NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1583

mikeygg26 · #**31641** Posted **May 6, 2013, 2:59 AM**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cat14Wgc6w

people you need to subscribe to this guy! he makes the best videos

Thunderpriest · #**31642** Posted **May 6, 2013, 2:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex4apple

As much as I hope they count it as a spire, if they don't, I hope it gets redesigned.

It will not be redesigned. The only reason for scrapping the radome was because Durst received a percentage of all money that was saved. Deleting the radome apparently saved $20M....so Durst made a nice chunk of change off it. He won't be giving any of that money up. Additionally, the bare mast, with exterior lighting, more closely aligns with his other properties.

bigreach · #**31643** Posted **May 6, 2013, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 06hdfxdwg

I have a feeling that Americans are going to get gypped by the CTBUH as far as the official height of 1 WTC goes. I have an inkling that they will count the mast as an antenna as opposed to a spire and you will have nothing officially symbolic height wise. It's kind of unfortunate that the foundation for 2 WTC has been built already,as i would have liked to see them have used beefier steel at the bottom,this way they could have built it to a roof height of a "definitive" 1776 feet and build a true "spire" to bring the total height of the building to 2001 feet. There would be no arguing that,in my opinion......no debate of anything.......case closed. This is what you get when politics gets involved. Who knows though.......perhaps 2 WTC was over engineered and thus could stand an extra 5 or 6 hundred feet added to the height. Just my thought on the matter.

In my (personal) opininion I believe they will count it, I don't think they would count it on any other bldg in the world, but the symbolicy of this bldg, I believe 75% chance they'll give it the label, ( I'm just shooting in the dark when I say this, but I believe Durst will have a little cash to help them, to help make their decision if they seem to be leaning the opposite way, ("donation money") if you will. I don't think it should be counted, however I want it to be counted, but like I said I'm just one fellow with my own opinion, just like everyone else. Also good photo's last 3 pgs NYboy1975, and NYGuy. Also the parapet looks damn nice, unless I'm seeing photoshops only. But 1 photo you could see a little progress.

RobEss · #**31644** Posted **May 6, 2013, 5:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigreach

In my (personal) opininion I believe they will count it, I don't think they would count it on any other bldg in the world, but the symbolicy of this bldg, I believe 75% chance they'll give it the label, ( I'm just shooting in the dark when I say this, but I believe Durst will have a little cash to help them, to help make their decision if they seem to be leaning the opposite way, ("donation money") if you will. I don't think it should be counted, however I want it to be counted, but like I said I'm just one fellow with my own opinion, just like everyone else. Also good photo's last 3 pgs NYboy1975, and NYGuy. Also the parapet looks damn nice, unless I'm seeing photoshops only. But 1 photo you could see a little progress.

What would happen to their credibility if they let the rules slide- just once- for the sake of patriotism?

JACKinBeantown · #**31645** Posted **May 6, 2013, 11:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeygg26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cat14Wgc6w

people you need to subscribe to this guy! he makes the best videos

He needs a tripod. Nice shots otherwise.

NYguy · #**31646** Posted **May 6, 2013, 11:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC4Life

Seems they were aiming for the spire to be dominant at night with the beacon

Well, the beacon would be dominant at night, regardless. The spire itself was to have a "texture" to it that would also be enhanced by lighting at night.
What we have now will be another Conde Nast antenna (but with a beacon!) I'm sure it will look nice, but the best designs look great no matter the time of day.
Imagine a beacon on top of the Chrysler. Overkill. If this mast is ruled a spire, that's fine. It won't change the look, unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13

Do you think that if the CTBUH comes back and says that the mast is not a spire that Durst will cough up the money to have the mast redesigned?

That won't affect Durst's business one bit. It's being built for broadcasting, the focal point of the Durst broadcasting "empire", with Conde Nast serving as backup.
He gets to have his cake, and eat it too.

wowography.com

IAM YU

the_junes

hunser · #**31647** Posted **May 6, 2013, 1:43 PM**

xurijoe, also SSC forumer

Enigmatism415 · #**31648** Posted **May 6, 2013, 3:46 PM**

I hope that the spire doesn't count towards the final height in its current state. That will teach Durst a lesson about cutting corners. Besides, even if the mistake isn't corrected, I wouldn't mind having a new 1WTC that stands as tall as the original 1WTC; it already does.

I also hope that they bring the tip of 2WTC up to 1,362 feet...

Thaniel · #**31649** Posted **May 6, 2013, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigmatism415

I hope that the spire doesn't count towards the final height in its current state. That will teach Durst a lesson about cutting corners. Besides, even if the mistake isn't corrected, I wouldn't mind having a new 1WTC that stands as tall as the original 1WTC; it already does.

I also hope that they bring the tip of 2WTC up to 1,362 feet...

I agree. I want it to be counted as 1,368 feet. That's a more 'historic' height for this building to reach than any stupid 1,776 height. But I know they will count the spire toward the height. They're too confident about repeating over and over that it's going to be the tallest building in the western hemisphere when complete. Way too confident. Meaning they've already had some 'unofficial' backroom talks with the CTBUH probably with the plans on the table constantly asking "Well what if we took away this. Would that still count?"

fimiak · #**31650** Posted **May 6, 2013, 4:25 PM**

Height should be measured by the highest man-made piece on top of a structure, in my opinion. Yes this means some ugly radio towers gain a lot of prominence in the height charts, but I think its only fair to base the height on the literal and actual height of the structure, rather than the roof, which is only a measurement of function inside of the structure, rather than a measurement of the exterior structure itself.

sw5710 · #**31651** Posted **May 6, 2013, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

Height should be measured by the highest man-made piece on top of a structure, in my opinion. Yes this means some ugly radio towers gain a lot of prominence in the height charts, but I think its only fair to base the height on the literal and actual height of the structure, rather than the roof, which is only a measurement of function inside of the structure, rather than a measurement of the exterior structure itself.

Aviation charts have the overall height to the lightning rod of all obstructions. Go to SKYVECTOR and look at New York. The WTC is listed at 1,792' AGL.

Thaniel · #**31652** Posted **May 6, 2013, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw5710

Aviation charts have the overall height to the lightning rod of all obstructions. Go to SKYVECTOR and look at New York. The WTC is listed at 1,792' AGL.

I thought One WTC was supposed to be 1,794 and 5 inches with the lightning rod?

A part of me does want any standing part of a structure to count towards it's overall height, and I think the CTBUH now agrees with that. But I also think if it's not an actual floor you can walk around on then it shouldn't count.

In the old days antennas on top of buildings were for actual broadcasting now companies just put them on top for looks lol.

MadGnome · #**31653** Posted **May 6, 2013, 5:47 PM**

Count the stick and the CN tower is tallest. Don't count the stick and it's Willis.

Scrapernab2 · #**31654** Posted **May 6, 2013, 6:18 PM**

A couple guys just went up to the top in a bucket. Looks like something is happening....

NewYorker2009 · #**31655** Posted **May 6, 2013, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thaniel

I thought One WTC was supposed to be 1,794 and 5 inches with the lightning rod?

Total height of building as measured from Vesey Street: 1,797' 8"
Total height of building as measured from Elevation 311' 2": 1,792'

sask1982 · #**31656** Posted **May 6, 2013, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorker2009

Total height of building as measured from Vesey Street: 1,797' 8"
Total height of building as measured from Elevation 311' 2": 1,792'

I thought it was supposed to be 1776' or did that change somewhere along the way?

sw5710 · #**31657** Posted **May 6, 2013, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorker2009

Total height of building as measured from Vesey Street: 1,797' 8"
Total height of building as measured from Elevation 311' 2": 1,792'

The height of 1,792' measured from 311'2'' is the above ground total.

Enigmatism415 · #**31658** Posted **May 6, 2013, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sask1982

I thought it was supposed to be 1776' or did that change somewhere along the way?

Yeah, where do they get off calling it 1776'?

NewYorker2009 · #**31659** Posted **May 6, 2013, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw5710

The height of 1,792' measured from 311'2'' is the above ground total.

I know, that's where the Port Authority counts it from.

kpdrummer82 · #**31660** Posted **May 6, 2013, 7:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigmatism415

Yeah, where do they get off calling it 1776'?

Yeah! What a stupid and insignificant number!