^^ LOL, compared to the plane it looks like a megatall :hilarious

Btw, 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: I'm sooooo haaaaappyyyyy! :banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2:

including the current height jump, i'd say there about 3 jumps to go before this thing tops out.

Is it on floor 102 or 103

^^ LOL, compared to the plane it looks like a megatall :hilarious

Btw, 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: I'm sooooo haaaaappyyyyy! :banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2:

Kanto finally losing it?

London and NYC are both the only Alpha ++ cities, and are both as financially powerful as each other...

I have lived in NYC, but not London, and when I go to London it feels like there is more going on, nightlife, olympics, just look at the NYE celebration London allways trumps NYC...While on paper they are pretty much the same, London feels more like the capital of the world when you are there ;)

Aren't the original "Big 4" nyc, rome, tokyo and london?

I've lived in nyc, and been to london and rome. Since I haven't lived in london, it's hard to compare, but it seems just as lively, diverse, cultured, entertainment, economically strong as nyc. But, I bet tokyo feels the same too. Can't really say that of rome, since I don't know it either and never lived there; but it seemed kinda desolate compared to london and nyc, especially the nightlife and streets - more touristy if you ask me. Nightlife...hmm, london does seem to be bangin, but so does nyc. I can't really say which is better, theyre both awesome. And I think, things like fashion, music, entertainment comes and goes in phases..ie: nyc was big in music in the 80s, 90s, recently, then started to slow down in the 2000's, but is now pickin up again... while london's music scene nowadays is getting bigger and bigger, but now berlin is taking over london currently. I think all the world cities just go full circle and go in cycles when it comes to fashion, entertainment, music, etc - hippest city yesterday, dead today, hippest again tomorrow; while the another takes it's place and trades every so often.

Found it!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7120/7069775835_3ca5ec5905_b.jpg

Credit goes to sbarn


Wow there are a bunch of buildings taller than the ESB. Is there a zoning law (just in midtown) that does not permit buildings to be any taller than the spire height of the empire state building? And 18 years later still have not cleared the smog problem? Also the freedom tower is beautiful, hope for those jumps to be finished.

including the current height jump, i'd say there about 3 jumps to go before this thing tops out.

I think it'll be 4 jumps, cause iirc they're doing these higher floors only 1 per jump :dunno:

Is it on floor 102 or 103

102.

I think it'll be 4 jumps, cause iirc they're doing these higher floors only 1 per jump

I'd say three jumps. One for each new floor, 103, 104 and finally 105. The remaining floors all have fairly high ceiling heights.

Found it!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7120/7069775835_3ca5ec5905_b.jpg

Credit goes to sbarn

W O O O O W!!!!!!!!!

102.



I'd say three jumps. One for each new floor, 103, 104 and finally 105. The remaining floors all have fairly high ceiling heights.

I dunno but won't the parapet have a jump of its own? :dunno:

^^ LOL, compared to the plane it looks like a megatall :hilarious

Btw, 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: 4:2 :cheer: I'm sooooo haaaaappyyyyy! :banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2::banana2:

4:2...?

Aren't the original "Big 4" nyc, rome, tokyo and london?

I've lived in nyc, and been to london and rome. Since I haven't lived in london, it's hard to compare, but it seems just as lively, diverse, cultured, entertainment, economically strong as nyc. But, I bet tokyo feels the same too. Can't really say that of rome, since I don't know it either and never lived there; but it seemed kinda desolate compared to london and nyc, especially the nightlife and streets - more touristy if you ask me. Nightlife...hmm, london does seem to be bangin, but so does nyc. I can't really say which is better, theyre both awesome. And I think, things like fashion, music, entertainment comes and goes in phases..ie: nyc was big in music in the 80s, 90s, recently, then started to slow down in the 2000's, but is now pickin up again... while london's music scene nowadays is getting bigger and bigger, but now berlin is taking over london currently. I think all the world cities just go full circle and go in cycles when it comes to fashion, entertainment, music, etc - hippest city yesterday, dead today, hippest again tomorrow; while the another takes it's place and trades every so often.

Yeah I agree with that (except rome, rome id like a gamma city)

The thing for me was I always found sport in NYC to be rather dull...There was no proper football! haha I find american football and baseball to be absolutely poor...Nothing like going to Wembley for a final, And loads of americans watch and support british teams! I was shocked i had no idea!

4:2...?

Hockey :cheers:

Hockey :cheers:

ohhh hahahahah

I heard somewhere the restaurant idea is coming back, and its just an observation deck so I think 102 will be included in a jump with 103. though I always wished they would add a pyramid that has floors 106 - 135 that makes it up to 1776 fet tall, the top observation deck (like the south tower) would be a rooftop thing, its top would be like the new 2wtc's top (part of the pyramid) and it has a huge steel structure to support a spire to get up to 2000'. here is how it should be...

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m600/purcat376/117-1.png

(PS): I photoshop using microsoft paint.

(PPS): sorry the top looks like the bunker, had to jumble a bunch of tiny pieces of facading from the normal structure.

I dunno but won't the parapet have a jump of its own?

Yes, they're will be "jump" in height for the parapet. Maybe I was thinking in terms of crane jumps.

And please, enough with the "dunno" smilie....seriously.

I heard somewhere the restaurant idea is coming back, and its just an observation deck so I think 102 will be included in a jump with 103. though I always wished they would add a pyramid that has floors 106 - 135 that makes it up to 1776 fet tall, the top observation deck (like the south tower) would be a rooftop thing, its top would be like the new 2wtc's top (part of the pyramid) and it has a huge steel structure to support a spire to get up to 2000'. here is how it should be...

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m600/purcat376/117-1.png

(PS): I photoshop using microsoft paint.

(PPS): sorry the top looks like the bunker, had to jumble a bunch of tiny pieces of facading from the normal structure.

it doesn't look right....:ohno: nice work, no offense

I always microsoft paint using photoshop ;)

:P

Here's a key for the picture I posted earlier:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/7069775981_557f299865_b.jpg

Credits to sbarn again

it doesn't look right....:ohno: nice work, no offense

Yeah seriously, people need to get over the 2,000 ft wet dreams, it's really just not that important. The building's gonna look great as it was intended to.

A guy can dream though. Oh well, better for chicago.

This is going to be such a great addition to the NYC skyline. Great pics.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8150/7146189467_277780e6e4_b.jpg

Wow there are a bunch of buildings taller than the ESB. Is there a zoning law (just in midtown) that does not permit buildings to be any taller than the spire height of the empire state building?

Nope. The skinny building in front of the ESB is 432 Park Ave, which will have a flat top roof some 45 meters taller than the ESB roof.

There's also 15 Penn Plaza, which will be only 10 meters shorter than ESB and built really close by. ESB owners tried to lobby against approval of the building and lost. It will only be a matter of time before ESB gets swallowed up by the Midtown skyline.:cheers:

Yeah seriously, people need to get over the 2,000 ft wet dreams, it's really just not that important. The building's gonna look great as it was intended to.

Seriously, it's not about being a 600 meter building. It's not about being the world's tallest building or even America's tallest building. It's about making a beautiful building that shows America's perseverance.

Hi there,

WTC1 is growing fast to it's final height and is or will be the tallest skyscraper in NY and USA?
But in the future more large buildings will rise above this same skyline (i hope). Are there rules for future heights in the case of new skyscrapers in down town manhattan, such as; "not higher than WTC1" for example a building with a height about 1900 feet or more (or 600 meters and more etc. in Europe sizes)?

Sorry for my crappy english..

Greetings from a small place near Amsterdam were our highest tower is a dwarf in comparison to NY skyscrapers.

It will be the tallest building by spire height in the USA. Chicago has a taller building by roof height. Buildings can be built above the world trade center's height but, no building can be above 2,000ft in the USA due to the federal aviation administration's rules (would need special permission).

Generally buildings taller than 1,000 in roof height aren't being built now here because it does not make economical sense. In the past, landlords would build for show/pride (like they do in some developing countries now)...now they only tend to build higher than 1,000ft when they can make a profit now.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m600/purcat376/117-1.png



http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=341366&page=60

http://www.observer.com/2012/04/the-second-tallest-building-in-hempisphere-432-park-avenue-is-now-rising/

Has a restaurant been confirmed yet?

I kind of liked the idea to be honest, but not for this building. It's great just as it is.

I like it too. It is so bold design.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7078/7006922792_204ae4cb80_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photo-dreamer/7006922792/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photo-dreamer/7006922792/) by BellaCasia_xo (http://www.flickr.com/people/photo-dreamer/), on Flickr

^^ Nice photo. It will be great this vision so when the building is ready.

Well... It's funny how I never saw some people commenting here, and only appear to say stupid things or to talk off topic.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/supermoon050712/s01_RTR31PUL.jpg
(Reuters/Gary Hershorn) (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/05/supermoon-2012/100291/)The full moon rises over the skyline of Lower Manhattan and One World Trade Center in New York, as seen from West Orange, New Jersey, on May 6, 2012.

^^ oh a blood moon, great shot.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/supermoon050712/s01_RTR31PUL.jpg
(Reuters/Gary Hershorn) (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/05/supermoon-2012/100291/)The full moon rises over the skyline of Lower Manhattan and One World Trade Center in New York, as seen from West Orange, New Jersey, on May 6, 2012.

LOL holy shit!

O_o

Whoah.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/supermoon050712/s01_RTR31PUL.jpg
(Reuters/Gary Hershorn) (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/05/supermoon-2012/100291/)The full moon rises over the skyline of Lower Manhattan and One World Trade Center in New York, as seen from West Orange, New Jersey, on May 6, 2012.

AAAAAAAH!!!! Somebody tell that plane to look out!!! It's about to crash into the moon!!!

People, this thread is about 1WTC ALONE. Stay on topic. Or go elsewhere to discuss other topics.

This is the general NYC project thread of the intl. forums:

NEW YORK | Projects & Construction (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=341146)

Is there going to be a restaurant

Well, there is going to be a canteen.:tongue2:

Okay what about the glass, anyone have an estimate when it should reach the roof? And do the mechanical floors have taller glass panels? If someone could answer those that would be great

Malkin, Meyer among bidders to operate 1 WTC observatory deck (http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/05/08/malkin-meyer-among-bidders-to-operate-1-wtc-observatory/)

May 08, 2012 10:00AM

"Operating observation decks atop large towers is so profitable that seven bidders, including two from outside the United States, submitted proposals to the Durst Organization and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey to do so at 1 World Trade Center, according to the New York Times.
Anthony Malkin, whose Empire State Building deck generates $60 million in profits per year submitted a bid to operate the rival deck. Restaurateur Danny Meyer, Lengends Hospitality Management, which runs retail at Yankee Stadium, and food service company Aramark also submitted bids.

Plans for the observatory deck call for five high-speed express elevators to bring visitors to the top three floors of the forthcoming tower for $20 to $25 per person. Annual revenues could exceed $100 million, provided the deck can lure some of the four million yearly visitors who visit the top of the Empire State Building. The observatories at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, the Statue of Liberty and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum also offer competition. [NYT]"

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/supermoon050712/s01_RTR31PUL.jpg
(Reuters/Gary Hershorn) (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/05/supermoon-2012/100291/)The full moon rises over the skyline of Lower Manhattan and One World Trade Center in New York, as seen from West Orange, New Jersey, on May 6, 2012.


If the WTC wasn't there, I would think that city is somewhere is asia..

These pictures on the thread just keep getting better and better!

Okay what about the glass, anyone have an estimate when it should reach the roof? And do the mechanical floors have taller glass panels? If someone could answer those that would be great

This is what I want to know too. Hopefully someone can answer.

Malkin, Meyer among bidders to operate 1 WTC observatory deck (http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/05/08/malkin-meyer-among-bidders-to-operate-1-wtc-observatory/)

May 08, 2012 10:00AM

"Operating observation decks atop large towers is so profitable that seven bidders, including two from outside the United States, submitted proposals to the Durst Organization and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey to do so at 1 World Trade Center, according to the New York Times.
Anthony Malkin, whose Empire State Building deck generates $60 million in profits per year submitted a bid to operate the rival deck. Restaurateur Danny Meyer, Lengends Hospitality Management, which runs retail at Yankee Stadium, and food service company Aramark also submitted bids.

Plans for the observatory deck call for five high-speed express elevators to bring visitors to the top three floors of the forthcoming tower for $20 to $25 per person. Annual revenues could exceed $100 million, provided the deck can lure some of the four million yearly visitors who visit the top of the Empire State Building. The observatories at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, the Statue of Liberty and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum also offer competition. [NYT]"

Wow, 100 million dolars a year. They could pay for the entire tower in 35 years :uh:

4M visitors paying 20 $ each is already 80M. The rest should come from a restaurant and bar?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/shake-shack-at-1-wtc-observation-deck-danny-meyer_n_1500002.html

4M visitors paying 20 $ each is already 80M. The rest should come from a restaurant and bar?

No, Much less, You got to put in to respect the office floors that are and will be rented out combined with the obervation deck...

From what I know leasing office space generates most of their profit. The observation deck and a possible restaurant would generate only a minor part compared to it.

Nothing like going to Wembley for a final, And loads of americans watch and support british teams! I was shocked i had no idea!

Nothing better then a day out in Wembley but my team lost there on Saturday and it was heartbreaking. Back on topic the tower is looking good.

Yeah I agree with that (except rome, rome id like a gamma city)

The thing for me was I always found sport in NYC to be rather dull...There was no proper football! haha I find american football and baseball to be absolutely poor...Nothing like going to Wembley for a final, And loads of americans watch and support british teams! I was shocked i had no idea!

I don't know how much of the world can get so excited about football (the kind played with a foot) that they riot. And murder their goalkeepers for losing. (Escobar?, Colombia) The game is simply too hard.

Look at basketball, and how much scoring it has.
Baseball and American football has less scoring but at least a lot of stuff is happening, and it's progressing to the goal of scoring. Look at football (soccer) you can run to the other side of the field in like 10 seconds. Then what?, you will never score. Never ever, ever, ever score. Each time you get to the other side of the field you will fail. Every time a penalty is made it never works (besides the rare kick from like 7 yards). They have no other way of penalizing you for fouling so they futiliy let you go for a 0.02% chance of scoring what must be a very valuable goal. Shows what chance they have of scoring on a regular shot (must be like 0.005%) And 2-0 is an insurmountable lead. Who wants to watch such a pessimistic game?Offsides rule, how can you be off your own side, this is not American football, where you have to stay on your own side, but soccer where you can run where ever you freaking want, how can you be off of your side (team)? How can you like soccer btw when you like cricket, and their scores are like 278-222?

Go Yankees!

This forum is very off topic :(

A new row of glass has started! The chamfered sides are now fully wider than the straight sides.

Well if that's true, then the glass is approximately 915 feet high :) about the height of the Citigroup Center. and where did you see this anyway? Earth Cam shows only those couple panes on the South Side which isn't new

This forum is very off topic :(

Isn't it ridiculous? Just a week ago it was kind of dead, but on-topic. Now it's overly-active and very off-topic, even with repeated reminders from the moderator. Oh well :cripes:

Yea but you guys post much more than SSP....it was soo boring waiting for updates over there so I came here

Well if that's true, then the glass is approximately 915 feet high :) about the height of the Citigroup Center. and where did you see this anyway? Earth Cam shows only those couple panes on the South Side which isn't new

The East side with the elevator in the center shows a brand new row of glass starting.

The East side with the elevator in the center shows a brand new row of glass starting.

oh i meant the east side whoops, yea the new row on earth cam isn't brand new

Okay what about the glass, anyone have an estimate when it should reach the roof? And do the mechanical floors have taller glass panels? If someone could answer those that would be great

There are about 30 levels left. If they do a floor a week it should take about 7 months. I'd say by the end of the year they should reach the roof.

Hi there


Ive made a video of my stay in new york city, and thought i would like to share it with you guys.
Im proud of it, but would be nice to see what the locals think!!

The link is below!

Hope you enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDiO302-wH0

There are about 30 levels left. If they do a floor a week it should take about 7 months. I'd say by the end of the year they should reach the roof.

Oh okay thanks

There are about 30 levels left. If they do a floor a week it should take about 7 months. I'd say by the end of the year they should reach the roof.

Won't they start rising quicker once work on the steel and the core is finished?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/shake-shack-at-1-wtc-observation-deck-danny-meyer_n_1500002.html

That would be the best. The half-mile long line that typically exists at shake shack can now be vertical.

Won't they start rising quicker once work on the steel and the core is finished?

There was a period of time last a few weeks back where it seemed like the curtain wall progress was moving pretty rapidly, a little more than a floor per week. So maybe they have the ability to move at a faster rate sometimes.

Won't they start rising quicker once work on the steel and the core is finished?

I wouldn't think so. Besides they can't get ahead of the concrete pouring for the core, floors, and fireproofing.

There really isn't a need to enclose the upper floors any quicker than they're already doing at the moment.

If they finish all the glass at the end of the year, that'll leave all of 2013 to finish building out the interior. Plenty of time.

There was a period of time last a few weeks back where it seemed like the curtain wall progress was moving pretty rapidly, a little more than a floor per week. So maybe they have the ability to move at a faster rate sometimes.

Probably playing catch up for all the time lost to bad winds. I hope the pace continues, but kind of doubt it.

I don't know how much of the world can get so excited about football (the kind played with a foot) that they riot. And murder their goalkeepers for losing. (Escobar?, Colombia) The game is simply too hard.

Look at basketball, and how much scoring it has.
Baseball and American football has less scoring but at least a lot of stuff is happening, and it's progressing to the goal of scoring. Look at football (soccer) you can run to the other side of the field in like 10 seconds. Then what?, you will never score. Never ever, ever, ever score. Each time you get to the other side of the field you will fail. Every time a penalty is made it never works (besides the rare kick from like 7 yards). They have no other way of penalizing you for fouling so they futiliy let you go for a 0.02% chance of scoring what must be a very valuable goal. Shows what chance they have of scoring on a regular shot (must be like 0.005%) And 2-0 is an insurmountable lead. Who wants to watch such a pessimistic game?Offsides rule, how can you be off your own side, this is not American football, where you have to stay on your own side, but soccer where you can run where ever you freaking want, how can you be off of your side (team)? How can you like soccer btw when you like cricket, and their scores are like 278-222?

Go Yankees!

I know this is way off topic but this is a classic. :lol::lol:
Football is one of those funny games where teams don't score every time they get the ball. You need a longer attention span than a goldfish to appreciate it. :)

How do you know the glass won't rise quicker once topped off? Besides, the concrete isn't even that far behind and why can't you fireproof with window panes?

How do you know the glass won't rise quicker once topped off? Besides, the concrete isn't even that far behind and why can't you fireproof with window panes?

I'm merely making an educated guess.

I don't know the exact specifics why they don't fireproof at the same time they install the glass. But I would presume they just do not want any of the chemicals landing on the glass while there spraying the foam or whatever it is all over the place.

Yea but you guys post much more than SSP....it was soo boring waiting for updates over there so I came here

You got banned from SSP. :lol:

Just thought I'd find a couple of pics to sprinkle in here

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7082/7156159886_4ddc99be99_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/damclean/7156159886/)
Gotham (http://www.flickr.com/photos/damclean/7156159886/) by Dave McLean (http://www.flickr.com/people/damclean/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7075/7005066388_f0edeaa563_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyknightmm/7005066388/)
World Trade Center 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyknightmm/7005066388/) by Vagabond@heart (http://www.flickr.com/people/skyknightmm/), on Flickr

You got banned from SSP. :lol:

:lol:

Hi there


Ive made a video of my stay in new york city, and thought i would like to share it with you guys.
Im proud of it, but would be nice to see what the locals think!!

The link is below!

Hope you enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDiO302-wH0


Makes me even more excited for my first ever trip to NY this summer!

FROM: NYBOY75

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv6YfGW78hQ&feature=youtu.be

Yes I talk about updates to my channel and 1 World Trade Center videos!

You got banned from SSP. :lol:

:lol:

Haha I know because of that "SoaringSkylines" or whatever, some obnoxious kid. Idk why I got banned :nuts: Otie, no need to further comment :) And besides, I took the farthest distance shots of the tower than anyone on both of these forums. no autographs please

http://pixholder.com/upload/1336520594.jpg

the new tallest of NY.. nice!!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ENnwoGrWzrs/T6ELem_-GTI/AAAAAAAABWI/xis9rsbWWBo/s652/IMG_20120430_151108.jpg
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101416274833608453021/albums/posts/5737880020739561778

I am planning a visit to the site this Saturday. We want to take the Staten Island Ferry and walk up from there. Is it likely I will find parking at the terminal on Staten Island, as it's not a workday?

Sorry for this somewhat off-topic post.

Love the design so much.. i wish it could be taller..

Love the design so much.. i wish it could be taller..

If I had a dime for every time I have heard this, I could buy ALL of NYC. Its height is fine, this is about restoring the skyline, not a mine is bigger then your's contest.

I am planning a visit to the site this Saturday. We want to take the Staten Island Ferry and walk up from there. Is it likely I will find parking at the terminal on Staten Island, as it's not a workday?

Sorry for this somewhat off-topic post.

You should be fine.

I am planning a visit to the site this Saturday. We want to take the Staten Island Ferry and walk up from there. Is it likely I will find parking at the terminal on Staten Island, as it's not a workday?

Sorry for this somewhat off-topic post.

it's still $5 in the lot i believe but on saturday just drive a short way up the street (towards manhattan if you will) and there are always spaces on the street for free, we do that all the time. The best deal in the city, free parking and a free boat ride while looking at the greatest skyline in the world, have fun, its an awesome take

I have new pics :cheer:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7113/7154757930_4e63b161b2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wavz13/7154757930/)
View from Clifton Place to Johnston Ave and its recycling plants. The new World Trade Center, Goldman Sachs building and Lower Manhattan dominate the horizon. Jersey City. May 6, 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wavz13/7154757930/) by wavz13 (http://www.flickr.com/people/wavz13/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8023/7153062669_c6452e4e64_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattchamplin/7153062669/)
Lady Liberty (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattchamplin/7153062669/) by Matt Champlin (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattchamplin/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7117/7154708870_7634517b53_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimforest/7154708870/)
"Freedom Tower" -- successor to the WTC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimforest/7154708870/) by jimforest (http://www.flickr.com/people/jimforest/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7224/7154707622_92b17d431a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimforest/7154707622/)
"Freedom Tower" -- successor to the WTC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimforest/7154707622/) by jimforest (http://www.flickr.com/people/jimforest/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7103/7154871740_38d16417ca_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46504476@N06/7154871740/)
Freedom Tower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46504476@N06/7154871740/) by eazyigz (http://www.flickr.com/people/46504476@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7099/7156042440_34804d7933_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43431645@N00/7156042440/)
A River Runs Through It (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43431645@N00/7156042440/) by smith6373 (http://www.flickr.com/people/43431645@N00/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8164/7156236978_a3df84d4ce_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43431645@N00/7156236978/)
Remembrance and Rebirth (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43431645@N00/7156236978/) by smith6373 (http://www.flickr.com/people/43431645@N00/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8159/7158035714_ab76a50c56_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunnydazzled/7158035714/)
Sailing Past the Freedom Tower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunnydazzled/7158035714/) by SunnyDazzled (http://www.flickr.com/people/sunnydazzled/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8018/7158904670_a1490497d2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattchamplin/7158904670/)
New York City Panoramic (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattchamplin/7158904670/) by Matt Champlin (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattchamplin/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7220/7161500460_1de94c3da9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ams4221/7161500460/)
DSCF2371 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ams4221/7161500460/) by ams4221 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ams4221/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7211/7161871542_f74c222f3b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/minxx/7161871542/)
One World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/minxx/7161871542/) by minxx (http://www.flickr.com/people/minxx/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7236/7161870470_a0de184334_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/minxx/7161870470/)
One World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/minxx/7161870470/) by minxx (http://www.flickr.com/people/minxx/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8155/7163093710_69bdcd95c8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaastudio/7163093710/)
Freedom Tower from Vesey St (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaastudio/7163093710/) by AAA Studio (http://www.flickr.com/people/aaastudio/), on Flickr

And the PA cam at the end :cheer:

http://oxblue.com/archive/487d07189e5fd2b7edce94fc0bcf4b68/800x600.jpg

Yeah, if you take 80 from San Francisco then just look for the tallest building in Lower Manhattan.

WTC Progress on Twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/wtcprogress)

https://p.twimg.com/AsZQhLfCEAADr49.jpg:large

https://p.twimg.com/AsUueg0CIAElsT7.jpg:large

https://p.twimg.com/AsUuQAtCIAASIVn.jpg:large

https://p.twimg.com/AsT9ezCCMAEqCKv.jpg:large

https://p.twimg.com/AsT9aiACAAE2vDp.jpg:large

https://p.twimg.com/AsT9M_dCMAEwGo6.jpg:large

https://p.twimg.com/AsT9FqqCIAASNnb.jpg:large

In the picture that Otie posted of Midtown Manhattan, it's scary how close White Plains appears directly behind the Empire even though it's 25 miles away..

Yeah, if you take 80 from San Francisco then just look for the tallest building in Lower Manhattan.

you won't be able to see 1WTC from 80, it ends before the GW and you cant see Lower Manhattan until you get ON the bridge and at that point it's 95

you won't be able to see 1WTC from 80, it ends before the GW and you cant see Lower Manhattan until you get ON the bridge and at that point it's 95

You can see the building from Morris county 31 miles to the west, from the tappan zee bridge, and from Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, NJ which is 45 miles south

You can see the building from Morris county 31 miles to the west, from the tappan zee bridge, and from Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, NJ which is 45 miles south

I know that but on 80 the few miles before the bridge you cant see anything down there or midtown even because of the topography. I am aware that at certain vista points its visible from really far away, i've see the pics on here, but he was , i thought, talking about on 80 from the GSP to the GWB

OMFG. Vomit.


World Trade Center’s Symbolic 1,776-Foot Height Is at Stake in a Redesign (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/world-trade-centers-symbolic-1776-foot-height-is-at-stake-in-a-redesign/)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/09/blogs/20120509Tall/20120509Tall-custom1.jpg
"Left: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; right: Durst Organization"

"Seventeen-seventy-six will never lose its place in the history books, but its claim to the record books has been undermined by a decision not to build a sculptural fiberglass-and-steel enclosure for the central mast atop 1 World Trade Center.

It is the addition of that mast that would elevate an otherwise 1,368-foot skyscraper into a 1,776-foot structure whose defining measurement was meant to express American spirit and resolve in the face of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the private body that serves as a worldwide arbiter of building heights, will ultimately count or discount the mast in its height determination for 1 World Trade Center based on whether it is considered a functional antenna or a nonfunctional spire..."

"...“This definitely raises questions,” Kevin Brass, the public affairs manager for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, said in a statement Wednesday. “Our criteria are very specific. We include spires and not antennas. If this is an antenna, it won’t be part of the height measurement. The cladding was an integral part of the design and made the extension part of the permanent look and feel of the building"..."

What a crime. Hopefully the questions raised by the CTBUH can convince Durst otherwise...

Though eliminating the cladding will save about $20 million in construction costs, Mr. Durst said that what doomed the enclosure, known as a radome, was the prospect of maintaining such a complex structure — itself nearly as tall as a 40-story building — more than a quarter-mile in the sky.

Bullshit. If the ability to maintain the radome was going to be such an issue, I don't think it would have remained in the plans as long as it had. Fucking cost-cutting scumbags! The top of the building is gonna look much crappier now, thanks a lot.

Oh my god :bash:

OMFG. Vomit.


World Trade Center’s Symbolic 1,776-Foot Height Is at Stake in a Redesign (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/world-trade-centers-symbolic-1776-foot-height-is-at-stake-in-a-redesign/)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/09/blogs/20120509Tall/20120509Tall-custom1.jpg
"Left: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; right: Durst Organization"

"Seventeen-seventy-six will never lose its place in the history books, but its claim to the record books has been undermined by a decision not to build a sculptural fiberglass-and-steel enclosure for the central mast atop 1 World Trade Center.

It is the addition of that mast that would elevate an otherwise 1,368-foot skyscraper into a 1,776-foot structure whose defining measurement was meant to express American spirit and resolve in the face of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the private body that serves as a worldwide arbiter of building heights, will ultimately count or discount the mast in its height determination for 1 World Trade Center based on whether it is considered a functional antenna or a nonfunctional spire..."

"...“This definitely raises questions,” Kevin Brass, the public affairs manager for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, said in a statement Wednesday. “Our criteria are very specific. We include spires and not antennas. If this is an antenna, it won’t be part of the height measurement. The cladding was an integral part of the design and made the extension part of the permanent look and feel of the building"..."

Many will disagree with me, but for me this is great news. The antenna is thinner than the spire would be which I always felt was way too fat for a building of this size. As to the official height getting shorter, I 100% don't care because I only accept roof and pinnacle height, both of which will stay unchanged :cheers:

It was never "too fat" it looked just right. that antenna is fugly to the max and they have got to be stupid not to see it...so it WONT be enclosed? and what about the beacon?!

Yup...the original thick spire looked proportionate and matched in color and aesthetics, and made the 1wtc look like a modern/futuristic ESB... now it looks like utter sh*t

^^ The original spire was ugly, the new antenna is ugly too, but a bit less ugly than the spire was in my opinion. Now if they would scrap that thin steel stick completely I would be the happiest person on the planet :banana2:

Many will disagree with me, but for me this is great news. The antenna is thinner than the spire would be which I always felt was way too fat for a building of this size. As to the official height getting shorter, I 100% don't care because I only accept roof and pinnacle height, both of which will stay unchanged :cheers:

Looks like we agree on something Kanto. I think it looks fine, and I also only go by roof height, pinnacle, and highest floor. I actually kind of like the thin antennae.

World Trade Center’s Symbolic 1,776-Foot Height Is at Stake in a Redesign (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/world-trade-centers-symbolic-1776-foot-height-is-at-stake-in-a-redesign/)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/09/blogs/20120509Tall/20120509Tall-custom1.jpg
"Left: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; right: Durst Organization"



Here's the image and article link from the previous page in case people missed it.

well i heard there is still going to be encasing, not exposed steel. does anyone know if they will keep the beacon?!? please ANSWER!

http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2012/05/one-world-trade-center-after-redesign.html

The biggest take-away from all this:

The contrast is clear, as the old spire was much bulkier and larger, with the new antenna plainly mechanical. Besides the change in function, the official height of the building will also be different. The Council on Tall Buildings defines spires as architectural elements, a category antenna do not fall under. Thus, the design change also alters the building's official height from 1,776 feet tall to only 1,368. The difference is trivial, but would make One World Trade's reign as New York's 'official' tallest very short, as 432 Park's official height will be almost 1,400 feet.

Love the new design, it also is a lesson to everyone about how meaningless the CTBUH rules are. Roof height and pinnacle are what matters.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/09/blogs/20120509Tall/20120509Tall-custom1.jpg

They just need to find a way to ensure the official height remains at 1776 or else this whole project is just gone to shit, way to many downgrades and redesigns, what a freaking joke this place has become.

please stop saying you guys love the new design, i know you're all entitled to your own opinion, but you cant believe that's it actually going to look like that..they'll probably enclose it in something

Many will disagree with me, but for me this is great news. The antenna is thinner than the spire would be which I always felt was way too fat for a building of this size. As to the official height getting shorter, I 100% don't care because I only accept roof and pinnacle height, both of which will stay unchanged :cheers:

I agree. I felt the spire looked a bit contrived as it was, and the antennae version looks more gritty, more "New Yorky" <cough> like the New York I loved when I was a youngster.

The 1776 foot height as well as the name "Freedom Tower", also a bit too contrived... as has been said a thousand times in this thread before..

edit - having said all that, I'd be fine if they encase the antennae. Either way is okay with me really.

so what's wrong with Freedom Tower...

The old spire was too wide, this new antennae is great. Also too everyone, stop freaking out, the height doesn't matter as long as it's as tall as the original WTC.

but you cant believe that's it actually going to look like that..they'll probably enclose it in something

Its done, they said it would be hard to maintain the spire encasement, so it's an antennae now.

They just need to find a way to ensure the official height remains at 1776 or else this whole project is just gone to shit, way to many downgrades and redesigns, what a freaking joke this place has become.

man, you sound like a child. What matters is that we are restoring the skyline, it's not a height contest.

I'm insulted by the design changing taking place with this tower. It took them 1 year to destroy everything I loved about this building.

I agree. I felt the spire looked a bit contrived as it was, and the antennae version looks more gritty, more "New Yorky" <cough> like the New York I loved when I was a youngster.

The 1776 foot height as well as the name "Freedom Tower", also a bit too contrived... as has been said a thousand times in this thread before..

edit - having said all that, I'd be fine if they encase the antennae. Either way is okay with me really.

Yeah, definitely love the antennae. It really fits NYC. It looks perfect now, and might pass ESB as my favorite NYC skyscraper!:cheers:

They just need to find a way to ensure the official height remains at 1776 or else this whole project is just gone to shit, way to many downgrades and redesigns, what a freaking joke this place has become.

The whole official height measurement is nothing more than a source of deception. Thanks to it ordinary people have absolutely no chance of determining the true height of a building cause there is no diffarance in appearance between an antenna and a spire :ohno:

Just take a look at these, pure deception :ohno:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/world_the_world0s_tallest_buildings/img/2.jpg
Note that this diagram made it into BBC News :ohno:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4t3xZrhctCM/SvTgjZD8hlI/AAAAAAAAAak/nTCAGTwfID0/s320/worlds_tallest_building_burj_dubai_klcc_tower_skyscrapper.gif

http://phillyrealestate.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/american-commerce-center.jpg

The old spire was too wide, this new antennae is great. Also too everyone, stop freaking out, the height doesn't matter as long as it's as tall as the original WTC.



Its done, they said it would be hard to maintain the spire encasement, so it's an antennae now.



man, you sound like a child. What matters is that we are restoring the skyline, it's not a height contest.

No they said at the end of the article that they will make it a mast. Explain that..i just emailed them too.

And also those first couple diagrams are not accurate, the Empire State Building is not that short compared to the Sears Tower let alone that narrow

^^ That's exactly my point, they are not accurate and the reason why they are not accurate is because of the deceiving nature of the official height measurement :ohno:

The whole official height measurement is nothing more than a source of deception. Thanks to it ordinary people have absolutely no chance of determining the true height of a building cause there is no diffarance in appearance between an antenna and a spire :ohno:

Just take a look at these, pure deception :ohno:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/world_the_world0s_tallest_buildings/img/2.jpg
Note that this diagram made it into BBC News :ohno:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4t3xZrhctCM/SvTgjZD8hlI/AAAAAAAAAak/nTCAGTwfID0/s320/worlds_tallest_building_burj_dubai_klcc_tower_skyscrapper.gif

http://phillyrealestate.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/american-commerce-center.jpg

Wow, Kanto I think I am starting to agree with you. That top diagram has the petronas roof height being taller then the Sears :lol: Just shows how stupid the "official height" rule is! :cheers:

Ugh this sucks..I really really hope there is a beacon still :(

No they said at the end of the article that they will make it a mast. Explain that..i just emailed them too.

You need to get some perspective. They don't care what you think, you need to realize that money controls the world. Its all that matters to them, and it will cost them much less to build an antennae in the long run. It is just how the world works, it nothing to get angry about, its just business.

Anyways, the new spire looks good.

Ugh this sucks..I really really hope there is a beacon still :(

Quit spreading misinformation. Nobody said anything about removing the beacon.

There's a lot about the design of this building they can't do. First the base and now the spire. With all these twisting, turning, and wavy building going up. I don't get what the problem is. This building is slowly becoming a 3.2 billion dollar white elephant. The new design looks so cheap, it makes me sick.

You need to get some perspective. They don't care what you think, you need to realize that money controls the world. Its all that matters to them, and it will cost them much less to build an antennae in the long run. It is just how the world works, it nothing to get angry about, its just business.

Anyways, the new spire looks good.

I never said i was angry plus you don't even know why I emailed them..I wasn't rebelling their plan I asked about some details of the new spire. And maybe to you it looks good but I honestly don't see how it looks good at all
Quit spreading misinformation. Nobody said anything about removing the beacon.

I said I HOPE they still keep the beacon, not that they aren't. Calm down

I don't get what the problem is.

The problem is that it's expensive and pointless to do such things.

There's a lot about the design of this building they can't do. First the base and now the spire. With all these twisting, turning, and wavy building going up. I don't get what the problem is. This building is slowly becoming a 3.2 billion dollar white elephant. The new design looks so cheap, it makes me sick.

Actually $3.9 billion white elephant. But who's counting.

The new design looks terrible. The base is plain and generic looking. And the new mast/spire/antennae/whatever looks so out of place. :gaah:

Well I guess all we can do is wait, see, & be patient. They mentioned in the article that they will maintain it as a mast, and never have and never will call it an antenna so I guess they're going to redesign something else

lighting the spire won't look as good, it will only be similar to the North Tower's antenna, probably more like 4 Times Square

please stop saying you guys love the new design, i know you're all entitled to your own opinion, but you cant believe that's it actually going to look like that..they'll probably enclose it in something

This is the final antennae design, read this http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2012/05/one-world-trade-center-after-redesign.html

You never know

so the height will be dropped from 541m to about 417m? still shorter than international commerce centre though, and now we have a modern-high tech-sustainable-green-full-clear-glass-building with an art deco antennae?... nice... no more "tallest building in western hemisphere" title

Just my opinion, but the spire ought to have vertical axis wind turbines built into it.

Does anyone know why they can't make it white?

http://i.imgur.com/yvjJd.png

I think that's an awesome compromise.

does this mean 432 park tower will be the tallest in manhattan? this cant even stay the tallest in its own city. i hate everything.

Does anyone know why they can't make it white?

http://i.imgur.com/yvjJd.png

I think that's an awesome compromise.

That looks good, but I think I still prefer the right one.

does this mean 432 park tower will be the tallest in manhattan? this cant even stay the tallest in its own city. i hate everything.

By roof height, yes.

Also, what's this all about - i hate everything.

Does anyone know why they can't make it white?

http://i.imgur.com/yvjJd.png

I think that's an awesome compromise.
it is white, it's the lighting in the render.

Compared to the old proposal, the new 'spire' looks like a rusted pipe. Please tell me I am dreaming... :(

Im just getting annoyed by all the changes being made halfway through the project. This isnt JUST some building. i really enjoyed the officialy height being 1776 and that is apperently no longer the case? just dreadful to me.

it is white, it's the lighting in the render.

Maybe it's because the colors are jacked up on my comp but it looks rust red to me. The sun is still up, it should be dark yellow at worst.


Im just getting annoyed by all the changes being made halfway through the project. This isnt JUST some building. i really enjoyed the officialy height being 1776 and that is apperently no longer the case? just dreadful to me.

ITS A NUMBER

I just wanted to weigh in on the spire/antennae issue. I have mixed feelings, because all these years we've been told we're getting one thing, and there was a symbolism behind it which I really appreciated (cheesy as it might have seemed sometimes). Now it's changed yet again, among tons of other redesigns, and I admit the idea of throwing out the 1776 foot height makes the project lose a lot of its meaning. On the other hand, we're getting a building that's still as tall as the original 1 WTC, which also had just a plain old antennae, not a spire. So I'm not sure how to feel, I just gotta let it sink in I guess.

I will say that I feel the entire project from the start has been poorly managed and handled. I'm not in the "should have rebuilt the twins" debate, but I do think that things at the site should have been handled a lot differently, and maybe all these cost-cutting redesigns might have been avoided. None of the people in charge seemed to ever care what else this site stands for besides the site of former commercial/office space.

a number which is symbolic....how do you not understand that? 1365 is just a number, 1776 represents so much more...dont want to get into an argument though. this is just my opinion i am presenting.

Jesus, Maria and Joseph.. (http://worldofarchitecture.weebly.com/)What have they done..

This can't be true can it? Is it REALLY just an Antenna now?????

This can't be true can it? Is it REALLY just an Antenna now?????
it's being considered it a spire, is it not? tbh if you call this an antenna i can't see how the original design wasn't an antenna.

Maybe it's because the colors are jacked up on my comp but it looks rust red to me. The sun is still up, it should be dark yellow at worst.




ITS A NUMBER

It's not just a number..are you American? :bash:

Fuck...I like the new spire design... What the hell is wrong with me?

Oh my god. A fucking antenna? So damn ugly.

It's basically just the old North Tower now, but with a twist, literally.....And I sort of like it :nuts:

It is a refined version of 4 Times Square's antenna. As for the "LED" lights, I'm sure they will just do the same thing they do with 4 Times Square and the Bank of America Tower's spire.

(My Photo)

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t263/DKNY617/IMG_0380.jpg

I saw that exact same post on SSP ^^^

This is why they should have made a taller building instead of a taller spire/antenna. It's basically the north tower with a redesign.

I saw that exact same post on SSP ^^^

That is because that is me on SSP also. :lol:

THE ANTENNAE IS ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE THEY COMPLETELY RUINED THE TOWERS LOOK!!!!!!!!

it's being considered it a spire, is it not? tbh if you call this an antenna i can't see how the original design wasn't an antenna.
It is an antennae now- http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2012/05/one-world-trade-center-after-redesign.html

Guys, the height doesn't matter. Rebuilding this is making a statement to the people who destroyed it, its not about the height. Why is the spire height such a point of pride ?

Here is what a person named Christopher said on NY times, It saves a ton of money on construction and maintenance, so it's actually a rare smart decision by the port authority. Over time nobody is going to care about the 1776 ft or the comparison to the Willis tower. It has plenty of historical significance to be proud of, there is no reason to waste money for egos.

and I think that he couldn't be more right. Before everyone freaks out, could you please look at this with an open mind ?

The new spire looks great, very NYC.

THE ANTENNAE IS ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE THEY COMPLETELY RUINED THE TOWERS LOOK!!!!!!!!

CAPS LOCK!!!:lol:

It is an antennae now- http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2012/05/one-world-trade-center-after-redesign.html

Guys, the height doesn't matter. Rebuilding this is making a statement to the people who destroyed it, its not about the height. Why is the spire height such a point of pride ?

Here is what a person named Christopher said on NY times,

and I think that he couldn't be more right. Before everyone freaks out, could you please look at this with an open mind ?

The new spire looks great, very NYC.

Maybe it saved them money but it still ruined the look

Jesus, Maria and Joseph.. (http://worldofarchitecture.weebly.com/)What have they done..

Couldn't agree with you more

This is a total disgrace, not only to the building it self. But to the construction aswell!
No one simply makes such huge changes to a design when its so long into construction!
If they seriusly do this, the design will ruined totally imo...
And imagine having a tall block being the tallest of such an iconic city as NY?!
One WTC deserves to be the tallest! It needs to..!

^^ No it doesn't deserve it. They ignored height in its design by making it only as tall as the North Tower so it doesn't have a right to claim the title. The title should be held by a building which has truly surpassed the Twins :ohno:

Why didn't they think about that "wasted" money in the first place? Why they designed it that beautiful then? It's like putting the best cake ever in front of us and then after some time, taking it back and saying "you can't have it pigs".. (http://worldofarchitecture.weebly.com/)

THE ANTENNAE IS ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE THEY COMPLETELY RUINED THE TOWERS LOOK!!!!!!!!

Exactly, I don't know why people like it :bash: and caps lock was necessary :)

If they keep this going I don't think anyone will be able to recognize it by the end of construction.

^^ No it doesn't deserve it. They ignored height in its design by making it only as tall as the North Tower so it doesn't have a right to claim the title. The title should be held by a building which has truly surpassed the Twins :ohno:

Have to agree. This building is 417 meters, which is tall enough. It may not be the tallest in NYC by roof height, but it is by pinnacle.

Exactly, I don't know why people like it :bash: and caps lock was really unnecessary :)

Fixed

If they keep this going I don't think anyone will be able to recognize it by the end of construction.

It barely looks different.

^^ No it doesn't deserve it. They ignored height in its design by making it only as tall as the North Tower so it doesn't have a right to claim the title. The title should be held by a building which has truly surpassed the Twins :ohno:

You are very right Kanto. But what kind of landmark is a 426m tall glassed box ruining one of the most beautiful and most well made skylines, that has not only been there for a couple of years. But since the early 20th century?
I mean, the reason why One WTC was supposed to be THE new in city landmark of NY was not because of the height. But because it, and the complex for that matter is so well made, and well fitted into the skyline. It stands tall and beautifully above the rest of the Lower Manhattan skyline, and it is an Icon to most americans, and especially New yorkers, an icon of in some way triumph after loss, winning the battle. Standing strong and not giving up! But with the new antenna. much of that pride and honor will be taken away.(IMO that is).

Hello "the crazy swede is here:nuts:"

I seen that it is going to be one big change on the top of the 1wtc? I have read much about the discussion and I agree much to what Kanto is saying, then new design on top of the wtc is beautiful, much more futuristic in my eyes. One question is will it be in the same height? or will it be less or more?.

Ohh one more thing can one of you experts tell me what the difference are between a spire, mast and antennae, and whats counts as a part of the building structure and whats don't

THANKS

Honestly, I'm still pissed off about the base rather than the antenna.

And sadly this tower will be surpassed by that stupid stick rising in midtown.

Hello "the crazy swede is here:nuts:"

I seen that it is going to be one big change on the top of the 1wtc? I have read much about the discussion and I agree much to what Kanto is saying, then new design on top of the wtc is beautiful, much more futuristic in my eyes. One question is will it be in the same height? or will it be less or more?.

Ohh one more thing can one of you experts tell me what the difference are between a spire, mast and antennae, and whats counts as a part of the building structure and whats don't

THANKS

Read this for the height and so:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/world-trade-centers-symbolic-1776-foot-height-is-at-stake-in-a-redesign/?hp


And for the Antenna, Spire and roof heigth question.
If a building is 300m tall and fitted with a 50m spire. The buildings official height will be 350m. Though. If the same building is fitted with and antenna instead of a spire, then the official height will be 300m. So only the spire counts as a part of the building. At least that is how I learned it :)

Here is the way I see it:

There is no way the new design for the mast should be counted in the official height. Otherwise, you might as well count the antenna height for the ESB, Willis Tower, 4 Times Square, etc.

Taken into account that the building should be measured from the lowest open-air pedestrian entance, which is actually 5' 8" lower than where they took the 1776' measurement from, the real height figures should now be:

Height to tip of antenna: 1797.67'/547.93m
Height to top of parapet (official height?): 1373.67'/418.7m
Height to highest occupied floor: 1274'/388.32m

Just my 2 cents for now. It will be interesting to see what the powers to be are going to come up with next!

Why didn't they think about that "wasted" money in the first place? Why they designed it that beautiful then? It's like putting the best cake ever in front of us and then after some time, taking it back and saying "you can't have it pigs".. (http://worldofarchitecture.weebly.com/)

AGREED

And sadly this tower will be surpassed by that stupid stick rising in midtown.

WHAT stick?

^^ THE stick: http://tommytoy.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f3a4072c970b01539287af63970b-800wi

(http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1195971)

Fixed

Don't start correcting me, you're like the only one here with a positive attitude towards this redesign..it's quite disgusting :ohno:

But what kind of landmark is a 426m tall glassed box ruining one of the most beautiful and most well made skylines, that has not only been there for a couple of years. But since the early 20th century?).

What is with all this criticism over 432 Park Ave? I think that building looks great!

Pity about 1 WTC, though.

And sadly this tower will be surpassed by that stupid stick rising in midtown.

Too much hate:ohno:

Hey c'mon everybody.

I wish that I was a Tyrant, I would have called myself "Tommy the Tyrant":lol:
Or that my father was Donald "mcdonald" Trump and that he bought me the ground zero area to me and then I would have built the new wtc with your visions all inside it:banana:.

I think that it would have been nice if the people of New York would have been invited from the beginning in shaping the new wtc complex. Cost what it will cost we stick to the plan, the heroes of 9/11 deserves it.

Regarding to the new mast, antenna or spire I don't know what we will call it but it looks new York"ish" to me little futuristic style and I think its nice, but hey I am the crazy swede:nuts: what do I know:hammer:

Well technically the old spire was designed before the recession, so you can't really blame them. This was just a terrible time to construct this building.

To put the roof at 1776 feet !!

^^ THE stick: http://tommytoy.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f3a4072c970b01539287af63970b-800wi

(http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1195971)

thts
horrible

To put the roof at 1776 feet !!

Exactly :master:

Exactly :master:

Yes thats should have been the purpose with restoring the wtc complex.

The roof should have been at 1776 feet nothing more nothing less. At least one of the seven buildings:gaah:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577394473619775032.html

Here is the way I see it:

There is no way the new design for the mast should be counted in the official height. Otherwise, you might as well count the antenna height for the ESB, Willis Tower, 4 Times Square, etc.

Taken into account that the building should be measured from the lowest open-air pedestrian entance, which is actually 5' 8" lower than where they took the 1776' measurement from, the real height figures should now be:

Height to tip of antenna: 1797.67'/547.93m
Height to top of parapet (official height?): 1373.67'/418.7m
Height to highest occupied floor: 1274'/388.32m

Just my 2 cents for now. It will be interesting to see what the powers to be are going to come up with next!

If we also start including antenna/masts in official heights we'd probably start seeing lots of buildings adding them on top just so they could say their buildings taller. Antenna's are a cheap height multiplier.

If we also start including antenna/masts in official heights we'd probably start seeing lots of buildings adding them on top just so they could say their buildings taller. Antenna's are a cheap height multiplier.

Agreed, it'll be like people start adding 1,000ft antennas to the top of their houses so they can say they live in a supertall :nuts::nuts:

Don't start correcting me, you're like the only one here with a positive attitude towards this redesign..it's quite disgusting :ohno:
Their are lots of people here that mentioned they like the new antennae.

Their are lots of people here that mentioned they like the new antennae.:applause: cool..even though it ruined it

I preferred the old spire. The antennae doesn't look awful as such, but i'm not sure how I feel about 432 being the official tallest building in the city once it's finished! It should of been 1wtc :(

I preferred the old spire. The antennae doesn't look awful as such, but i'm not sure how I feel about 432 being the official tallest building in the city once it's finished! It should of been 1wtc :(

If 432 Park gets finished, then we have bigger problems to worry about:lol:

Hi all.

The 1776 number is still being lamented over ?
This was made clear a year ago. The council measures from the finished floor at the threshold of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance - not an average lobby floor height as the plans for this project does. The 1776 was never going to be the official height right from the start.
1 - The developer knows this as well as anyone, so what the train of thought was by having the plans start their measurements at an average lobby floor height is beyond me. Plans have their starting measuring points at various heights but considering the 1776 was a big deal in this case, why measure that from an average lobby floor height ?
2 - No way this will happen IMO but it should be mentioned. Perhaps the council will make an exception to the rules they use for every other building on Earth and measure as the plans for this project do. Many projects state a height as per the plans that the council changes for the official height using their criteria. No way their going to change those criteria for this one project IMO.

Here is the way I see it:

There is no way the new design for the mast should be counted in the official height. Otherwise, you might as well count the antenna height for the ESB, Willis Tower, 4 Times Square, etc.

Taken into account that the building should be measured from the lowest open-air pedestrian entrance, which is actually 5' 8" lower than where they took the 1776' measurement from, the real height figures should now be:

Height to tip of antenna: 1797.67'/547.93m
Height to top of parapet (official height?): 1373.67'/418.7m
Height to highest occupied floor: 1274'/388.32m

Just my 2 cents for now. It will be interesting to see what the powers to be are going to come up with next!

Hi Vito.

It's great to have someone on 'the inside' pertaining to height numbers and the council. Your insight and time here is appreciated.

1 - The council won't count the antenna in the official height to architectural top if it isn't covered. If it is then it will be considered a spire and will be counted. Correct ?
2 - I've seen some info in here stating the lowest entrance is 3' 4" below where the plans measure from. You have accurate drawings showing it is actually 5' 8" ?
3 - The plans have the top of the beacon at 1776'. Is that what will be considered the official architectural top (if the mast is considered a spire) ? That height will be 1781' 8"
4 - Above the beacon is the 8' radome and above that the 8' lightning rod (unless they change that with the revision) so the official height to tip will be as you mentioned regardless of whether there is an antenna or a spire, at 1797' 8".

:cheers:
Ray.

:applause: cool..even though it ruined it

Translation: My opinion = FACT

Yea sure okay. This building is losing its inspiration little by little

please stop saying you guys love the new design, i know you're all entitled to your own opinion, but you cant believe that's it actually going to look like that..they'll probably enclose it in something

in September, the Science Channel had a series on the reconstruction. They showed scenes form inside the management office. Posted to the wall was a render...with that very same antenna design. So it looks like they were planning this months ago.

Hi all.

The 1776 number is still being lamented over ?
This was made clear a year ago. The council measures from the finished floor at the threshold of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance - not an average lobby floor height as the plans for this project does. The 1776 was never going to be the official height right from the start.
1 - The developer knows this as well as anyone, so what the train of thought was by having the plans start their measurements at an average lobby floor height is beyond me.
2 - No way this will happen IMO but it should be mentioned. Perhaps the council will make an exception to the rules they use for every other building on Earth and measure as the plans for this project do. Many projects state a height as per the plans that the council changes for the official height using their criteria. No way their going to change those criteria for this one project IMO.



Hi Vito.

It's great to have someone on 'the inside' pertaining to height numbers and the council. Your insight and time here is appreciated.

1 - The council won't count the antenna in the official height to architectural top if it isn't covered. If it is then it will be considered a spire and will be counted. Correct ?
2 - I've seen some info in here stating the lowest entrance is 3' 4" below where the plans measure from. You have accurate drawings showing it is actually 5' 8" ?
3 - The plans have the top of the beacon at 1776'. Is that what will be considered the official architectural top (if the mast is considered a spire) ? That height will be 1781' 8"
4 - Above the beacon is the 8' radome and above that the 8' lightning rod (unless they change that with the revision) so the official height to tip will be as you mentioned regardless of whether there is an antenna or a spire, at 1797' 8".

:cheers:
Ray.

Very true, they probably used the 1776 height to get approval from New Yorkers.

Translation: My opinion = FACT

:lol:

:lol:

You two are the only agreeable ones here, let alone snobby. The majority here thinks its hideous so you wonder who else is disgusted

OK, I'm Dun! WTH.. U telling mi, they went from a beautiful elegant spire to a rusted ugly antenna that looks like it came from the scrap yard of the old WTC remains. Ontop of that now the building has lost it's placed as the Nation's tallest and will be soon overthrown by a skinny ass stick up north on Park ave. Total mess!

Agreed, it'll be like people start adding 1,000ft antennas to the top of their houses so they can say they live in a supertall :nuts::nuts:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: That was so funny but you have absolutely right

The whole official height measurement is nothing more than a source of deception. Thanks to it ordinary people have absolutely no chance of determining the true height of a building cause there is no diffarance in appearance between an antenna and a spire :ohno:

Just take a look at these, pure deception :ohno:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/world_the_world0s_tallest_buildings/img/2.jpg
Note that this diagram made it into BBC News :ohno:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4t3xZrhctCM/SvTgjZD8hlI/AAAAAAAAAak/nTCAGTwfID0/s320/worlds_tallest_building_burj_dubai_klcc_tower_skyscrapper.gif

http://phillyrealestate.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/american-commerce-center.jpg

LOL @ BBC, as always.

Let's just leave out buildings built in Mainland China and pretend they don't exist

So is there an official ruling as to whether the official height remains this high?

To be honest, the feeling that you get when you enter a 500+ meter tower when i could only reach 400m will always be there. Don't get how the 'official' number will change this? On the positive side, you could say that you have made it 'almost' to the top of the tower, something you can't say with BK in Dubai or Taipei 101 even

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577394473619775032.html

"Omitting the shell, however, raises the question of whether the structure at the top would count toward the official height of the building, or whether it would fall to be the second-tallest in the U.S., behind the Willis Tower in Chicago, at 1,368 feet to the roof. In the traditional way of measuring height, architectural spires are included, while antennas aren't. While the owners insist it is still a spire, the arbiter on such matters—the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat—hasn't yet weighed in."

^
Actually, an antennae would make it 3rd tallest, since it would lose out to Trump Tower Chicago and its cheap ass spire.:lol:

I just checked CTBUH.org. You'd think they'd have the news on thier website (under global news) by now regarding this controversy. They don't!

http://images.nymag.com/images/news/01/09/wtc_9_400x300.jpg




I think next step is that "they" port authority, silverstein, einstein and Co scrap the idea of ​​a spire or antenna and makes a great observation deck at the top of 1wtc just as the South Tower :banana::nuts::banana::nuts: everyone is satisfied. I liked the new one little more, more new york stile but most of you like the spire instead, and you live in the best city in the world so you maybe know more what N.Y should have.

If they would please them all or no one the would defenetly do a observation deck YEAH

HA! I FOUND IT!!

http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/one-world-trade-center/98/


Height: Architectural

418.7 meter / 1374 feet


Height: Occupied

388.3 meter / 1274 feet



Height: To Tip

547.9 meter / 1798 feet



Height: Observatory

388.3 meter / 1274 feet


Looks like the CTBUH is NOT amused! :lol:

Now you MUST all agree with me "the crazy swede:nuts::nuts:" or else I will cry OK good thanks:lol:
Please agree:)

"Omitting the shell, however, raises the question of whether the structure at the top would count toward the official height of the building, or whether it would fall to be the second-tallest in the U.S., behind the Willis Tower in Chicago, at 1,368 feet to the roof. In the traditional way of measuring height, architectural spires are included, while antennas aren't. While the owners insist it is still a spire, the arbiter on such matters—the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat—hasn't yet weighed in."

^
Actually, an antennae would make it 3rd tallest, since it would lose out to Trump Tower Chicago and its cheap ass spire.:lol:

The Trump's spire isn't any more cheap then 1 WTC's would have been. Dont use a double standard...:ohno:

Spires are a cheap way to get more height. Maybe I should add a spire to my house, and make it a 300m building!:lol:

I love 1 World Trade Center because of it's architecture and what it stands for. The height isn't what matters here.

The Trump's spire isn't any more cheap then 1 WTC's would have been. Dont use a double standard...:ohno:

Spires are a cheap way to get more height. Maybe I should add a spire to my house, and make it a 300m building!:lol:

I disagree. There are good spires (Taipei 101, Burj Khalifa), and bad ones (Trump Tower).

I disagree. There are good spires (Taipei 101, Burj Khalifa), and bad ones (Trump Tower).

I disagree, The trump is a building that needed a spire, it looks natural for it.

Hi all.

The 1776 number is still being lamented over ?
This was made clear a year ago. The council measures from the finished floor at the threshold of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance - not an average lobby floor height as the plans for this project does. The 1776 was never going to be the official height right from the start.
1 - The developer knows this as well as anyone, so what the train of thought was by having the plans start their measurements at an average lobby floor height is beyond me. Plans have their starting measuring points at various heights but considering the 1776 was a big deal in this case, why measure that from an average lobby floor height ?
2 - No way this will happen IMO but it should be mentioned. Perhaps the council will make an exception to the rules they use for every other building on Earth and measure as the plans for this project do. Many projects state a height as per the plans that the council changes for the official height using their criteria. No way their going to change those criteria for this one project IMO.



Hi Vito.

It's great to have someone on 'the inside' pertaining to height numbers and the council. Your insight and time here is appreciated.

1 - The council won't count the antenna in the official height to architectural top if it isn't covered. If it is then it will be considered a spire and will be counted. Correct ?
2 - I've seen some info in here stating the lowest entrance is 3' 4" below where the plans measure from. You have accurate drawings showing it is actually 5' 8" ?
3 - The plans have the top of the beacon at 1776'. Is that what will be considered the official architectural top (if the mast is considered a spire) ? That height will be 1781' 8"
4 - Above the beacon is the 8' radome and above that the 8' lightning rod (unless they change that with the revision) so the official height to tip will be as you mentioned regardless of whether there is an antenna or a spire, at 1797' 8".

:cheers:
Ray.

Hi Ray,

The 5' 8" figure came from a reliable source which I cannot disclose yet, because of the sensitive nature of this obsession of hitting the 1776' figure.

I don't see how the Council can classify this latest design as a decorative spire. And yes, the original design would have had an offical height of 1781' 8", and 1797' 8" to the tip of the lightning rod.

Maybe they will chop off some height of the antenna to at least make the total height at 1776. Who knows what they are going to do, but it will be fun to follow all of the controversy in the next several months. :popcorn:

LOL @ BBC, as always.

Let's just leave out buildings built in Mainland China and pretend they don't exist

So is there an official ruling as to whether the official height remains this high?

To be honest, the feeling that you get when you enter a 500+ meter tower when i could only reach 400m will always be there. Don't get how the 'official' number will change this? On the positive side, you could say that you have made it 'almost' to the top of the tower, something you can't say with BK in Dubai or Taipei 101 even

I love how out of scale (small) they drew sears tower

everyone underestimates it :ohno:

I love how out of scale (small) they drew sears tower

everyone underestimates it :ohno:

Glad I am not the only one that noticed that! They made the roof of the Petronas like 460 meters, and put the spire at around 540 meters:lol: I was like something is very wrong here. I wouldn't say everyone underestimates the Sears though.

I think next step is that "they" port authority, silverstein, einstein and Co scrap the idea of ​​a spire or antenna and makes a great observation deck at the top of 1wtc just as the South Tower :banana::nuts::banana::nuts: everyone is satisfied. I liked the new one little more, more new york stile but most of you like the spire instead, and you live in the best city in the world so you maybe know more what N.Y should have.

If they would please them all or no one the would defenetly do a observation deck YEAH

That type of rooftop deck isn't possible on the new 1 WTC due to the mechanical equipment. I suppose you could try and install a walkway, but you'd still have to figure out how to get people up there and have to deal with the noise and heat from the giant HVAC units. But let's just put it this way: there won't be a rooftop deck. Ever.

HA! I FOUND IT!!

http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/one-world-trade-center/98/


Height: Architectural

418.7 meter / 1374 feet

Looks like the CTBUH is NOT amused! :lol:

1,374 doesn't have much of a ring to it.

A thread title change seems to be in order. LOL.

That type of rooftop deck isn't possible on the new 1 WTC due to the mechanical equipment. I suppose you could try and install a walkway, but you'd still have to figure out how to get people up there and have to deal with the noise and heat from the giant HVAC units. But let's just put it this way: there won't be a rooftop deck. Ever.

Everything is possible I belive:)

Okay the noise after the HVAC units may be a problem but how did they do it in the twins and if their would be a plan to do so how noisy would it be up there?

1,374 doesn't have much of a ring to it.

A thread title change seems to be in order. LOL.

True, well we can say that it's roof height is higher then the old WTC.

in September, the Science Channel had a series on the reconstruction. They showed scenes form inside the management office. Posted to the wall was a render...with that very same antenna design. So it looks like they were planning this months ago.

The antenna structure was always there, just decided to remove the radome enclosure. There was never a redesign, nor a modification of the antenna.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6709797023_da48179f12_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62018165@N04/6709797023/)
Antenna at 1WTC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62018165@N04/6709797023/) by Otie O'Daniel (http://www.flickr.com/people/62018165@N04/), on Flickr

I'm sorry but I am SO upset about this whole entire spire/antenna issue. I'm a new Yorker and this situation is making me lose faith in my city as a whole, how can this happen with out the publics approval? We were promised a 1776 tower and now it's just shit....so sad...so f***ing sad

Actually I think the 1374 is just the top of the parapet... which isn't the roof, the roof will be below that. I do hope the beacon will still be on top.

Oh well... sucks that it will not be 1776 feet anymore, guess we have to look forward to 432 Park being the tallest building in the city, since antenna's don't count in official height, it would be.

Maybe 225 57th Street will surprise us and go bigger.

Everything is possible I belive:)

Okay the noise after the HVAC units may be a problem but how did they do it in the twins and if their would be a plan to do so how noisy would it be up there?

Because the old twins didn't have the HVAC equipment up there.

And I love how Otie showed us the "new" spire/antenna months ago. You should e-mail Durst with your render, Otie, and see what they have to say. As you said all they did was remove the antenna's enclosure.

Spire my arse.

HA! I FOUND IT!!

http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/one-world-trade-center/98/


Height: Architectural

418.7 meter / 1374 feet


Height: Occupied

388.3 meter / 1274 feet


Height: Observatory

388.3 meter / 1274 feet


Hmm, the height of the 102nd floor is or was 1,266' 8". If you count the 4-5' column splice you should get the 1,271 feet tall height the PA and the media have been spouting about the tower's current height.

If we're now adding 5' 8" to the PA's original floor/elevation heights. Shouldn't the 102nd (highest occupied floor) be 1,272' 4" ?

If the parapet is now 1,373' 8" thanks to an increase of 5' 8". 1,272 would seem to be the correct height of the 102nd floor. Am I missing something Vito/Fury/Otie/ anyone else?

I am so angry right about this news i am in a lost for words.

I will be so pissed off if they stick a plain old antenna up there!!! ARRRGGGHHHH

I'm sorry but I am SO upset about this whole entire spire/antenna issue. I'm a new Yorker and this situation is making me lose faith in my city as a whole, how can this happen with out the publics approval? We were promised a 1776 tower and now it's just shit....so sad...so f***ing sad

You were promised a 1368 foot building, with a spire that reaches 1776 feet, and thats basically what you got, only now it's an antennae that reaches 1776 feet.

I'm sick now, those Durst bastards ruined NY's skyline. :ohno:

I am done with 1 wtc see you guys at 432 park ave forum. :ohno:

They change the spire, and now you all suddenly hate this building ? Come on guys... don't tell me you got that caught up in the 1776 height...

They change the spire, and now you all suddenly hate this building ? Come on guys... don't tell me you got that caught up in the 1776 height...

The old spire basically made the building, this new one is HIDEOUS

@iloveclassicrock7 exactly. It's unfortunate as far as titles go, but other than that. Nothing has changed. Why is everyone calling this a drastic design change. The look is hardly different. Admit it, your calling it ugly now only because of the title and not appearance.

Anyways using 40 story spires on top of buildings to gain height imop is stupid. If they wanted a 1776 ft building then they should of just made one. So to me, un cladding the antenna isn't a "drastic" change. The skyline will not be affected people, quit whining.

@iloveclassicrock7 exactly. It's unfortunate as far as titles go, but other than that. Nothing has changed. Why is everyone calling this a drastic design change. The look is hardly different.

Using 40 story spires on top of buildings to gain height imop is stupid. If they wanted a 1776 ft building then they should of just made one. So to me, un cladding the antenna isn't a "drastic" change. The skyline will not be affected.

Thank you. I agree that people have a right to dislike the new antennae, but people shouldn't be upset because of them not counting the antennae.

The only hope i see now is to wait on the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat ruling by making 1 wtc 1,368 and, hoping by their decision Will cause and national out cry so that durst will look at SOM alternative plans.

The only hope i see now is to wait on the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat ruling by making 1 wtc 1,368 and, hoping by their decision Will cause and national out cry so that durst will look at SOM alternative plans.

Why do you care so much about the 1776 height ?

@iloveclassicrock7 exactly. It's unfortunate as far as titles go, but other than that. Nothing has changed. Why is everyone calling this a drastic design change. The look is hardly different. Admit it, your calling it ugly now only because of the title and not appearance.

Anyways using 40 story spires on top of buildings to gain height imop is stupid. If they wanted a 1776 ft building then they should of just made one. So to me, un cladding the antenna isn't a "drastic" change. The skyline will not be affected people, quit whining.

No, everyone is complaining about the appearance, look at this picture. The left looks fine, the right looks worse than rotten garbage.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143211918/large.jpg

Why do you care so much about the 1776 height ?

Because the whole F***ing purpose of 1 wtc was to be the tallest building in the western hemisphere that's why i care .

Because the whole F***ing purpose of 1 wtc was to be the tallest building in the western hemisphere that's why i care .

NO, the whole F***ing purpose was to show the world that we can come back from devastation stronger then ever, and to restore the skyline.

NO, the whole F***ing purpose was to show the world that we can come back from devastation stronger then ever, and to restore the skyline.
^^
Well to each its own on this matter.

^^
Well to each its own on this matter.

I'm seriously stunned right now. Not only do people care only about the height of the building, even when the building is the same what some stupid counsel says about the height is all that matters.

Pure irrational stupidity.

I'm seriously stunned right now. Not only do people care only about the height of the building, even when the building is the same what some stupid counsel says about the height is all that matters.

Pure irrational stupidity.

Finally someone speaks a rational and logical thought. It's sad to see that a lot of people only care about this because of it's height. Am I the only one that remembers 9/11 ? I eagerly await the day that the WTC is completed, and we have finally rebuilt that area, and people can renew their hope in America.

^^
Only to according to your perception of logic, as for me yes i care about its height i'm entitled to my own opinion.

Oh my god. That new antenna doesnt looks very permanent.

the height of the 102nd floor is or was 1,266' 8". If you count the 4-5' column splice you should get the 1,271 feet tall height the PA and the media have been spouting about the tower's current height.

:banana:

No, everyone is complaining about the appearance, look at this picture. The left looks fine, the right looks worse than rotten garbage.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/143211918/large.jpg

HAHAHAHA!!!! LOLOOLOLOL! :lol:

What is that?!?? Chicken wire? Barbed wire? Where'd they get that design and material?? ..the local Home Depot store??? I bet it cost's 0.50 a sq foot... way to save your money jerks!!! :bash:

I am done with 1 wtc see you guys at 432 park ave forum. :ohno:

Yup..my thoughts exactly..i've already been peepin the 432park thread, and don't gorget the newest proposed - 225west..which doesn't even have any renders or height specs/info yet....hopefully, this one will be our Western-hemisphere, Usa and NYC King! :D

Crossing fingers... 225West is our last hope for a true king, this decade. Hoping to at least beat Sears' roof and also tip/spire/antenna height.

:banana:

NO, the whole F***ing purpose was to show the world that we can come back from devastation stronger then ever, and to restore the skyline.

In WHAT ways did we come back "stronger than ever"?

HAHAHAHAHA.

1 WTC isn't an architectural masterpiece in the slightest. It's a tapered box with an Office Depot barbwire jutting out from the roof. 2 might never be built. 3 was reduced in height, watered down in design and might never be built either. 4 is just a boring building.

So we are back "stronger than ever" because of a single boring building that is isn't even complete 11 YEARS LATER? Even Mexico could put up a building, do it but theirs would have been built LONG ago.

Unfinished cheapened complex, traveling is stressful, the WTC complex, when it's completed in 50 years will forever be a military state of bomb sniffing dogs, snipers, extraordinary high security and we are back stronger than ever!?

Really? In a country where supertalls like the Empire State Building could be put up in ONE year, this lone ratchet looking building that just now coming along 11 years later is a symbol of our "come back"? If this sad catastrophe known as the WTC rebuilding is a symbol of our comeback, then this country is so pathetic.

Wow, what a shame about the spire. The original design with the enclosure looked great too.

As much as I like this new complex I think they got it all wrong from the start, they should have made only 2 towers to free up finances to make this building around 2400ft (including spire).

Putting a fat white stick on top of a building doesn't make it 1776 feet any more than me having huge spiky hair makes me 7 foot tall. The actual building is just as large, smooth and elegant as it was before. It doesn't lose its symbolic value either - it will still stand in glory upon the site where all those people died. The whole spire vs antenna thing is ridiculous - it's a stupid metal pole and no matter what you call it that won't change. I say toss the damn thing away entirely while you're at it.

The antenna structure was always there, just decided to remove the radome enclosure. There was never a redesign, nor a modification of the antenna.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6709797023_da48179f12_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62018165@N04/6709797023/)
Antenna at 1WTC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62018165@N04/6709797023/) by Otie O'Daniel (http://www.flickr.com/people/62018165@N04/), on Flickr

i quite like the antenna on the left. there is a functional aesthetic to it that I find quite beautiful. While I also liked the spire, im starting to feel it looks too much like a cigar.

at any rate i never really perceived 1wtc as a 1776 foot building despite the 'publicity' advertising it as such. just like wearing higher shoes or wearing a big hat doesn't really make you a taller person :ohno:

Putting a fat white stick on top of a building doesn't make it 1776 feet any more than me having huge spiky hair makes me 7 foot tall. The actual building is just as large, smooth and elegant as it was before. It doesn't lose its symbolic value either - it will still stand in glory upon the site where all those people died. The whole spire vs antenna thing is ridiculous - it's a stupid metal pole and no matter what you call it that won't change. I say toss the damn thing away entirely while you're at it.

The fat white "stick" gave the building presence. It would LOOK like an actual 1,776 ft from afar because the spire was very fat and looked very much part of the building. Now with some disgusting tiny invisible toothpick, the building very much looks its short pathetic 1,300 ft height.

Oh well, there is always the Hudson Yards. Those new twins look gorgeous. I hope this WTC complex fails and all the business flows to the Hudson Yards. Well it is already a failure but most people are too scared to admit it. I don't care. This complex is a complete and utter failure. 11 years later and we barely have one building with with its beacon being a trashy antenna. Not even a proper spire like the Chrysler or Empire State. A flat top with a ghetto antenna. Sad.

NO, the whole F***ing purpose was to show the world that we can come back from devastation stronger then ever, and to restore the skyline.

Stronger in what sense?

My god have they ruined 1 wtc. What the hell are these people thinking?????!!?!?

I had real hopes for the new wtc. Seems the only part built to plan was the memorial waterfalls. Such a shame.

Stronger in what sense?

I have to agree with his statement, the whole purpose of this project is a symbol of resilience. From here in Australia, that message is loud and clear, I can only imagine how raw feelings must still be in America. That's why people are so angry about this, such a little thing as an uglier spire design will send people angry, this is a statement to the world.

And personally I don't like the new design either.

It´s very sad they replaced the cool modern spire with an average antenna. I know the spire was just antenna with cladding but with the redesing of base it´ll have a major impact on the 1wtc look. :ohno:
What a bad news.....this building should be a superior to old WTC not just a substitute.
BTW: The 1776ft sounds much better than 1368, because it means something...

errrrrrr
what is with the new design? D: it looks dreadful and lifeless...

The spire on the original design fitted perfectly well with this building, now it's just a stick which is stuck on must relatively high buildings around the world... even here in Nottingham one of our 75m tall buildings has an antenna like that... just dreadful really

To say that this building is to show respect to the 9/11 attacks and showing the world that New York can come back building stronger and more beautiful than ever... well, they're slowly dissapointed everyone...

This buildings needs the cherry ontop to finish it off nicely, this new antenna doesn't do it

This tower now will be 1373 feet tall and I think that the CTBUH will be forced to drop the 1776 number. What a disgrace this new antenna is. Shame on Durst, the PA and SOM!!

PS: I'm going to add a 600 feet tall antenna on my highrise, so I can say I live in supertall! :lol: