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

[Thaniel]

“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]

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]

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. :tup:

[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]

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]

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]

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1468534_560366110707298_2030966423_n.jpg

[ILNY]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/nyregion/residents-suing-to-stop-fortresslike-security-plan-for-world-trade-center.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0

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

By DAVID W. DUNLAP
Published: November 13, 2013


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/11/13/nyregion/14BLOCKS1/14BLOCKS1-articleLarge.jpg
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

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/11/13/nyregion/14BLOCKS2/14BLOCKS2-popup.jpg
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-]

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]

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]

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]

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? :rolleyes:


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

[ArtDecoRevival]

BINGO! That's the way to go, in my opinion. In fact, it's the new standard just recently adopted by BuildingHeights.org (http://buildingheights.org/?t=official-building-heights-definition) (which is published by Phorio). By this rule One WTC is 12th tallest in the world (http://buildingheights.org/?t=worlds-tallest-buildings).

Here's a comparison between the CTBUH standard ("architectural height") on the left and Phorio's ("building mass height") on the right:

http://buildingheights.org/images/oldrule-vs-newrule_low.png?v=5

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. :koko:

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.

[jcrm2]

I won't be surprise Chicago does approve an 1800ft-2000ft tower sooner than later. It seems to me no disrespect, that they always have to out do New York for some reason. Ever since the 60's-70's, its like we built the twins, they build something taller. We put an antenna on the tower 1, they add another feet to their tower antenna to make it the taller than tower 1. Our twins got destroyed, they proposed an WTC twin towers complex of their own. New York approved 1776ft One WTC, here comes Chicago trying to approve an 2000ft lake front Chicago spire. It's just an constant try to out do battle that Chicago does with New York weather is towers, pizza, professional sport teams, famous ppl, environment, list goes on.

[xiaomianlong]

If the Sears Building will calculate the mast height, Also cannot transcend the one world trade center height.

http://pic2.qnpic.com/doimg/fanjoin/212fb9cd/

[MrSlippery519]

At the end of the day does it really matter?? I am not sure why everyone gets so worked up about some agency who claims one building is taller than the next...who cares??

Every building has a roof height and either a crown, spire or antenna which are all easily distinguished I wont go over the details for the millionth time in this thread.

So who really cares? Willis has a higher roof height and the WTC has a higher spire height so what?

both buildings are great

[ArtDecoRevival]

If the Sears Building will calculate the mast height, Also cannot transcend the one world trade center height.

http://pic2.qnpic.com/doimg/fanjoin/212fb9cd/

Height aside for a moment. When I look at that comparison, I really don't see what's THAT bad about One WTC. :shrug: Like I said, I don't love it. It's not as visionary or daring as it should have been. But compared to the Sears Tower (I refuse to call it Willis), it looks just as good, if not better. It's certainly not a bad tower.

[nomad11]

Funny video of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart talking about the "tower record" concerning World Trade vs. Willis Tower...pretty funny P.S. I'M NOT TRYING TO START CITY VS. CITY CONFLICT...IT'S JUST A JOKE, ENJOY
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-13-2013/tower-record

[NYC GUY]

Funny video of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart talking about the "tower record" concerning World Trade vs. Willis Tower...pretty funny P.S. I'M NOT TRYING TO START CITY VS. CITY CONFLICT...IT'S JUST A JOKE, ENJOY
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-13-2013/tower-record

I started dying with the New York Pizza vs Chicago Pizza. :D:D

[The North One]

Height aside for a moment. When I look at that comparison, I really don't see what's THAT bad about One WTC. :shrug: Like I said, I don't love it. It's not as visionary or daring as it should have been. But compared to the Sears Tower (I refuse to call it Willis), it looks just as good, if not better. It's certainly not a bad tower.

You're kidding right? Sears is an architectural masterpiece of it's time, there really is nothing like it. OWTC on the other hand, not so much. Honestly if OWTC didn't have any spire or rings on top of it and had just a clean flat roof it would look a million times better. As it is now the top is a hot mess.

[Chicago103]

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.


You forgot that skyscraper geeks who are of the school of thought that roof height should be the deciding factor and/or those who are not connived from a technical standpoint that it is a spire and not a mast but I get your overall point.;)

[meh_cd]

I won't be surprise Chicago does approve an 1800ft-2000ft tower sooner than later. It seems to me no disrespect, that they always have to out do New York for some reason. Ever since the 60's-70's, its like we built the twins, they build something taller. We put an antenna on the tower 1, they add another feet to their tower antenna to make it the taller than tower 1. Our twins got destroyed, they proposed an WTC twin towers complex of their own. New York approved 1776ft One WTC, here comes Chicago trying to approve an 2000ft lake front Chicago spire. It's just an constant try to out do battle that Chicago does with New York weather is towers, pizza, professional sport teams, famous ppl, environment, list goes on.

Oh give me a break. This ruling isn't an insult to Chicago - it is an insult to almost every city that is outside of NYC. Especially Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Get over yourself, seriously. Chicago didn't even do anything during this "competition." Talk about a victim complex.

[Chicago103]

Oh give me a break. This ruling isn't an insult to Chicago - it is an insult to almost every city that is outside of NYC. Especially Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Get over yourself, seriously. Chicago didn't even do anything during this "competition." Talk about a victim complex.

Yeah, to me the tallest in the world/USA has been much less about competition between cities and more just a desire to top the tallest building before it. Otherwise why did New York City keep topping it's own buildings for most of the 20th century when they already had the world's tallest title? I don't think it was because they feared Chicago or some other city would build a taller building, no, it was a battle of ego between architects (40 Wall vs. Chrysler) or between corporations wanting to top each other. Sears Roebuck and Company didn't think up the Sears Tower as a way to stick it to New York City, no, it was about their corporate headquarters as the tallest building in the world.

[antinimby]

And even if Chicago really did wanted to compete with NY, is that so wrong? I think a little healthy rivalry is always good for both cities.

[sw5710]

Oh give me a break. This ruling isn't an insult to Chicago - it is an insult to almost every city that is outside of NYC. Especially Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Get over yourself, seriously. Chicago didn't even do anything during this "competition." Talk about a victim complex.
I don't know about an insult to every other building? This is not the 1st time a mast structure or pipe like structure is called a spire. NYC has more then one building in midtown that are a mast. The same with those other city's around the world have masts or thin spires on top of there buildings that give them unused xtra height. The worlds tallest building has a 5' pipe on top and over 500' of unused space to crown it.

[sw5710]

[QUOTE=meh_cd;6339725]Oh give me a break. This ruling isn't an insult to Chicago - it is an insult to almost every city that is outside of NYC. Especially Shanghai and Hong Kong.


This is not the 1st time a mast structure is called a spire. NYC has more then one other building in midtown that have them. Some of those other city's around the world have masts or thin spires on top of there buildings that give extra height. The worlds tallest building had a 400' pipe like structure jacked up and over 500' of unused space to crown it.

[Plokoon11]

you know they say not to talk about politics or religion at dinner or family get togethers. We might as well as add the topic of roof hieght vs antennas to that list of topics not to talk about.

[AusTex]

I don't know about an insult to every other building? This is not the 1st time a mast structure or pipe like structure is called a spire. NYC has more then one building in midtown that are a mast. The same with those other city's around the world have masts or thin spires on top of there buildings that give them unused xtra height. The worlds tallest building has a 5' pipe on top and over 500' of unused space to crown it.

All said and done: Tallest occupied building with anything on top. Tallest human occupied, as rented/owned and used every day, for everyday life, finished floor height. As the Willis has the glass floor height. ...... And then keep adding the criteria that makes one happy. :cheers:

you know they say not to talk about politics or religion at dinner or family get togethers. We might as well as add the topic of roof hieght vs antennas to that list of topics not to talk about.

It is just those who are overly passionate about this....on sites like this one! OWTC is the tallest and Willis is the Tallest. :tup: And now living in Austin, TEXAS... our hats are taller than yours! ;):rolleyes::D

[deepen915]

the Jon Stewart clip was hilarious! I'm dying lol

[deepen915]

Funny video of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart talking about the "tower record" concerning World Trade vs. Willis Tower...pretty funny P.S. I'M NOT TRYING TO START CITY VS. CITY CONFLICT...IT'S JUST A JOKE, ENJOY
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-13-2013/tower-record

made my day! thanks for sharing! :tup:

[Thaniel]

Height aside for a moment. When I look at that comparison, I really don't see what's THAT bad about One WTC. :shrug: Like I said, I don't love it. It's not as visionary or daring as it should have been. But compared to the Sears Tower (I refuse to call it Willis), it looks just as good, if not better. It's certainly not a bad tower.

It is a blatant ripoff of the NYSE Tower that was never built. But I like the tower design for the most part. I've gone back and forth about liking the comm rings and hating them. I used to criticize people who would say "the only problem is there isn't two of them. But now I think I'd mostly agree with that. 2 WTC will look awesome but having two tower designed like One WTC would have been awesome also. I think that was one of the things about the original towers that made them less unsightly was that there was two of them. One of them standing alone would have been an eyesore.

[xnyr]

made my day! thanks for sharing! :tup:

+1 Loved that pizza rip.

[NewYorque]

There are still some of you who don't accept that 1WTC is considered as taller than the Sears Tower...

However, if we forget all this bullshit about antenna, spire, rooftop, etc, we have to admit that, YES, 1WTC is TALLER than the Sears Tower.

It is 541m.
Sears is 527m.

YES, 1WTC is INDEED the tallest building in the western hemisphere. There's no need to worry about that.

[Nomadd22]

There are still some of you who don't accept that 1WTC is considered as taller than the Sears Tower...

However, if we forget all this bullshit about antenna, spire, rooftop, etc, we have to admit that, YES, 1WTC is TALLER than the Sears Tower.

It is 541m.
Sears is 527m.

YES, 1WTC is INDEED the tallest building in the western hemisphere. There's no need to worry about that.

No, if you forget about all that stuff, the CN tower is the tallest building in the hemisphere.

[franktko]

No, if you forget about all that stuff, the CN tower is the tallest building in the hemisphere.

CN Tower has never been considered a building.

[weidncol]

One WTC is the tallest building, CN tower is the tallest structure. There's a big difference there.

[Jonboy1983]

Wow, John Steward had me cracking up! From One World Trade Center vs. Willis Tower, to New York vs Chicago, to a complete nuking of the deep dish pizza!

Great stuff!!

BTW, One World Trade Center and Willis Tower are both sweet pieces of structural engineering. :)

[weidncol]

JBTW, One World Trade Center and Willis Tower are both sweet pieces of structural engineering. :)

Couldn't agree more! The Willis Tower was one of the best buildings of its time. :cheers:

[gramsjdg]

One WTC is the tallest building, CN tower is the tallest structure. There's a big difference there.

I respectfully disagree.

If you are going to do as NewYorque says and "forget all this bullshit about antenna, spire, rooftop, etc" then you should also forget all the "bullshit" about building and structure, especially when the CN tower has plenty of enclosed, occupied floors like any other building. (and in particular, NO exposed mast structure anywhere) Not to mention the highest observation deck in the hemisphere. :cool:

[StrongIsland]

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

Lol that happened to my friend too, only she hid her stuff in the Burger King across from Tower 4 and somehow it was still there when we went back lmfao.

[Hudson11]

CN Tower is a communications/observation structure with an enclosed antenna like the ones atop Willis Tower. 1 WTC is an office tower with a spire, there's a difference. (at least by CTBUH's standards :shrug: )

[mdsayh1]

So let me get this straight....If I build a 10ft tall building to house an office and place a 2000ft antenna on top of it I now have the tallest building in the US at 2010ft? This should be easy.

[Crawford]

So let me get this straight....If I build a 10ft tall building to house an office and place a 2000ft antenna on top of it I now have the tallest building in the US at 2010ft? This should be easy.

If that antenna were actually a permanent structural spire, then yes, obviously.

I don't what is "easy" about this. In any case, go right ahead and build it if it floats your boat. Pretty much no one outside of SSP cares about things like this. To Joe Sixpack the Empire State is probably the world's tallest building.

[weidncol]

So let me get this straight....If I build a 10ft tall building to house an office and place a 2000ft antenna on top of it I now have the tallest building in the US at 2010ft? This should be easy.

Yeah, good luck getting the materials for the spire or even a contractor to help build it! :D

[599GTO]

You're kidding right? Sears is an architectural masterpiece of it's time, there really is nothing like it. OWTC on the other hand, not so much. Honestly if OWTC didn't have any spire or rings on top of it and had just a clean flat roof it would look a million times better. As it is now the top is a hot mess.

Sears Tower is ugly when comparing it to 1 WTC.

[Traynor]

So let me get this straight....If I build a 10ft tall building to house an office and place a 2000ft antenna on top of it I now have the tallest building in the US at 2010ft? This should be easy.

No.

According to CTBUH guidelines, the spire may not exceed more than 50 percent of the entire structure to be considered.

So it is theoretically possible to erect a a very tall building with a spire that is 49% of the whole height and it would ALL be considered for the official height.

Over a year ago I posted an exaggerated diagram of 1WTC that would technically be able to beat the Burj Khalifa for World's tallest:

http://i.imgur.com/1pDIE.jpg

However, the CTBUH still has a rule regarding percentage of usable space and we all know 1WTC has a large percentage of unusable floor-space already. So this may limit the height of the exaggerated spire they would accept.

But it does go to show how ridiculous and arbitrary the CTBUH rules really are.

[weidncol]

This picture shows just how amazing One WTC would have looked if they hadn't removed the radome.

http://i.imgur.com/OFMft5k.jpg

Sorry, but I can't put a thumbnail as the picture is WAY to big.

[CoolCzech]

No.

According to CTBUH guidelines, the spire may not exceed more than 50 percent of the entire structure to be considered.

So it is theoretically possible to erect a a very tall building with a spire that is 49% of the whole height and it would ALL be considered for the official height.

Over a year ago I posted an exaggerated diagram of 1WTC that would technically be able to beat the Burj Khalifa for World's tallest:

http://i.imgur.com/1pDIE.jpg

However, the CTBUH still has a rule regarding percentage of usable space and we all know 1WTC has a large percentage of unusable floor-space already. So this may limit the height of the exaggerated spire they would accept.

But it does go to show how ridiculous and arbitrary the CTBUH rules really are.

You know 100's of feet of the top of the Burj are unoccupied, right?

[Traynor]

You know 100's of feet of the top of the Burj are unoccupied, right?

Yes, and in the case of the Burj Khalifa it is only the top %29 percent of its total height (Or 788' feet 240m) which is unusable. So theoretically to still stay within the CTBUH's criteria, they could have added another 543' feet (166m) of Spire and be at only 49% of the total height. Which, by the way would have made the Burj Khalifa 3260' feet or 994m.

:)

[QUEENSNYMAN]

My latest video shot from Neponsit, and Breezy Point, Queens, today:

By QUEENSNY121:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDD-jPmirmg&feature=c4-overview&list=UUa3fF4f0jp_YrtzeCuNTf5A

[Thaniel]

No.

According to CTBUH guidelines, the spire may not exceed more than 50 percent of the entire structure to be considered.

So it is theoretically possible to erect a a very tall building with a spire that is 49% of the whole height and it would ALL be considered for the official height.

Over a year ago I posted an exaggerated diagram of 1WTC that would technically be able to beat the Burj Khalifa for World's tallest:

http://i.imgur.com/1pDIE.jpg



Looks like one I had made a while back too, lol:

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13042056/img/Anonymous/heights3.jpg

[chris123678]

Not sure if anyone has saw this:

http://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/fb12dcb1c73237ffca72e8391461d856/0x600.jpg?fit=scale&background=000000

http://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/fb57ba46b17448e59d5e43d24f946b6b/0x600.jpg?fit=scale&background=000000

http://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/217c6360be8040562088041f8a99a6b8/0x600.jpg?fit=scale&background=000000

We've come a long way from this

http://cbshartford.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/lobby-of-1wtc.jpg?w=348

[NYCLuver]

November 16th, 2013

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee429/dkny622/DSC00602.jpg (http://s1227.photobucket.com/user/dkny622/media/DSC00602.jpg.html)
http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee429/dkny622/DSC00619.jpg (http://s1227.photobucket.com/user/dkny622/media/DSC00619.jpg.html)

[cadiomals]

November 16th, 2013

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee429/dkny622/DSC00602.jpg (http://s1227.photobucket.com/user/dkny622/media/DSC00602.jpg.html)

See how the parapets for 4WTC and Goldman Sachs are lit up at night? I wish/hope they will end up doing that for the parapet atop 1WTC, because right now just lighting up the spire on its own while the roof below it remains dark just looks very weird. :fingerscrossed:

[Tectonic]

It does. The ring and 'spire' are disconnected from from the tower, at night and day.

[Silverfox]

That's because these are only temporary construction lights. The whole tower will be lit up with office lights when construction is done.

[Guiltyspark]

That's because these are only temporary construction lights. The whole tower will be lit up with office lights when construction is done.

AAAAAAAND, they will be lighting the mechanical floors. It will look fine at night.

[weidncol]

The construction lights will soon be replaced with actual office lights, same goes for 4 WTC. The mechanical floors will have LED's shining up at them like this:
http://www.nyhabitat.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/new-york-lower-manhattan-wtc-skyline-rendering-3.jpg

[Tectonic]

Lets see how that turns out
11.17.13

http://imageshack.us/a/img7/650/nwwu.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img196/9262/4i0p.jpg
©tectonic

[drumz0rz]

This picture shows just how amazing One WTC would have looked if they hadn't removed the radome.

http://i.imgur.com/OFMft5k.jpg

Sorry, but I can't put a thumbnail as the picture is WAY to big.
I kinda like those 3 vertical lines they had extending down from the roof. Shame they did away with those.

[NYC GUY]

I kinda like those 3 vertical lines they had extending down from the roof. Shame they did away with those.

That's just the photo they never had 3 lit up lines going down the building.

[weidncol]

That's just the photo they never had 3 lit up lines going down the building.

True. It would have looked cool though.

[nyclover]

Hi guys after watching this forum for a while now, I Finally had the the courage to make an account. Does anybody know when the construction elevation will be taken down because it is in the way of the base glass being competed?

BTW, sorry if there are other people with the same username didn't mean to copy them

[hughesnick312]

This is a quality tower, great height, cladding and bulk, it feels big, residential towers, even when they are tall, dont look so imposing, but u think it would of looked great if there was another one, twin towers

[hughesnick312]

Wish there was two

[nyc7]

Wish there was two

This is a quality tower, great height, cladding and bulk, it feels big, residential towers, even when they are tall, dont look so imposing, but u think it would of looked great if there was another one, twin towers

agree. Especially when you see this thing in person, you really get get a sense for how massive it is. And if 1 wtc appears so massive, i can only imagine what the twins were like in person

[MadGnome]

I was wondering if some of the photos had been doctored, but when I took off from EWR this morning, 1WTC was glowing in golden light while the rest of downtown looked like it was in shadow by comparison. It was remarkable.

[wilfredo267]

The twins were massive. As big as the new WTC 1 is l remember how breathtakingly big the twins were whenever l was hanging out down there.

[weidncol]

The twins were massive. As big as the new WTC 1 is l remember how breathtakingly big the twins were whenever l was hanging out down there.

The footprint of 1 WTC is as big as one of the Twin Towers. The only difference is that it tapers in as it goes up.

[NYC GUY]

Hi guys after watching this forum for a while now, I Finally had the the courage to make an account. Does anybody know when the construction elevation will be taken down because it is in the way of the base glass being competed?

BTW, sorry if there are other people with the same username didn't mean to copy them

Hey Welcome! It is likely the elevator won't be taken down for a while and will be used by Conde Nast to movve in. So like 4 WTC the elevator will be there at the opening probably.
The footprint of 1 WTC is as big as one of the Twin Towers. The only difference is that it tapers in as it goes up.

False the twin towers we're 208' x 208'.
1 WTC is 205' x 205'

[mrnyc]

False the twin towers we're 208' x 208'.
1 WTC is 205' x 205'

interesting. i wondered about that since they seemed very similar.

strangely enough, the height to the roof of both the old 1wtc and the new one is the same 1,368'. that had to be on purpose.

so in a basic sense it turns out the new wtc is pretty much a twin after all (triplet?), of the previous towers. or at least 'a brother from another mother.'

i would not want two of the new version, i like the variety we are getting quite a lot. the other bldgs will give it plenty of company when they are completed.

[Chapelo]

Hey Welcome! It is likely the elevator won't be taken down for a while and will be used by Conde Nast to movve in. So like 4 WTC the elevator will be there at the opening probably.


False the twin towers we're 208' x 208'.
1 WTC is 205' x 205'

This is correct at the base, but at the parapet, the dimensions are much smaller.

From StructureMag (http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1564)


Building Geometry

The building footprint above grade level starts with a 205-foot (62.5-meter) square plan. The office levels start 190 feet (58meters) above ground level, stacked over four levels of mechanical space above the main lobby. The four corners of the tower slope gently from the first office level inward until, at the roof, the floor plan again forms a square, but with a reduced dimension of 145 feet (44 meters), rotated 45 degrees from the base quadrangle. The elevation is formed by eight tall isosceles triangles creating an elongated Square Antiprism Frustum. At mid height of the tower, the floor plan forms an equilateral Octagon.

The tapering of the building geometry reduces the wind effect on the tower. Generally, tall building designs in New York City are governed by wind loads; however, this tower shape has an innate positive effect on the building performance under wind loading.

Above the main roof at elevation 1368 feet (417 meters), a 408-foot (125-meter) tall spire is designed to be mounted atop a thick reinforced concrete mat directly supported by the tower’s concrete core. Additional supports are provided via a multilayer circular lattice ring above the main roof, that are connected to the spire via a series of cables and supported by the main roof framing.

The tower structure extends 70 feet below grade passing through four subterranean levels, where some of its structural components required repositioning to clear the Path train tracks that pass under the building at the lowest basement level.


[TouchTheSky13]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=563289623748280&set=a.133475800063000.32624.109423129134934&type=1&theater

[weidncol]

Although you can't even tell the difference, why did they make it 205x205 ft instead of 208x208?

[NewYorker2009]

Twins were 212' when measured at the base and 209' from the start of the office floors all the way to the roof. One WTC is close enough......

[Nexis4Jersey]

My recently World Trade Center photos

-from Jersey City

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3795/10951398893_da60b894f2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/10951398893/)
008 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/10951398893/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2885/10951228716_863a3bc2d1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/10951228716/)
009 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/10951228716/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5504/10951228686_6033c6267e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/10951228686/)
013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/10951228686/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

-New West Street Concourse

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/10951399193_8ba724f1e3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/10951399193/)
002 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/10951399193/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Great pics Nexis4Jersey! Here is a little short video I made tonight from Rockaway:

By QUEENSNY121:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g43u-Fx9lp0&feature=c4-overview&list=UUa3fF4f0jp_YrtzeCuNTf5A

[NYC GUY]

Wish there was two

Honestly it wouldn't look good especially with the tapering. I remember one time I made a quick model on sketchup and it looked okay from the ground but two 1WTCs looked strange from far away.

[06hdfxdwg]

The towers were actually 207'-8" from center to center of the columns at the base according to the plan view of the steel drawings.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-19_0.png

[NewYorker2009]

The towers were actually 207'-8" from center to center of the columns at the base according to the plan view of the steel drawings.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-19_0.png

Exactly, and the cladding added some extra width to them just as it does for One WTC.

[Tectonic]

11.17.13
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2960/lt3h.jpg
©tectonic

[NYguy]

driromanini (http://www.flickr.com/photos/107713485@N04/10934602773/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2853/10934602773_c460dc3806_h.jpg



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3730/10934525144_007669ea76_h.jpg



R Barnes Photography (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rbarnesphotography/10847008143/sizes/h/in/photolist-hwvKBM-hwvNA2-hwjXiK-hwgW2x-hwatN2-hw7rbK-hvV35X-hvQKfq-hvRAMS-hvMSog-hvJLU6-hvHkxN-hvzhRT-hvxM5G-hvbQ22-hv2DBq-huZmw7-huM7yG-huKf8J-huCoQM-huutb5-huu5m9-hutZqX-hutUkY-huvtVi-huvDdg-huvEDc-huuM8Y-huufiU-huuQZq-hutHKZ-dbLTcJ-9JyfSC-9Jvr3n-cCzmgb-9JvtbB-goPaWd-9QHs11-9KCQmH-9JvsvR-9QDZZ3-9HwgxW-gsMvTz-efM4yv-9QEAxi-bkwY8n-9QHrcJ-9HtqZX-9HwfEh-9Hwe9f-9Hto1V/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7392/10847008143_bbb82bd564_h.jpg

[supertallchaser]

imagine that shot in 2020! :)

[eleven=11]

anybody else notice the lunch truck that parks next to the loading dock ???
its in the same spot every day ??

[WonderlandPark]

That last shot is poorly blurred, why on earth did this person try to blur the water? and the did a very poor job, parts of the water are sharp. The trees have sharp and blurred parts. I see no artistic merit to do that, kinda takes away from an otherwise great shot of Manhattan.

[drumz0rz]

Lol, yeah, if he really wanted to blur it out in post, he should have used a gradient filter. Someone needs to teach him about masking layers!

[NewYorque]

When will they remove the exterior elevator?

[Silverfox]

When will they remove the exterior elevator?

When they've finished using it, and no longer have a need for it.

[TouchTheSky13]

When they've finished using it, and no longer have a need for it.

Well no shit, dude :rolleyes:

[weidncol]

The elevator will not be removed until Conde Nast has finished moving in their main equipment. So, it most likely won't be removed until close to opening.

[NYC GUY]

Does anyone know the actual reason why the Comms ring is covered in Blue mesh?

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Hey everyone my latest video from Broad Channel, Queens:

By QUEENSNY121:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTlNrKcKdvk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUa3fF4f0jp_YrtzeCuNTf5A

[Kevin Scott Koepke]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/11013457103_4e04cb0822.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/11013457103/)
Manhattan Dawn/Comet ISON/Mercury/Saturn; 11/23/2013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/11013457103/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr