I have realized that this is one of the most retarded arguments in the world of skyscrapers. I honestly don't even give a crap anymore. Spire,antenna, flagpole. They're all crap people put on buildings. I don't see how the difference matters. Spires can be removed as well, just like the rest of a building. The Chrysler's spire isn't permanently connected to the tower. It was originally an addition to the building. These rules can be broken very easily and everyone is getting so uptight about it. Again, if Childs is thinking of redesigning the spire, then he has to add floors to the spire in order for 1 WTC to become taller than the Sears. In essence, I really don't think it matters if 1 WTC is the tallest or not. The original WTC or Twin Towers were succeeded by the same tower just a year after they were built so 1 WTC is basically a replacement for them along with the rest of the complex. If the new antenna or spire can muster up to be a more suitable version of the radome clad we lost, I'll be happy. The WTC was already the tallest building around at one point so it isn't much of a lost if we don't even see it become New York's tallest again. We're getting new supertalls in Manhattan and other highrise projects around the city. Other U.S. cities are also growing up their skylines and are developing their centers. Regardless, NYC might have the tallest rooftop in the country with 225 W 57th St or Madison Ave & 42nd St , so if you're unhappy with the World Trade, Midtown and other projects in Lower Manhattan can be your focus. I just want the skyline to get taller and longer.
