NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS [Archive] - Page 338

ArtDecoRevival

Oct 30, 2013, 6:28 AM

I'm not sure why some people are getting so worked up over Banksy's comments. He's a great artist, but his opinion on architecture doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's (especially since to the best of my knowledge, he's never trained as one). And Banksy would hate it with or without the spire randome too, for people trying to make that connection. That's beside the point for him. His criticism is focused more on the so-called "bunker mentality" of it, which to me is kinda silly when you compare the appearance of the former twin towers with the current One WTC. While less secure, the old twin towers definitely seemed on the surface to be more utilitarian, vanilla and clinical than the new tower. Their attachment comes mostly through their absence. The new tower is an improvement on the downtown skyline, and while not the soaring, groundbreaking monument to New York's spirit it should have been, it's not a disaster either.

Like someone else said, the true bottoming-out for NYC architecture was the 70's where, besides the twin-towers, the only decent building to come out of that decade was the Citigroup Center (and that almost collapsed due to a shoddy structural design).

In contrast, in the 00's and 10's we have gotten (or we will get) Beekman tower, 4 World Trade Center, Bank of America tower, NY Times tower and One57. A lot of cool new towers that are redefining the skyline. So while I love Banksy's guerrilla art, I'm not sure how well informed his editorial opinions are.

antinimby

Oct 30, 2013, 1:50 PM

^ The Citi tower was never in danger of collapsing. It was vulnerable to earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. if not corrected.

drumz0rz

Oct 30, 2013, 3:04 PM

His criticism is focused more on the so-called "bunker mentality" of it, which to me is kinda silly when you compare the appearance of the former twin towers with the current One WTC. While less secure, the old twin towers definitely seemed on the surface to be more utilitarian, vanilla and clinical than the new tower. Their attachment comes mostly through their absence.
I disagree that the attachment to the original WTC comes from their absence. They were by far my favorite buildings while they stood. I was only a child but I was pretty obsessed with them. Yes they were 60s modern grey boxes, but they were revolutionary in a multitude of ways and beyond that, they stood as a defiant contrast against the slender bank towers which dominated downtown. They were the first true "super tall" buildings, and there was 2 of them. Everyone has differing opinions but I consider the loss on 9/11 one of the worst architectural losses in history. For all it's gritty grandeur, I don't think the old Penn Station held a candle to the WTC complex.
Citigroup Center (and that almost collapsed due to a shoddy structural design).
The Citigroup Center never 'almost collapsed' nor was the issue structural design. The fabricators decided to cut corners and use bolted joints instead of welded joints as the engineer had specified. No one bothered to recalculate the loads after the switch. After the building was constructed, the engineer found out about the switch, locked himself in a room for a week, and figured out that if 70mph winds hit the building at a 45-degree angle, the bolts would sheer and the tower could fall over killing thousands. They secretly welded thick steel plates over every single bolted joint in the building to reinforce it. If welded joints had been used in construction, there would have been no issue despite the recalculated loads.

Traynor

Oct 30, 2013, 5:57 PM

I'm not sure why some people are getting so worked up over Banksy's comments. He's a great artist, but his opinion on architecture doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's (especially since to the best of my knowledge, he's never trained as one)...

But that's the point... The average person's opinion DOES matter, because they are the ones looking at this thing and living with it for the rest of their lives. What if 75% of the population agreed with Banksy? Would that not count because they are not ALL professional architects?

Are you advocating that only an Architect's opinion matters? Then that renders moot this whole thread, nay, this whole website. From now on Movie Critics get to decide what movies get made and we get to watch. The politicians get to decide what is good for society without input from their constituents.

You are forsaking the populace's view in matters from here on out. "The People" have no say. So much for the Constitution of the United States "We The People..."

I may be taking your argument to the extreme (reductio ad absurdum) but if you relinquish your voice in the workings of society it is s a slippery slope that ends in Tyranny.

NYC2013

Oct 30, 2013, 6:10 PM

Speaking of Banksy's comments, I bet they said the same thing about the twin towers.

kpdrummer82

Oct 30, 2013, 7:00 PM

A whole new level of idiocracy just came about this forum in the past few comments.

Traynor

Oct 30, 2013, 7:15 PM

A whole new level of idiocracy just came about this forum in the past few comments.

Yes, and that new level includes making up words that sound real but are not.

rjb001

Oct 30, 2013, 9:08 PM

I hear what Traynor is saying about the need for the opinion of the majority to be recognized. I think that while most people usually look at an object and either "love it" or "hate it", the more thoughtful approaches to considering something are more worthy of attention. Banksy's comments, therefore, seem to miss the point of the distribution of usage in the complex, which implies he's just using the typical perspective of what is visible a mile away and not taking the time to study the complex carefully enough. It's true that corners were cut such as the spire and radome, but while the complex as a whole will be representative of replacing what was lost, his comments, to me at least, would fall under the typical quick glance type of judgement that doesn't tale into account the fact that the memorial is first and foremost exactly what it is called, and One World Trade Center is first and foremost an office building built off of the original hallowed soil where the towers stood. The name change of a couple years ago is proof that the PA recognizes that distinction. While the design of each building on the complex incorporates moments of reverence, it is the purpose of the memorial and museum to be fully reminiscent of what happened.

ArtDecoRevival

Oct 31, 2013, 12:56 AM

^ The Citi tower was never in danger of collapsing. It was vulnerable to earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. if not corrected.

Right. Vulnerable to hurricanes. If Hurricane Sandy had hit when Citigroup was in such a precarious state it would have collapsed. It's dumb luck it came in 2012 and not 1977. This isn't revolutionary thinking on my part. I'm mostly repeating what a thousand other people have already said about Citigroup.

But that's the point... The average person's opinion DOES matter, because they are the ones looking at this thing and living with it for the rest of their lives. What if 75% of the population agreed with Banksy? Would that not count because they are not ALL professional architects?

You're missing my point (and at the same time strangely reinforcing it). The average person's opinion counts as much as the next average person's opinion, not moreso which is what people were doing with banksy's opinion (in essence elevating it above the average person's).

Banksy's opinion about One WTC matters as much as your opinion or my opinion should. Not more, not less, which was always my point. I believe that addresses the rest of your post, since you have no points to make after that, just ridiculous hyperbole about tyranny and lots of other over-the-top rhetoric in the place of any additional and meaningful points.

ArtDecoRevival

Oct 31, 2013, 1:09 AM

I disagree that the attachment to the original WTC comes from their absence. They were by far my favorite buildings while they stood. I was only a child but I was pretty obsessed with them. Yes they were 60s modern grey boxes, but they were revolutionary in a multitude of ways and beyond that, they stood as a defiant contrast against the slender bank towers which dominated downtown.

I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it. The original Twin Towers hold a special place in my heart too. But I wonder how much of that is clouded by the manner in which they left us. I think in a few decades the new One WTC will grow on people the same way the initially much-maligned Twin Towers did. Because if this forum existed in the early 70's, I think we would all be complaining about them too.

They were the first true "super tall" buildings, and there was 2 of them. Everyone has differing opinions but I consider the loss on 9/11 one of the worst architectural losses in history. For all it's gritty grandeur, I don't think the old Penn Station held a candle to the WTC complex.

Like I said, I respect your opinion and I won't belittle you for thinking differently. I'm not sure the two are even comparable though. They made impacts for different reasons. Penn was a gem in the rough with a focus on interior and underground grandeur and the Twins dominated a skyline. Perhaps a better comparison would be the Singer building, which was also a huge loss.

The Citigroup Center never 'almost collapsed' nor was the issue structural design. The fabricators decided to cut corners and use bolted joints instead of welded joints as the engineer had specified. No one bothered to recalculate the loads after the switch. After the building was constructed, the engineer found out about the switch, locked himself in a room for a week, and figured out that if 70mph winds hit the building at a 45-degree angle, the bolts would sheer and the tower could fall over killing thousands. They secretly welded thick steel plates over every single bolted joint in the building to reinforce it. If welded joints had been used in construction, there would have been no issue despite the recalculated loads.

If hurricane force winds, like Sandy, had impacted Citigroup from a certain angle during this time it would have collapsed. Guess what, Sandy happened. So, since conditions exist in New York for that kind of event, we're talking about lucky timing. To me if there's a 5% chance of a tower having a catastrophic collapse that would have killed thousands, that's pretty damn huge.

As for design, weren't some of these issues caused by their decision not to demolish the church, but build around it and support the structure with pillars? I'm pretty sure I read that.

Hudson11

Oct 31, 2013, 7:09 AM

they tested the spire lights and beacon again tonight.

http://i.imgur.com/x4BftfU.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/jga5ZtE.jpg

it looks really cool with the mist

Xoltage

Oct 31, 2013, 9:48 AM

http://i.minus.com/i0ZhW2iWJADkM.gif

StrongIsland

Oct 31, 2013, 12:52 PM

Are they going to light the rings as well? I hope so it looks a bit odd without it...

chris08876

Oct 31, 2013, 2:51 PM

I wonder if come Christmas time they will light the spire to resemble this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rHY3LRLiG3c/UMCgGWZgOjI/AAAAAAAAJw0/Q08z_GdLDa4/s1600/candy-cane.png
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rHY3LRLiG3c/UMCgGWZgOjI/AAAAAAAAJw0/Q08z_GdLDa4/s1600/candy-cane.png

Traynor

Oct 31, 2013, 3:00 PM

You're missing my point (and at the same time strangely reinforcing it). The average person's opinion counts as much as the next average person's opinion, not moreso which is what people were doing with banksy's opinion (in essence elevating it above the average person's).

Banksy's opinion about One WTC matters as much as your opinion or my opinion should. Not more, not less, which was always my point. I believe that addresses the rest of your post, since you have no points to make after that, just ridiculous hyperbole about tyranny and lots of other over-the-top rhetoric in the place of any additional and meaningful points.

Again... Close but not quite...

Banksy's opinion counts because he brought the conversation to light. His opinion does not count more. It is only of note because he is the one who most recently brought it to the forefront and has stirred the average person to get off their ass and join the conversation.

I never said his opinion mattered more than another persons. That was some other poster who was upset that Banksy was getting attention. In all of my posts I have said WHAT was being said was important, not WHO was saying it.

On a side note: You obviously don't know what Reductio Ad Absurdum means. I was clearly admitting that I was taking the issue to an extreme to make my point. Only children need to belittle their debating partner in order to feel superior. I will address you as one from now on.

gramsjdg

Oct 31, 2013, 3:13 PM

Are they going to light the rings as well? I hope so it looks a bit odd without it...

They should, but I don't believe there are any plans to do so.

mat97

Oct 31, 2013, 3:53 PM

the windows washing is now working on the west side of building finally :cheers:

The North One

Oct 31, 2013, 7:05 PM

At the end of the day, lower Manhattan is not an architectural museum to amuse skyscraper enthusiasts like us; it is a true and functioning business location where a significant cog of the global financial system is actively being turned.

That is not a reasonable excuse for particularly bland architecture, art is just as important to society as business its what makes us human, and art in no way interferes with business, an aesthetically pleasing building is not out of the question. Not that this building isn't anything bad, just nothing all that special either.

NYguy

Oct 31, 2013, 7:50 PM

Easy to criticize someone else's work. Harder to put your own out there for judgment.

And what are we then, if not critics? I'm no architect, but I'm sure I can imagine something better.

Just accept what we got and be grateful some of those cringeworthy early designs never saw the light of day.

Accepting what you have doesn't mean you have to like it. If I lose an arm, I may have to accept that reality. Doesn't mean I will have to like it. There's a difference.

He's entitled to his opinion just like anyone else. It's juvenile and amateurish writing however... hardly worthy of the publicity he's apparently seeking.

With people running around all 5 boroughs just to get a glimpse of this guy's work, I hardly think he needs the publicity. What he did though was bring more publicity to the Freedom tower, and get more people who otherwise normally wouldn't to think about the design. That's not to say everyone has to agree with him.

To me, the above-ground portion of 1WTC is probably one of the less interesting parts of the complex.

It's interesting that with all of the back and forth about what's being built above ground, the underground in all of its complexity, will be one of the more beautiful places in the City.

Feldman_1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/feldman_1/10577652296/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/10577652296_cf22754d54_b.jpg

Guiltyspark

Oct 31, 2013, 8:50 PM

Pictures like that kind of sell me on the building. I don't see bland at all.

Still not sold on the "spire though", but its a decent looking functional mast.

SkYsCrApEr2013

Oct 31, 2013, 9:57 PM

epic

Traynor

Oct 31, 2013, 10:13 PM

Pictures like that kind of sell me on the building. I don't see bland at all...

Pictures like that remind me that New York got exactly what they didn't want... An 88 floor building with a whole bunch of empty space above that, with a big pointy stick on top.

http://i.imgur.com/Pz9QSj0.jpg

cadiomals

Oct 31, 2013, 11:21 PM

Pictures like that remind me that New York got exactly what they didn't want... An 88 floor building with a whole bunch of empty space above that, with a big pointy stick on top.

That building might have been half-way decent and probably acceptable to most people if they simply chose not to make the upper part an empty steel mesh/skeleton. That area could have easily been filled with actual office space, it was just fear of airplanes crashing into it that caused them to cut the office floors short. I can see a building like this (with the upper portion being solid office space) being built somewhere in Asia though.

mrnyc

Nov 1, 2013, 12:14 AM

alrighty then, its long past time for banksy to go home now.

chinaboy

Nov 1, 2013, 7:00 AM

Amazing building!

MadGnome

Nov 1, 2013, 12:07 PM

That old design just reminds me of the absurd standard that something purely decorative is counted in the height of a building, while something functional isn't. The idea that intent has anything to do with reality is just as ridiculous as it was 2500 years ago.
(If that's perceived as an insult to philosophy majors throughout history, it's perceived correctly)

drumz0rz

Nov 1, 2013, 2:42 PM

Pictures like that remind me that New York got exactly what they didn't want... An 88 floor building with a whole bunch of empty space above that, with a big pointy stick on top.
The empty space at the top does take away from this building. Part of what made the original towers so great was that they were occupied space all the way to the top. It'll be less noticeable though once they light up all that dark space.

O-tacular

Nov 1, 2013, 4:52 PM

Guys, let's just get back on topic please. This is not a thread dedicated toward your opinion of the tower, it's dedicated to the construction of it. Thank you.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on a forum. :haha: NO room for opinion on the internet. Okay then, let us begin our data analysis of the tower...

O-tacular

Nov 1, 2013, 5:01 PM

They should, but I don't believe there are any plans to do so.

Once again yet another stupid decision that takes away the integrity of the whole. By only lighting the spire it looks incredibly awkward from afar and emphasizes how toothpick thin it is.

unanimity

Nov 1, 2013, 5:02 PM

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on a forum. :haha: NO room for opinion on the internet. Okay then, let us begin our data analysis of the tower...

it appears as though the number of atoms the tower is made of has increased exponentially since its inception! who agrees?!:runaway:

O-tacular

Nov 1, 2013, 5:54 PM

it appears as though the number of atoms the tower is made of has increased exponentially since its inception! who agrees?!:runaway:

Agreed.

NewYorque

Nov 1, 2013, 7:17 PM

weidncol

Nov 1, 2013, 8:35 PM

someone has an idea why the designers of 1WTC decided to put all the mechanic floors in the highest levels of the tower?

That's not so bad, to be honest... it looks better than the twin towers, who had mechanic floors at 1/3rd and 2/3rds levels of the towers.

They did that because the least amount of useable space is at the top floors, so it made sense to put mechanical where there isn't much useable space compared to the rest of the building.

StrongIsland

Nov 2, 2013, 2:57 AM

At least they made floors 89 and 90 office floors instead of mechanical.

weidncol

Nov 2, 2013, 4:22 AM

Mechanical Floors:
1-19 (Includes basement levels, lobby and of course mechanical)
91-93M
102M-104M

Observation Deck:
100-102

Office Floors:
20-90

I got this information from http://onewtc.com/leasing

NewYorque

Nov 2, 2013, 9:35 AM

If I am not mistaking, the concrete core doesn't have the same dimensions from the base to the top. It keeps the same dimension until the 3/4ths of the tower (approximatively), then it becomes smaller (because the upper floors are smaller, they probably needed to make a smaller core too).
Anyone there to confirm?

mac78130

Nov 2, 2013, 4:51 PM

Check Out the Marketing Center at 1 WTC

http://commercialobserver.com/2013/11/check-out-the-marketing-center-at-1wtc/

UTEPman

Nov 2, 2013, 7:53 PM

While the design is mediocre, it has a lot of potential if they just invest a little more money. If they could outline the entire building (including the triangular portion) in white LED along with the top portion and antenna, this building would look incredible at night.

weidncol

Nov 2, 2013, 10:59 PM

chris123678

Nov 3, 2013, 1:20 AM

From WTC Progress:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/6427_554254527985123_1723903551_n.jpg

Silverfox

Nov 3, 2013, 2:26 AM

From WTC Progress:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/6427_554254527985123_1723903551_n.jpg

It looks classy, and kind of reminds me of the lobbies of art deco skyscrapers.

NYC GUY

Nov 3, 2013, 3:02 AM

Check Out the Marketing Center at 1 WTC

http://commercialobserver.com/2013/11/check-out-the-marketing-center-at-1wtc/

Are they gonna put a ceiling in? By the way it's more spacious than it seems.

chris123678

Nov 3, 2013, 3:43 AM

Are they gonna put a ceiling in? By the way it's more spacious than it seems.

I said the same thing, the space between the core and windows seem larger, probably since all the extra construction materials have been moved out of the way

weidncol

Nov 3, 2013, 5:11 AM

I said the same thing, the space between the core and windows seem larger, probably since all the extra construction materials have been moved out of the way

Don't forget, this is only the 63rd floor. It starts to get noticeably smaller after the 64th floor.

mat97

Nov 3, 2013, 2:36 PM

Can someone take some pictures of the south entrance? :)

QUEENSNYMAN

Nov 3, 2013, 5:42 PM

Hey everyone my latest video from this morning:

By QUEENNY121:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyLAgaM3iDA&feature=c4-overview&list=UUa3fF4f0jp_YrtzeCuNTf5A

hunser

Nov 3, 2013, 8:50 PM

^ Nice! :tup:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7418/10638490123_4e08806315_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/procrun/10638490123/)
West of Freedom Tower in Autumn (http://www.flickr.com/photos/procrun/10638490123/) by whatisintheblackbox (http://www.flickr.com/people/procrun/), on Flickr

Davidsam52

Nov 3, 2013, 11:22 PM

This may have been posted before, but what is that hideous-looking building on the east side near the podium (visible in Earthcam), and is it permanent? It unfortunately looks to me like it is.

iiConTr0v3rSYx

Nov 3, 2013, 11:34 PM

It's a temporary loading dock area.

eleven=11

Nov 4, 2013, 3:03 AM

It's a temporary loading dock area.

not so temporary it looks to me
they have been building it for months

weidncol

Nov 4, 2013, 3:30 AM

not so temporary it looks to me
they have been building it for months

I've always thought it was the Performing Arts center....

StrongIsland

Nov 4, 2013, 12:13 PM

not so temporary it looks to me
they have been building it for months

It's temporary, it's been discussed before a while back. Until the hub opens and they can dismantle the temporary PATH station they can't connect the VSC to 1WTC, so they are building that temp loading dock for the time being.

CHAPINM1

Nov 4, 2013, 4:14 PM

I have noticed that the 63rd level where the Marketing office is located is one level below the skylobby/transfer level. It's exciting that the elevators are now operational!

The North One

Nov 4, 2013, 7:05 PM

Why is everything white marble? would it kill them to use some warm materials?

Silverfox

Nov 4, 2013, 11:29 PM

Why is everything white marble? would it kill them to use some warm materials?

It's supposed to look sterile, white, and futuristic. I like it.

Davidsam52

Nov 5, 2013, 12:12 AM

It's temporary, it's been discussed before a while back. Until the hub opens and they can dismantle the temporary PATH station they can't connect the VSC to 1WTC, so they are building that temp loading dock for the time being.

Ok, thanks for the info. I thought maybe that was the case, yet why are they going to so much trouble for a temporary structure? Seems like a waste to me, although I AM glad to hear it's temporary as you say.:yes:

Thaniel

Nov 5, 2013, 3:47 AM

It's supposed to look sterile, white, and futuristic. I like it.

Apple Store One Trade Center.

cadiomals

Nov 5, 2013, 5:14 AM

Why is everything white marble? would it kill them to use some warm materials?

According to renderings such as this one (http://0.tqn.com/d/architecture/1/0/9/h/freedomtowerLobby_06-27-06.jpg) they will be using other colors and materials too (with some artwork), which should give it a somewhat more welcoming feeling. Compare that to the original twin towers lobby (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc_lobby_scaled.jpg) which was almost entirely white.

NYguy

Nov 5, 2013, 12:49 PM

http://vimeo.com/77719213

i11Gle3BPm0

Ignore the inaccuracies...

http://visual.ly/one-world-trade-center

http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/one-world-trade-center_502918c1b0a35_w1500.jpg

Skyguy_7

Nov 5, 2013, 1:26 PM

What exactly is within the 19-floor base? Is it purely building core? I can't imagine why they wouldn't try to squeeze some useable space out of it.

TouchTheSky13

Nov 5, 2013, 5:30 PM

What exactly is within the 19-floor base? Is it purely building core? I can't imagine why they wouldn't try to squeeze some useable space out of it.

The base houses the tower's Hydrogen Fuel Cells, which if I'm not mistaken,will provide about 1/3 of the building's energy. It will also provide ventilation, chillers, and mechanical needs for the building's core.

franktko

Nov 5, 2013, 5:45 PM

The base houses the tower's Hydrogen Fuel Cells, which if I'm not mistaken,will provide about 1/3 of the building's energy. It will also provide ventilation, chillers, and mechanical needs for the building's core.

Then why not just call them mechanical floors? I guess having 32 mechanical floors would raise some eyebrows :)

TouchTheSky13

Nov 5, 2013, 7:54 PM

Then why not just call them mechanical floors? I guess having 32 mechanical floors would raise some eyebrows :)

Yeah, this building does a pretty amazing job of hiding the fact that it's a concrete and steal fortress. There's no safer place in the city IMO other than maybe 33 Thomas Street, which was designed to reamin functional for up to a month after an nuclear attack.

1WTC also accomplishes Libeskind's original intent of making the buildings lower and safer, except without compromising height/bulk. The two places where people would be most vulnerable to a terrorist attack are (conveniently) occupied by mechanical floors. The base mechanical floors protect against car/briefcase bombs and the upper mechanical floors protect against an attack by aircraft.

But in all likelyhood, I doubt we'll ever see a 9-11 style attack ever again, nor is it likely that a car packed with explosives could ever get close enough to Tower 1 to do any substantial damage due to the added street level safety features. I mean someone could detonate from West St., but the tower is too far away and too well-engineered; it would be like kicking a giant in the shins. Not gonna work.

NYguy

Nov 5, 2013, 11:42 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/council-on-tall-buildings_n_4219670.html

Council On Tall Buildings To Decide Whether Willis Tower Or One World Trade Center Is U.S.'s Loftiest

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1445368/thumbs/n-SLIDE1-large570.jpg?8

11/05/2013

It's a tale of two towers.

One, a giant of the Midwest that stood as the nation's tallest building for 39 years; the other, a resurrection that stands in the place of two former heavyweights of height.

And officials can't agree which building is taller.

The call on whether One World Trade Center in New York City or the Sears Willis Tower in Chicago is the tallest building in America now hinges on a technicality.

According to the Tribune, the height committee of The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat is set to decide whether One World Trade Center's mast should be considered a spire or a broadcast antenna; if the council rules it a spire, that would put the skyscraper's official height about 325 feet taller than the Willis.

"We want to get the communication of that (discussion) and the decision of the committee correct," Antony Wood, the council's executive director, said Monday. The council was supposed to issue a ruling Friday but hit a delay; it did not disclose an exact date for the ruling.

MadGnome

Nov 5, 2013, 11:43 PM

[url]http://vimeo.com/77719213[/url

Ignore the inaccuracies...

How are you suppose to know what's inaccurate? The roof height and observation deck heights are so obviously wrong, why would anyone take the other numbers to be anything like accurate?

NYguy

Nov 5, 2013, 11:56 PM

How are you suppose to know what's inaccurate? The roof height and observation deck heights are so obviously wrong, why would anyone take the other numbers to be anything like accurate?

There are more than numbers on that graphic.

Silverfox

Nov 6, 2013, 12:33 AM

Wasn't this building originally stated to be 200' x 200'? According to that graph, the dimensions should be 215.418197931' x 215.418197931'.

skyscrapercitirocks

Nov 6, 2013, 3:32 PM

Hey NYguy, The building's roofheight is 406 meters, isn't it? But the old 1 wtc's was 417 meters. How is its roofheight officially the same as former's?

Guiltyspark

Nov 6, 2013, 4:57 PM

Hey NYguy, The building's roofheight is 406 meters, isn't it? But the old 1 wtc's was 417 meters. How is its roofheight officially the same as former's?

Nope. This buildings roof height is 417 just like the former 1WTC.

Hudson11

Nov 6, 2013, 6:19 PM

417m is the height to the parapet which is considered to be roof height

sw5710

Nov 6, 2013, 8:04 PM

There is talk on SSC about a possible permanent turning on of the lights on top tonight.

NewYorker2009

Nov 6, 2013, 9:16 PM

Technically, the "roof" aka 105th floor is at 1,334' 8" (406.88 meters). The parapet is at 1,368'. You can't physically stand on the parapet unless you want to practice gymnastics on the beams but that is what makes it the height of the original North Tower.

eleven=11

Nov 6, 2013, 9:25 PM

There is talk on SSC about a possible permanent turning on of the lights on top tonight.

so the earthcam is not working aging....

anybody know of another web cam ?????????????????????

weidncol

Nov 6, 2013, 9:26 PM

There is talk on SSC about a possible permanent turning on of the lights on top tonight.

Can you give some proof?

weidncol

Nov 6, 2013, 9:28 PM

so the earthcam is not working aging....

anybody know of another web cam ?????????????????????

That's probably a hint something is going on. ;)

And here is a link to the NyHarborWebcam - http://nyharborwebcam.com/

sw5710

Nov 6, 2013, 10:04 PM

Can you give some proof?

On SSC go to page #2570 post #51382

iiConTr0v3rSYx

Nov 6, 2013, 10:24 PM

Use the Statue of Liberty Harbor live cam on Earthcam.

The other harbor cam sometimes changes positions.

NYguy

Nov 6, 2013, 10:32 PM

Hey NYguy, The building's roofheight is 406 meters, isn't it?
But the old 1 wtc's was 417 meters. How is its roofheight officially the same as former's?

It won't be officially the same. But that was never important, it was a gesture from David Childs since his redesign was going to be around the same height.

chan1wong1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrisonwong/10621083343/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2809/10621083343_a61b557c03_h.jpg

kramohr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/97155272@N06/10577368944/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/10577368944_940fbb18b8_h.jpg

sw5710

Nov 6, 2013, 11:27 PM

I love the last picture.

Blaze23

Nov 7, 2013, 12:16 AM

JMGarcia

Nov 7, 2013, 1:52 AM

If you weren't convinced Durst couldn't care less about what the spire represent, watch this. Fast forward to 3:30.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/11/05/one-world-trade-center-unveils-new-marketing-offices-to-woo-tenants/

As much as a absolutely loathe Durst, I've got to say I agree with him on that. The ridiculous rules of the self-appointed CTBUH are out dated and irrelevant. 1 WTC is taller to the top of the structure than Willis, and Willis is taller to the top of the façade/parapet/roof whatever you want to call it.

sw5710

Nov 7, 2013, 2:10 AM

As much as a absolutely loathe Durst, I've got to say I agree with him on that. The ridiculous rules of the self-appointed CTBUH are out dated and irrelevant. 1 WTC is taller to the top of the structure than Willis, and Willis is taller to the top of the façade/parapet/roof whatever you want to call it.
As long as the same rules apply here as with all buildings before this.

sw5710

Nov 7, 2013, 2:20 AM

[QUOTE=NYguy;6329684]It won't be officially the same. But that was never important, it was a gesture from David Childs since his redesign was going to be around the same height.

chan1wong1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrisonwong/10621083343/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2809/10621083343_a61b557c03_h.jpg

Is that Mt Beacon to the left of 1WTC and on the horizon? And is that the farthest out you can see to a point on the ground in any direction?

gramsjdg

Nov 7, 2013, 4:07 AM

I love the last picture.

I wholeheartedly concur, as long as I am holding my thumb in front of the ugly fest happening on the top half of 4 Times Square..:whip2

Hudson11

Nov 7, 2013, 4:17 AM

pretty much spot with this rendering

http://www.tu.no/migration_catalog/2005/11/03/freedom_tower0511031018.jpg/alternates/h1080/Freedom_tower0511031018.jpg

JMGarcia

Nov 8, 2013, 1:48 AM

As long as the same rules apply here as with all buildings before this.

I'm fine with that. Buildings need only 2 heights. tip/pinnacle and top of façade/enclosed space.

The lines between what's an architectural element and what's an antenna are becoming more and more blurred. For instance, the Willis Tower's antennas are more architecturally important than NY Times' spire.

gramsjdg

Nov 8, 2013, 5:33 AM

I'm fine with that. Buildings need only 2 heights. tip/pinnacle and top of façade/enclosed space.

The lines between what's an architectural element and what's an antenna are becoming more and more blurred. For instance, the Willis Tower's antennas are more architecturally important than NY Times' spire.

Willis Tower's antennas are also far more substantial than WTC-1's mast; in fact, it would make more sense to count Willis' antennas as spires than WTC-1's

MadGnome

Nov 8, 2013, 12:40 PM

I'm fine with that. Buildings need only 2 heights. tip/pinnacle and top of façade/enclosed space.

It can still be a little fuzzy. Some would want to count the mooring mast on the ESB and some would call it part of a spire, even though it's enclosed. I doubt if any standard is going to stop people who worry about "official" designations from arguing.
Why people think that being able to point to some made up standard of what counts as having anything to do with the reality of what a building is has always escaped me. Look at the building and make your own decision.

NYguy

Nov 8, 2013, 1:51 PM

The ridiculous rules of the self-appointed CTBUH are out dated and irrelevant. 1 WTC is taller to the top of the structure than Willis, and Willis is taller to the top of the façade/parapet/roof whatever you want to call it.

Buildings need only 2 heights. tip/pinnacle and top of façade/enclosed space. The lines between what's an architectural element and what's an antenna are becoming more and more blurred. For instance, the Willis Tower's antennas are more architecturally important than NY Times' spire.

As much as I want to get in on that, the question on hand is whether or not the mast on top of the Freedom Tower is to be considered a spire or simply an antenna. Whether or not spires or antennas should count towards the height is a matter already determined. The Freedom Tower won't be the first building to have a spire or antenna in either case. The rules are what they are, and applied to buildings worldwide, not just here.

I'm looking at Good Day New York, and they are making a big deal about the Council's decision, but people are clueless about skyscrapers in general. It was actually stated that the current world's tallest is in Kuala Lumpur.:rolleyes:

But lost in all of the discussion is the fact that the Freedom Tower was never intended to be the country's tallest - that was just happenstance. The whole point was that the mast would mark the symbolic height of 1,776 ft. Nowhere in all of the recent media coverage of the impending Council decision regarding height, does it say anything about the fact that the building won't match that mark in either case. I think that should be the bigger story, but I guess it's not the most sensational one.

Edit: Childs chimes in on the symbolic height...

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/WTC-Height-Spire-Tallest-Building-Architects-231035261.html

What we're interested in is that symbolic height ... what's important is the number, 1,776," architect David Childs, who will be making the case before the group, told NBC 4 New York.

drumz0rz

Nov 8, 2013, 2:23 PM

Willis Tower's antennas are also far more substantial than WTC-1's mast; in fact, it would make more sense to count Willis' antennas as spires than WTC-1's
Except Willis' antennae have been replaced and upgraded while 1WTC's mast is a permanent structure.

1WTC will never add anything substantial to the mast that effects the height nor will it add anything above the beacon at the top. Willis on the other hand can attach and replace antennae at will. See this article (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-02-16/news/0002160355_1_sears-tower-council-on-tall-buildings-tallest) about them '1-uping' the Petronas and Twin Towers.

06hdfxdwg

Nov 8, 2013, 3:20 PM

As i said many moons ago: They should have gone 1776' to the roof and this wouldn't even need to be debated. If they wanted to add a spire to bring it to 2001' they could have done that too and killed 2 birds with one stone,so to speak.

NYC GUY

Nov 8, 2013, 3:38 PM

It looks like they're placing black netting around the open area's next to the construction elevator.

AusTex

Nov 8, 2013, 4:05 PM

chan1wong1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrisonwong/10621083343/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2809/10621083343_a61b557c03_h.jpg

kramohr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/97155272@N06/10577368944/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/10577368944_940fbb18b8_h.jpg

I am feeling real stupid this morning after my anniversary dinner. What happened to the Chrysler Building? Has a Florida sink-hole grabed the tower and taken it to the South? Where on these two GREAT photos is the Chrysler?:shrug: Please do not tell me it is off the right edge on the first photo and behind the Empire State on the second photo!