HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 8:26 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
Wow, you are biased. Anyone who says the Sears tower is ugly doesn't have an eye for good architecture.
no, you are the biased one.

people are free to like and dislike whatever buildings they so choose.

if you think the sears tower is beautiful, that's great. if marshall thinks it's ugly, so be it.

arguing extremely subjective stuff like that is an exercise in outright futility.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 8:28 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshall View Post
Oh and btw, I personally think 1WTC blows the Sears/Willis Tower out of the water in every way. The Sears/Willis Tower is just ugly in my opinion.
Sorry, but I completely disagree. To me, the Sears Tower is one of the more striking supertalls in the world: in its direct, right angled dimensions and setbacks meaning the tower has a different form from any direction, and its looming, dark color giving it a sense of solidity most glass icicles lack. The setbacks are a major part of its appeal for me; I dislike simple vertical boxes.

The new WTC is a striking building in its own right, but the Sears edges it out in my opinion. However, from an architectural standpoint, I didn't particularly like the Twin Towers. I'm no fan of that early 1970s, bland white box form. (Thus, Aon Center in Chicago is my least favorite of the thousand footers there.)
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 11:33 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
For those still searching for a way so that 1 WTC can be the tallest in rooftop as well in the country, we can try what Canada did with this with the spire.

http://www.searchingtoronto.com/pict...wer-skypod.jpg


I think they should have done that also. It would have been an advance version of the 102nd floor of the ESB. However, that's just a dream if they can't reconfigure the spire after it's built.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!

Last edited by jd3189; May 6, 2012 at 12:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 11:48 PM
DrNest's Avatar
DrNest DrNest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
On another note, they shouldn't count an antenna's or spires. If I build a 200m building and stick a 400m spire on it, is it 600m ? NO. They should either go by roof height, or top floor height. I would actually say top floor height, because it solves the Chrysler building dilemma.
So to use the hypothetical building of your example. Would you be totally safe and comfortable in a helicopter flying directly towards this building at 250m, or would you be more happier if the pilot flew at 650m?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted May 4, 2012, 9:45 AM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeno333 View Post
I just do not buy the ideal that the antenna for the WTC 1 is part of the structure....The Willis Tower is clearly taller when not considering antennas as it should be for all buildings IMHO.
I agree here and I have always maintained that IMO roof height is the most important determining factor in buildings height followed by highest occupied floor.

That being said if you are going to count spires and not antennas you should at least be consistent. I don't see how the WTC1 is both an antenna and a spire, it is either one or the other and I hope the CTBUH looks into this impartially. It seems that many are just accepting the 1,776 foot height out of emotional sentiment over 9/11 and if you question it you are somehow being insensitive to the victims. I am thrilled that the new WTC is going up but I think we have to admit that this antenna/spire thingy is a serious grey area that needs to be discussed. I am glad that some media outlets are starting to point this out.

Also I think even if the antenna/spire is counted as official height in the end the CTBUH should also grant the antenna mounts on the Sears Tower as part of the height making it 1,515 or some odd feet, sure that wouldn't maintain the official height record for Chicago but at least it will be fair. I just don't see how one can say the Antenna/Spire on WTC counts and the antenna mounts on Sears don't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted May 4, 2012, 2:51 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago103 View Post
I agree here and I have always maintained that IMO roof height is the most important determining factor in buildings height followed by highest occupied floor.

That being said if you are going to count spires and not antennas you should at least be consistent. I don't see how the WTC1 is both an antenna and a spire, it is either one or the other and I hope the CTBUH looks into this impartially. It seems that many are just accepting the 1,776 foot height out of emotional sentiment over 9/11 and if you question it you are somehow being insensitive to the victims. I am thrilled that the new WTC is going up but I think we have to admit that this antenna/spire thingy is a serious grey area that needs to be discussed. I am glad that some media outlets are starting to point this out.

Also I think even if the antenna/spire is counted as official height in the end the CTBUH should also grant the antenna mounts on the Sears Tower as part of the height making it 1,515 or some odd feet, sure that wouldn't maintain the official height record for Chicago but at least it will be fair. I just don't see how one can say the Antenna/Spire on WTC counts and the antenna mounts on Sears don't.
Exactly, from what I hear, 1 WTC, is a antennae with a thin layer of cladding on the outside, so why should they count it ? I have always thought they shouldn't even count spires. Luckily, they made 4 categories after the Sears-Petronas fiasco. I go by roof height, and then highest occupied floor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted May 5, 2012, 11:32 PM
marshall marshall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
Wow, you are biased. Anyone who says the Sears tower is ugly doesn't have an eye for good architecture. On another note, they shouldn't count an antenna's or spires. If I build a 200m building and stick a 400m spire on it, is it 600m ? NO. They should either go by roof height, or top floor height. I would actually say top floor height, because it solves the Chrysler building dilemma.

Also the new WTC is a incredible building, whether it's America's tallest or not. It's a symbol of our freedom, and that America can come back stronger then ever.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion, and I personally do not care for the Sears Tower. However, I respect it as a landmark and an accomplishment of building, not architecture.

On another note, regarding the reference to the pod on the CN Tower, I don't see any reason why, one day, the spire on 1WTC couldn't be somehow altered to make a kind of pod up there, to give people even more of a thrill, and make another observation deck option besides the three that will be on the 100-102 floor. Probably a long shot, but definately exciting idea!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted May 10, 2012, 7:18 PM
nickguar nickguar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 33
On the downside: the design isn't as aesthetically pleasing, the height reduction is a sign of the times, and all the rest of it. I feel the way most of you do and hope the original design stays.

But on the bright side:

1) It could be argued that the original spire was more "effeminate" and less "New York" than this antenna.

2) It liberates New Yorkers from the charade of having to pretend that 1WTC is as symbolically important as it should be. It isn't. As many of you have made clear, they have seriously hurt this building with redesigns, height reductions, and harming the entire site itself. I personally would have preferred twin towers again, but with the design of the new 1WTC. Either way, the 1,776 ft. benchmark was always too sentimental, and the spire would have always had an asterisk on it. This way, the roof height, while shorter than the Chicago buildings, is still higher than the original/official roof height of the original 1WTC. Which leads me to...

3) This destroys the taboo of building something higher than the new 1WTC throughout New York. Had this building officially been 1,776 ft., it may have taken a while to exceed that height (officially). But now that it might only be 1,373 ft., you will have buildings like 432 Park Avenue (and, my prediction, 225 57th St.) surpass that height.

I am confident that 2WTC and 3WTC will be built. What we will have is not what we want. It won't be as fine of a tribute to 9/11 and the old WTC as it could have been. But what we'll have is four new buildings, very tall unique buildings in Downtown. Mass. Density. Forget the symbolism. The real action will be in Midtown in this decade. I think 225 57th St. might end up being the tallest in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted May 11, 2012, 12:24 AM
bobbysockBOB bobbysockBOB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4
Why don't they just raise the roof? It doesn't look too bad (mind my mediocre photoshop skills) and it doesn't seem impossible to do. It'll be like when the Chrysler Building was being constructed; when they decided to create the spire out of nowhere in order to secure the title of tallest building in NYC.

Doing this would make it's roof taller than the Willis Tower and the height issue of tallest in the US would be resolved, don't you guys agree? Of course, that ugly ass antenna def has to go.

SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO UPLOAD A PHOTO FROM FLICKR
but for now check it out there:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/26966745@N05/7173742210/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted May 11, 2012, 12:29 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbysockBOB View Post
Why don't they just raise the roof? It doesn't look too bad (mind my mediocre photoshop skills) and it doesn't seem impossible to do. It'll be like when the Chrysler Building was being constructed; when they decided to create the spire out of nowhere in order to secure the title of tallest building in NYC.

Doing this would make it's roof taller than the Willis Tower and the height issue of tallest in the US would be resolved, don't you guys agree? Of course, that ugly ass antenna def has to go.

SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO UPLOAD A PHOTO FROM FLICKR
but for now check it out there:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/26966745@N05/7173742210/
It won't work. Already explained. In architecture and engineering once a building is off the ground it is impossible to change the height of the building. At least it's roof height anyway. This building will top off at 1,368 feet because anything else is impossible and would be pure bullshit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted May 14, 2012, 7:24 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
i'm fine with it. counting a 400ft spire mast antenna in the height is beyond shady anyway.

while i liked the white radome slightly better, i do like the red antenna too if thats what it turns out to be. gives the top of 1wtc kind of a tokyo feel.

i'll just be relieved when its completed and we can go up in it and get back to business and all that.

i've been saving my wtc site architectural excitement for the calatrava station design anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted May 15, 2012, 12:08 PM
MadGnome MadGnome is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 260
For anybody who takes the CTBUH seriously, they're the ones who fooled everybody into thinking the Petronas towers were taller than Sears, when looking at a comparison drawing would have made it obvious how absurd their standards are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted May 15, 2012, 10:28 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Steps Unclear in Builders' Race to Top


May 11, 2012

Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...426059700.html

Quote:
.....

A nonprofit group in Chicago is recognized by much of the industry as the arbiter of which buildings are the highest, and its categories have proliferated: building with highest occupied floor, for example, or height from lowest entrance to architectural tip, or height from lowest entrance to the top, whether that be an architectural element or a movable antenna.

- The answers aren't always clear in the race to the top, as shown this week by the news that One World Trade Center, the tower being erected at New York's Ground Zero, may not qualify as the Western Hemisphere's tallest building because plans to encase a rooftop antenna in fiberglass and steel have been scrapped.

- Last month, as the building soared over 1,250 feet, it passed the Empire State Building as New York's tallest. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in Chicago planned to count the 408-foot antenna atop the building as a spire. "The building is topped with an architectural spire which happens to encase an antenna," Council spokesman Nathaniel Hollister said Tuesday.

- Now the height of One World Trade Center is up in the air, since an antenna, unlike a spire, isn't ordinarily counted toward a building's height, in part because it can be moved. "Ultimately the final height is not determined until a building is complete," said Council spokesman Kevin Brass on Thursday.

- The developers insist there is still a spire. Jordan Barowitz, a spokesman for Durst, said, "Regardless of [the council's] decision, the height of the building will be 1,776 feet to the top of the architectural spire." He was referring to the symbolic height the building is intended to reach. Most builders, however, recognize the authority of the tall-buildings council, known as the CTBUH.

- There are other disputed considerations in building records. James Newman, U.K.-based editor of the website Skyscrapernews.com, criticizes the council's decision to use entrances as a base of height estimates rather than ground level, as many buildings have entrances above ground level.

- Antony Wood, CTBUH executive director, says it is up to users of the council's data to decide on record holders. "We don't choose the tallest, the numbers do," he says, adding, "We have no axes to grind, or bias. Our only goals are to be accurate and consistent." For the moment, any debate about the world's tallest building has been put to rest by the Burj Khalifa complex in Dubai.

.....
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 3:39 PM
Guiltyspark's Avatar
Guiltyspark Guiltyspark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 937
I hate the change to the "spire" but the one good thing about it is that now that this building is just getting an antenna we can all agree that this building is only 1373 feet tall. The title of this tread and the description under the diagram should probably be changed.

Unless someone can come up with some crazy reason why this antenna is more architectural than the antennas on Sears.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 4:21 PM
DesignerVoodoo's Avatar
DesignerVoodoo DesignerVoodoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiltyspark View Post
I hate the change to the "spire" but the one good thing about it is that now that this building is just getting an antenna we can all agree that this building is only 1373 feet tall. The title of this tread and the description under the diagram should probably be changed.

Unless someone can come up with some crazy reason why this antenna is more architectural than the antennas on Sears.
What if we wait until the building is complete before we make any determination of size and not make this into a City against City discussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 5:12 PM
Yankee fan for life's Avatar
Yankee fan for life Yankee fan for life is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brooklyn new York
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiltyspark View Post
I hate the change to the "spire" but the one good thing about it is that now that this building is just getting an antenna we can all agree that this building is only 1373 feet tall. The title of this tread and the description under the diagram should probably be changed.

Unless someone can come up with some crazy reason why this antenna is more architectural than the antennas on Sears.
Wow Guiltyspark did not know that your opinion was fact,their are plenty of reasons for 1 wtc antenna to still be considered part of its original design and i can tell you that none of them are crazy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 7:08 PM
Guiltyspark's Avatar
Guiltyspark Guiltyspark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life View Post
Wow Guiltyspark did not know that your opinion was fact,their are plenty of reasons for 1 wtc antenna to still be considered part of its original design and i can tell you that none of them are crazy.
Not my opinion. I have been told by many on this very forum that antenna do not count as height while architectural spires do. Now that this building clearly only has an antenna (unless something changes) and not a spire, I feel we should acknowledged that. Why should the rule be different for this one particular building. I know we all want it to be the nations tallest, but come on, it is what it is.

The criteria for whether an antenna counts in calculating height has nothing to do with whether it is part of the original design. The criteria states that if it is an antenna, then no, if it is an architectural spire (like Trump or Chrysler) then yes. So tell me why this antenna should count when every other does not? I did not make the rules on how official heights of buildings are measured and I am not the one who decided which rules that this site would follow. I would just like to see some consistency.

Also, I had no intention of turning this into a city vs city discussion, I just used Sears because it is the other most famous tall building in America with a major antenna. I guess I could have just as easily used ESB.

But yeah, still waiting on compelling evidence on why this antenna should still be considered a spire. People used to say that the cladding that enclosed the antenna made it spire like enough to count as a spire, and I was just starting to buy that. But now the cladding is gone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 7:20 PM
MrSlippery519 MrSlippery519 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiltyspark View Post
Not my opinion. I have been told by many on this very forum that antenna do not count as height while architectural spires do. Now that this building clearly only has an antenna (unless something changes) and not a spire, I feel we should acknowledged that. Why should the rule be different for this one particular building. I know we all want it to be the nations tallest, but come on, it is what it is.

The criteria for whether an antenna counts in calculating height has nothing to do with whether it is part of the original design. The criteria states that if it is an antenna, then no, if it is an architectural spire (like Trump or Chrysler) then yes. So tell me why this antenna should count when every other does not? I did not make the rules on how official heights of buildings are measured and I am not the one who decided which rules that this site would follow. I would just like to see some consistency.

Also, I had no intention of turning this into a city vs city discussion, I just used Sears because it is the other most famous tall building in America with a major antenna. I guess I could have just as easily used ESB.

But yeah, still waiting on compelling evidence on why this antenna should still be considered a spire. People used to say that the cladding that enclosed the antenna made it spire like enough to count as a spire, and I was just starting to buy that. But now the cladding is gone.
I thought it also had something to do with cabling having it tied to the structure as opposed to simply a stick antenna (like willis and old WTC)

Either way I am pretty sure there is a specific thread talking about the spire...find it and go complain about it there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 7:24 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiltyspark View Post
Not my opinion. I have been told by many on this very forum that antenna do not count as height while architectural spires do.
That isn't the correct distinction, at least not if you're going by CTBUH standards. Anyone who told you that is wrong.

Anyways, why not take it to the spire/antenna threads. This should be for 1 WTC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2012, 7:30 PM
Guiltyspark's Avatar
Guiltyspark Guiltyspark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSlippery519 View Post
I thought it also had something to do with cabling having it tied to the structure as opposed to simply a stick antenna (like willis and old WTC)

Either way I am pretty sure there is a specific thread talking about the spire...find it and go complain about it there.
We live in such combative times where raising issues is considered complaining. Nothing I have said is a complaint. I bring it up here because more knowledgeable people visit this forum than any other on the site on a daily basis and I was hoping for a straight answer today. I guess I will go do my own research because on this topic everyone stars their thoughts with "I think..." Or "Isn't..."
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:46 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.