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

[babybackribs2314]

Update from yesterday--weather was PERFECT! Finally spring-like again.

One World Trade Center May 2013 Construction Update

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

does anyone else feel like the tip of the spire actually makes the rest of it look a lot worse because we get a taste of what could have been?

I understand what you mean. It's the "lipstick on a pig" syndrome.

Originally Posted by deepen915

these workers put their blood and sweat into this tower sometimes working 24/7! Have some respect and appreciate the hard work that has been put in to make this building! I think I have a lot of support for this statement!

Every building or structure on earth was built by someone who put a lot of effort into their work. Building an ugly building is no easier than building a masterpiece. It all takes hard work. To say no one should criticize anything because someone built is nonsense. They built it because that is what they do. Good or bad.



http://pix11.com/2013/05/10/1-world-...#axzz2TB6AMwIx

1 World Trade Center: Is it the tallest in the Americas — and does that even MATTER?




Carol Willis, founder of the Skyscraper Museum, says something is more important than the trade center’s height.


by James Ford
5/10/13

With the crown of its spire put in place Friday morning, One World Trade Center officially became the tallest building in the Americas.

Or did it?

The answer lies in the judgment of an organization that determines the heights of buildings worldwide. However, its decision on the size of the Lower Manhattan building raises the issue of how important such designations are.

“It’s the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere,” said Scott Rechler, vice president of the Port Authority. In the crown, he said, will “be a beacon of hope.” He was referring to a bank of LED lights that were built into the cone-shaped crown of the structure. The lights will be visible from as far away as Central New Jersey and the middle of Long Island.

However, claims of height superiority for the structure may be premature. ”When the building is occupied,” said Timothy Johnson, chairman of the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, “we’ll review designs” to see if 1WTC qualifies as the tallest building in the Americas.

“But for now, the jury is out,” Johnson told PIX11 News.

The head of the council that makes official designations of building heights said that the rules of his organization dictate that it can’t make a determination of the building’s height until the buildings interior, as well as its exterior, is completed. One World Trade is expected to open to its tenants in 2014.

Its developers claim that the height of the building is a symbolic 1,776 feet. If it’s determined that the 40-storyy spire atop the structure cannot be factored into the building’s official height, One World Trade will be shorter than Chicago’s Willis Tower, which is currently the tallest building in the Americas.

But whether or not One World Trade is designated as the tallest in the Western Hemisphere, the director of the Skyscraper Museum said that what is more important is the building having finally reached its full height. “It’s the vision of the tower that we all see,” said Carol Willis, who also founded the Skyscraper Museum 16 years ago. She told PIX11 News that the building’s design, and its place in the skyline as a whole bear much more importance “than as a measuring stick.”

petra.gaum









GadgetAndrew

[TheCap'n]

Originally Posted by alan88

Just the aviation white strobe light and night red aviation beacon are hooked up today so that the crane boom doesn't have to be the aircraft warning light for spire. The goal was to get it done within 48 hrs and five star local 3 electricians got it done since weather is rain on Saturday in NYC. The led beacon and led up-lighting needs weeks more work to install /wire plus racks of equipment to control them inside the building. But the day is coming when it will be done and the spire lit and it will be spectacular.

This is all accurate info. Good job.

It's nice to see some actual project info on here among the pages and pages of "Nice Pic!" and "I love/hate the spire/base cladding!" The remainder of all the fixtures for the facade lighting will be shipping this week. Some of them shipped last Friday. BTW, not sure if you work for 5 Star or not, but I've been hearing nothing but high praise for the work they are doing with regard to everything lighting-related on the spire.

[1wtcspiresavor]

Ive tried to like it but it is just too disproportionally tall and that is the problem. If it was shorter it would look better. Im just hoping the guy wires will make it look nicer.

[NewYorker2009]

Oh for fuck sake just count it already. The height is there you can't pretend it doesn't exist. The spire was part of the design and was built during the construction of the Tower. If the CTBUH decides not to count it well then it will be a smack in the PA and Durst faces for changing the design in the first place. Maybe that will encourage them to put the radome on the already naked spire.

[meh_cd]

Originally Posted by NewYorker2009

Oh for fuck sake just count it already. The height is there you can't pretend it doesn't exist. The spire was part of the design and was built during the construction of the Tower. If the CTBUH decides not to count it well then it will be a smack in the PA and Durst faces for changing the design in the first place. Maybe that will encourage them to put the radome on the already naked spire.

This whole "count it because it was built during construction of the tower" is a bad idea because the podiums for the antennae on Sears and Hancock in Chicago were built with the building as well but they are not counted in the buildings' height. Hancock in particular had some pretty high "nubs" sticking out as it were long before the building was finished.

The stubs, just so people get a sense of what I'm talking about.

[Bcasey25raptor]

It is a very pretty and nice building. But I agree, the spire does not count as part of the height.

No one says that the willis tower is 1730 feet do they? No it's 1450 feet.

1450 feet > 1360 feet.

But it is an amazingly pretty building no doubt.

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by NewYorker2009

Oh for fuck sake just count it already. The height is there you can't pretend it doesn't exist. The spire was part of the design and was built during the construction of the Tower. If the CTBUH decides not to count it well then it will be a smack in the PA and Durst faces for changing the design in the first place. Maybe that will encourage them to put the radome on the already naked spire.

Th problem is the whole "The spire was part of the design and was built during the construction of the Tower." argument has no bearing on whether something is an architectural element or not. If I build a 1 story shack and a 2000' mast on top which I "planned from the start" does that make it the tallest building in the country?

The mast will hold communication equipment, that is it's purpose. If it was not going to have any communication equipment then I think it would be counted just like BOA, but unfortunately, communication masts don't count. There are other examples of this in NYC.

[mfastx]

I have to say that the antenna does look a little out of place up there. Just a minor blemish on an otherwise fantastic building.

[NewYorker2009]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

Th problem is the whole "The spire was part of the design and was built during the construction of the Tower." argument has no bearing on whether something is an architectural element or not. If I build a 1 story shack and a 2000' mast on top which I "planned from the start" does that make it the tallest building in the country?

The mast will hold communication equipment, that is it's purpose. If it was not going to have any communication equipment then I think it would be counted just like BOA, but unfortunately, communication masts don't count. There are other examples of this in NYC.

Yes, but the spire was part of the initial design back in 2003 before all the design changes. The 1,776' figure was the whole idea back then, to build a building to a height that represented America's year of independence. Secondly, I don't think anyone would build a "1 story shack and a 2000' mast on top" and try to claim that as the world's tallest building. That's just illogical for someone to do but I see your point. Then why bother counting any spire period. Let's just take your example with the 1 story shack and instead add a 2,000' spire instead of a mast. Would that count as the World's Tallest Building? I'm sure the CTBUH would probably see it that way because a spire is an architectural element. The architect designed the building as 1,776 feet so it should count. Period. Willis Tower and John Hancock all give their heights as 1,450' and 1,127'. Honestly, it doesn't matter if they decide to count it or not because technically, One WTC is taller than Willis Tower's pinnacle. The height is present regardless of what officials say. Lastly, we wouldn't have this problem if Durst didn't change the design. I'm sure the PA will get them to count it. It's newspaper articles and the media that stir things up to get a reaction from the people because we don't know if they'll count it or not.

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

Th problem is the whole "The spire was part of the design and was built during the construction of the Tower." argument has no bearing on whether something is an architectural element or not. If I build a 1 story shack and a 2000' mast on top which I "planned from the start" does that make it the tallest building in the country?

The mast will hold communication equipment, that is it's purpose. If it was not going to have any communication equipment then I think it would be counted just like BOA, but unfortunately, communication masts don't count. There are other examples of this in NYC.

The spire here was not just put up for broadcasting alone. All we have heard is 1,776' from the start. Even if no antennas were ever going up 1,776' is the goal from the start. If they chose to mount a broadcast antenna to the BOA spire in the future would that would turn it into a communication mast and discount it's spire height.

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by sw5710

So if they chose to mount a broadcast antenna to the BOA spire in the future would that would turn it into a communication mast and discount it's height. Some say spires should not count a mast is a mast. Measure to the top floor only. If that were true the Burj would go from 2,717' to 1,918'

According to CTBUH rules? Yes. The portion of the mast on the ESB with communication equipment mounted on it does not count toward height.

This is why I think two better ways to measure height would be top of structure, and highest occupied floor. With weight going toward occupied floor for prestige. That is already how I personally look at things. CTBUH rules are odd and a bit arbitrary, but they are what we recognize.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=176108&page=3 Condé Nast, spire or antenna? Either way it is not counted toward height and it serves the same purpose as the mast on 1WTC and looks very similar. You may say "Oh, it was added later" but a thing is a thing, regardless of when it was built. If GM added a 100m spire to the Ren Cen it would make the building taller, regardless of the original plans for the building. Likewise, if a mast is added at the time of construction or a few years later, it is still just a mast.

[drumz0rz]

To answer the question "why count spires at all?" question, you have to look to buildings like the Chrysler Building and the Burj Khalifa or the future Kingdom Tower. In those buildings the spire is obiquitously part of the building. The line where building (read: occupied / mechanical space) ends and spire begins is blurry at best.

Those aforementioned buildings do not have a flat roof with a stick on top like 1WTC, or Willis Tower. Even the Empire State Building has a clear demarcation between building (roof of original blimp mooring) and mast. For these buildings I think it is clear what should be counted as the architectural height (vs. the pinnacle height).

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

This is why I think two better ways to measure height would be top of structure, and highest occupied floor. With weight going toward occupied floor for prestige. That is already how I personally look at things. CTBUH rules are odd and a bit arbitrary, but they are what we recognize.

While I generally agree with you, and think more value should be placed on heights occupied floor, I think you shouldn't discount unoccupied space. Sometimes these supertalls can have a number of floors of mechanical space above the highest occupied floor, and I think that in most cases that should be included.

For example, 14 Wall Street (completed in 1912) has 31 occupied floors. Above the 32nd floor sits the iconic pyramid roof, which isn't a "spire" as it contains occupy-able (but empty) floors 32-38. For a building like that, the height should be measured to the top of the roof. (source: I've stood next to the vent which exhausts out the center of the tip of the pyramid)

[Guiltyspark]

Someone awhile back on this forum had a great new criteria for measuring the height of a building. It was something like...

"The highest point on the building in which the lead architect is willing to spend a week without support from the outside world."

[NewYorker2009]

Originally Posted by drumz0rz

To answer the question "why count spires at all?" question, you have to look to buildings like the Chrysler Building and the Burj Khalifa or the future Kingdom Tower. In those buildings the spire is obiquitously part of the building. The line where building (read: occupied / mechanical space) ends and spire begins is blurry at best.

Well, with buildings like Chrysler and Burj Khalifa, their designs called for the buildings to be that tall (spires included). One WTC's design called for the building to be 1,776 feet. Yeah it turned out to be just a mast but it was part of the design. Like I said, Durst screwed up by doing this but that's on them. If they count it, all that we are debating about here will not matter. I do feel that buildings should be counted to their roof and highest occupied floor. It makes things a hell of a lot easier. A spire is just a way to cheat. Burj Khalifa cheats so much because the top 700' of the building is just a spire. It cheats a lot more than One WTC if you ask me.

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by NewYorker2009

Yes, but the spire was part of the initial design back in 2003 before all the design changes. The 1,776' figure was the whole idea back then, to build a building to a height that represented America's year of independence. Secondly, I don't think anyone would build a "1 story shack and a 2000' mast on top" and try to claim that as the world's tallest building. That's just illogical for someone to do but I see your point. Then why bother counting any spire period. Let's just take your example with the 1 story shack and instead add a 2,000' spire instead of a mast. Would that count as the World's Tallest Building? I'm sure the CTBUH would probably see it that way because a spire is an architectural element. The architect designed the building as 1,776 feet so it should count. Period. Willis Tower and John Hancock all give their heights as 1,450' and 1,127'. Honestly, it doesn't matter if they decide to count it or not because technically, One WTC is taller than Willis Tower's pinnacle. The height is present regardless of what officials say. Lastly, we wouldn't have this problem if Durst didn't change the design. I'm sure the PA will get them to count it. It's newspaper articles and the media that stir things up to get a reaction from the people because we don't know if they'll count it or not.

But Durst DID change the design. Actually, he took away all the aesthetic elements of the design and just left the structural skeleton. Everything about the spire (expect the very tip) that required an architect to dream up was removed. What we have left is the engineering work. AKA, a normal old communication mast. Just my opinion. I would love for this building to be 1776 feet, or 2000 for that matter, I just wish they had achieved it with beefier architecture to the top like many of the super and ultratalls in China.

[sw5710]

I feel that a spire is a spire and if they put an antenna on BOA or Chrysler it is still a spire part of the building.

[NewYorker2009]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

But Durst DID change the design. Actually, he took away all the aesthetic elements of the design and just left the structural skeleton. Everything about the spire (expect the very tip) that required an architect to dream up was removed. What we have left is the engineering work. AKA, a normal old communication mast. Just my opinion. I would love for this building to be 1776 feet, or 2000 for that matter, I just wish they had achieved it with beefier architecture to the top like many of the super and ultratalls in China.

Yeah, he did and now marred the appearance of the building. Personally, I hate what Durst did. The mast looks naked without the radome. However, if other people want to like it and be all patriotic about it, that's cool with me. This is the land of the free, home of the brave. They had to keep the whole 1,368' symbolism of the old North Tower so that prevented them from building a higher roof. However, the actual roof aka 105th floor of this Tower is only 1,334' 8". With the parapet and communication ring it brings it up to 1,368' and 1,401' 8". I like that the Tower is the height of the North Tower. It brings back memories to how I remembered the Twin Towers and how tall they looked in the skyline. Oh well, it is what it is I guess. The Tower does look great with the glass. I'm just glad something is there you know. New York has gone too long without the World Trade Center. I mean yeah there was a time (pre-1970s) when we didn't have the World Trade Center. I grew up with them though and having the city without it the last decade really sucked. It's just nice to have that marker back in Lower Manhattan.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by NewYorker2009

Yes, but the spire was part of the initial design back in 2003 before all the design changes. The 1,776' figure was the whole idea back then, to build a building to a height that represented America's year of independence. Secondly, I don't think anyone would build a "1 story shack and a 2000' mast on top" and try to claim that as the world's tallest building. That's just illogical for someone to do but I see your point. Then why bother counting any spire period. Let's just take your example with the 1 story shack and instead add a 2,000' spire instead of a mast. Would that count as the World's Tallest Building? I'm sure the CTBUH would probably see it that way because a spire is an architectural element. The architect designed the building as 1,776 feet so it should count. Period. Willis Tower and John Hancock all give their heights as 1,450' and 1,127'. Honestly, it doesn't matter if they decide to count it or not because technically, One WTC is taller than Willis Tower's pinnacle. The height is present regardless of what officials say. Lastly, we wouldn't have this problem if Durst didn't change the design. I'm sure the PA will get them to count it. It's newspaper articles and the media that stir things up to get a reaction from the people because we don't know if they'll count it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco_Superstack

a chimney that is 1250 feet high.

Second tallest structure in Canada. I know it doesn't count as a high rise/skyscraper, but it emphasizes the point of 1 floor, 2000 foot mast kind of issue.

I do not count a mast/chimney as part of the actual height of the building. Even the original design of the tip is dubious to me.

I measure buildings from the ground to the top of the last floor. The one WTC is at 1368ft.

[CCs77]

Originally Posted by meh_cd

This whole "count it because it was built during construction of the tower" is a bad idea because the podiums for the antennae on Sears and Hancock in Chicago were built with the building as well but they are not counted in the buildings' height. Hancock in particular had some pretty high "nubs" sticking out as it were long before the building was finished.

The difference is that in the case of 1WTC, despite if it is used for broadcasting or not, the idea of a spire as an architectural element reaching 1776 ft. was planned from the very beggining, from the original design of the Freedom Tower of Libeskind, and then, when the architects were changed and the entire design changed as well, the concept of the spire remained, because it was part of the master plan.
In the case of Sears, Hancock, or the former WTC, as you pointed out, they planned antennas from the design too, and they took the structural previsions for the later installation of them, But the architects of those buildings had nothing to do with the design of them. Im pretty sure they didn't apperad in the architectural blueprints (as the 1WTC spire does) Those antennas were designed later, tooking in account exclusively technichal requirements needed for them to work properly. And as a matter of fact, those antennas have changed over time, as they probably will continue to change in the future, as broadcasting requirements change.

The spire of the WTC has been designed by the architects as part of the visual identity of the building, even the height figure of 1776 ft. is the very arbitrary number of the year of independence of the U.S. in feet, it is not fixed, although it seems near, to broadcasting requirements.

Obviously, when they took away the radome, part of the image planned by the architects was taken away as well, which I think was a mistake. But that mast has been designed by the architects, with the help of the engineers, the same way as the layout of the structure of the building itself is planned by the architects, with the help of the structural engineers.

edit. That chimney in Canada, and the even taller one in Kazakhstan, are not as tall just because they wanted to, but because they needed to. if they could make them shorter, they certainly did, making them much more less expensive. But they did some studies, of what I am completely unaware of, that determined that those chimneys had to be that tall.