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 13th, 2013, 06:17 AM   #51821
A.J.B 22
Big Pink
 
A.J.B 22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 442
Likes (Received): 481

If I got everytime I heard "spire" or "antennae" today, I would have a lot of cents.
A.J.B 22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 13th, 2013, 06:39 AM   #51822
Otie
Researcher
 
Otie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,117
Likes (Received): 2186

Quote:
Originally Posted by weidncol View Post
No pretty sure it's a spire.... Look at my post posted not too long ago.
The whole spire concept was meant to be embodied by an architectural fiberglass shell, not by an exposed, functional mast. Eliminating this enclosure leaves the bare mast disqualified for getting any architectural connotation.
__________________
Otie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 06:52 AM   #51823
Davidsam52
Registered User
 
Davidsam52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Fl.
Posts: 526
Likes (Received): 160

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glidescube View Post
I love the ICC. my 2nd fave building behind the ping an.
That is one awesome swimming pool!!
Davidsam52 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 06:59 AM   #51824
The Quiet Storm
I ❤ Skyscrapers!
 
The Quiet Storm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 175
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by solgoldberg View Post
image hosted on flickr
Jeff Koons sculpture.
¯\_( ˘_˘)_/¯
__________________
LADY GAGA
'THE CURE'
NEW SMASH POP SINGLE

ON iTUNES NOW
The Quiet Storm no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 07:06 AM   #51825
Joshua Dodd
Registered User
 
Joshua Dodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,580
Likes (Received): 1555

Quote:
Originally Posted by weidncol View Post
No pretty sure it's a spire.... Look at my post posted not too long ago.
I have to agree with Otie, and if anyone on here should know, it is Otie.
__________________

bigreach liked this post
Joshua Dodd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 07:28 AM   #51826
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 Joshua Dodd View Post
I have to agree with Otie, and if anyone on here should know, it is Otie.
No disrespect to Otie because Otie is highly appreciated/ respected by all including myself, but 24 out of 25 architects, some very prominent respected architects in their industry such as SOM, Adrian Smith & others from around the world agreed that this is an architectural element. Almost Indisputed by a landslide decision.


This is their field, the counsel members, & I highly doubt they would risk being a joke and laughing stock because of this decision. They know the stakes are high and they know their crap & know their decision would illicit backlashes. Ultimately, made their decision & sticked to their guns. If the vote was split 50/50 or even 75/25, that is another thing because that show differing opinions amongst themselves... But it's not. It was 1 member whom abstained.


Who are we to tell them how to do their job? It's like me telling Dr. Oz how to do his job or even Otie to do his.
__________________

Thatonegirl, Riley1066, 4npower, pnapp1, r0cc0 liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 07:49 AM   #51827
Archaean
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 345
Likes (Received): 311

The council voted based on political pressure, not architectural merits. The council doesnt deliberate as simply as you think they do.
Archaean no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 08:03 AM   #51828
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
The council voted based on political pressure, not architectural merits. The council doesnt deliberate as simply as you think they do.
And you know this how? You state it as fact. It's your opinion and that's fine. You are disgruntled with the outcome and it's understandable as anyone would be. Look I mentioned what I believe in and that tall buildings should be measured by roof height. I was like you very disgruntled when they included Trump Chicago's and all towers of its kind... The thing is... Just as long as they stay true to their guidelines and stick to it and follow their "letter of law" I can live with it. They have to be fair and consistent which I believe they did.


If they called it the other way I would accept it just as long they re-arrange the order of those type of towers.
__________________

Thatonegirl liked this post
Vertical_Gotham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 08:33 AM   #51829
DELL181
Skyscraper Capital
 
DELL181's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New York City
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 281

image hosted on flickr

DSC04135 copy by c8132, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

In the Wake by Tim Drivas, on Flickr
__________________

Kanto, goyo, Rain Drops, A.J.B 22, L.A.F.2. and 1 others liked this post
DELL181 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 08:33 AM   #51830
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertical_Gotham View Post
If they called it the other way I would accept it just as long they re-arrange the order of those type of towers.
Other towers with spire weren't devoid of an architectural element so why would you like to re-arrange them?
__________________
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 13th, 2013, 09:07 AM   #51831
Otie
Researcher
 
Otie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,117
Likes (Received): 2186

The Council decision presents several debatable issues. The press release, which can be found here justifies its claim by providing two evidences that might get questionable when analysed more carefully.
The first assertion tries to explain the mast as an "architectural expression" by adopting the LED beacon, the symbolical number and the permanent aspect as major justifications, avoiding the fact that the radio mast was never intended to be exposed.
The second assertion produces a more interesting question that hasn't been addressed previously: if the main lobby (or any space that gives first and direct access to the elevators) is raised several feet above the general ground level, shouldn't the starting point be moved to that elevation as well?

I must say the outcome the Council produced was clearly expected, otherwise they would've failed to follow their own guidelines. The problem lies on the rules, which are becoming more and more antiquated as new high-rises continue to challenge the general understanding of these. I strongly believe that the criteria must go through a comprehensive revision.
__________________
Otie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 09:22 AM   #51832
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,363
Likes (Received): 15864

Having been a member of that height committee which determines this, I can safely say that this is all politics at work.

I mean let's face it, the other option was to not declare One WTC as officially being 1776 feet, which really isn't an option given the symbolism involved. The only thing they could do was find the right wording in order not to lose face themselves, and for the One WTC.

Mind you, this is the same organization that "reinterpretated" their own rules a few years back so that "open basement entree levels" could be counted to the height, and buildings like Trump Chicago could happily add 8 or so meters to their pride-height and be handed a plaque for that.

Never mind that the Sears Tower has been screwed twice in history by the same rule, but by a different interpretation of it. I also recommend that the Sears Tower adds an architecturally designed and 150 feet tall screw on top of their building and ask for a re-evaluation of their height according to the new interpretations of the rule. Indeed, screw you!

Either that or they ought to introduce a new category of bullshit-height.

Then again, the buildings are there for everyone to compare by their own measures. So really, who gives a poop what that organisation says.
__________________
Jan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 09:32 AM   #51833
redbaron_012
Registered User
 
redbaron_012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11,562
Likes (Received): 3095

seeing we get tomorrow before you guys I'll let you in on a secret....It counts : )....oh someone’s already leaked the news ?

Otie # It is not a spire, but a "guyed, radio mast"

I love the tower and 'spire'. See it as restoring the New York skyline but as I have mentioned before I just wish the spire was strong enough to stand on the roof without guy wires...Surely they could have designed it without the need for them ? Yep...at a distance who cares and also expect lots of telco stuff to be added over the years. Who complains about all the attachments on the ESB ?...it will just be what it is, a part of NYC...and that's good : )

and while I'm at it...the Sphere sculpture needs to be returned to this site...It was part of it before and is a remaining small part that still exists...
__________________
"Make no small plans, for they have not power to stir the blood" - Daniel H. Burnham

Last edited by redbaron_012; November 13th, 2013 at 09:45 AM.
redbaron_012 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 01:13 PM   #51834
SomeKindOfBug
Registered User
 
SomeKindOfBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,043
Likes (Received): 1035

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
Having been a member of that height committee which determines this, I can safely say that this is all politics at work.

I mean let's face it, the other option was to not declare One WTC as officially being 1776 feet, which really isn't an option given the symbolism involved. The only thing they could do was find the right wording in order not to lose face themselves, and for the One WTC.

Mind you, this is the same organization that "reinterpretated" their own rules a few years back so that "open basement entree levels" could be counted to the height, and buildings like Trump Chicago could happily add 8 or so meters to their pride-height and be handed a plaque for that.

Never mind that the Sears Tower has been screwed twice in history by the same rule, but by a different interpretation of it. I also recommend that the Sears Tower adds an architecturally designed and 150 feet tall screw on top of their building and ask for a re-evaluation of their height according to the new interpretations of the rule. Indeed, screw you!

Either that or they ought to introduce a new category of bullshit-height.

Then again, the buildings are there for everyone to compare by their own measures. So really, who gives a poop what that organisation says.
I look at it like this: Sears is over forty years old. Its designers are both dead.

The mere fact that Sears was in the running, that it was even a part of this competition, says more than its height ever will.

I don't think anyone in Chicago is lamenting the title being taken away from them. Especially on such dubious technicalities. Because they had it for so long, and so long ago, that still having the title in 2013 was actually getting a little embarrassing.

1WTC will never be the tallest building in the world. It will be third for... what? A matter of months? That's kinda pathetic, in a sense, given the grandeur of the project.

Nobody will remember 1WTC being the third tallest building in the world. Just as nobody remembers bronze medals at the Olympics.

Sears was a daring new design, and in the 1970s its height was actually amazing. Achieving the same height forty years later, after so many advances in structural engineering. Well that's just a hollow victory isn't it?
__________________

Kanto, OverOneThousand, bigreach liked this post
SomeKindOfBug no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 01:42 PM   #51835
paprys81
Registered User
 
paprys81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Warsaw // Suwałki // London
Posts: 1,544
Likes (Received): 104

For me the real height of the building is the roof level. Therefore Willis Tower is still the highest building in USA, sorry.
Still, 1WTC is truly beautiful design.
__________________
Be Yourself, Everyone Else Is Already Taken
London - Suwalki - Warsaw

OBWODNICA SUWAŁK - Wątki Suwalskie - inwestycje.suwałki.org -
Londyn w moim obiektywie - Global Warming - Global Swindle

Kanto, Dragon18, OverOneThousand, bigreach liked this post
paprys81 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 03:32 PM   #51836
Joshua Dodd
Registered User
 
Joshua Dodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,580
Likes (Received): 1555

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron_012 View Post
seeing we get tomorrow before you guys I'll let you in on a secret....It counts : )....oh someone’s already leaked the news ?

Otie # It is not a spire, but a "guyed, radio mast"

I love the tower and 'spire'. See it as restoring the New York skyline but as I have mentioned before I just wish the spire was strong enough to stand on the roof without guy wires...Surely they could have designed it without the need for them ? Yep...at a distance who cares and also expect lots of telco stuff to be added over the years. Who complains about all the attachments on the ESB ?...it will just be what it is, a part of NYC...and that's good : )

and while I'm at it...the Sphere sculpture needs to be returned to this site...It was part of it before and is a remaining small part that still exists...
I actually complain about all the attachments on the ESB. I find that clutter of equipment hurts its image and makes it look messy. I hope all that crap will one day vanish.
Joshua Dodd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 04:00 PM   #51837
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by paprys81 View Post
For me the real height of the building is the roof level. Therefore Willis Tower is still the highest building in USA, sorry.
Still, 1WTC is truly beautiful design.
100% agree. The council can say whatever it likes. There was politics and extensive lobbying in that decision, anyone with a brain should see that. If they hadn't decided as they did this symbol of American recovery wouldn't even be the tallest in the City in another year or so. 1,776 is a magic number, that height was always going to be confirmed.

I always question the rules on these things. Think of it this way. If you put SWFC next to WTC1 you could go to the highest observation deck in the SWFC and look down almost 200 freaking feet to the EXPOSED OUTSIDE roof of a building that is taller? Not a hypothetical roof, an ACTUAL roof. That makes zero sense to me. Same argument was made back in the old days with the hypothetical of putting Sears and Petronis (sp?) next to each other.

I'd like to see two categories. One being tallest structure in the world where the winner would be the Burj measured to the tip of the light beacon. The other being tallest building in the world where the winner would again be the Burj but this time measured to the highest occupied floor which in that case would determine the roof height.
__________________

OverOneThousand, Kanto liked this post

Last edited by FlyFish; November 13th, 2013 at 05:17 PM.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 04:40 PM   #51838
Skyline.Fan
Supertalls 4 Frankfurt
 
Skyline.Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt
Posts: 864
Likes (Received): 294

Beautiful tower but nothing against what was lost in 2001.
__________________
You are in a fantastical situation in a city like Frankfurt, foreigners always crossing each other,
heading into every corner of the world, inspiring wanderlust.

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Frankfurt - Germany's ultimate skyline
Skyline.Fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 04:56 PM   #51839
MattSal
Architect
 
MattSal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,945
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
Having been a member of that height committee which determines this, I can safely say that this is all politics at work.

I mean let's face it, the other option was to not declare One WTC as officially being 1776 feet, which really isn't an option given the symbolism involved. The only thing they could do was find the right wording in order not to lose face themselves, and for the One WTC.

Mind you, this is the same organization that "reinterpretated" their own rules a few years back so that "open basement entree levels" could be counted to the height, and buildings like Trump Chicago could happily add 8 or so meters to their pride-height and be handed a plaque for that.

Never mind that the Sears Tower has been screwed twice in history by the same rule, but by a different interpretation of it. I also recommend that the Sears Tower adds an architecturally designed and 150 feet tall screw on top of their building and ask for a re-evaluation of their height according to the new interpretations of the rule. Indeed, screw you!

Either that or they ought to introduce a new category of bullshit-height.

Then again, the buildings are there for everyone to compare by their own measures. So really, who gives a poop what that organisation says.
The Council actually has been recently pushing the idea of "Vanity Height", so they may be more open in the future about the uselessness of excessive spires than they have been in the past. I can definitely tell you that the Vanity Height study upset a lot of people in the tall building industry, even if it was just pointing out the obvious.

This is the study I'm referring to:
http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?...language=en-US

In a sense, Vanity Height can be translated quite literally as "bullshit-height".
__________________

Kanto liked this post
MattSal no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2013, 04:56 PM   #51840
chazmania
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 88
Likes (Received): 31

Sorry Otie - but you don’t like an outcome so you change the criteria

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otie View Post
I must say the outcome the Council produced was clearly expected, otherwise they would've failed to follow their own guidelines. The problem lies on the rules, which are becoming more and more antiquated as new high-rises continue to challenge the general understanding of these. I strongly believe that the criteria must go through a comprehensive revision.
So you don't like the rules/criteria so you want to change them. That sounds terrible. Every time some has a problem you will change the rules?

All that being said the Council is not independent. The whole council is made up of people directly working in the industry. There is a serious conflict of interest in the council since many of these construction, engineering and architectural firms they work for have intertwined working relationships. There is no way they would screw the firms working on one WTC and keep their jobs no matter how respected they are. Their decisions directly affected their employers so they would not rock the boat.
chazmania 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 01:03 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