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

[hunser]

Best thing ever would be if Trump Chicago ends up being taller than 1WTC!

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=61464765

[Thunderpriest]

IF the CTBUH is consistent, and adheres to their own guidelines, the spire will be counted towards the final height.

From their web site:
http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/HeightStatistics/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx

1. Height to Architectural Top
Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment.5

Footnote 5. Functional-technical equipment: this is intended to recognize that functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies, as is often seen in tall buildings (e.g., antennae, signage, wind turbines, etc. are periodically added, shortened, lengthened, removed and/or replaced).

So, the spire is not an antenna...it does not radiate electromagnetic energy, though other antennae may indeed be installed upon it. It does not meet the stated definition of Functional-technical equipment.
It is permanently affixed to the structure as a guyed mast.
If they are consistent with their own standards, the spire will be counted.

[Yankee fan for life]

That roof height comparison diagram between Willis/Sears, and 1wtc is way off Willis/Sears is not that much taller than 1wtc, especially with 1wtc communication platform ring the two are only a 50 foot height difference!

[Silverfox]

Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life

That roof height comparison diagram between Willis/Sears, and 1wtc is way off Willis/Sears is not that much taller than 1wtc, especially with 1wtc communication platform ring the two are only a 50 foot height difference!

The problem is that whoever made that diagram didn't realize that it's the top of the parapet that's at 1368' and not the communication ring.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Thunderpriest

IF the CTBUH is consistent, and adheres to their own guidelines, the spire will be counted towards the final height.


Footnote 5. Functional-technical equipment: this is intended to recognize that functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies, as is often seen in tall buildings (e.g., antennae, signage, wind turbines, etc. are periodically added, shortened, lengthened, removed and/or replaced).
.

If they go by their own rules, it would be ruled an antenna.

1. Height to Architectural Top

Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment

The mast will be functional. Let's stop pretending it won't be.

If they use current guidelines, the only way it would be tallest in the US is in the "Height to Tip" category...

3. Height to Tip:

Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the highest point of the building, irrespective of material or function of the highest element (i.e., including antennae, flagpoles, signage and other functional-technical equipment).

However, it seems to me from reading that article that the council is just putting Durst and SOM through the motions. I don't think they want to make waves by declaring the mast an antenna, thus removing the symbolic 1,776 ft height. The funny thing is, that height designation will be removed anyway if they stick by current guidelines, due to the 5 ft elevation change. So either way, that 1,776 ft height is out the window. Unless the council decides to cave on that too.

[CCs77]

Originally Posted by Thunderpriest

IF the CTBUH is consistent, and adheres to their own guidelines, the spire will be counted towards the final height.

From their web site:
http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/HeightStatistics/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx

1. Height to Architectural Top
Height is measured from the level1 of the lowest, significant,2 open-air,3 pedestrian4 entrance to the architectural top of the building, including spires, but not including antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment.5

Footnote 5. Functional-technical equipment: this is intended to recognize that functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change as per prevalent technologies, as is often seen in tall buildings (e.g., antennae, signage, wind turbines, etc. are periodically added, shortened, lengthened, removed and/or replaced).

So, the spire is not an antenna...it does not radiate electromagnetic energy, though other antennae may indeed be installed upon it. It does not meet the stated definition of Functional-technical equipment.
It is permanently affixed to the structure as a guyed mast.
If they are consistent with their own standards, the spire will be counted.

What we call antennas in buildings, are really masts were they attach the real antennas, i.e. the actual things that radiates electromagnetic energy.
That said, I think the key is the phrase I highlighted:
functional-technical equipment is subject to removal/addition/change
So, the intention of not including antennae, as being purely functional, is that those things are likely to change as technology or necessities do.
It is true that this one will be a functional antenna, but the real deal for them is not really whether it is a functional antenna or not, it is if the element is subject to change, and in it this case it won't change It is a closed design. If they want to add or remove any portion of the Sears Tower antenna, for example, they will do, since its purpose is just to hold transmiting devices. In this case, they can't modify the spiretenna because of the beacon.
And we also have to keep in mind, that the height of this thing was not set for any technical reason, but for the relatively arbitrary reason of making it matching its height in feet with the year of US independence.

[Thunderpriest]

Originally Posted by NYguy

However, it seems to me from reading that article that the council is just putting Durst and SOM through the motions. I don't think they want to make waves by declaring the mast an antenna, thus removing the symbolic 1,776 ft height. The funny thing is, that height designation will be removed anyway if they stick by current guidelines, due to the 5 ft elevation change. So either way, that 1,776 ft height is out the window. Unless the council decides to cave on that too.

I don't think they will rule in that manner due to the 2nd footnote regarding a significant entrance.
"2 Significant: the entrance should be predominantly above existing or pre-existing grade and permit access to one or more primary uses in the building via elevators, as opposed to ground floor retail or other uses which solely relate/connect to the immediately adjacent external environment. Thus entrances via below-grade sunken plazas or similar are not generally recognized. Also note that access to car park and/or ancillary/support areas are not considered significant entrances."

I think they will go with the entrance that accesses the main memorial plaza...if for no other reason than to ensure the symbolic height is retained.

[UTEPman]

There is no way this tower should be considered 1776ft. I however feel that the CTBUH will rule in their favor since they don't want to start a big controversy and kill the building's symbology.

The sad thing is, the symbology is already tainted with that giant stick on top. I honestly can't believe that's what this country has come to. We say we are going to build bigger and better, so we plant a giant 400ft mast on top of the building and claim victory. What a joke...

[H4vok]

October 22, 2013

One World Trade Center by H4vok_13, on Flickr

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Thunderpriest

I don't think they will rule in that manner due to the 2nd footnote regarding a significant entrance.

"2 Significant: the entrance should be predominantly above existing or pre-existing grade and permit access to one or more primary uses in the building via elevators, as opposed to ground floor retail or other uses which solely relate/connect to the immediately adjacent external environment. Thus entrances via below-grade sunken plazas or similar are not generally recognized. Also note that access to car park and/or ancillary/support areas are not considered significant entrances."

I don't know what you're talking about. The entrance on the northern side is a main entrance. And it's on the street. The argument that SOM is using in that case is that those rules were inacted after the building was designed, which is absurd.

Originally Posted by UTEPman

There is no way this tower should be considered 1776ft. I however feel that the CTBUH will rule in their favor since they don't want to start a big controversy and kill the building's symbology.

It won't be 1,776 ft, no matter how you slice it. But I do feel that they are going to give in on counting the mast.

Originally One World Trade's mast was meant to have a geometric white shell. But Mr. Durst and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Mr. Durst's partner, dropped it from the plan over cost and maintenance concerns, leaving a steel structure not designed for public view, ringed by service platforms.

But Mr. Durst and the Port Authority say a tall spire was a key component of the design, regardless of its outer shell, and the mast should count toward the height

This is the heart of the argument. What we have here was never meant as a visual piece of the design. Furthermore, Mr. Durst himself has repeated over and over that the mast will serve as the focal point of his new broadcasting empire, with the mast at 4 Times Square serving as backup. This one should be no more included in the height of this tower than that mast is there.

"We are caught between a hard rock and a stone," Antony Wood, the Chicago-based building council's executive director, wrote in an email this month to landlord Douglas Durst, a part-owner of One World Trade.

The email points out that if the council, composed largely of top architects and engineers from around the world, rules in favor of the developer, it will upset a constituency that thinks the issue of defining height by a spire's reach has "got out of control." If it rules against the developer, it will upset "the vast majority of the entire USA public for whom the 1,776 symbolic height is sacred," says the email, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Just ridiculous. It is a spire or it isn't, trying to appease anyone shouldn't be an issue. That's why I feel they will rule it a spire - why put on this show.

Architects at Skidmore Owings are scheduled to travel to Chicago to appear before the council's height committee on Nov. 8 to make their case. Peter Weismantle, an architect and the committee's chairman, says the architects "just have to prove to us that it's been designed."

[chris123678]

It's not an antenna and should not be ruled as one, I'm more than sure that the CTBU will rule in favor of 1WTC

[NYC2ATX]

I think it'd be terribly hysterical if they declared the final height to be 1,368 ft, because then Durst would really feel like an — and be in a "now what?" position where he may have no choice but to throw some money at the thing to fashion it into some kind of spire. If for no other reason than to avoid becoming a national pariah.

I certainly didn't care for the original spire design, but I'd be down for a new design that perhaps channels the metal cap at the very top and carries that style down the entirety of the mast...something like a 21st-century reinterpretation of the deco spires that New York's skyline is famous for. That's what should've been done in the first place.

Bottom line though, I think this all goes back to how bastardized the notion of a spire atop a building has become in the past 50 years. There's no denying the fact that the spires of the Empire State and Chrysler are part of those buildings through and through. Then you get the NYT Tower, Bank of America, and now this...it's like...did we totally forget the purpose and design vernacular of adding such an ornament to a building?

[GeorgiaBoy24]

^^^The thing is spires have traditionally been steeples of churches or graceful peaks of buildings which blend in wonderfully with the rest of the structure. It's tougher to say a piss poor stick on a flat roofed building has the same qualities. That's why NYTT, One WTC, or even BOA are hated on. They're not ornaments as much as height cheats that just aren't necessary to complete the building.

[ArtDecoRevival]

Originally Posted by hunser

Best thing ever would be if Trump Chicago ends up being taller than 1WTC!

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=61464765

By best thing if you mean "worst thing" then yeah. Man, I can't stand Trump, his ego or his idea of architecture.

Plus, it was really self-serving how he tried to hijack the rebuilding process a few years ago and make it all about him.

[21bl0wed]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Just logged in to say wow what a joke. My mind is truly blown that some here are pro-spire, emphasis on this building in particular.

[chris08876]

If the CTBUH rules that the spire/mast does not count, i don't think it will really be a big blow for us here in the community as there are so many more projects that are taller/planned for the city roof height wise.

Although I do have a feeling that the "symbolic" nature of the tower will be a key factor in the decision when it comes to the nation finding out the news. More of a covert factor, but I'm positive it will count.

[detroitmetro101]

i am kinda hoping for the CTBU to rule in oppisition to 1WTC, so that it will shame the developers to build the spire.

[MadGnome]

They didn't have any trouble counting those pencils on the Petronas towers which were added on in a ridiculous attempt to take the title from the Sears tower.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

... There's no denying the fact that the spires of the Empire State and Chrysler are part of those buildings through and through. Then you get the NYT Tower, Bank of America, and now this...it's like...did we totally forget the purpose and design vernacular of adding such an ornament to a building?...

To be clear, the parts of the ESB and Chrysler Building that count to their heights are ALWAYS confusing to most people and often contentious and to use your vernacular denied...

...And so is the Spantenna of 1WTC. You will find as many opinions as there are people on whether 1WTC's spantenna should count or not. I honestly can't predict what the CTBUH will decide. They could go either way. (Though personally I say without the radome covering, it certainly does NOT count.)

[Traynor]

To be even clearer on the above picture:

The reason The Empire State's antenna doesn't count isn't just because it serves to broadcast signals but because it can be changed at any time for a taller antenna.

If Chrysler added broadcast equipment to its spire, it would still count to its height because it is permanent and part of the original architectural design of the tower. Plus it cannot be changed or added to to increase its height.

This is where the contention lies with 1WTC. Can the antenna be extended in the future for added height and more broadcast equipment? If the CTBUH decides 'no it can't', then it might rule the antenna DOES count. Only time will tell.