NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1599

Kevin Scott Koepke · #**31961** Posted **May 14, 2013, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYGrail

I really don't like certain angles of the new 1WTC. It becomes way too triangle-ish like the John Hancock Center (and nothing like the old towers). See the recent Ann Thompson photo of 1WTC against Yooperann's flickr photo of JHC.

Anne Thompson was nice enough (she even interviewed me), but I think my picture was better though

patrick989 · #**31962** Posted **May 14, 2013, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYGrail

I really don't like certain angles of the new 1WTC. It becomes way too triangle-ish like the John Hancock Center (and nothing like the old towers). See the recent Ann Thompson photo of 1WTC against Yooperann's flickr photo of JHC.

Well obviously if they had wanted to make this tower look more like the old one, they would have built it as a 4-sided rectangular building. It's not the old towers.

The amount of bitching about every aspect of this building really baffles me. Are there any aspects that haven't been picked apart yet? Maybe people will take issue with the type of soap they'll use in the bathrooms after the building opens.

Skyscraper Sebastian · #**31963** Posted **May 14, 2013, 1:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow

Don't worry about it! If the height is 1787, that is the year the U.S. Constitution was ratified. So the cheap kitsch symbolism remains intact!

OTOH, if, as someone mentioned, the true height is 1792, we are all screwed! I think that was the year of the Whiskey Rebellion or something!

Or maybe it was the year G. Washington became president! If so, we are all safe. Whew!

Meanwhile, ask yourselves just how many untold numbers of completely innocent people have been slaughtered by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ask yourselves what cheap kitsch buildings those folks will have built to commemorate their dead. I reckon none of you will like the question, much less the answer.

George Washington became president in 1789, though the NYSE supposedly had its origin in 1792.

jsr · #**31964** Posted **May 14, 2013, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYGrail

I really don't like certain angles of the new 1WTC. It becomes way too triangle-ish like the John Hancock Center (and nothing like the old towers).

The duality & simplicity of the form is ingenious IMO.

Silverfox · #**31965** Posted **May 14, 2013, 2:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsr

The duality & simplicity of the form is ingenious IMO.

I agree completely.

bigreach · #**31966** Posted **May 14, 2013, 3:05 AM**

UGGGhh tired of the spire talk, look at how intricate the corners and how perfect they look on NYGuys, 3rd photo, not counting the old lady on pg 1597, 31922,,,damn "perfect" construction, conjoining those pieces. Almost pg 1600

Zapatan · #**31967** Posted **May 14, 2013, 3:09 AM**

Bitching, and stating your opinion are two different things, you're allowed to not like or be critical of something, nothing wrong with that. I like this tower from most angles but I happen to agree that when the slant is too strong it looks bad, that and the antenna.... or sorry "spire"

1wtcspiresavor · #**31968** Posted **May 14, 2013, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

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?

If the mast is a spire than yes, it makes it the tallest building in the country. Do I agree with that logic, no, but this is true by current tallest definition.

Yankee · #**31969** Posted **May 14, 2013, 5:38 AM**

Oh yeah!

• Video Link

R.C113 · #**31970** Posted **May 14, 2013, 6:50 AM**

1WTC is such an amazing example of human ingenuity. It should never be discounted or classified as a lower grade of what humans can accomplish. Could it have been better? Anything could have, do we sit here and complain about the rest? I believe if somebody truly has passion over something such as architecture - OR - engineering in particular, etc etc.. they would not under-mind what is and what could have, but value the essence of what we have now!

Traynor · #**31971** Posted **May 14, 2013, 10:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1wtcspiresavor

If the mast is a spire than yes, it makes it the tallest building in the country. Do I agree with that logic, no, but this is true by current tallest definition.

Not true...

According to the CTBUH, in order to be eligible for the Tallest Building List, more than 50 percent of the building's height must contain usable floor space:

(From CTBUH website found HERE )

However, that rule would then allow 1WTC to possibly beat Burj Khalifa for world's tallest, if the spire had been 49% of its height:

drumz0rz · #**31972** Posted **May 14, 2013, 2:30 PM**

Wow, that video is awesome.

So the temporary walkways will be coming off the spire, am I correct that the walkways around the comms ring will come off as well?

NYguy · #**31973** Posted **May 14, 2013, 2:33 PM**

I'll say this, for all you people who are sick of talking about the spire or reading someone else's opinion of it, I don't know why you even bother reading this thread, what surprises you are hoping to find when you open it. As I said before, people have gushed daily about how beautiful and how amazing this tower looked, and I never saw any complaints about it. So keep those complaints to yourselves now. Opinions will differ. If you don't like someone else's, so be it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

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 BofA is a perfect example of a mast that counts as a spire. It's neighbor next door is an example of why its mast does not. Guess which one will serve as a backup to the mast here, and you see only half the reason this is a problem. The other half is, minus the beacon on top, what we see is something totally different from the architectural element that was planned to crown the tower. Seems like I've said it a million times, but there is a reason why the antenna was to be enclosed by the spire. The spire, whether it be the open lattice design or the twisting, radome design was a different thing altogether from the antenna. Now maybe, despite the broadcasting, the beacon can play a roll in this being a spire. I will be surprised if that is the case, but it could happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCs77

The spire of the WTC has been designed by the architects as part of the visual identity of the building

Which is why David Childs was upset that they removed it.

http://gothamist.com/2012/05/09/1_wo...not_be_177.php

Quote:

Skidmore Owings & Merrill architect David Childs, who designed the building, released a statement saying, "We are disappointed that a decision has been made to remove the sculptural enclosure at the top of 1 World Trade Center. Eliminating this integral part of the building’s design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate. We stand ready to work with the Port on an alternate design that will still mark the 1 World Trade Center’s place in New York City’s skyline."

That worked out nicely.

robertocordon