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

[deepen915]

The spire looks fine to me.

:cheers:

[The North One]

I don't know wether I'll laugh or cry if Trump tower ends up being taller than this building.

But I guess that's what they get for being cheapskates.

[Thaniel]

TODAY IS MONDAY.. do you have a calendar? SMH

Wow, calm down. I read the date at the top of this page as the date of the conference. It said download press release so I 'ass'umed it meant the press conference for the ruling on height had taken place today, which was the date listed right below where it said download press release. I assumed it was press release for the ruling of 'that date' which is today.

http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTallNews/PR_131111_1WTCPressConference/tabid/5944/language/en-US/Default.aspx

[Matt]

Either way the CTBUH decides, there will still be opposing schools of thought as to which building is taller. I'm not quite sure the argument will ever be settled, unless there is a fundamental change in how the CTBUH recognized antennas and spires.

And to think... all of this could have been avoided if Durst just stuck with the original plan. I wonder how much money is being spent and efforts expended just to prove the antenna mast is a "spire" (i.e. all the lighting tests, etc.)?

Hopefully, CTBUH rules against Durst. It would be a tremendous punch in the gut to virtually every American, but it would vilify Durst (punishing him for cheapening out), and the ensuing outrage by New Yorkers and "Murikans" alike could bring considerable attention and debate to the methodology CTBUH uses to address spires/antennas. Another silver lining here is Durst could finally pony up the money to make this a more significant spire with undeniable architectural elements that would and end to this once and for all. This wouldn't even be an issue had they kept the radome in the first place.

[Crix]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1014001_10200121195473024_1462006238_n.jpg

[cadiomals]

No, I think the problem is more likely that you just don't want to see or hear about it anymore, and that frankly is your problem.

Guilty as charged. Did I not make it obvious enough? And no I'm not against critical opinions. Such opinions of the spire have been going on for months and I could have said something a long time ago. What bugs me the most is the self-righteous person who said America has become "complacent" and should have "demanded the best" when they're being just as complacent complaining about it on a random internet forum. So I'm against hypocrisy, not other people's opinions. People on high horses are always annoying.

[mrjoanofarc]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1014001_10200121195473024_1462006238_n.jpg

:tup: Love it.

[Davidsam52]

:tup: Love it.

The Elder Wand have round thingeys, 1WTC's spire has platforms. :)

[TechTalkGuy]

I'd like to present my opinion (once again) on this silly subjective illusion of an architectural monument atop One WTC...

First: If you don't like it, what are you actively doing about it?

Second: Have you considered providing the funding to add the random to complete the spire and restore this tower to it's intended artistic design?

Third: How many people have complained that the height of the New York Times Tower is taller than the Chrysler Building only because of a very thin (toothpick) spire?

Thank you for all legitimate replies. :)

[JMGarcia]

Forget the CTBUH's official height, the spire is architecturally a sham of what it was meant to be. What you shouldn't forget is that there's plenty of blame to go around.

1. Durst for wanting to line his pockets with his share of the "cost savings".
2. The head of the Port Authority for agreeing to it.
3. Gov's. Cuomo and Christie as they ultimately have responsibility for what the Port Authority does.

It'll be fascinating what the self-appointed experts at the CTBUH decide. I hope it prompt change within to their categories. As it stands though I predict they'll hang their hat on this rule
functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies
It may not be the intended architecture and it may not be good architecture but I think they'll call it architecture as its height is immutable and part of the original design.

Too many people, if those in the know on these forums, think if it has broadcasting equipment it's an antenna and if it doesn't it's a spire. That's just not what their rules say.

[jd3189]

Holy crap. Tomorrow is going to be an interesting day here. :cheers:

Durst is either going to be happy, brought down, or not giving a shit about the CTBUH's decision. This is going to be one of the last political struggles of this year.

[TechTalkGuy]

Will there be a live stream so we can comment in real time? :shrug:

[NYguy]

First: If you don't like it, [i]what are you actively doing about it?

About as much as we can smart guy.




I don't mean to pile up on the criticism of this tower, but I've watched plenty of videos of the beacon and it reinforces what i saw on friday, it's not that visible! At least not as it was portrayed to be and definitely not even close to that of the Eiffel tower. Maybe it wasn't fully powered. And you're totally right UTEPman, they need to light up that ring to bring a semblance of coherence on top.

I'm guessing they weren't really ready for a full unveiling. That would explain a lot. But it turns out the one thing I was looking forward to seeing may not be at all (see videos below).


Anway, relive the spire animations from the past here...
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/freedom_tower_26204.aspx
under "Nighttime Flyby" and "Timeline".



I don't know wether I'll laugh or cry if Trump tower ends up being taller than this building.
But I guess that's what they get for being cheapskates.


Back when this issue first came about, neither the Port Authority nor the Durst Organization had any concerns about being the taller tower. My guess is that the marketing department realized the value of being the "tallest in the land", and since it was within reach, they decided to go for it in earnest. This was probably reinforced more by the fact that if this tower can't top the Sears, then it won't even top 432 Park, the Nordstrom tower, and who knows what else in Manhattan. They are probably alarmed by the fact that this building won't be top dog in New York, it takes away some of the luster. It would still be the tallest office tower in the city, but even the Hudson Yards north tower will have a higher occupied space. A lot is riding on that mast giving this tower a considerable height boost.

And speaking of Trump Tower, we now get back to what I think is an important issue, being overshadowed by the spire nonsense:


http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/11/trumps-tower-is-now-worlds-sixth-tallest-as-council-changes-standards-for-tall-building-height.html
Trump's tower is now world's sixth tallest as council changes standards for tall building height

Blair Kamin
November 17, 2009

Donald Trump's just-completed Trump International Hotel & Tower just leaped from the world's seventh tallest building to the world's sixth tallest. And the New York developer hasn't done a thing to change the Chicago skyscraper.

The reason for the shift: The Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the global arbiter of height standards, has changed its criteria for measuring skyscrapers.

The old standard was that a skyscraper's height was determined by calculating the distance from the sidewalk outside the main entrance to the building's spire or structural top.

The new standard is that height is measured from "the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance" to the top.

For the Trump tower, this means an extra 27 feet in height. Its bottom is now considered to be the entrance to the still-unoccupied shops along the along the Chicago riverwalk, not the main entrance on Wabash Ave.


We'll see if this is reversed, or if the ruling stands.


http://commercialobserver.com/2013/11/measuring-up-with-peter-weismantle/
Measuring Up with Peter Weismantle


By Al Barbarino
11/05/13

How will you measure 1 World Trade Center?

We don’t go out with a tape measure [laughs]. There’s going to be a meeting here in Chicago. We’re going to convene with the Height Committee, and SOM is going to make a presentation. For a normal building, there’s a form to fill out, and, in certain cases, where there is a question, we ask that they accompany the form with some drawings. In this case, because of the controversy—Is it an antennae? Is it a spire? And then, of course, the measuring point: Is it measured from the Vesey Street side or from another entrance?—we’re asking Skidmore, Owings & Merrill to make that presentation so we can deliberate and take a vote.

What will it come down to?

There are two issues. One: Is it an antennae or not? And two: From which point should the building be measured? There are entrances all around the building, and the ground isn’t flat. That will be part of the presentation.



Everyone involved in the development of this saga has placed themselves in a difficult position. That includes the CTBUH, SOM, the PA, Durst, and everyone else who played a role in it.

[Thaniel]

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2009/11/trumps-tower-is-now-worlds-sixth-tallest-as-council-changes-standards-for-tall-building-height.html



Well based purely on the decision they made in 1996 from that 2009 link

"That standard was affirmed in 1996 in response to the construction of the Petronas Towers, whose spires exceeded the height of then-Sears Tower's roof by about 30 feet. The Council determined that spires are part of the skyscraper's height while antennae are considered add-ons. That standard remains controversial, especially in Chicago. "

If One WTC's spire is in fact not an antenna then I'd say they'll count it (even unfinished) and will continue not to count Willis Tower's antennae.

[liat91]

Easy. Don't count antenna or spires.

IMO, measurement should go to the top of the primary structure.

[TechTalkGuy]

Easy. Don't count antenna or spires.

IMO, measurement should go to the top of the primary structure.

Then that will affect the height of the Chrysler Building.
I do not agree with that ruling.

There are exceptions.

The spire atop the New York Times Building is obviously cheating to beat the Chrysler Building and that part is clear to anyone and everyone, yet you'd barely hear a yawn from the group on the subject.

As for new upcoming towers, such as 432 PA and numerous other developments on W 57th, we already know that Lower Manhattan is counting on the spire to make headlines.

I'd personally like to see a spired tower on W 57th just to bring balance to the NYC skyline.

[NYguy]

If One WTC's spire is in fact not an antenna then I'd say they'll count it (even unfinished) and will continue not to count Willis Tower's antennae.

I think there will be a shake up. They feel the need to have press conferences in New York and Chicago.

But as I mentioned earlier, I'm more determined so see where the height measurement begins. That comes before all else, they have to get that right first.



http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-tallest-building-20131112,0,372513.story#axzz2kQyL006s

What makes a skyscraper the tallest? A ruling is coming


http://www.trbimg.com/img-5281aab3/turbine/la-apphoto-tallest-skyscraper-dilemma4-jpg-20131111/600


By Tina Susman
November 11, 2013


It was all so simple for King Kong, the giant ape who fled his captors by clambering to the top of the Empire State Building. Back then, there was no question the Manhattan icon was America's tallest skyscraper.

That was also before spires, antennas and accouterments made it much harder to determine which building could be called the tallest.

Enter the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which on Tuesday is scheduled to hand down its ruling on the latest tall building issue. Depending on the outcome, the decision could upend building ratings from China to Chicago.

At issue is whether the 408-foot spire and beacon atop One World Trade Center should be considered part of the building's height. If so, the skyscraper, scheduled to open in Lower Manhattan in 2014, would measure 1,776 feet. Without the spire, it stands 1,368 feet tall — the same height as the original One World Trade Center tower.

If the spire is included, it would bump Chicago's Willis Tower — formerly the Sears Tower — from the No. 1 U.S. spot. The Chicago building measures 1,729 feet with its antennas and 1,451 feet without them.

None of this would have mattered had the architects of One World Trade Center, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, not altered the slender, glassy building's design in 2012 to remove material that would have enclosed the spire and made it indisputably part of the building. The redesign shaved millions of dollars in construction costs and ensured easier maintenance of the spire.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land on which the building sits, and the architects say the multi-tiered spire is more than a communications antenna because it features a beacon with 288 50-watt LED modules and will emit a light visible for 50 miles on a clear night.

Daniel Safarik of the Chicago-based council said that it was unusual for the group to deliberate this intensely over a decision, but that technology had brought about industry-wide design changes that needed to be monitored. "Are we valuing our ability to put people or material into the air?" he said of the scrutiny of spires and antennas. "If it's material, we have to look carefully at what that material is and what it does."

Not everyone is convinced that height should be the most important element in ranking the world's skyscrapers. Carol Willis, an architectural historian and founder of the Skyscraper Museum in Manhattan, said by focusing on height, people lost sight of other elements.

"What is a big building? It's not just a vertical height above the ground," said Willis, noting that even when the original One World Trade Center tower was displaced as the tallest building by Chicago's Sears (now Willis) Tower in 1974, it remained the bigger building based on square footage. It was also larger, in terms of square footage, than the new World Trade Center tower, said Willis, adding that the council has stepped into a "sticky situation" by limiting criteria to a few defining features.

Whatever the outcome of the latest competition, Willis said she was not worried about the effect on New York. "I think New York has got the biggest and best skyline in the world," she said, "and that's not going to change."

[TechTalkGuy]

Chicago has 8 towers (spires included) that exceed 300m (built, proposed, etc.) currently.

New York has 17 towers (spires included) that exceed 300m (built, proposed, etc.) currently.

If you truly want to get technical on building height, why not start from the bottom to the top. From bedrock to the very tip of the tallest element (antenna, spire, roof, etc.) and sort accordingly.

[bluelouboil]

Chicago has 8 towers (spires included) that exceed 300m (built, proposed, etc.) currently.

New York has 17 towers (spires included) that exceed 300m (built, proposed, etc.) currently.

If you truly want to get technical on building height, why not start from the bottom to the top. From bedrock to the very tip of the tallest element (antenna, spire, roof, etc.) and sort accordingly.

When comparing two cities in regards to which has the taller buildings....you NEVER Ever ever include "...proposed.." buildings. Everyone knows that most supertall proposals never come to fruition. Your argument is feeble at best.

[drumz0rz]

I think I would have much preferred if they kept the mast illuminated in plain white light 99% of the time. I'll give them specialty lighting for major events, and holidays and stuff, but otherwise, I think this would look best in white. The original radome covered spire was only ever shown in renders lit up in white.

Friday night I saw it lit up and it was changing colors like crazy. I think it greatly cheapens the building, and it's almost disrespectful for the location. The Empire State Building has been doing the same thing since they covered it in LEDs. It's like a kid in a candy shop. NY's night time skyline doesn't have to be covered in rainbow LEDs.

[goldcntry]

Okay... it's now after 10AM Eastern... what time is the ruling expected? (and thus fueling another 40 pages of "my tower's bigger than your tower" nonsense)
:tomato:

[j-biz]

Okay... it's now after 10AM Eastern... what time is the ruling expected? (and thus fueling another 40 pages of "my tower's bigger than your tower" nonsense)
:tomato:

CTBUH is located in Chicago. I think the press conference is at 10am CST, 11am EST.

[chris08876]

CTBUH is located in Chicago. I think the press conference is at 10am CST, 11am EST.

^^^ I hope they don't have a bias since Chicago is the hometown. But when you think about it, this whole controversy is just one big bias I feel. When the NY Times Tower has a flagpole that counts as a spire if this doesn't, then something is deeply wrong. :yuck:

[TechTalkGuy]

When comparing two cities in regards to which has the taller buildings....you NEVER Ever ever include "...proposed.." buildings. Everyone knows that most supertall proposals never come to fruition. Your argument is feeble at best.

Actually, I prefer to include proposed when comparing to see which city has the most activity when it comes to skyscraper development and the overall potential for the skyline.

[Antares41]

Hope the CTBUH really takes a look at what is being built, especially these spires, and ask themselves if the rules are generating a certain trend in architectural design that truly in line with the intent of the ruling (spires versus antennas). The fact that there still this debate means that much more clarity is needed. I also realize that being in the center of a public debate is a rare spotlight for such an obscure entity as the CTBUH, so perhaps they like the controversy; no such thing as bad publicity :shrug:.

[NYguy]

Not surprising. It's the tallest...

http://online.wsj.com/article/APfcf5e44d4f3f4113b95ead3b8a4d37bf.html?dsk=y

Expert committee declares New York's new World Trade Center tower the tallest building in US

[StrongIsland]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/12/21421315-one-world-trade-center-crowned-the-tallest-building-in-us

Here we have it folks. 1,776ft.

[NYC2013]

One World Trade Center has officially been declared the tallest building in the US.

[sw5710]

I am in Los Angeles. News radio KNX just announced we have a new tallest building.

[NewYorker2009]

I figured this would happen.

http://www.suntimes.com/23688649-418/1-world-trade-center-tops-willis-as-nations-tallest-building.html

[chris08876]

This is great news :cheers:.

[NYguy]

All I'm getting is that it's the tallest, no details yet. Guess we'll see what we get from the press conferences.

[Hudson11]

from the nbc article
The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the official arbiters of all things architectural, said Tuesday that the 409-foot antenna atop 1 WTC counts toward the building's full height.

Without the needle, the building stands at a 1,368 feet — rivaling but not eclipsing Willis Tower's 1,451 feet.

wonder if these are the figures given by the CTBUH, because if true, the building is 1777ft tall :haha:
also, the mast begins below the parapet, so how is the height of the spire counted? nevertheless, tallest of the US

[Camstonisland]

Expert committee declares New York's new World Trade Center tower the tallest building in US
__________________
In celebration of 1WTC's crowning, maybe they could put a nice spire on top? [insert argument about spire]

[Skyguy_7]

Congratulations, from Chicago :cheers:

[deepen915]

It's OFFICIAL!! :D Just saw the headline on CNN's homepage! 1,776 FEET BABY!

[Hudson11]

disregard my earlier post, it's 1776ft tall
http://ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=TEhukNqIliM%3d&tabid=53&language=en-US

There is a required red FAA warning light located on top of the beacon, which itself is topped by a 16-foot lightning rod. Based on Mr. Childs’ explanation, the CTBUH Height Committee was satisfied that these elements could be considered “functional-technical equipment,” and thus did not factor in the “height to architectural top” calculation.

The second issue at 1WTC was the location from which the 1,776-foot measurement had been taken. The building has four entrances, one on each side. Three of those entrances are flush with the 9/11 Memorial Plaza, which is level with the base of the original World Trade Center towers. These three entrances lead directly into the elevator lobby, while a fourth entrance is 5 feet, 8 inches lower than the lobby, on Vesey Street, due to the change in grade from south to north. If measured from this
point, the height to architectural top would have been 1,781 feet, 8 inches. Mr. Childs showed plans indicating that the main entrance of the building was the south entrance facing the 9/11 Memorial plaza, and that the north entrance at the lower elevation does not provide direct access to the elevators, but requires
negotiating steps or using a disabled-access lift to ascend to the lobby. To be considered “significant,” an entrance must “be predominantly above existing or pre-existing grade and permit access to one or more primary uses in the building via elevators.” Therefore, the lower Vesey Street (north) entrance was not considered “significant” by the committee.

[r18tdi]

YAY FREEDOM TOWER!
EVERY TIME I SEE THE MAST IT MAKES ME PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!1

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lykuca8zUn1qzu4w8o1_500.png

[deepen915]

Live coverage!
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream2.html

[NYguy]

They basically caved on every issue. The spire determination, there were signals they would do that anyway. But the base of measurement should have been from the Vesey Street side. Together, those decisions just tell me that they were basically going to do whatever they had to do to confirm the symbolic 1,776 height.


http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=TEhukNqIliM%3d&tabid=53&language=en-US


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153350243/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153350239/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153350240/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153350241/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153350242/original.jpg



No access to elevators because they have to take a flight of steps? Does this entrance look non-significant? That's really stretching it a lot.

What do they think those steps are there for? Decoration? Yeah, the fix was in. The entire meeting was a charade. 1,776 it is.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/150118950/original.jpg

[sw5710]

Anthony Wood, The CTBUH executive director, said the World Trade Centers needle is a permanent feature. When 1st completed the former Sears tower did not have antennae. This is the 1st time I have heard anything said from them.

[NewYorque]

I'm not satisfied with the decision to count the spire.. but anyway. That's done. It's useless to debate, now. Let's accept it.

I just hope that someone will add a radome in the coming years.

Anyway.. God bless USA, etc etc..

[NYguy]

I'm not satisfied with the decision to count the spire.. but anyway. That's done. It's useless to debate, now. Let's accept it.


Accept the height, yes. The design, no. They've actually made the situation worse by declaring this mast to be part of the design. As I've said many times before, the building itself, while not the greatest, is fine. That mast just adds a horrible, cheap looking element to the design. It's unfortunate that people will think this is the best we could do. And as long as we continue to talk about the appearance at all, I'll continue to say how it looks.

I'm convinced that it the specific height of 1,776 ft weren't an issue, we would have had a different outcome on at least one of the accounts.

[TechTalkGuy]

I agree with the decision mainly because if you discount the spire, then you discount all spires, lncluding but not limited to the Chrysler, ESB, 40 Wall St, 70 Pine St, etc.

As much as I dislike the (toothpick) spire atop the New York Times Building, I have no choice but to accept it as taller than the Chrysler Building.

As for One WTC, my only hope is that a future development on W 57th will add a (real) spire.
I don't expect art deco, but I hope for something good.

[jsr]

Glad it counts. Not because I gave a damn about the 1776 number or beating the Willis Tower. It's just kind of nice to know it will be the tallest in the city for awhile.

Of course the billionaires staring down at the trade center roof from atop their Central Park beanpoles will be left scratching their heads.

[NYguy]

I agree with the decision mainly because if you discount the spire, then you discount all spires, lncluding but not limited to the Chrysler, ESB, 40 Wall St, 70 Pine St, etc..

Forget about that for a minute, I want to know how you people justify where the height measurement begins.

But before I start reading your various excuses...


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-tallest-building-20131112,0,7298761.story

Tallest building ruling: Willis Tower loses to One World Trade Center


By Blair Kamin
Chicago Tribune
November 12, 2013

....."Even though the cladding was taken off the spire, you can still see that it is an architectural element," said Antony Wood, executive director of the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. "It is not just a plain steel mast from which to hang antenna or satellite dishes."

He said One World Trade Center would only become the nation's tallest building next year when it is at least partially occupied.

Reflecting intense public interest in the decision, the announcement was made before a bank of television cameras in a packed room of the 16th floor of the IIT Tower at the corner of State Street and 35th Street. The room looked out to the Chicago skyline, including Willis Tower.

The council’s height committee met for 3 1/2 hours last Friday at the Illinois Institute of Technology, where the council is headquartered. Representatives of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a co-developer of One World Trade Center, addressed the committee, as did the skyscraper’s architects, the New York office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

Twenty-five members of the committee were present, according to Daniel Safarik, a spokesman for the tall building council.

Of the nine Americans on the committee, five are from Chicago, Safarik said. They include the committee’s chairman, Peter Weismantle, director of supertall building technology at the firm of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, and William Baker, chief structural engineer at the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

According to Safarik, two committee members are from New York.

The council’s spokeman pointed out that a majority of the committee members present Friday were from outside the U.S. They were from such countries as Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Qatar, the the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.

“I think the Chicago-New York thing is pretty overblown,” Safarik said. “It is a global organization.”




http://gothamist.com/2013/11/12/america_fck_yeah_1_world_trade_cent.php#photo-1

America, F*ck Yeah: 1 World Trade Center Is Tallest In U.S.


http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/528259a0e0fbc06d23221b9c/mobile/168897918_10.jpg




http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/November-2013/Willis-Tower-One-World-Trade/

What This Willis Tower Vs. One World Trade Debate Is Really About


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYzh4C8CMAArDMP.jpg:large

By Harry Sawyers



http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/11/one-world-trade-center-officially-tallest-building-west/71507/

One World Trade Center Is Officially The Tallest Building in the West


http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2013/11/12/AP298793144640/large.jpg



New Yorkers can't let Chicagoans have nice things. After much consternation and debate, the new skyscraper built to replace the World Trade Center's twin tower was officially granted the "tallest building" title, stealing the crown from the Windy City's Willis Tower.

One World Trade measures 1,776 feet tall when the 408-foot needle-like antenna is considered. That's some 325 feet taller than the 1,450-foot Willis Tower. The council needed to decide whether One World Trade's pointy top was considered a needle or a spire: A spire ruling would mean it counts towards the building's height while a needle would stay off the books, giving Chicago the win. So check your privilege, New Yorkers, because One World Trade barely escaped with victory.

[TechTalkGuy]

Glad it counts. Not because I gave a damn about the 1776 number or beating the Willis Tower. It's just kind of nice to know it will be the tallest in the city for awhile.

Of course the billionaires staring down at the trade center roof from atop their Central Park beanpoles will be left scratching their heads.

Actually, that's okay with me because it will challenge developers to 'THINK BIG' (a line from Donald Trump (http://www.donaldtrump.com)).

I'd like to see some serious supertalls rise on W 57th that challenge the Willis Tower (http://www.willistower.com) to the roof, then add a real spire on top.

Lower Manhattan can have that spire while Midtown North could have something better.

[sw5710]

Well I dont have a problem with it. Just look at the huge spire on trump Chicago 2' in diameter :haha:

[21bl0wed]

Well this is kinda cool short term cause nyc can claim an official 500m building. But looking at this for the next decade or two makes me worried. At 1368 there would be a building u/c that would be taller and a proposal that's taller. So there would be no barrier or resistance height to break. Now that the symbolic 1776 number is official I feel it's good be a huge resistance level (think financial stock chart analysis). We may not see anything in nyc proposed over 1750 for a while. I hope I'm wrong because money is the ultimate decider and that can always change the game.

[TechTalkGuy]

I want to know how you people justify where the height measurement begins.

My opinion is that the height measurement should begin from the very bottom to the very top. Bedrock to the very tip of the highest point (lightning rods included).

The Petrona Towers (http://www.petronastwintowers.com.my) have been ruled taller than the Willis Tower (http://www.willistower.com), yet I do not agree with, but have no choice but to respect the committee's decision.

[Yankee fan for life]

Good diagram pretty accurate, but the height difference between 1wtc, and the mecca clock tower is a little off, One World Trade communication ring is the same height as the mecca clock tower 3-9 clock face, not under and 1wtc spire is a little bit taller .

[Streamliner]

Before, the spire/antenna issue was frustrating, but at least it was consistent. Sears had antennae and the Petronas Towers had spires.

Now, it seems like you design a spire, build an antenna and then convince the Council that its a spire. Also, you can build an entrance, and then convince the Council that its not really an entrance. If you can just bend the rules, how can anyone be satisfied with any building height?

I remember being frustrated when Petronas beat out Sears with a spire, but at they both played by the same rules. I feel like the new WTC is getting a pass. Would Willis Tower get the same treatment if they added beacons to their antennae?

I'm also bothered because it seems like Childs gave in. I remember him being really mad about losing the radome, but now he looks like a Durst apologist.

[sw5710]

Before, the spire/antenna issue was frustrating, but at least it was consistent. Sears had antennae and the Petronas Towers had spires.

Now, it seems like you design a spire, build an antenna and then convince the Council that its a spire. Also, you can build an entrance, and then convince the Council that its not really an entrance. If you can just bend the rules, how can anyone be satisfied with any building height?

I remember being frustrated when Petronas beat out Sears with a spire, but at they both played by the same rules. I feel like the new WTC is getting a pass. Would Willis Tower get the same treatment if they added beacons to their antennae?

I'm also bothered because it seems like Childs gave in. I remember him being really mad about losing the radome, but now he looks like a Durst apologist.
It seems to me it might be an issue of intent when the building is dreamed up then is going up. Is this a permanent extension of it, or pop it on then take it off. A temporary thing.

[The North One]

My god that diagram is an absolute mess, it boggles my mind that they can call this building taller than Shanghai international finance center and Hong Kong's International Commerce center.

And LMFAO at Taipei 101 still being the tallest in Asia, I've always hated that goddamned building and it just wont go away. And don't even get me started on Zifeng Tower right above Sears. :sly:

[deepen915]

Before, the spire/antenna issue was frustrating, but at least it was consistent. Sears had antennae and the Petronas Towers had spires.

Now, it seems like you design a spire, build an antenna and then convince the Council that its a spire. Also, you can build an entrance, and then convince the Council that its not really an entrance. If you can just bend the rules, how can anyone be satisfied with any building height?

I remember being frustrated when Petronas beat out Sears with a spire, but at they both played by the same rules. I feel like the new WTC is getting a pass. Would Willis Tower get the same treatment if they added beacons to their antennae?

I'm also bothered because it seems like Childs gave in. I remember him being really mad about losing the radome, but now he looks like a Durst apologist.

the Willis Tower argument is dead because even if you count the antenna it's still 1729 feet, less than One WTC's 1776 ft! So Willis Tower loses either way. The only win they have is height to roof at 1451ft vs. 1368ft.

[Thaniel]

Well, it's official. One World Trade is the tallest. Though One is my favorite building I was hoping Willis Tower would win this debate. I was also hoping if they counted the full height it would be 1,781. But oh well. One WTC is the new champion.

[Thaniel]

No access to elevators because they have to take a flight of steps? Does this entrance look non-significant? That's really stretching it a lot.

What do they think those steps are there for? Decoration? Yeah, the fix was in. The entire meeting was a charade. 1,776 it is.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/150118950/original.jpg

Completely agree. "Just ignore that entire entrance when considering the height because it has stairs..." THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON IT'S 5 FEET LOWER THAN THE OTHER THREE ENTRANCES! PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THOSE STAIRS, THAT'S WHY IT SHOULD BE COUNTED. Such a sham.

[Duck From NY]

The determination doesn't matter to me. It's visual, not technical for me. As far as I'm concerned, 1WTC is as tall as the top of the three rings right above the roof. Therefore, Willis Tower is still the tallest in my mind.

[Streamliner]

the Willis Tower argument is dead because even if you count the antenna it's still 1729 feet, less than One WTC's 1776 ft! So Willis Tower loses either way. The only win they have is height to roof at 1451ft vs. 1368ft.

I'm not saying that the Willis tower has much to gain from it, only pointing out how the Council has either blurred the line between a spire and antenna, or gave the WTC a pass.

If WTC now has a spire, then could any antenna with a single architectural element on top argue that they are a spire too?

[deepen915]

thread is almost at 1700 pages! wow.. I still remember when this thing first started. I joined when it was at around 800 I think.

[QUEENSNYMAN]

From 1010wins, not crazy about decision but will except it for what it is, (me personally)

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/12/committee-to-announce-whether-one-world-trade-center-is-nations-tallest-building/

[NYC GUY]

Well America has scored one here now lets build the tallest in the world!!

[Thaniel]

I'm not saying that the Willis tower has much to gain from it, only pointing out how the Council has either blurred the line between a spire and antenna, or gave the WTC a pass.

If WTC now has a spire, then could any antenna with a single architectural element on top argue that they are a spire too?

One WTC's spire was included in the original design. IF an antenna was included as part of the original design of a building that would be a different argument (and a good one for adding and including antenna height) but Willis's antennae were not included in its original design.

[mt_climber13]

Well America has scored one here now lets build the tallest in the world!!

I'm going to start gluing together the popsicle sticks now!

[sentinel]

Regarding the tallest building decision, whatever. I'm a Chicagoan and I'm totally ok with 1WTC regaining the title for NYC. It's always been a relatively benign and friendly competition between Chicago and NYC, and I'm always baffled and amused by all of the childish fuss regarding decisions like these. Also, considering all of the ridiculously tall buildings being built elsewhere in the world, this title is somewhat 'meh' to begin with. If 1WTC or another building in either Chicago or NYC were taller than Burj Khalifa for example, then I'd consider it a serious debate.

So congrats NYC and 1WTC...and remember, competition is a good thing....and that nothing lasts forever ;)

NAR takes steps to build ‘Rockefeller Center’-like headquarters in Chicago
Mixed-use, 2 million-square-foot project to be branded with Realtor logo

Andrea V. Brambila Associate Editor
Nov 11, 2013

SAN FRANCISCO — Chicago may have its own Realtor Plaza in the not-too-distant future, modeled on New York’s iconic landmark, Rockefeller Center.

'Cheers and applause followed a vote by the board of directors of the National Association of Realtors today in which the board approved a redevelopment project for the trade group’s Chicago headquarters at 430 North Michigan Ave. The project would involve demolishing the existing building, which is more than a half-century old, and combining it with an adjoining parcel to create a mixed-use development that would include retail, condominiums, a flagship hotel, and office space...

...NAR Treasurer Bill Armstrong noted that he and NAR CEO Dale Stinton had been in discussions with the partner for “a long time,” but had been prohibited from mentioning the project to members due to nondisclosure agreements. The partner, which has “billions to invest,” proposed a 93-story, 2 million-square-foot building that would be a “Rockefeller Center-type venue,” Armstrong said.'

http://www.inman.com/2013/11/11/nar-takes-steps-to-build-rockefeller-center-like-headquarters-in-chicago/

[drumz0rz]

One WTC's spire was included in the original design. IF an antenna was included as part of the original design of a building that would be a different argument (and a good one for adding and including antenna height) but Willis's antennae were not included in its original design.

Right. Willis (Sears) Tower didn't have any antenna until 1982, 9 years after it was constructed. They later extended the antenna in 2000 to increase TV reception and beat out the antenna on 1 WTC by a few inches to claim the worlds tallest.

As ugly as this stick may be, it was always a part of the design, and it is integrated into the superstructure of the tower. By it's design, it cannot be modified or extended. Sure you could perhaps attached an antenna to the top of the Beacon, but that antenna would not be counted towards this architectural height just as the red FAA warning light and lightning rod are not counted.

[LWR]

One World Trade Center Is Ruled Tallest Building in U.S.
By PATRICK McGEEHAN and CHARLES V. BAGLI
An official arbiter declared a mast part of the building, making the tower higher than the Willis Tower, formerly the Sears Tower, in Chicago.

• From, NYTimes.com Home Page
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/nyregion/one-world-trade-center-is-ruled-tallest-building-in-us.html?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=edit_au_20131112&_r=0

[supertallchaser]

Regarding the tallest building decision, whatever. I'm a Chicagoan and I'm totally ok with 1WTC regaining the title for NYC. It's always been a relatively benign and friendly competition between Chicago and NYC, and I'm always baffled and amused by all of the childish fuss regarding decisions like these. Also, considering all of the ridiculously tall buildings being built elsewhere in the world, this title is somewhat 'meh' to begin with. If 1WTC or another building in either Chicago or NYC were taller than Burj Khalifa for example, then I'd consider it a serious debate.

So congrats NYC and 1WTC...and remember, competition is a good thing....and that nothing lasts forever ;)

NAR takes steps to build ‘Rockefeller Center’-like headquarters in Chicago
Mixed-use, 2 million-square-foot project to be branded with Realtor logo

Andrea V. Brambila Associate Editor
Nov 11, 2013

SAN FRANCISCO — Chicago may have its own Realtor Plaza in the not-too-distant future, modeled on New York’s iconic landmark, Rockefeller Center.

'Cheers and applause followed a vote by the board of directors of the National Association of Realtors today in which the board approved a redevelopment project for the trade group’s Chicago headquarters at 430 North Michigan Ave. The project would involve demolishing the existing building, which is more than a half-century old, and combining it with an adjoining parcel to create a mixed-use development that would include retail, condominiums, a flagship hotel, and office space...

...NAR Treasurer Bill Armstrong noted that he and NAR CEO Dale Stinton had been in discussions with the partner for “a long time,” but had been prohibited from mentioning the project to members due to nondisclosure agreements. The partner, which has “billions to invest,” proposed a 93-story, 2 million-square-foot building that would be a “Rockefeller Center-type venue,” Armstrong said.'

http://www.inman.com/2013/11/11/nar-takes-steps-to-build-rockefeller-center-like-headquarters-in-chicago/

that sounds great id like to see some progress on this but anyways , wtc is nice but the spire... :(

[TechTalkGuy]

This is not a victory for NY.
This is an embarrassment!

The Petrona Towers are shorter than the Willis Tower and so is The World Trade Center Tower 1.

I still strongly feel that the Chrysler building is taller then the New York Times building (despite the (toothpick) spire).

[Matthew]

I'm still waiting for the day when someone makes a true mockery of these spire rules, by constructing a 30-storey Supertall in Omaha or Salt Lake City, with a massive lighted spire for a TV station on the roof.

[meh_cd]

I'm still waiting for the day when someone makes a true mockery of these spire rules, by constructing a 30-storey Supertall in Omaha or Salt Lake City, with a massive lighted spire for a TV station on the roof.

This entire spectacle has really exposed CTBUH for the farce it is. They aren't even keeping their own rules consistent anymore.

[Thaniel]

It's times like this that I really wish WTC Progress's Facebook page hadn't blocked me for asking when the top section would be installed to the spire last May....:shrug:


thread is almost at 1700 pages! wow.. I still remember when this thing first started. I joined when it was at around 800 I think.

The thread should be closed completely after we hit 1,776 pages. lol

[wacko]

I'm just wondering, but would it not be possible for the Willis Tower to ascend a few spots in the rankings just by removing the antennas and building a permanent spire on top?

[sw5710]

I thought a spire gets counted because it is a permanent feature of the building, unlike an antenna that gets added later and changed out. That is why one is counted and the other isn't. :) ......

[Thaniel]

I'm just wondering, but would it not be possible for the Willis Tower to ascend a few spots in the rankings just by removing the antennas and building a permanent spire on top?

Possibly, but it also wouldn't be part of the original design so I dunno.

I know that they talked about adding 40 stories to the top of the Empire State Building in the early 1970s to reclaim it's title as the tallest after the World Trade Center complex was finished but that idea was scraped after people lost interest in hating the new (1973) World Trade Center complex. That's what will happen here, people will bitch for a few years then everyone will just accept it like they did back then.

Edit: Sorry, their plan was to add 11 stories to Empire State, I thought it was 40 stories.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19740304&id=w_NOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KAIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7302,2733502

[cadiomals]

If you look at the world skyscraper construction 2013 diagram http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=202 you will see that there are several other buildings that are made taller than other buildings just because they have a needle sticking out of the top. No matter if you call it a spire or antenna, they still look like needles and CTBUH should stop counting them. If a building tapers steadily to a point like the Kingdom Tower or Lotte World Tower, you could count all of that, but if the building's structure abruptly ends and then you just have something thin sticking up, it should be ignored. It shouldn't matter whether the builders planned it, added it on later, if it's permanent/removable, or if it's considered an "architectural element".

If they had always used this reasoning, the Petronas Towers and Taipei 101 would have never held the title of world's tallest over Sears.

[RCDC]

or gave the WTC a pass.
This, along with a bunch of spinning.

I know that they talked about adding 40 stories to the top of the Empire State Building in the early 1970s to reclaim it's title as the tallest after the World Trade Center complex was finished...
Edit: Sorry, their plan was to add 11 stories to Empire State, I thought it was 40 stories.

Well:

Possibly, but it also wouldn't be part of the original design so I dunno.

So I guess if for example the Sears Tower added floors, those wouldn't count.

[Chicago103]

http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/527e422ee0fbc06d23221aae/web_gallery/2013_10_wtcprogress2.jpg
This is precisely why the new World Trade Center should have an outdoor observatory!

Otherwise the Sears Tower still has the highest observation deck in the United States. Actually the original World Trade Center south tower's outdoor platform suspended above it's roof was technically the highest observatory in the United States by a few feet. The Sears Tower always had the highest indoor observation deck in the US though, higher than the old WTC's or new WTC's. That's what gets me the most, the thought that tourists to the new WTC observatory will be under the mistaken impression that they are in the highest public space in a structure in the US.

[jsr]

Right. Willis (Sears) Tower didn't have any antenna until 1982, 9 years after it was constructed. They later extended the antenna in 2000 to increase TV reception and beat out the antenna on 1 WTC by a few inches to claim the worlds tallest.

Interestingly enough the twin antenna supports were an integral part of the tower's original structure. I think SOM tried to argue this point when the Petronas Tower controversy first arose. Counting that structure, but not the antenna itself, would have allowed the Sears Tower to retain the world's tallest title at the time.

http://www.willistower.com/images/uploads/general/history7.jpg
http://www.willistower.com/building-information/history-and-facts

[jsr]

That's what gets me the most, the thought that tourists to the new WTC observatory will be under the mistaken impression that they are in the highest public space in a structure in the US.

Think about all the poor suckers visiting the Burj Khalifa :haha:

[Chicago103]

Think about all the poor suckers visiting the Burj Khalifa :haha:

Interesting list on Wikipedia of interest to all SSPers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_deck
The new WTC should rank at #7 right behind the Sears/Willis Tower's 103rd floor Skydeck.

[weidncol]

It is not possible to have an outdoor observation deck sadly. Reason being is very simple, there will be too much interference from future broadcast equipment etc and there is simply not enough room up there.

[Dan in Chicago]

If you look at the world skyscraper construction 2013 diagram http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=202 you will see that there are several other buildings that are made taller than other buildings just because they have a needle sticking out of the top. No matter if you call it a spire or antenna, they still look like needles and CTBUH should stop counting them. If a building tapers steadily to a point like the Kingdom Tower or Lotte World Tower, you could count all of that, but if the building's structure abruptly ends and then you just have something thin sticking up, it should be ignored. It shouldn't matter whether the builders planned it, added it on later, if it's permanent/removable, or if it's considered an "architectural element".

If they had always used this reasoning, the Petronas Towers and Taipei 101 would have never held the title of world's tallest over Sears.

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.

[Roadcruiser1]

http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/527e422ee0fbc06d23221aae/web_gallery/2013_10_wtcprogress2.jpg
This is precisely why the new World Trade Center should have an outdoor observatory!

Otherwise the Sears Tower still has the highest observation deck in the United States. Actually the original World Trade Center south tower's outdoor platform suspended above it's roof was technically the highest observatory in the United States by a few feet. The Sears Tower always had the highest indoor observation deck in the US though, higher than the old WTC's or new WTC's. That's what gets me the most, the thought that tourists to the new WTC observatory will be under the mistaken impression that they are in the highest public space in a structure in the US.

It's not going to happen. There isn't enough room up there to put one. The dishes take up most of the space. However there will be an outdoor deck at Hudson Yards.

Here is Yahoo's explanation to why One World Trade Center got the title.

One World Trade Center is America's Tallest Building, Council Rules
By Dylan Stableford
9 hours ago

What is the tallest building in America?

It's One World Trade Center, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat's Height Committee announced Tuesday, settling a debate between New York and Chicago over the tallest-building mantle.

Critics had said the 408-foot spire atop the 1,776-foot One World Trade is an antennae and should not be counted. Without it, the building would measure 1,368 feet, or 83 feet shorter than Chicago's 1,451-foot Willis Tower.

But architects for the yet-to-be-opened One World Trade Center say the spire is part of the building’s overall aesthetic appeal.

The council agreed. "That crowning structure is never to be added to and never to be taken away," Antony Wood, the council's executive director, told reporters.

The symbolic height of One World Trade Center, 1,776 feet, also played a role in the decision, Wood said.

“What it really comes down to is this: What are we measuring?” Wood told NPR earlier this month. “If we are measuring man’s ability to put materials above the plane of the Earth, then it should just be material, irrespective of what that material or function is. Or are we measuring man’s ability to put man above the plane of the Earth? Are we going with the highest occupied floor? Or something in between?”

The debate between the two cities had been a bit contentious.

"The Second City — apparently tired of looking up at New York — could be conspiring to steal the title of the nation's tallest building," the New York Daily News wrote last week.

"Forget the mast. Or antenna. Or spire. Or whatever you call your pole," Chicago magazine countered. "If you can’t stand on it, it is not part of the building." http://news.yahoo.com/one-world-trade-willis-tower-which-is-taller-151407465.html

Well there you have it folks. The bold and italic words fully explains why........

[Thaniel]

So I guess if for example the Sears Tower added floors, those wouldn't count.

With fire protection code (which I am familiar with) you can grandfather in old protection that predates new fire laws BUT if you do construction on the building resulting in a 50% alternation to the structure you then have to update the fire alarm system.

So I would say if floors were added the previous height would be maintained unless more than 50% of the building was altered in the construction process. Just a guess based on fire protection laws of what they might say if a building did that.

But I'd also say that if you were to add floors to a current skyscraper you might have to add in enough structural support to the existing structure to hold those floors that it would probably end up being 50% alternations to the building in the process.

[chris08876]

"The Second City — apparently tired of looking up at New York — could be conspiring to steal the title of the nation's tallest building," the New York Daily News wrote last week.

^^^^
Thats a diss right there :(

[weidncol]

So since The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat ruled that One World Trade Center's spire is permanent, does this mean The Port Authority could never change it, such as add the random?

[NYguy]

I'm also bothered because it seems like Childs gave in. I remember him being really mad about losing the radome, but now he looks like a Durst apologist.

Well, Childs true emotions were his first. Later on down the line, he had to go with the company line. We all know what he really feels about it.



Completely agree. "Just ignore that entire entrance when considering the height because it has stairs..." THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON IT'S 5 FEET LOWER THAN THE OTHER THREE ENTRANCES! PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THOSE STAIRS, THAT'S WHY IT SHOULD BE COUNTED. Such a sham.

This bothers me even more than the whole spire/antenna thing. Whether you are for the mast being included as a spire or not, you cannot deny that this building was robbed of 6 ft in height all just to fit the desired 1,776 ft mark.



Regarding the tallest building decision, whatever. I'm a Chicagoan and I'm totally ok with 1WTC regaining the title for NYC. It's always been a relatively benign and friendly competition between Chicago and NYC, and I'm always baffled and amused by all of the childish fuss regarding decisions like these.

So congrats NYC and 1WTC...and remember, competition is a good thing....and that nothing lasts forever ;)

This is the thing. There was NEVER a competition between New York and Chicago regarding this building. The Sears Tower just happened to be the building the tower would replace as tallest in the US, and the media just ran with that. This has always been about that 1,776 ft height. And as we can see, they bent over backwards to give it. Obviously they could have built taller than Sears at a lower height. But it was never really about that. It just made for a good story (hardly anyone mentioning that both skyscrapers are far behind in the skyscraper race).



Right. Willis (Sears) Tower didn't have any antenna until 1982, 9 years after it was constructed. They later extended the antenna in 2000 to increase TV reception and beat out the antenna on 1 WTC by a few inches to claim the worlds tallest.

Interestingly enough the twin antenna supports were an integral part of the tower's original structure. I think SOM tried to argue this point when the Petronas Tower controversy first arose. Counting that structure, but not the antenna itself, would have allowed the Sears Tower to retain the world's tallest title at the time.

http://www.willistower.com/images/uploads/general/history7.jpg
http://www.willistower.com/building-information/history-and-facts

Answer to the previous quote.



This is not a victory for NY.
This is an embarrassment!

I feel the same way, but I don't know if "embarrassment" is quite the word I would use. For the average person looking in, it looks as if New York had to "cheat" to get the title of tallest, when in reality the "cheating" went beyond that, and was more about securing that 1,776 ft height figure.

But according to the CTBUH, the mast "increases the total observable height", as if that's something antennas can't do. It would be puzzling if I didn't already know that the fix was in to secure that symbolic height. The talk of a possible shakeup in the rankings was just another ruse.

Read the decision again:


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153350239/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/153350240/original.jpg

[Acer1]

does this mean The Port Authority could never change it, such as add the random?

The radome? That's more of an aesthetic I would think at this point. If it's not needed in order for the spire to be considered part of the height, it won't affect anything if they do fix that current eyesore and add in the radome feature once Durst sells ownership to someone who cares to spend the $20 million to finish this tower off properly.

The only thing I didn't like about the radome was the shape of it looked like a friggin missile. It would have looked nicer if the bottom portion expanded out towards the rings instead of sloping in on itself.

[Duck From NY]

http://buildingheights.org/images/oldrule-vs-newrule_low.png?v=5
-
That just about sums it up for me. Sears Tower reigns as tallest in NA for me.

[TechTalkGuy]

My opinion on the matter is simple:

The Willis Tower (http://www.willistower.com) is taller than One WTC (http://onewtc.com)
The Chrysler Building (http://www.tishmanspeyer.com/properties/chrysler-center) is taller than the NY Times Building (http://newyorktimesbuilding.com)
The Petrona Towers (http://www.petronastwintowers.com.my) are shorter than the Willis Tower (http://www.willistower.com)

Okay, that's about it for my rant.

[JMGarcia]

Well, well. At least the CTBUH was consistent with its own rules on this regarding the horrible piece of uncovered mess on top of the building being a spire and not functional technical equipment like an antenna, lightning rod or flagpole.

functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies

They completely fudged the 6ft at the north entrance though to get where they wanted to go. They didn't follow their own rules on that at all.

I do think there's at least some serious thought within the CTBUH about changing their insane rules though. We just need 2 height measurements, pinnacle and roof/top of facade.

Then we can all argue which is the more important, the pinnacle or roof height. :D

Think these scenarios through if you don't think the CTBUH's rules were meant for the 70's when all you had to compare where art deco towers and international style flat-tops.

1. Conde Naste decides to cover their antenna with radome. Is it now a spire?

2. NY Times attaches broadcasting equipment to it's spire. Is it now an antenna?

3. Willis tower builds a decorative glass pyramid covering its roof for an atrium. Did the building's roof height go up to the tip of the pyramid?

[O-tacular]

YAY FREEDOM TOWER!
EVERY TIME I SEE THE MAST IT MAKES ME PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!1

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lykuca8zUn1qzu4w8o1_500.png

Lol! Best post of the day. :haha:

[TechTalkGuy]

:previous: We need two height; The roof height and the total height.

On crowned towers such as the Chrysler Building (http://www.tishmanspeyer.com/properties/chrysler-center), we measure by the total height.
On flat towers as the New York Times Building (http://newyorktimesbuilding.com), we measure by the roof height (same is true with One WTC (http://onewtc.com)).

This is not a double standard since we measure from both.
As for which should be the deciding factor on world's tallest, then we have a stalemate on this one! :shrug:

[WTCman7301]

I'm glad to hear that the spire does count. I can now rest peacefully knowing this is the tallest tower in the States! Like this announcement has been all over the news especially here in the west coast! Amazing!:)

[Dan in Chicago]

There are good arguments for counting spires or not, it really boils down to what you want the height to describe... so I can respect both sides of that debate. However, regarding the base of the building, I see no reason why the position of the entrance has the slightest thing to do with it. Height is a measurement of a building's *shape*... you can move entrances around any way you want, but it doesn't change the shape of a building.

Either it should be counted from the highest point on the base (where the building becomes completely free from the ground) or, as I prefer, and the way it's usually done, from the lowest point, where the building makes its maximum visual impact. But forget about where the entrances or main entrances are.

Secondly, I believe the 1776 figure is contrived because it splits the mast artificially between the ornamental beacon & the aircraft warning beacon. Both beacons are set inside a cone that is clearly architectural, but the top 4 feet of the cone is somehow considered "antenna" because it happens to house the aircraft warning light instead of a decorative light.

Here's my argument in greater detail: Why One World Trade Center is not 1776 feet tall (http://blog.phorio.com/?t=read&doc=why-one-world-trade-center-is-not-1776-feet-tall).

[Silverfox]

YAY FREEDOM TOWER!
EVERY TIME I SEE THE MAST IT MAKES ME PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!1

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lykuca8zUn1qzu4w8o1_500.png

Best post in this entire thread.

[NYguy]

The radome? That's more of an aesthetic I would think at this point. If it's not needed in order for the spire to be considered part of the height, it won't affect anything if they do fix that current eyesore and add in the radome feature once Durst sells ownership to someone who cares to spend the $20 million to finish this tower off properly.


They didn't care about how it looks before the decision, and they certainly won't care now. It was ruled a spire, and they'll leave it at that. Durst now has the trophy tower it didn't even want built. America's tallest at a glorious 1,776 ft. It was always going to be that, no matter what. Even if they had to swipe 6 ft off[/u] of the tower to get it. I see a whole lot of talk (in a lot of places) about "cheating", and no one really caring that the tower got "cheated".

As far as the radome goes, it was what gave the spire it's architectural element. But according to the CTBUH, simply existing is enough. And a light show gets you over the top.

And the Sears Tower unfortunately was thrown into this mess simply by being the current tallest in the US. It took a lot of focus off of what was really going on. There was never a battle to be America's tallest, but a quest to be 1,776 ft, whatever that took. But it got attention all around as a battle for the tallest! Even the mayor was talking...



http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/1776-foot-freedom-tower-is-the-tallest-most-american-building-in-the-u-s_b77448

1776-Foot ‘Freedom Tower’ Is the Tallest, Most American Building in the U.S.

By Patrick Coffee
November 12, 2013


Here’s an awkward press conference: today the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat announced that its own hometown’s Willis Tower (which we will continue to call The Sears Tower) will no longer be considered the tallest building in the United States. That honor will go to the new One World Trade Center (aka “Freedom Tower”) with an official height of 1776 feet.

[b]Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel strongly disagreed with the council’s decision, telling journalists:

“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.”

David Childs, the architect behind the Freedom Tower, damaged his own case by calling the spire “an exposed antenna”, but the Port Authority fought back, making sure that they lit the “spire” right before the council began considerations in order to demonstrate that it’s more than an antenna. And this came after the council issued a stinging report in September about firms around the world adding such spires to their buildings in order to reach “vanity height[s]” like, say, 1776 feet.

Yes, the decision revolved around architectural details, but we see this as a case study in media relations and lobbying.

The lesson? Choose your words very carefully.



c8132 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/david_capes/10819317764/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7363/10819317764_5f0d851277_b.jpg



Joel Zimmer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelzimmer/10836739925/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7430/10836739925_6b1d5da5f4_b.jpg



Justine Dmrs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/judmrs/10825126824/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2878/10825126824_215f3ecf57_h.jpg

[37TimPPG]

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.

[RCDC]

“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.