Quote:
Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20
^ well they did wind testing on it and it was pretty clear that it wasn't going to work structurally even in mild winds.. I think it was about that more so than some cost cutting measure by durst, I couldn't imagine why he'd care enough to make such a huge design change if it weren't for it being structurally unsound.
|
It was a cost cutting measure. As I've repeated about a thousand times, the spire design only changed to a radome covering to "protect" the antenna mast from the elements. They are saying that the wind testing showed that there could be damage to some of the panels, and they would have to be replaced. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant (though it is amazing that the CN Tower has stood for years). The fact of the matter is that Durst wasn't interested in any type of design around the mast. So while the natural thing to do if the radome wasn't "sound" was to revert to the earlier design, cost concerns - and there were many at this tower - dictated they drop it altogether. That was backed up by the CTBUH, so they haven't really lost anything. We are the only losers in this situation. And when I say we, I say everyone who wanted this site to be rebuilt, but also represent a little more than a typical business enterprise. It's the reason the PA is (wasting or spending depending on your point of view) so much money on a train station below. It's about the site. But of course, with Durst, we're talking about someone who didn't want this tower built in the first place, so I guess we should expect as much.
Prev
Linear Mode
