NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 520

sw5710 · #**10381** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 4:57 AM**

It should pass the Verizon building 498' within the next few days. When they raise the scaffolding and start floor 43,44 507'. Metlife in 5 months.

NYguy · #**10382** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 5:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domamania

i would say in 8 floors it will surpass the metlife aka panam building.

I don't think that will happen until early next year, at around the same time it will top Chase Manhattan Bank, leaving only a handful of skyscrapers Downtown to be conquered on its quest to skyline's tallest.

Draegen · #**10383** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 7:00 AM**

Whats that under construction behind 7 wtc?

sw5710 · #**10384** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 7:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't think that will happen until early next year, at around the same time it will top Chase Manhattan Bank, leaving only a handful of skyscrapers Downtown to be conquered on its quest to skyline's tallest.

Every 2 weeks the building grows 2 floors or 26'8". 54' per month. I believe that will increase when the floors get smaller.

NYguy · #**10385** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 1:23 PM**

^ Perhaps, but I wouldn't expect it to reach 800 ft until after the end of the year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draegen

Whats that under construction behind 7 wtc?

A branch of BMCC...
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=184311

Pbellamy · #**10386** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 2:03 PM**

A quick question that I haven't seen asked on this forum yet...

The steel work is progressing at about 1 floor per week which I'm guessing pretty much fully utilises the cranes. Does the additional work required to support the cladding activities not impact the schedule for steel work?

(I'm assuming the cranes are needed to raise the cladidng).

OneWorldTradeCenter · #**10387** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 4:36 PM**

Lovely shot I found at SSC.

Behind the two buildings that is going to be surpassed soon...

Admin: Image removed - please reference photos properly before posting to the forum.

uakoops · #**10388** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pbellamy

A quick question that I haven't seen asked on this forum yet...

The steel work is progressing at about 1 floor per week which I'm guessing pretty much fully utilises the cranes. Does the additional work required to support the cladding activities not impact the schedule for steel work?

(I'm assuming the cranes are needed to raise the cladidng).

I believe they can bring the panels up in the elevator and install them from the inside, using a small crane positioned one floor above.

Nico54 · #**10389** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 9:22 PM**

I still do not understand what's the aim of the crane at the north west corner of the tower...

wong21fr · #**10390** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico54

I still do not understand what's the aim of the crane at the north west corner of the tower...

It's used by the concrete contractor to bring up rebar and other materials for the building's core. This allows the two main tower cranes to focus on erecting the building's steel superstructure.

NYguy · #**10391** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 9:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneWorldTradeCenter

Lovely shot I found at SSC.

Behind the two buildings that is going to be surpassed soon...

Image removed by admin

Almost indentical...

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Interesting pic, the city's two tallest stand guard as the city's new tallest rises...

Putter482

NYguy · #**10392** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 9:42 PM**

Not really news...and NOT an invitation for a city vs. city or spire vs. roof argument.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/20...n-to-new-york/
Tallest Building Title May Return to New York

The Willis Tower: Tallest in America, for now...

Maura Webber Sadovi reports:
October 13, 2010

Quote:

Chicago may soon lose bragging rights for being home to the country’s tallest building.

That distinction belongs to Chicago’s Willis Tower, which is 1,450 feet high. But that is soon to be eclipsed by the 1,776-foot One World Trade Center in New York that is now under construction, according to Marshall Gerometta, database editor for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in Chicago.

Chicago’s hope has been tied to plans for Chicago Spire, a 2,000-foot tower designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava slated to overlook Lake Michigan. But financial problems have stalled construction since 2008 on the proposed luxury residential building.

Most recently, Anglo Irish Bank Corp. moved to foreclose on a defaulted mortgage valued at about $77 million including interest and other unpaid charges held by the developer, Shelbourne Development, according to a recent filing in Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. Lorig Construction Co. of Des Plaines, Ill. earlier filed suit seeking about $512,386 for what it alleged was unpaid work on the project.

The country’s tallest building title “would go back to New York,” if the Spire doesn’t go forward and the New York building is completed as planned, said Mr. Gerometta, who is keeping an eye on the Spire’s progress. An attorney for the Spire’s developer said the project isn’t dead and Shelbourne still is seeking other sources of financing.

NYguy · #**10393** Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 2:50 AM**

balanlance5702

sjipp

FrancoRey · #**10394** Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Not really news...and NOT an invitation for a city vs. city or spire vs. roof argument.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/20...n-to-new-york/
Tallest Building Title May Return to New York

The Willis Tower: Tallest in America, for now...

Maura Webber Sadovi reports:
October 13, 2010

Why leave any title of USA's tallest to chance? Do what I said they should have done with 1 WTC's design 5 years ago! Make it 1,776 feet tall, with a spire bringing it up to the year it's completed (2,012). That way you beat the Spire regardless if it's built.

They should still change the tower to these heights, IMO. I mean, it's not like they already laid the foundation or finalized designs.

Let me dream.

eaguir3 · #**10395** Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 4:18 AM**

i dont really think Chicago cares anymore if we have the tallest anymore lol

sw5710 · #**10396** Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 4:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancoRey

Why leave any title of USA's tallest to chance? Do what I said they should have done with 1 WTC's design 5 years ago! Make it 1,776 feet tall, with a spire bringing it up to the year it's completed (2,012). That way you beat the Spire regardless if it's built.

They should still change the tower to these heights, IMO. I mean, it's not like they already laid the foundation or finalized designs.

Let me dream.

Sometimes I wonder if there could have been or will be some design changes that we won't know about untill they are built.

sw5710 · #**10397** Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 4:46 AM**

I thought Americas supertall towers were and are built because of "office demand" There sometimes is not enough land or land is to expensive as with New York so they build up. I see alot of 1500'-2500' projects in countries that seem to be showing off how tall they can build. What percent of those towers are built because there is the demand for a 2000 foot tall towers space! How many will be 1/2 full or less in 5 or 10 years from now?

Onn · #**10398** Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw5710

I thought all of Americas supertall towers were and are built because of "office demand" But there sometimes is not enough land or land is to expensive as with New York so they build up. I see alot of 1500'-2500' projects in countries that seem to be showing off how tall they can build. What percent of those towers are built because there is the demand for a 2000 foot tall tower. How many will be 1/2 full or less in 5 or 10 years from now?

Look at the Sears...I mean, Willis Tower. That's what most 2,000 foot towers will probably look like in the future, a future half or more empty. These kind of towers are huge and become outdated quickly. Furthermore your right, the space just isn't needed. We can look at our own cities and see the office vacancies already, imagine trying to get rid of a 2,000 foot tower. 1WTC will be successful being in the financial capital of the world, just as the Twins were before. But beyond that who really knows.

JACKinBeantown · #**10399** Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 5:03 AM**

I'm sure everyone on this forum knows this, but the Empire State Building was known as the "Empty State Building" throughout the 1930's because it was built at the beginning of the Great Depression and remained largely empty after it was built. The same fate may or may not be true for so many supertalls being built throughout the world today. Be it bragging rights or supply filling demand... whatever. I appreciate great architecture at whatever size the building is. If it's a three-story building in Idaho or a 125 story building in Dubai, as long as the architecture is nice and the building makes sense in its location, I'm all for it.

One World Trade Center is being built (as is the entire WTC complex) in a location where demand will make sure the buildings are filled. As many of you will agree, I can't wait to see it fill the void left by the loss of the original World Trade Center (and the lives of all those who were lost that day).

Now back to the subject of the building itself...

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**10400** Posted **Oct 14, 2010, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JACKinNYC

I'm sure everyone on this forum knows this, but the Empire State Building was known as the "Empty State Building" throughout the 1930's because it was built at the beginning of the Great Depression and remained largely empty after it was built. The same fate may or may not be true for so many supertalls being built throughout the world today. Be it bragging rights or supply filling demand... whatever. I appreciate great architecture at whatever size the building is. If it's a three-story building in Idaho or a 125 story building in Dubai, as long as the architecture is nice and the building makes sense in its location, I'm all for it.

though that undermines architectures purpose,sure a building may be beautiful though if its not occupied then its senseless. it does not serve its purpose and as true as it may be that the ESB was unoccupied and largely useless it still wasn't 2000 feet as all theses speculatory towers are today. nobody needs a tower that tall,in the long run they will just become burdens on the economy. until it becomes practical im against it being done...