NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 707

Kanto · #**14121** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 12:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20

maybe you should just let it go... your starting to sound like kanto trying to search for the highly-improbable-but-possible solutions of something you want... the vent really isn't gonna look that bad and no one's seeing it 95% of the time anyway. And why wouldn't the window washers mind? why would they want to do extra work for normal pay?

Man, looks like I'm famous ........ now I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing

toren1776 · #**14122** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 5:39 PM**

I think I can't stress this enough but from all the photos that have been taken of 1 WTC with the Brooklyn Bridge on the past few pages it is evident how much the Beekman Tower (New York by Gehry) dominates and will continue to dominate 1 WTC from Brooklyn. Jersey City is really the only decent vantage point from which views of the tower will be unhampered by 8 Spruce.

599GTO · #**14123** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by toren1776

I think I can't stress this enough but from all the photos that have been taken of 1 WTC with the Brooklyn Bridge on the past few pages it is evident how much the Beekman Tower (New York by Gehry) dominates and will continue to dominate 1 WTC from Brooklyn. Jersey City is really the only decent vantage point from which views of the tower will be unhampered by 8 Spruce.

Is there a problem with that?

Quite frankly, I hope more (beautiful) monster buildings are put up in the area until WTC is completely dominated. I LOVE the new WTC but Lower Manhattan can never have enough skyscrapers.

And on a side point...I wonder if anyone will ever put up a building taller than 1WTC in Downtown Manhattan? I really do hope so...

Tall guy 31 · #**14124** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 5:49 PM**

Seems all the webcams are stuck with images from last week. Damn, I'm hooked to this site. I visit it 2 or 3 times a day to see if any new progress is updated. I keep hoping I would blink my eyes and see the tower finished & topped off. No such luck, eh???

sterlippo1 · #**14125** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 6:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Is there a problem with that?

Quite frankly, I hope more (beautiful) monster buildings are put up in the area until WTC is completely dominated. I LOVE the new WTC but Lower Manhattan can never have enough skyscrapers.

And on a side point...I wonder if anyone will ever put up a building taller than WTC in Downtown Manhattan? I really do hope so...

i couldn't have said it any better than that. i am in complete agreement and i LOVE 1WTC but there can't be enough of 'em that tall

animatedmartian · #**14126** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 8:08 PM**

I'm less than optimistic about that. Just looking at the 15 Penn Plaza and ESB situation makes me think WTC would be treated the same way. Then again that's just my cynicism talking knowing WTC and ESB are completely different in a lot of ways.

jigglysquishy · #**14127** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 8:15 PM**

ESB is in a complete other league than WTC when it comes to being an icon. The view of WTC doesn't really need to be preserved, especially since the view from Jersey will always be there. Its not like WFC is gonna get knocked down any time soon.

If any building dominated WTC it should be the Beekman. That and the Woolworth are my two favorite NYC skyscrapers.

sterlippo1 · #**14128** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

I'm less than optimistic about that. Just looking at the 15 Penn Plaza and ESB situation makes me think WTC would be treated the same way. Then again that's just my cynicism talking knowing WTC and ESB are completely different in a lot of ways.

oh, i'm not optimistic about it at all but only agreeing that more supertalls would be to my liking

Fishman92 · #**14129** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 9:28 PM**

wow, the PA cam is down... same image for the past 2 hours :O. I wanna see the steel !

Matt · #**14130** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 10:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 599GTO

And on a side point...I wonder if anyone will ever put up a building taller than 1WTC in Downtown Manhattan? I really do hope so...

Highly doubtful... I've always had a concern, and I'm pretty sure it will ring true in the future, is that the symbolism of the 1,776' height of the "Freedom Tower" will establish some sort of "gentleman's agreement" and impose an unofficial height limit on lower Manhattan; indeed, all of New York City.

Besides, there is only 220' of wiggle room you can build above the tip of 1 WTC before you reach 2,000' and need an act of Congress to lift the national height limit. That in itself is highly unlikely, especially for a private development like an office/hotel/residential structure.

uaarkson · #**14131** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 10:23 PM**

The "national height limit" is a myth. Structures taller than 2000 ft. need special approval from the FAA, not an "act of congress."

As far as the gentleman's agreement goes, forget about it. As soon as building taller than 1WTC is profitable, you'll see 2000 ft. towers in Manhattan. Did you forget what kind of people operate down there?

599GTO · #**14132** Posted **Jun 13, 2011, 11:04 PM**

1WTC and ESB aren't comparable.

Empire State Building is a true global icon from a different era, and that style of tower, much like the Chrysler Building ,can never be replicated. As handsome as 1 WTC is, it is simply a tall glass tower that can easily be outdone by a taller more innovative more shiny glass tower.

Something like London's Shard with a pointed tip, and 2,500 ft to the tip (I know that's really pushing it, lol) would be amazing in Manhattan, IMO.

Zapatan · #**14133** Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 12:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Highly doubtful... I've always had a concern, and I'm pretty sure it will ring true in the future, is that the symbolism of the 1,776' height of the "Freedom Tower" will establish some sort of "gentleman's agreement" and impose an unofficial height limit on lower Manhattan; indeed, all of New York City.

Besides, there is only 220' of wiggle room you can build above the tip of 1 WTC before you reach 2,000' and need an act of Congress to lift the national height limit. That in itself is highly unlikely, especially for a private development like an office/hotel/residential structure.

I disagree, there will be so many supertalls in NY in the future sooner or later one will be built as tall or taller than 1WTC.

Matt · #**14134** Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 12:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

The "national height limit" is a myth. Structures taller than 2000 ft. need special approval from the FAA, not an "act of congress."

As far as the gentleman's agreement goes, forget about it. As soon as building taller than 1WTC is profitable, you'll see 2000 ft. towers in Manhattan. Did you forget what kind of people operate down there?

There is, in fact, a national height limit of 2,000' imposed by both the FAA and FCC; it can be challenged and exceptions can be made for specific structures (notably TV towers), etc., but the justification behind the argument must be solid and introducing new layers of bureaucracy would turn many developers away. As for the FAA, every tall structure must be approved by them - it's the reason buildings have aircraft warning lights, and why there are different types of aircraft warning lights dependent on where a building is situated within an active flight path. (solid red, flashing red, white strobe).

As for the "gentleman's agreement", we will just have to wait and see. My gut instinct is that the IMPORTANCE of this memorial will establish one. Philadelphia had a similar "unofficial" height limit for the longest time; then the city finally came around in the 1990s. And really, who would want to be the villainous developer to propose building taller than America's beloved "FREEDOM Tower?" Just imagine the bad press.

Admittedly, there are many dynamics at play here (including market demand), but I wouldn't count on a supertall to surpass 1WTC in Manhattan anytime soon. That being said, will 1WTC eventually be eclipsed? Of course, I'm sure of it... but IMO not in this generation.

brian.odonnell20 · #**14135** Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 12:30 AM**

well... that kind of comes down to financial feasibility, doesn't it. you figure 80 *true* stories is around the max profit-wise.... and 80 true stories with a tall enough spire can get up to about the height of 1wtc. So really its all about how far businesses want to stretch their profit for height..

MadGnome · #**14136** Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 2:21 AM**

The 2000' "limit" is just a change in the approval process. A big one. It shifts the burden to the developer to prove that the structure won't be a hazard, with no clear procedure for doing so, making it extremely difficult.
Even the KVLY tower only made it because the antenna on top didn't count as part of the structure. I never really understood that rule, since antennas will bring a plane down just as well as the tower structure.
Childs originally wanted a 2200ft tower at WTC1. That was not likely to happen.

Kevin Scott Koepke · #**14137** Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 7:16 AM**

lower manhattan; 6/13/2011. by kevin scott koepke photography, on Flickr

lower manhattan by kevin scott koepke photography, on Flickr

Kanto · #**14138** Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 11:18 AM**

I think there is nothing wrong in surpassing 1WTC in height. In fact, it's the exact opposite. It is desirable to surpass 1WTC because 1WTC is small when compared to nowadays skyscrapers and if NY wants to get back into the race, it needs to build something far taller. I really hope that a taller building will be built asap, though the economy has to improve first for that to happen. I would love to see NY with the tallest building in the world again, just as Donald Trump would.

Fishman92 · #**14139** Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 1:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanto

just as Donald Trump would.

As long as it's got nothing to do with Donald Trump I will agree.

jigglysquishy · #**14140** Posted **Jun 14, 2011, 1:19 PM**

I gotta disagree with the tallest in the world sentiment. NYC would need a 2,900 foot building to be the tallest. It would totally destroy the skyline. Do you really think New Yorkers would be happy that something is twice as tall as ESB?