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 October 17th, 2013, 02:05 AM   #50961
onewtclover
Registered User
 
onewtclover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,171
Likes (Received): 1028

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Yeah, I'd wondered how they were going to do the lighting with the radome. As is, they can do those different colored segments, with lights shining up from where they're positioned on each of the rings, in a way that I don't think would have worked if the enclosure was there.

Not that that lighting idiosyncrasy makes or breaks the design. But I disagree with those who say the radome-enclosed version was more aesthetically coherent with the rest of the tower. It wasn't "slick," it was all kinds of textured. And the bulge in the middle made for an awkward curved line that clashed with the hard lines of the tower. At least the exposed version has hard vertical lines (and angles, if you include the guy wires), and the rings on the spire relate to the communications ring and aid that transition from the grace of the tower to the more functional pieces on top. In short, it feels less tacked on to me than the original version would have.

All that said, I hope that either version would not count towards the final height. Calling this a 1776 ft. tower is a joke and helps enforce a lame precedent for what constitutes height (not to mention serving as a reminder of the creepy hyper-nationalism that nearly ran the United States into the ground over the last decade).
I think that the version we have now makes this tower look more like it belongs in New York. Before the randome scrapping, people used to say that this tower looked like it belonged in Dubai. (I think the original guy wires and weird communication rings in the renders contributed a little.)



The antenna really changed what the building looks like and how people view it. In the old renders it looks like a new, modified version of Disneyland, and I wouldn't mind if that happened. But now the complex has changed so much, it doesn't look like some sort of dreamland. It looks like a great skyscraper complex.

Also, just because some people think the antenna's ugly doesn't mean it doesn't count in official height. If that were the case, the Makkah Royal Clock Tower wouldn't be an actual building, because it's so ugly! You don't need to make the spire silver or clad it to make it part of the building. The 1 World Trade Center has a very unique spire.

And just because the spantenna's too "skinny" doesn't mean that it can't be counted as official height. The Times Square Building's spire is very skinny compared to the actual building, but it's the same height as the Chrysler Building. The Bank of America Tower's spire is skinny, but it's still the second tallest building in New York (until next year, that is, when 1 World Trade gets completed, whether the spire is counted or not.)



Hehe, it's a One World Trade Center look-alike from some angles.

It's not even our choice, anyway. The CTBUH is going to make a final decision on November the 8th. (Mark your calenders!)

MarshallKnight, I think your points are important when talking about the height and beauty of this tower and I totally agree with them.
__________________

MarshallKnight, L.A.F.2., Highcliff liked this post
onewtclover no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 17th, 2013, 02:13 AM   #50962
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,542
Likes (Received): 791

Quote:
Originally Posted by onewtclover View Post

The antenna really changed what the building looks like and how people view it. In the old renders it looks like a new, modified version of Disneyland, and I wouldn't mind if that happened. But now the complex has changed so much, it doesn't look like some sort of dreamland. It looks like a great skyscraper complex.

Also, just because some people think the antenna's ugly doesn't mean it doesn't count in official height. If that were the case, the Makkah Royal Clock Tower wouldn't be an actual building, because it's so ugly! You don't need to make the spire silver or clad it to make it part of the building. The 1 World Trade Center has a very unique spire.
I think much of the vitriol about the height has to do with the idea that it was done just to achieve a higher "profile" (i.e. a 500m+ building rather than a 400+ one). Really, it's a lack of understanding that it's purely a matter of attaining the 1776 figure.

They could have built a much larger structure, but why would they do that when they're building such a large complex to begin with and are having such issues with finding the tenants they need. If they had built this to a height of 500m+, we would have seen a greater delay as the scrambled to find the tenants. What we ended up with was a compromise between functionality and practicality. It was never significant, in everything the developers espoused, that it would be the tallest in the US, but that it was 1776ft tall.
__________________
MCRP '16

Highcliff liked this post
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 02:41 AM   #50963
iamxeddiex
Wankel
 
iamxeddiex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GSP/SRQ
Posts: 247
Likes (Received): 307

I can see this spot getting quite crowded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris123678 View Post
From WTC Progress

__________________

Highcliff liked this post
iamxeddiex no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 02:53 AM   #50964
onewtclover
Registered User
 
onewtclover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,171
Likes (Received): 1028

I forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me. I think the idea is that the whole complex is rebuilt. And if they made the structure larger, it would look like a fortress (and if it already does then it'll look MORE like a fortress) and it would look too dominating.

The 1776 feet figure is really creative to me. I think this is the first supertall with a symbolic height. (And no, 555 m and 601 m don't count.) But the real height is 1,792 feet. And they're definitely not measuring lighting rods. And the beacon is sort of attached to the lightning rod, and if they find that as a reason to downgrade it, I wouldn't be happy.

If they count it as 1,792 feet, THAT'D be cheating. Big time. I wouldn't be as sad as if they downgraded it because it'd be taller. But it'd still be a little embarrassing.

And there's the possibility of a "compromise". If they counted everything except the beacon because there's a lightning rod on top of it, I'd be 1,749 feet, I think, which is still pretty good. But it's not 1,776 feet, so I wouldn't be completely satisfied.

If they counted it up to the communication rings (which would be hard because there are satellites up there) that would be disappointing because it'd make almost no difference. It'd be taller than the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago (because the communication rings make the building 1,417 feet and the Trump Tower Chicago is 1,389 feet) but shorter than the Willis Tower.

I hope the "architectual lighting" helps, because it has the word "architecture" in it, which indicates that this spantenna is supposed to part of the building. But the Willis Tower's antennas are lit just like One World Trade's, and it's 1,458 feet.

I understand that adding equipment onto an antenna that looks like this is "cheating", but most antennas look like the Bank of America Tower's, and even that's counted. One World Trade's looks ugly in some people's eyes, but it's not like normal antennas. I would prefer that it's counted, because it'd be cool for this tower to at least be the third tallest at the time of it's completion (you know, if Sky City has its 90 days construction time, which I really think will be more than that, and even if it's not, it's still not exactly under construction yet.)

I hope you understand my viewpoint, and I respect everyone else's too.
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
onewtclover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 03:00 AM   #50965
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

CTBUH: How do you determine what the tallest building is??
http://youtu.be/-f1qRAYvDpc?a

Decision day approaching!
__________________
-------------------------



Hudson Yards mega development Map: June 2015
http://i.imgur.com/FVrYwpy.jpg
(click again once inside to enlarge the map)

Highcliff liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 03:01 AM   #50966
CrazyDave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Waterbury - CT
Posts: 1,058
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamxeddiex View Post
I can see this spot getting quite crowded.
Has a look as if the Walls are closing in. I designed a space something like that years ago in Architectural School for one of my Design Studio's and my instructor called it a horrible space.
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
CrazyDave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 03:07 AM   #50967
onewtclover
Registered User
 
onewtclover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 1,171
Likes (Received): 1028

I know! Decision day's going to be really exciting; this thread will flood with viewers.


image hosted on flickr


And anyway, I'm posting this for my 500th post. I was asked not to do this every 50th post by a friend, so I'm only doing this for my 500th post, 100th post, a few heights of buildings (like 1776 posts for 1 World Trade Center), and 2000, 3000, and so on. Also, I'll be doing 541 posts for 1 World Trade Center and 555 meters for Lotte World Tower because it's a fun number! And 600 for the megatall height, and 900 for the "hypertall" height.

And by the way, I got this from two pages back, and I have NO IDEA what happened to 4 World Trade Center. This actually happened with a couple of renders, actually.
__________________

wtcforever, L.A.F.2., Highcliff liked this post

Last edited by onewtclover; October 17th, 2013 at 03:13 AM.
onewtclover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 03:11 AM   #50968
Get High
Colchagua valley
 
Get High's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Santa Cruz - Los Angeles
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 136

edit.
__________________
Santa Cruz de Unco

Santa Cruz, Colchagua, O'Higgins
Los Angeles







Highcliff liked this post
Get High no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 03:46 AM   #50969
Archaean
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 345
Likes (Received): 311

What is the scheduled day for the CTBUH decision?
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
Archaean no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 06:50 AM   #50970
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

image hosted on flickr

This Morning by Tim Schreier, on Flickr
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 07:19 AM   #50971
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,482

Would have been such a better photo if that freaking elevator was removed already.
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 08:32 AM   #50972
Oasis-Bangkok
From Zero to Hero !!
 
Oasis-Bangkok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15,700
Likes (Received): 50712

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/5194949...n/photostream/
__________________

Informative, Highcliff liked this post
Oasis-Bangkok no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 01:27 PM   #50973
nimun
Developer
 
nimun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vitoria-Gasteiz
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 40

and the spiral? when?
__________________
nimun
Vitoria-Gasteiz

Highcliff liked this post
nimun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 01:34 PM   #50974
Bligh
Registered User
 
Bligh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: London
Posts: 1,440
Likes (Received): 796

Such a beautiful tower.
__________________
~
"when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."
— Samuel Johnson
~

L O N D O N
~

instagram//photography: @leaf.it.out.luke

Highcliff liked this post
Bligh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 02:55 PM   #50975
Nonoka
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Munich
Posts: 365
Likes (Received): 254

Quote:
Originally Posted by onewtclover View Post
I forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me. I think the idea is that the whole complex is rebuilt. And if they made the structure larger, it would look like a fortress (and if it already does then it'll look MORE like a fortress) and it would look too dominating.

The 1776 feet figure is really creative to me. I think this is the first supertall with a symbolic height. (And no, 555 m and 601 m don't count.) But the real height is 1,792 feet. And they're definitely not measuring lighting rods. And the beacon is sort of attached to the lightning rod, and if they find that as a reason to downgrade it, I wouldn't be happy.

If they count it as 1,792 feet, THAT'D be cheating. Big time. I wouldn't be as sad as if they downgraded it because it'd be taller. But it'd still be a little embarrassing.

And there's the possibility of a "compromise". If they counted everything except the beacon because there's a lightning rod on top of it, I'd be 1,749 feet, I think, which is still pretty good. But it's not 1,776 feet, so I wouldn't be completely satisfied.

If they counted it up to the communication rings (which would be hard because there are satellites up there) that would be disappointing because it'd make almost no difference. It'd be taller than the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago (because the communication rings make the building 1,417 feet and the Trump Tower Chicago is 1,389 feet) but shorter than the Willis Tower.

I hope the "architectual lighting" helps, because it has the word "architecture" in it, which indicates that this spantenna is supposed to part of the building. But the Willis Tower's antennas are lit just like One World Trade's, and it's 1,458 feet.

I understand that adding equipment onto an antenna that looks like this is "cheating", but most antennas look like the Bank of America Tower's, and even that's counted. One World Trade's looks ugly in some people's eyes, but it's not like normal antennas. I would prefer that it's counted, because it'd be cool for this tower to at least be the third tallest at the time of it's completion (you know, if Sky City has its 90 days construction time, which I really think will be more than that, and even if it's not, it's still not exactly under construction yet.)

I hope you understand my viewpoint, and I respect everyone else's too.
What do you mean with satellites?

Also, the problem of the spire possibly getting counted in the final height is not that the spire's too ugly or skinny in some people's eyes, but the structure on top of the tower, as it looks like now, was never meant to serve as an architectural element. The structure we see know was supposed to be hidden inside the radome and contain broadcasting equipment, serving as an antenna while the radome covering served as the architectural element and thus making the structure a spire (at least that's how I got it).
Thus, many people only want it to be counted in the height if there's the radome covering around it, since that one made the structure a spire. The way it is now, it's an antenna - or at least it was always meant to be one.
__________________

Highcliff liked this post

Last edited by Nonoka; October 17th, 2013 at 03:04 PM.
Nonoka no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 04:29 PM   #50976
erkantang
Registered User
 
erkantang's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 712
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by onewtclover View Post
I know! Decision day's going to be really exciting; this thread will flood with viewers. And anyway, I'm posting this for my 500th post. I was asked not to do this every 50th post by a friend, so I'm only doing this for my 500th post, 100th post, a few heights of buildings (like 1776 posts for 1 World Trade Center), and 2000, 3000, and so on. Also, I'll be doing 541 posts for 1 World Trade Center and 555 meters for Lotte World Tower because it's a fun number! And 600 for the megatall height, and 900 for the "hypertall" height. And by the way, I got this from two pages back, and I have NO IDEA what happened to 4 World Trade Center. This actually happened with a couple of renders, actually.
Congratulations!
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
erkantang no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 04:41 PM   #50977
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 Hudson11 View Post
i wonder why they haven't fireproofed that trident column yet
They can't extend the rigging over it with the external elevator there. The elevator itself would hit it.

Last edited by pnapp1; October 17th, 2013 at 11:40 PM.
pnapp1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 08:28 PM   #50978
NanoMini
Wat's price of the earth?
 
NanoMini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,163
Likes (Received): 2533

__________________

gfd08, Crysty91, EK413, L.A.F.2., phoenixboi08 and 2 others liked this post
NanoMini no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2013, 10:36 PM   #50979
getroy
Registered User
 
getroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 2586

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brankoab/10330385164/

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/10324727453/

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffreyputman/10329131085/
__________________
getroy está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2013, 03:31 AM   #50980
DELL181
Skyscraper Capital
 
DELL181's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New York City
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 281

image hosted on flickr

Sunrise on Manhattan by Rasmus Knutsson, on Flickr
__________________
DELL181 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 01:21 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