NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS

[JZeig1]

In the spirit of getting things correct, it's "they're" as opposed to "their" and "there." :cheers:

Hay Jack, U Funny...;) But it's cool:cool:

[JMGarcia]

If the CTBUH doesn't count the spire, the news will report it with the caveat that the spire does reach 1776 but was ruled by this obscure group as an antenna so it doesn't count.

Joe New Yorker will shrug and know it's 1776 to the top of the beacon and think who cares. Yet another reason that CTBUH's rules for "official height" need to be scrapped and they should just verify roof height and tip of structure height.

I shake my head every day the the pols and Durstbag got away with ditching the radome. I see the building up close many times a day. It would've been extremely impressive with the radome.

[patrick989]

In the spirit of getting things correct, it's "they're" as opposed to "their" and "there." :cheers:

I've found that there's no use in trying to correct grammar, it's generally a shit show all across the internet. Especially on Facebook, it seems like 90% of people aren't aware that "you're" even exists. Anyway, it certainly is surreal to see this building coming closer and closer to completion, really couldn't care less about the final official height. The important thing is that we rebuilt. All the nitpicky complaints aside, this building has turned out pretty damn good.

[alex14469]

Today:

http://imageshack.us/a/img854/3738/img1142pt.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img90/1976/img1116zg.jpg

http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/3761/img1118h.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img7/7808/img1143xc.jpg

[Tadd]

Anyway, it certainly is surreal to see this building coming closer and closer to completion, really couldn't care less about the final official height.
All the nitpicky complaints aside, this building has turned out pretty damn good.


I see you're point and I agree. I like the building as well. I can't wait to see the various lobbies and how the office space looks surrounding the core, even where the bathrooms are, and how variable the spaces are from one floor to the next. I think it will be outstanding to explore the shopping areas under street level and the connection to the transit systems.

[SFContributor]

Does anybody know when the building's permanent elevators will be installed, and the construction one will be dismantled?

[Guiltyspark]

:dead:

:dead: CTBUH is dead to me if it is. This building is literally a Poo poo on a stick.:madwife:

OT, but people on its forum were saying it is better looking than Trump Chicago.

As far as the mast goes, we will see what they rule. I know what I would do, and I have not seen logical, compelling reasons why it should be counted, but all we can do now is wait.

[StrongIsland]

Some of you just don't get it's not an antenna and it has every reason to be counted with or without the enclosure. It does not serve any function except that at some point one of the sections will have antennas attached to it, oh and the beacon/LED's. Otherwise it's structurally part of this building as a mast The communications ring is obviously there for all the broadcasting equipment. Aesthetics aside it is part of the building therefor it should and I'm pretty sure it will be counted in height.

[jcrm2]

Some of you just don't get it's not an antenna and it has every reason to be counted with or without the enclosure. It does not serve any function except that at some point one of the sections will have antennas attached to it, oh and the beacon/LED's. Otherwise it's structurally part of this building as a mast The communications ring is obviously there for all the broadcasting equipment. Aesthetics aside it is part of the building therefor it should and I'm pretty sure it will be counted in height.

I totally agree. This spire is growing as part of the building & upwards like a continuous floor. It's still an architectural design to the building reguardless. The spire is just naked that's all. Shred off the steel material off the ESB & Crystal spires and you still get a spire but without a skin. The BOA spire is totally naked and yet still counts towards the building total height. No one complains about that so why WTC. The fact is we all was shown a spire with a skin from the very beginning, but if they had proposed the current reframed spire we have now the first time then it wouldn't have made a big issue. It was because we was spoiled and teased that now most dont see it as an spire.

[Traynor]

In 1998 when the PETRONAS Towers in Kuala Lumpur were built Americans were furious that Spires count, because it made the PETRONAS Towers the World's tallest; taller than the Sears (Willis) Tower in Chicago.

Now when a spire/mast would go in your favour for height, you all want it to count.

:shrug:

[MrSlippery519]

If the CTBUH doesn't count the spire, the news will report it with the caveat that the spire does reach 1776 but was ruled by this obscure group as an antenna so it doesn't count.

Joe New Yorker will shrug and know it's 1776 to the top of the beacon and think who cares. Yet another reason that CTBUH's rules for "official height" need to be scrapped and they should just verify roof height and tip of structure height.

I shake my head every day the the pols and Durstbag got away with ditching the radome. I see the building up close many times a day. It would've been extremely impressive with the radome.

I completely agree with you, and honestly at the end of the day who really cares??

I mean really every building in the world has roof height so that is a simple calculation and anything that has a crown, spire, antenna, etc should simply be added on giving every building with those conditions 2 numbers.

[NYguy]

I totally agree. This spire is growing as part of the building & upwards like a continuous floor. It's still an architectural design to the building reguardless.
The spire is just naked that's all.

Except, that's not accurate. At all. And we have no other authority than the architect himself to say so. You can put anything on top of a building when it's under construction,
and call it a part of the building. But it's already been established that's not how things work. No matter how much people may want it to.

This is not the first skyscraper to ever get built. There are standards in place to distinguish what counts as architectural height, and what does not. The mast is being built for broadcasting.
That is the only reason. It was to be built within the spire because a spire reaching 1,776 ft was a mandated part of the site plan. And that is the only reason we had the enclosure
in the first place - to give us the mandated architectural feature that would make it a part of the building. This replaced the earlier, open lattice design of the spire that was to enclose
the antenna mast also.

Now, there is still a chance that the CTBUH could consider the beacon itself an architectural feature, but that's a long stretch, considering the mast is mainly functional. We shall see.



momcat14c (http://www.flickr.com/photos/momcat14c/8718579545/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/8718579545_d06305d38d_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/8718579545_f34b73a603_h.jpg



pmarella (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarella/8719065663/sizes/h/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/8719065663_131bb9f5fe_h.jpg

[Design-mind]

In 1998 when the PETRONAS Towers in Kuala Lumpur were built Americans were furious that Spires count, because it made the PETRONAS Towers the World's tallest; taller than the Sears (Willis) Tower in Chicago.

Now when a spire/mast would go in your favour for height, you all want it to count.

:shrug:

Absolutely agree!
If we wanted to count spires, masts, antenna then some of the tallest buildings in the world are in Northern Europe. An antenna on a maintenance shack 99% antenna 1% usable space (A one floor supertall). WTC1 is still a one of a kind building with or without the mast.

[Skyguy_7]

Per Ironmike40- t/o is scheduled for 7am Friday 5/10. Weather conditions look favorable :tup:

[JMGarcia]

... The mast is being built for broadcasting.
That is the only reason. It was to be built within the spire because a spire reaching 1,776 ft was a mandated part of the site plan. And that is the only reason we had the enclosure
in the first place - to give us the mandated architectural feature that would make it a part of the building.....

To me, the mast was designed and built as the supporting structure or framework of the spire, no different than the steel beams supporting the facade. Durst chose to leave it uncovered as all.

The fact that they decided to have it provide double use so that communication equipment could also be attached to it is its secondary function. On the other hand, the communication rings were designed specifically to have antennas attached to them. They were not built as support structures at all.

They've attached communication antennas to the ESB on it's spire too.

In either case, the whole spire/antenna debate is completely pointless with today's architecure and the CTBUH needs to re-think their rules or lose their relevance.

[Ed007Toronto]

Looks great in that shot from NJ!

[drumz0rz]

Some of you just don't get it's not an antenna and it has every reason to be counted with or without the enclosure. It does not serve any function except that at some point one of the sections will have antennas attached to it, oh and the beacon/LED's. Otherwise it's structurally part of this building as a mast The communications ring is obviously there for all the broadcasting equipment. Aesthetics aside it is part of the building therefor it should and I'm pretty sure it will be counted in height.
It should definitely NOT be counted. You are correct. It isn't an antenna. It's a mast that has antennas attached to it. Just like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg/400px-KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg

That's 2,063 ft and only the top 113 ft are an actual antenna. Therefore using your logic, this mast should be counted as having an architectural structure height of 1,950ft which is taller than the tallest point of 1 WTC.

[Guiltyspark]

It should definitely NOT be counted. You are correct. It isn't an antenna. It's a mast that has antennas attached to it. Just like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg/400px-KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg

That's 2,063 ft and only the top 113 ft are an actual antenna. Therefore using your logic, this mast should be counted as having an architectural structure height of 1,950ft which is taller than the tallest point of 1 WTC.

Glad other people are bringing this up. I made this exact same argument before on this forum but never posted a picture to illustrate it. Hopefully this helps people understand why masts should not count.

[NYCrules]

TRULY MY BEST: "ONE WTC"

By The Hungry Russian (http://www.flickr.com/photos/80083342@N07/page3/)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7430/8720657078_d9bdaf8923_h.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7404/8720628806_513199a20e_h.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7321/8720541852_1459d1eaed_h.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7315/8720792322_a6be9f4bd2_h.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7443/8719356399_292afb5780_h.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7454/8719348759_fd00b08453_k.jpg

[sw5710]

Glad other people are bringing this up. I made this exact same argument before on this forum but never posted a picture to illustrate it. Hopefully this helps people understand why masts should not count.

I have built tv towers in the past. Those tv tower masts are different then the mast on 1WTC. It is not there just to hold antennas. It would still be there if no antennas were ever going to be on it as it is built into the steel of the building as part of the building. Not just put on the roof like a house antenna. A tv tower mast is used just to locate antennas up high nothing else. Look at the Burj. If they mounted an antenna to the several hundrded foot steel pole on top or any other building spire would that discount it today. CN tower included.

[Jaystang5]

Would it have been a good idea if the whole spire/mast was built out of concrete? Our would it be too heavy to support?

[sw5710]

Good question. I dont know about the concrete weight. As of today there is 7 or 800 tons of steel above the roof level on 1wtc. The 200' antenna mast on the ESB is about 20 tons

[franktko]

Concrete is lighter than steel; ~ 150lbs/cubic foot versus 490 lbs/c.f. for steel...

http://www.coyotesteel.com/assets/img/PDFs/weightspercubicfoot.pdf

[JMGarcia]

It should definitely NOT be counted. You are correct. It isn't an antenna. It's a mast that has antennas attached to it. Just like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg/400px-KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg

That's 2,063 ft and only the top 113 ft are an actual antenna. Therefore using your logic, this mast should be counted as having an architectural structure height of 1,950ft which is taller than the tallest point of 1 WTC.

If the antenna were removed from the tip of this tower, would it then be counted as a 2,063 foot building?

Glad other people are bringing this up. I made this exact same argument before on this forum but never posted a picture to illustrate it. Hopefully this helps people understand why masts should not count.

Why should a mast not count because it has an antenna attached to it while a spire such as that on top of the NY Times HQ should count just because it doesn't have an antenna attached to it?

I'll repeat, with today's architectural trends spires and antennas are virtually equal and buildings should be counted to (a)roof and (b)structural tip regardless of the purposes of the structural tip.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if the spire on 1 WTC had a radome covering it would be included in it's height? So, simply by omitting the covering and no other change to it it should not count? By what logic?

[StrongIsland]

^^^^By the logic that some people just can't get over crying "wahwahwah douchebag durst took the cover off so now it means its an antenna even though all is the same besides that wahwahwah" =]

Actually I don't even care if its considered 1,368 or 1,776 either way we have towers again there and more on the way and besides the radome was ugly so whatever. It is what it is nobody is going to change it and non of us can so everyone get used to this tower because its here to stay, as is.

[drumz0rz]

TBH I wouldn't consider the "Spire" with radome as part of the building height either. I mean, in the end, it all amounts to how you interpret this and it seems everyone has a different idea. Personally, I think that if the building has a flat roof with a stick on top, then the architectural height should be the roof height (with total height including that stick).

Compare what we've got with the original design below. While it had an even slimmer stick reaching 1,776 (almost like a pole), it would appear that it was purely decorational and not functional as an antenna mast at all, at which point, would it have been included? I don't think so either. I think that building would have had an architectural height that ended with the physical building roofline (excluding that whole sky garden).
http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/iotwplan/hudson_river.jpg

[fimiak]

It should definitely NOT be counted. You are correct. It isn't an antenna. It's a mast that has antennas attached to it. Just like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg/400px-KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg

That's 2,063 ft and only the top 113 ft are an actual antenna. Therefore using your logic, this mast should be counted as having an architectural structure height of 1,950ft which is taller than the tallest point of 1 WTC.

But it does have an architectural structure height of 2063ft. Why pretend as if it doesn't simply to make the 1WTC more impressive, or to differentiate between masts and antennas? The highest point of a man-made structure is the height of that structure, whether its an office building, an antenna, a mud hut, a deck of cards, etc..its bizarre to measure a structure by anything other than its top point.

[sw5710]

I do look at the entire hight AGL. There are plenty of interpretations out there on height that is true. As long as the CTBUH has the final say on all buildings they can't bend the rules here or they will become biased and untrustworthy. This mast antenna thing is funny. A radio tower can use the entire height of mast to broadcast. A tv tower has an antenna mounted to a mast. I go by Aviation charts. The highest point of steel AGL on anything.

[ih8pickingusernames]

Lets define building: A structure built for human habitation.
Last time I checked people don't inhabit antennas or spires.
Therefore they should be discounted on every building. :cheers:

Don't see anyone working in this...http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg/400px-KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg

[jmatero]

New Yorker's don't care about the height of this building. This isn't 1932. Every day over the past decade, that massive "hole" in NYC skyline has been a constant reminder of pure evil. Now, finally, the skyline is restored and everyone in the NYC area will see that beacon each night and finally smile. Plain and simple.

It will be nice to look towards the southern tip of Manhattan after all these years and smile. And feel a sense of peace. Mission accomplished!

[RockMont]

The only thing that matters is that the height of the roof-top matches that of the originals.

[CCs77]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7369/8719746686_432c6c5606_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/soulico/8719746686/)
One World Trade Center, New York. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/soulico/8719746686/) por dsorine (http://www.flickr.com/people/soulico/), en Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8137/8708620269_1e5486107a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hshuldman/8708620269/)
Vertical panorama at the base of One World Trade Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hshuldman/8708620269/) por hshuldman (http://www.flickr.com/people/hshuldman/), en Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7301/8719849654_696a01a4b4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hshuldman/8719849654/)
newly topped-out One World Trade Center from Hudson Street, partially obscured by clouds (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hshuldman/8719849654/) por hshuldman (http://www.flickr.com/people/hshuldman/), en Flickr


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8255/8664876196_7f76025f48_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8664876196/)
Peek a Boo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8664876196/) por Keith Michael NYC (http://www.flickr.com/people/keithmichaelnyc/), en Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8223/8372151166_5a9a859784_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8372151166/)
Downtown Manhattan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8372151166/) por Keith Michael NYC (http://www.flickr.com/people/keithmichaelnyc/), en Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8401/8690590649_296f87129b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8690590649/)
City Sitting (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8690590649/) por Keith Michael NYC (http://www.flickr.com/people/keithmichaelnyc/), en Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8393/8653839444_4e99c11810_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8653839444/)
Up, Up and Away (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8653839444/) por Keith Michael NYC (http://www.flickr.com/people/keithmichaelnyc/), en Flickr

[NYC_Longhorn]

WOW... you guys really start debating pointless stuff whenever you are dealing with SPIRE ANTICIPATION! I Can't wait!!!!!!!

[JMGarcia]

Lets define building: A structure built for human habitation.
Last time I checked people don't inhabit antennas or spires.
Therefore they should be discounted on every building. :cheers:

Don't see anyone working in this...http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg/400px-KVLY-TV_Mast_Tower_Wide.jpg

By that logic, I guess we should discount not just spires when counting height but tons of building who's tops have un-occupiable latices, pyramids, arches, cylinders etc. on top. e.g. BofA Atlanta, 111 Huntington Boston, even the height of the Burj and Shanghai WFC will need to be chopped.

[Matthew]

I'm guessing the last piece of the antenna/spire will determine if it's a spire or antenna. At first, it appears to be an antenna and not a part of the design. However, when you look at the beacon.. it's something not needed for broadcasting. It's something the architects want and it could be enough to make this a spire?

[2-TOWERS]

i saw pics a while back of the SEARS/WILLIS and the antennas were built from below the roof , looking at the steel construction you would think they were part of the building, just saying.....

[NYguy]

To me, the mast was designed and built as the supporting structure or framework of the spire, no different than the steel beams supporting the facade. Durst chose to leave it uncovered as all.


But that is not the case. I feel I need to explain the history of the spire again and why there was a need for a distinctive design for it.

Libeskind's site plan called for a tower with an asymmetrical spire reaching 1,776 ft. At the time his plan was chosen, the broadcasters had been planning their own 2,000 ft broadcast tower, but ran into complications (Bloomberg). They even considered putting it in Jersey City and Bayonne. Once the coalition saw that they were talking seriously about building tall again at the WTC, they jumped on the bandwagon. David Childs, who was to be the actual architect of the building merged their plan with Libesking's own, creating a 2,000 ft hybrid that included an observation deck at 1,776 ft as a nod to Libeskind's plan. Libeskind considered this too much of a deviation from his site plan and went to war with Childs. Governor Pataki - who had singlehandedly picked Libeskind's site plan over the choice of his own selection committee - agreed that in fact the tower was supposed to rise 1,776 ft with an asymmetrical spire. A beaten David Childs got back to work on a basically stumpier version of his tower - with an asymmetrical spire tacked on top reaching 1,776 ft.

The follies continued when the NYPD pointed out that the tower itself was in fact too close to West Street (another part of the site plan). All plans were thrown out, and Childs got to work on the tower that we pretty much see today. The spire, meanwhile, had evolved along with the building. It would now be an open lattice like design with the antenna hidden inside. That was later changed to an enclosed design (for protection from the elements). The spire itself was to be an abstract reference to the Statue of Liberty's upraised torch. The mast behind it was never intended to be visible.

Now, one thing that has not changed, whether you prefer it the way it is now, or the way it was meant to be - the current mast is no architectural feature of the building. The architect himself has stated as much, so don't take my word for it, take his at least.


http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/150094062/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/91204051/large.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/145890486/original.jpg



http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2011/09/images/One-Word-Trade-Center-11.jpg
http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2011/09/one-world-trade-center.asp




TBH I wouldn't consider the "Spire" with radome as part of the building height either. I mean, in the end, it all amounts to how you interpret this and it seems everyone has a different idea.

It was very specific. David Childs said the spire design was essential to seeing the tower design as one. The CTBUH likes to use the Burj Khalifah spire as an example by saying it completes the look of the building. If we were to just "interpret" anything on top of a building as part of the building just because it's there, then let's count them all. But that's an entirely different discussion on whether the mast here is to be considered a spire or antenna.



The only thing that matters is that the height of the roof-top matches that of the originals.

And it doesn't do that, even.




guptaudbhav (http://www.flickr.com/photos/udbhavgupta/8722175866/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7300/8722175866_ac2dda4613_o.jpg



Donald Brennan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81349890@N05/8720657600/sizes/z/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7363/8720657600_14ee5a94f8_z.jpg




Nachosan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nachosan/8719965469/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7333/8719965469_0e4dc033f3_b.jpg


sanD12 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10143253@N06/8722754494/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7345/8722754494_d5d040689b_b.jpg

[pnapp1]

New Yorker's don't care about the height of this building. This isn't 1932. Every day over the past decade, that massive "hole" in NYC skyline has been a constant reminder of pure evil. Now, finally, the skyline is restored and everyone in the NYC area will see that beacon each night and finally smile. Plain and simple.

It will be nice to look towards the southern tip of Manhattan after all these years and smile. And feel a sense of peace. Mission accomplished!

Agreed! The only thing that matters about the mast is weather it's going to look good without the random, not its height. It's height is irrelevant! One WTC is a big building and fits nicely downtown. That's all that matters! Who gives a shit how tall it is! The most important thing is will it look good when completed?

[JMGarcia]

^^I agree that the mast is not an architectural feature. It is a structural feature. It is a support structure, a functional piece of the building like the steel framing used to attach the facade or the elevator cores used to encase the elevators.

The mast is designed the way it is to enable it to support the facade of the spire i.e. the randome to create the proper shape and support the weight of the radome. It's shape, width, strength, placement of rings etc. are specifically designed for that purpose.

There's no question that if there was no plan to have it support a radome covering then the mast would have not have been designed the way it was. It would have been an antenna like on 4 TSQX.

[NYguy]

Agreed! The only thing that matters about the mast is weather it's going to look good without the random, not its height. It's height is irrelevant! One WTC is a big building and fits nicely downtown. That's all that matters! Who gives a shit how tall it is! The most important thing is will it look good when completed?

An oddly laughable opinion on a skyscraper forum. I agree though, that the height is not the most essential thing here. That will be what it will be. But it is the appearance that concerns me most. After defending what a lot of people consider to be a boring and bland skyscraper, that mast is something that I cannot. The building itself looks nice enough, but that garbage on top should have remained hidden. Maybe they can extend the parapet another 400 ft.

[ablerock]

But that is not the case. I feel I need to explain the history of the spire again and why there was a need for a distinctive design for it.

Libeskind's site plan called for a tower with an asymmetrical spire reaching 1,776 ft. At the time his plan was chosen, the broadcasters had been planning their own 2,000 ft broadcast tower, but ran into complications (Bloomberg). They even considered putting it in Jersey City and Bayonne. Once the coalition saw that they were talking seriously about building tall again at the WTC, they jumped on the bandwagon. David Childs, who was to be the actual architect of the building merged their plan with Libesking's own, creating a 2,000 ft hybrid that included an observation deck at 1,776 ft as a nod to Libeskind's plan. Libeskind considered this too much of a deviation from his site plan and went to war with Childs. Governor Pataki - who had singlehandedly picked Libeskind's site plan over the choice of his own selection committee - agreed that in fact the tower was supposed to rise 1,776 ft with an asymmetrical spire. A beaten David Childs got back to work on a basically stumpier version of his tower - with an asymmetrical spire tacked on top reaching 1,776 ft.

The follies continued when the NYPD pointed out that the tower itself was in fact too close to West Street (another part of the site plan). All plans were thrown out, and Childs got to work on the tower that we pretty much see today. The spire, meanwhile, had evolved along with the building. It would now be an open lattice like design with the antenna hidden inside. That was later changed to an enclosed design (for protection from the elements). The spire itself was to be an abstract reference to the Statue of Liberty's upraised torch. The mast behind it was never intended to be visible.

Now, one thing that has not changed, whether you prefer it the way it is now, or the way it was meant to be - the current mast is no architectural feature of the building. The architect himself has stated as much, so don't take my word for it, take his at least.



Thanks for that summary! :)

To my eye, it's tantamount to building the tower and not putting putting the glass on. It's only the ugly internal skeleton of what was meant to be and that's fairly obvious. Design lost to Profit this round. It's nice when they play a little more nicely together. That's what's disappointing.

But I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Rebuilding was what was most important. And there are so many other amazing things being built in NYC to enjoy. :)

[Renton]

Saw Matt lauer talking on the today show about the final section going up tomorrow. They are going to broadcast from up there tomorrow. Last night the weather forecast for friday was supposed to be sunny and 80. Now I see a 30 percent chance of rain. Hopefully its not like today. Its been pouring all morning.

[pnapp1]

An oddly laughable opinion on a skyscraper forum. I agree though, that the height is not the most essential thing here. That will be what it will be. But it is the appearance that concerns me most. After defending what a lot of people consider to be a boring and bland skyscraper, that mast is something that I cannot. The building itself looks nice enough, but that garbage on top should have remained hidden. Maybe they can extend the parapet another 400 ft.

Or at the very least, paint the damn thing white.

[drumz0rz]

But it does have an architectural structure height of 2063ft. Why pretend as if it doesn't simply to make the 1WTC more impressive, or to differentiate between masts and antennas? The highest point of a man-made structure is the height of that structure, whether its an office building, an antenna, a mud hut, a deck of cards, etc..its bizarre to measure a structure by anything other than its top point.
Because the people who build buildings like this want to boast about it's height. They whine and complain that while company A builds a building that's X,XXXft tall to the roof line, B then just adds a mast to the top of their building making it X+1ft tall and thus stealing the coveted title of "tallest" from them.

Like, how about a more "real world" example. The Drake Hotel will rise 1,398ft to it's flat roof with no spire / mast / antenna. That's the tallest roofline in NYC, taller than 1WTC. If we count the spire, then the Drake Hotel will be second tallest. If we don't, it'll be first. That's why they've created different measurement systems.

Pinnacle Height measures to the top of the highest point. Architectural height is what is being debated, and I think most of us agree that the "Spire" on 1WTC should not count in that regard much like how the mast on the Empire State Building isn't counted either.

All in all, there's really no measurement beyond some 100% arbitrary way for this building to be 1,776ft. Of course that doesn't stop Durst from citing that number in every press release and still claiming the title of tallest in the west. In the end, we're just moaning about a useless statistic that has no real impact on the beauty of the building.

http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2011/09/images/One-Word-Trade-Center-11.jpg
http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portfolio/2011/09/one-world-trade-center.asp

I hadn't seen that diagram before. You can really tell it's the exact same mast, they just took away the radome. Seeing this, I can now see why a lot of you think the mast us ugly. It doesn't make sense the way it was constructed. The beacon on top is going to look especially awkward and out of place as it was designed to be the slender tip to a sleek spire, not the awkward diamond shaped balloon that it'll be when it goes up. Also, seeing how the Radome would have covered the mast, it still made sense to mark the height at 1,776 ft (and exclude the lightning rod) because there would have been a more defined structure that ended at that height. The way it's being built it's just a plain boring mast with no special significance to one element over another.

Durst really robbed NYC and the architectural world when he fattened his pockets by cutting out the radome. In a way, it's almost symbolic of this whole new WTC project. A meaningless skeleton that fails to fulfill the legacy it was originally intended to recreate. In the end I think the new WTC complex will be a grouping of pretty buildings (the best of which are just stubs in the ground at this point... lets see how those get ruined as well) but they'll never live up the awe and majesty of the original complex. I, like many I'm sure, loved the twins. That fascination predated 9/11 as I was enamored by them when I first saw them. These new towers don't stir those feelings at all sadly.

[NYdude]

Saw Matt lauer talking on the today show about the final section going up tomorrow. They are going to broadcast from up there tomorrow. Last night the weather forecast for friday was supposed to be sunny and 80. Now I see a 30 percent chance of rain. Hopefully its not like today. Its been pouring all morning.

There is a chance of afternoon showers/t-storms, but the day should overall be partly cloudy.

[ih8pickingusernames]

By that logic, I guess we should discount not just spires when counting height but tons of building who's tops have un-occupiable latices, pyramids, arches, cylinders etc. on top. e.g. BofA Atlanta, 111 Huntington Boston, even the height of the Burj and Shanghai WFC will need to be chopped.

So if someone were to build a building with 1 real floor and the next 99 floors could not be occupied because they were lattice/ cylinders/ pyramids then I will have constructed the tallest building in the world? :???:

[JMGarcia]

So if someone were to build a building with 1 real floor and the next 99 floors could not be occupied because they were lattice/ cylinders/ pyramids then I will have constructed the tallest building in the world? :???:

Indeed you would have, to the tallest point of the man made structure. This is why I keep saying there are only 2 important heights. 1-Tip of the man made structure and 2 - roof height. You would have the tallest in category 1 but not in category 2.

The foolish hybrid category that the CTBUH uses for its "official" height is pointless. An antenna can have more contextual and architectural impact (Conde Naste TSQX) than a spire (NY Times). So why try to differentiate.

[JMGarcia]

... But it is the appearance that concerns me most. After defending what a lot of people consider to be a boring and bland skyscraper, that mast is something that I cannot. The building itself looks nice enough, but that garbage on top should have remained hidden. Maybe they can extend the parapet another 400 ft.

Agreed and agreed. They have robbed the aesthetics of this building by exposing the support structure and covering it with lights. It's one thing to redesign the spire to get rid of the radome, but this isn't a redesign. A nicely designed antenna could've been more architecturally appealing than this support structure.

[Traynor]

Instead of all the debate about the way they measure height... Just get it directly from the horse's mouth:

CTBUH Height Criteria (http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/HeightStatistics/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx)

http://i.imgur.com/SrnZYK3.jpg
(Screen capture from CTBUH website HERE (http://www.ctbuh.org/) )

[JayPro]

I touched on this before and I'll elaborate here.

I'm cool with the elecom element of this building (spire/antenna/mast whatever agument be damned quite frankly) for one reason.
It fits NYC's character to a tee.
How?
I'm tickled pink that you should ask:
So it's been laid bare? As if the typical New Yawkah gives a damn what anyone thinks once he feels the need to bare his soul on a matter.
It's ugly? Since when has this town ever gotten anal over satisfying any outside party's opinion of what a major metropolis ought to look like. The people here are proud of their less than lace-gilt roots and this antenna/whetever suggests that in a truly *big* way.
Out of proportion, you say? What, if anything, pray tell, is smalll in this city?

You might well have guessed by now that I'm not in this discussion to follow what a gaggle of obsessive-compulsive bean-counters in this CTBUH dognmatize re height figures. I'm simply registering at this point the awe I'm in over how *honest* this spire is about its function and form.
I understand that the Durst people may themselves have been less so about why the radome sheath was ditched. But can we agree, perhaps, that what they did to value-engineer the spire shows decidedly a lot of guts, just as what we see right now is a 414' setup of vertical guts in the sky? That's what I'm talking about.

Also @whoever suggested that the beacon sticking out atop the mast looks awkward:
To each his own, my friend. But imagine a minimalist, abstract flame on a big, brawny candle. And Imagine that flame shooting out two concentrated beams of light that rotate every minute and can (hopefully) be seen on a clear suburban night 50 miles out.

I say let the multinational quadrillionaires take the prettified stuff set to sprout up along the 57th Street corridor (and I don't mean that disparagingly; because both 107W and 205W are gonna pop some eyes out). You want a display of Big American tenacity, toughness, grit and plain ol' chutzpah...and how more New York can you get there????

This is it Downtown.

[Chibears85]

Here is the video from 7:30am EDT from NBC's Today show announcing the Spire will go up tomorrow!

k9lb5PH57O0

[WTCman7301]

Does anybody know what time they will be raising the spire tomorrow?

[Trevor Birchett]

7 am et

[Chibears85]

7 am et
Right when NBC's TODAY show starts. But really it rises at 7:30am. I really encourage everyone to watch NBC's Today show tomorrow to watch the spire rising, the host will be up with it, and I imagine they will show live shots of it rising in HD (Not not earthcams 'HD', REAL TV HD).

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Yes will see if I can get there.

[Trevor Birchett]

Reminder for those not in Eastern Time: Today is tape-delayed, so that means what the East Coast viewers see at 7 AM Eastern, West Coast viewers will see the same thing at 7 AM Pacific. So wherever you are, tune in during your local 7 AM hour to watch.

Also, really quick, let me introduce myself. I've been lurking in this thread for a few years now, and haven't posted all that much. I'm Trevor, I live in Memphis, TN. I guess that's all anyone wants to know, haha.

Oh...and don't worry, I won't go on endless rants about the spire or base.

[TransitEngr]

I really wonder what this beacon of light is going to look like on a clear night. I wonder if it will resemble the super bright rotating beacon on the Eiffel Tower....

Anyway.... so assuming the final top piece of the spire is installed tomorrow.... about how long before they start running the beacon light? 2 months? 6 months?

[Chibears85]

Reminder for those not in Eastern Time: Today is tape-delayed, so that means what the East Coast viewers see at 7 AM Eastern, West Coast viewers will see the same thing at 7 AM Pacific. So wherever you are, tune in during your local 7 AM hour to watch.

Also, really quick, let me introduce myself. I've been lurking in this thread for a few years now, and haven't posted all that much. I'm Trevor, I live in Memphis, TN. I guess that's all anyone wants to know, haha.

Yep, only twice have I seen Today be LIVE over the entire country was on 9/11 and the days after the Boston Bombing.

Sadly I wont see it live, or even on TV because I usually leave my house at exactly 7am

[deepen915]

or at the very least, paint the damn thing white.

this.. ^

[deepen915]

and i'm definitely gonna wake up early to catch the spire beacon installation tomorrow! Exciting day for sure!

[Kevin Scott Koepke]

I definitely will make it my business to be there on the waterfront for this. I've been waiting a long time for the topping out. About time.

[kpdrummer82]

I definitely will make it my business to be there on the waterfront for this. I've been waiting a long time for the topping out. About time.

You always have some of the most amazing photography of this building so I'm expecting beautiful work from you! Don't let us down! Just kidding, have fun, you'll be witnessing history.

[NYguy]

Rebuilding was what was most important. And there are so many other amazing things being built in NYC to enjoy. :)

Things have come a long way from when there was just a hole in the ground. There is still a lot more to do, but order is almost restored.



Saw Matt lauer talking on the today show about the final section going up tomorrow. They are going to broadcast from up there tomorrow.

Yeah, I'll be watching on tv. I have to be in the city, but not that early.



Or at the very least, paint the damn thing white.

I was reading somewhere that they were supposed to put a metal coating on the mast, but didn't because it will take a while before broadcasting equipment is finalized. They just raised it as is for the meantime.



I hadn't seen that diagram before. You can really tell it's the exact same mast, they just took away the radome.

I don't understand how you're not seeing it. The radome itself is not just a "sheet" thrown over to hide the mast, but is the design element itself. It's what replaced the open lattice design. There is a BIG difference in that, and why it has been called into question. The radome and the mast are two different things.

It boggles my mind that people see this as the same thing.

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/140858125/original.jpg



Weekly Rest (http://www.flickr.com/photos/weeklyrest/8723924178/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7308/8723924178_fcc569f552_b.jpg



dsorine (http://www.flickr.com/photos/soulico/8723319417/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/8723319417_5c7564bd4e_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/8723319417_3315a4ce91_h.jpg



Keith Michael NYC (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithmichaelnyc/8724100529/sizes/c/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7408/8724100529_9cb7d4c64f_c.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7408/8724100529_9cb7d4c64f_b.jpg



Diario El Carabobeño (http://www.flickr.com/photos/el-carabobeno/8722653131/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/8722653131_08d448a886_b.jpg



asterion1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/72193283@N00/8723816651/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7391/8723816651_dca2ae7494_b.jpg



Phyllis Featherstone (http://www.flickr.com/photos/phyllisfeatherstone/8720947868/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7433/8720947868_293ffc5ac9_o.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/8719824389_d3b5253d3d_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/8719824389_620126e29f_o.jpg

[Jaystang5]

Am I the only one concerned here, that 1 World Trade Center isn't on the hull of NCL newest ship, Norwegian Breakaway? I mean its supposed to represent NY right?

[Chicago103]

Reminder for those not in Eastern Time: Today is tape-delayed, so that means what the East Coast viewers see at 7 AM Eastern, West Coast viewers will see the same thing at 7 AM Pacific. So wherever you are, tune in during your local 7 AM hour to watch.

Also, really quick, let me introduce myself. I've been lurking in this thread for a few years now, and haven't posted all that much. I'm Trevor, I live in Memphis, TN. I guess that's all anyone wants to know, haha.

Oh...and don't worry, I won't go on endless rants about the spire or base.

I am pretty sure for the Central Time Zone it is still live, so that would be 6 AM Central.

[bobdreamz]

Wake up! The final sections are being hoisted this morning on NBC's Today show! It's 7 AM EST here now!

[Bazzelijn]

My first post here :cheers: : can someone please post a livestream? We don't have NBC here in the Netherlands :shuffle:

[franktko]

Go here http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/worldtradecenter/ and pick 1 WTC HD on the bottom strip

[Bazzelijn]

Go here http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/worldtradecenter/ and pick 1 WTC HD on the bottom strip

Thanks! Will be acting as a 'second screen' though, already found this stream http://www.stream2watch.me/live-tv/nbc-live-stream

[Trevor Birchett]

There it goes!!! Topped out May 10, 2013, 7:42 AM ET.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/525220_3090324752557_1987374489_n.jpg

[hunser]

It's happening! http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/51832927/

Unfortunately I have to go to work, ... :(

[hunser]

TOPPED OUT!! :yes::yes: :worship::worship:

[Ziroc]

ABC has a closer cam... wow, looks awesome!

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/live

Still.. looks like a skeleton without the Radome. :)

[Skyguy_7]

What a great way to start the day! Merica! :cheers::worship:

[Trevor Birchett]

EarthCam timelapse...

http://youtu.be/pqCSZs4SQ5s

[pattali]

Congratulations !

ABC news pictures are awesome !

[Skyguy_7]

Reminds me of Iwo Jima!

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-5-smDuDq3pE/UYzoedm0eVI/AAAAAAAAAII/hYQFSDIRBsM/w392-h245-p-o/NYC302.png
From Coddington on SSC

[NYguy]

k4zrgI3HV6w




http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22214960/1-world-trade-center-reaches-new-heights


http://wnyw.images.worldnow.com/images/2481904_G.jpg



http://wnyw.images.worldnow.com/images/2481905_G.jpg



http://wnyw.images.worldnow.com/images/2481906_G.jpg



http://wnyw.images.worldnow.com/images/2481908_G.jpg



http://wnyw.images.worldnow.com/images/2481909_G.jpg



http://wnyw.images.worldnow.com/images/2481910_G.jpg



http://wnyw.images.worldnow.com/images/2481911_G.jpg



http://www.today.com/news/cheers-erupt-spire-tops-one-world-trade-center-1C9870947

http://proxy.storify.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FBJ5TvbhCIAEAlHZ.jpg



Michael C Dunne (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelcdunne/8724968521/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7422/8726083230_768ecbac22_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7441/8724968521_45a411115c_b.jpg

[asharmaearth411]

It's About Time! Go New York Go New York, Go! :notacrook: :cheers: :yes: :worship:

[CoolCzech]

Hate to break it to the CTBUH - and lightning rod fans, for that matter- but their opinions about the 1,776 foot height of the Freedom Tower are absolutely irrelevant. Guidebooks & TV shows & the public will forever know this tower is the 1,776 foot one. :P

[NYguy]

Hate to break it to the CTBUH - and lightning rod fans, for that matter- but their opinions about the 1,776 foot height of the Freedom Tower are absolutely irrelevant. Guidebooks & TV shows & the public will forever know this tower is the 1,776 foot one. :P

Ridiculous. When this tower is completed, the designation will be made. "TV" does not influence height designation. There is a lot of work yet to be done on this tower. While it is possible
the CTBUH will rule this as a spire, you would best save your "joy" until that time, because if it does not, this tower won't even be the tallest in New York. In either case, it will still look a mess.



Robert Lejeune (http://www.flickr.com/photos/51161290@N06/8722336736/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7287/8722336736_11bec88f4f_b.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7287/8722336736_9a2cc588b8_h.jpg



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7401/8723674474_7bcbbc8720_b.jpg

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Hey everyone, just want to let you know I was at the 69th Street pier this morning and videoed the last sections of the Spire/Beacon. I will post later tonight after I get home from work. Also have some pictures I will post here.

[drumz0rz]

Spire or Antenna, the tip still reaches higher than the antenna on Willis Tower. The only structures in the Western Hemisphere taller are pure TV masts. So in that sense, considering the structure as a whole, it's the tallest building.

[Chicago103]

History of the tallest skyscrapers in the United States by pinnacle height since the original World Trade Center:

1978-June 5, 2000: North Tower World Trade Center, New York City 1,727 feet (antenna installation)
June 5, 2000-May 10, 2013: Sears Tower, Chicago 1,730 feet (antenna extention)
May 10, 2013-:One World Trade Center, New York City 1,776 feet (topping out of pinnacle of structure)

[koops65]

Building heights (in any category) are not official until the building has been completed...

[deepen915]

amazing day! Proud of NY and my country!

[rack776]

What the frig? I thought it was going to be today at 12:00 Noon EST!?!?!?!?
Damn Port Authorty PR department, I'm thrilled it's toped out but thanks for the heads up about when the final lift was going to happen.

Hooray!......I guess:shrug:
Congrats NYC you finally have a new "thingingy" to look at.
How the hell could they cheap out on the most visible part of the building?

So....I guess we can move back to bicthing about the base glass now -
I'm sick of looking at and thinking about the whole spire antenna mast cluster F#$% anyway.

I just cant get excited about this project anymore.....
I still wont consider the complex finished untill the other buildings, museum and trans hub are finished.

Guess I'll head on over to the 432 Park and check out NYC's future tallest building.

Thanks for the updates & photos guys.

[deepen915]

What the frig? I thought it was going to be today at 12:00 Noon EST!?!?!?!?
Damn Port Authorty PR department, I'm thrilled it's toped out but thanks for the heads up about when the final lift was going to happen.

we've all known it was 7am since yesterday.. it helps to read the forum posts..

[CoolCzech]

Building heights (in any category) are not official until the building has been completed...

"Official" heights be damned. Our grandchildren will read in NYC guidebooks that the Freedom Tower is 1,776 ft tall. Bank on it.

[rack776]

we've all known it was 7am since yesterday.. it helps to read the forum posts..

Some of us have to work for a living and life gets in the way of fun sometimes, I can only check on here once and a while, I had been looking for
an update on the time over the last week and was only reading spire rants, got tied up last night could not check aagain.

I was not bitching about this forum holding back info on the time......I'm pissed the PA made such a big hoopla about finishing it but did not make
the information to the public untill the last minuite.....just say'n their PR sucks.
The only reason I even knew it was going to go up was because of this forum.

No big deal - I'm just mad at my self for missing the date & time.
I'm still glad to see it rise:cheers:

[Traynor]

Spire or Antenna, the tip still reaches higher than the antenna on Willis Tower. The only structures in the Western Hemisphere taller are pure TV masts. So in that sense, considering the structure as a whole, it's the tallest building.

At 1815'5" (553.3m) Toronto's CN Tower is still the tallest free-standing structure in the Western Hemisphere and it is not a pure TV mast.

Wikipedia Article HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CN_Tower)

We Canadians are often forgotten by American forumers. :(

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2517/3940056218_c4bf5b9251_o.jpg
(Image found HERE (http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/8967-Toronto-skyline/page7) )

[NYguy]

Spire or Antenna, the tip still reaches higher than the antenna on Willis Tower. The only structures in the Western Hemisphere taller are pure TV masts. So in that sense, considering the structure as a whole, it's the tallest building.

It is the tallest in that category, same as the original tower was.


Now for some press....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/opinion/in-manhattan-real-estate-wealth-and-power-are-relatives.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&


The spire makes the building the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, 47 feet taller than Chicago's Willis Tower, though it is substantially shorter than towers in the Middle East and Asia.

The tower's height is a reference to the year 1776, which marked the beginning of the American revolution against British rule and is considered the start of what became the modern United States.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/matt-lauer-one-world-trade-center-exclusive_n_3252058.html?utm_hp_ref=media


Matt Lauer stood about 1500 feet in the air on Friday as workers lifted the final part of the 408-foot tall spire on top of One World Trade Center.

The "Today" show led its 7:00 a.m. hour with Lauer speaking over spectacular images of the building and views of New York City. One Wold Trade Center stands just north of the original towers.

"A crowning achievement, we're live at the top of One World Trade Center. Six years in the making and workers are about to raise the final two sections of the spire, making it the tallest building in the western hemisphere. A historic moment today, Friday, May 10, 2013," Lauer said.

When Lauer arrived to the site early Friday morning, he took the express elevator up, but then climbed nine different ladders to reach the top. "It really is an incredible journey; it's harrowing at times. I'm not afraid of heights, but I found my knees knocking at certain times," Lauer said.

Half past the hour, Lauer gave the signal for workers to lift the final piece of the spire. The building grew to a height of 1,776 feet, a symbolic reference to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.



http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/1-wtc-spire-bringing-full-height-article-1.1340224

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1340239.1368188893!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/world-trade-center.jpg

Workers prepare to raise the silver spire atop the 1 World Trade Center building in New York early Friday May 10, 2013. The 408-foot spire will serve as a world-class broadcast antenna. An LED-powered light emanating from it will be seen from miles away. When it is fully installed on the building's roof, it will bring the iconic structure to its full, symbolic height of 1,776 feet.




http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1340255.1368190771!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/spire.jpg


The addition of the spire, and its raising of the building’s height to 1,776 feet, would make One World Trade Center the tallest structure in the U.S. and third-tallest in the world, although building experts dispute whether the spire is actually an antenna — a crucial distinction in measuring the building’s height.

If it didn’t have the spire, One World Trade Center would actually be shorter than the Willis Tower in Chicago, which stands at 1,451 feet and currently has the title of tallest building in the U.S., not including its own antennas.




http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1340256.1368190814!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/spire.jpg

Tenants include the magazine publisher Conde Nast, the government’s General Services Administration and Vantone Holdings China Center, which will provide business space for international companies.

Nerida Willson, a U.S. Postal Service employee who works across from the street from the tower, said “It's a great thing going forward and not allowing terrorists to keep us from doing what we need to do. We need those towers. We are the greatest city on Earth."



http://news.sky.com/story/1089299/world-trade-center-topped-with-silver-spire

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/5/10/237193/default/v1/9193042-1-1-942x530.jpg



http://www.northjersey.com/news/206882401_World_Trade_Center_set_for_placing_of_final_piece.html

http://media.northjersey.com/images/0510a_freedomtower_40p.jpg


And in the coming weeks, a beacon at the pinnacle of the spire, 1,776 feet high, will be switched on and the 288,000 lumens of light emitted from it will be visible from 50 miles away, serving as a new visual marker for millions looking east from New Jersey, officials say.

What won't be visible from those distances is the extensive security measures that make one of the world's tallest buildings one of the world's safest, according to officials, and at $3.9 billion, one of the most expensive.

So expensive that it could not have been built without public money, said David Samson, chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the bi-state agency in charge of the project.

"A private developer would have never done this building this way because of the additional costs required for security aspects," he said on a tour of the skyscraper this week in advance of the anticipated topping out. "We were building this for reasons other than just a return on investment."

[Yankee fan for life]

Can't really blame people Traynor, CN Tower is only 39 feet taller structurally, and just 18 feet taller by pinnacle, its easy to get the two mix up.

[rack776]

That last photo above looks like a shot from a NASA base or scifi movie:):cool:

[CoolCzech]

That last photo above looks like a shot from a NASA base or scifi movie:):cool:

HEH!

If they ever do a remake of Flash Gordon, they'll reveal the beacon housing is really Dr. Zarkov's space capsule

[jowens]

With not being accessible to NYC media this morning, The Today show was a very strong outlet for seeing topping out of the spire / mast / etc. Matt Lauer's vantage point was spectacular. They also didn't make the mistake of call it the "Freedom Tower" and the area below "ground zero".

[JDRCRASH]

THIS PUPPY IS T/O!!!:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Kevin Scott Koepke]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7416/8725865678_b342a3a958.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8725865678/)
Manhattan Dawn; 5/10/2013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8725865678/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7319/8724808061_55081c249f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8724808061/)
One World Trade Center; 5/10/2013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8724808061/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7450/8724817499_f375ec8c4f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8724817499/)
One World Trade Center; 5/10/2013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8724817499/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7331/8725960494_72cb7c88a4.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8725960494/)
Eclipsed (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8725960494/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7341/8725358939_e2e58f56df.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8725358939/)
One World Trade Center; 5/10/2013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8725358939/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7388/8725365153_76b0a232ce.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8725365153/)
Topping Out (http://www.flickr.com/photos/plasticfantasticphotography/8725365153/) by kevin scott koepke photography (http://www.flickr.com/people/plasticfantasticphotography/), on Flickr

[deepen915]

Some of us have to work for a living and life gets in the way of fun sometimes, I can only check on here once and a while, I had been looking for
an update on the time over the last week and was only reading spire rants, got tied up last night could not check aagain.

I was not bitching about this forum holding back info on the time......I'm pissed the PA made such a big hoopla about finishing it but did not make
the information to the public untill the last minuite.....just say'n their PR sucks.
The only reason I even knew it was going to go up was because of this forum.

No big deal - I'm just mad at my self for missing the date & time.
I'm still glad to see it rise:cheers:

yeah didn't mean to come off as condescending.. was just saying.. All good :cheers:

[mrnyc]

At 1815'5" (553.3m) Toronto's CN Tower is still the tallest free-standing structure in the Western Hemisphere and it is not a pure TV mast.

Wikipedia Article HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CN_Tower)

We Canadians are often forgotten by American forumers. :(




whoa - making a mistake about pure tv antenna masts does not make a free standing structure any more comparable to a building, friend. ;)

however, i believe the part of the cn tower that can be occupied is well above the occupiable top floors of sears or the wtc. now that is definately something that is comparable and cnt is tops for that. so yay canada! see? we remember you! :tup: