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

[QUEENSNYMAN]

From 1010wins, not crazy about decision but will except it for what it is, (me personally)

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/...lest-building/

[NYC GUY]

Well America has scored one here now lets build the tallest in the world!!

[Thaniel]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

I'm not saying that the Willis tower has much to gain from it, only pointing out how the Council has either blurred the line between a spire and antenna, or gave the WTC a pass.

If WTC now has a spire, then could any antenna with a single architectural element on top argue that they are a spire too?

One WTC's spire was included in the original design. IF an antenna was included as part of the original design of a building that would be a different argument (and a good one for adding and including antenna height) but Willis's antennae were not included in its original design.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

Well America has scored one here now lets build the tallest in the world!!

I'm going to start gluing together the popsicle sticks now!

[sentinel]

Regarding the tallest building decision, whatever. I'm a Chicagoan and I'm totally ok with 1WTC regaining the title for NYC. It's always been a relatively benign and friendly competition between Chicago and NYC, and I'm always baffled and amused by all of the childish fuss regarding decisions like these. Also, considering all of the ridiculously tall buildings being built elsewhere in the world, this title is somewhat 'meh' to begin with. If 1WTC or another building in either Chicago or NYC were taller than Burj Khalifa for example, then I'd consider it a serious debate.

So congrats NYC and 1WTC...and remember, competition is a good thing....and that nothing lasts forever

NAR takes steps to build ‘Rockefeller Center’-like headquarters in Chicago
Mixed-use, 2 million-square-foot project to be branded with Realtor logo

Andrea V. Brambila Associate Editor
Nov 11, 2013

SAN FRANCISCO — Chicago may have its own Realtor Plaza in the not-too-distant future, modeled on New York’s iconic landmark, Rockefeller Center.

'Cheers and applause followed a vote by the board of directors of the National Association of Realtors today in which the board approved a redevelopment project for the trade group’s Chicago headquarters at 430 North Michigan Ave. The project would involve demolishing the existing building, which is more than a half-century old, and combining it with an adjoining parcel to create a mixed-use development that would include retail, condominiums, a flagship hotel, and office space...

...NAR Treasurer Bill Armstrong noted that he and NAR CEO Dale Stinton had been in discussions with the partner for “a long time,” but had been prohibited from mentioning the project to members due to nondisclosure agreements. The partner, which has “billions to invest,” proposed a 93-story, 2 million-square-foot building that would be a “Rockefeller Center-type venue,” Armstrong said.'

http://www.inman.com/2013/11/11/nar-...rs-in-chicago/

[drumz0rz]

Originally Posted by Thaniel

One WTC's spire was included in the original design. IF an antenna was included as part of the original design of a building that would be a different argument (and a good one for adding and including antenna height) but Willis's antennae were not included in its original design.

Right. Willis (Sears) Tower didn't have any antenna until 1982, 9 years after it was constructed. They later extended the antenna in 2000 to increase TV reception and beat out the antenna on 1 WTC by a few inches to claim the worlds tallest.

As ugly as this stick may be, it was always a part of the design, and it is integrated into the superstructure of the tower. By it's design, it cannot be modified or extended. Sure you could perhaps attached an antenna to the top of the Beacon, but that antenna would not be counted towards this architectural height just as the red FAA warning light and lightning rod are not counted.

[LWR]

One World Trade Center Is Ruled Tallest Building in U.S.
By PATRICK McGEEHAN and CHARLES V. BAGLI
An official arbiter declared a mast part of the building, making the tower higher than the Willis Tower, formerly the Sears Tower, in Chicago.

• From, NYTimes.com Home Page
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/ny..._20131112&_r=0

[supertallchaser]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Regarding the tallest building decision, whatever. I'm a Chicagoan and I'm totally ok with 1WTC regaining the title for NYC. It's always been a relatively benign and friendly competition between Chicago and NYC, and I'm always baffled and amused by all of the childish fuss regarding decisions like these. Also, considering all of the ridiculously tall buildings being built elsewhere in the world, this title is somewhat 'meh' to begin with. If 1WTC or another building in either Chicago or NYC were taller than Burj Khalifa for example, then I'd consider it a serious debate.

So congrats NYC and 1WTC...and remember, competition is a good thing....and that nothing lasts forever

NAR takes steps to build ‘Rockefeller Center’-like headquarters in Chicago
Mixed-use, 2 million-square-foot project to be branded with Realtor logo

Andrea V. Brambila Associate Editor
Nov 11, 2013

SAN FRANCISCO — Chicago may have its own Realtor Plaza in the not-too-distant future, modeled on New York’s iconic landmark, Rockefeller Center.

'Cheers and applause followed a vote by the board of directors of the National Association of Realtors today in which the board approved a redevelopment project for the trade group’s Chicago headquarters at 430 North Michigan Ave. The project would involve demolishing the existing building, which is more than a half-century old, and combining it with an adjoining parcel to create a mixed-use development that would include retail, condominiums, a flagship hotel, and office space...

...NAR Treasurer Bill Armstrong noted that he and NAR CEO Dale Stinton had been in discussions with the partner for “a long time,” but had been prohibited from mentioning the project to members due to nondisclosure agreements. The partner, which has “billions to invest,” proposed a 93-story, 2 million-square-foot building that would be a “Rockefeller Center-type venue,” Armstrong said.'

http://www.inman.com/2013/11/11/nar-...rs-in-chicago/

that sounds great id like to see some progress on this but anyways , wtc is nice but the spire...

[TechTalkGuy]

This is not a victory for NY.
This is an embarrassment!

The Petrona Towers are shorter than the Willis Tower and so is The World Trade Center Tower 1.

I still strongly feel that the Chrysler building is taller then the New York Times building (despite the (toothpick) spire).

[Matthew]

I'm still waiting for the day when someone makes a true mockery of these spire rules, by constructing a 30-storey Supertall in Omaha or Salt Lake City, with a massive lighted spire for a TV station on the roof.

[meh_cd]

Originally Posted by Matthew

I'm still waiting for the day when someone makes a true mockery of these spire rules, by constructing a 30-storey Supertall in Omaha or Salt Lake City, with a massive lighted spire for a TV station on the roof.

This entire spectacle has really exposed CTBUH for the farce it is. They aren't even keeping their own rules consistent anymore.

[Thaniel]

It's times like this that I really wish WTC Progress's Facebook page hadn't blocked me for asking when the top section would be installed to the spire last May....

Originally Posted by deepen915

thread is almost at 1700 pages! wow.. I still remember when this thing first started. I joined when it was at around 800 I think.

The thread should be closed completely after we hit 1,776 pages. lol

[wacko]

I'm just wondering, but would it not be possible for the Willis Tower to ascend a few spots in the rankings just by removing the antennas and building a permanent spire on top?

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by sw5710

I thought a spire gets counted because it is a permanent feature of the building, unlike an antenna that gets added later and changed out. That is why one is counted and the other isn't.

......

[Thaniel]

Originally Posted by wacko

I'm just wondering, but would it not be possible for the Willis Tower to ascend a few spots in the rankings just by removing the antennas and building a permanent spire on top?

Possibly, but it also wouldn't be part of the original design so I dunno.

I know that they talked about adding 40 stories to the top of the Empire State Building in the early 1970s to reclaim it's title as the tallest after the World Trade Center complex was finished but that idea was scraped after people lost interest in hating the new (1973) World Trade Center complex. That's what will happen here, people will bitch for a few years then everyone will just accept it like they did back then.

Edit: Sorry, their plan was to add 11 stories to Empire State, I thought it was 40 stories.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=7302,2733502

[cadiomals]

If you look at the world skyscraper construction 2013 diagram http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=202 you will see that there are several other buildings that are made taller than other buildings just because they have a needle sticking out of the top. No matter if you call it a spire or antenna, they still look like needles and CTBUH should stop counting them. If a building tapers steadily to a point like the Kingdom Tower or Lotte World Tower, you could count all of that, but if the building's structure abruptly ends and then you just have something thin sticking up, it should be ignored. It shouldn't matter whether the builders planned it, added it on later, if it's permanent/removable, or if it's considered an "architectural element".

If they had always used this reasoning, the Petronas Towers and Taipei 101 would have never held the title of world's tallest over Sears.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

or gave the WTC a pass.

This, along with a bunch of spinning.

Originally Posted by Thaniel

I know that they talked about adding 40 stories to the top of the Empire State Building in the early 1970s to reclaim it's title as the tallest after the World Trade Center complex was finished...
Edit: Sorry, their plan was to add 11 stories to Empire State, I thought it was 40 stories.

Well:

Originally Posted by Thaniel

Possibly, but it also wouldn't be part of the original design so I dunno.

So I guess if for example the Sears Tower added floors, those wouldn't count.

[Chicago103]

This is precisely why the new World Trade Center should have an outdoor observatory!

Otherwise the Sears Tower still has the highest observation deck in the United States. Actually the original World Trade Center south tower's outdoor platform suspended above it's roof was technically the highest observatory in the United States by a few feet. The Sears Tower always had the highest indoor observation deck in the US though, higher than the old WTC's or new WTC's. That's what gets me the most, the thought that tourists to the new WTC observatory will be under the mistaken impression that they are in the highest public space in a structure in the US.

[jsr]

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

Right. Willis (Sears) Tower didn't have any antenna until 1982, 9 years after it was constructed. They later extended the antenna in 2000 to increase TV reception and beat out the antenna on 1 WTC by a few inches to claim the worlds tallest.

Interestingly enough the twin antenna supports were an integral part of the tower's original structure. I think SOM tried to argue this point when the Petronas Tower controversy first arose. Counting that structure, but not the antenna itself, would have allowed the Sears Tower to retain the world's tallest title at the time.


http://www.willistower.com/building-...tory-and-facts

[jsr]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

That's what gets me the most, the thought that tourists to the new WTC observatory will be under the mistaken impression that they are in the highest public space in a structure in the US.

Think about all the poor suckers visiting the Burj Khalifa