HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #33901  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 8:41 PM
deepen915 deepen915 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sayreville, NJ
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy View Post
The spire looks fine to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33902  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 9:41 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 826
I don't know wether I'll laugh or cry if Trump tower ends up being taller than this building.

But I guess that's what they get for being cheapskates.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!

Last edited by The North One; Nov 11, 2013 at 10:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33903  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 9:44 PM
Thaniel Thaniel is offline
Jeez Louise.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepen915 View Post
TODAY IS MONDAY.. do you have a calendar? SMH
Wow, calm down. I read the date at the top of this page as the date of the conference. It said download press release so I 'ass'umed it meant the press conference for the ruling on height had taken place today, which was the date listed right below where it said download press release. I assumed it was press release for the ruling of 'that date' which is today.

http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTall...S/Default.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33904  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 9:46 PM
Matt's Avatar
Matt Matt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New York, NY / Denver, CO
Posts: 1,835
Either way the CTBUH decides, there will still be opposing schools of thought as to which building is taller. I'm not quite sure the argument will ever be settled, unless there is a fundamental change in how the CTBUH recognized antennas and spires.

And to think... all of this could have been avoided if Durst just stuck with the original plan. I wonder how much money is being spent and efforts expended just to prove the antenna mast is a "spire" (i.e. all the lighting tests, etc.)?

Hopefully, CTBUH rules against Durst. It would be a tremendous punch in the gut to virtually every American, but it would vilify Durst (punishing him for cheapening out), and the ensuing outrage by New Yorkers and "Murikans" alike could bring considerable attention and debate to the methodology CTBUH uses to address spires/antennas. Another silver lining here is Durst could finally pony up the money to make this a more significant spire with undeniable architectural elements that would and end to this once and for all. This wouldn't even be an issue had they kept the radome in the first place.
__________________
Rail New York - Promoting Freight Rail Solutions in New York City and Long Island: www.railnewyork.com
Less Traffic. Less Pollution. Better Future!
{RNY Website} {RNY Facebook Page}
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33905  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 10:16 PM
Crix Crix is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33906  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 10:18 PM
cadiomals cadiomals is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 85
Quote:
No, I think the problem is more likely that you just don't want to see or hear about it anymore, and that frankly is your problem.
Guilty as charged. Did I not make it obvious enough? And no I'm not against critical opinions. Such opinions of the spire have been going on for months and I could have said something a long time ago. What bugs me the most is the self-righteous person who said America has become "complacent" and should have "demanded the best" when they're being just as complacent complaining about it on a random internet forum. So I'm against hypocrisy, not other people's opinions. People on high horses are always annoying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33907  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2013, 10:22 PM
mrjoanofarc's Avatar
mrjoanofarc mrjoanofarc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crix View Post
Love it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33908  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 1:20 AM
Davidsam52 Davidsam52 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjoanofarc View Post
Love it.
The Elder Wand have round thingeys, 1WTC's spire has platforms.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33909  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 1:49 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
@TechTalkGuy (Twitter)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,324
I'd like to present my opinion (once again) on this silly subjective illusion of an architectural monument atop One WTC...
First: If you don't like it, what are you actively doing about it?

Second: Have you considered providing the funding to add the random to complete the spire and restore this tower to it's intended artistic design?

Third: How many people have complained that the height of the New York Times Tower is taller than the Chrysler Building only because of a very thin (toothpick) spire?
Thank you for all legitimate replies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33910  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 2:16 AM
JMGarcia's Avatar
JMGarcia JMGarcia is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 3,717
Forget the CTBUH's official height, the spire is architecturally a sham of what it was meant to be. What you shouldn't forget is that there's plenty of blame to go around.

1. Durst for wanting to line his pockets with his share of the "cost savings".
2. The head of the Port Authority for agreeing to it.
3. Gov's. Cuomo and Christie as they ultimately have responsibility for what the Port Authority does.

It'll be fascinating what the self-appointed experts at the CTBUH decide. I hope it prompt change within to their categories. As it stands though I predict they'll hang their hat on this rule
Quote:
functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies
It may not be the intended architecture and it may not be good architecture but I think they'll call it architecture as its height is immutable and part of the original design.

Too many people, if those in the know on these forums, think if it has broadcasting equipment it's an antenna and if it doesn't it's a spire. That's just not what their rules say.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33911  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 3:21 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
A Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chattanooga, TN/Stuart, FL
Posts: 2,328
Holy crap. Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day here.

Durst is either going to be happy, brought down, or not giving a shit about the CTBUH's decision. This is going to be one of the last political struggles of this year.
__________________
It always seems impossible until its done.
- Nelson Mandela

Never stop. Never stop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33912  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 3:56 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
@TechTalkGuy (Twitter)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,324
Will there be a live stream so we can comment in real time?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33913  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 5:11 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 28,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy View Post
[indent]First: If you don't like it, what are you actively doing about it?
About as much as we can smart guy.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze23 View Post
I don't mean to pile up on the criticism of this tower, but I've watched plenty of videos of the beacon and it reinforces what i saw on friday, it's not that visible! At least not as it was portrayed to be and definitely not even close to that of the Eiffel tower. Maybe it wasn't fully powered. And you're totally right UTEPman, they need to light up that ring to bring a semblance of coherence on top.
I'm guessing they weren't really ready for a full unveiling. That would explain a lot. But it turns out the one thing I was looking forward to seeing may not be at all (see videos below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Anway, relive the spire animations from the past here...
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/const...wer_26204.aspx
under "Nighttime Flyby" and "Timeline".


Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
I don't know wether I'll laugh or cry if Trump tower ends up being taller than this building.
But I guess that's what they get for being cheapskates.

Back when this issue first came about, neither the Port Authority nor the Durst Organization had any concerns about being the taller tower. My guess is that the marketing department realized the value of being the "tallest in the land", and since it was within reach, they decided to go for it in earnest. This was probably reinforced more by the fact that if this tower can't top the Sears, then it won't even top 432 Park, the Nordstrom tower, and who knows what else in Manhattan. They are probably alarmed by the fact that this building won't be top dog in New York, it takes away some of the luster. It would still be the tallest office tower in the city, but even the Hudson Yards north tower will have a higher occupied space. A lot is riding on that mast giving this tower a considerable height boost.

And speaking of Trump Tower, we now get back to what I think is an important issue, being overshadowed by the spire nonsense:


http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....ng-height.html
Trump's tower is now world's sixth tallest as council changes standards for tall building height

Quote:
Blair Kamin
November 17, 2009

Donald Trump's just-completed Trump International Hotel & Tower just leaped from the world's seventh tallest building to the world's sixth tallest. And the New York developer hasn't done a thing to change the Chicago skyscraper.

The reason for the shift: The Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the global arbiter of height standards, has changed its criteria for measuring skyscrapers.

The old standard was that a skyscraper's height was determined by calculating the distance from the sidewalk outside the main entrance to the building's spire or structural top.

The new standard is that height is measured from "the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance" to the top.

For the Trump tower, this means an extra 27 feet in height. Its bottom is now considered to be the entrance to the still-unoccupied shops along the along the Chicago riverwalk, not the main entrance on Wabash Ave.

We'll see if this is reversed, or if the ruling stands.


http://commercialobserver.com/2013/1...er-weismantle/
Measuring Up with Peter Weismantle


Quote:
By Al Barbarino
11/05/13

How will you measure 1 World Trade Center?

We don’t go out with a tape measure [laughs]. There’s going to be a meeting here in Chicago. We’re going to convene with the Height Committee, and SOM is going to make a presentation. For a normal building, there’s a form to fill out, and, in certain cases, where there is a question, we ask that they accompany the form with some drawings. In this case, because of the controversy—Is it an antennae? Is it a spire? And then, of course, the measuring point: Is it measured from the Vesey Street side or from another entrance?—we’re asking Skidmore, Owings & Merrill to make that presentation so we can deliberate and take a vote.

What will it come down to?

There are two issues. One: Is it an antennae or not? And two: From which point should the building be measured? There are entrances all around the building, and the ground isn’t flat. That will be part of the presentation.

Everyone involved in the development of this saga has placed themselves in a difficult position. That includes the CTBUH, SOM, the PA, Durst, and everyone else who played a role in it.
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33914  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 6:20 AM
Thaniel Thaniel is offline
Jeez Louise.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Well based purely on the decision they made in 1996 from that 2009 link

"That standard was affirmed in 1996 in response to the construction of the Petronas Towers, whose spires exceeded the height of then-Sears Tower's roof by about 30 feet. The Council determined that spires are part of the skyscraper's height while antennae are considered add-ons. That standard remains controversial, especially in Chicago. "

If One WTC's spire is in fact not an antenna then I'd say they'll count it (even unfinished) and will continue not to count Willis Tower's antennae.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33915  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 9:20 AM
liat91's Avatar
liat91 liat91 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 486
Easy. Don't count antenna or spires.

IMO, measurement should go to the top of the primary structure.
__________________
WATCH OUT!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33916  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 11:35 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
@TechTalkGuy (Twitter)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by liat91 View Post
Easy. Don't count antenna or spires.

IMO, measurement should go to the top of the primary structure.
Then that will affect the height of the Chrysler Building.
I do not agree with that ruling.

There are exceptions.

The spire atop the New York Times Building is obviously cheating to beat the Chrysler Building and that part is clear to anyone and everyone, yet you'd barely hear a yawn from the group on the subject.

As for new upcoming towers, such as 432 PA and numerous other developments on W 57th, we already know that Lower Manhattan is counting on the spire to make headlines.

I'd personally like to see a spired tower on W 57th just to bring balance to the NYC skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33917  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 12:41 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 28,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaniel View Post
If One WTC's spire is in fact not an antenna then I'd say they'll count it (even unfinished) and will continue not to count Willis Tower's antennae.
I think there will be a shake up. They feel the need to have press conferences in New York and Chicago.

But as I mentioned earlier, I'm more determined so see where the height measurement begins. That comes before all else, they have to get that right first.



http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#axzz2kQyL006s

What makes a skyscraper the tallest? A ruling is coming





By Tina Susman
November 11, 2013


Quote:
It was all so simple for King Kong, the giant ape who fled his captors by clambering to the top of the Empire State Building. Back then, there was no question the Manhattan icon was America's tallest skyscraper.

That was also before spires, antennas and accouterments made it much harder to determine which building could be called the tallest.

Enter the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which on Tuesday is scheduled to hand down its ruling on the latest tall building issue. Depending on the outcome, the decision could upend building ratings from China to Chicago.

At issue is whether the 408-foot spire and beacon atop One World Trade Center should be considered part of the building's height. If so, the skyscraper, scheduled to open in Lower Manhattan in 2014, would measure 1,776 feet. Without the spire, it stands 1,368 feet tall — the same height as the original One World Trade Center tower.

If the spire is included, it would bump Chicago's Willis Tower — formerly the Sears Tower — from the No. 1 U.S. spot. The Chicago building measures 1,729 feet with its antennas and 1,451 feet without them.

None of this would have mattered had the architects of One World Trade Center, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, not altered the slender, glassy building's design in 2012 to remove material that would have enclosed the spire and made it indisputably part of the building. The redesign shaved millions of dollars in construction costs and ensured easier maintenance of the spire.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land on which the building sits, and the architects say the multi-tiered spire is more than a communications antenna because it features a beacon with 288 50-watt LED modules and will emit a light visible for 50 miles on a clear night.

Daniel Safarik of the Chicago-based council said that it was unusual for the group to deliberate this intensely over a decision, but that technology had brought about industry-wide design changes that needed to be monitored. "Are we valuing our ability to put people or material into the air?" he said of the scrutiny of spires and antennas. "If it's material, we have to look carefully at what that material is and what it does."


Not everyone is convinced that height should be the most important element in ranking the world's skyscrapers. Carol Willis, an architectural historian and founder of the Skyscraper Museum in Manhattan, said by focusing on height, people lost sight of other elements.

"What is a big building? It's not just a vertical height above the ground," said Willis, noting that even when the original One World Trade Center tower was displaced as the tallest building by Chicago's Sears (now Willis) Tower in 1974, it remained the bigger building based on square footage. It was also larger, in terms of square footage, than the new World Trade Center tower, said Willis, adding that the council has stepped into a "sticky situation" by limiting criteria to a few defining features.

Whatever the outcome of the latest competition, Willis said she was not worried about the effect on New York. "I think New York has got the biggest and best skyline in the world," she said, "and that's not going to change."
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33918  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 1:29 PM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
@TechTalkGuy (Twitter)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,324
Chicago has 8 towers (spires included) that exceed 300m (built, proposed, etc.) currently.

New York has 17 towers (spires included) that exceed 300m (built, proposed, etc.) currently.

If you truly want to get technical on building height, why not start from the bottom to the top. From bedrock to the very tip of the tallest element (antenna, spire, roof, etc.) and sort accordingly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33919  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 2:14 PM
bluelouboil bluelouboil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy View Post
Chicago has 8 towers (spires included) that exceed 300m (built, proposed, etc.) currently.

New York has 17 towers (spires included) that exceed 300m (built, proposed, etc.) currently.

If you truly want to get technical on building height, why not start from the bottom to the top. From bedrock to the very tip of the tallest element (antenna, spire, roof, etc.) and sort accordingly.
When comparing two cities in regards to which has the taller buildings....you NEVER Ever ever include "...proposed.." buildings. Everyone knows that most supertall proposals never come to fruition. Your argument is feeble at best.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33920  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2013, 2:50 PM
drumz0rz drumz0rz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
I think I would have much preferred if they kept the mast illuminated in plain white light 99% of the time. I'll give them specialty lighting for major events, and holidays and stuff, but otherwise, I think this would look best in white. The original radome covered spire was only ever shown in renders lit up in white.

Friday night I saw it lit up and it was changing colors like crazy. I think it greatly cheapens the building, and it's almost disrespectful for the location. The Empire State Building has been doing the same thing since they covered it in LEDs. It's like a kid in a candy shop. NY's night time skyline doesn't have to be covered in rainbow LEDs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.