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

[Thaniel]

Originally Posted by 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.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the 'spire' it doesn't act like an antenna. The communication rings below it act as antennae. The spire acts like a tall thing standing upright.

[NewYorque]

enough with the spire,

maybe you noticed on the recent pictures, some kind of "special floor" around the mid-height of the tower.
From outside, it doesn't have the same appearence as the other floors. Looks like the glass is more transparent here.

Someone knows what is it??

[RockMont]

Originally Posted by 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.

Right! As I have always declared, the most important thing is that it is the same height as were the originals, and not a tad bit less. Since the spire isn't publically accessable, as far as I am concerned it isn't part of the roof-top. It just an entity onto itself, there for radar, radio and TV. As for there still being a hole in the ground, now that would have been beyond treason.

[weidncol]

Originally Posted by NewYorque

enough with the spire,

maybe you noticed on the recent pictures, some kind of "special floor" around the mid-height of the tower.
From outside, it doesn't have the same appearence as the other floors. Looks like the glass is more transparent here.

Someone knows what is it??

That sir, would be the skylobby.

[jd3189]

Well, this was kinda destined to happen. Regardless of what we all think, at least NYC has another supertall.

[weidncol]

Am I the only one that dislikes the fact they are putting roads in between all the buildings essentially? It's making me feel as though they are trying to seperate the buildings from the main 9/11 memorial, which makes sense, but still...

[bluelouboil]

Regarding counting the spire in the height of the building: All this does is encourage architects/developers to add massive spires to cheat to a greater height. I guess we won't be seeing many spire-less supertalls in the future, which is a shame. It feels contrived at this point.

[NYC GUY]

Originally Posted by bluelouboil

Regarding counting the spire in the height of the building: All this does is encourage architects/developers to add massive spires to cheat to a greater height. I guess we won't be seeing many spire-less supertalls in the future, which is a shame. It feels contrived at this point.

I Disagree about future developments mostly being spires look at the current buildings under construction and being proposed in NYC. 432 Park doesn't have a spire, None of the Hudson Yards Towers have spires, 225 west 57th Doesn't have a spire, One57 doesn't have a spire, 2 WTC doesn't have a spire, 111 west 57th doesn't have a spire. I think the only ones that have spires are 1 WTC, 3 WTC and possibly 1 Vanderbuilt.

[cadiomals]

Originally Posted by weidncol

Am I the only one that dislikes the fact they are putting roads in between all the buildings essentially? It's making me feel as though they are trying to seperate the buildings from the main 9/11 memorial, which makes sense, but still...

Rebuilding the roads between the buildings in the complex was fully intended to reopen the flow of traffic in that part of Lower Manhattan. Remember that the original WTC had created a "superblock" which choked off and re-routed a lot of traffic. These new streets could well reduce congestion in that area as well as accommodate the new traffic that will be coming in as the buildings open for business.

[chris123678]

[ILNY]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/ny...=nyregion&_r=0

Residents Suing to Stop ‘Fortresslike’ Security Plan for World Trade Center

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
Published: November 13, 2013



A rendering of a sally port on West Broadway, south of Barclay Street, on the approach to the World Trade Center site.
New York Police Department


A rendering of Church Street shows the westernmost lane as a restricted roadway for World Trade Center traffic. It would be separated from through traffic by a median. New York Police Department

To the question, “How much security apparatus is needed on city streets?” the agencies charged with guarding public safety seem to answer, “As much as we say.”
Against the memory of two successful attacks on the World Trade Center and numerous foiled plots, no one wants to sign off on security measures that could later be breached or compromised, with a loss of life, limb and property. So barriers, gates, fences and checkpoints proliferate. Whether they are reasonable and prudent — or excessive results of worst-case thinking — is a matter often left unspoken.

And that leaves the public with no meaningful way to assess the transformation of some city streets into obstacle courses.

Hoping to cast some light on the issue, a group of Lower Manhattan residents is preparing to sue the New York Police Department over its security plan for the World Trade Center, saying that the plan will leave the center in “fortresslike isolation” and the area around it “as impervious to traffic as the Berlin Wall.”

Chief among their objections, they said, was that the environmental impact statement about the plan “failed to explain and generally suppressed the N.Y.P.D.’s rationale for critical aspects of the plan based on a purported need for secrecy.”

The Police Department plans to close the streets in and around the trade center to normal through traffic. Vehicles would be screened before entering this zone, or “campus,” as the police call it. Some would be searched. Only those having demonstrable business at the trade center, or those previously certified as trustworthy, would be allowed in.

Drivers who regularly come into the secured zone could enroll themselves and their vehicles in a Trusted Access Program, although the police said that specific operational details of the program would not be released out of security concerns.

“The N.Y.P.D. has determined that the entire World Trade Center site is a potential target,” the department said in the impact statement.

To ensure that the campus is reasonably defensible, the police plan to ring the perimeter with three-foot-tall barriers, 11-foot-tall guard booths and long sally ports through which vehicles would pass for screening.

Pedestrians and bicyclists would be free to come and go, the police said, “although cyclists may be required to dismount to walk their bicycles through security stations.”

The measures are expected to be fully in place by 2015. The security plan was described in some detail in the 834 pages of the environmental impact statement that state law requires.

But the 12 residents and one shop owner who are suing the police, under the name of the WTC Neighborhood Alliance, said in their complaint, which is expected to be filed on Thursday in Supreme Court in Manhattan, that the impact statement was flawed by faulty analysis and its rejection of alternative measures. Six of the plaintiffs live on Liberty Street, within the heavily secured zone.

They include Mary Perillo, the leader of the ad hoc alliance and the communications director of the 9/11 Environmental Action group, who has lived opposite the World Trade Center for more than 30 years. They are represented by Daniel L. Alterman and Albert K. Butzel, an environmental lawyer who is known for contributing to the defeat in the 1980s of the Westway highway planned along the Hudson River.

They will ask the court to annul the plan and compel the police and other agencies to produce documents and records that “are bound to shed light on how the campus security plan was developed and with what considerations in mind.”

Responding to the impending lawsuit, the city’s Law Department issued a statement on Wednesday: “Car and truck bombs pose very real and serious risks. Indeed, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was a truck bomb, and the security plan guards against vehicle bombs by screening automobiles.

“Pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to freely enter and move about the site. The environmental review that is being challenged was a thorough and public process. Publicly available documents describe the plan in detail. Those suing also had the opportunity to express their concerns, which we responded to with a comprehensive environmental impact statement. It is vital that construction move ahead now.”

Acknowledging that security installations have “some visible presence on the streetscape,” the impact statement said the booths would be designed by Grimshaw, the architectural firm responsible for the city’s new bus shelters and newsstands, to keep the appearance “consistent with other street furniture.”

“The access needs of local residents and businesses were carefully considered,” the impact statement said. For instance: “Residents who need to travel through the security perimeter for access to their homes would have the option of enrolling themselves and their vehicles in the Trusted Access Program.”

To which Ms. Perillo said, in her affidavit: “I live in the City of New York — not ‘on campus’ or in a gated community. I do not want to prove who I am to come home to my own apartment.”

[uaarkson]

Who cares as long as it's walkable? These security measures seem to focus on motor traffic, which makes sense to me. A car/truck bomb seems like the most likely form an attack would take these days.

[-Filipe-]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

No, you idiot, I didn't read your reply. I tend to skip over the 1 WTC fanboys who defend this tower at any cost since you guys really add nothing to the conversation other than blind support. The spire is fucking hideous. I see this building from my window and always look up at that rusty stick (erm, "spire") and laugh out loud. I am really hoping the skyscraper council slaps this building down to earth..down to 1373 ft..where it belongs. Get the fuck over it.

Just like you and all the other sticks in mud on here always bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, then you bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch some more, then on top of that theres a little bit more bitch bitch bitch and more fucking bitching

[cadiomals]

Residents Suing to Stop ‘Fortresslike’ Security Plan for World Trade Center

Eep, I barely even knew about that. I guess this complex won't be as open as I thought.

This has been said before, but we shouldn't be letting the terrorists win with this obvious spirit of fear. I remember seeing a ridiculous security checkpoint coming into the memorial, with scanners everywhere. I hope they follow through on their word and eventually get rid of that, while also making the whole complex a little more free and inviting. I can understand this is a more valuable target, but having those sidewalk posts and security guards patrolling should be quite enough.

[Thaniel]

Originally Posted by cadiomals

This has been said before, but we shouldn't be letting the terrorists win with this obvious spirit of fear. I remember seeing a ridiculous security checkpoint coming into the memorial, with scanners everywhere. I hope they follow through on their word and eventually get rid of that, while also making the whole complex a little more free and inviting. I can understand this is a more valuable target, but having those sidewalk posts and security guards patrolling should be quite enough.

I doubt they'll get rid of that. Have they said they're going to after it opens? I imagine they will open all the other streets to the complex (unlike the single entrance from the South they have now) but I highly doubt they'll get rid of the bodyscanner checkpoints going into the complex.

[Thaniel]

To the issue of security they keep saying their extra security measures are a result of worst case scenario thinking. A lot of people (some very serious) said after 9/11 that any future building put there would have to have anti-aircraft guns on top of it. And yes a lot of them were quite serious back then. How much security is too much? I think any security at this point is really to prevent loss of life rather than loss of building. Because this building is by wide margin the strongest skyscraper ever built in history, designed specifically not to be able to fall down. I think they shouldn't go too overboard with the security issue at this point. The podium base can take any truck blast. The core can take any plane.

There are going to be a LOT of people needing to enter the complex daily. Workers, visitors to the Memorial, and visitors to the Mall which will be on the lower levels of 3 WTC. If you were to put up an airport security like perimeter around the complex for everyone going in then it would be congested to no end. However, an out of sight but alert security system like a camera filled Vegas casino type of security would be a good idea. Because they could localize and go after select things they see wrong on the video. That's just my thoughts.

[StrongIsland]

Originally Posted by Thaniel

I doubt they'll get rid of that. Have they said they're going to after it opens? I imagine they will open all the other streets to the complex (unlike the single entrance from the South they have now) but I highly doubt they'll get rid of the bodyscanner checkpoints going into the complex.

The memorial is going to be open to walk around freely at the end of next year I believe. You won't need to be scanned to go anywhere in the complex unless your going up to the observatory, VSC and I'm assuming the museum.

[Thaniel]

Originally Posted by StrongIsland

The memorial is going to be open to walk around freely at the end of next year I believe. You won't need to be scanned to go anywhere in the complex unless your going up to the observatory, VSC and I'm assuming the museum.

Sweet. Cus the only reason I didn't get to see the Memorial last time I was there was cus my friend had pot on her. lol

[NYC2ATX]

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.

...declare the height as 1,368 ft and you've upset everyone in New York, every family member of a victim of 9/11, every soldier, firefighter, police officer who assisted in the recovery, and every politican, planner, architect, and engineer who had a hand in the design and construction. You've upset Larry Silverstein, every higher-up at the Port Authority and anyone who laid out any sum of cash to build the building. You've upset any and every soldier, politician or regular American citizen who is emotionally motivated by America's comeback after the attacks. You've upset the president. You've upset everyone who bought the new Starbucks mugs while on vacation in NY that feature 1 WTC prominently. You've probably upset George Washington, who's now turning in his grave wishing Columbus had gotten his shit together to discover the New World sooner so he could have been able to declare America's independence by the year 1368. And now you've probably even upset Columbus. Way to go.

If you were voting on this with the CTBUH, which would you rather?


Chicago should go ahead and ante up with an 1,800-foot proposal now and keep things interesting.

[ArtDecoRevival]

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

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.

Not even specifically about One WTC, but I just hate the height rules in general. They're so subjective and myopic. A 1300 footer with a 500 foot stick on the top gets ranked above a 1700 footer that ends with a roof and no stick, and a 1600 footer that has a 300 foot stick, but that stick was not part of the original design-plan so the stick doesn't count.

This spire rule started with good enough intentions, since no one could argue against architecturally integral and masterfully crafted design-elements like the Chrysler building's spire, but it's been exploited the last couple decades by people who cut corners getting to their desired maximum height. The Petronas towers were pretty bad in this regard with those twin whispy sticks, but the worst culprit has to be One WTC with that absolute toothpick. It should not be counted. Orrrr.... if you insist on counting it, then count ALL the toothpicks on top of supertalls. Be consistent at least.

And I don't even dislike One WTC that much. Not in love with it, but people go overboard bashing it. But people need to stop pretending it's something it clearly isn't. It's not some 1,776 foot beacon of freedom. It's a 1,300-something foot symbol of business as usual.