Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGarcia
To me, the mast was designed and built as the supporting structure or framework of the spire, no different than the steel beams supporting the facade. Durst chose to leave it uncovered as all.
|
But that is not the case. I feel I need to explain the history of the spire again and why there was a need for a distinctive design for it.
Libeskind's site plan called for a tower with an asymmetrical spire reaching 1,776 ft. At the time his plan was chosen, the broadcasters had been planning their own 2,000 ft broadcast tower, but ran into complications (Bloomberg). They even considered putting it in Jersey City and Bayonne. Once the coalition saw that they were talking seriously about building tall again at the WTC, they jumped on the bandwagon. David Childs, who was to be the actual architect of the building merged their plan with Libesking's own, creating a 2,000 ft hybrid that included an observation deck at 1,776 ft as a nod to Libeskind's plan. Libeskind considered this too much of a deviation from his site plan and went to war with Childs. Governor Pataki - who had singlehandedly picked Libeskind's site plan over the choice of his own selection committee - agreed that in fact the tower was supposed to rise 1,776 ft with an asymmetrical spire. A beaten David Childs got back to work on a basically stumpier version of his tower - with an asymmetrical spire tacked on top reaching 1,776 ft.
The follies continued when the NYPD pointed out that the tower itself was in fact too close to West Street (another part of the site plan). All plans were thrown out, and Childs got to work on the tower that we pretty much see today. The spire, meanwhile, had evolved along with the building. It would now be an open lattice like design with the antenna hidden inside. That was later changed to an enclosed design (for protection from the elements). The spire itself was to be an abstract reference to the Statue of Liberty's upraised torch. The mast behind it was never intended to be visible.
Now, one thing that has not changed, whether you prefer it the way it is now, or the way it was meant to be - the current mast is no architectural feature of the building. The architect himself has stated as much, so don't take my word for it, take his at least.
http://archrecord.construction.com/p...ade-center.asp
Quote:
Originally Posted by drumz0rz
TBH I wouldn't consider the "Spire" with radome as part of the building height either. I mean, in the end, it all amounts to how you interpret this and it seems everyone has a different idea.
|
It was very specific. David Childs said the spire design was essential to seeing the tower design as one. The CTBUH likes to use the Burj Khalifah spire as an example by saying it completes the look of the building. If we were to just "interpret" anything on top of a building as part of the building just because it's there, then let's count them all. But that's an entirely different discussion on whether the mast here is to be considered a spire or antenna.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockMont
The only thing that matters is that the height of the roof-top matches that of the originals.
|
And it doesn't do that, even.
guptaudbhav
Donald Brennan
Nachosan
sanD12