.

Why was 6 WTC never rebuilt, or had plans to be rebuilt?

Edit: since there seems to be random speculation in the comments and answer: 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 3 WTC are arbitrarily designated addresses. They do not indicate the physical location or the tenants that reside within the buildings:

  • The new 1 WTC occupies the location of the old 6 WTC
  • The new 2 WTC will occupy the location of the old 5 WTC
  • The new 3 WTC occupies the space between the old 4 and 5 WTC
  • The new 4 WTC is the only building that occupies the same space as the old building with the same name
  • The new 5 WTC will occupy the same space as the Bankers Trust building
  • The new 7 WTC occupies a portion of the old 7 WTC (the other portion being an extension of Greenwich St.)

As is the case with most office buildings, the tenants have significantly changed in all buildings since 9/11 and the owner of the complex is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: there is no obvious reason why 6 WTC would not be rebuilt simply because the previous tenants (New York Customs) would not renew their lease.

This question is specifically about why, given the buildings are numbered in sequential order and there is no significance to their naming other than 1 WTC, 6 WTC was skipped. In other words, why is there is 7 WTC but not a 6 WTC?

It feels like it should be obvious, but please only answer if you have an authoritative answer with a source backing your answer.

3
  • 5
  • 3
    All the buildings were moved around and occupy the footprints of previous other WTC buildings to account for the memorial site: it doesn’t explain why 6 WTC specifically wasn’t rebuilt.
    – user53175
    Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 5:53
  • 1
    I don't think they are merely shuffled or moved around; to my knowledge, the space occupied by the first two original towers is basically a memorial park; as such, the new 1 & 2 are the old 5 & 6; the new 3 & 4 & 7 are the same as the originals; the new 5 is/will be a completely new building (equivalent to a non-existent old 8).
    – Lucian
    Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 6:03

3 Answers 3

2

This isn't, strictly speaking, a question of history; merely one of logic and renumbering:

OLD : 1 2 3 4 - 5 6 7 -
NEW : M M M 4 3 1 2 7 5
  • The site of the Old Twin Towers is currently occupied by the 9/11 Memorial & Museum, rather than by any (re)numbered towers.
  • The site of the Old 5th & 6th Towers has been sacrificed to house the New Twin Towers.
  • The 3rd Tower has been reallocated within the former WTC area, albeit not at its former location, which is now part of the aforementioned memorial.
  • The 4th & 7th Towers coincide in both numbering and location, leaving an empty 5th & 6th positions in the numbering scheme.
  • The New 5th & 6th Towers would thus correspond to the fictitious locations of a previously non-existent Old 8th & 9th, thereby lying outside of the former WTC area.
  • Since even the New 5th is barely in its early preliminary stages, it is therefore not entirely surprising that there is currently no talk of a New 6th.
  • This could, theoretically, have been avoided by renumbering the New 7th as a New 5th, but that would have been superfluous, since they plan on (re)building it all anyway.

Claims:

there seems to be random speculation in the comments and answer

This answer doesn't make any sense and indicates it's based on armchair speculation rather than any real evidence or authoritative source

Facts:

The new skyscraper stands [...] on the site of the original 6 World Trade Center.
One World Trade Center.

it will occupy the position of the original 5 World Trade Center.
2 World Trade Center.

It is located [...] where the original nine-story 4 World Trade Center stood.
4 World Trade Center.

7 World Trade Center (7 WTC or WTC-7) refers to two buildings that have existed at the same location within the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan, New York City. The original structure, part of the original World Trade Center, was completed in 1987 and was destroyed in the September 11 attacks in 2001. The current structure opened in May 2006.
7 World Trade Center.

5 World Trade Center [...] is a planned skyscraper at the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, New York City.
5 World Trade Center.

4
  • This answer doesn't make any sense and indicates it's based on armchair speculation rather than any real evidence or authoritative source. "There is currently no talk of a New 6th, because the New 5th isn't even build yet; thus, it would be premature." What? 2 WTC isn't built either: so why is there a 3 WTC? Why is there a 7 WTC?
    – user53175
    Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 6:33
  • @Evan: Slow down, and read each afferent Wikipedia article, then re-read my answer, which is perfect as it stands. Basically, they destroyed 5 and 6 by renumbering them as 1 and 2. Thus, the new 5 and 6 will have to correspond to completely new locations. Momentarily, 5 is in work.
    – Lucian
    Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 6:35
  • @Evan: 1-4 & 7 were/are being (re)build on previously existing locations (the ones destroyed on 9/11), whereas the new buildings labelled 5 & 6, on the other hand, are entirely buildings, that never existed before. It is not entirely clear (to me) why the latter two should take precedence over the former group; nor why the first of the these should be called 6, rather than 5.
    – Lucian
    Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 8:12
  • 2
    I think the important point is that the new 7 WTC was built first, in 2002-2006. I haven't been able to find a definitive source on why it's called "7", but can only speculate that it's because it was on the same site as the old 7 WTC. Point is, the plan for the rest of the new WTC complex continued to be revised while 7 WTC was being built, so by the time it was decided (at least for now) that there would not be a "6 WTC", renaming the already-existing 7 WTC would have been confusing.
    – dan04
    Commented Dec 16, 2021 at 21:36
-1

It is possible that there is no room for WTC 6 but it seems a impossible for there to be no room for 6 WTC since there is room near 5, and I read the wiki article for the performing arts center and (as of late 2022) it says that the performing arts center is also called WTC 6, so 6 WTC can be build near 5 and is not talked about yet or performing arts center is 6 WTC with a different name. (WTC 6 could also be the Transportation Hub, but to me is highly doubtful.)

Evidence WTC 6 could be the performing arts center: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_Arts_Center_at_the_World_Trade_Center

2
  • 2
    How are you distinguishing between WTC 6 and 6 WTC?
    – Steve Bird
    Commented Nov 21, 2022 at 21:13
  • 1
    Punctuation would improve this answer.
    – Evargalo
    Commented May 10, 2023 at 12:40
-1

I think it has to do with ownership rights of each space: Port Authority owns Tower 1 and the transportation hub, Silverstein Properties owns 2,3, 4 and 7, the Arts Center got named after a big donor, etc. At some point someone thought a 6 would be built.

1
  • 1
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please edit to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Commented May 10, 2023 at 3:48