NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1540

Tectonic · #**30781** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 11:44 AM**

I have a like dislike thing going with this building. It looks great in those distant shots and coming over the Kosciuszko Bridge into Brooklyn from Queens for example.

StrongIsland · #**30782** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 12:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaystang5

I'm guessing its gonna be a while before the rest of the window panels are put in placed, since the ac system has to be up and running right? Or is ventilation not the reason for the missing panels?

Nope, new glass went up on the West/Southwest face and North East face yesterday

hunser · #**30783** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 12:58 PM**

From WTC progress: https://www.facebook.com/wtcprogress

PhillyToNYC · #**30784** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 1:01 PM**

And which block has the current progress been made to?

OptimumPx · #**30785** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 1:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyToNYC

And which block has the current progress been made to?

Looks like block 312 to me.

PhillyToNYC · #**30786** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 1:12 PM**

Thanks, I'll make something in photoshop later. Anyways I thought I'd share this pic from April 2012-1 year ago. Kind of shows just how much gets done in a year.

By me.

PZelda · #**30787** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 2:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyToNYC

Thanks, I'll make something in photoshop later. Anyways I thought I'd share this pic from April 2012-1 year ago. Kind of shows just how much gets done in a year.

By me.

You only posted a link to your photostream, so nothing comes up on your post. Is this the one you wanted to post?

IMG_0864 by PhillyToNyc, on Flickr

I agree... Huge change!! Actually makes me think of how 1 WTC looked in 2011, but taller by that point. So much black netting!

Thaniel · #**30788** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 6:26 PM**

Kinda creepy pic I took while there of a tombstone next to the tower. Died Sep 11, 1796.

deepen915 · #**30789** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thaniel

Kinda creepy pic I took while there of a tombstone next to the tower. Died Sep 11, 1796.

not cool...

lol

PhillyToNYC · #**30790** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 7:18 PM**

Yep, that was the exact pic, thanks!

Thaniel · #**30791** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 10:02 PM**

Two questions:

1. Okay, so the 'tall standing thing on top' and the communication rings weigh 1,525 tons. Does anyone know what the weight of the entire tower is when finished? (including that 1,525 tons)

2. How does that 'tall standing thing on top''s weight match up to other antennas, masts, and spires that AREN'T included as architectural height to their respective towers. Or even the original 1WTC antenna weight?

To me that 800 ton weight might be the biggest thing the mast has for being included as architectural height if indeed that's heavier than any old antenna added to the top of another building.

NYguy · #**30792** Posted **Apr 4, 2013, 10:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thaniel

To me that 800 ton weight might be the biggest thing the mast has for being included as architectural height if indeed that's heavier than any old antenna added to the top of another building.

No, I don't think there is a category for "heaviest structure on top". That logic just doesn't make sense anyway. The building that has the "heaviest" antenna loses that height footage when another tower puts up a larger antenna? And some buildings have more than one. Do we count the combined height? The guidelines are very specific for what counts as height.

jU qUEBEC

eric will

PZelda · #**30793** Posted **Apr 5, 2013, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thaniel

Kinda creepy pic I took while there of a tombstone next to the tower. Died Sep 11, 1796.

Is it just me, or is this pic not showing up for anyone else in Thaniel's post? I had to copy/paste the URL in another tab to view the picture. (Edit: nevermind, now it shows up here, lol)

I've seen that gravestone before and I agree, I thought it was creepy too! The colonial-era gravestones all give me the creeps, actually. But, I like how that picture turned out!

Alpha Sky · #**30794** Posted **Apr 5, 2013, 1:07 AM**

Here are several photos of WTC1 toward the end of March 2013

Enjoy! Alpha Sky (aka, Mario Moreira)

Renton · #**30795** Posted **Apr 5, 2013, 2:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

It's a great view that's been gone for too long. Can't wait to get back up there.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/0...ing_beacon.php

1 WTC Gets Ready to be Topped by a Big Blinking Beacon

Wednesday, April 3, 2013, by Pete Davies

http://www.lightingandsoundamerica.c....asp?ID=365SG2

Much better Neuralizer than the one at the top of the Statue of Liberty.....

Thaniel · #**30796** Posted **Apr 5, 2013, 2:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

No, I don't think there is a category for "heaviest structure on top". That logic just doesn't make sense anyway. The building that has the "heaviest" antenna loses that height footage when another tower puts up a larger antenna? And some buildings have more than one. Do we count the combined height? The guidelines are very specific for what counts as height.

But why doesn't the lightning rod on top count toward the height? The tower's height will be recorded as 1,776 feet but the actual height will be 1,795 feet with the lightning rod. What about the metal in that lightning rod doesn't denote structural height worthy integrity? It looks like a pretty sturdy lightning rod

TouchTheSky13 · #**30797** Posted **Apr 5, 2013, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thaniel

But why doesn't the lightning rod on top count toward the height? The tower's height will be recorded as 1,776 feet but the actual height will be 1,795 feet with the lightning rod. What about the metal in that lightning rod doesn't denote structural height worthy integrity? It looks like a pretty sturdy lightning rod

Because ALL buildings have lightening rods as required by law. They are not counted in those buildings' overall heights. The only difference is that this lightening rod is on top of a beacon, which is on top of a...i don't even know what to call it.

bigreach · #**30798** Posted **Apr 5, 2013, 2:51 AM**

The observeratory to me looks quite cheesy, until you get to the rock formations,, I think that looks rather cool, however can you imagine the traffic in,, I doubt they go out that way, but I imagine it'll be a circus in that tight hallway..

Silverfox · #**30799** Posted **Apr 5, 2013, 4:27 AM**

I think the hallways would look better without the random animations. The entrance looks nice and futuristic, but that serene feeling is lost when you enter the hallway and you're suddenly surrounded by stuff that looks like sports ads, Kodak commercials, and random people. It clashes with the aesthetically pleasing ultramodern surreal vibe that the rest of this new building (and complex) have.

NYguy · #**30800** Posted **Apr 5, 2013, 7:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpha Sky

Here are several photos of WTC1 toward the end of March 2013

Always a nice angle to view the tower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thaniel

But why doesn't the lightning rod on top count toward the height? The tower's height will be recorded as 1,776 feet but the actual height will be 1,795 feet with the lightning rod. What about the metal in that lightning rod doesn't denote structural height worthy integrity? It looks like a pretty sturdy lightning rod

It's not exactly clear from the photo of the top piece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigreach

The observeratory to me looks quite cheesy, until you get to the rock formations,, I think that looks rather cool, however can you imagine the traffic in,, I doubt they go out that way, but I imagine it'll be a circus in that tight hallway..

Well, entrance to the deck will be done in groups, like the other decks. It won't be a steady stream of people in there. Also, if you look at the video, there may be 3 or 4 of those tunnels.

• Video Link

• Video Link

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/130409926

By Annie Karni
April 4, 2013

Quote:

In lower Manhattan—an area that won't be willingly given back to Mother Nature—some commercial office towers are planning for the next flood by building "submarine doors." Tishman Construction is planning to add the water-sealed doors to the tower rising at 1 World Trade Center, which flooded with 20 feet of water during the October storm.

"Submarine doors will be a feature going with a concrete core," said Jay Badame, CEO of Tishman Construction. A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said all options were on the table but that they had not committed to anything, yet.

lensepix

MTAPhotos