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, 10:24 PM   #51761
Vito Corleone
Moderator
 
Vito Corleone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York - Chicago
Posts: 312
Likes (Received): 324

Having heard many negative comments about the way the CTBUH measures and ranks buildings, should some other organization take the lead? Here is a possible alternative: http://buildingheights.org/

Who knows what the future holds?
__________________

Kanto, Assemblage23, Otie liked this post
Vito Corleone no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:25 PM   #51762
Nonoka
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Munich
Posts: 365
Likes (Received): 254

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonoka View Post
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?
Nvm, just find out myself. CTBUH states in the press release that the tower's architectural height is 1781,8 ft if measured from the north entrance, so the tower's total height including the lighting rod and measured from the north entrance is 1797,8 ft.

I know, who cares about these few extra feet, but while you guys are still fighting over its architectural height, I'll just take the height to tip with roughly 1798ft or 548m and am satisfied with that
Nonoka no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:28 PM   #51763
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

Wow some of you are just a bunch of cry babies, this is supposed to be a happy day for the building, especially on here. Quite disgraceful
__________________

r0cc0, onewtclover, HRP4Life liked this post
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:28 PM   #51764
iiConTr0v3rSYx
Brooklyn Boy
 
iiConTr0v3rSYx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 1,356
Likes (Received): 2984

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.Y.C.H View Post
Not everyone is going to agree with everything that happens, accept it and move on.
Exactly.

People will always bitch.

Even if it was ruled an antenna everyone and their mother would still bitch.

We waited almost 3 years for this moment, and here it is, 1 WTC is offically ruled the 3rd tallest building in the world. Whether you like it or not, the decision is done. It isn't the end of the world and certainly won't hold NY's tallest forever.
__________________
Want to take a magical aerial tour of NY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBPrNUzk1BA

Check this guy out for Monthly updates on the WTC.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc3yuNST1YhPioYxJtqJWtQ

NYdude, A.J.B 22, HRP4Life liked this post
iiConTr0v3rSYx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:30 PM   #51765
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,048
Likes (Received): 1040

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limburger View Post
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...
The difference between a clad spire and the unclad one is fairly minimal. Within the context of the entire building's shape, it still has an important role in the balance of the shape.

A lot of people forget that this building tapers, because they think of the original Twin Towers which didn't. This building is sculpted from the bottom to the top to accommodate a spire of that height. The thickness (or rather, the 'weight') of the spire is a minor detail. It is the height that matters when balancing the building and the skyline.

Now, obviously this decision was a political one. But there's absolutely an architectural case to be made for the spire.
__________________

HRP4Life liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:36 PM   #51766
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Corleone View Post
Having heard many negative comments about the way the CTBUH measures and ranks buildings, should some other organization take the lead? Here is a possible alternative: http://buildingheights.org/

Who knows what the future holds?
They seem like randomly count or not the spires. Not sure how's that better.
__________________
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, 10:41 PM   #51767
NYdude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: New York City
Posts: 93
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiConTr0v3rSYx View Post
Exactly.

People will always bitch.

Even if it was ruled an antenna everyone and their mother would still bitch.

We waited almost 3 years for this moment, and here it is, 1 WTC is offically ruled the 3rd tallest building in the world. Whether you like it or not, the decision is done. It isn't the end of the world and certainly won't hold NY's tallest forever.
So true, and totally agree
NYdude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:43 PM   #51768
Vito Corleone
Moderator
 
Vito Corleone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York - Chicago
Posts: 312
Likes (Received): 324

Having watched all of the reports today, a couple of issues need to be addressed:

First of all; the total height of the spire is not 409 ft. The spire starts at the main roof slab, not at the parapet height. Therefore, it is 441' 4" to the top of the beacon enclosure (the architectural height according to the CTBUH) and 457' 4" when measured to the very tip.

I kept hearing the statement that 1WTC is not officially the tallest building in America because it is not completed...BOLLOCKS! Once a building is topped out it should be officially ranked. Any intelligent person that looks at a city skyline and sees a tall building making its presence, would agree that it should be included in tall building rankings as soon as it has reached its total intended architectural height.
__________________

L.A.F.2., A.J.B 22, HRP4Life liked this post
Vito Corleone no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:43 PM   #51769
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5311

This only seems appropriate:



In my honest opinion, the CTBUH system is jacked. Either count all forms of masts or none at all. It's that simple. None of this subjective shit we're all sick and tired of. I personally believe that pinnacle height should be the true measurement because it's too difficult to discern the difference between a roof and spire in many cases, especially in old cathedrals and such. Pinnacle height would be completely objective: How high does the building rise off the ground? It's that simple. However, with roof height, you have to draw the line somewhere on roofs, parapets, crowns, spires, etc. There's little discernable difference and it's too easily debatable.

However, since the CTBUH did not rule in favor of masts such as those on Sears, John Hancock, Conde Nast, and the original 1WTC, this one shouldn't be ruled in that way either. Who are we kidding? It's not even enclosed like Sears' antennae and a section of Conde Nast's. It should not count by CTBUH standards, final. However, though by my own, they should all count as to leave no room for debate.

That's my two cents.
__________________

A.J.B 22 liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:48 PM   #51770
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Corleone View Post
Having watched all of the reports today, a couple of issues need to be addressed:

First of all; the total height of the spire is not 409 ft. The spire starts at the main roof slab, not at the parapet height. Therefore, it is 441' 4" to the top of the beacon enclosure (the architectural height according to the CTBUH) and 457' 4" when measured to the very tip.

I kept hearing the statement that 1WTC is not officially the tallest building in America because it is not completed...BOLLOCKS! Once a building is topped out it should be officially ranked. Any intelligent person that looks at a city skyline and sees a tall building making its presence, would agree that it should be included in tall building rankings as soon as it has reached its total intended architectural height.
It is ranked as topped out so everything is ok from my point of view.
__________________
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, 10:50 PM   #51771
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,048
Likes (Received): 1040

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Corleone View Post
Having watched all of the reports today, a couple of issues need to be addressed:

First of all; the total height of the spire is not 409 ft. The spire starts at the main roof slab, not at the parapet height. Therefore, it is 441' 4" to the top of the beacon enclosure (the architectural height according to the CTBUH) and 457' 4" when measured to the very tip.

I kept hearing the statement that 1WTC is not officially the tallest building in America because it is not completed...BOLLOCKS! Once a building is topped out it should be officially ranked. Any intelligent person that looks at a city skyline and sees a tall building making its presence, would agree that it should be included in tall building rankings as soon as it has reached its total intended architectural height.
There's a case to be made that you should save that for when the building is officially opened. Just because it's nicer to have it all wrapped up in one moment.

Like, I get that the building, the actual stuff in the ground, is at a certain height. But a 'building' is more than just a physical object. It's a sort of meta-physical concept, incorporating the structure and the design and the accomplishment of finishing it.

Kinda like how a house is a house but when you put the roof on it becomes a home. A skyscraper is just girders and steel until the big red ribbon is cut. That's when the height should be officially listed, I think. Just for ceremony. Call me old fashioned.
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 10:59 PM   #51772
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,643
Likes (Received): 53484

Glad the ruling has finally come down -not that I gave a damn whichever height was deemed "official". Time to put this nonsense behind us. It's a building, people!
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 11:12 PM   #51773
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,714
Likes (Received): 23032

now that the 'official' height of this tower has been settled hopefully we can sit back and appreciate the progress being made towards completion.
The southern entrance is progressing nicely. The columns on the eastern side of the base have been fireproofed and cladding is finally being installed

__________________

A.J.B 22, NYdude, oli83, Rain Drops, HRP4Life liked this post
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 11:13 PM   #51774
Riley1066
Registered User
 
Riley1066's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 648
Likes (Received): 555

If Chicago wants the tallest building in the Country/Hemisphere title back, let em build a new one that's unambiguously taller than 1 WTC ... then await NYC's (Or San Francisco/Los Angeles/Toronto/Houston/etc's) response.

Trying to defend the Sears/Willis Tower's place is sitting too much on old laurels IMHO.
__________________

HRP4Life liked this post
Riley1066 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 11:30 PM   #51775
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,048
Likes (Received): 1040

Counterpoint: Sears was the last truly daring project in America, so it deserves some recognition.

1WTC is many things but it is also conservative. In 2013, even if you discount proposals and only focus on topped out structures, 500 ish meters is not as Earth-shattering as it was in the 1970s.

If anything, the fact that two buildings separated by forty years are in a 'battle' for tallest building in the US is a sad indictment of the World Trade Center's lack of vision.

Sears was the tallest in the world for a quarter of a century. 1WTC will never hold that position.
__________________
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 11:30 PM   #51776
Glidescube
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 224
Likes (Received): 32

Why is this even an issue???

When the petronas towers were ruled taller than the Sears( Ill never call it willits) I was annoyed but now I feel its our turn.
Glidescube no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 11:32 PM   #51777
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5338

If this tower shouldn't be higher than Willis Tower, than neither should the Zifeng Tower and the Petronas Towers.
__________________

L.A.F.2., HRP4Life liked this post
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 11:37 PM   #51778
Glidescube
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 224
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeKindOfBug View Post
The difference between a clad spire and the unclad one is fairly minimal. Within the context of the entire building's shape, it still has an important role in the balance of the shape.

A lot of people forget that this building tapers, because they think of the original Twin Towers which didn't. This building is sculpted from the bottom to the top to accommodate a spire of that height. The thickness (or rather, the 'weight') of the spire is a minor detail. It is the height that matters when balancing the building and the skyline.

Now, obviously this decision was a political one. But there's absolutely an architectural case to be made for the spire.
What we are seeing are trolls that cannot 'America Bash' now. Thats what they were chomping at bit for. They wanted to laugh at our tower only because it's in America. In that, yes it is a very political issue. Well, the international body is a lot better than that and ruled accordingly.

Also the spire is actually a continuation of the core and not a mere decoration that was simply bolted on.
Glidescube no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 11:39 PM   #51779
Glidescube
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 224
Likes (Received): 32

All this is a mute point because in 10 years the WTC wont even be among the top 10 WTBs.
Glidescube no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2013, 11:39 PM   #51780
A.J.B 22
Big Pink
 
A.J.B 22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 442
Likes (Received): 481

I feel like we are beating a dead horse on this issue. One WTC has been recognized as being 1776 ft. tall and there is nothing that any of us can do about it. Let's just agree to disagree and move on!
__________________

NYdude, HRP4Life liked this post
A.J.B 22 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 12:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium