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 July 9th, 2011, 02:21 AM   #23721
Dirty new yorker
Registered User
 
Dirty new yorker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 576
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by azn_man12345
Well "officially", it's a lot taller. But to the roof, it's the same as the Old 1WTC and just a tad taller then the Old 2WTC
In my opinion, mediocre buildings with really large spires are like douchebag guys with hot girlfriends and overrated reputations.

They both use cheap ways to make themselves appear more awesome
__________________
24/7 NY state of mind
Dirty new yorker no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 9th, 2011, 02:25 AM   #23722
yankee fan for life
Registered User
 
yankee fan for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brooklyn new york
Posts: 832
Likes (Received): 195

1 WTC COMMUNICATION PLATFORM RING GIVES THE LOOK that it is little bit taller then the old twins.
yankee fan for life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 02:29 AM   #23723
Dirty new yorker
Registered User
 
Dirty new yorker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 576
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee fan for life
1 WTC COMMUNICATION PLATFORM RING GIVES THE LOOK that it is little bit taller then the old twins.
Does that count toasted the roof height or no?
__________________
24/7 NY state of mind
Dirty new yorker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 02:30 AM   #23724
Dirty new yorker
Registered User
 
Dirty new yorker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 576
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty new yorker

Does that count toasted the roof height or no?
Towards* my b
__________________
24/7 NY state of mind
Dirty new yorker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 02:31 AM   #23725
yankee fan for life
Registered User
 
yankee fan for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brooklyn new york
Posts: 832
Likes (Received): 195

[QUOTE=Dirty new yorker]Does that count toasted the roof height or no?

not sure i guess so it is part of the structural design.
yankee fan for life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 02:33 AM   #23726
Hendycfc
Registered User
 
Hendycfc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Rotterdam/Glasgow
Posts: 1,390
Likes (Received): 422

I know the reason they choose 1776 for obvo reasons but I think it should of be a lot taller. Aw well still a beautiful building
Hendycfc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 02:39 AM   #23727
q8hm
Q8-PROJACTS-1
 
q8hm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 308
Likes (Received): 25

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=q8-projacts-1&f=hp
q8hm no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 03:12 AM   #23728
patrick989
Registered User
 
patrick989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 301
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendycfc View Post
I know the reason they choose 1776 for obvo reasons but I think it should of be a lot taller. Aw well still a beautiful building
I think if it was a LOT taller, it would look odd being such a huge building among much smaller buildings. The height is just fine, it matches the surroundings while subtly showing its dominance.
patrick989 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 03:17 AM   #23729
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

I think 100 extra feet to the roof would have been ideal but we should still be pretty happy that it is what it is. This building is very tall and will be neighbored by other giants, so it's a pretty good deal if you ask me. The communication ring is more like a crown then a roof if you ask me, but at least the spire is very thick and a lot better looking than the antenna of the former tower 1
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 04:38 AM   #23730
pnapp1
Die-Hard New Yorker!
 
pnapp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LI, New York
Posts: 302
Likes (Received): 353

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendycfc View Post
I know the reason they choose 1776 for obvo reasons but I think it should of be a lot taller. Aw well still a beautiful building
+1
pnapp1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 04:50 AM   #23731
LegitimateAnswer
:P
 
LegitimateAnswer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 2

So guys are they making it taller than it was supposed to be..i can find it here but i dont wanna go through 1000 pg for one small info
LegitimateAnswer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 05:23 AM   #23732
Otie
Researcher
 
Otie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,117
Likes (Received): 2186

Quote:
Originally Posted by azn_man12345 View Post
Well "officially", it's a lot taller. But to the roof, it's the same as the Old 1WTC and just a tad taller then the Old 2WTC
Actually, the roof will be 1334' 8" (~406.8m) above the Lobby floor, while the architectural height of the original tower was 1368' 2" (~417m).
Otie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 05:31 AM   #23733
yankee fan for life
Registered User
 
yankee fan for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brooklyn new york
Posts: 832
Likes (Received): 195

Guys you have to remember due fAA regulations here in the us 1 wtc tops could only be about 200 feet taller the way 1 wtc is tapering if they where to make it taller their wont be no roof left and 200 max is the only height the would make it distinguishable from the old towers in height.
yankee fan for life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 05:59 AM   #23734
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegitimateAnswer View Post
So guys are they making it taller than it was supposed to be..i can find it here but i dont wanna go through 1000 pg for one small info
Page one

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee fan for life View Post
Guys you have to remember due fAA regulations here in the us 1 wtc tops could only be about 200 feet taller the way 1 wtc is tapering if they where to make it taller their wont be no roof left and 200 max is the only height the would make it distinguishable from the old towers in height.

Your giving ppl who aren't from the USA, the impression that the FAA run shit. If they wanted WTC1 to be over 2000 feet, it would be. There's no law in this country that say a building can't be over 2000 feet. My point is there is no and never has been a cap't height for a buildings.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 06:03 AM   #23735
Fury
Proudly Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,059
Likes (Received): 350

Hi all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
Exactly, spires and antennas are cheating. Just as this smiley shows

The official height measurement is the biggest nonsense I ever heared. There is absolutely no difference between a spire and an antenna. As to pinnacle height measurement, I accept it but only as a secondary measurement. The primary measurement in my opinion is roof height measurement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
I wouldn't go this far, but I do feel the old standards of having two measures was a better depiction, even if clumbsy. At the least, there should still be an accounting based on highest occupiable/functional floor level. However...
I disagree with this. A spire is a permanent piece of the structure and is designed in concert with the building as its artistic crown. The height is (supposedly) chosen based on the artistic appeal of the overall form.

Conversely, an antenna is but an afterthought, conceived independently from the structure and is subject to change. Several skyscrapers, though none of the major ones, have seen their rooftop antennas changed but clearly that doesn't alter the form of the true building. Put another way, we technically don't need antenna except for communications purposes, but architecturally we'll always have spires.

Thus, despite their confounding impact on our judgments about skyscraper heights, there is a desicernable difference between spires and antenna.
Hi guys.
You can have all the opinions you want on how tall structures should be measured. Personally I agree with the organization that matters and is filled with people who have devoted their lives and careers to tall structures - the CTBUH.

The council dropped the height to roof measure because it has always been a grey area on many structures. IMO it was a good move. Some structures have a few areas that could be considered 'the roof' depending on how you look at it. I listed a half a dozen regarding the BK a few years ago - I have my candidate but it's irrelevant now.

The highest occupied floor is still recognized as one of the three official measurements.

I agree there is a significant difference between a spire, pinnacle, or both and a removable antenna, flagpole, lightning rod, etc. Permanance is the critical difference to the council and the difference between the other two official measurements - height to arch. top and height to tip.

They compare and organize all tall structures on the height to arch. top. That way if a taller antenna or whatever is put up it doesn't change the ranking of the structure. Makes sense.

I like the height to tip measurement. I recognized the tallest guyed masts as the tallest manmade structures for those decades before the BK. If a 600 meter project comes along and they put up a 300 meter antenna I would recognize it as the new WTS - just not officially. I see Willis as 527 and BK as 829.842.

To all you wanna be mods who want to wank about off topic - don't bother ...
This is a discussion that does pertain to 1WTC and its tall spire


Ray.
__________________
Burj Khalifa - The Greatest Structure of our Time !!
Fury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 06:08 AM   #23736
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53453

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsc View Post
Your giving ppl who aren't from the USA, the impression that the FAA run shit. If they wanted WTC1 to be over 2000 feet, it would be. There's no law in this country that say a building can't be over 2000 feet. My point is there is no and never has been a cap't height for a buildings.
True. The FAA height regulations allow for exceptions to the 2,000 ft. limit but an applicant has to demonstrate that their supertall provides a great public benefit. Office buildings generally don't fit that description but TV antennas in far-flung rural areas like North Dakota apparently do. When air traffic control systems are finally updated with GPS tracking (c'mon, it's 2011 already!!) then the max height limits won't be needed.
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 06:08 AM   #23737
yankee fan for life
Registered User
 
yankee fan for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brooklyn new york
Posts: 832
Likes (Received): 195

The FAA has legal clearance over all US territories to set height limits. planes cant cruise below 2000ft unless there taking off or landing. and that's why anything above 2000 ft is regulated.

Last edited by yankee fan for life; July 9th, 2011 at 06:18 AM.
yankee fan for life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 06:17 AM   #23738
yankee fan for life
Registered User
 
yankee fan for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brooklyn new york
Posts: 832
Likes (Received): 195

OF course their are exceptions like the 2063 foot KVLY-TV mast tower buts that's only because the KVLY-TV mast tower is in and isolated area where their is no air traffic.
yankee fan for life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 06:20 AM   #23739
kingsc
Registered User
 
kingsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,761
Likes (Received): 199

If I wanted to build a 2,200 foot building in the middle of nowhere, believe me FAA isn't going to try and stop me. You know what's funny, you ppl act like America the only place with airplane and airports.
__________________
My site
Entertainmentcove.weebly.com
kingsc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2011, 06:35 AM   #23740
Msradell
Always looking up
 
Msradell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,772
Likes (Received): 209

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
I disagree with this. A spire is a permanent piece of the structure and is designed in concert with the building as its artistic crown. The height is (supposedly) chosen based on the artistic appeal of the overall form.

Conversely, an antenna is but an afterthought, conceived independently from the structure and is subject to change. Several skyscrapers, though none of the major ones, have seen their rooftop antennas changed but clearly that doesn't alter the form of the true building. Put another way, we technically don't need antenna except for communications purposes, but architecturally we'll always have spires.

Thus, despite their confounding impact on our judgments about skyscraper heights, there is a desicernable difference between spires and antenna.
Well by your definitions how would you define a so called Spire that is designed to be an enclosure for antennas? In addition its design does not blended with the rest of the building and certainly looks like an afterthought used to gain height.
__________________
"Written using Dragon Naturally Speaking"
I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
Msradell no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
construction updates, development, ground zero, manhattan, new york city, nyc, port authority, supertall, world trade center

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 06:10 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