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

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by jsr

Think about all the poor suckers visiting the Burj Khalifa

Interesting list on Wikipedia of interest to all SSPers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_deck
The new WTC should rank at #7 right behind the Sears/Willis Tower's 103rd floor Skydeck.

[weidncol]

It is not possible to have an outdoor observation deck sadly. Reason being is very simple, there will be too much interference from future broadcast equipment etc and there is simply not enough room up there.

[Dan in Chicago]

Originally Posted by 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.

BINGO! That's the way to go, in my opinion. In fact, it's the new standard just recently adopted by BuildingHeights.org (which is published by Phorio). By this rule One WTC is 12th tallest in the world.

Here's a comparison between the CTBUH standard ("architectural height") on the left and Phorio's ("building mass height") on the right:



You can imagine that the buildings in the diagram are New York Times Tower, Two Prudential Plaza, and First Bank Tower.

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's not going to happen. There isn't enough room up there to put one. The dishes take up most of the space. However there will be an outdoor deck at Hudson Yards.

Here is Yahoo's explanation to why One World Trade Center got the title.

One World Trade Center is America's Tallest Building, Council Rules
By Dylan Stableford
9 hours ago

What is the tallest building in America?

It's One World Trade Center, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat's Height Committee announced Tuesday, settling a debate between New York and Chicago over the tallest-building mantle.

Critics had said the 408-foot spire atop the 1,776-foot One World Trade is an antennae and should not be counted. Without it, the building would measure 1,368 feet, or 83 feet shorter than Chicago's 1,451-foot Willis Tower.

But architects for the yet-to-be-opened One World Trade Center say the spire is part of the building’s overall aesthetic appeal.

The council agreed. "That crowning structure is never to be added to and never to be taken away," Antony Wood, the council's executive director, told reporters.

The symbolic height of One World Trade Center, 1,776 feet, also played a role in the decision, Wood said.

“What it really comes down to is this: What are we measuring?” Wood told NPR earlier this month. “If we are measuring man’s ability to put materials above the plane of the Earth, then it should just be material, irrespective of what that material or function is. Or are we measuring man’s ability to put man above the plane of the Earth? Are we going with the highest occupied floor? Or something in between?”

The debate between the two cities had been a bit contentious.

"The Second City — apparently tired of looking up at New York — could be conspiring to steal the title of the nation's tallest building," the New York Daily News wrote last week.

"Forget the mast. Or antenna. Or spire. Or whatever you call your pole," Chicago magazine countered. "If you can’t stand on it, it is not part of the building." http://news.yahoo.com/one-world-trad...151407465.html

Well there you have it folks. The bold and italic words fully explains why........

[Thaniel]

Originally Posted by RCDC

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

With fire protection code (which I am familiar with) you can grandfather in old protection that predates new fire laws BUT if you do construction on the building resulting in a 50% alternation to the structure you then have to update the fire alarm system.

So I would say if floors were added the previous height would be maintained unless more than 50% of the building was altered in the construction process. Just a guess based on fire protection laws of what they might say if a building did that.

But I'd also say that if you were to add floors to a current skyscraper you might have to add in enough structural support to the existing structure to hold those floors that it would probably end up being 50% alternations to the building in the process.

[chris08876]

"The Second City — apparently tired of looking up at New York — could be conspiring to steal the title of the nation's tallest building," the New York Daily News wrote last week.

^^^^
Thats a diss right there

[weidncol]

So since The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat ruled that One World Trade Center's spire is permanent, does this mean The Port Authority could never change it, such as add the random?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

I'm also bothered because it seems like Childs gave in. I remember him being really mad about losing the radome, but now he looks like a Durst apologist.

Well, Childs true emotions were his first. Later on down the line, he had to go with the company line. We all know what he really feels about it.

Originally Posted by Thaniel

Completely agree. "Just ignore that entire entrance when considering the height because it has stairs..." THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON IT'S 5 FEET LOWER THAN THE OTHER THREE ENTRANCES! PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THOSE STAIRS, THAT'S WHY IT SHOULD BE COUNTED. Such a sham.

This bothers me even more than the whole spire/antenna thing. Whether you are for the mast being included as a spire or not, you cannot deny that this building was robbed of 6 ft in height all just to fit the desired 1,776 ft mark.

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.

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

This is the thing. There was NEVER a competition between New York and Chicago regarding this building. The Sears Tower just happened to be the building the tower would replace as tallest in the US, and the media just ran with that. This has always been about that 1,776 ft height. And as we can see, they bent over backwards to give it. Obviously they could have built taller than Sears at a lower height. But it was never really about that. It just made for a good story (hardly anyone mentioning that both skyscrapers are far behind in the skyscraper race).

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.

Originally Posted by jsr

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

Answer to the previous quote.

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

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

I feel the same way, but I don't know if "embarrassment" is quite the word I would use. For the average person looking in, it looks as if New York had to "cheat" to get the title of tallest, when in reality the "cheating" went beyond that, and was more about securing that 1,776 ft height figure.

But according to the CTBUH, the mast "increases the total observable height", as if that's something antennas can't do. It would be puzzling if I didn't already know that the fix was in to secure that symbolic height. The talk of a possible shakeup in the rankings was just another ruse.

Read the decision again:

[Acer1]

Originally Posted by weidncol

does this mean The Port Authority could never change it, such as add the random?

The radome? That's more of an aesthetic I would think at this point. If it's not needed in order for the spire to be considered part of the height, it won't affect anything if they do fix that current eyesore and add in the radome feature once Durst sells ownership to someone who cares to spend the $20 million to finish this tower off properly.

The only thing I didn't like about the radome was the shape of it looked like a friggin missile. It would have looked nicer if the bottom portion expanded out towards the rings instead of sloping in on itself.

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

-
That just about sums it up for me. Sears Tower reigns as tallest in NA for me.

[TechTalkGuy]

My opinion on the matter is simple:

• The Willis Tower is taller than One WTC
• The Chrysler Building is taller than the NY Times Building
• The Petrona Towers are shorter than the Willis Tower

Okay, that's about it for my rant.

[JMGarcia]

Well, well. At least the CTBUH was consistent with its own rules on this regarding the horrible piece of uncovered mess on top of the building being a spire and not functional technical equipment like an antenna, lightning rod or flagpole.

functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies

They completely fudged the 6ft at the north entrance though to get where they wanted to go. They didn't follow their own rules on that at all.

I do think there's at least some serious thought within the CTBUH about changing their insane rules though. We just need 2 height measurements, pinnacle and roof/top of facade.

Then we can all argue which is the more important, the pinnacle or roof height.

Think these scenarios through if you don't think the CTBUH's rules were meant for the 70's when all you had to compare where art deco towers and international style flat-tops.

1. Conde Naste decides to cover their antenna with radome. Is it now a spire?

2. NY Times attaches broadcasting equipment to it's spire. Is it now an antenna?

3. Willis tower builds a decorative glass pyramid covering its roof for an atrium. Did the building's roof height go up to the tip of the pyramid?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

YAY FREEDOM TOWER!
EVERY TIME I SEE THE MAST IT MAKES ME PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!1

Lol! Best post of the day.

[TechTalkGuy]

We need two height; The roof height and the total height.

On crowned towers such as the Chrysler Building, we measure by the total height.
On flat towers as the New York Times Building, we measure by the roof height (same is true with One WTC).

This is not a double standard since we measure from both.
As for which should be the deciding factor on world's tallest, then we have a stalemate on this one!

[WTCman7301]

I'm glad to hear that the spire does count. I can now rest peacefully knowing this is the tallest tower in the States! Like this announcement has been all over the news especially here in the west coast! Amazing!

[Dan in Chicago]

There are good arguments for counting spires or not, it really boils down to what you want the height to describe... so I can respect both sides of that debate. However, regarding the base of the building, I see no reason why the position of the entrance has the slightest thing to do with it. Height is a measurement of a building's *shape*... you can move entrances around any way you want, but it doesn't change the shape of a building.

Either it should be counted from the highest point on the base (where the building becomes completely free from the ground) or, as I prefer, and the way it's usually done, from the lowest point, where the building makes its maximum visual impact. But forget about where the entrances or main entrances are.

Secondly, I believe the 1776 figure is contrived because it splits the mast artificially between the ornamental beacon & the aircraft warning beacon. Both beacons are set inside a cone that is clearly architectural, but the top 4 feet of the cone is somehow considered "antenna" because it happens to house the aircraft warning light instead of a decorative light.

Here's my argument in greater detail: Why One World Trade Center is not 1776 feet tall.

[Silverfox]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

YAY FREEDOM TOWER!
EVERY TIME I SEE THE MAST IT MAKES ME PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!1

Best post in this entire thread.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Acer1

The radome? That's more of an aesthetic I would think at this point. If it's not needed in order for the spire to be considered part of the height, it won't affect anything if they do fix that current eyesore and add in the radome feature once Durst sells ownership to someone who cares to spend the $20 million to finish this tower off properly.

They didn't care about how it looks before the decision, and they certainly won't care now. It was ruled a spire, and they'll leave it at that. Durst now has the trophy tower it didn't even want built. America's tallest at a glorious 1,776 ft. It was always going to be that, no matter what. Even if they had to swipe 6 ft [b]off[/u] of the tower to get it. I see a whole lot of talk (in a lot of places) about "cheating", and no one really caring that the tower got "cheated".

As far as the radome goes, it was what gave the spire it's architectural element. But according to the CTBUH, simply existing is enough. And a light show gets you over the top.

And the Sears Tower unfortunately was thrown into this mess simply by being the current tallest in the US. It took a lot of focus off of what was really going on. There was never a battle to be America's tallest, but a quest to be 1,776 ft, whatever that took. But it got attention all around as a battle for the tallest! Even the mayor was talking...



http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/...the-u-s_b77448

1776-Foot ‘Freedom Tower’ Is the Tallest, Most American Building in the U.S.

By Patrick Coffee
November 12, 2013

Here’s an awkward press conference: today the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat announced that its own hometown’s Willis Tower (which we will continue to call The Sears Tower) will no longer be considered the tallest building in the United States. That honor will go to the new One World Trade Center (aka “Freedom Tower”) with an official height of 1776 feet.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel strongly disagreed with the council’s decision, telling journalists:

“I would just say to all the experts gathered in one room, if it looks like an antenna, acts like an antenna, then guess what? It is an antenna.”

David Childs, the architect behind the Freedom Tower, damaged his own case by calling the spire “an exposed antenna”, but the Port Authority fought back, making sure that they lit the “spire” right before the council began considerations in order to demonstrate that it’s more than an antenna. And this came after the council issued a stinging report in September about firms around the world adding such spires to their buildings in order to reach “vanity height[s]” like, say, 1776 feet.

Yes, the decision revolved around architectural details, but we see this as a case study in media relations and lobbying.

The lesson? Choose your words very carefully.

c8132





Joel Zimmer





Justine Dmrs

[37TimPPG]

I'm just glad they built the damn building in the first place. Imagine all the howling that would be taking place if 1WTC were still a hole in the ground.

Either way, I couldn't care less about the title of tallest building. I'm just glad they are rebuilding the entire site.

[RCDC]

“I would just say to all the experts gathered in one room, if it looks like an antenna, acts like an antenna, then guess what? It is an antenna.”

Agree with that statement but apparently the only thing that matters is that it was marketed as a spire. This "objective" organization was swayed by intent and I would say that lessens their credibility but they're in a position to not have to give a damn about that. bleh.