Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGarcia
The ridiculous rules of the self-appointed CTBUH are out dated and irrelevant. 1 WTC is taller to the top of the structure than Willis, and Willis is taller to the top of the façade/parapet/roof whatever you want to call it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGarcia
Buildings need only 2 heights. tip/pinnacle and top of façade/enclosed space. The lines between what's an architectural element and what's an antenna are becoming more and more blurred. For instance, the Willis Tower's antennas are more architecturally important than NY Times' spire.
|
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. Whether or not spires or antennas should count towards the height is a matter already determined. The Freedom Tower won't be the first building to have a spire or antenna in either case. The rules are what they are, and applied to buildings worldwide, not just here.
I'm looking at Good Day New York, and they are making a big deal about the Council's decision, but people are clueless about skyscrapers in general. It was actually stated that the current world's tallest is in Kuala Lumpur.
But lost in all of the discussion is the fact that the Freedom Tower was never intended to be the country's tallest - that was just happenstance. The whole point was that the mast would mark the symbolic height of 1,776 ft.
Nowhere in all of the recent media coverage of the impending Council decision regarding height, does it say anything about the fact that the building won't match that mark in either case. I think that should be the bigger story, but I guess it's not the most sensational one.
Edit: Childs chimes in on the symbolic height...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local...231035261.html
Quote:
What we're interested in is that symbolic height ... what's important is the number, 1,776," architect David Childs, who will be making the case before the group, told NBC 4 New York.
|