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 11th, 2012, 02:41 AM   #32381
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otie View Post
Change of executive director.
Okay, and just one more curiosity (sorry) i read that they have to wait over 3 months for the concrete flooring to reach the top floor, which would be in September and it says the spire will begin installation in September-October, is that true? what month if not
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 11th, 2012, 02:46 AM   #32382
marsh
Registered User
 
marsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 25

I don't care about the specific 1776 feet figure myself. Personally, I think that comes off as a bit hokey..What pisses me off is the immense meaning of the site, after the horrible way we lost the Twins, and how this has dragged ass for 8 years..In the old days this tower would have been built in 2 years. I don't care if it is 1776 feet or 1666 feet. My issue is the design/maintenance issues should have been hashed out and decided upon long ago. Not this close to completion! Only in America in 2012 can we take a building this high profile, and downsize it instead of UPSIZE it at the last minute. This tower tapers, so it needs a substantial spire at the top to give it architectural balance. Not a skinny antenna. But what do I know. I'm just speaking as someone who visited the Twin Towers twice before they were destroyed and I had hoped that 1wtc would have been able to claim at least SOME "highest" or "tallest" credentials...
marsh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 02:47 AM   #32383
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee fan for life View Post
Change of executive director, i still have to believe that the port authority and SOM have to have some say on the matter.
Apparently they don't. Here is what he said in a wall street journal article -
Quote:
Asked whether architects could find a compromise design, Mr. Durst demurred. The scaled-down top, he said, "is going to be mounted on the building over the summer. There's no way to do anything at this point."
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 02:54 AM   #32384
Otie
Researcher
 
Otie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,117
Likes (Received): 2186

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkSkyline117 View Post
Okay, and just one more curiosity (sorry) i read that they have to wait over 3 months for the concrete flooring to reach the top floor, which would be in September and it says the spire will begin installation in September-October, is that true? what month if not
Depends on weather conditions, concrete on deck is 8 floors below steel erection, so the rooftop slab should be poured 2 months after the perimeter structure reaches the roof. Mast erection is scheduled to begin in this summer.
Otie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:02 AM   #32385
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:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
Apparently they don't. Here is what he said in a wall street journal article -
Un f**ing believable of durst ojdsopjdljw90903klnlnksc0-i0-nkdsd09-0uidnjsdj kncduhhujheibfbnfenhefohionjdc ,mkkjnb,fmenlknhnkednkl sorry that was me banging my head against my keyboard.
__________________
My heart beats for Brooklyn new york

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
yankee fan for life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:04 AM   #32386
Otie
Researcher
 
Otie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,117
Likes (Received): 2186

^

Larger version of Durst's rendering:

__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Otie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:08 AM   #32387
fooddude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF, NYC
Posts: 289
Likes (Received): 15

It looks so naked..like it's missing a cover or something (maybe because it Is missing a covering, lol). it looks incomplete and/or half-a$$ed.
fooddude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:08 AM   #32388
marsh
Registered User
 
marsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 25

That Durst antenna looks like something right out of the Ukraine or some awful country like that from the Soviet Union. Looks like they still have a little paltry beacon on the top, though...
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
marsh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:11 AM   #32389
fooddude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF, NYC
Posts: 289
Likes (Received): 15

It they're gonna use an antennae instead..then why must it have like 6 or 7 little sections thingys that look like a frame? They should at least make it smoother and nicer looking without those 6 or 7 things. Sooo ugly. It just doesn't match the building. Make it smooth looking at least!
fooddude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:13 AM   #32390
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence7 View Post
Wow, what a shame about the spire. The original design with the enclosure looked great too.

As much as I like this new complex I think they got it all wrong from the start, they should have made only 2 towers to free up finances to make this building around 2400ft (including spire).
That would have been better and it would have been completed for one year ago probably.
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:14 AM   #32391
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee fan for life View Post
Un f**ing believable of durst ojdsopjdljw90903klnlnksc0-i0-nkdsd09-0uidnjsdj kncduhhujheibfbnfenhefohionjdc ,mkkjnb,fmenlknhnkednkl sorry that was me banging my head against my keyboard.
I can't help but feel partially responsible for this
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:19 AM   #32392
LexISguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South FL
Posts: 321
Likes (Received): 214

I personally liked the original spire it makes the building complete. I hope Durst and the PA come up with some sort of compromise. So 1WTC is scheduled to be topped out and the "spire" installed by the end of the summer?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
LexISguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:25 AM   #32393
Funkyskunk2
Registered User
 
Funkyskunk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 619
Likes (Received): 808

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooddude View Post
It they're gonna use an antennae instead..then why must it have like 6 or 7 little sections thingys that look like a frame? They should at least make it smoother and nicer looking without those 6 or 7 things. Sooo ugly. It just doesn't match the building. Make it smooth looking at least!
I think someone recently said its just a stick and the little nubs are the antennas.

edit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otie View Post
If y'all wanna go technical, what they're going to put on top is not an antenna either, but a steel tower that will allow transmission equipment to be mounted on it, just like Four Times Square.
So here comes the real discussion: if someone puts a large steel tower atop of any building with no purposed intended:
  • Should it be considered as part of the overal architectural height?
  • At which moment a steel tower sitting on top becomes an architectural feature?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Funkyskunk2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:50 AM   #32394
Fury
Proudly Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,059
Likes (Received): 350

Hi all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Corleone View Post
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.
Hi Vito.

Thanks for the response.
I understand you not being able to disclose your source. I was just wondering - I have no doubt your figures are reliable.
The notion of 1776 as the height to tip is an interesting possibility.


Ray.
__________________
Burj Khalifa - The Greatest Structure of our Time !!
Fury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:53 AM   #32395
Mercenary
Registered User
 
Mercenary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,782
Likes (Received): 201

The whole antenna looks rusty...like the top mast of a sunken ship.....they have royally ****ed this up...

I just hope new yorkers are aware of the butchery these bastards have done....i am so pissed
Mercenary no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 03:56 AM   #32396
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee fan for life View Post
Un f**ing believable of durst ojdsopjdljw90903klnlnksc0-i0-nkdsd09-0uidnjsdj kncduhhujheibfbnfenhefohionjdc ,mkkjnb,fmenlknhnkednkl sorry that was me banging my head against my keyboard.
Haha I think it's time fore someone to go to 432 park ave
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 04:06 AM   #32397
Mercenary
Registered User
 
Mercenary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,782
Likes (Received): 201

Its over. They are going without the casing.

What a disgrace

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...619775032.html

By ELIOT BROWN

As construction of One World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan moves toward completion, the building's owners are sparring with their architects over what goes on top of the 104-story tower—a dispute that could stop the structure being recognized as America's tallest.

As 1 World Trade Center nears completion, the architecture firm that designed what will be North America's tallest tower is stewing over the developer's late change to the design of the project's antenna spire to strip it of its architectural shell. Eliot Brown explains on The News Hub. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The owners, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and developer Douglas Durst, are intending to drop a plan to enclose the 408-foot antenna with an ornamental white shell. They say it would be too expensive and treacherous to maintain. Removing the shell would save about $20 million, Mr. Durst said.

Removal would leave a slimmer metal structure holding the antenna. The tower's architects at Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP have strongly criticized the move as removing a crucial architectural element.
Journal Community

"Eliminating this integral part of the building's design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate," David Childs, the building's lead designer, said in a statement. "We stand ready to work with the Port on an alternate design."

Mr. Durst, chairman of Durst Organization Inc., said in an interview that it would have been almost impossible to carry out repairs on the exterior of the shell, as maintenance workers wouldn't be able to safely access it. "They should have done a better job designing it," Mr. Durst said of the shell.

Removing it, he said, "is not the end of the world."

Mr. Childs in his statement denied this, saying Skidmore Owings & Merrill devised a workable maintenance plan with engineering consultants hired for the purpose.

TALL TALE: Owners and architects are split over enclosing the 408-foot antenna atop One World Trade Center in Manhattan at a cost of $20 million, rendering left, which could imperil its claim to be the third-tallest U.S. edifice.

One World Trade Center, initially called the Freedom Tower when it was conceived in the years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is the largest skyscraper on the 16-acre site where three other office towers are planned. Last month, it became the tallest building in New York when its exterior steel rose to 1,271 feet, surpassing the Empire State Building.

Completion is scheduled for the end of 2013.

The spire—designed with a twisting, geometric dome shell to encase the functional broadcast antenna—is intended to bring the tower's height up to a symbolic 1,776 feet, which would make it the tallest building in North America.

Omitting the shell, however, raises the question of whether the structure at the top would be counted toward the official height of the building, or whether it would rank as the third-tallest in the U.S. at 1,368 feet to the roof—behind the Willis Tower and a Donald Trump-built tower, both in Chicago.

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.

The Durst Organization, which agreed to buy a $100 million stake in the tower in 2010, wanted to remove the shell to save costs soon after it came into the project. But that attempt was rejected by the Port Authority's previous executive director, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Durst said he raised the issue over maintenance concerns again. Skidmore Owings & Merrill resisted, saying the worries were overblown, according to people familiar with the matter, but the Port Authority in January sided with Mr. Durst, he said.

Asked whether architects could find a compromise design, Mr. Durst demurred. The scaled-down top, he said, "is going to be mounted on the building over the summer. There's no way to do anything at this point."

Write to Eliot Brown at [email protected]

Corrections & Amplifications
If One World Trade Center's antenna isn't counted toward the height of the building, it would be the third-tallest in the U.S.—behind the Willis Tower and a Donald Trump-built tower, both in Chicago. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said it would be the second-tallest, behind the Willis Tower.
Mercenary no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 04:09 AM   #32398
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercenary View Post
Its over. They are going without the casing.

What a disgrace

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...619775032.html

By ELIOT BROWN

As construction of One World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan moves toward completion, the building's owners are sparring with their architects over what goes on top of the 104-story tower—a dispute that could stop the structure being recognized as America's tallest.

As 1 World Trade Center nears completion, the architecture firm that designed what will be North America's tallest tower is stewing over the developer's late change to the design of the project's antenna spire to strip it of its architectural shell. Eliot Brown explains on The News Hub. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The owners, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and developer Douglas Durst, are intending to drop a plan to enclose the 408-foot antenna with an ornamental white shell. They say it would be too expensive and treacherous to maintain. Removing the shell would save about $20 million, Mr. Durst said.

Removal would leave a slimmer metal structure holding the antenna. The tower's architects at Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP have strongly criticized the move as removing a crucial architectural element.
Journal Community

"Eliminating this integral part of the building's design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate," David Childs, the building's lead designer, said in a statement. "We stand ready to work with the Port on an alternate design."

Mr. Durst, chairman of Durst Organization Inc., said in an interview that it would have been almost impossible to carry out repairs on the exterior of the shell, as maintenance workers wouldn't be able to safely access it. "They should have done a better job designing it," Mr. Durst said of the shell.

Removing it, he said, "is not the end of the world."

Mr. Childs in his statement denied this, saying Skidmore Owings & Merrill devised a workable maintenance plan with engineering consultants hired for the purpose.

TALL TALE: Owners and architects are split over enclosing the 408-foot antenna atop One World Trade Center in Manhattan at a cost of $20 million, rendering left, which could imperil its claim to be the third-tallest U.S. edifice.

One World Trade Center, initially called the Freedom Tower when it was conceived in the years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is the largest skyscraper on the 16-acre site where three other office towers are planned. Last month, it became the tallest building in New York when its exterior steel rose to 1,271 feet, surpassing the Empire State Building.

Completion is scheduled for the end of 2013.

The spire—designed with a twisting, geometric dome shell to encase the functional broadcast antenna—is intended to bring the tower's height up to a symbolic 1,776 feet, which would make it the tallest building in North America.

Omitting the shell, however, raises the question of whether the structure at the top would be counted toward the official height of the building, or whether it would rank as the third-tallest in the U.S. at 1,368 feet to the roof—behind the Willis Tower and a Donald Trump-built tower, both in Chicago.

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.

The Durst Organization, which agreed to buy a $100 million stake in the tower in 2010, wanted to remove the shell to save costs soon after it came into the project. But that attempt was rejected by the Port Authority's previous executive director, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Durst said he raised the issue over maintenance concerns again. Skidmore Owings & Merrill resisted, saying the worries were overblown, according to people familiar with the matter, but the Port Authority in January sided with Mr. Durst, he said.

Asked whether architects could find a compromise design, Mr. Durst demurred. The scaled-down top, he said, "is going to be mounted on the building over the summer. There's no way to do anything at this point."

Write to Eliot Brown at [email protected]

Corrections & Amplifications
If One World Trade Center's antenna isn't counted toward the height of the building, it would be the third-tallest in the U.S.—behind the Willis Tower and a Donald Trump-built tower, both in Chicago. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said it would be the second-tallest, behind the Willis Tower.
I have already posted this
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 04:23 AM   #32399
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

Yea, I talked to the guy who wrote that article
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2012, 04:24 AM   #32400
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

apparently David Childs is pissed, but one only wonders what he can actually do
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Jay 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 04:16 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