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

[brian.odonnell20]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It was a cost cutting measure. As I've repeated about a thousand times, the spire design only changed to a radome covering to "protect" the antenna mast from the elements. They are saying that the wind testing showed that there could be damage to some of the panels, and they would have to be replaced. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant (though it is amazing that the CN Tower has stood for years). The fact of the matter is that Durst wasn't interested in any type of design around the mast. So while the natural thing to do if the radome wasn't "sound" was to revert to the earlier design, cost concerns - and there were many at this tower - dictated they drop it altogether. That was backed up by the CTBUH, so they haven't really lost anything. We are the only losers in this situation. And when I say we, I say everyone who wanted this site to be rebuilt, but also represent a little more than a typical business enterprise. It's the reason the PA is (wasting or spending depending on your point of view) so much money on a train station below. It's about the site. But of course, with Durst, we're talking about someone who didn't want this tower built in the first place, so I guess we should expect as much.

Um the damage would've been more than "a couple damaged panels," the entire antenna would've been ruined due to the sway, so I think that would be fairly relevant.. you say they disguised it as structural reasons like there's a huge cover up operation. Just because he's not interested in the design doesn't mean he'd go that far to make such a monumental design change. Do you have any articles/proof proving that he did it just to cut costs..?

[jmatero]

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Um the damage would've been more than "a couple damaged panels," the entire antenna would've been ruined due to the sway, so I think that would be fairly relevant.. you say they disguised it as structural reasons like there's a huge cover up operation. Just because he's not interested in the design doesn't mean he'd go that far to make such a monumental design change. Do you have any articles/proof proving that he did it just to cut costs..?

And like Durst said... and they were right... maintenance of that multi-panel radome would have been a total nightmare and a serious safety issue for both citizens and maintenance workers. Think of what the engineers would need to address AND REMEMBER workers repelling from the top is ok for the Washington Monument... it's not possible at almost 1800'.

1. What would happen if just ONE PANEL fell off the structure and landed on the AC units? The communications equipment on the roof? People below?
   
2. Once the crane was down, how in God's name would one of those panels been replaced?
   
3. How would they clean/paint/replace those panels? You can't hang a maintenance rig or repel from the top, you can't re-erect a crane and you can't build conventional scaffolding on the roof.
   
4. How would the panels be installed to begin with? They would have to be raised individually by a crane and somehow affixed by a worker on the inside of the spire.

I challenge the conspiracy theorists here to explain how the items above would have been handled. And "They would have figured it out" is not an answer.

Believe it or not, these are the issues that led to the radome being ditched. As a RESULT they certainly saved a ton of $$$$.

PS... a number of conspiracy theorists here have pointed to the antenna on 1 WTC and suggested "they did it then... why not now?" I remember that antenna going up in the mid 70's and it was a series of huge thick hollow rings (like pipes). Not an antenna covered with decorative panels.

[patriotizzy]

As sad as it is that the cover for the antenna is not there, the lighting is amazing. Definitely improves an already beautiful and striking NYC night skyline.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

Um the damage would've been more than "a couple damaged panels," the entire antenna would've been ruined due to the sway, so I think that would be fairly relevant..

Not accurate, and it is only relevant if you think that was the only option there was for the spire - which it was not, as has been repeatedely pointed out.
The radom was an option that didn't happen.

Originally Posted by jmatero

And like Durst said... and they were right... maintenance of that multi-panel radome would have been a total nightmare and a serious safety issue for both citizens and maintenance
workers.
I challenge the conspiracy theorists here to explain how the items above would have been handled. And "They would have figured it out" is not an answer.

Believe it or not, these are the issues that led to the radome being ditched. As a RESULT they certainly saved a ton of $$$$.

PS... a number of conspiracy theorists here have pointed to the antenna on 1 WTC and suggested "they did it then... why not now?" I remember that antenna going up in the mid 70's
and it was a series of huge thick hollow rings (like pipes). Not an antenna covered with decorative panels.

I'm not going to get into your "conspiracy theorist" nonsense, because as stated above, it's all irrelevant. The mast as it is constructed now will still require maintence,
as will the equipment placed there.

The fact of the matter is this mast DID NOT have to be built and left as is. If you choose to believe we live in a world where that is the case, then shame on you.
Meanwhile, we'll sit back and watch as more complex and more beautiful structures are built around the world. The "this can't be done" mentality won't take hold of everyone.
We used to pride ourselves on what could be done. Perhaps that time will come again.



MarkWarnes

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Durst was only interested in the broadcasting nature of the mast, not what it looked like. It was a cost issue, disguised as a maintenance one.
The covering will live on in renderings and "what if's", but we'll never see it.






Six Sigma Man

Thank you to everyone for those answers. That would have looked gorgeous
Now it looks unfinished and cheap unfortunately.

[gramsjdg]

Agreed.

The lack of bulk in the mast caused by the decision to leave it uncompleted (no radome) makes it look much too tall for the size of the building. No amount of Las Vegas style LED lighting can make up for that fact.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Agreed.

The lack of bulk in the mast caused by the decision to leave it uncompleted (no radome) makes it look much too tall for the size of the building. No amount of Las Vegas style LED lighting can make up for that fact.

It looks okay at night surprisingly now that it's lit up 100% but doesn't really look a whole lot better than say, Conde Naste building antenna during the day... and that's not a good thing.

I just wonder if there's any way that someone, someday will cover that thing... I mean if I ever become a billionaire I'll do it myself.

Durst is just a slimy piece of slime, even seeing him on the video made me shudder.

[hunser]

http://m1.i.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1...9l.wtcren3.jpg



This rendering has it all:
- the radome
- 3WTC's original height
- a finished 2WTC

[CityGuy87]

Personally, the spire/mast has grown on me but I think once all the broadcast dishes are put on the communication rings, I think it will enhance the look of the spire and bring a bit more balance between the actual building and the spire itself.

I would really like to see a rendering of the spire/mast as it is but fill in the ring dishes to get an idea of how it will all look.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by hunser

http://m1.i.pbase.com/o9/06/102706/1...9l.wtcren3.jpg



This rendering has it all:
- the radome
- 3WTC's original height
- a finished 2WTC

We did get kinda shafted but at least 2WTC will be built someday and 3WTC is almost 1100 to the roof, not even sure if that's finalized either.

The radome well... yea that just eats me up inside, that'll be hard to get over. Keep in mind that the radio dishes on the comm. rings will add a little thickness and bulk to the top of the tower.

Edit: Cityguy just said that last part.

[1Boston]

The lighting on the spire is starting to grow on me; however, only from afar. I still feel like it looks extremely tacky up close, especially the colored lights. I can only imagine how incredible it would look if the original spire was there.

[weidncol]

^^ It's been white the past three weeks, don't see how that is tacky...

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by weidncol

^^ It's been white the past three weeks, don't see how that is tacky...

I hope we get a lighting schedule for 1 WTC's spire posted on the PA's website as we do with the lights for the top of the Empire State Building on their website. 1 WTC's lighting is beautiful and has a lot of potential but they're gonna need to step up their game to compete with the ESB's lights.

I definitely like the white lighting but it feels like a waste considering all the different color options and effects that Durst usually likes to show off on his other towers. I'm not sure if the white lighting is the official default lighting scheme (considering the building has yet to be completed) or if we'll see a BoFA/Conde Nast-style light show when it finally opens.

I know that sounds like a double standard considering the Empire State Building has default white lighting and an incredible new LED lighting system but that building has an entire top for its canvas (and the white on the ESB looks much classier tbh) while 1 WTC just has a mast. The white lighting fits that building much better in all honesty.

In regards to 1 WTC's proximity to the 9/11 memorial, I think having color changing light shows on the base fins would be extremely tacky and disrespectful but the spire/mast is different because it represents a new energetic and vibrant downtown skyline.

[Hypothalamus]

As of February 26th, 2014...


©Brandon Nagle on UvM


©Brandon Nagle on UvM

[weidncol]

Originally Posted by CityGuy87

I hope we get a lighting schedule for 1 WTC's spire posted on the PA's website as we do with the lights for the top of the Empire State Building on their website. 1 WTC's lighting is beautiful and has a lot of potential but they're gonna need to step up their game to compete with the ESB's lights.

I definitely like the white lighting but it feels like a waste considering all the different color options and effects that Durst usually likes to show off on his other towers. I'm not sure if the white lighting is the official default lighting scheme (considering the building has yet to be completed) or if we'll see a BoFA/Conde Nast-style light show when it finally opens.

I know that sounds like a double standard considering the Empire State Building has default white lighting and an incredible new LED lighting system but that building has an entire top for its canvas (and the white on the ESB looks much classier tbh) while 1 WTC just has a mast. The white lighting fits that building much better in all honesty.

In regards to 1 WTC's proximity to the 9/11 memorial, I think having color changing light shows on the base fins would be extremely tacky and disrespectful but the spire/mast is different because it represents a new energetic and vibrant downtown skyline.

I personally like the white lighting as it reminds me of the old North Tower's mast at night. Also, I completely agree with you about the base lighting. It will have the ability to change colors, but it will most likely just stay white.

[CityGuy87]

Originally Posted by weidncol

I personally like the white lighting as it reminds me of the old North Tower's mast at night. Also, I completely agree with you about the base lighting. It will have the ability to change colors, but it will most likely just stay white.

Hopefully they do something cool for St. Patrick's Day although they didn't do anything for Valentine's Day which leads to me to think that it will only be white until the building is complete/open.

[Otie]

I am not so sure a documentary can sustain the claim of practical constraints as the reason for scrapping the enclosure. The RWDI wind tunnel footage belongs to a test made prior to an alteration made to the radome.

[jmatero]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The mast as it is constructed now will still require maintence, as will the equipment placed there.

The fact of the matter is this mast DID NOT have to be built and left as is. If you choose to believe we live in a world where that is the case, then shame on you.
Meanwhile, we'll sit back and watch as more complex and more beautiful structures are built around the world. The "this can't be done" mentality won't take hold of everyone.

Oh stop. The building was already well under construction when the radome was ditched. The options were to either to completely redesign/reengineer the roof of the building and mast (Can you say DELAYS and $$$$$) or go according to plan and just not clad it. They "could" have created a new antenna, sure but it still would have been the subject of ridicule because it wasn't the unicorn horn.

The current mast requires little if any maintenance... Won't need painting or cleaning, etc. You just climb inside it to reach the bulbs or any equipment affixed to it. Safe workers. That's not even remotely close to maintaining/repairing the radome the way it was designed.

The funny part is that I post pics of this building on Facebook and other sites almost daily and get nothing but positive comments. Even friends and family who live/work downtown LOVE how it turned out. The only negativity I see is on here.

Look, we're all entitled to our opinions and this is just mine. I love the building... Antenna and all... And so happy it's almost done!

[Enigmatism415]

If wind is the issue, I'd recommend a sufficiently permeable cladding. Perhaps stainless steel wires wrapped around the mast would look nice, and wouldn't require paint or cleaning. It'll cost more, but a lot less than the original cladding.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

The lighting on the spire is starting to grow on me; however, only from afar. I still feel like it looks extremely tacky up close, especially the colored lights. I can only imagine how incredible it would look if the original spire was there.

The lighting is the one thing saving this from being completely boring at night. With those mechanical floors currently in the dark, it really shows. But there is no way they won't light those floors at night. When lit, it should have a similar effect to the ESB lighting.

As for the spire, remember Durst highlights the Conde Nast as well (which will be the backup to this tower). I believe he thinks it's perfectly fine as is.



http://www.esquire.com/the-rebuildin...uilding-0912-3

....As the estimate for completing the tower rose past $3 billion, the PA struck a deal in 2010 with a city real estate developer, the Durst Organization, to help finish, manage, and lease the tower: For $100 million, Durst received a 10 percent equity interest in the building, plus a $15 million management contract that gave Durst 75 percent of any monies saved by cutting construction costs up to $12 million, and a mere 50 percent of every penny cut thereafter.

To nobody's surprise and David Childs's despair, Durst found costs to cut, particularly at the top and bottom of the tower.

....Durst took its meat-ax to the tower's 408-foot spire: By simply scrapping the radome — a sculpted shell of fiberglass and steel designed to sheathe the antennae and maintenance platforms atop the building — shazam! $20 million saved.

Durst claimed its radome decision was strictly about maintenance cost and safety, not money. Patrick Foye, current PA executive director, agreed, adding, "What was designed was impractical, unworkable, and quite frankly dangerous."

http://www.batterypark.tv/uncategori...r-antenna.html

If you have looked at the tall tower atop the WTC 1 “Freedom Tower” and thought to your self, “That is ugly. I wonder if they are still building it.”, you are not alone. It is a mess, and was caused by developer Durst, according to the WSJ.

The WSJ reports, “Yet just as construction costs have ballooned to nearly $4 billion, making this by far the most expensive new office building in the world, its developers—the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, along with the Durst Organization—have decided to cut one last corner, blunting the building’s most prominent and important symbol.

This newspaper and other media outlets have reported that since taking an ownership interest in One WTC in 2010, Durst has been agitating for the radome’s elimination—a push rejected by the agency’s executive director at the time, only to be approved by his successor.

“I don’t think it will affect the visual appearance,” Douglas Durst, the chairman of the Durst Organization, said regarding the radome’s elimination. “I try not to get involved with the aesthetics.” In fact, the financial incentives of Durst’s co-ownership deal, it has been reported, are structured in such a way as to prioritize cost-saving construction over aesthetic concerns.

I guess the solution is to not look at it in the daytime.



www.JackBermanNYC.com





WanderingtheWorld (www.ChrisFord.com)