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

[Daquan13]

My point, aluminum, is that a) the height of the FT has been set as essentially identicial to the old (very, very tall) Twins, PLUS a tall structural spire, and b) the name has gone into popular usage.

It's absurd to pretend the FT is anything other than a very tall building - the day it was proposed it would have been the WTB - and a waste of time and energy to worry about the name. Regarding the spire: the FT's is actually far more robust, and far better integrated into the overall design, than the vast majority out there. It's no more "cheating" to count it than it is to count the Chrysler's spire, or the ESB's "mooring mast," for that matter.

Regarding the name, if it drops out of popular usage I guess the "jingophobes" will have their day. Somehow I don't see "World Trade Center One" catching on, though... just doesn't roll off one's tongue. IF the name "FT" goes away, I suspect people will call this tower "the World Trade Center" and tend to forget that the other towers belong to it, too.



Agreed!!

Lower Manhattan Development Corp. still calls it the Freedom Tower, as do some of the officials, along with the news media.

Also, there are other towers with spires that count as part of their height. How about the Petronas Twin Towers over in Kuala Lumpur? And their floor count is 88.

Pataki mainly called the tower Freedom Tower because of it's height, 1,776 feet, which also represents the year that the Declaration of Indepedense was sign into law, marking America's freedom of independense - July 4, 1776.

[alex1]

i wish they went for erecting a 1,776' pole, but cheated by building a 1,368' office tower on a pole only 408' high! what a disgrace!

haha!

[aluminum]

Although FT's not very tall but a good point is that its coming with almost 3 more supertalls around it.

[Aleks]

are there any pictures of the site currently?
i don't usually visit this thread often so i get behind a lot.

[CitySkyline]

Although FT's not very tall but a good point is that its coming with almost 3 more supertalls around it.

"Not very tall"??? I know what you're getting at, but considering it's as tall as the original WTC (to the roof, I mean), that's pretty darn tall!

Before they were destroyed, I remember straining my neck just trying to see the top of the Twin Towers from the ground. People (not meaning you, just people in general) seem so hung up on "World's Tallest" that they seem to forget that the original WTC towers were very tall. I never saw anyone look up at them from the ground and consider them anything but really really tall. I'm sure the FT will have the same reaction. Let's face it, 1,368 ft. *is* very tall.

[aluminum]

^^^ For standards of the Big Apple, its tall but not very tall. Otherwise, for a normal city, its very tall.

In my city, I consider 250' as very tall. lol

[chitownblues]

"Not very tall"??? I know what you're getting at, but considering it's as tall as the original WTC (to the roof, I mean), that's pretty darn tall!

Before they were destroyed, I remember straining my neck just trying to see the top of the Twin Towers from the ground.

I guess your doctor advised you against ever visiting Chicago then, right?

[aluminum]

I guess your doctor advised you against ever visiting Chicago then, right?

Damn right chitownblues, if FT is very tall for him, he may get an heart attack if he sees the Chicago Spire.

[Tom Servo]

^^^ For standards of the Big Apple, its tall but not very tall. Otherwise, for a normal city, its very tall.

In my city, I consider 250' as very tall. lol

for standards of the big apple not very tall??? what? it will TOWER over nyc. what do you mean? other than the ESB, nyc doesn't have any other 1,000 footers. so if you wanna talk about 'standards' then i would say the FT will most definately be very tall.

[aluminum]

^^^ believe me, FT alone won't get that much dominating effect with WTC2, WTC3 and WTC4 around it. WTC2's roof is only about 6-7% shorter than FT's. And WTC3 is also pretty tall. And maybe if the Midtown towers are built, FT will get some more close competitors.

It certainly won't TOWER over NY like you say. When people will be looking at the skyline, FT won't be the only thing they're looking at.
In contrast, the CS may have that kinda towering effect.

[JMininger]

for standards of the big apple not very tall??? what? it will TOWER over nyc. what do you mean? other than the ESB, nyc doesn't have any other 1,000 footers. so if you wanna talk about 'standards' then i would say the FT will most definately be very tall.

Not technically true. Last I checked, Chrysler was a 1k footer. Ok, people hate spires but unfortunately both NY Times and BOA are 1k footers too.

I do agree with you though on this point. What exactly are the new standards for NYC? I think I remember the WTC setting the standard but those buildings aren't there anymore. Now, ESB dominates the skyline, but that is in midtown. FT will be roughly the height of the old WTC. Seems like it meets the standard of very tall for NYC to me. Yes, I understand that it will be close to buildings that are also 1K. It will still be the tallest building in NYC (discounting any active proposals). Look, I love NYC, one of my favorite places, but it doesn't own the standard for tall buildings any more. Just doesn't. Doesn't look like it will again anytime soon. FT in New York will be very very tall.

[aluminum]

NYC is a kind of city where you can expect new buildings to be taller 1368'.
I mean, if you say that they are building a 1368' roof to some guy, he may reply "They hit 1250' feet waaay back in 1931 ! What's the big deal if they make a building taller only by about hundred feet, 80 years later"

Yet, for some people 1368' is still very tall. They're NOT wrong about anything. Its just that every person has his/her own different way of thinking.

[Dac150]

Although FT's not very tall but a good point is that its coming with almost 3 more supertalls around it.

Its taller than the old WTC. Its taller than the Sears Tower. Whats else do you want? Not to mention the 3 other tall buildings right next door.

[CitySkyline]

^^^ For standards of the Big Apple, its tall but not very tall. Otherwise, for a normal city, its very tall.

In my city, I consider 250' as very tall. lol

But, see, that's the thing: in New York, the FT *will* be very tall. Just use the Diagrams page and you'll see it tower over everything else, including the Empire State Building: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?29543085

Even discounting the FT's spire, you'll notice that at 1,368 ft., it stands tall next to the ESB (which at the 1,368ft level is just a skinny antenna). If you then add and include the FT's spire (which we really should do), then it makes it that much taller than the ESB. In New York, there's currently nothing even close to the ESB.

As for Chicago's 2000ft tower, of course that would tower over FT, but alas, NY isn't building any 2000 footers and it doesn't currently have any 2000 footers. Right now 2000 ft. buildings aren't common in the world. For the immediate future, there will only be 2: Chicago's and Dubai's. So, perhaps it's semantics, but I'd argue that those two should be given new labels (perhaps "insanely tall"?). And, yes, FT won't be insanely tall. But like I said before, the WTC towers were always considered very tall by all who saw them. There's reasons why people were slack-jawed when viewing them from the ground. I'm sure the same will happen for the FT (and WTC 2 and perhaps 3 as well).

Anyway, like you said in your other post, we could debate this ad-nauseum, since it all depends on your definition of "very tall." If you think FT won't be very tall, oh well. :shrug: I'm just happy that we're getting something equal in height to the original WTC, considering that Silverstein's original idea was to build 4 50-story buildings! :yuck:

[aluminum]

Its taller than the old WTC. Its taller than the Sears Tower. Whats else do you want? Not to mention the 3 other tall buildings right next door.

Its NOT taller than sears and not bigger and taller than old WTC. Spires Suck! People like you gave the world's tallest title to the petronas. Raising very tall decorative spires to increase official height was the worst thing ever happened to skyscrapers.

[Dac150]

Its NOT taller than sears and not bigger and taller than old WTC. Spires Suck! People like you gave the world's tallest title to the petronas. Raising ver talll decorative spires to increase official height was the worst thing ever happened to skyscrapers.

A yeah, the Freedom Tower IS taller than the Sears Tower, Petronas, and the old WTC. Maybe you need to pay a visit to the diagram section of the forum to see for yourself.:tup:

[NYguy]

NYC is a kind of city where you can expect new buildings to be taller 1368'.
I mean, if you say that they are building a 1368' roof to some guy, he may reply "They hit 1250' feet waaay back in 1931 ! What's the big deal if they make a building taller only by about hundred feet, 80 years later"

The difference is that in its day, companies didn't need the larger floorplates that today's office buildings need. Look at the vast majority of skyscrapers built back then. The reason they had those graceful spires on top was directly related to the floor sizes. So, you can take the ESB, make the 1,250 ft equal to the base, and that's still very impressive.

Of all the tallest buildings being built today, not many are strictly commercial towers. In fact, you're not going to see a 1,000 ft office tower built in Chicago, and no office tower much higher (roofwise) than the Freedom Tower in New York.

In about 5 months, we'll have at least four towers under construction in New York with roof heights of at least 1,000 ft. That's four more than the entire time I've been on this skyscraper forumn.

[Dac150]

The difference is that in its day, companies didn't need the larger floorplates that today's office buildings need. Look at the vast majority of skyscrapers built back then. The reason they had those graceful spires on top was directly related to the floor sizes. So, you can take the ESB, make the 1,250 ft equal to the base, and that's still very impressive.

Of all the tallest buildings being built today, not many are strictly commercial towers. In fact, you're not going to see a 1,000 ft office tower built in Chicago, and no office tower much higher (roofwise) than the Freedom Tower in New York.

Exactly, companies need more room to function and trade. A 50 floor office building (with larger plates) is more practical than a 100 floor office tower (with smaller plates).

Look at the Singer Building. Demolished for lack of space, and yet look what replaced it: a giant box with large floor plates.

[wong21fr]

Its NOT taller than sears and not bigger and taller than old WTC. Spires Suck! People like you gave the world's tallest title to the petronas. Raising ver talll decorative spires to increase official height was the worst thing ever happened to skyscrapers.

So the granddaddy of the supertalls, the ESB, sucks?

I seem to recall that it used a very tall decorative spire to increase height in order to beat out the Chrysler.

[Dac150]

I seem to recall that it used a very tall decorative spire to increase height in order to beat out the Chrysler.

That spire was actually added in the 1950's to serve as a broadcasting tower. Unless you mean the portion that holds floor 102? :shrug:

[Atlriser]

Lord lord, convince the wind it's blowing....this is OLD and BORING! If you just want to debate the merits and height of FT, please transport yourself back 3 years when people were discussing this and cared to hear about it. The standards are VERY clear on what constitutes a buildings height. Whether you like them or not is IRRELEVANT to the record books. Move on!

[Dac150]

Lord lord, convince the wind it's blowing....this is OLD and BORING! If you just want to debate the merits and height of FT, please transport yourself back 3 years when people were discussing this and cared to hear about it. The standards are VERY clear on what constitutes a buildings height. Whether you like them or not is IRRELEVANT to the record books. Move on!

How could you say the the discussion of the height of a skyscraper on a skyscraper forum is irrelevant? :koko:

The fact remains that when completed the Freedom Tower will be the tallest in the United States next to the Chicago Spire.

Chicago Spire- 2,000 ft
Freedom Tower- 1,776 ft
Sears Tower- 1,721 ft

The Freedom Tower is taller by 55 ft. That is the plain simple fact.

[Atlriser]

Good grief....thanks for those stats...I was so unaware of the heights and my comment definitely requested you provide them....I stand corrected?? GEEZ! We have some great reading skills here don't we. Just get back to news about the tower in summary.....not arguing over what constitutes height of a tower vs the design and such.....GEEZ AGAIN? Talk about clueless and unable to read a posting!

[Dac150]

Good grief....thanks for those stats...I was so unaware of the heights and my comment definitely requested you provide them....I stand corrected?? GEEZ! We have some great reading skills here don't we. Just get back to news about the tower in summary.....not arguing over what constitutes height of a tower vs the design and such.....GEEZ AGAIN? Talk about clueless and unable to read a posting!

I was tending to the debate in the above posts, and to be honest with you there is no need for you to act like a smartass. You would think what I was doing.

[CoolCzech]

Its NOT taller than sears and not bigger and taller than old WTC. Spires Suck!

Oh, give it a REST already. What are the upper reaches of the Burj Dubai, if not a desperately elongated spire with mini-floors, a la the mooring mast of the ESB? What metaphysical difference, exactly, does it make it a structure is inhabited by people or by broadcast equipment?

Time has demonstrated the wisdom of Libeskind's concept of a symbolic height for the FT: no one the day it was proposed could have predicted the taller towers planned and already built today. The height of the FT is STILL symbolic because of what it represents, whereas no one now can remember the height of the Petronas, unless they are an utter geek.

The FT's roof height equals that of the old Twins. That ALONE demonstrates that anyone who claims the FT is somehow not "tall" is a clown.

[CarlosV]

foto courtesy of from alonzo-ny wny

http://i10.tinypic.com/4xvom7l.jpg

David Child's blatant rip-off of the Freedom Tower for Astana, Kazakhstan :(

[Alliance]

NYC is a kind of city where you can expect new buildings to be taller 1368'.
I mean, if you say that they are building a 1368' roof to some guy, he may reply "They hit 1250' feet waaay back in 1931 ! What's the big deal if they make a building taller only by about hundred feet, 80 years later"

Yet, for some people 1368' is still very tall. They're NOT wrong about anything. Its just that every person has his/her own different way of thinking.

Yeah. You need to cork it. Big time.

That being said, I think roof height will become the official height mesurement and by that standard, its shorter than Sears. I'm honestly surprized that they didn't go for what would have been #1 in the US. I think the 1776 imo is a lame gimmick. I'd rather see an alpha dog building.

But this building is such a wierd combination of Liebskind's vision and political wrangling, I'm not surprised (and I'm probably not alone) that I have some feeling of lost potential in Freedom Tower. The highlights of WTC imo, are WTC2 and 3.

...but hey, apparently Kazakhstan thinks its worth of a rip off.

[CitySkyline]

...
That being said, I think roof height will become the official height mesurement and by that standard, its shorter than Sears. I'm honestly surprized that they didn't go for what would have been #1 in the US. I think the 1776 imo is a lame gimmick. I'd rather see an alpha dog building.
...


You have to remember what the mood was like here in NY soon after 9/11. There was all this talk about building short so there wouldn't be any new targets for the terrorists, etc. I was genuinely worried at the beginning that they were going to put up a bunch of short towers (or, no towers at all! Don't forget that some people were clamoring for the whole site to be just a memorial :rolleyes: )

Fast forward a few years later and I was genuinely shocked (in a pleasant way) when they revealed a building as tall as WTC (not counting the spire). I'm not talking about the previous design with the wind-mills, I mean the current design, where we'd actually be getting real floors all the way to the top.

I suppose they could've made it even taller (roof height, I mean) but I believe there were still apprehensive people among the designer/politicians, wondering if companies would actually want to work in such a tall building. And, some thought that building so high would appear arrogant and foolish.

Today, the fear brought on by 9/11 is quickly becoming a distant memory and companies seem eager to return to the area. But by now, it's too late for yet another design change (and I'm one New Yorker who is tired of the delays!)

You put it all together and I'm not surprised they didn't build it higher. But, since I remember how tall and big the Twin Towers were (especially when viewed from the ground), I'm more than satisfied with the height of FT. (As an aside, I'll mention that I've been to the Sears Tower and from the ground, it doesn't appear as tall as the Twins did, for the simple reason that it "tapers" as it goes up, whereas the Twins were solid straight walls all the way up; while it does taper slightly, the FT will similarly have walls that go all the way up to the top, which is a design element I'm glad we'll be getting!)

Let's remember that the original WTC stopped being the World's Tallest a long time ago. We New Yorkers got used to not having the tallest. Oh, well, no biggie! (no pun intended ;) )

[aluminum]

All the time, I was trying to imagine FT to be 1776' roof with exactly same shape, and people lookin' at it from liberty island and sayin'
" Wow ! Now that is something !"
But if you New Yorkers yourself hate this idea like hell, No problem man !

[Scruffy]

one other factor thats important to remember is that this is after all a financial venture. when the roofline went up from the birdcage tower to this one, every called this the white elephant cause no one would want to lease space in it. terrorist target, bad mojo, whatever reason they had. so on a financial stand point, it didn't make sense to build another million sq feet and have the roofline go up another 400 feet. it would have been nice but not a good investment. now though, with the office space demand what it is, it might have been worth it. maybe not. towers 2,3,4 really do not have major tenants except for the ones the city itself put there to fill space.

[aluminum]

^^^ The recent upturn in office demand in NY has been great. Another 25 floors on top of FT are nothing as compared to the total office space being planned for coming years in NY.

[SNT1]

Wow. I know 1WTC's spire is sketchy at best, but I never thought there are anti-Spire Nazi's around here. Will we bitch about 1WTC until it's T/O? Or maybe forever?

Speaking of which, 1WTC's basic shape is ripped off Philippines' proposed Lopez Center (its a SOM design, and proposed just before 1997's Asian financial crisis)

[Dr. Taco]

^^ guys?? ^ whats up with ^ all of this ^^^ crap?? ^^
I thought this kind of stuff was for when the building was under proposal.... Lets see some construction pics!


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/jstush04/simbuild.jpg

so, who thinks this shape will be the new box?
The Kazakhstan copy is much more of a ripoff of freedom tower than FT is of Lopez, IMHO

[br.reese]

Whatever goes up, they'll have a passion to take it down.........

[PIZ]

How could you say the the discussion of the height of a skyscraper on a skyscraper forum is irrelevant? :koko:

The fact remains that when completed the Freedom Tower will be the tallest in the United States next to the Chicago Spire.

Chicago Spire- 2,000 ft
Freedom Tower- 1,776 ft
Sears Tower- 1,721 ft

The Freedom Tower is taller by 55 ft. That is the plain simple fact.



I don't mean to get into a debate here, but just to voice my opinion. Considering Spires as a final height? I never looked at how tall a house was counting the chimney as part of it's height, I always felt that the highest point to a building should be considered by the highest point a human being can stand on (that being the roof in most cases). This being said, the Sears Towers Sky-deck is higher then the roof of the freedom tower, I do not see how Spires ever gotten to the point of being considered in the final height! Counting the spire is basically saying to developers "Go ahead, you can cheat, add a spire, we will count it!". So I can go and build a building 500 feet tall, add a 2000 foot spire to it, and claim it as the worlds tallest!! Come on now people, spires are non-sense! If you look at the Petronas Towers next to the Sears Tower, it is so evident which building is taller, Sears Tower looks so much more massive and taller then Petronas Towers!! I think the person who designed the Freedom Tower added such a tall Spire just because of the fear that no one would go in the building if the roof was to 1,776 feet, they are cheating and getting away with it, plain and simple!!:( ..........'PIZ'

[aluminum]

^^^PIZ, you are always perfectly right,man. Completely, totally agree with your post.

[Dac150]

I would not say by putting the spire on the Freedom Tower is "cheating". It's more solid and incorporated into the design than the antennas on the Sears Tower.

[aluminum]

^^^ At least Sears tower doesn't count the height of its antennas and therefore doesn't cheat. 1451' official is the perfect base to roof height of the building. Neither does JHC and if it did, it would've become the 2nd tallest completed building the world ! Nor does the antenna on top of ESB, neither did our very own WTC north tower !

[Dr. Taco]

go ahead, just keeeeep talking about it

[Dac150]

^^^ At least Sears tower doesn't count the height of its antennas and therefore doesn't cheat. 1451' is the perfect base to roof height of the building.

Thats the Sears Tower, this is the Freedom Tower, and whether you like it or not the spire will be counted into the final height. Deal with it.

[Chi649]

I don't mean to get into a debate here, but just to voice my opinion. Considering Spires as a final height? I never looked at how tall a house was counting the chimney as part of it's height, I always felt that the highest point to a building should be considered by the highest point a human being can stand on (that being the roof in most cases). This being said, the Sears Towers Sky-deck is higher then the roof of the freedom tower, I do not see how Spires ever gotten to the point of being considered in the final height! Counting the spire is basically saying to developers "Go ahead, you can cheat, add a spire, we will count it!". So I can go and build a building 500 feet tall, add a 2000 foot spire to it, and claim it as the worlds tallest!! Come on now people, spires are non-sense! If you look at the Petronas Towers next to the Sears Tower, it is so evident which building is taller, Sears Tower looks so much more massive and taller then Petronas Towers!! I think the person who designed the Freedom Tower added such a tall Spire just because of the fear that no one would go in the building if the roof was to 1,776 feet, they are cheating and getting away with it, plain and simple!!:( ..........'PIZ'I don't see the issue of counting spires as a black and white one. To me, it's all about THE PERCEPTION of how tall the building is. If a spire significantly contributes to how tall you perceive that building to be, then I have no problem with it being counted in the official height. It looks like FT's spire will be robust so I think it should be counted. Of couse, it takes more engineering and is far more impressive to have a roof height of 1776' as opposed to a spire, but will the tower actually appear taller? To me that should be the gold standard when doing a comparative height analysis of two buildings. To say that spires count for nothing really goes against my logic, but to each his own :).

[Para]

I always used to think spires should count for something, stemming from the fact that buildings had taken the height record from the Sears Tower, a building I hold in high regard, by just a few feet of roof height. So I was always the type to say "Well, Sears is still taller." But after reading a bit about tall buildings, really, spires suck.

I always think that the most powerful example is that I could add a 3000 foot spire on my house and have the tallest building in the world. It shouldn't be that way and I'm happy that whatever commission decided that tall buildings won't be counted by spires made the decision that they did.

Roof height all the way.

[STERNyc]

Who cares?

[Dac150]

Who cares?

Obviously a lot of people. I for one never did and still do not.

[Atlriser]

Still on this crap....lord, moderator please step in

[SNT1]

If you think its height should be 1368, so be it. If it's 1776, so be it. Remember, roof height and spire height /total structural height are only two separate CTBUH categories.

For example, if you lurk in the Burj Dubai threads, it seems like the benchmark of its height is the Sears, moreso than Petronas and T101. I dont think Petronas is ever mentioned at all in that thread. So if you think lie this (I do), more power to ya! It doesn't matter.

Btw, this topic sucks. Not posting about it aymore--

[Dac150]

Same goes for me, how about we talk about something that actually matters. Perhaps the actual construction.

[SNT1]

Same goes for me, how about we talk about something that actually matters. Perhaps the actual construction.

A good idea.... only if there's actual construction going on!!! ZZZIIING!!!!:jester:

just kidding.

[TAFisher123]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/jstush04/simbuild.jpg

Kazakhstan, number one, exporter of potassium....other countries have inferior levels of potassium......that plaza will give the town rapist somewhere to go....I like very much :tup: U S and A copy that towers

[cactus22minus1]

Draw your own conclusions and deal with it. [shrug]

http://www.cactus22minus1.com/pics/FreedomSears.jpg

[Dac150]

See, the Freedom Towers is hands down taller than the Sears Tower no matter anyway you slice it.

That diagram should end all of aluminum's and anyone elses yapping about which building is taller.

[cactus22minus1]

^What? Something I think EVERYONE would agree on is that it's NOT the same any way you slice it... There's two basic ways to slice it: spires count, or they don't. Now look at the diagram again...

And we're back to square one... so how about everyone deals with it on their own cause everyone is not going to agree. That means no snide 'told ya so' remarks from either side...

[Dalton]

^^ guys?? ^ whats up with ^ all of this ^^^ crap?? ^^
I thought this kind of stuff was for when the building was under proposal.... Lets see some construction pics!


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y6/jstush04/simbuild.jpg

so, who thinks this shape will be the new box?
The Kazakhstan copy is much more of a ripoff of freedom tower than FT is of Lopez, IMHO

When you see the three together, you begin to appreciate the well-proportioned simple pure beauty of the Freedom Tower design. It won't be long after it's completed before it becomes a classic icon of New York City - and America. Add in 2 and 3 WTC and the new complex will be stunning. I can't for the life of me understand why so many people hate it. I only hope I live long enough to see it completed. :haha:

[Dac150]

In over all height: the Freedom Tower is taller

In roof height: the Sears Tower is taller

That is the only way to slice it. Some will think spires count and others won't.

[CarlosV]

courtesy of PANYNJ

:tup: keep it coming love...

http://www.panynj.gov/info/images/wtc_progress5.jpg



http://www.panynj.gov/info/images/wtc_progress2.jpg



http://www.panynj.gov/info/images/wtc_progress4.jpg



http://www.panynj.gov/info/images/wtc_progress3.jpg

[Dr. Taco]

hallelujah, thank you SO MUCH for the pics!!

[aluminum]

In over all height: the Freedom Tower is taller

In roof height: the Sears Tower is taller

That is the only way to slice it. Some will think spires count and others won't.

Also 'the highest habitable floor' is 3rd and last way to slice it, I read it somewhere.
Anyways, NICE UPDATE pussy willow, thanks.

[br.reese]

Are all the buildings going up at the same time in the same hole?

[Daquan13]

Eventually, they should ALL be rising almost simutaneously, with one not too far behind the other.

We should see that start happening next year.

[aluminum]

And they all will be nearing completion in around 2011.
It will be an interesting site to see how all those 4 buildings rise together, 1 or 2 years later.

[sfcity1]

There is also a #5 that will be rising at the same time I think, 123 washinginton and goldman sacks may be done. Very substantial development in such a developed area. This will be fun to watch.

[Dac150]

I garuntee that 90% of all people who say they hate tower 5 will like it once its completed.

Look at it this way. One of the meanings of the World Trade Center is diversity. All of the new buildings going up are divirse (different). Tower 5 will be very different. I think over time the building will be more liked and appreciated because its different from any other building in the city. I believe it will an impressive site to see.

[Arriviste]

In over all height: the Freedom Tower is taller

In roof height: the Sears Tower is taller

That is the only way to slice it. Some will think spires count and others won't.

Spires don't count, and everyone knows that. The only people who disagree with that are individuals who are insecure as to the height of their beloved building. A spire is ornamentation and serves no real purpose other than inflating the ego's of rabid boosters. It's fucking tall regardless. Why does it matter?

[aluminum]

With so many buildings rising or about to rise, what's the total development happening in downtown, ( in msf) ?

[BTinSF]

And they all will be nearing completion in around 2011.
It will be an interesting site to see how all those 4 buildings rise together, 1 or 2 years later.

Lucky there won't be palm trees in the pics so we'll know it isn't Dubai. ;)

[Dac150]

Spires don't count, and everyone knows that. The only people who disagree with that are individuals who are insecure as to the height of their beloved building. A spire is ornamentation and serves no real purpose other than inflating the ego's of rabid boosters. It's fucking tall regardless. Why does it matter?

Look I stand by the fact that spires do count in final building height. The spire of the Freedom Tower is incorporated into the design to serve a prupose for the building. The antennas of the Sears Tower are just two sticks added by broadcasting companies that can be removed at any time. The spire of the Freedom Tower is permanent.

And if you feel that way do you think the spires of the ESB and Chrysler should not be considered in the final height? If you don't then you are clearly out of your mind.

An antenna (broadcasting/radio/tv) does not count in the final structural height. That is why Petronas beat out the Sears Tower.

A spire is incorporated into the design to function as an ornate portion of the building.

Bottom line: Spires count and antennas do not. You can go to any architect, engineer, or developer in the world and he/she would tell you just that.

(And by the way.........if you feel spires do not count for anything, then the u/c Chicago Spire must mean nothing. After all its one big spire.) You hear how stupid that sounds. SPIRES COUNT

And saying that people who think spires count are "insecure" is just plain childish.

[Tom Servo]

And by the way.........if you feel spires do not count for anything, then the u/c Chicago Spire must mean nothing. After all its one big spire.) You hear how stupid that sounds. SPIRES COUNT

And saying that people who think spires count are "insecure" is just plain childish.
:previous: :tantrum: :previous:


:haha: :lmao: dude, you're hilarious! i'm pretty sure the CS is a building, but i could be wrong. second, you stand on the roof of the FT and i'll stand on the roof of Sears, and who's looking down at whom? third, wow, give it up... the pointy stick on top of the FT bump its official height over sears', no one is arguing that. and untill CTBUH changes what 'official height' is, you win. jeeez. :tup:

[Arriviste]

Look I stand by the fact that spires do count in final building height. The spire of the Freedom Tower is incorporated into the design to serve a prupose for the building. The antennas of the Sears Tower are just two sticks added by broadcasting companies that can be removed at any time. The spire of the Freedom Tower is permanent.

And if you feel that way do you think the spires of the ESB and Chrysler should not be considered in the final height? If you don't then you are clearly out of your mind.

An antenna (broadcasting/radio/tv) does not count in the final structural height. That is why Petronas beat out the Sears Tower.

A spire is incorporated into the design to function as an ornate portion of the building.

Bottom line: Spires count and antennas do not. You can go to any architect, engineer, or developer in the world and he/she would tell you just that.

(And by the way.........if you feel spires do not count for anything, then the u/c Chicago Spire must mean nothing. After all its one big spire.) You hear how stupid that sounds. SPIRES COUNT

And saying that people who think spires count are "insecure" is just plain childish.


All right Chief.
I'm going to let it go. I forgot who I was trying to converse with.

[Dac150]

We need to stop ruining this thread for the people who enjoy viewing it including myself. There is no need to debate something that people are going to have different opinions about. Lets just call it quits and enjoy watching the construction progress.

[Swede]

http://www.rationalresponders.com/system/files/images/AwJeezNotThisSheetAgain1.jpg
Dac's right. None of the endless 'Do Spires Count?' bickering here. This thread is about the Freedom Tower/1 WTC. So keep it on topic. If you wanna talk about spires, there's the Buildings & Architecture (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13) forum.

Now don't do it again.

[Dalton]

I agree. It's senseless comparing the Freedom Tower to what will soon be the second tallest building in North America anyway. The Chicago Spire will have no spire or antenna and its roof will be a couple hundred feet taller than the Freedom Tower's spire. Case Closed.

[aluminum]

What's the total development happening in downtown including the FT and other WTC buildings , ( in msf) ?

[Daquan13]

Spires don't count, and everyone knows that. The only people who disagree with that are individuals who are insecure as to the height of their beloved building. A spire is ornamentation and serves no real purpose other than inflating the ego's of rabid boosters. It's fucking tall regardless. Why does it matter?



Be that as it may, this is what the officials want, this is how it's going to be built, and this is what the final decision is. End of story.

[37TimPPG]

I am just glad they are building this building regardless of what the final name will be. I can remember a time after that awful day in September when people were saying the skyscraper was through and that no buildings taller than 50 stories would be constructed.

I say we've come a long way:cheers:

[Dac150]

Be that as it may, this is what the officials want, this is how it's going to be built, and this is what the final decision is.

:tup:

[Dac150]

What's the total development happening in downtown including the FT and other WTC buildings , ( in msf) ?

I thought I heard it was a little less than the original WTC, but from looking at the new complex I don't see how that is.

[JMGarcia]

Buildings have a height to the highest occupied floor, to the roof, to any architectural element on top (including spires) and to antennas. That's it. There's four heights. The case is closed. Now, back on topic before I have to start deleting all the silly boosterim.

[Ghost]

Pics from June (From Port Authority of NY and NJ)
June 2007 - Freedom Tower Foundations (See # 8 (http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/WTCSiteOverlay9.jpg))
http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/gallery/wtcth/2007/06/fredmtwr01.jpg

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/gallery/wtcth/2007/06/fredmtwr02.jpg

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/gallery/wtcth/2007/06/fredmtwr03.jpg

http://www.pathrestoration.com/drp/images/gallery/wtcth/2007/06/fredmtwr04.jpg

[Daquan13]

Buildings have a height to the highest occupied floor, to the roof, to any architectural element on top (including spires) and to antennas. That's it. There's four heights. The case is closed. Now, back on topic before I have to start deleting all the silly boosterim.



I'll just be so damn glad to see the whole thing built, open for business and millions of people happy. It's far better than some of the designs that we might have gotten!

[liat91]

Buildings have a height to the highest occupied floor, to the roof, to any architectural element on top (including spires) and to antennas. That's it. There's four heights. The case is closed. Now, back on topic before I have to start deleting all the silly boosterim.

I wonder since whatever committee decided to start counting spires as a buildings official height, could they in essence change their minds and start counting buildings to their roof heights as the official height? And if that happened there would be alot of buildings which would fall off the tallest of the tall list. Is it possible the ruling of official height could be changed?

[Alliance]

I wonder since whatever committee decided to start counting spires as a buildings official height, could they in essence change their minds and start counting buildings to their roof heights as the official height? And if that happened there would be alot of buildings which would fall off the tallest of the tall list. Is it possible the ruling of official height could be changed?
CTBUH is in charge of that distinction and there have been serious challenges to the traditional "height by spire" definition. They've added the antenna, roof, and HOF definitions recently.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if they change the definition to height by roof or HOF within the next few years.

[CoolCzech]

CTBUH is in charge of that distinction and there have been serious challenges to the traditional "height by spire" definition. They've added the antenna, roof, and HOF definitions recently.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if they change the definition to height by roof or HOF within the next few years.

- CTBUH can come up with whatever definition they fancy, and it won't change the dimensions of any building in the world by one iota. Let's do try to remember that CTBUH is a self-appointed group of people no more "charged" with "the responsibility" to make a ruling on the relative merits of buildings than the local boyscout troop is.

When I look at the figures of the Sears and FT side by side, I see two very impressive, very nice towers. Nothing the CTBUH has to say can change that.

[Daquan13]

CTBUH is in charge of that distinction and there have been serious challenges to the traditional "height by spire" definition. They've added the antenna, roof, and HOF definitions recently.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if they change the definition to height by roof or HOF within the next few years.



Ddn't you guys just read JMGarca's post?

Keep that up and we may loose ths thread. I don't want that to happen.

[Independence]

Height is a whole different thing than appearance.

I'm sure there were many people who (before Taipei 101) thought 'Hey, the Petronas Towers. Wow. That's one big ass motherf*cker of a building. Its even taller than Sears!!!'

What I mean is quite simple. Look at the diagrams of the current WTBs.

Compared to the Sears Tower, the Petronas Towers are actually looking 'small' and skinny!

Their spire increased height gives the impression of being massive. But they aren't! Sears is a much more hulking heavyweight than the two Petronas twrs together. It's the same with Taipei 101, which is pretty skinny at the Top.

Height for itself can only be a numeric criteria for comparison. In the end, it all depends on the individual apperance and bulkyness of a building.

To stay in Chicago, the Chicago Spire could become a stick insect compared to Sears, even if it's much taller.

Same for the NYC-Chicago battle. Sears will always be taller than 1WTC, and will have much more mass, of course. A spire that reaches 1776ft will not help. In terms of apperance, that is.

I hope you can figure out what I mean. Giving auch explainations is definitely not my thing. :rolleyes:

[Daquan13]

:offtopic: :offtopic:

[Independence]

Can someone please explain what the coloumns that are already in place are supposed to be part of? And if these coloumns have to take structural load of the tower, where will their counterparts, for example on the opposite side of the lot be installed? I mean, there's the subway running under the remains of the parking structure... I always wonder about that, since the tower seems to be crimped into the northwest corner of the bathtub...

[Daquan13]

The infrastrucrure. That part won't start rising above street level until next year. Columns will also be installed between the PATH tracks to help support the tower and its base.

The PATH tracks will once again be covered up and well hidden from view, just like they were when the Twins were built.

[CarlosV]

^

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!!!



August 13, 2007

I took a stroll today at the construction site of the WTC...IT WAS CHUCK FULL OF ACTIVITY EVERYWHERE!!!



a purple steel structure has already begun to rise above street level east of the WTC 1 foundations......i did not take a pic of it, but will next time..



sorry about the steel mesh screen covering the view...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/Picture092-1.jpg


:yes:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/Picture094-1.jpg



:cool:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/Picture096-1.jpg



;)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/Picture097-1.jpg



:P


the original "white" freedom tower steel column (half of it) is already covered in concrete...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/Picture099.jpg

[Ghost]

Great update Carlos! Thank you very much. Glad to see finally something new there.

btw what's that crane there far away?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/Picture096-1.jpg

[CarlosV]

that crane? yeah....i'd say 200 feet away from where i stood?? perhaps...

[Independence]

The infrastrucrure. That part won't start rising above street level until next year. Columns will also be installed between the PATH tracks to help support the tower and its base.

The PATH tracks will once again be covered up and well hidden from view, just like they were when the Twins were built.

BETWEEN the PATH tracks? Are you kidding?
Support of the TOWER and it's base? Isn't it quite risky to place support columns >>b e t w e e n<< the subway tracks? :(
Just because they're called support columns doesn't mean that they
aren't necessary for the structural integrity of the tower, I suppose...?!?

What if someone detonates a bomb down there? Almost like those madmen have tried to blow the old Twins in 1993...
I don't want to start a panic, but I hope that everything will be done for not making the tower a possible target (again).

Claimed as the most secure new office tower in the USA - It would be very disturbing if it was extremely vulnerable at a place that is easy to access just by riding on a PATH train.

Let's hope not.:shrug:

[CarlosV]

I took the PATH train this morning from JErsey City and the train DOES NOT pass anywhere near the freedom Tower foundation....once the train enters manhattan....you can see the construction to the north........

[Independence]

I took the PATH train this morning from JErsey City and the train DOES NOT pass anywhere near the freedom Tower foundation....once the train enters manhattan....you can see the construction to the north........

That's not the whole truth. When you head back to New Jersey, the PATH tracks are running right next to the foundation, in fact, you can say that the train has to go AROUND the foundation of the tower before it disappears into the tunnel under the Hudson.

[CarlosV]

mmmm maybe...

[Complex01]

Wow, looks really busy. Nice to see all the work going on...

:yes:

[Daquan13]

BETWEEN the PATH tracks? Are you kidding?
Support of the TOWER and it's base? Isn't it quite risky to place support columns >>b e t w e e n<< the subway tracks? :(
Just because they're called support columns doesn't mean that they
aren't necessary for the structural integrity of the tower, I suppose...?!?

What if someone detonates a bomb down there? Almost like those madmen have tried to blow the old Twins in 1993...
I don't want to start a panic, but I hope that everything will be done for not making the tower a possible target (again).

Claimed as the most secure new office tower in the USA - It would be very disturbing if it was extremely vulnerable at a place that is easy to access just by riding on a PATH train.

Let's hope not.:shrug:



Oh, the tracks were MOVED to allow the foundation's holes to be dug for the support clolumns.

Don't you remember when the PATH tracks were centralized right into the underground frameworks and infrastructure of the Twins when they were being built? This will almost be like the same thing.

Pussy Willow, on the north side, it's probably dark over there heading back to New Jersey. Maybe you'd want to put your great talents to work, take a few pics there just before the train leaves Ground Zero back into the tunnel, and post them here so that we can get an idea what it looks lke over on that side.

[theWatusi]

Awesome update P.W.

Im supprised at the amount of progress. Things are moving up! :tup:

[Scruffy]

that far off crane is the visionaire. one of the last plots of Battery Park city. about 6 blocks from wtc

[CarlosV]

:banana: :banana: :banana:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/nyctowers/2007/Picture098.jpg

[ATLksuGUY]

:previous: What exactly am i lookin at carlos, is that a pour about to take place?????