NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 535

Traynor · #**10681** Posted **Nov 2, 2010, 5:38 PM**

I still am not clear why 1WTCv2 is allowed to count its antenna in its official height. Not only is it cable stayed according to many sources, but it is also being used for communications. Just because it has a pretty wrapping covering it, does not make it structural and therefor it is an antenna and not a spire.

It is definitely in a grey area of allow-ability.

Plokoon11 · #**10682** Posted **Nov 2, 2010, 5:44 PM**

^ Its a spire.

xnyr · #**10683** Posted **Nov 2, 2010, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swede

Looks to me like the last parts of the DB building being dismantled. I.e. the black building, on the site of the proposed WTC5, that was damaged in 9/11 and has been slowly taken down since.

I see... Because of the remaining height and perspective of the shot, it looked as if it was rising from the plaza.

Thanks

Innsertnamehere · #**10684** Posted **Nov 2, 2010, 7:17 PM**

edit post!

sw5710 · #**10685** Posted **Nov 2, 2010, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

I still am not clear why 1WTCv2 is allowed to count its antenna in its official height. Not only is it cable stayed according to many sources, but it is also being used for communications. Just because it has a pretty wrapping covering it, does not make it structural and therefor it is an antenna and not a spire.

It is definitely in a grey area of allow-ability.

I think it is considered to be structurally part of WTCv2. Not an an add on like the 360' broadcast antenna on the WTCv1 was years after the buildings were complete.

cmd7172 · #**10686** Posted **Nov 2, 2010, 11:39 PM**

Does anybody else think that 1 WTC will effectively become the new height limit in Lower Manhattan?

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**10687** Posted **Nov 2, 2010, 11:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmd7172

Does anybody else think that 1 WTC will effectively become the new height limit in Lower Manhattan?

lets hope its raised to 2000 ft.

sw5710 · #**10688** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 12:33 AM**

NEVER "1776" IS IT! Any new pictures?

NYguy · #**10689** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 1:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

I still am not clear why 1WTCv2 is allowed to count its antenna in its official height.

Maybe because its your lack of understanding on what it actually is. If the spire is to host the antenna at all (which still isn't a guarantee according to the PA) the antenna will be housed inside the spire, its not like you will actually see it.

Meanwhile, something nice continues to rise on the skyline...

Wats2U

Larger version.

sw5710 · #**10690** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 2:45 AM**

537' to the 46th floor column splices.

STR · #**10691** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

That was changed a while ago. They want to accommodate the number of expected tourists.

Thanks. Looks like they didn't change a thing structurally, they just flip-flopped the location of the obs deck and the restaurant.

Not entirely sure that was the best call, since raising the roof a foot or two would allow them to fit two stories for both public attractions...but redesigning a building already $100 mil over budget is politically inconvenient. Though, I trust they did a feasibility study before going with what they are.

Totojuice · #**10692** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 4:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmd7172

Does anybody else think that 1 WTC will effectively become the new height limit in Lower Manhattan?

No. Height limit for skyscrapers in New York is dictated by the FAA and currently stands at 2000 feet. We debated this years ago before we knew what the final height was going to be.... Ultimately it seemed as though the 2000 ft figure could in theory be waived, but hasn't been an issue to date as no one has made a serious effort to build something beyond that height in the U.S....

uaarkson · #**10693** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 4:57 AM**

Yup, it's a defacto limit. Approvals can be given to taller structures, but nothing that tall is currently planned anywhere in the US.

sw5710 · #**10694** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 5:31 AM**

The FAA has a 2000 foot limit nation wide.

gramsjdg · #**10695** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 6:09 AM**

OK, So if the observation deck is now 100 and 101, with the restaurant being 102, what is the floor plate elevation of floor 102 if the observation deck (floor 100 and 101?) is supposed to be 1266 ft?

I guess a simpler question would be, what are the (current) floor plate elevations of floors 100, 101, and 102

thanks

jthornton17 · #**10696** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 6:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnyr

What is that building in the lower foreground?

It makes sense, but with all the tourist you can expect from post 9/11, I'm kind of shocked they didn't decide to add an extra floor. This would also make some happy like Donald Trump, who wanted to build back the original towers, but with one extra floor. You have to figure a ton of people are going to come see this beautiful building and a two level observation deck and two level restaurant will probably be needed.

Zapatan · #**10697** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 6:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

OK, So if the observation deck is now 100 and 101, with the restaurant being 102, what is the floor plate elevation of floor 102 if the observation deck (floor 100 and 101?) is supposed to be 1266 ft?

I guess a simpler question would be, what are the (current) floor plate elevations of floors 100, 101, and 102

thanks

about 1235' and 1250'

cmd7172 · #**10698** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Yup, it's a defacto limit. Approvals can be given to taller structures, but nothing that tall is currently planned anywhere in the US.

There would be a huge outcry about the symbolism of outdoing the 1776' of 1 WTC...unless they build one 2026' tall to commemorate our 250th bday, then maybe they could get away with it. Otherwise, yeah, 1776' is definitely going to be an unofficial upper limit for Lower Manhattan, and maybe all of Manhattan as well.

FAA is pretty flexible.

Totojuice · #**10699** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 2:47 PM**

I disagree. Nobody ever cared about the 1776 ft height outside of Daniel Libeskind. He decided that it was an important number, and we had to accept it because Governor Pataki chose his plan. Public opinion at that time was always to rebuild the twin towers, but we were never given that option.

Don't get me wrong, I love the new design and have become fond of the overall plan, but make no mistake, there is no loyalty to a number mandated by a self-important architect. There will be taller buildings in this city.

NYguy · #**10700** Posted **Nov 3, 2010, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totojuice

Nobody ever cared about the 1776 ft height outside of Daniel Libeskind. He decided that it was an important number, and we had to accept it because Governor Pataki chose his plan.

Unlike the other WTC towers, the Freedom Tower was given a specific height, and beyond that, the manner in which that height was to be reached, which is why there will be a spire regardless of broadcaster's intentions. Former governor Pataki insisted it be so, and so it is.

in.formed