Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy
As much as I want to get in on that, the question on hand is whether or not the mast on top of the Freedom Tower is to be considered a spire or simply an antenna......
|
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.
On the other hand, it's so obviously not designed to be seen I can see how lots of people can also wonder how it would be considered an architectural feature if the CTBUH rules that it is. It just doesn't look like something someone would design to be seen, i.e. a piece of architecture. I think if they rule in favor that this could also hurt their credibility.
Personally, I think if you read the rules carefully it should be considered an architectural feature as it does not meet all the criteria for being a non-architectural feature and clearly has an architectural meaning behind it.
I also think, that this is a perfect opportunity for them to say that modern construction and design technology has advanced enough that they are "refining" their rules and correct standards that allow the toothpick on the NY Times to count and something like the Willis Tower's antennas to not count. This is the type of thing that'll enhance their credibility IMO.
To me, the tip of the building is 1787 and the top is 1368. It was quite obvious tonight that the FAA light is above the beacon at 1776 feet.