[deepen915]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

Before, the spire/antenna issue was frustrating, but at least it was consistent. Sears had antennae and the Petronas Towers had spires.

Now, it seems like you design a spire, build an antenna and then convince the Council that its a spire. Also, you can build an entrance, and then convince the Council that its not really an entrance. If you can just bend the rules, how can anyone be satisfied with any building height?

I remember being frustrated when Petronas beat out Sears with a spire, but at they both played by the same rules. I feel like the new WTC is getting a pass. Would Willis Tower get the same treatment if they added beacons to their antennae?

I'm also bothered because it seems like Childs gave in. I remember him being really mad about losing the radome, but now he looks like a Durst apologist.

the Willis Tower argument is dead because even if you count the antenna it's still 1729 feet, less than One WTC's 1776 ft! So Willis Tower loses either way. The only win they have is height to roof at 1451ft vs. 1368ft.