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 November 12th, 2013, 09:06 PM   #51741
Riley1066
Registered User
 
Riley1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 628
Likes (Received): 521

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaean View Post
What is currently on top of this building is not an architectural extension. It is a functional element that, without the radome encasing it, does not contribute to the architectural expressionism of this building. This is a 1368 foot building, not a 1776 foot building. Its not that difficult of a concept to grasp.
You're using the term "expressionism" as a quantifiable measurable term? Puh-leeze ...

I know another structure that's a mass of unclad iron and steel that's VERY architecturally expressive.



I guess according to your definition, the Eiffel Tower would be 0 feet tall because its just metal.
__________________

Vertical_Gotham, j-biz, A.J.B 22, HRP4Life liked this post
Riley1066 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:09 PM   #51742
Vertical_Gotham
Registered User
 
Vertical_Gotham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,437
Likes (Received): 6488

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaean View Post
Its not that difficult of a concept to grasp.
For you it seems difficult to grasp.. You are obviously having a difficult time understanding their guideline that they had set.

The committee is composed of 25 architects around the world and they voted unanimously in favor of the WTC spire with only 1 member abstaining. (seems like a non issue amongst their peers as it was a landslide decision)

Tallest building ruling: Willis Tower loses to One World Trade Center
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7298761.story

Quote:
"Even though the cladding was taken off the spire, you can still see that it is an architectural element," said Antony Wood, executive director of the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
Quote:
But the council ruled that One World Trade Center’s mast is a spire because it will be a permanent feature, its height locked in at a symbolic 1,776 feet. In doing so, the council accepted the argument of the skyscraper’s architect and developers that the mast is part of the building’s fixed height of 1,776-feet. That distinguishes the mast from an ordinary antenna, like the one atop Willis, whose height can be changed.
Quote:
“The key word is permanence.”
Quote:
Wood said the height committee’s decision was “virtually unanimous.” One member of the committee abstained.
Quote:
Twenty-five members of the committee were present, according to Daniel Safarik, a spokesman for the tall building council.
Quote:
Of the nine Americans on the committee, five are from Chicago, Safarik said. They include the committee’s chairman, Peter Weismantle, director of supertall building technology at the firm of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, and William Baker, chief structural engineer at the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

According to Safarik, two committee members are from New York.


The council’s spokeman pointed out that a majority of the committee members present Friday were from outside the U.S. They were from such countries as Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Qatar, the the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.
Quote:
Wood and Weismantle said the committee felt no political pressure to rule in favor of One World Trade Center.

__________________

HRP4Life liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:15 PM   #51743
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley1066 View Post
You're using the term "expressionism" as a quantifiable measurable term? Puh-leeze ...

I know another structure that's a mass of unclad iron and steel that's VERY architecturally expressive.

http://static.neatorama.com/images/2...-tower-day.jpg

I guess according to your definition, the Eiffel Tower would be 0 feet tall because its just metal.
The small difference is the eiffel tower was originally designed this way. 1WTC wasn't.
__________________
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 November 12th, 2013, 09:19 PM   #51744
Riley1066
Registered User
 
Riley1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 628
Likes (Received): 521

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
The small difference is the eiffel tower was originally designed this way. 1WTC wasn't.
No, this was the original design for the Eiffel Tower

Riley1066 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:21 PM   #51745
OverOneThousand
Registered User
 
OverOneThousand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 146
Likes (Received): 19

Third tallest building in the world? lmao what a joke. Don't get me wrong I really like this building but that ridiculously tall stick is a massive cheat. I could never consider this 3rd tallest, ever.
__________________
OverOneThousand no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:22 PM   #51746
CompayEE
CompayEE
 
CompayEE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes (Received): 29

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...llest-building

In original design for One World Trade Center, the spire was to have been covered in decorative cladding. That cladding was ditched during construction due to issues over its upkeep, however, which had lead, in part, to the contention.

Without its spire, One World Trade Center measures a mere 1,368ft, shorter than the 1,451ft Willis Tower – formerly the Sears Tower. The Chicago building has antennae on its roof, but these are not counted as part of its overall height. The top floor of the Willis Tower, at 1,354 ft, is higher than the One World Trade Center’s top floor at 1,268 ft.

The debate was particularly charged because of the symbolic nature of the metal structure on One World Trade Center. With the structure the building reaches 1,776ft – a reference to the year of the US Declaration of Independence.

Johnson said the council was not influenced by the 9/11 and the significance of the 1776ft height, however. "I had to make absolutely certain that this building was 1776,” he said. "If it was shorter we wouldn't have been shy to say that."

One World Trade Center is part of a complex of buildings being built in Lower Manhattan on the site of Ground Zero, replacing the original One World Trade Center, also known as the North Tower, and Two World Trade Center – the South Tower – which were destroyed in the 9/11 attacks. The so-called Twin Towers were the tallest buildings in the world when they were completed in 1971, before being overtaken by the former Sears Tower in 1973.

The owners of the Willis Tower had previously said they would accept the decision of the council on tall buildings and urban habitat.

Asked by the Guardian what would happen in the unlikely event of the owners of the Willis Tower installing a taller permanent structure on top of their building in a bid to regain the title of America’s tallest building, Johnson said: "Well we'd have to consider it. Of course."

-/-


Out of the comments of the readers on this article I particularly agree with this one:

Quote:
Including the height of antennas is silly. Clearly it is not "part" of the building. Had it had a cladding which made it look like part of the structure then it should be included, but if it is just a metal prong used for communications that can be removed then it shouldn't be. Otherwise, some bozo will stick a 2000 ft antenna on his house and claim the record.
But, due to which building this was, it was always going to get the benefit of any questions let alone doubt.
__________________

A.J.B 22 liked this post

Last edited by CompayEE; November 12th, 2013 at 09:27 PM.
CompayEE no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:24 PM   #51747
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

Edit.
__________________

msl1, Sorianodepro, HRP4Life liked this post

Last edited by Architecture lover; April 4th, 2014 at 07:05 PM.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:26 PM   #51748
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
Who cares.
Lovers of architecture, ironically enough.
__________________

CompayEE, Munwon, Joshua Dodd, Rain Drops liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:27 PM   #51749
Nonoka
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Munich
Posts: 365
Likes (Received): 254

So what's the total height of the tower, including the lighting rod? The CTBUH states it's 1792 ft, but apparently the south (main) entrance was used for this measurement. Does anyone know how much lower the north entrance is?
Nonoka no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:28 PM   #51750
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley1066 View Post
No, this was the original design for the Eiffel Tower

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lin_pylone.jpg
You misunderstood me. What I meant was that eiffel tower was build according to its design. Every structure starts with rough drawing (what you posted is first concept of et) and designing is a process that last. But scrapping cladding from the 1wtc's spire was not part of the designing process. It was process of lowering costs by removing the architectural element. You must recognize the difference here.
__________________
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 November 12th, 2013, 09:34 PM   #51751
jogiba
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 434

Quote:
Originally Posted by Architecture lover View Post
Who cares.
Try swimming on the 118th floor of One WTC.
__________________

DinoVabec, Joshua Dodd, bigreach liked this post
jogiba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:35 PM   #51752
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
You misunderstood me. What I meant was that eiffel tower was build according to its design. Every structure starts with rough drawing (what you posted is first concept of et) and designing is a process that last. But scrapping cladding from the 1wtc's spire was not part of the designing process. It was process of lowering costs by removing the architectural element. You must recognize the difference here.
A fair point, however the entire design of 1WTC is evoking the visual presence of the original towers, in particular the North Tower. And because of that, the spire is an integral part of the whole.

The spire is architectural, no question. It was designed to reach a symbolic height. That means aesthetics, however obscure or weak, are the driving force behind its design, not technical necessity.
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:37 PM   #51753
Handbanana
Registered User
 
Handbanana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 113
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall View Post
Then build the darned thing according to its ORIGINAL design, not strip off cladding that was an essential visual element of the spire, and makes the spire more than just a functioning antenna.

Seriously, do you work for Durst's PR arm or something?
Do you work for the owners of Willis Tower, shill?
Handbanana no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:39 PM   #51754
Architecture lover
Registered User
 
Architecture lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,409
Likes (Received): 1286

Edit.

Last edited by Architecture lover; April 4th, 2014 at 06:44 PM.
Architecture lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:46 PM   #51755
Riyadh Crusher
Registered User
 
Riyadh Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Riyadh
Posts: 805
Likes (Received): 2295

One World Trade Center ruled US' tallest building.

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...nsbiggest.html
__________________

HRP4Life liked this post
Riyadh Crusher no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:51 PM   #51756
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 SomeKindOfBug View Post
A fair point, however the entire design of 1WTC is evoking the visual presence of the original towers, in particular the North Tower. And because of that, the spire is an integral part of the whole.

The spire is architectural, no question. It was designed to reach a symbolic height. That means aesthetics, however obscure or weak, are the driving force behind its design, not technical necessity.
And if I build a 500 meter building and put an antenna on it that I will dedicate to Cyril and Metod, who brought written language to the area where Slovakia is located in 863 and make it reach a pinnacle height of 863 meters, will that be a spire?

Seriously folks, there is just no justification at all to make this building taller than Shanghai WFC, ICC or the Willis Tower. It is as wrong as a teacher letting her ***** lie on the table of a classroom full of 6 year olds
__________________
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/

bigreach, Aussieman62, Rain Drops liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:55 PM   #51757
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
A fair point, however the entire design of 1WTC is evoking the visual presence of the original towers, in particular the North Tower. And because of that, the spire is an integral part of the whole.

The spire is architectural, no question. It was designed to reach a symbolic height. That means aesthetics, however obscure or weak, are the driving force behind its design, not technical necessity.
THE SPIRE was the architectural element not the internal supporting structure. If that structure would be enough they would not left the tip of it cladded like originally planned and scrap it as well. And if you read ctbuh explanation for the decision they made you will find out that architectural tip of the spire is the main argument to count the spire in. CTBUH rules have no requirement that architectural structure should be continuous (which I think they should have) so that spire meets the council criteria. But very barely and without a class imo, which is of course the developers fault.
__________________
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


Last edited by patrykus; November 12th, 2013 at 10:03 PM.
patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 09:58 PM   #51758
NYdude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: New York City
Posts: 93
Likes (Received): 38

Despite what the ruling is, the pinnacle height remains the same. Just calling it "official" is what's debatable apparently.
NYdude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:16 PM   #51759
Limburger
Registered User
 
Limburger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 38
Likes (Received): 39

Quote:
"Even though the cladding was taken off the spire, you can still see that it is an architectural element," said Antony Wood, executive director of the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
I really laughed hard at this statement. How can a bare steel structure, which was only built this way for strength and to hold the architectural (radome) cover, be seen as an architectural element itself? The only architectural element on that thing is the beacon part. The rest of the mast wasn't even supposed to be seen at all. I really can't take these guys from CTBUH serious anymore...
__________________

OverOneThousand, Kanto liked this post
Limburger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:21 PM   #51760
N.Y.C.H
Registered User
 
N.Y.C.H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 407

Not everyone is going to agree with everything that happens, accept it and move on.
__________________

Patel Patik, A.J.B 22, HRP4Life liked this post
N.Y.C.H 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 03:35 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