NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1739

Hudson11 · #**34761** Posted **Mar 7, 2014, 9:58 PM**

Top of the Rock. by Julien Prénat on Flickr

RockMont · #**34762** Posted **Mar 7, 2014, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

I've been dreaming in my head for years of building a 2-3,000ft supertall just south of Wall St. How about instead of the Burj, we build Frank Lloyd Wright's The Illinois? 5,280ft to the roof... I think you'd be able to see Philly and Boston from up there on a clear day...

I do think the building would look amazing if they illuminated the cladding. Imagine back-lit strips of light tracing the diagonals of the building's corners and defining the roof line.

Oh man! I can just imagine, the suggestions, and calls for two of them, allready. Good Grief!

Hypothalamus · #**34763** Posted **Mar 7, 2014, 11:32 PM**

Posted March 5th, 2014...

Masons working on the floors at One WTC North Lobby.

©WTC Progress on Facebook

chris08876 · #**34764** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 12:20 AM**

I'm loving all this marble they are putting in. Especially the white marble used in the path station concourse. Gives it that hospital look with all the white but it looks sleek and squeaky clean.

jd3189 · #**34765** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

And just for fun:

http://pfnphoto.com/new/wp-content/g...rama-burj2.jpg

The Burj still gets lost in the skyline A tower of its equal would not be too out of place in Manhattan.

QUEENSNYMAN · #**34766** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 12:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

Top of the Rock. by Julien Prénat on Flickr

Love this pic

NYguy · #**34767** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfiler

For example, most people are impressed and happy to see new skyscrapers,

...However, compare that to the opinions that likely would be expressed about the spire if it was covered. Instead of just being the raw top bit of an amazing building, it would be the defining architectural focal point of the entire city. The spire is and will be that to some degree even in it's current unclad form. Yet the covered version would attain a far more significant, iconic status.

People will grow to love and treasure the spire anyway. Familiarity and pride will breed that. At the same time, it isn't contradictory to point out that the spire could have been better.

People in general don't care about skyscrapers. But they care about this one (to some degree) mainly because of what it represents. This isn't just some random skyscraper that was built, with just another spire on top. It meant something, or was supposed to mean something. They sure did go through hoops to make sure the tower had the "official" 1,776 ft height, even though we know by CTBUH standards, that isn't the actual height. But we'll go with it, because. It's just supposed to be that symbolic height, really the last thing preserved on the tower from the site plan. It's basically been reduced to just another mast, but hey, they'll light it up at night for you, even if Durst now says he's not interested in light shows, and will leave that to the ESB. But, as I said before, most people are just happy to see something return to the skyline, and no one cared about the original antenna, they won't see this one either. It's only in the context of the 1,776 ft height that it comes into play.

gigi_nyc

http://www.portauthorityarchive.com/...r-towers-print

Empire state of mind · #**34768** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 2:12 AM**

Well said!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

People in general don't care about skyscrapers. But they care about this one (to some degree) mainly because of what it represents. This isn't just some random skyscraper that was built, with just another spire on top. It meant something, or was supposed to mean something. They sure did go through hoops to make sure the tower had the "official" 1,776 ft height, even though we know by CTBUH standards, that isn't the actual height. But we'll go with it, because. It's just supposed to be that symbolic height, really the last thing preserved on the tower from the site plan. It's basically been reduced to just another mast, but hey, they'll light it up at night for you, even if Durst now says he's not interested in light shows, and will leave that to the ESB. But, as I said before, most people are just happy to see something return to the skyline, and no one cared about the original antenna, they won't see this one either. It's only in the context of the 1,776 ft height that it comes into play.

gigi_nyc

http://www.portauthorityarchive.com/...r-towers-print

Empire state of mind · #**34769** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 2:15 AM**

Regardless of how much this tower has been stripped, I must say that it is beautiful all though out the day. I love the way the mast turned out at night with the lighting. I was completely against it at first, but I can appreciate it for what it is now. Welcome home one World Trade Center.

jmatero · #**34770** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire state of mind

Regardless of how much this tower has been stripped, I must say that it is beautiful all though out the day. I love the way the mast turned out at night with the lighting. I was completely against it at first, but I can appreciate it for what it is now. Welcome home one World Trade Center.

Agreed! "People don't care about skyscrapers" is an opinion. If people in ANY city in the world cared about skyscrapers, it would be NY.

When the building was redesigned from a Statue of Liberty-esq structure to a conventional building, the "pointy top" became a beacon-topped antenna. Nothing more. The radome was a weather-proof cover for the antenna. Some liked it, others didn't. I didn't. And a decade from now this building will be the face of NYC. And nobody will give a darn about the radome.

Zapatan · #**34771** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 5:15 AM**

I wonder if anyone's ever thought of partially covering the "spire" with latticework like the original top was supposed to be... that wouldn't look half bad.

Capsule F · #**34772** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 5:32 AM**

I cant stand that little pole coming out of the top, otherwise it looks above average.

patrick989 · #**34773** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 8:30 AM**

Again, why does the spire have a purple look when it's supposedly lit up in white?

Enigmatism415 · #**34774** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 11:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

It speaks not at all to what happened on 9/11.

Are we really still going on about this over twelve years later? The tragic events of 9/11 shouldn't be the defining feature of the new WTC complex. After 2/26, a lovely memorial was built on the plaza, parking security was tightened, and New Yorkers just got on with their lives and enjoyed the site. Why should one event, however tragic, demand reference in every facet of downtown's focal point? Future generations should inherit a place of commerce and enjoyment, not a sullen pit with a towering headstone. I'm so sick of granting the terrorists the satisfaction of killing our spirits.

---

The 'spire', while not the worst appendage in the world, would strongly benefit from some kind of cladding, so as to prevent it from appearing unfinished in perpetuity. I certainly appreciate the contention that many of NYC's most iconic structures had received widespread criticism during their early years, and that it would be perhaps shortsighted to dismiss the possibility of future acceptance, but a well-clad spire is a key component of the complex's aesthetic synergy.

If you want to see what regret looks like, look no further than the new Penn Station entombed under Madison Square Garden. It's been many decades and people are still bitching about it...

Kurtz · #**34775** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189

The Burj still gets lost in the skyline A tower of its equal would not be too out of place in Manhattan.

i think that height and shape and powerfull elegant looking of one wtc is far better than burj

King DenCity · #**34776** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigmatism415

Are we really still going on about this over twelve years later? The tragic events of 9/11 shouldn't be the defining feature of the new WTC complex. After 2/26, a lovely memorial was built on the plaza, parking security was tightened, and New Yorkers just got on with their lives and enjoyed the site. Why should one event, however tragic, demand reference in every facet of downtown's focal point? Future generations should inherit a place of commerce and enjoyment, not a sullen pit with a towering headstone. I'm so sick of granting the terrorists the satisfaction of killing our spirits.

---

The 'spire', while not the worst appendage in the world, would strongly benefit from some kind of cladding, so as to prevent it from appearing unfinished in perpetuity. I certainly appreciate the contention that many of NYC's most iconic structures had received widespread criticism during their early years, and that it would be perhaps shortsighted to dismiss the possibility of future acceptance, but a well-clad spire is a key component of the complex's aesthetic synergy.

If you want to see what regret looks like, look no further than the new Penn Station entombed under Madison Square Garden. It's been many decades and people are still bitching about it...

Very well said. "Remember the past, don't dwell in it"