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 September 19th, 2007, 10:56 PM   #2481
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimension View Post
if floors 1-108 all have a function, and are filled, then the tower is actually 108 floors. The CN Tower from what I learned from a tour book has no individual floors.
Agreed - but as has been stated, the Freedom Tower does NOT have 108 individual floors. It only has 82 (69 occupied floors + 13 for other purposes including mechanical). Your methodology is absolutely correct. The comment about the CN Tower was just there to demonstrate how silly the current Freedom Tower methodology is.

SO - lets get the facts correct. Freedom Tower has only 82 floors - period.

See the official web-site for details:
http://freedomtower.som.com/

Glass Steel and Stone website confirming ONLY 82 FLOORS TOTAL:
http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/Bu...Detail/439.php

Last edited by walli; September 19th, 2007 at 11:03 PM.
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 19th, 2007, 11:39 PM   #2482
Danillo
National Parks Artist
 
Danillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 981
Likes (Received): 220

To be fair, I think this way of determining floor count is pretty common -- that double or triple height floors get counted as 2 or 3 floors. In this particular case, it ends up a bit extreme due to the 19-floor high podium, but a whole lot of buildings would have to have their floor counts chaged as well.
Danillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2007, 11:48 PM   #2483
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danillo View Post
To be fair, I think this way of determining floor count is pretty common -- that double or triple height floors get counted as 2 or 3 floors. In this particular case, it ends up a bit extreme due to the 19-floor high podium, but a whole lot of buildings would have to have their floor counts chaged as well.
But why would this thread want to re-write things, when even the official web-page doesn't inflate things this way?

While double and triple mechanical floors are often counted this way, this is quite something else (hence the 'silly' yet realistic CN Tower comparison).

Bottom line is, if the official pages list it as 82 floors, that is what it is. (the 82 floors includes things like double and triple counted mechanical floors).
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 12:07 AM   #2484
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

So CN Tower has 147 floors!
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 12:53 AM   #2485
Danillo
National Parks Artist
 
Danillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 981
Likes (Received): 220

Quote:
Originally Posted by walli View Post
But why would this thread want to re-write things, when even the official web-page doesn't inflate things this way?

While double and triple mechanical floors are often counted this way, this is quite something else (hence the 'silly' yet realistic CN Tower comparison).

Bottom line is, if the official pages list it as 82 floors, that is what it is. (the 82 floors includes things like double and triple counted mechanical floors).
I don't disagree. I can see it both ways, to be honest.
Danillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 01:53 AM   #2486
Ebola
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,658
Likes (Received): 94

The tower has over 102 floors.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has stated that the observation deck is floor 102. There are a few floors on top of 102. You can't see the section view of the base, but the floor above the base is floor 20. End of debate.

The CN Tower doesn't count for anything here because it is NOT A SKYSCRAPER.

The official PANYNJ and WTC pages say that the observation deck is floor 102. People are so imbecilic to be debating crap like this for the thousandth time.
Ebola no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 02:08 AM   #2487
ramvid01
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 749
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by walli View Post
I'm actually curious about what is considered a spire. While I really do appreciate spires such as the ones on the Empire State Building, the Petronas Towers and the Chrysler Building...
I am assuming that the spire you talk about is the attenna at the top of the ESB. The actual attenna at the top of the ESB is for communications only, it is not counted as part of it's height.
ramvid01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 02:51 AM   #2488
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebola View Post
The tower has over 102 floors.

... the floor above the base is floor 20. End of debate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebola View Post
The CN Tower doesn't count for anything here because it is NOT A SKYSCRAPER.
Hmmm ... yeah, ANY structure with make-belief floors is not a skyscraper I guess. Well, using your methodology, the CN Tower's upper observation deck is at floor 153.

And just for you:

walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 02:56 AM   #2489
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Looks like I have a supporter on my spire comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by vader11 View Post
I also see the burj as a 600m or so skyscraper because I don't count spire.
Of course, the Burj Dubai actually has a true spire akin to the Empire State Building and the Chrysler building, and not simply a stylized antenna.
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 02:57 AM   #2490
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramvid01 View Post
I am assuming that the spire you talk about is the attenna at the top of the ESB. The actual attenna at the top of the ESB is for communications only, it is not counted as part of it's height.
No no - for the EBS, I'm talking about the entire structure that *is* counted above the highest occupied floor. I see the ESB as a building with a true spire.
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:00 AM   #2491
vader11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 133
Likes (Received): 9

You should use edit instead of triple posts.
vader11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:08 AM   #2492
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007..._world_tr.html
White House veto could hurt new World Trade Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY DEVLIN BARRETT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Monday, September 17th 2007, 6:23 PM

The White House threatened Monday to veto a bill that would add 15 years to a post-Sept. 11 government insurance program which supporters say is critical for major projects like the new World Trade Center.

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA, was one of a series of bills passed by Congress in the wake of the 2001 attacks. It is due to expire this year, and the House of Representatives had planned to vote this week on a 15-year extension.

If the current version of the bill reaches President Bush, his advisers will recommend a veto, the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement Monday.

The Bush administration said the government should get out of the insurance business in the near future and end the TRIA program, which is essentially a backstop mechanism to ensure terrorism insurance is available and affordable for major projects and buildings.

"The administration strongly opposes efforts to expand the federal government's role in terrorism reinsurance. The most efficient, lowest cost, and most innovative methods of providing terrorism risk insurance will come from the private sector," budget officials wrote.

"I strongly disagree," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "TRIA is absolutely essentially, and we will continue to support it and work for it one step at a time."

Businesses, particularly in New York, claim that without the program they will not be able to get insurance coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological attacks, and some local officials fear without the government program they may not even be able to rebuild the World Trade Center site.

If buildings can't be insured, banks may not lend money to build them, insurance groups argue.

The current program provides a federal insurance backup for catastrophic losses suffered in a terrorist attack, which the insurance industry says is needed because such attacks are so expensive and hard to predict. Under the bill headed for a House vote, the program can only be triggered when the amount of property and casualty losses reach $100 million.

The White House is worried over the potential long-term cost of the legislation, noting that a 10-year version could cost more than $10 billion, according to one estimate.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., charged the veto threat "is putting ideology ahead of economic growth."

The terrorism insurance program, Schumer said "is essential to construction and growth in many of our large cities. It is particularly needed now as the economy softens."
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:10 AM   #2493
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172007...aky_ground.htm
$HAKY GROUND

BUDGET WOES AT 'WTC' AGENCY
By CHUCK BENNETT

September 17, 2007 -- The obscure state agency charged with coordinating about 60 construction projects downtown - including demolition of the former Deutsche Bank building - is going broke, The Post has learned.

Not only has the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center, which is under Gov. Spitzer's control, been blamed for mismanaging deconstruction of the bank building at Ground Zero, it apparently can't even manage its own budget.

State agencies have refused to transfer millions of dollars to the LMCCC, which has authority over every project south of Canal Street worth more than $25 million, because it cannot provide a satisfactory plan of how the funds would be spent.

Unless changes are made, the LMCCC will have a $3 million deficit by next month, said sources with direct knowledge of the budget.

For instance, the Port Authority, which has several megaprojects downtown, including the World Trade Center transit hub and the Freedom Tower, hasn't paid a cent of the $21.7 million it promised last year.

The money is "contingent on completion of an agreement on how the funds will be used. Since the agreement has not been completed, the funds have not been transferred," PA spokesman Steve Coleman said.

LMCCC leaders, including ex-Executive Director Charles Maikish and current head Robert Harvey, have come under fire for their handling of the demolition of the contaminated bank building.

After an Aug. 18 blaze at the site killed two firefighters, it emerged that numerous safety hazards that contributed to the fire had been ignored.

"We are confident that our partners will fully satisfy their funding commitments," said Errol Cockfield, a spokesman for the state-run Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which manages the LMCCC.

The LMCCC has a five-year, $67 million budget, but Cockfield declined to discuss the state of its finances or why it can't document where the money would go.

The MTA committed $10.4 million to the LMCCC, but also hasn't transferred any cash. Jeremy Soffin, an MTA spokesman, said the matter was being looked into.

And the state Department of Transportation's $2.6 million commitment has yet to reach the LMCCC's coffers.

[email protected]ypost.com
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:13 AM   #2494
ramvid01
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 749
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by walli View Post
No no - for the EBS, I'm talking about the entire structure that *is* counted above the highest occupied floor. I see the ESB as a building with a true spire.
Which would be? Techiniquely those floors could be occupied as there is a pod where people can be located at the top of the spire that you speak of. I would use the word crown as a better description of the top of ESB.
ramvid01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:17 AM   #2495
Ebola
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,658
Likes (Received): 94

Quote:
Originally Posted by walli View Post




Hmmm ... yeah, ANY structure with make-belief floors is not a skyscraper I guess. Well, using your methodology, the CN Tower's upper observation deck is at floor 153.

And just for you:


The CN tower is not not defined as a building so it never was a skyscraper. It has no value when being compared to skyscrapers. Acoording to the PANYNJ, the people who are building this building, there are over 102 floors. Just because you think it is less than that doesn't make it true. I guess the ICC doesn't have 118 floors then since it skips floors too. Go complain in that thread too. And I guess 7WTC doesn't have 52 floors since a few are skipped in the base. Go complain there as well.


Also, the Empire State Building doesn't have a spire. You can go all the way up to floor 102.
Ebola no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:24 AM   #2496
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramvid01 View Post
Which would be? Techiniquely those floors could be occupied as there is a pod where people can be located at the top of the spire that you speak of. I would use the word crown as a better description of the top of ESB.
Irrespective, I already stated that I accept the height calculation for ESB - it is the FT one that should actually be ~ 1,376', for certainly you can't climb inside the 'antenna'.

walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:27 AM   #2497
Ebola
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,658
Likes (Received): 94

It's a good thing that your opinion is NOT VALID.
Ebola no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:36 AM   #2498
ramvid01
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 749
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by walli View Post
Irrespective, I already stated that I accept the height calculation for ESB - it is the FT one that should actually be ~ 1,376', for certainly you can't climb inside the 'antenna'.

I am not talking about or disputing 1 WTC. I am just stating that the spire as you call it in the ESB is itself occuppiable.
ramvid01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 03:43 AM   #2499
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebola View Post
It's a good thing that your opinion is NOT VALID.
That in itself is a matter of opinion. It is valid to many, including vader11.

Guess you didn't like the 1,376' number, eh'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramvid01 View Post
I am not talking about or disputing 1 WTC. I am just stating that the spire as you call it in the ESB is itself occuppiable.
Fair enough - perhaps the Chrysler building would be a better example - top floor @ 899', roof @ 925', counted height 1,047'

I do like the ESB method for calculating height though - count it to the top point wherein you can actually occupy and don't have to be climbing on the outside!

I'll leave this alone now - certainly I've made my points, and there are differing opinions. We all know the reality of the buildings ...
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2007, 09:10 AM   #2500
connected_
Registered User
 
connected_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 305
Likes (Received): 15

I never understood all this height crap. The height of a building/structure should be from the very bottom to the tip of the structure itself, regardless of whether it is occupied floor space or not. You can't just discount something because it's 'not occupied'. That's like saying the spire of a building doesn't exist. Height is height. There should be no grey area.
connected_ 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 03:15 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