Roof height, last occupiable floor, pinnacle height? - Page 5

marshall · #81 Posted **May 3, 2012, 12:47 AM**

I too used to lament the fact that 1WTC wouldn't break any new height records, save for being the tallest in the Western Hemisphere counting spire height..However, the dye is already cast, and 1WTC will only be as tall (by roof height) as the old twin towers, and the spire will bring it 1,776 ft. We just have to accept it and enjoy it once finished. It may not break any global records, but it will be a major icon for NYC and the country. That's special in itself. And at least it will be equaling the height of the old towers, which is no small feat. And like the previous poster said, there are other potentially taller structures in the works for NYC, namely 432 Park.

Roadcruiser1 · #82 Posted **May 3, 2012, 12:52 AM**

It's architecturally impossible to make One World Trade Center taller since it's dimensions only allows it to go up to 1,368 feet. The mast is part of the structure so it will count. 432 Park Avenue however might soar pass 1,400 feet. The Metropolitan Life North Building if it will ever be completed will be at least 1,600-1,700 feet counting the mast. There are tall buildings proposed everywhere including the Hudson Yards. It doesn't have to be at the World Trade Center.

TouchTheSky13 · #83 Posted **May 3, 2012, 12:54 AM**

If 1 WTC is surpassed in height in NYC, which it will undoubtedly will be, the record should go to a worthy building that has character. 432 Park Ave. is just a giant monolith with no character. I think that next supertall to claim the tallest building crown should be built at the hudson yards.

Roadcruiser1 · #84 Posted **May 3, 2012, 12:57 AM**

You might be saying that, but to me 432 Park Avenue reminds me of the Twin Towers in some sort of way. Even though it might be only half as wide in length and width as the Twin Towers were it does the job in some way. I am just happy One World Trade Center is getting built.

RockMont · #85 Posted **May 3, 2012, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13

I'm really glad to see this beautiful tower rise from the ashes of ground zero. But I still can't get over the fact that it will not unquestionably be the tallest building in the country. What I think they should do is top the building off with a pyramid or funnel shaped steel and glass structure that would support the spire and bring the roof height to 1492 ft. The spire would remain in its current location and top off at 1776ft. This may cause 1 WTC to look like an obelisk or a giant glass and steel Washington Monument, but I don't think that would be such a bad thing. Obelisks have been symbols of power and might dating all the way back to the time of the Egyptians. If you don't know what I mean, the structure that I am proposing would look a lot like the roof of 3 WFC. There is no excuse for this building not to be the tallest in the country, absolutely no excuse. But anyway, I digress. What do you all think?

No I don't think there should be any pyramids on the new building that replaces the old twins, I really don't like them, and as far as height goes, the originals (twins) were not the tallest in the country, when they existed, and the main thing of importance here is not that it is the tallest in the country, but rather, it is equal to the twins, with equal significance, that the twins possesed. As far as that goes, I am satisfied, with the results.

RockMont · #86 Posted **May 3, 2012, 1:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13

If 1 WTC is surpassed in height in NYC, which it will undoubtedly will be, the record should go to a worthy building that has character. 432 Park Ave. is just a giant monolith with no character. I think that next supertall to claim the tallest building crown should be built at the hudson yards.

That is basically what the twins were.

chris123678 · #87 Posted **May 3, 2012, 2:30 AM**

Personally, they should have increased the height of this tower. I understand that they want to remember the old, but 1,776 will easily surpassed, and i bet with in the next 5 to 10 years a building will be designed and built, and it will again be second.
I like the look the spire gives the building but don't think it should be counted in the final height. Honestly, what's the difference between a spire and antenna in this case? Considering the Port Authority made it like a needle, what's the difference, it will probably look like the North Tower Antenna.

Gabedamien · #88 Posted **May 3, 2012, 2:59 AM**

Guys, who cares? 1WTC is a fine height. It’s at least as high as what it replaces and memorializes. It looks good in the skyline already, and it’ll look even better once the last jumps are made, the cladding finished, and the spire erected. And personally I like this tower more for its geometry and the way it will interact with light than for its height. Could it have stood to be a little taller? Sure. Is it a huge wasted opportunity? Heck no. If other NYC buildings top it in the future, well, good for those buildings! A skyline is dynamic, that’s as it should be. It doesn’t lessen the meaning behind 1WTC.

There is a building out there right now, built by questionable labor practices, in service of no better message than massive wealth from the exploitation of natural resources + vanity naming from a last-minute backer, which has “height” as its primary claim to fame. (Hm, I wonder what building I’m referring to?). It’s an amazing engineering achievement and piece of architectural art to be sure, but I’d take 1WTC and what it evokes downtown any day over... whatever I’m referring to.

NewYorkDominates · #89 Posted **May 3, 2012, 3:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13

If 1 WTC is surpassed in height in NYC, which it will undoubtedly will be, the record should go to a worthy building that has character. 432 Park Ave. is just a giant monolith with no character. I think that next supertall to claim the tallest building crown should be built at the hudson yards.

One World Trade Center is built for the purpose of honoring those that died that horrible day.It also serves to be an iconic symbol and at the same time,an office building for the people of New York and the Nation.And for that,I see no necessity to build bigger.I'm glad and am grateful to see at the site that a building is even rising,let alone 2 Super-talls and a skyscraper.

Building bigger is way overrated.

Roadcruiser1 · #90 Posted **May 3, 2012, 3:17 AM**

It's also not a dicking contest either. We don't want the my dick is bigger than yours competition with skyscrapers going up around the world. It's our need that we build skyscrapers. Sorry about using the d word.

chris123678 · #91 Posted **May 3, 2012, 3:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

No it will not. The spire contains the antenna so you are wrong. The difference between an antenna and a spire is an antenna can be removed. It is not attached to the structure in any way or form. The spire on One World Trade Center is connected to the structure of the building. It is technically part of the building. You guys are falling into Chicago's trick here. Chicago wants to keep their title and if you keep saying this you are letting them win.

But In the Case Of One World Trade Center wouldn't the spire be placed on just like an antenna? The only difference i see, and i could very well be wrong is that the cone encase the antenna.
I don' care about The Title, I'm just trying to make sense of it all. It's attached just like an antenna. Once the roof is completed, they are attaching a spire on. Just like the Bank Of america tower, they are really antenna's if you ask me

Dense_Electric · #92 Posted **May 3, 2012, 3:30 AM**

Personally, I think it should be a matter of official discretion about whether or not the spire on a given structure constitutes an important aesthetic element of the building. The spire on One World Trade Center will obviously be aesthetically important, as is the spire on the Empire State Building. Compare that to the toothpick on top of the New York Times Tower, on the other hand.

And if Chicago thinks I'm not playing fair, I'm willing to give them that the antennas on the Willis, Hancock, and the spire on the Trump are all aesthetically important as well.

Roadcruiser1 · #93 Posted **May 3, 2012, 4:03 AM**

Even if antennas are counted the Sears Tower would only be 1,729 feet. It is still going to be defeated by One World Trade Center.

Yankee fan for life · #94 Posted **May 3, 2012, 4:38 AM**

People spires have been part of super tall design form the beginning the grandfather of all super talls the chrysler building, sorry its not the empire state building has a spire and the vast Marjory of the worlds super talls have spires, and for the analogy of the 6 foot man with the top hat if that man came out of his mothers womb with the top hat on and the hat was fused with the rest of his skull then the hat counts.

m0by · #95 Posted **May 3, 2012, 6:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabedamien

Guys, who cares? 1WTC is a fine height. It’s at least as high as what it replaces and memorializes. It looks good in the skyline already, and it’ll look even better once the last jumps are made, the cladding finished, and the spire erected. And personally I like this tower more for its geometry and the way it will interact with light than for its height. Could it have stood to be a little taller? Sure. Is it a huge wasted opportunity? Heck no. If other NYC buildings top it in the future, well, good for those buildings! A skyline is dynamic, that’s as it should be. It doesn’t lessen the meaning behind 1WTC.

I share your opinion in every single point!
It doesn't matter if you build a OneWTC with 2,000'+ or even 1,787'...!

Let's all be happy and proud that we'll get our skyline back

DrNest · #96 Posted **May 3, 2012, 4:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13

I think that depends on who you ask. Most people don't feel like it is legitimate, nor should they. I'm not against spires, but sticking a giant needle on top of a building that is 1368 to the roof and saying that is taller than a building that is 1451 to the roof is bogus.

This is exactly how I feel with regard to spires like those stuck on top of Trump (Toronto and Chicago) or Bank Of America (NYC) for example. However, when the spire is an integral part of the actual roof such as the Chrysler Building or the Petronas Towers, then that is a different view point.

I find it so hypocritical that the spire on BoA is counted as building height, but the antenna on the Sears tower isn't. If these types of spires are counted, then all antennas should be. That way you will be counting to the very top of a part of a building. I agree with the posts made earlier, the antenna height is included for obvious reasons in air navigation charts, and thus should be for building heights elsewhere.

Steely Dan · #97 Posted **May 3, 2012, 5:30 PM**

*posts deleted*

city vs. city nonsense will never be tolerated on this forum. if the idiots who seem hellbent on turning this thread into another NYC vs. chicago shitfest keep it up, then suspensions will be forthcoming.

Roadcruiser1 · #98 Posted **May 3, 2012, 6:50 PM**

Again even if the Sears/Willis Tower's antenna was counted it would only be 1,729 feet. It would still lose to One World Trade Center. What would be the point of this?

marshall · #99 Posted **May 3, 2012, 7:28 PM**

I agree. 1WTC will look just fine when completed, and will stand alone and speak for itself. It will truly be a monolith. I keep saying it over and over, wait until it's finished! It hasn't even topped out yet, the glass isn't on, or the spire. This time next year, people will hopefully appreciate it in all its glory once finished. New York doesn't have to prove anything. Building something like 1WTC the same roof height as the twins is a major accomplishment. Oh and btw, I personally think 1WTC blows the Sears/Willis Tower out of the water in every way. The Sears/Willis Tower is just ugly in my opinion.

BraveNewWorld · #**100** Posted **May 3, 2012, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall

I agree. 1WTC will look just fine when completed, and will stand alone and speak for itself. It will truly be a monolith. I keep saying it over and over, wait until it's finished! It hasn't even topped out yet, the glass isn't on, or the spire. This time next year, people will hopefully appreciate it in all its glory once finished. New York doesn't have to prove anything. Building something like 1WTC the same roof height as the twins is a major accomplishment. Oh and btw, I personally think 1WTC blows the Sears/Willis Tower out of the water in every way. The Sears/Willis Tower is just ugly in my opinion.

Wow, you are biased. Anyone who says the Sears tower is ugly doesn't have an eye for good architecture. On another note, they shouldn't count an antenna's or spires. If I build a 200m building and stick a 400m spire on it, is it 600m ? NO. They should either go by roof height, or top floor height. I would actually say top floor height, because it solves the Chrysler building dilemma.

Also the new WTC is a incredible building, whether it's America's tallest or not. It's a symbol of our freedom, and that America can come back stronger then ever.