NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1585

ih8pickingusernames · #**31681** Posted **May 7, 2013, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't want to get us way off on another issue. The issue here is whether the mast is considered a spire or antenna.

Wheither or not either should count towards height is another issue for another thread, and luckily we have one...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=183533

http://www.radioworld.com/article/ny...unities/219236
NYC Broadcasters Eye WTC Rooftop Opportunities

by Randy J. Stine
05.06.2013

http://www.mediapost.com/publication...#axzz2SYhF6XGw

We Are Made In New York (Again)

by Matt Straz
May 6, 2013

http://gawker.com/how-tall-is-the-fr...ower-487352341

How Tall Is the "Freedom Tower"?

May 3, 2013

There is no 'spire' attached to this building...

gramsjdg · #**31682** Posted **May 7, 2013, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ih8pickingusernames

There is no 'spire' attached to this building...

It will, at best, be an incomplete spire. Therefore CTBUH will not recognize it.

Can't be recognized as 1776 feet until its complete. Durst refuses to complete it. Case closed.

mheadroom · #**31683** Posted **May 7, 2013, 10:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

It will, at best, be an incomplete spire. Therefore CTBUH will not recognize it.

Can't be recognized as 1776 feet until its complete. Durst refuses to complete it. Case closed.

Jack McCoy closed the case everyone! Boom.

Lord, I wish it were that easy. Especially if that were the official ruling? What a perfect slap in the the face. "It's incomplete". I seriously doubt it will happen but it would be amazing if it did. I can see the headline in the post — "INCOMPLETE - Council rules Freedom Tower not tallest building because spire not finished."

It would shame the PA into action.

NYguy · #**31684** Posted **May 7, 2013, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Therefore CTBUH will not recognize it.

It doesn't seem like they should, but I won't rule it out.

Ana!!!

Weekly.Rest

Yankee fan for life · #**31685** Posted **May 7, 2013, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

It will, at best, be an incomplete spire. Therefore CTBUH will not recognize it.

Can't be recognized as 1776 feet until its complete. Durst refuses to complete it. Case closed.

1 wtc will be the tallest building in the western hemisphere by pinnacle height criteria, theirs no running away from that, and by the way and insertion base on your opinion closes no case.

NYguy · #**31686** Posted **May 7, 2013, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life

1 wtc will be the tallest building in the western hemisphere by pinnacle height criteria, theirs no running away from that, and by the way and insertion base on your opinion closes no case.

Yeah, but nobody cares about that. The original 1 WTC was tallest for years, taller than the Sears Tower to pinnacle until a few years before 9/11. It's the official height that counts, so that's why nobody called the WTC "tallest". (It's also why the Twin Towers topped the ESB as tallest when they were built, and why 432 Park will do the same).

John Skelson

Hudson11 · #**31687** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:08 AM**

the CTBUH loses all credibility to me if the Zifeng Building ends up 'officially' taller than 1 WTC, it already is taller than the Sears/Willis Tower according to them.

Yankee fan for life · #**31688** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:25 AM**

Ny Guy quote Yeah, but nobody cares about that. The original 1 WTC was tallest for years, taller than the Sears Tower to pinnacle until a few years before 9/11. It's the official height that counts, so that's why nobody called the WTC "tallest". (It's also why the Twin Towers topped the ESB as tallest when they were built, and why 432 Park will do the same).

True the north tower was 1,727 to sears 1,715 until 2,000 when sears became 1,729 pinnacle,just trying to make the best of the situation if 1 wtc mast does not get counted .

NYC GUY · #**31689** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:25 AM**

I think they will rule it as a spire for the following reasons:
1. The antenna is built into the building while most buildings with antennas the antenna is attached later on.
2. They've been advertising this as 1776' if they all of a sudden change that then it will make us look like idiots.
3. The beacon is the same as it would have been anyway it's just the radome is gone.
4. Im pretty sure the comm's ring is what the comm equipment is for then the spire will not be used for any broadcasting.

ih8pickingusernames · #**31690** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:30 AM**

^From what I read antennas will be mounted on to the big russian pole bolted to the building.

ih8pickingusernames · #**31691** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

the CTBUH loses all credibility to me if the Zifeng Building ends up 'officially' taller than 1 WTC, it already is taller than the Sears/Willis Tower according to them.

CTBUH is dead to me if it is. This building is literally a Poo poo on a stick.

Yankee fan for life · #**31692** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudson11

the CTBUH loses all credibility to me if the Zifeng Building ends up 'officially' taller than 1 WTC, it already is taller than the Sears/Willis Tower according to them.

Even a better comparison bank of america being taller than john Hancock .

NYguy · #**31693** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life

True the north tower was 1,727 to sears 1,715 until 2,000 when sears became 1,729 pinnacle,just trying to make the best of the situation if 1 wtc mast does not get counted .

There really shouldn't be an issue of it being the "tallest" in North America. The height is significant because it was supposed to represent something.
The building could have been any number of heights. If the mast isn't counted towards height, it will be a dramatic difference and change from the
mandated site plan. Not to mention that there's about a 5 ft difference in height from where the official height will be taken from, and where current
measurments are taken from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

2. They've been advertising this as 1776' if they all of a sudden change that then it will make us look like idiots.

I don't see how that makes us look like idiots.

StacyGKinNJ

alex4apple · #**31694** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:51 AM**

Wow I almost thought those images were photoshopped there for a second

I'm still not used to the building being all glass with no netting

Great pics!

Zapatan · #**31695** Posted **May 8, 2013, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

I think they will rule it as a spire for the following reasons:
1. The antenna is built into the building while most buildings with antennas the antenna is attached later on.
2. They've been advertising this as 1776' if they all of a sudden change that then it will make us look like idiots.
3. The beacon is the same as it would have been anyway it's just the radome is gone.
4. Im pretty sure the comm's ring is what the comm equipment is for then the spire will not be used for any broadcasting.

That's exactly why they shouldn't count it, they deserve to be made look like idiots and be pressured into putting on some kind of radome.

Hudson11 · #**31696** Posted **May 8, 2013, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life

Even a better comparison bank of america being taller than john Hancock .

yeah, it's ridiculous.

bigreach · #**31697** Posted **May 8, 2013, 1:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life

1 wtc will be the tallest building in the western hemisphere by pinnacle height criteria, theirs no running away from that, and by the way and insertion base on your opinion closes no case.

Last time I checked isn't the CN Tower is in the western hemisphere, and if their talking pinnacle height??? What gives??

If there not going to call it a spire, it's top is no different than CN? And as we all know CN is a tad taller. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

ih8pickingusernames · #**31698** Posted **May 8, 2013, 2:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigreach

Last time I checked isn't the CN Tower is in the western hemisphere, and if their talking pinnacle height??? What gives??

If there not going to call it a spire, it's top is no different than CN? And as we all know CN is a tad taller. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

He said tallest building in the western hemisphere. The CN tower is the tallest structure in the western hemisphere to pinnacle at 1'815 ft whilst One WTC is 1'776 ft to pinnacle.

And the CN tower actually has a radome...

JACKinBeantown · #**31699** Posted **May 8, 2013, 2:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigreach

Last time I checked isn't the CN Tower is in the western hemisphere, and if their talking pinnacle height??? What gives??

If there not going to call it a spire, it's top is no different than CN? And as we all know CN is a tad taller. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

In the spirit of getting things correct, it's "they're" as opposed to "their" and "there."

NYC4Life · #**31700** Posted **May 8, 2013, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ih8pickingusernames

He said tallest building in the western hemisphere. The CN tower is the tallest structure in the western hemisphere to pinnacle at 1'815 ft whilst One WTC is 1'776 ft to pinnacle.

And the CN tower actually has a radome...

The CN Tower is the tallest freestanding structure in the western hemisphere. The tallest structure in the western hemisphere of any type is the KVLY-TV antenna mast in North Dakota.