Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrm2
I totally agree. This spire is growing as part of the building & upwards like a continuous floor. It's still an architectural design to the building reguardless.
The spire is just naked that's all.
|
Except, that's not accurate. At all. And we have no other authority than the architect himself to say so. You can put anything on top of a building when it's under construction,
and call it a part of the building. But it's already been established that's not how things work. No matter how much people may want it to.
This is not the first skyscraper to ever get built. There are standards in place to distinguish what counts as architectural height, and what does not. The mast is being built for broadcasting.
That is the only reason. It was to be built
within the spire because a spire reaching 1,776 ft was a mandated part of the site plan. And that is the only reason we had the enclosure
in the first place - to give us the mandated architectural feature that would make it a part of the building. This replaced the earlier, open lattice design of the spire that was to enclose
the antenna mast also.
Now, there is still a chance that the CTBUH could consider the beacon itself an architectural feature, but that's a long stretch, considering the mast is mainly functional. We shall see.
momcat14c
pmarella