NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1586

JZeig1 · #**31701** Posted **May 8, 2013, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

In the spirit of getting things correct, it's "they're" as opposed to "their" and "there."

Hay Jack, U Funny...

But it's cool

JMGarcia · #**31702** Posted **May 8, 2013, 4:02 AM**

If the CTBUH doesn't count the spire, the news will report it with the caveat that the spire does reach 1776 but was ruled by this obscure group as an antenna so it doesn't count.

Joe New Yorker will shrug and know it's 1776 to the top of the beacon and think who cares. Yet another reason that CTBUH's rules for "official height" need to be scrapped and they should just verify roof height and tip of structure height.

I shake my head every day the the pols and Durstbag got away with ditching the radome. I see the building up close many times a day. It would've been extremely impressive with the radome.

patrick989 · #**31703** Posted **May 8, 2013, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

In the spirit of getting things correct, it's "they're" as opposed to "their" and "there."

I've found that there's no use in trying to correct grammar, it's generally a shit show all across the internet. Especially on Facebook, it seems like 90% of people aren't aware that "you're" even exists. Anyway, it certainly is surreal to see this building coming closer and closer to completion, really couldn't care less about the final official height. The important thing is that we rebuilt. All the nitpicky complaints aside, this building has turned out pretty damn good.

alex14469 · #**31704** Posted **May 8, 2013, 4:33 AM**

Today:

Tadd · #**31705** Posted **May 8, 2013, 4:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick989

Anyway, it certainly is surreal to see this building coming closer and closer to completion, really couldn't care less about the final official height.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick989

All the nitpicky complaints aside, this building has turned out pretty damn good.

I see you're point and I agree. I like the building as well. I can't wait to see the various lobbies and how the office space looks surrounding the core, even where the bathrooms are, and how variable the spaces are from one floor to the next. I think it will be outstanding to explore the shopping areas under street level and the connection to the transit systems.

SFContributor · #**31706** Posted **May 8, 2013, 5:35 AM**

Does anybody know when the building's permanent elevators will be installed, and the construction one will be dismantled?

Guiltyspark · #**31707** Posted **May 8, 2013, 5:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ih8pickingusernames

CTBUH is dead to me if it is. This building is literally a Poo poo on a stick.

OT, but people on its forum were saying it is better looking than Trump Chicago.

As far as the mast goes, we will see what they rule. I know what I would do, and I have not seen logical, compelling reasons why it should be counted, but all we can do now is wait.

StrongIsland · #**31708** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:04 PM**

Some of you just don't get it's not an antenna and it has every reason to be counted with or without the enclosure. It does not serve any function except that at some point one of the sections will have antennas attached to it, oh and the beacon/LED's. Otherwise it's structurally part of this building as a mast The communications ring is obviously there for all the broadcasting equipment. Aesthetics aside it is part of the building therefor it should and I'm pretty sure it will be counted in height.

jcrm2 · #**31709** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongIsland

Some of you just don't get it's not an antenna and it has every reason to be counted with or without the enclosure. It does not serve any function except that at some point one of the sections will have antennas attached to it, oh and the beacon/LED's. Otherwise it's structurally part of this building as a mast The communications ring is obviously there for all the broadcasting equipment. Aesthetics aside it is part of the building therefor it should and I'm pretty sure it will be counted in height.

I totally agree. This spire is growing as part of the building & upwards like a continuous floor. It's still an architectural design to the building reguardless. The spire is just naked that's all. Shred off the steel material off the ESB & Crystal spires and you still get a spire but without a skin. The BOA spire is totally naked and yet still counts towards the building total height. No one complains about that so why WTC. The fact is we all was shown a spire with a skin from the very beginning, but if they had proposed the current reframed spire we have now the first time then it wouldn't have made a big issue. It was because we was spoiled and teased that now most dont see it as an spire.

Traynor · #**31710** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:42 PM**

In 1998 when the PETRONAS Towers in Kuala Lumpur were built Americans were furious that Spires count, because it made the PETRONAS Towers the World's tallest; taller than the Sears (Willis) Tower in Chicago.

Now when a spire/mast would go in your favour for height, you all want it to count.

MrSlippery519 · #**31711** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMGarcia

If the CTBUH doesn't count the spire, the news will report it with the caveat that the spire does reach 1776 but was ruled by this obscure group as an antenna so it doesn't count.

Joe New Yorker will shrug and know it's 1776 to the top of the beacon and think who cares. Yet another reason that CTBUH's rules for "official height" need to be scrapped and they should just verify roof height and tip of structure height.

I shake my head every day the the pols and Durstbag got away with ditching the radome. I see the building up close many times a day. It would've been extremely impressive with the radome.

I completely agree with you, and honestly at the end of the day who really cares??

I mean really every building in the world has roof height so that is a simple calculation and anything that has a crown, spire, antenna, etc should simply be added on giving every building with those conditions 2 numbers.

NYguy · #**31712** Posted **May 8, 2013, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcrm2

I totally agree. This spire is growing as part of the building & upwards like a continuous floor. It's still an architectural design to the building reguardless.
The spire is just naked that's all.

Except, that's not accurate. At all. And we have no other authority than the architect himself to say so. You can put anything on top of a building when it's under construction,
and call it a part of the building. But it's already been established that's not how things work. No matter how much people may want it to.

This is not the first skyscraper to ever get built. There are standards in place to distinguish what counts as architectural height, and what does not. The mast is being built for broadcasting.
That is the only reason. It was to be built within the spire because a spire reaching 1,776 ft was a mandated part of the site plan. And that is the only reason we had the enclosure
in the first place - to give us the mandated architectural feature that would make it a part of the building. This replaced the earlier, open lattice design of the spire that was to enclose
the antenna mast also.

Now, there is still a chance that the CTBUH could consider the beacon itself an architectural feature, but that's a long stretch, considering the mast is mainly functional. We shall see.

momcat14c

pmarella

Design-mind · #**31713** Posted **May 8, 2013, 1:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

In 1998 when the PETRONAS Towers in Kuala Lumpur were built Americans were furious that Spires count, because it made the PETRONAS Towers the World's tallest; taller than the Sears (Willis) Tower in Chicago.

Now when a spire/mast would go in your favour for height, you all want it to count.

Absolutely agree!
If we wanted to count spires, masts, antenna then some of the tallest buildings in the world are in Northern Europe. An antenna on a maintenance shack 99% antenna 1% usable space (A one floor supertall). WTC1 is still a one of a kind building with or without the mast.

Skyguy_7 · #**31714** Posted **May 8, 2013, 1:51 PM**

Per Ironmike40- t/o is scheduled for 7am Friday 5/10. Weather conditions look favorable

JMGarcia · #**31715** Posted **May 8, 2013, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

... The mast is being built for broadcasting.
That is the only reason. It was to be built within the spire because a spire reaching 1,776 ft was a mandated part of the site plan. And that is the only reason we had the enclosure
in the first place - to give us the mandated architectural feature that would make it a part of the building.....

To me, the mast was designed and built as the supporting structure or framework of the spire, no different than the steel beams supporting the facade. Durst chose to leave it uncovered as all.

The fact that they decided to have it provide double use so that communication equipment could also be attached to it is its secondary function. On the other hand, the communication rings were designed specifically to have antennas attached to them. They were not built as support structures at all.

They've attached communication antennas to the ESB on it's spire too.

In either case, the whole spire/antenna debate is completely pointless with today's architecure and the CTBUH needs to re-think their rules or lose their relevance.

Ed007Toronto · #**31716** Posted **May 8, 2013, 3:12 PM**

Looks great in that shot from NJ!

drumz0rz · #**31717** Posted **May 8, 2013, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongIsland

Some of you just don't get it's not an antenna and it has every reason to be counted with or without the enclosure. It does not serve any function except that at some point one of the sections will have antennas attached to it, oh and the beacon/LED's. Otherwise it's structurally part of this building as a mast The communications ring is obviously there for all the broadcasting equipment. Aesthetics aside it is part of the building therefor it should and I'm pretty sure it will be counted in height.

It should definitely NOT be counted. You are correct. It isn't an antenna. It's a mast that has antennas attached to it. Just like this one:

That's 2,063 ft and only the top 113 ft are an actual antenna. Therefore using your logic, this mast should be counted as having an architectural structure height of 1,950ft which is taller than the tallest point of 1 WTC.

Guiltyspark · #**31718** Posted **May 8, 2013, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

It should definitely NOT be counted. You are correct. It isn't an antenna. It's a mast that has antennas attached to it. Just like this one:

That's 2,063 ft and only the top 113 ft are an actual antenna. Therefore using your logic, this mast should be counted as having an architectural structure height of 1,950ft which is taller than the tallest point of 1 WTC.

Glad other people are bringing this up. I made this exact same argument before on this forum but never posted a picture to illustrate it. Hopefully this helps people understand why masts should not count.

NYCrules · #**31719** Posted **May 8, 2013, 5:09 PM**

TRULY MY BEST: "ONE WTC"

By The Hungry Russian

sw5710 · #**31720** Posted **May 8, 2013, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

Glad other people are bringing this up. I made this exact same argument before on this forum but never posted a picture to illustrate it. Hopefully this helps people understand why masts should not count.

I have built tv towers in the past. Those tv tower masts are different then the mast on 1WTC. It is not there just to hold antennas. It would still be there if no antennas were ever going to be on it as it is built into the steel of the building as part of the building. Not just put on the roof like a house antenna. A tv tower mast is used just to locate antennas up high nothing else. Look at the Burj. If they mounted an antenna to the several hundrded foot steel pole on top or any other building spire would that discount it today. CN tower included.