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 February 15th, 2011, 03:42 PM   #19781
DinoVabec
Worldwide
 
DinoVabec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 5,900
Likes (Received): 752

February 14th, Scumonkey, WNY..







__________________
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
-Roger H. Lincoln
DinoVabec no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 15th, 2011, 04:12 PM   #19782
Пятница
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ukraine - Israel
Posts: 9,565
Likes (Received): 359

Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoVabec View Post
February 13th

image hosted on flickr

Source
amazing, thanx!!!
Пятница no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 06:08 PM   #19783
Rise To The Top
Future CiE and Architect
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston/Holderness
Posts: 403
Likes (Received): 88

Hopefully it isn't as windy down there as it is up here in Boston... if it is I don't think anything is going to happen today.
Rise To The Top no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 06:18 PM   #19784
banaantje
BANNED
 
banaantje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 2

it is a little bit disapointing that the height is not going to be groundbreaking, even in the USA there are higher structures. They should skip WTC 4 and make WTC1 world tallest building. Like 1 km or something.
banaantje no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 06:37 PM   #19785
MontanaGuy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nashville, Tn
Posts: 191
Likes (Received): 51

banaantaje wrote:
Quote:
it is a little bit disapointing that the height is not going to be groundbreaking, even in the USA there are higher structures. They should skip WTC 4 and make WTC1 world tallest building. Like 1 km or something.
First off you can't just suddenly change the design for a building of this magnitude especially when so much of it is already completed. Every detail has already been worked out and factories have already constructed countless bits of hardware that will be delivered when they are needed. Also there is a 2,000 foot limit in the United States for the height of a building. The Chicago Spire was designed to go to that limit but of course that didn't happen. It just seems foolish to even suggest that everyone involved in this project could suddenly shift gears and redesign the whole thing at this late stage into something completely different.
MontanaGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 06:46 PM   #19786
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy View Post
banaantaje wrote:

First off you can't just suddenly change the design for a building of this magnitude especially when so much of it is already completed. Every detail has already been worked out and factories have already constructed countless bits of hardware that will be delivered when they are needed. Also there is a 2,000 foot limit in the United States for the height of a building. The Chicago Spire was designed to go to that limit but of course that didn't happen. It just seems foolish to even suggest that everyone involved in this project could suddenly shift gears and redesign the whole thing at this late stage into something completely different.
Plus, you need to remember that these buildings are not just monuments, they have to function, and function profitably to exist. Would a 1km building in a tight leasing market even be economically feasible in the US? I sort of doubt it. The Burj is a great example. That building could not be built in the US, or if it was the useless top 700ft would be left off of it. It could never generate the revenues needed to pay off the construction debt and then cover its operating expenses. See the Spire as an example. Great idea, beautiful on drawings, but a disaster economically and therefore an empty hole in the ground......
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 06:53 PM   #19787
banaantje
BANNED
 
banaantje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 2

the burj dubai is a big building in a 'empty' city in a desert. WTC 1km style would be placed in the 'center of the universe'. Big difference. And ps i know of course it cant happen anymore i just think its not iconic enough to replace the old twins. NY should still stand for evolution but nowadays even in the middle of a slumcity like mumbai they are building taller...
banaantje no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 06:57 PM   #19788
arquifab
Registered User
 
arquifab's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: montevideo
Posts: 251
Likes (Received): 107

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy View Post
banaantaje wrote:

First off you can't just suddenly change the design for a building of this magnitude especially when so much of it is already completed. Every detail has already been worked out and factories have already constructed countless bits of hardware that will be delivered when they are needed. Also there is a 2,000 foot limit in the United States for the height of a building. The Chicago Spire was designed to go to that limit but of course that didn't happen. It just seems foolish to even suggest that everyone involved in this project could suddenly shift gears and redesign the whole thing at this late stage into something completely different.

Thank you for the info......i didnt know the limit height was 2000 ft. I understand know why 1WTC isnt taller, but anyways i am agree with the height its actually gonna have....because it would be like misplaced a 2000 ft.+ building in NYC, i dont think its the adequate city to build monster towers like burj khalifa.....let those monsters for other cities....NYC is worlds most influential city so it has to show equilibrium.
arquifab no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 07:26 PM   #19789
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,345
Likes (Received): 8241

thanks for the update culwalla, it would be amazing if you could add WTC 2 into the next diagram too
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 07:30 PM   #19790
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by banaantje View Post
the burj dubai is a big building in a 'empty' city in a desert. WTC 1km style would be placed in the 'center of the universe'. Big difference. And ps i know of course it cant happen anymore i just think its not iconic enough to replace the old twins. NY should still stand for evolution but nowadays even in the middle of a slumcity like mumbai they are building taller...
Yes, agreed, big difference but a building that big in a "free" economy still couldn't pay for it's own construction. I agree with you that the replacement for the twins isn't what I would have hoped but that is what's being built. It won't change.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 07:51 PM   #19791
DerFlo4711
Registered User
 
DerFlo4711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Köln
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoVabec View Post
February 13th

image hosted on flickr

Source
Would you say this is the hight of the BK from the top of the spire?? Because this looks about right.
DerFlo4711 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 08:10 PM   #19792
uakoops
Sidewalk Superintendent
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 648
Likes (Received): 396

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerFlo4711 View Post
Would you say this is the hight of the BK from the top of the spire?? Because this looks about right.
Probably a little higher. Planes flying at that location are usually at 3000-3500 ft.
uakoops no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 08:54 PM   #19793
DinoVabec
Worldwide
 
DinoVabec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 5,900
Likes (Received): 752

February 4th and 7th, Joe Woolhead, WTC.com



__________________
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
-Roger H. Lincoln
DinoVabec no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 09:14 PM   #19794
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,906
Likes (Received): 5171

Looks like they've brought steel up to the top, but haven't erected it yet. Hopefully soon. It's been a month since they last started new floors.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 09:23 PM   #19795
germantower
i ♥ NY
 
germantower's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,452
Likes (Received): 1155

It's still hard to believe that this building is now over 200m tall. On pictures it doesn't look that tall, allthough you can compare it with the surrounding buildings.
__________________
more SHoP less BIG
germantower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 10:46 PM   #19796
EddieB317
DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
 
EddieB317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 722
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy View Post
banaantaje wrote: Also there is a 2,000 foot limit in the United States for the height of a building. The Chicago Spire was designed to go to that limit but of course that didn't happen.
I don't believe you. Source please.

What I have found through Westlaw and LexisNexis (the two US case and statue legal databases):

There is no US Federal Code that stipulates a height restriction in the US. This is left to the states under their own local police powers. The only quasi federal writing that I can find only states that "[a] state may, directly by statute, reasonably limit the height of buildings to promote the public health and public safety." Most states take the approach that as long as it can be done safely there is no limit.

Chicago itself might have a limit, but it is a local zoning ordinance allowed by state law, which is not even a state or a federal law. With a little lobbying effort a local zoning ordinance can be changed. Height restriction ordinances also change with the times, so if technology gets better the restrictions change.
__________________

I happen to think that things are going to happen for Indianapolis...
EddieB317 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 11:11 PM   #19797
Traynor
Back to Basics
 
Traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 15

Finally something has changed visually... A seventh row of glass going up, as seen on the Discovery webcams.

Yay!


(Found on Discovery webcams here: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/the-risi...ctures-04.html )
Traynor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 11:54 PM   #19798
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB317 View Post
I don't believe you. Source please.

What I have found through Westlaw and LexisNexis (the two US case and statue legal databases):

There is no US Federal Code that stipulates a height restriction in the US. This is left to the states under their own local police powers. The only quasi federal writing that I can find only states that "[a] state may, directly by statute, reasonably limit the height of buildings to promote the public health and public safety." Most states take the approach that as long as it can be done safely there is no limit.

Chicago itself might have a limit, but it is a local zoning ordinance allowed by state law, which is not even a state or a federal law. With a little lobbying effort a local zoning ordinance can be changed. Height restriction ordinances also change with the times, so if technology gets better the restrictions change.
THis is not a zoning thing and it's not a local thing, it's an air traffic safety thing.

Try the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I'm not chasing a link down though. You're the one who doesn't believe it so you can look it up, lol. Both have restrictions on antennae being over 2,000 feet so that there will be no hazard to air traffic. In the US nothing can be built over 2K and the regs are there to protect air safety.
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 12:53 AM   #19799
EddieB317
DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
 
EddieB317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 722
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
THis is not a zoning thing and it's not a local thing, it's an air traffic safety thing.

Try the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I'm not chasing a link down though. You're the one who doesn't believe it so you can look it up, lol. Both have restrictions on antennae being over 2,000 feet so that there will be no hazard to air traffic. In the US nothing can be built over 2K and the regs are there to protect air safety.
"The Federal Communications Commission has expressly declined to regulate the height of radio antenna towers. Accordingly, challenges to covenants in deeds and local ordinances restricting the construction or height of antenna structures on grounds that such restrictions were preempted by the Communications Act generally have been unsuccessful. The FCC does require that the Federal Aviation Administration be notified concerning applications for the erection of antennas over 200 feet high, and in certain other situations, as where the antenna is near an airport. In addition, the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must register the structure with the FCC. The FCC rules specifically define the term 'antenna structures' as the radiating or receiving system, its supporting structures and any appurtenances mounted thereon."

74 Am. Jur. 2d Telecommunications § 140 (2010)

FAA only has restrictions near air strips... Try again. I want to find it, but it isn't coming from the FCC or the FAA.
__________________

I happen to think that things are going to happen for Indianapolis...
EddieB317 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2011, 01:05 AM   #19800
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB317 View Post
"The Federal Communications Commission has expressly declined to regulate the height of radio antenna towers. Accordingly, challenges to covenants in deeds and local ordinances restricting the construction or height of antenna structures on grounds that such restrictions were preempted by the Communications Act generally have been unsuccessful. The FCC does require that the Federal Aviation Administration be notified concerning applications for the erection of antennas over 200 feet high, and in certain other situations, as where the antenna is near an airport. In addition, the owner of any proposed or existing antenna structure that requires notice of proposed construction to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must register the structure with the FCC. The FCC rules specifically define the term 'antenna structures' as the radiating or receiving system, its supporting structures and any appurtenances mounted thereon."

74 Am. Jur. 2d Telecommunications § 140 (2010)

FAA only has restrictions near air strips... Try again. I want to find it, but it isn't coming from the FCC or the FAA.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Medi...ion/65-455.pdf

The impoprtant paragraph starts at the bottom of the first page and goes to the second, now drop this. It's the rule, is it a law? No. It's just a pronouncement and one which to our knowledge has not been challenged or requested to be waived. Could you get around it if you wanted to? maybe, maybe not. Will they change it someday? maybe, maybe not. The point is, they don't want anything built over 2,000 feet, end of story.

Last edited by FlyFish; February 16th, 2011 at 01:12 AM.
FlyFish 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 03:34 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