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

[Jaystang5]

Would it have been a good idea if the whole spire/mast was built out of concrete? Our would it be too heavy to support?

[sw5710]

Good question. I dont know about the concrete weight. As of today there is 7 or 800 tons of steel above the roof level on 1wtc. The 200' antenna mast on the ESB is about 20 tons

[franktko]

Concrete is lighter than steel; ~ 150lbs/cubic foot versus 490 lbs/c.f. for steel...

http://www.coyotesteel.com/assets/im...rcubicfoot.pdf

[JMGarcia]

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

It should definitely NOT be counted. You are correct. It isn't an antenna. It's a mast that has antennas attached to it. Just like this one:

That's 2,063 ft and only the top 113 ft are an actual antenna. Therefore using your logic, this mast should be counted as having an architectural structure height of 1,950ft which is taller than the tallest point of 1 WTC.

If the antenna were removed from the tip of this tower, would it then be counted as a 2,063 foot building?

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

Glad other people are bringing this up. I made this exact same argument before on this forum but never posted a picture to illustrate it. Hopefully this helps people understand why masts should not count.

Why should a mast not count because it has an antenna attached to it while a spire such as that on top of the NY Times HQ should count just because it doesn't have an antenna attached to it?

I'll repeat, with today's architectural trends spires and antennas are virtually equal and buildings should be counted to (a)roof and (b)structural tip regardless of the purposes of the structural tip.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if the spire on 1 WTC had a radome covering it would be included in it's height? So, simply by omitting the covering and no other change to it it should not count? By what logic?

[StrongIsland]

^^^^By the logic that some people just can't get over crying "wahwahwah douchebag durst took the cover off so now it means its an antenna even though all is the same besides that wahwahwah" =]

Actually I don't even care if its considered 1,368 or 1,776 either way we have towers again there and more on the way and besides the radome was ugly so whatever. It is what it is nobody is going to change it and non of us can so everyone get used to this tower because its here to stay, as is.

[drumz0rz]

TBH I wouldn't consider the "Spire" with radome as part of the building height either. I mean, in the end, it all amounts to how you interpret this and it seems everyone has a different idea. Personally, I think that if the building has a flat roof with a stick on top, then the architectural height should be the roof height (with total height including that stick).

Compare what we've got with the original design below. While it had an even slimmer stick reaching 1,776 (almost like a pole), it would appear that it was purely decorational and not functional as an antenna mast at all, at which point, would it have been included? I don't think so either. I think that building would have had an architectural height that ended with the physical building roofline (excluding that whole sky garden).

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

It should definitely NOT be counted. You are correct. It isn't an antenna. It's a mast that has antennas attached to it. Just like this one:

That's 2,063 ft and only the top 113 ft are an actual antenna. Therefore using your logic, this mast should be counted as having an architectural structure height of 1,950ft which is taller than the tallest point of 1 WTC.

But it does have an architectural structure height of 2063ft. Why pretend as if it doesn't simply to make the 1WTC more impressive, or to differentiate between masts and antennas? The highest point of a man-made structure is the height of that structure, whether its an office building, an antenna, a mud hut, a deck of cards, etc..its bizarre to measure a structure by anything other than its top point.

[sw5710]

I do look at the entire hight AGL. There are plenty of interpretations out there on height that is true. As long as the CTBUH has the final say on all buildings they can't bend the rules here or they will become biased and untrustworthy. This mast antenna thing is funny. A radio tower can use the entire height of mast to broadcast. A tv tower has an antenna mounted to a mast. I go by Aviation charts. The highest point of steel AGL on anything.

[ih8pickingusernames]

Lets define building: A structure built for human habitation.
Last time I checked people don't inhabit antennas or spires.
Therefore they should be discounted on every building.

Don't see anyone working in this...

[jmatero]

New Yorker's don't care about the height of this building. This isn't 1932. Every day over the past decade, that massive "hole" in NYC skyline has been a constant reminder of pure evil. Now, finally, the skyline is restored and everyone in the NYC area will see that beacon each night and finally smile. Plain and simple.

It will be nice to look towards the southern tip of Manhattan after all these years and smile. And feel a sense of peace. Mission accomplished!

[RockMont]

The only thing that matters is that the height of the roof-top matches that of the originals.

[CCs77]

One World Trade Center, New York. por dsorine, en Flickr


Vertical panorama at the base of One World Trade Center por hshuldman, en Flickr


newly topped-out One World Trade Center from Hudson Street, partially obscured by clouds por hshuldman, en Flickr



Peek a Boo por Keith Michael NYC, en Flickr


Downtown Manhattan por Keith Michael NYC, en Flickr


City Sitting por Keith Michael NYC, en Flickr


Up, Up and Away por Keith Michael NYC, en Flickr

[NYC_Longhorn]

WOW... you guys really start debating pointless stuff whenever you are dealing with SPIRE ANTICIPATION! I Can't wait!!!!!!!

[JMGarcia]

Originally Posted by ih8pickingusernames

Lets define building: A structure built for human habitation.
Last time I checked people don't inhabit antennas or spires.
Therefore they should be discounted on every building.

Don't see anyone working in this...

By that logic, I guess we should discount not just spires when counting height but tons of building who's tops have un-occupiable latices, pyramids, arches, cylinders etc. on top. e.g. BofA Atlanta, 111 Huntington Boston, even the height of the Burj and Shanghai WFC will need to be chopped.

[Matthew]

I'm guessing the last piece of the antenna/spire will determine if it's a spire or antenna. At first, it appears to be an antenna and not a part of the design. However, when you look at the beacon.. it's something not needed for broadcasting. It's something the architects want and it could be enough to make this a spire?

[2-TOWERS]

i saw pics a while back of the SEARS/WILLIS and the antennas were built from below the roof , looking at the steel construction you would think they were part of the building, just saying.....

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMGarcia

To me, the mast was designed and built as the supporting structure or framework of the spire, no different than the steel beams supporting the facade. Durst chose to leave it uncovered as all.

But that is not the case. I feel I need to explain the history of the spire again and why there was a need for a distinctive design for it.

Libeskind's site plan called for a tower with an asymmetrical spire reaching 1,776 ft. At the time his plan was chosen, the broadcasters had been planning their own 2,000 ft broadcast tower, but ran into complications (Bloomberg). They even considered putting it in Jersey City and Bayonne. Once the coalition saw that they were talking seriously about building tall again at the WTC, they jumped on the bandwagon. David Childs, who was to be the actual architect of the building merged their plan with Libesking's own, creating a 2,000 ft hybrid that included an observation deck at 1,776 ft as a nod to Libeskind's plan. Libeskind considered this too much of a deviation from his site plan and went to war with Childs. Governor Pataki - who had singlehandedly picked Libeskind's site plan over the choice of his own selection committee - agreed that in fact the tower was supposed to rise 1,776 ft with an asymmetrical spire. A beaten David Childs got back to work on a basically stumpier version of his tower - with an asymmetrical spire tacked on top reaching 1,776 ft.

The follies continued when the NYPD pointed out that the tower itself was in fact too close to West Street (another part of the site plan). All plans were thrown out, and Childs got to work on the tower that we pretty much see today. The spire, meanwhile, had evolved along with the building. It would now be an open lattice like design with the antenna hidden inside. That was later changed to an enclosed design (for protection from the elements). The spire itself was to be an abstract reference to the Statue of Liberty's upraised torch. The mast behind it was never intended to be visible.

Now, one thing that has not changed, whether you prefer it the way it is now, or the way it was meant to be - the current mast is no architectural feature of the building. The architect himself has stated as much, so don't take my word for it, take his at least.















http://archrecord.construction.com/p...ade-center.asp

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

TBH I wouldn't consider the "Spire" with radome as part of the building height either. I mean, in the end, it all amounts to how you interpret this and it seems everyone has a different idea.

It was very specific. David Childs said the spire design was essential to seeing the tower design as one. The CTBUH likes to use the Burj Khalifah spire as an example by saying it completes the look of the building. If we were to just "interpret" anything on top of a building as part of the building just because it's there, then let's count them all. But that's an entirely different discussion on whether the mast here is to be considered a spire or antenna.

Originally Posted by RockMont

The only thing that matters is that the height of the roof-top matches that of the originals.

And it doesn't do that, even.




guptaudbhav





Donald Brennan






Nachosan




sanD12

[pnapp1]

Originally Posted by jmatero

New Yorker's don't care about the height of this building. This isn't 1932. Every day over the past decade, that massive "hole" in NYC skyline has been a constant reminder of pure evil. Now, finally, the skyline is restored and everyone in the NYC area will see that beacon each night and finally smile. Plain and simple.

It will be nice to look towards the southern tip of Manhattan after all these years and smile. And feel a sense of peace. Mission accomplished!

Agreed! The only thing that matters about the mast is weather it's going to look good without the random, not its height. It's height is irrelevant! One WTC is a big building and fits nicely downtown. That's all that matters! Who gives a shit how tall it is! The most important thing is will it look good when completed?

[JMGarcia]

^^I agree that the mast is not an architectural feature. It is a structural feature. It is a support structure, a functional piece of the building like the steel framing used to attach the facade or the elevator cores used to encase the elevators.

The mast is designed the way it is to enable it to support the facade of the spire i.e. the randome to create the proper shape and support the weight of the radome. It's shape, width, strength, placement of rings etc. are specifically designed for that purpose.

There's no question that if there was no plan to have it support a radome covering then the mast would have not have been designed the way it was. It would have been an antenna like on 4 TSQX.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by pnapp1

Agreed! The only thing that matters about the mast is weather it's going to look good without the random, not its height. It's height is irrelevant! One WTC is a big building and fits nicely downtown. That's all that matters! Who gives a shit how tall it is! The most important thing is will it look good when completed?

An oddly laughable opinion on a skyscraper forum. I agree though, that the height is not the most essential thing here. That will be what it will be. But it is the appearance that concerns me most. After defending what a lot of people consider to be a boring and bland skyscraper, that mast is something that I cannot. The building itself looks nice enough, but that garbage on top should have remained hidden. Maybe they can extend the parapet another 400 ft.