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 May 10th, 2012, 04:54 AM   #32181
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fury View Post
Hi all.

The 1776 number is still being lamented over ?
This was made clear a year ago. The council measures from the finished floor at the threshold of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance - not an average lobby floor height as the plans for this project does. The 1776 was never going to be the official height right from the start.
1 - The developer knows this as well as anyone, so what the train of thought was by having the plans start their measurements at an average lobby floor height is beyond me.
2 - No way this will happen IMO but it should be mentioned. Perhaps the council will make an exception to the rules they use for every other building on Earth and measure as the plans for this project do. Many projects state a height as per the plans that the council changes for the official height using their criteria. No way their going to change those criteria for this one project IMO.



Hi Vito.

It's great to have someone on 'the inside' pertaining to height numbers and the council. Your insight and time here is appreciated.

1 - The council won't count the antenna in the official height to architectural top if it isn't covered. If it is then it will be considered a spire and will be counted. Correct ?
2 - I've seen some info in here stating the lowest entrance is 3' 4" below where the plans measure from. You have accurate drawings showing it is actually 5' 8" ?
3 - The plans have the top of the beacon at 1776'. Is that what will be considered the official architectural top (if the mast is considered a spire) ? That height will be 1781' 8"
4 - Above the beacon is the 8' radome and above that the 8' lightning rod (unless they change that with the revision) so the official height to tip will be as you mentioned regardless of whether there is an antenna or a spire, at 1797' 8".


Ray.
Very true, they probably used the 1776 height to get approval from New Yorkers.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 10th, 2012, 04:56 AM   #32182
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkyskunk2 View Post
Translation: My opinion = FACT
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:07 AM   #32183
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
You two are the only agreeable ones here, let alone snobby. The majority here thinks its hideous so you wonder who else is disgusted
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:10 AM   #32184
JCRM2
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 49
Likes (Received): 8

OK, I'm Dun! WTH.. U telling mi, they went from a beautiful elegant spire to a rusted ugly antenna that looks like it came from the scrap yard of the old WTC remains. Ontop of that now the building has lost it's placed as the Nation's tallest and will be soon overthrown by a skinny ass stick up north on Park ave. Total mess!
JCRM2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:11 AM   #32185
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arawooho View Post
Agreed, it'll be like people start adding 1,000ft antennas to the top of their houses so they can say they live in a supertall
That was so funny but you have absolutely right
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:12 AM   #32186
deepblue01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 859
Likes (Received): 66

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
The whole official height measurement is nothing more than a source of deception. Thanks to it ordinary people have absolutely no chance of determining the true height of a building cause there is no diffarance in appearance between an antenna and a spire

Just take a look at these, pure deception


Note that this diagram made it into BBC News



LOL @ BBC, as always.

Let's just leave out buildings built in Mainland China and pretend they don't exist

So is there an official ruling as to whether the official height remains this high?

To be honest, the feeling that you get when you enter a 500+ meter tower when i could only reach 400m will always be there. Don't get how the 'official' number will change this? On the positive side, you could say that you have made it 'almost' to the top of the tower, something you can't say with BK in Dubai or Taipei 101 even
deepblue01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:16 AM   #32187
RandomNameTag
Skyscraper fan
 
RandomNameTag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: rural Georgia, United States
Posts: 468
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkSkyline117 View Post
"Omitting the shell, however, raises the question of whether the structure at the top would count toward the official height of the building, or whether it would fall to be the second-tallest in the U.S., behind the Willis Tower in Chicago, at 1,368 feet to the roof. In the traditional way of measuring height, architectural spires are included, while antennas aren't. While the owners insist it is still a spire, the arbiter on such matters—the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat—hasn't yet weighed in."

^
Actually, an antennae would make it 3rd tallest, since it would lose out to Trump Tower Chicago and its cheap ass spire.
RandomNameTag no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:23 AM   #32188
RandomNameTag
Skyscraper fan
 
RandomNameTag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: rural Georgia, United States
Posts: 468
Likes (Received): 22

I just checked CTBUH.org. You'd think they'd have the news on thier website (under global news) by now regarding this controversy. They don't!
RandomNameTag no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:30 AM   #32189
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

http://images.nymag.com/images/news/..._9_400x300.jpg




I think next step is that "they" port authority, silverstein, einstein and Co scrap the idea of ​​a spire or antenna and makes a great observation deck at the top of 1wtc just as the South Tower everyone is satisfied. I liked the new one little more, more new york stile but most of you like the spire instead, and you live in the best city in the world so you maybe know more what N.Y should have.

If they would please them all or no one the would defenetly do a observation deck YEAH
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:32 AM   #32190
RandomNameTag
Skyscraper fan
 
RandomNameTag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: rural Georgia, United States
Posts: 468
Likes (Received): 22

HA! I FOUND IT!!

http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york...ade-center/98/


Height: Architectural

418.7 meter / 1374 feet



Height: Occupied

388.3 meter / 1274 feet



Height: To Tip

547.9 meter / 1798 feet



Height: Observatory

388.3 meter / 1274 feet


Looks like the CTBUH is NOT amused!
RandomNameTag no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:32 AM   #32191
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

Now you MUST all agree with me "the crazy swede" or else I will cry OK good thanks
Please agree
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:34 AM   #32192
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomNameTag View Post
"Omitting the shell, however, raises the question of whether the structure at the top would count toward the official height of the building, or whether it would fall to be the second-tallest in the U.S., behind the Willis Tower in Chicago, at 1,368 feet to the roof. In the traditional way of measuring height, architectural spires are included, while antennas aren't. While the owners insist it is still a spire, the arbiter on such matters—the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat—hasn't yet weighed in."

^
Actually, an antennae would make it 3rd tallest, since it would lose out to Trump Tower Chicago and its cheap ass spire.
The Trump's spire isn't any more cheap then 1 WTC's would have been. Dont use a double standard...

Spires are a cheap way to get more height. Maybe I should add a spire to my house, and make it a 300m building!

I love 1 World Trade Center because of it's architecture and what it stands for. The height isn't what matters here.

Last edited by iloveclassicrock7; May 10th, 2012 at 05:40 AM.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:39 AM   #32193
RandomNameTag
Skyscraper fan
 
RandomNameTag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: rural Georgia, United States
Posts: 468
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
The Trump's spire isn't any more cheap then 1 WTC's would have been. Dont use a double standard...

Spires are a cheap way to get more height. Maybe I should add a spire to my house, and make it a 300m building!
I disagree. There are good spires (Taipei 101, Burj Khalifa), and bad ones (Trump Tower).
RandomNameTag no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:47 AM   #32194
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomNameTag View Post
I disagree. There are good spires (Taipei 101, Burj Khalifa), and bad ones (Trump Tower).
I disagree, The trump is a building that needed a spire, it looks natural for it.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 05:58 AM   #32195
Vito Corleone
Moderator
 
Vito Corleone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York - Chicago
Posts: 311
Likes (Received): 324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fury View Post
Hi all.

The 1776 number is still being lamented over ?
This was made clear a year ago. The council measures from the finished floor at the threshold of the lowest, significant, open air, pedestrian entrance - not an average lobby floor height as the plans for this project does. The 1776 was never going to be the official height right from the start.
1 - The developer knows this as well as anyone, so what the train of thought was by having the plans start their measurements at an average lobby floor height is beyond me. Plans have their starting measuring points at various heights but considering the 1776 was a big deal in this case, why measure that from an average lobby floor height ?
2 - No way this will happen IMO but it should be mentioned. Perhaps the council will make an exception to the rules they use for every other building on Earth and measure as the plans for this project do. Many projects state a height as per the plans that the council changes for the official height using their criteria. No way their going to change those criteria for this one project IMO.



Hi Vito.

It's great to have someone on 'the inside' pertaining to height numbers and the council. Your insight and time here is appreciated.

1 - The council won't count the antenna in the official height to architectural top if it isn't covered. If it is then it will be considered a spire and will be counted. Correct ?
2 - I've seen some info in here stating the lowest entrance is 3' 4" below where the plans measure from. You have accurate drawings showing it is actually 5' 8" ?
3 - The plans have the top of the beacon at 1776'. Is that what will be considered the official architectural top (if the mast is considered a spire) ? That height will be 1781' 8"
4 - Above the beacon is the 8' radome and above that the 8' lightning rod (unless they change that with the revision) so the official height to tip will be as you mentioned regardless of whether there is an antenna or a spire, at 1797' 8".


Ray.
Hi Ray,

The 5' 8" figure came from a reliable source which I cannot disclose yet, because of the sensitive nature of this obsession of hitting the 1776' figure.

I don't see how the Council can classify this latest design as a decorative spire. And yes, the original design would have had an offical height of 1781' 8", and 1797' 8" to the tip of the lightning rod.

Maybe they will chop off some height of the antenna to at least make the total height at 1776. Who knows what they are going to do, but it will be fun to follow all of the controversy in the next several months.
Vito Corleone está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 06:00 AM   #32196
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepblue01 View Post
LOL @ BBC, as always.

Let's just leave out buildings built in Mainland China and pretend they don't exist

So is there an official ruling as to whether the official height remains this high?

To be honest, the feeling that you get when you enter a 500+ meter tower when i could only reach 400m will always be there. Don't get how the 'official' number will change this? On the positive side, you could say that you have made it 'almost' to the top of the tower, something you can't say with BK in Dubai or Taipei 101 even
I love how out of scale (small) they drew sears tower

everyone underestimates it
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 06:11 AM   #32197
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
I love how out of scale (small) they drew sears tower

everyone underestimates it
Glad I am not the only one that noticed that! They made the roof of the Petronas like 460 meters, and put the spire at around 540 meters I was like something is very wrong here. I wouldn't say everyone underestimates the Sears though.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 06:58 AM   #32198
meh_cd
Registered User
 
meh_cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 874
Likes (Received): 123

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Boy View Post
I think next step is that "they" port authority, silverstein, einstein and Co scrap the idea of ​​a spire or antenna and makes a great observation deck at the top of 1wtc just as the South Tower everyone is satisfied. I liked the new one little more, more new york stile but most of you like the spire instead, and you live in the best city in the world so you maybe know more what N.Y should have.

If they would please them all or no one the would defenetly do a observation deck YEAH
That type of rooftop deck isn't possible on the new 1 WTC due to the mechanical equipment. I suppose you could try and install a walkway, but you'd still have to figure out how to get people up there and have to deal with the noise and heat from the giant HVAC units. But let's just put it this way: there won't be a rooftop deck. Ever.
meh_cd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 07:18 AM   #32199
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,906
Likes (Received): 5171

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomNameTag View Post
HA! I FOUND IT!!

http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york...ade-center/98/


Height: Architectural

418.7 meter / 1374 feet


Looks like the CTBUH is NOT amused!
1,374 doesn't have much of a ring to it.

A thread title change seems to be in order. LOL.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 07:27 AM   #32200
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by meh_cd View Post
That type of rooftop deck isn't possible on the new 1 WTC due to the mechanical equipment. I suppose you could try and install a walkway, but you'd still have to figure out how to get people up there and have to deal with the noise and heat from the giant HVAC units. But let's just put it this way: there won't be a rooftop deck. Ever.
Everything is possible I belive

Okay the noise after the HVAC units may be a problem but how did they do it in the twins and if their would be a plan to do so how noisy would it be up there?
Tommy Boy 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 08:46 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