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

[Fishman92]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

the LEDs will project light onto the mast, they aren't installed directly onto it. It will look like the mast of the North Tower on the old WTC but with a bright, rotating beacon at the top.

No- all antennae legally have to have LEDs installed to notify aircraft. I'm sure there are some actually on it.

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by Fishman92

No- all antennae legally have to have LEDs installed to notify aircraft. I'm sure there are some actually on it.

yes, at the very top there are FAA mandated warning lights.

[Traynor]

Because I am tired of seeing this question on every page and the very bad answers that follow.

[MadGnome]

Originally Posted by Fishman92

No- all antennae legally have to have LEDs installed to notify aircraft. I'm sure there are some actually on it.

They don't have to be LEDs. Regular incandescents or strobes are used.

[NYguy]

shinya





James Hanlon





cerdsp

[hunser]

http://www.zeit.de/reisen/2013-05/fs...enter/seite-20

[sw5710]

Originally Posted by Traynor

Because I am tired of seeing this question on every page and the very bad answers that follow.

Thank you Tranor! I was thinking the same thing the other day but forgot to post.

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Yes thank you Tranor for clarifying.

[mheadroom]

From the top floor of the Standard

[Yankee fan for life]

The top platform underneath the beacon is not staying, there are going to be 5 rings on the mast including,the guyed wires attachments .

[jsr]

Originally Posted by hunser

http://www.zeit.de/reisen/2013-05/fs...enter/seite-20

http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3639188. Original image credit: Skidmore, Owings and Merrill



We've come a long way...

[TouchTheSky13]

Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life

The top platform underneath the beacon is not staying, there are going to be 5 rings on the mast including,the guyed wires attachments .

Yes it is. According to this rendering by Otie (all credit goes to him), it will be staying. I trust Otie's judgement because he's rarely ever wrong about this sort of thing. Don't trust the Miller Hare renderings - they are misleading

http://www.flickr.com/photos/6201816...n/photostream/

[Blaze23]

Originally Posted by jsr

http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3639188. Original image credit: Skidmore, Owings and Merrill



We've come a long way...

The real thing actually looks better than the render. Glad we got our skyline back! Looking better than ever and there's more to come!

[TechTalkGuy]

Watch the rise of the spire in this video:

• Video Link

[PhxPavilion]

This building would look better without the antenna. Wish NY got the SWFC instead.

Pretty funny that a condo tower is going to be taller.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Blaze23

The real thing actually looks better than the render.

I was thinking the same thing with the oft-heard caveat, however, that it also shows how aenemic the antenna tower is. I know it's beating a dead horse, but it's such a thin piece of mess to put on a tower so graceful. I'm not even angry that they didn't put the exact radome they have on it in the rendering, but rather that even though they didn't they didn't do something better than what it's been given. Meh.

Anyway, that picture and the ones in the harbor are awesome. The harbor shot is my new background.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by LMich

it also shows how aenemic the antenna tower is. I know it's beating a dead horse, but it's such a thin piece of mess to put on a tower so graceful. I'm not even angry that they didn't put the exact radome they have on it in the rendering, but rather that even though they didn't they didn't do something better than what it's been given.

That's the joke of the whole thing. Ok, so you didn't want to build the radome spire for "maintenance" reasons, so this was the only other alternative? The answer is, anything else would have added to the costs, just like the radome. If they could get by with the beacon, and they just might, its a win for them, screw the City and everyone else who looks at the building. "Looks don't pay no rent", lol. Meanwhile, it will be a couple of years or so before the broadcasters can even make a move or start putting equipment up there.


http://broadcastengineering.com/towe...oadcasters-top

The only thing it’s missing is a broadcast antenna and television (and radio) transmission equipment, as agreements to move the region’s local broadcasters from their nearby Empire State Building and 4 Times Square locations have not been reached. Broadcasters we contacted declined to comment publicly on the on-going negotiations, but there is interest once current leases with Empire State and 4 Times Square, some set to expire in 2015, run out.

An agreement to move local stations’ equipment may be a bit farther off, as current lease deals and reluctance among some stations to move, will delay any activity in this regard....“We are in active conversations with several of the broadcasters right now,” Lyons said. “The major holdup right now is the looming repacking of channels [which will occur once the broadcast spectrum auctions are completed in June of 2014]. Basically, we’re all waiting to see what happens with the auction. For us, it’s holding up which antenna we choose what I buy and other equipment, because right now we don’t know what frequency they will be operating at.”

“While we wait, we are having discussions with stations and finding out what their requirements are,” Lyons said. At this point there has been no construction on transmission rooms or other accommodations at the top of one World Trade Center, but Lyons said there would be. Space has been allocated and several 2MW backup generators have already been installed. ”Everything they need for a fully functioning broadcast facility will be supplied once agreements are reached,” Lyons said.

... one concern for broadcasters that are considering a move is the building’s height. Since 1WTC is now higher than the Empire State Building (at 1,454 feet), stations are cautious about not losing local DMA viewers by “overshooting” them. Extensive field-testing needs to be done, as the 1776 ft height of 1WTC could reduce the effective radiating power of the UHF antenna. In addition, the FCC has a rule that power levels must be lowered as you go higher up in elevation so as not to interfere with airline communications. But none of this can be tested without an antenna on top of 1WTC.

“Understandably stations are concerned that what we put up there will retain the audience they currently have in the near-field urban market of New York City,” Lyons said. “And we don't want to be building something that does not meet the broadcasters’ requirements. So, we’re listening to the stations and looking to come up the best facility we can.”

Michael C Dunne

[speedbird2]

I was gazing-up at the recently added spire yesterday. I found here that some of these platforms are temporary while others will stay. I don't recall seeing any platforms on the antenna of the destroyed 1 WTC. Why are these platforms needed? Are they for maintenance? Also, the model I have from the Danbury Mint, shows a series of wires attached to the spire, when was that plan changed?

[MadGnome]

Originally Posted by speedbird2

I was gazing-up at the recently added spire yesterday. I found here that some of these platforms are temporary while others will stay. I don't recall seeing any platforms on the antenna of the destroyed 1 WTC. Why are these platforms needed? Are they for maintenance? Also, the model I have from the Danbury Mint, shows a series of wires attached to the spire, when was that plan changed?

I'm just guessing, but the platforms would allow antenna systems with 240 degree cardioid type coverage that some phone systems use. Broadcast antennas also need to be a ways from the mast.
You hear a lot about the rings are meant for this and the mast is meant for that, but it's not that simple. Any system can use various antenna systems that might be better off the rings or mast. I haven't heard anything about it for WTC 1, but some military applications could even use very low frequency antennas that could go from one platform to another.
The rings in the depictions are filled with point to point dishes, but there isn't that much demand for those now days and I doubt if the reality will look anything like that.

This is my big problem with the cladding removal. A nice clean spire isn't bad. But if they're highly successful in leasing tower space, the mast could wind up being a much worse mess than the ESB. The rings could also get pretty ugly.

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by speedbird2

... I don't recall seeing any platforms on the antenna of the destroyed 1 WTC. Why are these platforms needed? Are they for maintenance? Also, the model I have from the Danbury Mint, shows a series of wires attached to the spire, when was that plan changed?

The permanent platforms were originally NOT platforms but the underlying support for the fibreglass radome that was to cover the mast.

The reason the platforms change size from top to bottom is that they match the profile of the tapering fibreglass radome that was supposed to be attached to them. The railings on the permanent platforms may stay, but some renders show them gone as well.

The guy wires are still to be attached but the cranes and temporary "doghouse" above the communication rings must be removed first.