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 > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



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 11th, 2014, 06:52 PM   #11221
Riley1066
Registered User
 
Riley1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 628
Likes (Received): 521

Quote:
Originally Posted by xing lin View Post
I guess we don't like the spire height because it's unfair counting in favour of 1WTC as the tallest in NY.
Who's this "we" you refer to? 1 WTC is the tallest building in NYC, period.
Riley1066 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 11th, 2014, 07:17 PM   #11222
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

No it is not. Many people, including myself, will never accept spires as part of a building's height. No matter what the CTBUH says, for me 432 Park is taller than 1WTC
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 08:20 PM   #11223
DannyR2713
another Registered User
 
DannyR2713's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: New York City
Posts: 481
Likes (Received): 698

I see this tower clearly when I'm driving in the Queensboro bridge, and today was the first time i thought it look tall and majestic; yet still 514 feet to go
__________________

JamesMonroe liked this post
DannyR2713 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 08:33 PM   #11224
j-biz
rasorio caelum civitatem
 
j-biz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,309
Likes (Received): 2793

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximalist View Post
This building seems to be going up in the blink of an eye. Do they keep records on things like length of time from ground level to supertall status?
Just wait till you see Sky City rise*.



*you might be waiting for a loooooong time
__________________
j-biz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 08:48 PM   #11225
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3592

Sky City might break records on the way up AND on the way back down!
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 09:00 PM   #11226
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
No it is not. Many people, including myself, will never accept spires as part of a building's height. No matter what the CTBUH says, for me 432 Park is taller than 1WTC
That's your opinion, if someone wants to count spires they can do that, who really cares?

1WTC is the tallest structure in NYC (currently) and a few buildings will have a higher roof.
__________________

MarshallKnight, Kanto liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 09:11 PM   #11227
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3592

I just commented a bit on this in the 111 thread, but basically I'm all for using your own definition. The CTBUH is hardly infallible -- when it comes to the One WTC spire ruling, it sounds like they were under sizable political pressure. For my money they got that ruling wrong: how something that requires guy wires to stay up can be considered an architectural part of the building is beyond me. But not everyone sees it that way.

We all want there to be One True Definition, but since (as in most things in life) there's an argument to be made every which way, why not just say "by roof height," or "to the pinnacle," or whatever your preferred measurement is? It's not hard, and doing otherwise is just going to create confusion and ignite pointless flame wars.
__________________

Kanto, ArasHUN liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 09:30 PM   #11228
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
That's your opinion, if someone wants to count spires they can do that, who really cares?

1WTC is the tallest structure in NYC (currently) and a few buildings will have a higher roof.
I completely agree with you. That's why I said "for me 432 Park is taller than 1WTC" and in that post I wasn't objecting about the whole post above it, I was only objecting to the "period" of it since I agree with you that everybody should use the measurement he/she feels is right. This way there is no such thing as "period"
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/

sgollis, rikardo_200, bigreach liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2014, 10:36 PM   #11229
Dbronx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 74
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcatio View Post
Thanks to all of you who responded to the drawings giving a simplfied sequence of operations. I hope it explained what is going on as 432 Park Avenue rises.

Dbronx,

Thanks for your response. BTW, that is the borough I am from where I was raised.

About the crane, it is called an internal climbing crane, in which the vertical tower is supported by a support frame that bears on the edges of a floor slab several floors down that has been cured sufficiently to bear the working loads of the crane above. The diagram included explains the operation. This diagram comes from "Cranes and Derricks" by Lawrence and Jay Shapiro, a book that I have in my library at home.

Here is the diagram:



This crane differs from the two cranes that were previously on site, called external climbing cranes, because they had external climbing frames, with separate tower sections that were inserted as the cranes rose, with ties and collars braced to the building structure. The current crane's tower is is of fixed height, and there are no tower sections inserted during its rise.

You are right, the holes for the tower are filled in afterward.
Thank you so much - looks like the system they used at 1 WTC, no?

Now I can sleep at night

BTW, tell me you went to DeWitt Clinton...
Dbronx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 12:16 AM   #11230
marcatio
Registered User
 
marcatio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 341

Dbronx,

No, I did not attend DeWitt Clinton, I went to Aviation HS, and graduated in 1972.

About 1 WTC, those cranes, the two cranes that were near the center of the building were internal climbing, similar to the diagram I included, and there was a crane mounted outside the building with a fixed tower that was on a platform that rode up the side on rails.

Hope you are sleeping better now (no Ambien, please).
marcatio no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 12:57 AM   #11231
Riley1066
Registered User
 
Riley1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 628
Likes (Received): 521

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
No it is not. Many people, including myself, will never accept spires as part of a building's height. No matter what the CTBUH says, for me 432 Park is taller than 1WTC
There is no universe where that statement is true.
Riley1066 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 01:12 AM   #11232
CCs77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,113
Likes (Received): 2436

Enough of that discusion about roof height vs pinnacle height, it's just boring!
It has Been discused ad infinitum, and always there Will be people thinking one way or another.
Take the position You prefer and move on...Please!
__________________
CCs77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 01:45 AM   #11233
NewYorker2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 132

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCs77 View Post
Enough of that discusion about roof height vs pinnacle height, it's just boring!
It has Been discused ad infinitum, and always there Will be people thinking one way or another.
Take the position You prefer and move on...Please!
Best post on the page.
NewYorker2009 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 04:40 AM   #11234
luci203
Registered User
 
luci203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,129
Likes (Received): 1202

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMCYB View Post
Absolutely, but it's not as extreme as it is in the SkyscraperPage rendering. They have it as a 20:1 ratio when it's really 15:1.
The actual width of 432 Park Avenue is about the same as the main portion of Chrysler, but several hundred feet taller.
It is as thick as the thin side of GM building, witch is a massive building.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Construction View Post
__________________
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says W T F...

sweet-d liked this post
luci203 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 08:10 AM   #11235
bigreach
GF 117 #1, Lotte Tower #2
 
bigreach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,370
Likes (Received): 739

I like the rooftop measurement, but until it happens, 1WTC is tallest, even though
__________________
Rooftops over Spires/Antennas/
Rooftops, someplace where you can look over the edge, can't do that climbing a needle.
bigreach no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2014, 06:28 PM   #11236
Swiddle
Registered User
 
Swiddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 912
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamtheSTIG View Post
New York looks incredibly Blade Runner-like here:

[IMG]http://i57.************/2nv5h7r.jpg[/IMG]
I _HATE_ photobucket!
__________________

Tower Dude liked this post
Swiddle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2014, 05:44 AM   #11237
bigreach
GF 117 #1, Lotte Tower #2
 
bigreach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,370
Likes (Received): 739

Quote:
Originally Posted by xing lin View Post
I guess we don't like the spire height because it's unfair counting in favour of 1WTC as the tallest in NY.
I wasn't banging on You, or supporting spire height, The only Spire I think looks and should be 100% incredulously counted is Jin Mao, That and well Chrysler bldg. Other than that NONE should (but it's a tired and old debate) I wasn't giving you grief.

But on topic, this bldg. is starting to really stand out amongst it's neighbors.

I bet the average American, (non skyscraper fan) going to work every day, in the area, thinks? What the hell? when is that building going to stop going skyward, and that will intrigue a lot of folks to look it up and see what's actually challenging 1Wtc, ESB and other Icons in the area.

Just think the average JOE will be Baffled by this structure, so thin, so damn tall
__________________
Rooftops over Spires/Antennas/
Rooftops, someplace where you can look over the edge, can't do that climbing a needle.

citybooster liked this post
bigreach no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2014, 05:45 AM   #11238
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Today




__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2014, 05:55 AM   #11239
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4607

We must've crossed paths, I was in the area all afternoon.
__________________

Vertical_Gotham liked this post
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2014, 03:09 AM   #11240
WeatherRad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 85
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMMERusa View Post
432 Park Ave will be the tallest building in NYC. Spire does NOT count! Would 400 meters spire on WTC and make it the tallest building in the world?? NO, so once and for all stop adding the spire/antenna to the height of the building. It's nonsense.
Unfortunately, regardless of how much some may not like the decision, 1 WTC's height including the spire is official: http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?...language=en-US

Not counting the spire would be unofficial at this point.
__________________

Tower Dude liked this post
WeatherRad no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
new york city, new york project, park avenue, 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 02:50 PM.


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