NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1702

jcrm2 · #**34021** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 12:10 PM**

I won't be surprise Chicago does approve an 1800ft-2000ft tower sooner than later. It seems to me no disrespect, that they always have to out do New York for some reason. Ever since the 60's-70's, its like we built the twins, they build something taller. We put an antenna on the tower 1, they add another feet to their tower antenna to make it the taller than tower 1. Our twins got destroyed, they proposed an WTC twin towers complex of their own. New York approved 1776ft One WTC, here comes Chicago trying to approve an 2000ft lake front Chicago spire. It's just an constant try to out do battle that Chicago does with New York weather is towers, pizza, professional sport teams, famous ppl, environment, list goes on.

xiaomianlong · #**34022** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 12:21 PM**

If the Sears Building will calculate the mast height, Also cannot transcend the one world trade center height.

MrSlippery519 · #**34023** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 1:38 PM**

At the end of the day does it really matter?? I am not sure why everyone gets so worked up about some agency who claims one building is taller than the next...who cares??

Every building has a roof height and either a crown, spire or antenna which are all easily distinguished I wont go over the details for the millionth time in this thread.

So who really cares? Willis has a higher roof height and the WTC has a higher spire height so what?

both buildings are great

ArtDecoRevival · #**34024** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 2:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xiaomianlong

If the Sears Building will calculate the mast height, Also cannot transcend the one world trade center height.

Height aside for a moment. When I look at that comparison, I really don't see what's THAT bad about One WTC.

Like I said, I don't love it. It's not as visionary or daring as it should have been. But compared to the Sears Tower (I refuse to call it Willis), it looks just as good, if not better. It's certainly not a bad tower.

nomad11 · #**34025** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 7:12 PM**

Funny video of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart talking about the "tower record" concerning World Trade vs. Willis Tower...pretty funny P.S. I'M NOT TRYING TO START CITY VS. CITY CONFLICT...IT'S JUST A JOKE, ENJOY
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...3/tower-record

NYC GUY · #**34026** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomad11

Funny video of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart talking about the "tower record" concerning World Trade vs. Willis Tower...pretty funny P.S. I'M NOT TRYING TO START CITY VS. CITY CONFLICT...IT'S JUST A JOKE, ENJOY
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...3/tower-record

I started dying with the New York Pizza vs Chicago Pizza.

The North One · #**34027** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtDecoRevival

Height aside for a moment. When I look at that comparison, I really don't see what's THAT bad about One WTC.

Like I said, I don't love it. It's not as visionary or daring as it should have been. But compared to the Sears Tower (I refuse to call it Willis), it looks just as good, if not better. It's certainly not a bad tower.

You're kidding right? Sears is an architectural masterpiece of it's time, there really is nothing like it. OWTC on the other hand, not so much. Honestly if OWTC didn't have any spire or rings on top of it and had just a clean flat roof it would look a million times better. As it is now the top is a hot mess.

Chicago103 · #**34028** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

I guess it makes sense. Think about it:

...declare the height as 1,776 ft and they've only really upset the people in Chicago who already have an inferiority complex...which I don't understand since their city is just as nice, cleaner and the birthplace of the skyscraper...but that's another story.

You forgot that skyscraper geeks who are of the school of thought that roof height should be the deciding factor and/or those who are not connived from a technical standpoint that it is a spire and not a mast but I get your overall point.

meh_cd · #**34029** Posted **Nov 14, 2013, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcrm2

I won't be surprise Chicago does approve an 1800ft-2000ft tower sooner than later. It seems to me no disrespect, that they always have to out do New York for some reason. Ever since the 60's-70's, its like we built the twins, they build something taller. We put an antenna on the tower 1, they add another feet to their tower antenna to make it the taller than tower 1. Our twins got destroyed, they proposed an WTC twin towers complex of their own. New York approved 1776ft One WTC, here comes Chicago trying to approve an 2000ft lake front Chicago spire. It's just an constant try to out do battle that Chicago does with New York weather is towers, pizza, professional sport teams, famous ppl, environment, list goes on.

Oh give me a break. This ruling isn't an insult to Chicago - it is an insult to almost every city that is outside of NYC. Especially Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Get over yourself, seriously. Chicago didn't even do anything during this "competition." Talk about a victim complex.

Chicago103 · #**34030** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by meh_cd

Oh give me a break. This ruling isn't an insult to Chicago - it is an insult to almost every city that is outside of NYC. Especially Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Get over yourself, seriously. Chicago didn't even do anything during this "competition." Talk about a victim complex.

Yeah, to me the tallest in the world/USA has been much less about competition between cities and more just a desire to top the tallest building before it. Otherwise why did New York City keep topping it's own buildings for most of the 20th century when they already had the world's tallest title? I don't think it was because they feared Chicago or some other city would build a taller building, no, it was a battle of ego between architects (40 Wall vs. Chrysler) or between corporations wanting to top each other. Sears Roebuck and Company didn't think up the Sears Tower as a way to stick it to New York City, no, it was about their corporate headquarters as the tallest building in the world.

antinimby · #**34031** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 4:42 AM**

And even if Chicago really did wanted to compete with NY, is that so wrong? I think a little healthy rivalry is always good for both cities.

sw5710 · #**34032** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 12:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by meh_cd

Oh give me a break. This ruling isn't an insult to Chicago - it is an insult to almost every city that is outside of NYC. Especially Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Get over yourself, seriously. Chicago didn't even do anything during this "competition." Talk about a victim complex.

I don't know about an insult to every other building? This is not the 1st time a mast structure or pipe like structure is called a spire. NYC has more then one building in midtown that are a mast. The same with those other city's around the world have masts or thin spires on top of there buildings that give them unused xtra height. The worlds tallest building has a 5' pipe on top and over 500' of unused space to crown it.

sw5710 · #**34033** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 12:31 PM**

[QUOTE=meh_cd;6339725]Oh give me a break. This ruling isn't an insult to Chicago - it is an insult to almost every city that is outside of NYC. Especially Shanghai and Hong Kong.

This is not the 1st time a mast structure is called a spire. NYC has more then one other building in midtown that have them. Some of those other city's around the world have masts or thin spires on top of there buildings that give extra height. The worlds tallest building had a 400' pipe like structure jacked up and over 500' of unused space to crown it.

Plokoon11 · #**34034** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 1:02 PM**

you know they say not to talk about politics or religion at dinner or family get togethers. We might as well as add the topic of roof hieght vs antennas to that list of topics not to talk about.

AusTex · #**34035** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw5710

I don't know about an insult to every other building? This is not the 1st time a mast structure or pipe like structure is called a spire. NYC has more then one building in midtown that are a mast. The same with those other city's around the world have masts or thin spires on top of there buildings that give them unused xtra height. The worlds tallest building has a 5' pipe on top and over 500' of unused space to crown it.

All said and done: Tallest occupied building with anything on top. Tallest human occupied, as rented/owned and used every day, for everyday life, finished floor height. As the Willis has the glass floor height. ...... And then keep adding the criteria that makes one happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

you know they say not to talk about politics or religion at dinner or family get togethers. We might as well as add the topic of roof hieght vs antennas to that list of topics not to talk about.

It is just those who are overly passionate about this....on sites like this one! OWTC is the tallest and Willis is the Tallest.

And now living in Austin, TEXAS... our hats are taller than yours!

deepen915 · #**34036** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 5:58 PM**

the Jon Stewart clip was hilarious! I'm dying lol

deepen915 · #**34037** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomad11

Funny video of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart talking about the "tower record" concerning World Trade vs. Willis Tower...pretty funny P.S. I'M NOT TRYING TO START CITY VS. CITY CONFLICT...IT'S JUST A JOKE, ENJOY
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...3/tower-record

made my day! thanks for sharing!

Thaniel · #**34038** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtDecoRevival

Height aside for a moment. When I look at that comparison, I really don't see what's THAT bad about One WTC.

Like I said, I don't love it. It's not as visionary or daring as it should have been. But compared to the Sears Tower (I refuse to call it Willis), it looks just as good, if not better. It's certainly not a bad tower.

It is a blatant ripoff of the NYSE Tower that was never built. But I like the tower design for the most part. I've gone back and forth about liking the comm rings and hating them. I used to criticize people who would say "the only problem is there isn't two of them. But now I think I'd mostly agree with that. 2 WTC will look awesome but having two tower designed like One WTC would have been awesome also. I think that was one of the things about the original towers that made them less unsightly was that there was two of them. One of them standing alone would have been an eyesore.

xnyr · #**34039** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepen915

made my day! thanks for sharing!

+1 Loved that pizza rip.

NewYorque · #**34040** Posted **Nov 15, 2013, 7:56 PM**

There are still some of you who don't accept that 1WTC is considered as taller than the Sears Tower...

However, if we forget all this bullshit about antenna, spire, rooftop, etc, we have to admit that, YES, 1WTC is TALLER than the Sears Tower.

It is 541m.
Sears is 527m.

YES, 1WTC is INDEED the tallest building in the western hemisphere. There's no need to worry about that.