Can people not read or something?


"Eliminating this integral part of the building’s design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate. We stand ready to work with the port on an alternate design that will still mark the One World Trade Center’s place in New York City’s skyline,”

-David Childs

Can people not read or something?


"Eliminating this integral part of the building’s design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate. We stand ready to work with the port on an alternate design that will still mark the One World Trade Center’s place in New York City’s skyline,”

-David Childs

Yeah right, what alternative design?

they r gonna start construction on the antenna in 3 months....u mean they r gonna come with an alternative design in that time frame, and then test it out, and get the materials ready to be assembled on the top of the building....

get real....

they r gonna put up that ugly spire and ruin this building for generations to come...

people 50 years from now will make documentaries on how dysfunctional this whole construction process was :ohno:

Can people not read or something?


"Eliminating this integral part of the building’s design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate. We stand ready to work with the port on an alternate design that will still mark the One World Trade Center’s place in New York City’s skyline,”

-David Childs

That's what I was referring to also...this whole thing is so confusing that you can't even believe a single source

Curious...does this new "antenna" have the same design or structure, internally/frame-wise, as the original spire, except that they are just leaving out and not installing the "shell covering"?

If so, then wouldn't it be possible to "add" that shell covering, maybe in the future or if they even ever wanted to, around the new antenna frame??

It would be nice if the new antenna frame was the same, or similar, to the original spire's frame...for any possible, easy and quick changes in the future.

As I've stated before, there's NO new design of the spire or whatever you want to call it. What we're seeing on the newer renderings is the same mast they designed back in ~2008, only main difference is the lack of an enclosure.


If so, then wouldn't it be possible to "add" that shell covering, maybe in the future or if they even ever wanted to, around the new antenna frame??


Main problem is once antenna equipment is working up there, they'll not be able to shut down everything for a long period of time in order to install the radome enclosure.

Yeah right, what alternative design?

they r gonna start construction on the antenna in 3 months....u mean they r gonna come with an alternative design in that time frame, and then test it out, and get the materials ready to be assembled on the top of the building....

get real....

they r gonna put up that ugly spire and ruin this building for generations to come...

people 50 years from now will make documentaries on how dysfunctional this whole construction process was :ohno:

Childs did design the building, he does have a say, and 3 months is certainly enough time to do something, and it could be delayed even longer.

I just can't imagine he will let this slide, he has already stated his extreme dissapointment and desire to do something about it.

^^ Childs has no authority over the building. It doesn't belong to him, he only designed it :ohno:

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/Conta...tact_chuck.cfm

There is the link to Senator Chuck Schumer's email..I sent him a detailed email about the concerns about the spire re-design. I am not a resident of New York, but I emphasized the aesthetic aspects, and how the spire as intended by SOM should be maintained because of the importance of the site and prominence of 1WTC...Anyone else who wishes to write the Senator, just please be respectful and do not use any profanity.

info@durst.org

And there is Durst's contact email. I sent them one as well, anyone else who wishes to do so, remember to make your points but do so in a respectful manner, not using any profanity. It's a small hope, but worth a try.

Don't you guys have jobs? Who cares about an antenna.

Maybe if you cared about this tower let alone live in NYC you would care.

Depends on weather conditions, concrete on deck is 8 floors below steel erection, so the rooftop slab should be poured 2 months after the perimeter structure reaches the roof. Mast erection is scheduled to begin in this summer.

I checked the recent update from today on the PA website, and it says the concrete is only 5 floors behind at 93 :)

I can't keep myself from noticing how horribly hideous and nasty this new antenna is... it looks as if it was transplanted from a brutalist 1950's building... just. plain. hideous.

Don't you guys have jobs? Who cares about an antenna.

What an ignorant remark. I don't know about everyone else on here, but I DO have a job and a good one at that. People who are inherently stupid would naturally not care about the appearance of such a high-profile building. Such a comment is quite revealing in its ignorance.

New York speaks for itself, but I don't know where Jeddah is (and probably still won't even if this tower gets built)...

Well thats your problem if you dont know where it is. New York does speak for itself but so does most cities on the planet. The building is great looking and I cant wait to see it finished. I can still remember being in NYC and it was very small compared to what its like right now. Cant wait to visit this beautiful building.

I have a question. Will any of the buildings around the WTC complex be residential? Cheers:)

Don't you guys have jobs? Who cares about an antenna.

What kind of comment is that. I speak for myself here but of course I have a job. I do like coming on here and checking out the updates and to see what people are discussing about the building. What a stupid comment to make.

^^ Childs has no authority over the building. It doesn't belong to him, he only designed it :ohno:


He said he would work to change this and I believe him, he wouldn't of said it if he had no say, of course he has say, he designed the freaking building. The PA promised 1776 feet.

He said he would work to change this and I believe him, he wouldn't of said it if he had no say, of course he has say, he designed the freaking building. The PA promised 1776 feet.

He said it to make it clear he doesn't agree with the change, it doesn't mean he has any say.

Well thats your problem if you dont know where it is. New York does speak for itself but so does most cities on the planet. The building is great looking and I cant wait to see it finished. I can still remember being in NYC and it was very small compared to what its like right now. Cant wait to visit this beautiful building.

I have a question. Will any of the buildings around the WTC complex be residential? Cheers:)

My point is who cares if a random city somewhere is planning a zillion feet tower. One WTC is far more important and it will look great, even without a spire.

My point is who cares if a random city somewhere is planning a zillion feet tower. One WTC is far more important and it will look great, even without a spire.

Fair enough and thats fine but my point is that 1WTC is very important to you but some other project might be important to someone else in another part of the world. I like 1WTC a lot though:)

Goddamn it, I'm sick of the stupid spire argument. Whatever happened to progress pictures?

Goddamn it, I'm sick of the stupid spire argument. Whatever happened to progress pictures?

:applause::applause::applause:

Can people not read or something?


"Eliminating this integral part of the building’s design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate. We stand ready to work with the port on an alternate design that will still mark the One World Trade Center’s place in New York City’s skyline,”

-David Childs

??

Just because the architect wants to work with the developer doesn't mean the developer will agree to it. From the sound of it, the developer has no interest in working with the architect to find a solution.

One World Trade Center new spire design:

:ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:

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

He said it to make it clear he doesn't agree with the change, it doesn't mean he has any say.

how many times do I need to post this?

"We stand ready to work with the port on an alternate design that will still mark the One World Trade Center’s place in New York City’s skyline,”


He clearly has plans to change it, not saying it will definitely happen but people need to hold their horses.

in my opinion, i don't really mind the change. always thought it was kinda weird how the spire became fat at the midsection. i agree with someone earlier, its a bit grittier, and fitting for ny.


? There is nothing "gritty" about Lower Manhattan's skyline. An ugly building is not "fitting' for Manhattan.

I guess this spire would fit in better in a concrete jungle like Midtown but Lower Manhattan's skyline is quite contemporary and pretty and this will stick out like a sore thumb. Especially being in such a prominent area along the river.

The building has been ruined.

how many times do I need to post this?

"We stand ready to work with the port on an alternate design that will still mark the One World Trade Center’s place in New York City’s skyline,”


He clearly has plans to change it, not saying it will definitely happen but people need to hold their horses.

I hope you are right! I too have a sneaking suspicion that we have not yet heard the final word on the spire...The building hasn't even topped out yet, and the spire won't be installed for several months..I am an optimist, and hope they can in fact work out a common ground solution..

? There is nothing "gritty" about Lower Manhattan's skyline. An ugly building is not "fitting' for Manhattan.

I guess this spire would fit in better in a concrete jungle like Midtown but Lower Manhattan's skyline is quite contemporary and pretty and this will stick out like a sore thumb. Especially being in such a prominent area along the river.

The building has been ruined.

This is more modern than the old North Tower's antenna, and even THAT one looked great in the skyline.

Some photos I took recently out in Morristown, New Jersey- 30 miles away.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7092/7179254460_307e6757bd_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5197/7179254792_60e3cf916e_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7074/7179254384_303656be04_b.jpg

I don't look this thread in two days, and it's been +18 pages ... My gosh, 20 pages with only personal opinions on the tower (antenna) and no images.

Well... I can not wait to see the next increase, but should still take a while.

May 11th

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7218/7179268704_2d2b9fbe17_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xurijoe/7179268704/)
WTC 1, May 11th, 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xurijoe/7179268704/) by xurijoe (http://www.flickr.com/people/xurijoe/), on Flickr

So many dramaqueens here...

I'm glad to see the images of construction flow back into the thread. I'm tired about the antenna/spire talk. Let's move on shall we? Let's all be happy that we still have a beautiful building in the works than not having any at all.

I'm one of the people who doesn't mind the new antenna. I liked the old spire design, and I like the design of the new antenna. It SCREAMS New York City in my opinion. If the new antenna design was the design from the start most of the people bitching about the change would love it. ;) As to the height being lowered, I personally couldn't care less, especially about the arbitrary 1776 ft figure. 1WTC is still the same height in my mind. How about we wait until the antenna is completed and can gauge how it interacts with the rest of 1WTC and the New York skyline before calling the redesign a 'national disgrace'?

Love those long distance shots NewYorkSkyline117. :applause:

How about we wait until the antenna is completed and can gauge how it interacts with 1WTC and the New York skyline before calling the redesign a 'national disgrace'?



I couldn't agree more. It could actually look great in real life. And anyways, if the design could change once, who says it won't change anymore?

They could come up with a design that is low in cost which could possibly look much better than what we have seen before. We just need to wait to see how the history in the making takes its course.

People, STOP talking about the antenna! Seriously it's so annoying after like 15 pages. The best thing we can do is wait & see

I'm one of the people who doesn't mind the new antenna. I liked the old spire design, and I like the design of the new antenna. It SCREAMS New York City in my opinion. If the new antenna design was the design from the start most of the people bitching about the change would love it. ;) As to the height being lowered, I personally couldn't care less, especially about the arbitrary 1776 ft figure. 1WTC is still the same height in my mind. How about we wait until the antenna is completed and can gauge how it interacts with the rest of 1WTC and the New York skyline before calling the redesign a 'national disgrace'?

Love those long distance shots NewYorkSkyline117. :applause:

Exactly. The height never changed. It is still 1776 feet or so to the pinnacle. You guys act like the CTBUH is your leader. They aren't, no one appointed them but themselves. There are several different sources you can follow, there is no definitive source. There are clear cut facts, the spire and antennae debate is subjective, and nothing to go by. Here are the clear cut things to go by. Pinnacle, Top floor, roof. WTC wins pinnacle, Sears tower wins roof and top floor. Does that make Sears the tallest in America. No. It only means that it one certain categories, and WTC won a certain category. It's not about who wins the most categories, it just means that they both are tallest in their winning categories. You don't have to be subjective, and decide what is what based on opinion. You should always say that Sears and WTC share the title of America's tallest building, because they both win in some of the categories.

Sorry if that sounded complicated, but if you understand it, it's very clear cut, which is what we need.

Love those long distance shots NewYorkSkyline117. :applause:

Thanks :)

My god this forum flew in pages .

One World Trade Center new spire design:

:ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:

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

well it certainly isn't
pretty

Can we just all wait and see what it looks like until its finished this is probably one of the many changes in the spire that they will make from now until completion and lets get back to progress pictures!!!!!!

I'm one of the people who doesn't mind the new antenna. I liked the old spire design, and I like the design of the new antenna. It SCREAMS New York City in my opinion. If the new antenna design was the design from the start most of the people bitching about the change would love it. ;) As to the height being lowered, I personally couldn't care less, especially about the arbitrary 1776 ft figure. 1WTC is still the same height in my mind. How about we wait until the antenna is completed and can gauge how it interacts with the rest of 1WTC and the New York skyline before calling the redesign a 'national disgrace'?

Love those long distance shots NewYorkSkyline117. :applause:

can't believe I'm saying this but i agree

people are upset about the spire ordeal and everyone has an opinion about it so deal with it, it is an extremely integral part of 1 wtc and it should be discussed, so I understand why this conversation has lasted so long....no one gives a shit about floor count or pictures anymore, they are upset because this building turned to shit.

My. God.
What have they done?
The old spire wasn't perfect, but at least it fit in with the building. with the new mosquito net spire, from a distance the spire will be near invisible and 1WTC will look like a 420m stump!
The cost cutting measures are getting ridiculous...

One World Trade Center new spire design:

:ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:

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

great diagram!

Terrible!
I liked the old spire, this one is disguisting :ohno:

Exactly. The height never changed. It is still 1776 feet or so to the pinnacle. You guys act like the CTBUH is your leader. They aren't, no one appointed them but themselves. There are several different sources you can follow, there is no definitive source. There are clear cut facts, the spire and antennae debate is subjective, and nothing to go by. Here are the clear cut things to go by. Pinnacle, Top floor, roof. WTC wins pinnacle, Sears tower wins roof and top floor. Does that make Sears the tallest in America. No. It only means that it one certain categories, and WTC won a certain category. It's not about who wins the most categories, it just means that they both are tallest in their winning categories. You don't have to be subjective, and decide what is what based on opinion. You should always say that Sears and WTC share the title of America's tallest building, because they both win in some of the categories.

Sorry if that sounded complicated, but if you understand it, it's very clear cut, which is what we need.

Very well said. I 1000% agree with you :cheers:

Btw, time for some new pics :cheer:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5454/7177243038_d5112c7bc1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/79595424@N04/7177243038/)
Freedom Tower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/79595424@N04/7177243038/) by dubstepify (http://www.flickr.com/people/79595424@N04/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7072/7177696826_984e34e194_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cranburry/7177696826/)
Freedom Tower NYC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cranburry/7177696826/) by Cran Burry (Matthew Nedbalsky) (http://www.flickr.com/people/cranburry/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7100/7179056652_e2fb9e1b25_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimforest/7179056652/)
Freedom Tower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimforest/7179056652/) by jimforest (http://www.flickr.com/people/jimforest/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7224/7179980932_7b3f2c4e66_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottlynchnyc/7179980932/)
Irish Hunger Memorial, World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottlynchnyc/7179980932/) by Scoboco (http://www.flickr.com/people/scottlynchnyc/), on Flickr

JEDDAH | Kingdom Tower | 1007m
NEW YORK | One World Trade Center (1WTC) | 419m:ohno:

If they built a 1007m tower in NYC it would look awful!

I would much rather they build to the heights that would make the skyline look the best, and the most elegant, like they do in NYC at the moment, rather than trying to build as tall as possible!

NYC has nothing to prove in terms of skyscrapers, these middle eastern cities will never be as great as New York no matter how many 1000m + skyscrapers they build!

its been exactly 3 years since i have been to NYC and I'm desperate to go back!

Anyway, here is a few pics of mine to show how much progress since!

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/3733_1108597788231_1025418695_30381212_5855638_n.jpg

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/3733_1108597948235_1025418695_30381216_884636_n.jpg

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/3733_1108597988236_1025418695_30381217_6109495_n.jpg

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/3733_1108600348295_1025418695_30381275_701664_n.jpg

Thanks :)

I REALLY don't understand that...elevator...? on the west side of the tower. It goes up 20 or so stories, and just stops, and the cladding above it is still unfilled. Anybody know what it is?

I REALLY don't understand that...elevator...? on the west side of the tower. It goes up 20 or so stories, and just stops, and the cladding above it is still unfilled. Anybody know what it is?

The cladding has not been installed BECAUSE the elevator will be/has been there. It will of course be filled in when upper levels have been completed internally most likely.

^^ Maybe they established a kind of temporary skylobby on the floor at which that elevator ends :dunno:

Exactly. The height never changed. It is still 1776 feet or so to the pinnacle. You guys act like the CTBUH is your leader. They aren't, no one appointed them but themselves. There are several different sources you can follow, there is no definitive source. There are clear cut facts, the spire and antennae debate is subjective, and nothing to go by. Here are the clear cut things to go by. Pinnacle, Top floor, roof. WTC wins pinnacle, Sears tower wins roof and top floor. Does that make Sears the tallest in America. No. It only means that it one certain categories, and WTC won a certain category. It's not about who wins the most categories, it just means that they both are tallest in their winning categories. You don't have to be subjective, and decide what is what based on opinion. You should always say that Sears and WTC share the title of America's tallest building, because they both win in some of the categories.

Sorry if that sounded complicated, but if you understand it, it's very clear cut, which is what we need.

Yes! Very, very well put.

Can we please stop talking about the new spire design? Just get over it already.

Can we please stop talking about the new spire design? Just get over it already.

I hate the new spire (antenna) design, it's ugly.

Oooops, in my last update I forgot about the PA cam, well, so here it is :cheers:

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

http://i.imgur.com/OriR2.png

How can they place spire to the top? Will they use helicopter for placing whole spire or put parts of spire together ?

They will assemble it in parts, like any other spire.

How can they place spire to the top? Will they use helicopter for placing whole spire or put parts of spire together ?

It depends. They used a helicopter for Trump International Chicago.

I've showed the new antenna to my friends. None of them liked it at all!
That's very sad,they should keep the original spire!

It depends. They used a helicopter for Trump International Chicago.

Trump's spire is extremely thin, thinner than 1WTC's new one, so I think they will assemble it in parts :cheers: Though I could be wrong of course :dunno:

Never liked the original antenna so to me hardly matters. The whole building is uninspiring and a bit of an embarassment. Hoping that WTC2 gets built soon.

http://i.minus.com/i0GiEVSmZFYsW.jpg

Never liked the original antenna so to me hardly matters. The whole building is uninspiring and a bit of an embarassment. Hoping that WTC2 gets built soon.

As if 2 WTC is going to be somehow more "inspiring"? Its footprint looks like a coffin, I guess that just screams inspiration.

I'm not sure how you can say 1 WTC is an embarassment.

Trump's spire is extremely thin, thinner than 1WTC's new one, so I think they will assemble it in parts :cheers: Though I could be wrong of course :dunno:

I still wonder how Trump's antenna can be counted... even the ESB is clearly taller than Trump, let alone 1WTC. But thanks to the CTBUH Trump is going to remain as the second tallest skyscraper in the U.S. with a roof height of 360m.

In case no one saw this, I hoped you guys would like these :)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7092/7179254460_307e6757bd_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5197/7179254792_60e3cf916e_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7074/7179254384_303656be04_b.jpg

Will the new 1wtc antenna be considered a spire?

WANNA HAVE YOUR OWN ONE WORLD TRADE CENTER UNDER-CONSTRUCTION AT HOME???????? WELL HERE'S A 1:1700 SCALE MODEL OF THE TOWER. ENJOY!

http://i.imgur.com/gO7wD.png

http://i.imgur.com/661FC.png

I still wonder how Trump's antenna can be counted... even the ESB is clearly taller than Trump, let alone 1WTC. But thanks to the CTBUH Trump is going to remain as the second tallest skyscraper in the U.S. with a roof height of 360m.

Because it's a spire and builds into the design.

even the ESB is clearly taller than Trump, let alone 1WTC. But thanks to the CTBUH Trump is going to remain as the second tallest skyscraper in the U.S. with a roof height of 360m

That is the exact same case when comparing 1 WTC and the Sears. The Sears tower has a roof that is clearly 25 meters taller then 1 WTC just like ESB to Trump. Trump's spire has a setback design that makes it look like an architectural part of the building, and is every bit as deserving as 1 WTC and its original spire. But I go by pinnacle and roof. So Pinnacle wise, 1 WTC wins like it should, and by roof, Sears tower wins like it should. Like I said earlier, each one wins certain categories, and they both share the title as America's tallest, and that is fact.

Is it me or is there new steel going up?

People need to stop getting hyped about this, the building will still officially be 1776 feet once something is worked out,

check the skyscraperpage thread.

People need to stop getting hyped about this, the building will still officially be 1776 feet once something is worked out,

check the skyscraperpage thread.

Dude, who cares what the CTBUH uses as official height ? They aren't the only source to follow, their are other groups like CTBUH that are just less known. It doesn't mean that CTBUH is the only thing to listen too. There will always be clear cut facts. The Sears will ALWAYS have a higher roof then 1 WTC, and 1 WTC will ALWAYS have a higher pinnacle. They are both height measurements that are equally important. Therefore, they share the title of America's tallest, until a building comes along that has a higher roof and pinnacle then both buildings.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7224/7179980932_7b3f2c4e66_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottlynchnyc/7179980932/)
Irish Hunger Memorial, World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottlynchnyc/7179980932/) by Scoboco (http://www.flickr.com/people/scottlynchnyc/), on Flickr

stop talking about the stupid antenna it's old news now.. please back to pictures

^^ Sorry man, there are things that you cannot control, like what people think this tower looks like (visually) through the construction project. If you can't stand the spire comments, just ignore them, people will go on soon, but this forum clearly accepts opinions as long as they're not offensive.

After seeing the charts of the old and new spires posted by someone, this is my take:

The old spire was imposing by itself even on top of that huge building... the new one looks weak and thin, and stands hardly visible on top of the huge building, and plus it can't be seen from very far because of its meshed appearance.

We were promised gold, we've been given scraps.

^^ Sorry man, there are things that you cannot control, like what people think this tower looks like (visually) through the construction project. If you can't stand the spire comments, just ignore them, people will go on soon, but this forum clearly accepts opinions as long as they're not offensive.

After seeing the charts of the old and new spires posted by someone, this is my take:

The old spire was imposing by itself even on top of that huge building... the new one looks weak and thin, and stands hardly visible on top of the huge building, and plus it can't be seen from very far because of its meshed appearance.

We were promised gold, we've been given scraps.

No I don't have a problem with people's opinions, it's just its been nearly 20 pages of the same comments over and over and over again. Seriously, it's constant complaining when people don't even realize that they just have to wait and see.

^^
+1

^^
+1

thanks lol.....btw new steel went up today, but for some reason they took it down..they did this repeatedly 5 times. It's very odd but the user CarlosV took photos of the happening over at SSP :?

Floor area comparisons for New WTC buildings to the original WTC and a few other ones:

1 WTC - 3,500,000 sq ft (325,000 sq m)
2 WTC - 3,121,000 sq ft (290,000 sq m)
3 WTC - 2,798,000 sq ft (260,000 sq m)
4 WTC - 2,540,000 sq ft (236,000 sq m)
7 WTC - 1,681,118 sq ft (156,181 sq m)

Original WTC Towers - 2,260,000 sq ft (210,000 sq m) each
Original 7 WTC - 1,868,000 sq ft (170,000 sq m)
Empire State Building - 2,766,000 sq ft (257,000 sq m)
55 Water Street - 3,498,000 sq ft (325,000 sq m)
233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago - 4,477,800 sq ft (416,000 sq m)

(In case I'm wrong about the floor area estimates, they probably haven't been finalised yet.)

Impressive

How can they place spire to the top? Will they use helicopter for placing whole spire or put parts of spire together ?

They'll be shipped by boat and erected by sections.

Photo posted by HomeWorld at reddit.com

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/AKSniper22/IMG-20120510-00174.jpg

They'll be shipped by boat and erected by sections.

Photo posted by HomeWorld at reddit.com

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/AKSniper22/IMG-20120510-00174.jpg

^^ oh my god is that how thick one section of the antenna is?

That's either section 2 or 3. Section 1 is even thicker (18 feet)

That's either section 2 or 3. Section 1 is even thicker (18 feet)

How much thicker is it compared to the one on the Empire State Building

They'll be shipped by boat and erected by sections.

Photo posted by HomeWorld at reddit.com

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/AKSniper22/IMG-20120510-00174.jpg


Damn that is enormous. I knew it would be huge but seeing it up close in the flesh like that makes it seem gargantuan! So that whole thing is one section of the antenna? That looks like it will dwarf the old North Tower antenna. Is the section in this picture how it will look without the enclosure as intended by Durst? Great picture..

Floor area comparisons for New WTC buildings to the original WTC and a few other ones:

1 WTC - 3,500,000 sq ft (325,000 sq m)
2 WTC - 3,121,000 sq ft (290,000 sq m)
3 WTC - 2,798,000 sq ft (260,000 sq m)
4 WTC - 2,540,000 sq ft (236,000 sq m)
7 WTC - 1,681,118 sq ft (156,181 sq m)

Original WTC Towers - 2,260,000 sq ft (210,000 sq m) each



This can't possibly be right. The reason that they are building 4 new skyscrapers to replace the original two is because the Twins were massive and were simply 110 floors of 200x200ft. All of the new buildings have designs that couldn't possibly allow that much space given their height.

Skyline117 how did you obtain those pictures? It is big and of course like the original plans with a shell even thicker. Do you have any other pictures of the other sections? Any clue on the paint scheme? Also I thought 1WTC originally had 108 floors. The original twins had 2 more stories did we lose those floors on this tower because of mechanical floors?

Skyline117 how did you obtain those pictures? It is big and of course like the original plans with a shell even thicker. Do you have any other pictures of the other sections? Any clue on the paint scheme? Also I thought 1WTC originally had 108 floors. The original twins had 2 more stories did we lose those floors on this tower because of mechanical floors?

I didn't post them, Otie did. there's a link to this website that has pics of the mast behind the scenes i guess you could say- http://www.adfgroup.com/projets/edifices/highrises.html

That looks thicker than the North Tower antenna, and it itself was pretty thick.

I hope this antenna is thicker than it looks

Im sorry but you sound like spoiled children... they are changing the spire to an antennae, not changing the whole building. Just a minor adjustment, yet now you act like the whole building is a disgrace ? That's a major exaggeration in my opinion.


One World Trade with an antennae is like having a model with a bikini body but a down syndrome face.

That's an awful thing to say, let alone a very stupid analogy

I'm no engineer and look at any structure more from a personal asthetics point of view. Looking at the open web spire/antenna proposal I wonder how heavy winter conditions may affect this type of structure. If it ices up over a period of time then packs snow or ice around and inside the void wont the additional weight add conciderable engineering stress to the antenna ? I expect wind load and maybe the conditions I mention are all taken into account but just wondered that's all ?
.............and if so the size and design should be good enough to do away this those guy wires. It seems a bit cheapo to design a tower then say it's not strong enough to stand on it's own. The original WTC 1 antenna also had guy wires yet the ESB and buildings like Willis Tower and John Hancock in Chicago just made their's strong enough to be freestanding........just beef up the roof mount area I reckon.

Obviously it was safe enough to maintain the North Tower antenna......

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/showone_-162.jpg

I found out this antenna will be a good amount thicker than the one on the Sears which is good

One World Trade with an antennae is like having a model with a bikini body but a down syndrome face.

……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘â€�……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-â€�……………………………..“-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..â€�:,
…………………,?………………………………………………\,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:â€�………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….â€�~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……â€�=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~â€�;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….â€�=-._……“;,,./`…./â€�…………../
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-â€�
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
……………………………..,< `.._|_,-&``................`\

ugh

http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2011/09/images/One-Word-Trade-Center-11.jpg

So the symbolism of 1,776ft got tossed in the trash. How disappointing

^^Oh look, a comment about the new spire design, we definitely needed more of those.

^^ In that case, glad to help :cheers:

Ever met Mr. Sarcasm?

^^ I think it's you who can't detect the sarcasm my friend ;)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7077/7186001916_af8d9bbc09_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/franciscodaum/7186001916/)
One World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/franciscodaum/7186001916/) by cisc1970 (http://www.flickr.com/people/franciscodaum/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7079/7182744076_918026d7aa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/danimaynard1/7182744076/)
IMG_0704 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/danimaynard1/7182744076/) by DaniMaynard (http://www.flickr.com/people/danimaynard1/), on Flickr

I REALLY don't understand that...elevator...? on the west side of the tower. It goes up 20 or so stories, and just stops, and the cladding above it is still unfilled. Anybody know what it is?

Each panel needs the lower one to properly fit, once construction is finished hoisting elevators will be taken down and the gap will be filled from the bottom to the top.

Taken by me:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7096/7186117148_9ef86a16a1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379824@N07/7186117148/)
Something New (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379824@N07/7186117148/) by beanhead4529 (http://www.flickr.com/people/8379824@N07/), on Flickr


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7186118848_ccb18d7877_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379824@N07/7186118848/)
On the Hudson (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379824@N07/7186118848/) by beanhead4529 (http://www.flickr.com/people/8379824@N07/), on Flickr


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7223/7186120436_2cbe51c814_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379824@N07/7186120436/)
World Trade Center Progress, May 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8379824@N07/7186120436/) by beanhead4529 (http://www.flickr.com/people/8379824@N07/), on Flickr

http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2011/09/images/One-Word-Trade-Center-11.jpg

It was so beautiful!

http://i.imgur.com/OriR2.png

Great post.

My argument is that neither spire nor antenna,that does not form a spontaneous structure from ground up.Does not qualify for height advantage.

As seen with Burj Khalifa and soon to be Kingdom Tower.

i hope they not change the original spire design.. It's already a signature for tower one it self :)

The tower isn't really original to start off with. The only thing that was original about it was the massive spire at the top. probably one of the best spires i've seen out there. Now that they have changed it, I can't find any originality out of it. :(

I guess they'll have to change the logo as well. I really hope all these negative comments about the new "design" make them change their plans and stick to the original.

http://parlatodesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/one_wtc_logo_detail.jpg

The tower isn't really original to start off with. The only thing that was original about it was the massive spire at the top. probably one of the best spires i've seen out there. Now that they have changed it, I can't find any originality out of it. :(

It looks original to me. What other skyscraper is this design imitating?

I hope the next thing they'll remove is that hideous ring, although without the dishes on it it looked kinda less hideous.

holy shit, that new spire really is nasty :O

@People stop whining about the spire ffs! after 20 pages we know it allready!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7185661832_b49cda770c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/7185661832/)
WTC twilight zone, New York 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/7185661832/) by Paul_Bonnar (http://www.flickr.com/people/gsg999/), on Flickr

Taken on Friday 5/11/12

I have new pics :cheer:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8153/7186721848_2f7881854f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/7186721848/)
Cruise Ship Norwegian Gem on the Hudson River (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/7186721848/) by pmarella (http://www.flickr.com/people/pmarella/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7104/7179725122_2f3b6ed31c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44941440@N00/7179725122/)
1 World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44941440@N00/7179725122/) by jkanige (http://www.flickr.com/people/44941440@N00/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5112/7184800212_fdcc7aa484_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/masemase/7184800212/)
Brooklyn Bridge &amp; 1 World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/masemase/7184800212/) by masemase (http://www.flickr.com/people/masemase/), on Flickr

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

Obviously it was safe enough to maintain the North Tower antenna......

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/showone_-162.jpg

I found out this antenna will be a good amount thicker than the one on the Sears which is good

Holy shit!! That sight is actually making me feel sick in my stomach :eek: Balls of Solid steel!!

Holy shit!! That sight is actually making me feel sick in my stomach :eek: Balls of Solid steel!!

Check out these :nuts::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_-7Qp7uzbQ


As someone else pointed out, the numbers below can't be correct. Perhaps gross floor area figures for the new buildings are being compared to rentable floor area figures for the twins? Anyone have the correct, apples-to-apples comparisons?

Floor area comparisons for New WTC buildings to the original WTC and a few other ones:

1 WTC - 3,500,000 sq ft (325,000 sq m)
2 WTC - 3,121,000 sq ft (290,000 sq m)
3 WTC - 2,798,000 sq ft (260,000 sq m)
4 WTC - 2,540,000 sq ft (236,000 sq m)
7 WTC - 1,681,118 sq ft (156,181 sq m)

Original WTC Towers - 2,260,000 sq ft (210,000 sq m) each
Original 7 WTC - 1,868,000 sq ft (170,000 sq m)

One World Trade Center new spire design:

:ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:

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

Holy fuck that's ugly! Totally destroyed the design of the building.

Now I don't give a shit about this building anymore. Goodbye thread! :goodnight

Such morons.

I swear if someone says one more thing about the damn spire...

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5239/7188946102_20dfedc617_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/7188946102/)
1WTC high winds, New York 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/7188946102/) by Paul_Bonnar (http://www.flickr.com/people/gsg999/), on Flickr

I swear if someone says one more thing about the damn spire...

^^ Guys just notice that you are those who repeat theirs opinion over and over. I see mostly random people coming here to express negative opinion for the first time which btw shows something. Although I agree it's getting a bit annoying, but I understand they want to express it.

Check out these :nuts::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_-7Qp7uzbQ


As someone else pointed out, the numbers below can't be correct. Perhaps gross floor area figures for the new buildings are being compared to rentable floor area figures for the twins? Anyone have the correct, apples-to-apples comparisons?

Yeah obviously as new wtc is tapering building which takes a lot of space. Original towers were 400'000sqm each so the whole complex had just little less space than the new one even though buildings in old complex were much lower.

I don't get all the hate. It doesn't look THAT different. To the naked eye it won't matter. The original spire looked like a joint anyways. I never liked it.

^^ Guys just notice that you are those who repeat theirs opinion over and over. I see mostly random people coming here to express negative opinion for the first time which btw shows something. Although I agree it's getting a bit annoying, but I understand they want to express it.

^^ Glad you noticed. They're the ones making a fuss about everyone else's right to complain, about this catastrophic chane in such an important project. We were promised something we didn't get, and this in the last months of the project, and with something that was a key feature of the tower, and with a tower that is of NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE to the U.S. and to many people around the world.

Many people are just finding out, and they pass by this forum to post their opinion. Why should you censor them? It seems you only value your own opinion, and no other ones, by the way you have been acting. (Not you, patrykus, btw :D)

^^ Oh my god, I didn't notice that before but it's SO TRUE!

^^ Meant for LCIII

I don't get all the hate. It doesn't look THAT different. To the naked eye it won't matter. The original spire looked like a joint anyways. I never liked it.

The original spire was thicker and more visually appealing, it was white, with a geometrically-intricate cover, that became thicker and thinner as it reached higher into the sky. It also marked the "1776" point.

The spire also had a nice ring around it that kind of recalled a crown. It looked imposing in size all by itself compared to the new, weak, thin, copper-colored antennae that will be completely naked to the eye, showing all of its cables and wiring inside, looking more like an under-contruction feature than anything else. And the crown was take away, giving us instead a cheap rendition of the crown we had before. The new one is just ugly and I doubt it will be seen from afar at all.

In effect: the old one seemed classy and world-class, the new one looks cheap and 1950's brutalist New York at best.

:cheers:

My World Trade Center 1 Photos from the past week...

From Manhattan...

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5462/7186013296_0f1ddc9a47_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186013296/)
Battery Park City - WTC 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186013296/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5192/7186012102_827eea70b1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186012102/)
Lower Manhattan - WTC 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186012102/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7240/7186011460_b15ddd19cc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186011460/)
Lower Manhattan - WTC 1&amp;4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186011460/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

From Jersey City

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8144/7186134000_05be3c695e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186134000/)
DSCN4511 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186134000/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8142/7186134304_18327af45d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186134304/)
DSCN4514 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186134304/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7096/7186135584_4010b3dab5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186135584/)
World Trade Center from Jersey City (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7186135584/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

From the Staten Island ferry,

Full update: http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2012/05/world-trade-center-restoring-lower.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lElztfrilx0/T6_gQouYfOI/AAAAAAAABHE/4GK35SiDP40/s640/2012-05-10+16.09.50.jpg

Well this is only one of five buildings ever to reach a roof height 1,250 feet or more in American history :)

Can't wait to see this done!

Well this is only one of five buildings ever to reach a roof height 1,250 feet or more in American history :)

Pathetic.

Well the best thing is, that Lower Manhattan has its rightful supertall back. As far as the number of buildings reaching 12, 13, or 14 hundred feet in the USA, that's a different issue, unrelated to the tragedy of 9/11. The main focus was to remedy that first.

hopefully we shall see some steel tomorrow.

^^ Rockmont... well that is true, this could have been a chance to improve the height, and return pride in the "American Skyscraper".
If they really wanted a tribute to the twins, they should have built 2 1WTC.

As for the Spire/antenna issue (chance for my opinion)...

Although I don't like the new antenna design, the old one was not a real spire,
just an antenna cover to get around the height rules ie. spire vs antenna.
They should have had the roof height at 1776', and the "spire" at 2000'.

In case you guys did not know, Silverstein wanted to build 2 WTC first, but the PA refused and decided that 1 WTC would be done first. I can't remember if that was before or after Silverstein gave up his stake in 1 WTC, but it is a damn shame. I can't help but think that seeing 2 WTC on the skyline first would have had a greater dramatic impact. Also, if I remember correctly, 2 WTC was originally going to occupy the spot that 1 WTC currently occupies - but that was long ago.

I had always wondered why Silverstein gave up his stake in 1WTC..Since he had to know it would be the most high-profile building on the site, and probably the biggest moneymaker. As it stands now, it's far from certain that 2wtc and 2wtc will ever be anything other than stumps. I see no big loss there though, because I have always thought 2WTC is hideously ugly. It looks like someone took a knife and sliced off the top half. And it wouldn't even be that tall..1WTC will be the star regardless.

From the Staten Island ferry,

Full update: http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2012/05/world-trade-center-restoring-lower.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lElztfrilx0/T6_gQouYfOI/AAAAAAAABHE/4GK35SiDP40/s640/2012-05-10+16.09.50.jpg

It looks so tall and impressive!!

I can't help but think that seeing 2 WTC on the skyline first would have had a greater dramatic impact.

I really don't see how a shorter, slanted-roof building would have a greater impact rising first than 1 WTC...

I had always wondered why Silverstein gave up his stake in 1WTC..Since he had to know it would be the most high-profile building on the site, and probably the biggest moneymaker. As it stands now, it's far from certain that 2wtc and 2wtc will ever be anything other than stumps. I see no big loss there though, because I have always thought 2WTC is hideously ugly. It looks like someone took a knife and sliced off the top half. And it wouldn't even be that tall..1WTC will be the star regardless.

Well, I'd say Larry still gets a lot of office space having WTCs 2,3,4 and 7. Especially if we consider that he'll receive / he's received government money aid for their construction :dunno:

I really don't see how a shorter, slanted-roof building would have a greater impact rising first than 1 WTC...

Perhaps because it is a more striking building than 1 WTC, which most people see as a simple box? (Yes, I realize it is not a box.) There are very few slanted roof supertall buildings in the world. In fact, are there any others? I know the Smurfit-Stone building in Chicago is slanted, but is a shorter building. That was my point. Like it or not, not everyone in the world is obsessed with height. The vast majority do not care.

And perhaps I am misunderstanding your post, but 2 WTC is/will be nearly the same height of 1 WTC's parapet, so I fail to see the point. Especially after the antenna mess.

^^ It's still shorter than 1WTC, the North Tower and even the South Tower, which in my opinion is a humiliation :ohno:

Because 2wtc will be the most massive out of all the towers in terms of area

Also that slanted building in chicago is pretty much a landmark and it's what, 40 stories? Imagine 2wtc.

Again, 2WTC (in the renderings) is just ugly in my opinion. Sure, 1WTC may be simple, but it still has that classical shape and you can see elements of historical New York skyscrapers in its design, from the Empire State Building, to the Twins..In my opinion, they should have build a twin of 1WTC..2WTC just looks weird and out of place, and it certainly won't be matching 1WTC in terms of height..I just don't like slanted roof buildings at all. They look half-finished, and 2WTC looks like its roof is about to slide off and fall into the Plaza below..I never have liked 2WTC, but to each their own. They should have done a twin of 1WTC without the antenna...Lastly, again, its FAR from certain that 2WTC and 3WTC will ever be built to their intended designs..1WTC will probably be the only supertall on the site for years.

As i stated before on previous post for me its not about a matter of height, but a matter of closer and renewal and that's what 1 wtc represents for me .

A matter of closure, I believe?

As far as the height is concerned and after looking at that diagram, I am rather annoyed with what has transpired at this site. Asia owns everybody now, and It is a shame in my view that there is nowhere else that has the will to build as tall as they. When you look at all the fantastic 600m towers proposed and built, it is quite easy to start wondering how fantastic a building of such gigantic proportions could have looked in NYC. It would have been a nice counterbalance in a world in which Asia dominates and will continue to dominate for decades to come. Hopefully they don't remain the only continent building hypertall towers.

One thing I will say, while Asia may have more supertalls in numbers, NOONE can match the iconic nature of the supertalls that New York and even Chicago have. For instance, all the Asian supertalls run together, no any one stands out. Whereas, we have the gorgeous Empire State Building which is a timeless icon, and even the Sears Tower in terms of it's prominence. Soon we will have 1WTC, which may not break any global height records, but it equals the Twins' height, and it will be another symbol for the city & country. Sometimes less is more! So the US has fewer supertalls than Asia, but our supertalls are more interesting and refined than many generic-looking Asian monstrosities.

Again, 2WTC (in the renderings) is just ugly in my opinion. Sure, 1WTC may be simple, but it still has that classical shape and you can see elements of historical New York skyscrapers in its design, from the Empire State Building, to the Twins..In my opinion, they should have build a twin of 1WTC..2WTC just looks weird and out of place, and it certainly won't be matching 1WTC in terms of height..I just don't like slanted roof buildings at all. They look half-finished, and 2WTC looks like its roof is about to slide off and fall into the Plaza below..I never have liked 2WTC, but to each their own. They should have done a twin of 1WTC without the antenna...Lastly, again, its FAR from certain that 2WTC and 3WTC will ever be built to their intended designs..1WTC will probably be the only supertall on the site for years.

Uh? Yeah, it will assuming you ignore the antenna.

I disagree, I find most Asian supertalls far more cutting-edge and impressive. Although the old beauties are wonderful here in the US, we have many dull supertalls and only a few are standout icons. We are missing out on more radical designs that we see in Asia. Also, the audacity and drive to build taller is now extinguished here in this country, so it seems.

These are some of the most important buildings of the 21st century. They represent a turning point for the world. Thick twirly spire or thin elegant spire......makes no difference. This is a wonderful building that will grow to become part of New York. People are just a little afraid of change and have become used to the plans.

Don't get me wrong, I hope the US will see one or two mega-talls constructed sometime in the future..But the iconic supertalls we have like ESB, Sears, and soon 1WTC will stand alone..I don't like the new antenna for 1WTC either but I still hold out hope a solution can be reached. If not, ah well, maybe we will learn to love it in time lol. And we will have 432 Park soon too.

why does 2 wtc look taller than 1 wtc in almost all of the renderings

Scrap 2 and 3 and build a twin for 1.

Yeah, my problem with 2 and 3 is that: a). 2wtc looks weird and I can't stand the tilted roof and b.) both 2wtc and 3wtc both look too generic and dull like they could be any bland office buildings in any random large city like Houston or Minneapolis or Dallas...They should have built a twin for 1WTC but its not going to happen so oh well...I think the best tribute they could have done on the site was to build twin supertalls as a tribute to the lost Twin Towers.

Perhaps because it is a more striking building than 1 WTC, which most people see as a simple box? (Yes, I realize it is not a box.) There are very few slanted roof supertall buildings in the world. In fact, are there any others? I know the Smurfit-Stone building in Chicago is slanted, but is a shorter building. That was my point. Like it or not, not everyone in the world is obsessed with height. The vast majority do not care.

And perhaps I am misunderstanding your post, but 2 WTC is/will be nearly the same height of 1 WTC's parapet, so I fail to see the point. Especially after the antenna mess.

You're assuming most people would not be impressed with 1 WTC and see it as a "simple box." This is all your own assumptions and opinions, nothing more. You think 2 WTC would have had some kind of greater impact had it risen first, and I think it's just a moot point. 2 WTC was never heralded as the centerpiece of the complex, ever.

One thing I will say, while Asia may have more supertalls in numbers, NOONE can match the iconic nature of the supertalls that New York and even Chicago have. For instance, all the Asian supertalls run together, no any one stands out. Whereas, we have the gorgeous Empire State Building which is a timeless icon, and even the Sears Tower in terms of it's prominence. Soon we will have 1WTC, which may not break any global height records, but it equals the Twins' height, and it will be another symbol for the city & country. Sometimes less is more! So the US has fewer supertalls than Asia, but our supertalls are more interesting and refined than many generic-looking Asian monstrosities.

Lol! Ignorance at its highest. No wonder many look at us Americans so poorly! Kingkey, Shanghai Tower, and Guangzhou IFC are anything but generic.

Lol! Ignorance at its highest. No wonder many look at us Americans so poorly! Kingkey, Shanghai Tower, and Guangzhou IFC are anything but generic.


Oh really? Lol THIS you idiot....If you're going to resort to personal attacks.. I am far from ignorant. I was making a generalized statement about the iconic status of skyscrapers for their unique appealing aspects, rather than pure height...Anyone who thinks the Shanghai Tower or some obscure structure called Guangzhou IFC will be as iconic a structure as the Empire State Building or Chrysler buildings is delusional. Height isn't everything. Finesse counts for something. It has nothing to do with the country that particular skyscrapers are in...It has to do with attractiveness and being visually interesting. Next, since you went there, the reason many had a poor view of Americans is due to foreign policy blunders and economic meltdown (oh and electing George W. Bush as president). But, architecture has nothing to do with that. So before you imply "ignorant" again, get your forums clear!

Funny, the nicest Asian tower for me is the Moi Center in Shenyang, because of its box shape. I guess the lack of real updates really drives the forum to go off topic. :|

Asian supertalls are just super boring. Honestly, I'm getting caught up in 3 wtc, I love it because it's such a Chicago-New York mix because of the criss-crosses and multiple spires on the top. The more I look at the renderings of 4 wtc, the more I love it's simplicity. 1 wtc is not disgraceful or ugly in any way, renderings are just poor for it because it seems disproportionate...as for 2 wtc, it's extremely important because when the sun hits the building when it's September 11th, every Year, it casts a beam of light on the memorial the same time the tower collapsed. Very symbolic without many knowing

^^ Lol, didn't know that.

Asian supertalls are probably the least boring on earth... I'm North American, and while I like our supertalls, most of them are boxes or rather original looking.

Wow aquablue you just reminded me of what an hypocrite i am . :ohno:

It is so reflective, mirrorlike.

whoever put 1374 as the height is jumping to conclusions too quickly, the PA assures it will still be 1776 feet, even though the CTBUH may not agree, we have to wait to see what happens or what kind of agreement can be made instead of jumping the gun

the title should be changed back to 1776 feet 541 meters

Oh really? Lol THIS you idiot....If you're going to resort to personal attacks.. I am far from ignorant. I was making a generalized statement about the iconic status of skyscrapers for their unique appealing aspects, rather than pure height...Anyone who thinks the Shanghai Tower or some obscure structure called Guangzhou IFC will be as iconic a structure as the Empire State Building or Chrysler buildings is delusional. Height isn't everything. Finesse counts for something. It has nothing to do with the country that particular skyscrapers are in...It has to do with attractiveness and being visually interesting. Next, since you went there, the reason many had a poor view of Americans is due to foreign policy blunders and economic meltdown (oh and electing George W. Bush as president). But, architecture has nothing to do with that. So before you imply "ignorant" again, get your forums clear!

From the Favourite Supertall Project poll (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1280315&page=12)
it seems that many people would disagree with you about Shanghai Tower not being iconic, attractive and visually interesting. :bash:

^^ you realize that if you're both going to be this off-topic, you can just message each other privately? A little common sense, no?

This spire crap is idiocy. Of course spires don't count. If they wanted the tallest building in the USA, they should have built it. 1368 feet vs 1451 feet. They could have added 100 feet of extra building and been done with it. They could have also kept the nice spire. Better idea would have been a 1776 foot tall BUILDING, not a 1368 foot tall one with a spire/antenna whatever on top.

Asian supertalls are just super boring. Honestly, I'm getting caught up in 3 wtc, I love it because it's such a Chicago-New York mix because of the criss-crosses and multiple spires on the top. The more I look at the renderings of 4 wtc, the more I love it's simplicity. 1 wtc is not disgraceful or ugly in any way, renderings are just poor for it because it seems disproportionate...as for 2 wtc, it's extremely important because when the sun hits the building when it's September 11th, every Year, it casts a beam of light on the memorial the same time the tower collapsed. Very symbolic without many knowing

I have to disagree with you. Not all of them are plain boring come on, lets take the Petronas Twin Towers it was the first supertall in Asia and it is an icon for Malaysia. It reflects the country well in its design. Are asian skyscrapers really just plain grey boring? no. They are not going to outshine the greatness of the ESB but they are iconic to an extent. you saying they are super boring is close to harsh.

I have to disagree with you. Not all of them are plain boring come on, lets take the Petronas Twin Towers it was the first supertall in Asia and it is an icon for Malaysia. It reflects the country well in its design. Are asian skyscrapers really just plain grey boring? no. They are not going to outshine the greatness of the ESB but they are iconic to an extent. you saying they are super boring is close to harsh.

Well yea the Petronas Towers are nice but after a while you just get too used to them..I think just one tower in a downtown area would be really cool...I like Shanghai Tower however..

Lol, seems like NY is competing with whole Asia now. You people do realize that all those fancy supertalls are in different cities yes? Also, NY doesn't get any government money for its projects (except the WTC), the city builds out of demand only.

And btw a mod should change the thread title...

It looks so tall and impressive!!

I totally agree, it's bringing the skyline back! But it's not the only thing that looks impressive ;)

whoever put 1374 as the height is jumping to conclusions too quickly, the PA assures it will still be 1776 feet, even though the CTBUH may not agree, we have to wait to see what happens or what kind of agreement can be made instead of jumping the gun

the title should be changed back to 1776 feet 541 meters

How the PA calls their antenna is unimportant. It announced that the spire is definitely scrapped and there will definitely be the antenna we see on the new renders, end of story. The thread title should remain 1374/419 cause that is what we are getting :ohno:

To all the people who are complaining because there are constant complaints (lol) about the Spire:

You really dont get it do you?

Simply "shuting up" or just "wait and see" doesnt cut it...

If people dont COMPLAIN (and yeah all letters capitalized) in any way and any form possible then there is NO CHANCE for things to change. You really think that "just wait and see" is going to change anything? REALLY? If people dont complain then how are things going to change exactly? Durst is going to have a good one night stand and suddenly he is going to fix this?

So yeah, I urge people to complain. CONSTANTLY, not just here, everywhere via emailing etc etc. If you people want things to change you have to work for it... it wont just "magically" fix itself.

Those who find this very irritating, I understand you, but please, this is much more serious than your annoyance when browsing the forum. This beautiful building that costed billions is getting utterly DESTROYED in the most unbelievable, ugly way possible. The building's significance as a landmark and what it actually stands for is BUTCHERED.

You have to DEAL with those complaints. Maybe through all this SOMETHING will actually happen to restore the building as it should be.

How the PA calls their antenna is unimportant. It announced that the spire is definitely scrapped and there will definitely be the antenna we see on the new renders, end of story. The thread title should remain 1374/419 cause that is what we are getting :ohno:

Well yes, but it would have been 1374 ft for you in any case, no?

^^ Yup, it would :cheers:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5239/7188946102_20dfedc617_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/7188946102/)
1WTC high winds, New York 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/7188946102/) von Paul_Bonnar (http://www.flickr.com/people/gsg999/) auf Flickr

may 7

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/) von wavz13 (http://www.flickr.com/people/wavz13/) auf Flickr

may 1

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7066/6991502860_514c77d5b4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/6991502860/)
Pause for reflection, WTC New York, May 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/6991502860/) von Paul_Bonnar (http://www.flickr.com/people/gsg999/) auf Flickr

may 11

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7185661832_b49cda770c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/7185661832/)
WTC twilight zone, New York 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsg999/7185661832/) von Paul_Bonnar (http://www.flickr.com/people/gsg999/) auf Flickr

And what is the reason why they changed the spire design?

And what is the reason why they changed the spire design?

Cheap bastards.

Cheap bastards.

Which is the very definition of IRONY, considering the fact that the building already costed billions....

Are my eyes deceiving me? Has there been another jump??

NEW STEEL

^^ It is? :banana2: For 1 floor or for 2?

Check earthcam

Almost there folks :banana:

http://i.imgur.com/ozgmu.jpg

Should be approximately 1,300 feet high now.

Those diagonal beams are getting so close...

Two more jumps after this, I'm pretty sure.

Wow! The diagonals are almost touching!! Finally!!

I've updated my diagram with the latest progress :cheer: I think 1WTC stands quite a chance to top out before 157 and 4WTC :master:

Roof height used below!

http://i50.tinypic.com/34y2tr9.jpg

1WTC = 397 meters or 1303 feet out of 419 meters or 1374 feet
4WTC = Approximately 273 meters or 895 feet out of 298 meters or 977 feet
157 = 256 meters or 840 feet out of 306 meters or 1005 feet

(Note: I used the 419 meter figure for 1WTC when measured from the lowest above ground entrance and I used the 298 meter figure for 4WTC.) :cheers:

Soon it will be reaching another significant milestone. As far as I'm concerned , the rooftop height should be a cause for 'celebration' and not the height of the spire. With all of the rancor and chaoss about the change in style and material used for the spire, it is useless. Besides if the top floor is all that is accesible to the public, then that is what should be recognized anyway.

Soon it will be reaching another significant milestone. As far as I'm concerned , the rooftop height should be a cause for 'celebration' and not the height of the spire. With all of the rancor and chaoss about the change in style and material used for the spire, it is useless. Besides if the top floor is all that is accesible to the public, then that is what should be recognized anyway.

Agreed, that is what I have been saying all along. It seems that almost everyone else, only cares about them counting that antennae as actual height by CTBUH standards :ohno:

Reaching 417 meters, is what I have been waiting for, to finally see it up in the air like the Twin towers were.

1,293 feet!!!!!!!!!!!

^^ Nope, 10 feet more because of the 4 feet column splices and the additional 6 feet compared to older information (older 1368 feet, newer 1374 feet) :cheers:

Topping out could be before the end of May ahead of schedule....

Yay! new steel! What floor are we on now?

^^ 103 :cheers:

How the PA calls their antenna is unimportant. It announced that the spire is definitely scrapped and there will definitely be the antenna we see on the new renders, end of story. The thread title should remain 1374/419 cause that is what we are getting :ohno:


It was stated several times that a plan may be worked out among Childs/ The PA and Durst to fix the spire so it will still count.

It's not definite but people need to hold their horses.

It was stated several times that a plan may be worked out among Childs/ The PA and Durst to fix the spire so it will still count.

It's not definite but people need to hold their horses.

There was one article that mentioned that, but in a later WSJ article, Durst said their was no compromising, and everything is said and done.

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

Asked whether architects could find a compromise design, Mr. Durst demurred. The scaled-down top, he said, "is going to be mounted on the building over the summer. There's no way to do anything at this point."

other sources have said differently, Childs himself said he would work on a plan to change it.

I'm just not losing all hope, I may very well be wrong, but people are jumping to conlusions very quickly.

other sources have said differently, Childs himself said he would work on a plan to change it.

I'm just not losing all hope, I may very well be wrong, but people are jumping to conlusions very quickly.

I can understand trying to keep hope, but in this situation I have to be a realist. The article you are talking about, is the one that was copied through several media sources. There were a few later articles that weren't copies of that, which were the WSJ articles, NYNIMBY, and a few more.

The way I see it, is that the PA promised 1776 feet, and they want to keep that promise, as does Childs, I have a feeling sh*t is about to hit the fan between them, there is already huge public dissapointment and anger over Durst's decision.

A compromise can be made

^^ What Childs wants doesn't matter because he has no say in the construction effort and there is no way the PA would make it again a spire because of the horrendous amount of money it claims maintenance would cost. The antenna is what we're getting :cheers:

Even though Durst would sell his own grandmother to rush this horrible decision through, one cannot deny the fact that it's the Durst Organisation which will receive a bad image and will publicly be labelled as the bad boy here. So if Mr. Durst is a smart man he should tread carefully for his own good.

The way I see it, is that the PA promised 1776 feet, and they want to keep that promise, as does Childs, I have a feeling sh*t is about to hit the fan between them, there is already huge public dissapointment and anger over Durst's decision.

A compromise can be made

After seeing a large render of the new antennae, I prefer the old spire. But, I have come to terms with reality, and the new antennae is a done deal. Durst controls this, and he doesn't care about people on a skyscraper forum, or a symbolic number if you go by CTBUH standards, and doesn't care about bragging rights. All he cares about is money, and the PA has approved the change.

Lol, should've made the roof height 1776ft to begin with :p

Can't wait till Condemn Nasty's big vent for their kitchen utilities "surprises" us. It's probably going to be a huge black hole facing the memorial so visitors know where the crew is cooking. :lol:



yeah, stick it to those Prada-wearing devils!

Hi all, I emailed Jordan Barowitz of Durst last week and mentioned some of the concerns about the spire change...Here was his brief response:

"Unfortunately the protocol we were provided to repair and service the cladding on the spire was logistically impossible and dangerous."--Jordan Barowitz


So I guess we had better learn to love the new antenna *sigh* unless Childs can pull a rabbit out of a hat..

On a more optimistic note, I am thrilled to see the roof so close to topping out!!

Why don't they just put cheaper, less "dangerous" cladding on top? Dangerous my ass, they just want an excuse to not pay extra.

^^ This would have been the first antenna in a spire, no other building has something like that, so when they say it's not possible, I believe them :cheers:

Their is no compromising with the original design that does not mean and alternate design can be man, their is no wrong on giving on hope that child's will come out with a new design that will compromise both durst and SOM .

My problem with all this impossible and dangerous crap about repairing the spire is, when they drew the building back in 05-06 and even started construction, they didn't think of that. They wait till the building is near top off to conclude all of that. It's just another excuse for cheapness. That's like apple making another iphone and near the end to completion, they decide to go with plastic because glass & mental don't mix. LOL!! Anyways, it seems like its a done deal, we all just gotta adjust to it.*

^^
:applause:

Lol, should've made the roof height 1776ft to begin with :p

Agreed. The Sears Tower will always have a higher roof, no matter what happens. The highest stand-able point of each building is the roof, and the Sears has a roof that is a good amount higher. I am saying this, because I want people to get over the height, even if they count it as a spire, everything I said is true. People need to come to terms with the truth, this whole debate shows how meaningless the antennae and spire debate is. It proves that pinnacle and roof are really what matters. The Sears is taller by roof, and the WTC is taller by pinnacle. That's how it will always be. Two equally important measurements. They are both America's tallest.

Although I am happy with what we got, it could have been better.

^^ Nope, 10 feet more because of the 4 feet column splices and the additional 6 feet compared to older information (older 1368 feet, newer 1374 feet) :cheers:

Seriously? Good to know :) so 3 or 4 more jumps?

^^ I'd say 3 :cheers:

^^ This would have been the first antenna in a spire, no other building has something like that, so when they say it's not possible, I believe them :cheers:

...they said it wasn't possible that the Titanic would sink, and people believed THAT, too.

I guarantee there are rigging experts out there who could easily design servicability into the thing. We can land spacecraft on asteroids, for pete's sake...this should be simple by comparison.

There are reasons it probably won't happen, though...about 20 million of them.

+1 ^^

Also, since the height was raised by 6 feet, was it actually 1,277 feet instead of 1,271 feet when that steel beam passed the Empire State Building?

^^ This would have been the first antenna in a spire, no other building has something like that, so when they say it's not possible, I believe them :cheers:


Then you're gullible, here's SOM's description about the "dangerous" spire...


"The geometry of the radome shell is based on a repeating modular system that allows for easy replacement and erection and also creates a protected maintenance area that is unique in the antenna industry. large helical channels, called strakes, are built into the geometry of the radome and wrap around the spire to direct wind up and away from the structure." http://www.som.com/content.cfm/one_world_trade_center

The way I see it, is that the PA promised 1776 feet, and they want to keep that promise, as does Childs, I have a feeling sh*t is about to hit the fan between them, there is already huge public dissapointment and anger over Durst's decision.

A compromise can be made

Will the little blinking light be at 1,776ft? Yes, then who cares if the council says it counts or not. The STRUCTURE will be 1,776 feet tall. And IMHO Sears will still be the taller BUILDING no matter what they call that needle they are putting on top.

Sear will be taller but it wont be better. And that's all that matters.

they've gotta find something, not an encasement, to qualify it as the tallest.

^^ What Childs wants doesn't matter because he has no say in the construction effort and there is no way the PA would make it again a spire because of the horrendous amount of money it claims maintenance would cost. The antenna is what we're getting :cheers:

$17,199,000 out of $3.8B. Saving 0.441%.:|

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8025/7196900122_16e0007baa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylersparks/7196900122/)
WTC Tower 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylersparks/7196900122/) by tyfihi (http://www.flickr.com/people/tylersparks/), on Flickr

^^ :drool:

More comments about that joint removed from the roof?

they've gotta find something, not an encasement, to qualify it as the tallest.

UGHH...

Who cares if it's the tallest. The way you are speaking shows that you walk a very thin line. All you care about is having the tallest building, even if you have to cheat to get there.

Also, who cares what the CTBUH council says. They are just one voice in the architecture community, last I checked they aren't God...

Will the little blinking light be at 1,776ft? Yes, then who cares if the council says it counts or not. The STRUCTURE will be 1,776 feet tall. And IMHO Sears will still be the taller BUILDING no matter what they call that needle they are putting on top.

Agreed. Good post.

UGHH...

Who cares if it's the tallest. The way you are speaking shows that you walk a very thin line. All you care about is having the tallest building, even if you have to cheat to get there.

Also, who cares what the CTBUH council says. They are just one voice in the architecture community, last I checked they aren't God...

Just because someone wants it to be the tallest doesn't mean they don't care about the building...some of you people need to keep your comments to yourselves, no one here is the number one fan or the know-it-all

Just because someone wants it to be the tallest doesn't mean they don't care about the building...some of you people need to keep your comments to yourselves, no one here is the number one fan or the know-it-all

Your not getting the point. I am asking why you are so obsessed with it being the tallest, and why do you care so much what some council says ? You realize that them counting the antennae is cheating right ? Do you still want the tallest building even if it's on a technicality ? Spires or antennae's are cheating. Look at federation tower. It is a 360 meter building, but it has a spire that goes to 506 meters, that is absolutely cheating. Imagine how much cheaper that is to make then say a building of the same size that has a roof of 480 meters, and no spire.

some of you people need to keep your comments to yourselves It's a free world, you might want to talk to the government about dropping the bill of rights if that bothers you...

UGHH...

Who cares if it's the tallest. The way you are speaking shows that you walk a very thin line. All you care about is having the tallest building, even if you have to cheat to get there.

Also, who cares what the CTBUH council says. They are just one voice in the architecture community, last I checked they aren't God...


I kind of care, it's silly that Asia and now Russia build buildings that they claim are taller than ours yet lack the roofheight.. America should be able to play the cheating game too, and not even as much that, the spire just LOOKED better with the casing, really, it won't be so hard to find a different, cheaper casing, maybe someone will come to their senses in the next couple of months and save NYC's skyline from this ugly montster of an antenna, the spire was for me, what made the building.

I don't see why it can't just be temporary (The bare antenna I mean) they should build the antenna, then wait until they have sufficient funds from brodcasting to install something better. We've had 1776 thrown in our face for a decade now, to go back on it is unbelievable, literally unbelievable.

America is so stupid sometimes

I kind of care, it's silly that Asia and now Russia build buildings that they claim are taller than ours yet lack the roofheight.. America should be able to play the cheating game too, and not even as much that, the spire just LOOKED better with the casing, really, it won't be so hard to find a different, cheaper casing, maybe someone will come to their senses in the next couple of months and save NYC's skyline from this ugly montster of an antenna, the spire was for me, what made the building.

I don't see why it can't just be temporary (The bare antenna I mean) they should build the antenna, then wait until they have sufficient funds from brodcasting to install something better.

America is so stupid sometimes

America is so stupid sometimes

Not sure how this building changing to a spire makes America stupid :ohno:

it's silly that Asia and now Russia build buildings that they claim are taller than ours yet lack the roofheight

Exactly. This is why roof height is as important as pinnacle to me. The Sears Tower will be 4th tallest in the world by pinnacle height. 1 WTC will be 3rd tallest by pinnacle. By roof height Sears will be 6th tallest in the world, and 1 WTC will be 9th tallest.

Both measurements are very important, and that's why I have said they share the title.

Hi all.

UGHH...

Who cares if it's the tallest. The way you are speaking shows that you walk a very thin line. All you care about is having the tallest building, even if you have to cheat to get there.

Also, who cares what the CTBUH council says. They are just one voice in the architecture community, last I checked they aren't God...

Hi.

The CTBUH is not A voice in the architectural community ... It is THE voice in the architectural community.
Their criteria for measuring the 3 official heights have been refined by the top minds in many different fields pertaining to tall structures.

As for the height of this project, even though the height to architectural top is used as the measure that tall structures are compared and ranked, the height to tip is still an official measure and is just as important IMHO.

:cheers:
Ray.

Hi all.



Hi.

The CTBUH is not A voice in the architectural community ... It is THE voice in the architectural community.
Their criteria for measuring the 3 official heights have been refined by the top minds in many different fields pertaining to tall structures.

As for the height of this project, even though the height to architectural top is used as the measure that tall structures are compared and ranked, the height to tip is still an official measure and is just as important IMHO.

:cheers:
Ray.

There are other voices. No one has to listen to CTBUH. Just because they say something doesn't make the other person wrong. What matters is roof height and pinnacle.

Then tell me the roof height of the Burj Khalifa.:smug:

Otie, can you please tell everyone at SSP that the current height is 1,303 feet & not 1,293 feet? I don't think they know about the recent rule from the tall buildings people or whatever it's called lol

Your not getting the point. I am asking why you are so obsessed with it being the tallest, and why do you care so much what some council says ? You realize that them counting the antennae is cheating right ? Do you still want the tallest building even if it's on a technicality ? Spires or antennae's are cheating. Look at federation tower. It is a 360 meter building, but it has a spire that goes to 506 meters, that is absolutely cheating. Imagine how much cheaper that is to make then say a building of the same size that has a roof of 480 meters, and no spire.

It's a free world, you might want to talk to the government about dropping the bill of rights if that bothers you...

You need to leave people alone...you're always up in someone's grill. This is all YOUR opinion that a spire is cheating, not ours, yours. Mind your own business because I'm tired of you answering my comments.....do you live in New York? Do you know how much pride they bring to the east coast? Being the tallest isnt the top priority to me but getting it done is, but still it's time for change, and the Sears has had its glory for more than 30 years but New York deserves it back. It's a beautiful building, but too much has flawed it and it's embarrassing too

Otie, can you please tell everyone at SSP that the current height is 1,303 feet & not 1,293 feet? I don't think they know about the recent rule from the tall buildings people or whatever it's called lol

Do you have an educated guess when topping out is expected then installation of the newly designed spire?

Then tell me the roof height of the Burj Khalifa.:smug:

That is the reason that highest floor is another good measurement. It is 621 meters at the highest floor. But considering that the rest of the building is actual structure, that they actually constructed,the roof is 828 meters.

UGHH...

Who cares if it's the tallest. The way you are speaking shows that you walk a very thin line. All you care about is having the tallest building, even if you have to cheat to get there.

Also, who cares what the CTBUH council says. They are just one voice in the architecture community, last I checked they aren't God...

I care if it's the tallest. It's something near and dear to my heart. And I find great pride in it.

^^ Lol, didn't know that.

Asian supertalls are just super boring.

Well yea the Petronas Towers are nice but after a while you just get too used to them..I think just one tower in a downtown area would be really cool...I like Shanghai Tower however..

If its not built in the US, it's not good!!!!

Comments and discussions like these indicate insecurity.

How do you get 'too used to them'?



If anything, I find structures like ESB and Eiffel Tower overrated. They are used to represent present/past national glory more than anything else in today's world. would you agree?

Yes ESB was built earlier than the rest, but Petronas is something distinct as well, is it not?

I wouldn't find ESB boring to be honest.

Oh btw, anything built in China is just super not good !!!!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7201344638_d63979a417_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yukonblizzard/7201344638/)
Pre-Dawn &amp; New York City on May 13, 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yukonblizzard/7201344638/) by mudpig (http://www.flickr.com/people/yukonblizzard/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7201344638_d63979a417_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yukonblizzard/7201344638/)
Pre-Dawn &amp; New York City on May 13, 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yukonblizzard/7201344638/) by mudpig (http://www.flickr.com/people/yukonblizzard/), on Flickr

Oh ...... my ...... god! I'am literally speechless ......

1wtc looks like a big brother :D

I care if it's the tallest. It's something near and dear to my heart. And I find great pride in it.

Correction: You don't care about its height, you care about an imaginary number released by the CTBUH :ohno:

Correction: You don't care about its height, you care about an imaginary number released by the CTBUH :ohno:

i agree, if you want to make something the tallest, you should build it tall and not just add an antenna on top. if they made a big crown or added 20floors with a nice spire, we wouldn't have this conversation to begin with. The building is amazing, but in height it never was a big improvement to the old WTC.

I have new pics :cheer:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8144/7193562636_3d3f942581_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengtm/7193562636/)
DSC06071 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengtm/7193562636/) by Bengt 1955 (http://www.flickr.com/people/bengtm/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5467/7194174406_506b64589b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36368926@N05/7194174406/)
The tallest building in NYC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36368926@N05/7194174406/) by *Flavio* (http://www.flickr.com/people/36368926@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8025/7196900122_16e0007baa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylersparks/7196900122/)
WTC Tower 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylersparks/7196900122/) by tyfihi (http://www.flickr.com/people/tylersparks/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7102/7200964858_412bbf2202_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drocpsu/7200964858/)
Freedom rises (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drocpsu/7200964858/) by drocpsu (http://www.flickr.com/people/drocpsu/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5332/7201571640_bbc1c02b71_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/garettng/7201571640/)
Freedom Tower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/garettng/7201571640/) by garettng (http://www.flickr.com/people/garettng/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5340/7201823278_57dbe7a952_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/7201823278/)
Cruise Ship Veendam on the Hudson Rv. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/7201823278/) by pmarella (http://www.flickr.com/people/pmarella/), on Flickr

And the PA cam at the end :cheer:

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

Sorry, I'm not understanding the changes, what actually happened with the spire? It will be redesigned or removed from the project? The WTC1 was supposed to have more then 500 mts, right?

Thanks!

By the way, congratulations for all the New Yorkers, your city is getting perfect, IMO :D

Sorry, I'm not understanding the changes, what actually happened with the spire? It will be redesigned or removed from the project? The WTC1 was supposed to have more then 500 mts, right?

Thanks!

The height of 1WTC didn't change, it still is 419 meters to the roof, as it was before and 541 meters to the pinnacle, as it was before. The only thing that changed is the design of the antenna. The cover of it was removed. Because of that the CTBUH now categorizes it as an antenna, not as a spire and therefore it doesn't count it into its official height measurement, however, that official height measurement is just an imaginary number which has got nothing to do with the real height of the building :cheers: