[NYguy]

Originally Posted by cadiomals

I think it looks weird that only the antenna is lit and it's kinda just floating there in the dark, seemingly detached from the rest of the building. I hope they'll light the communication ring or parapet, like what they do for the Goldman-Sachs building and 4WTC.

I do believe they plan to. I don't understand why they couldn't just keep testing it like they have been doing, no need to pull extra attention to it. I was looking for the rotating beacon, but was disappointed I didn't get to see that. And to have it lit up without the ring being lit was just silly.

I wonder why they wanted all eyes on the Freedom Tower mast for last nights showing.

Hmmm, it's maybe just a coincidence that it just happened to be on the same day the case was being made in Chicago to include it in the buildings height! That's right folks, nothing to see here, just a coincidence.

Originally Posted by JMGarcia

Specifically about what the CTBUH will do, it will be interesting. They're in a very touchy area here that is laying bare how out dated their current rules are.

On the one hand, if they decide it's an antenna because its covering was not put on, there's going to be a lot of media attention and quite a bit of head scratching from a lot of people. I'm sure there'll be a lot of folks that'll be interviewed in the media saying they're wrong. It'll hurt their credibility.

Their credibility is already hurt in that they're entertaining this farce to begin with. And now they may want to alter rules yet again, where a simple "no" would have done the trick. But as I've said, if they want to include it, you may as well include all the others. Imagine the fun with the rankings. The Freedom Tower brings everyone up. On the other hand, if they decide that neither spires nor antennas will count in official height, then it's all the same.

Meanwhile, the media is all over themselves with this one, and nobody has a clue...


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1511259

Chicago contending if One World Trade Center rises above Second City's Willis Tower on a technicality
With the imminent completion of 1 World Trade Center, the logical question arises: is it bigger than the Willis Tower in Chicago.





By Larry Mcshane
November 8, 2013

The Second City — apparently tired of looking up at New York — could be conspiring to steal the title of the nation's tallest building. A Chicago-based committee of 30 architects will decide whether the 1,776-foot 1 World Trade Center rises above all skyscrapers from coast to coast, or finishes second to the Willis Tower on a technicality.

Architects for 1 World Trade Center say the spire is not merely a broadcast antenna, but a part of the building’s overall aesthetic appeal.

Disappointment awaits one of the two cities, as either the new World Trade Center or the Windy City skyscraper will wind up as second-tallest. A decision is due next week.

And I love this beautiful headline.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/25490938.cms

Is the 1 World Trade Centre tallest building in the world? Chicago panel debates

By AP | 9 Nov, 2013



http://nation.time.com/2013/11/08/wh...-main-mostpop2

Whoops! One World Trade Center May Not Be America’s Tallest Building
A change in the tower's 400-ft. spire opened debate over the building's height

By Noah Rayman Nov. 08, 2013



http://www.npr.org/2013/11/08/243714...uilding-debate

Size Does Matter, At Least In The Tallest Building Debate




by David Schaper and Joel Rose
November 08, 2013

There's a question that's looming over the new skyscraper at the World Trade Center site in New York: Should it count as the tallest building in the country?

The developers say yes. But by some measures, the Willis Tower in Chicago — formerly known as Sears Tower — can still lay claim to the title.

Now, an obscure organization known as the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat is preparing to settle the debate.

"It's a seminal moment for skyscrapers," says Antony Wood, the council's executive director. "It doesn't come along every year."

The issue has been hanging over the architecture world since the spring, when construction crews hoisted a 400-foot metal mast into place at the top of One World Trade Center. As far as New Yorkers are concerned, it's now the tallest skyscraper in the hemisphere.

"It's a fact. It's taller," says Jerry Romano of New Jersey. "It doesn't matter to me. I'm just stating facts."

Veronica Smalls of Harlem agrees. "It has to be the tallest," she says.

"Not one of the tallest," interrupts her friend Tyreek Jones of Brooklyn, " 'cause New York City needs to be known as No. 1."

"We're standing on a sheet of glass, looking 1,353 feet straight down to the street," says Bob Wislow, standing on a ledge extending out from the sky deck on the 104th floor of the Willis Tower.

Wislow is a lifelong Chicagoan who watched this building go up 40 years ago. Now he's chairman and CEO of the company that manages it. Wislow says he has great respect for New York and for the developers and builders of One World Trade Center, which he calls a great symbol of American resilience. But, "I do think technically, if you strictly interpret the rules, that this would continue to be the tallest building," he says.

Even visitors from overseas agree. Lee Colgan and her family are visiting the sky deck from England.

"I think Chicago should have it, yeah," says Colgan. "The mast doesn't matter — it's the floors, in my eyes."

But Colgan doesn't get to decide; the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat does. It's based in Chicago — suspiciously — but it's made up of people from all over the world. Its 30-member "height" committee will be debating these buildings on Friday.

"The last time we did this, in 2007 ... we spent all day talking," says Wood.

There are two other issues that people aren't picking up on. One, this building won't be 1,776 ft either way. And two, forget about Chicago, this building is potentially on course to be no higher than number 3 in New York.