daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Supertalls

Supertalls Discussions of projects under construction between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.
» Proposed Supertalls



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 22nd, 2016, 08:39 AM   #6981
waccamatt
Gamecocks&Skyscrapers fan
 
waccamatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,809
Likes (Received): 181

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
They'll sneak a spire up the stairs.
I can picture them schlepping that thing up 99 flights of stairs.
waccamatt no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 22nd, 2016, 11:07 AM   #6982
tokilamockingbrd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 116

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertitoam View Post
For New York/US Updates Yimby is definitely the leader in the game
Ya, I think this site is the best for WW. But if I am interested in a NY project I go over to Yimby.
tokilamockingbrd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 22nd, 2016, 12:14 PM   #6983
Amecurty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 278
Likes (Received): 241

Thank you for the tip!
Amecurty no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2016, 06:38 PM   #6984
nyc15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 190
Likes (Received): 159

Hi friends
It is huge , the important thing of This building is the parapet of This one Will surpass the tip of esb , i wish that it Will crowned with a spire and make the height taller than 1wtc
nyc15 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2016, 07:54 PM   #6985
DubaiM
Registered User
 
DubaiM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,626
Likes (Received): 4512

-del
__________________
''There are 360 degrees, so why stick to one?'' - RIP Zaha Hadid
DubaiM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2016, 03:40 AM   #6986
Chris08876
Organischer Chemiker!
 
Chris08876's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Somerset County, NJ :: NYC :: Miami
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1020

This will appear some 80 ft taller from sea level at 0 ft. The extra elevation will give it a little boost.

=========

Before:


Credit: https://www.manhattanscout.com/news/...ue-hits-market

After: *Although 2wtc foster is in the before, but for sake of a before/after, lets pretend its not there.


Credit: http://iconosquare.com/nyc_skyscrapers

Chris08876 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2016, 03:50 AM   #6987
towerpower123
Let's Revive our Cities
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howell/Newark, NJ
Posts: 2,242
Likes (Received): 4181

Very beautiful! It would look better with the many other upcoming towers in it.
__________________
If I don't say otherwise, all of my images are on my blog,
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot.com/?view=sidebar

186 Newark, NJ Development projects MAPPED
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1874870
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot....l?view=sidebar

See my DeviantArt account at http://towerpower123.deviantart.com/
towerpower123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 04:38 PM   #6988
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,340
Likes (Received): 3585

Quote:
Originally Posted by waccamatt View Post
I can picture them schlepping that thing up 99 flights of stairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokilamockingbrd View Post
Ya, I think this site is the best for WW. But if I am interested in a NY project I go over to Yimby.
Well guys, on that very topic, our pal Vortex11 over at the Yimby forums has done some excellent sleuthing on the FAA website and found this document dated March 22nd, 2016, which includes the following:

Quote:
Height and Elevation

Site Elevation: 82
Structure Height: 1792 (Proposed), 1567 (DNE), 1792 (DET)
Total Height (AMSL): 1874 (Proposed), 1649 (DNE), 1874 (DET)
So this seems pretty clear that they're proposing to add an additional 225 feet to the already approved 1567, which I can only interpret as the addition of a spire...!

But before we get ahead of ourselves, I had to try to figure out what DNE vs. DET means, and I found this FAA user guide for their websites, which states in the glossary:

Quote:
aglStructureHeight: Proposed total structure height above ground level in whole feet rounded to the next highest foot. The total structure height should include anything mounted on top of the structure such as antennas, lightning rods, obstruction lights, etc.

aglStructureHeightDet: FAA confirmed total structure height above ground level.

aglStructureHeightDne: Maximum height that a proposed structure’s total height above ground level can’t exceed in order to not exceed FAA obstruction standards.
So it's a little muddy since the "determined height" is 1792, but the "do not exceed height" is 1567, which seems contradictory. But whether the FAA has, will, or even can approve the new height, at the very least it's clear that 1) Extell is trying to add height that would be consistent with a spire, and 2) if they're approved, they will be breaking the "gentlemen's agreement" and surpass the pinnacle of One World Trade!

Edit: Shoot, Baseball1992 just pointed out on Yimby that although 1776 is the official height of 1WTC, its actual architectural tip is 1792... so if this new spire does indeed go to that height then it will exactly match 1WTC, rather than exceed it. Which would be annoying, to say the least. As SMCYB says below, I want that precedent smashed, like yesterday.
__________________

SMCYB, cnbnca liked this post

Last edited by MarshallKnight; April 28th, 2016 at 04:59 PM.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 04:43 PM   #6989
SMCYB
Registered User
 
SMCYB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,097
Likes (Received): 1629

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post


So it's a little muddy since the "determined height" is 1792, but the "do not exceed height" is 1567, which seems contradictory. But whether the FAA has, will, or even can approve the new height, at the very least it's clear that 1) Extell is trying to add height that would be consistent with a spire, and 2) if they're approved, they will be breaking the "gentlemen's agreement" and surpass the pinnacle of One World Trade!
I say go for it. If we never build taller than 1WTC again, then the terrorists win in a small way. F--- them. Build taller!
__________________
SMCYB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 08:26 PM   #6990
punchydj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 166
Likes (Received): 279

Hi guys!

There is the progress during the month of March.



Thank you!!!
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
punchydj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 09:26 PM   #6991
tokilamockingbrd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 116

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Well guys, on that very topic, our pal Vortex11 over at the Yimby forums has done some excellent sleuthing on the FAA website and found this document dated March 22nd, 2016, which includes the following:



So this seems pretty clear that they're proposing to add an additional 225 feet to the already approved 1567, which I can only interpret as the addition of a spire...!

But before we get ahead of ourselves, I had to try to figure out what DNE vs. DET means, and I found this FAA user guide for their websites, which states in the glossary:



So it's a little muddy since the "determined height" is 1792, but the "do not exceed height" is 1567, which seems contradictory. But whether the FAA has, will, or even can approve the new height, at the very least it's clear that 1) Extell is trying to add height that would be consistent with a spire, and 2) if they're approved, they will be breaking the "gentlemen's agreement" and surpass the pinnacle of One World Trade!

Edit: Shoot, Baseball1992 just pointed out on Yimby that although 1776 is the official height of 1WTC, its actual architectural tip is 1792... so if this new spire does indeed go to that height then it will exactly match 1WTC, rather than exceed it. Which would be annoying, to say the least. As SMCYB says below, I want that precedent smashed, like yesterday.
Is it possible the FAA separates the roof height from total height? The roof height limit would be more about safety of the occupants, and the total height would be about aircraft?
tokilamockingbrd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 10:52 PM   #6992
nyc15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 190
Likes (Received): 159

Total Height (AMSL): 1874 (Proposed), 1649 (DNE), 1874 (DEt
Someone can tell me what s mean about ?
nyc15 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 11:00 PM   #6993
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

@nyc15^ probably roof and spire above sea level.

And my gosh just pass the f'ing WTC already, not a big deal people.
__________________

nyc15, Msradell liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 11:04 PM   #6994
BIMMERusa
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 5

Spire doesn't count!!!!!!!

It's a shame that NYC can't build a tower over 500 meters tall. The spire doesn't count!!!!!!!! The new WTC with this over-sized absurd spire looks nothing like the old twin towers, and will never replace them as one of the symbols of the NYC.
__________________

Msradell, Zaz965 liked this post
BIMMERusa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 11:07 PM   #6995
tinyslam
Registered User
 
tinyslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,465
Likes (Received): 892

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMMERusa View Post
It's a shame that NYC can't build a tower over 500 meters tall. The spire doesn't count!!!!!!!! The new WTC with this over-sized absurd spire looks nothing like the old twin towers, and will never replace them as one of the symbols of the NYC.
You do realize that the new WTC is just as tall without the spire as the Old WTC right? I agree we should be building taller but even without the spire 1WTC is freaking huge.
tinyslam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 11:09 PM   #6996
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Seriously, 1WTC looks like a clone of the old North Tower from many angles and is a giant. I'm sure NY will hit 500 meters someday but even if not anytime soon the ~470+ meter Nordstrom tower would still be a behemoth anywhere. The roof is just shy of the Shanghai World Financial Center which I've personally stood on top of and is just gigantic.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 11:21 PM   #6997
trustevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 386

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyc15 View Post
Total Height (AMSL): 1874 (Proposed), 1649 (DNE), 1874 (DEt
Someone can tell me what s mean about ?
I think it's elevation height above sea level. I could be wrong
trustevil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 11:29 PM   #6998
BIMMERusa
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 5

I stood next to the Shanghai Tower and 1WTC doesn't even come close, height and shape wise. Twin-towers were unique and everyone associated them with NYC. 1WTC is just some tower with an over-sized spire.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
BIMMERusa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2016, 11:29 PM   #6999
tokilamockingbrd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 116

Quote:
Originally Posted by trustevil View Post
I think it's elevation height above sea level. I could be wrong
yes the 1864 is above sea level. Another thing that will help this baby look bigger, in the center of the island it has a extra 70 feet+ from geographical elevation.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
tokilamockingbrd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2016, 12:23 AM   #7000
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMMERusa View Post
I stood next to the Shanghai Tower and 1WTC doesn't even come close, height and shape wise. Twin-towers were unique and everyone associated them with NYC. 1WTC is just some tower with an over-sized spire.
Shanghai Tower wouldn't even "come close" next to the Burj Khalifa, at least in structural height. Does that mean Dubai is more impressive than Shanghai? Not at all, in fact I think the opposite.

Proportionally the spire on 1WTC is about the same as the old North Tower, and I think the new building is indeed unique. Not that I didn't love the twin towers but did you really expect them to be rebuilt as they were?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
217 west 57th street, 225 west 57th street, central park south, cps, extell, new york, nordstrom tower, nyc, supertall

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu