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 15th, 2012, 10:44 PM   #32761
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by The tallest building View Post
the old world trade center was set as an icon to represent economic strength and in a few years of the post office in chicago is fully built then one world trade center will not be much of an icon anymore. the post office will

also posted in the post office redevelopment plan
the post office hasn't been approved yet, so hold your horses...
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 15th, 2012, 10:48 PM   #32762
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
I see, so you don't have arguments against second (more important) part of my post

As for the spire I think it isn't technically possible without wires all the way up for such a thin spire. What's more nobody would decide to build such building because it would be subject to jokes, and probably baptized most stupid and ugly building on earth.

But hey, say someone build this. There is this saying in my country: The exception proves the principle
I am discussing the fact that this technically could get built, and it proves that the CTBUH measurement of architectural height has a major flaw. Regarding the Burj Dubai, it isn't like a spire. It wasn't attached to the building. It was actually built like the rest of the building
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 10:55 PM   #32763
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

The thing is you don't have definite means of deciding which is spire and which isn't in every single case. And the rules have to be strict. And the Burj definitely have a spire, we just can't determine where it starts
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 10:55 PM   #32764
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

ilovelcassicrock7, that is the dumbest picture I've ever seen, let alone the two buildings you drew aren't even in proportion. The spire on One WTC is just 400 feet tall, not 1,000 so I don't know why you're making it sound like it's a ridiculously tall thing
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:00 PM   #32765
The tallest building
Registered User
 
The tallest building's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 114
Likes (Received): 5

what is sad about the new design where it is just an antenna is that the freedom tower will now be shorter even than the trump international hotel and tower in chicago.

I feel now as if america will just be a third world country if the whole thing was just skyscrapers.

Now I will have to travel a million miles JUST for at least an acceptable view. shame, shame.
The tallest building no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:01 PM   #32766
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

once again, we just have to wait & see, you never know what can happen
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:04 PM   #32767
Mercenary
Registered User
 
Mercenary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,781
Likes (Received): 201

This is all too complicated.

The best way to measure a height of a building is if its enclosed in the building structure like the Chrysler building, Trans-America building in San Francisco or the spire minus the antenna on ESB.

So in that sense, even if the antenna is enclosed in a radar dome material on One World Trade Center, it won't count towards the height.

These antennas are just cheats to increase the height of the building.

If these guys wanted to make One World Trade Center 1776 feet, the last floor of One World Trade Center should have been at 1776 feet, not adding a 400 foot spire on top of it to reach that goal.

I personally think the building should have been at 1776 feet with 225 feet antenna on top to reach the height of 2001 but the physical height should have been 1776 feet.
Mercenary no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:05 PM   #32768
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercenary View Post
This is all too complicated.

The best way to measure a height of a building is if its enclosed in the building structure like the Chrysler building, Trans-America building in San Francisco or the spire minus the antenna on ESB.

So in that sense, even if the antenna is enclosed in a radar dome material on One World Trade Center, it won't count towards the height.

These antennas are just cheats to increase the height of the building.

If these guys wanted to make One World Trade Center 1776 feet, the last floor of One World Trade Center should have been at 1776 feet, not adding a 400 foot spire on top of it to reach that goal.

I personally think the building should have been at 1776 feet with 225 feet antenna on top to reach the height of 2001 but the physical height should have been 1776 feet.
There are no antennae enclosed in the Chrysler Building or TransAmerica Pyramid, that's why this idea was so complicated because it hasn't been done before
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:11 PM   #32769
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercenary View Post
This is all too complicated.

The best way to measure a height of a building is if its enclosed in the building structure like the Chrysler building, Trans-America building in San Francisco or the spire minus the antenna on ESB.

So in that sense, even if the antenna is enclosed in a radar dome material on One World Trade Center, it won't count towards the height.

These antennas are just cheats to increase the height of the building.

If these guys wanted to make One World Trade Center 1776 feet, the last floor of One World Trade Center should have been at 1776 feet, not adding a 400 foot spire on top of it to reach that goal.

I personally think the building should have been at 1776 feet with 225 feet antenna on top to reach the height of 2001 but the physical height should have been 1776 feet.
Wrong, your technique is too complicated. For instance how you decide if this building's spire is enclosed in the structure? We have to either count all spires or none.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:11 PM   #32770
Mercenary
Registered User
 
Mercenary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,781
Likes (Received): 201

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkSkyline117 View Post
There are no antennae enclosed in the Chrysler Building or TransAmerica Pyramid, that's why this idea was so complicated because it hasn't been done before
Well if that's the case, then make the height of the building from the top most habitable floor of the building.
Mercenary no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:13 PM   #32771
The tallest building
Registered User
 
The tallest building's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 114
Likes (Received): 5

lets just do it like this, count the total height of all buildings in the world, includes the structure, everything. Therefore the willis tower is the 4th tallest in the world. that is how I judge height, by total roof to spire to antenna height.
The tallest building no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:18 PM   #32772
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkSkyline117 View Post
ilovelcassicrock7, that is the dumbest picture I've ever seen, let alone the two buildings you drew aren't even in proportion. The spire on One WTC is just 400 feet tall, not 1,000 so I don't know why you're making it sound like it's a ridiculously tall thing
It's all relative. It's like comparing stealing a book, to stealing a car. Although stealing a car is worse, it is still bad to steal anything. It's the principle which matters. In this case the 300m building that has a 250m spire is clearly cheating, while the WTC is still cheating but not on as serious of a level. This is why roof, pinnacle, and top floor is what matters.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:18 PM   #32773
marsh
Registered User
 
marsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 25

The topic of roof height vs. antenna/spire height has become redundant, but it seems clear to me that a building's REAL, ACTUAL height should be measured by roof height, period. The antenna/spire is ultimately just window dressing. The roof height of the structure is what should count. Especially when you have a building such as the Sears Tower or 1 World Trade Center, which have basically flat roofs. Now, when you have buildings like the Empire State Building, which have a more pointed roof, it is a bit murkier, but still, the final floor is what should count towards actual height....When you line the Petronas Towers up next to the Sears Tower, it is clear which is taller, the Sears is. However, someone decided to count antennas.....All that being said, it is too bad they are scrapping the original spire design for 1 World Trade Center, but either way, the building's roof height is 1368/1374 feet. The only way anyone could legitimately call the building 1776 feet would be if they had built the roof to that height....That's my opinion..
marsh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:19 PM   #32774
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 patrykus View Post
The thing is you don't have definite means of deciding which is spire and which isn't in every single case. And the rules have to be strict. And the Burj definitely have a spire, we just can't determine where it starts
It is possible to find the roof of Burj Khalifa, I will show it in my new thread in Architecture which I will make today or tomorow. Also, the rules are not strict, they are utterly unfair. Spires and antennas are for 98% the same thing .... thin steel sticks. That is why I'll never accept the current official height as a height measurement method, because it discriminates buildings
__________________
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 May 15th, 2012, 11:23 PM   #32775
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by marsh View Post
The topic of roof height vs. antenna/spire height has become redundant, but it seems clear to me that a building's REAL, ACTUAL height should be measured by roof height, period. The antenna/spire is ultimately just window dressing. The roof height of the structure is what should count. Especially when you have a building such as the Sears Tower or 1 World Trade Center, which have basically flat roofs. Now, when you have buildings like the Empire State Building, which have a more pointed roof, it is a bit murkier, but still, the final floor is what should count towards actual height....When you line the Petronas Towers up next to the Sears Tower, it is clear which is taller, the Sears is. However, someone decided to count antennas.....All that being said, it is too bad they are scrapping the original spire design for 1 World Trade Center, but either way, the building's roof height is 1368/1374 feet. The only way anyone could legitimately call the building 1776 feet would be if they had built the roof to that height....That's my opinion..
And your opinion makes the most sense
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:23 PM   #32776
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
It is possible to find the roof of Burj Khalifa, I will show it in my new thread in Architecture which I will make today or tomorow. Also, the rules are not strict, they are utterly unfair. Spires and antennas are for 98% the same thing .... thin steel sticks. That is why I'll never accept the current official height as a height measurement method, because it discriminates buildings
Glad you joined the party. Here is the image i made to prove that roof height is best.

iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:28 PM   #32777
marsh
Registered User
 
marsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 25

Its really a simple visual exercise...When you line up buildings next to each other, like the Sears, One World Trade Center, what pops out is the flat roof tip. That is what should count for actual height. Of course, the Burj Khalifa cheated this somewhat because the building is a hodgepodge of skinny swivels and setbacks towards the top, so it's hard to visually see where the roof ends and where the spire begins...But in your more basic towers like the Trade Center or Sears, with flat roof slabs, roof height is what should count. Period.
marsh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:31 PM   #32778
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
It is possible to find the roof of Burj Khalifa, I will show it in my new thread in Architecture which I will make today or tomorow. Also, the rules are not strict, they are utterly unfair. Spires and antennas are for 98% the same thing .... thin steel sticks. That is why I'll never accept the current official height as a height measurement method, because it discriminates buildings
I think you don't understand what strict really means The rules as they are now are strict and they don't have to be fair. That is unless you are kid getting emotional with everything. The measure system provides a way of equally comparing all buildings. Not only boxy towers with boxy towers, or only pointy towers with pointy towers. See the picture now?

And btw looking for burj height anywhere below the tip of the spire just makes me smile. Even iloveclassicrock7 understand how ridicules is that
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:36 PM   #32779
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
I think you don't understand what strict really means The rules as they are now are strict and they don't have to be fair. That is unless you are kid getting emotional with everything. The measure system provides a way of equally comparing all buildings. Not only boxy towers with boxy towers, or only pointy towers with pointy towers. See the picture now?
The way of comparing they have now is not a good way of comparing buildings, it's very subjective actually. Going by roof or top floor, is the most objective way.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 11:39 PM   #32780
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

I didn't say it's fair. Read the post again.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus 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 08:25 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