HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 5:44 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,850
the spire would have looked fine is it wasn't for those ugly ass rings and if it was painted white. Like Trump Chicago's spire just taller.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2012, 6:03 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris123678 View Post
Spires can't be removed.
Antenna's can.
Since they don't plan to remove it, it's a spire. it may not look like one, but it is.
It's hideous.
A spire is an integral part of the architectural design of the building, an antenna is not. See: Sears Tower, John Hancock, One Shell Plaza

However, there is of course the politicking to make an antenna count as part of the official height. See: Bank of America (total bullshit, but for some reason it counts).

Simply because the broadcast antenna on top of the new WTC isn't intended to be removed, does NOT make it a spire. It's just an antenna, and thus doesn't count. Otherwise you have to start counting all of those others as well. After all, if the broadcast technology changes, the antenna might be shortened or lengthened depending on need. That's not an architectural change, it's a functional and thus non-integral design change.

NOT a spire.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 5:06 AM
YankeesfaninUT YankeesfaninUT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 39
I'm thinking it's probably going to be more silver in color. I think it looks more rustic in that image because it's set at sunset. It will be interesting to see what it will look like at night lit up with the LED lights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 5:25 AM
YankeesfaninUT YankeesfaninUT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
A spire is an integral part of the architectural design of the building, an antenna is not. See: Sears Tower, John Hancock, One Shell Plaza

However, there is of course the politicking to make an antenna count as part of the official height. See: Bank of America (total bullshit, but for some reason it counts).

Simply because the broadcast antenna on top of the new WTC isn't intended to be removed, does NOT make it a spire. It's just an antenna, and thus doesn't count. Otherwise you have to start counting all of those others as well. After all, if the broadcast technology changes, the antenna might be shortened or lengthened depending on need. That's not an architectural change, it's a functional and thus non-integral design change.

NOT a spire.
Technically it is still a spire. It was designed as a spire. Just because they are removing the radome does not change that. They weren't even going to put broadcast equipment on it until last year. The building was designed with this in mind. Most antennas are usually added onto buildings later. The antenna on top of the original WTC wasn't added until 1978. They were engineered and designed to have these antennas installed but they were not part of the architecture. When it is finished it still wont have any equipment on it. There is no rule anywhere that says you cant add equipment to your buildings spire at a later date and have that change it to an antenna.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 5:28 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris123678 View Post
Spires can't be removed.
Antenna's can.
Since they don't plan to remove it, it's a spire. it may not look like one, but it is.
It's hideous.
If it broadcasts or receives, it's an antenna; if it is only there for looks and does nothing else, it's a spire. WTC1 will have an antenna, which is not counted toward the building's height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 5:38 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by YankeesfaninUT View Post
Technically it is still a spire. It was designed as a spire. Just because they are removing the radome does not change that. They weren't even going to put broadcast equipment on it until last year. The building was designed with this in mind. Most antennas are usually added onto buildings later. The antenna on top of the original WTC wasn't added until 1978. They were engineered and designed to have these antennas installed but they were not part of the architecture. When it is finished it still wont have any equipment on it. There is no rule anywhere that says you cant add equipment to your buildings spire at a later date and have that change it to an antenna.
It really is muddled and confusing! The John Hancock Center and the Sears Tower both had antennas designed with the structures, and both of them have large, tall bases that were initially built as part of the building. The antennas were then added to the base structures, but none of it seems to count as building height. If the antennas were removed, the tall holders would still be there. Trump Tower in Chicago had the spire added after the building was designed and under construction and it seems to rest on the roof much like the old WTC antenna did, yet it is counted in the building height since it's just there for looks. IMO, none of them should count or all of them should. Another great example is the massive antenna on the Prudential Building in Chicago. It was clearly designed with and built into the building, but today it is not used since there are many taller buildings around it. Why isn't that counted as a spire now? This is all really stupid and needs to be clarified once and for all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 5:45 AM
YankeesfaninUT YankeesfaninUT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
It really is muddled and confusing! The John Hancock Center and the Sears Tower both had antennas designed with the structures, and both of them have large, tall bases that were initially built as part of the building. The antennas were then added to the base structures, but none of it seems to count as building height. If the antennas were removed, the tall holders would still be there. Trump Tower in Chicago had the spire added after the building was designed and under construction and it seems to rest on the roof much like the old WTC antenna did, yet it is counted in the building height since it's just there for looks. IMO, none of them should count or all of them should. Another great example is the massive antenna on the Prudential Building in Chicago. It was clearly designed with and built into the building, but today it is not used since there are many taller buildings around it. Why isn't that counted as a spire now? This is all really stupid and needs to be clarified once and for all.
Yeah it does get kinda confusing. If you go to the CTBUH website and read about the three types of criteria they judge on they all should count. But for some reason they favor one of the three over the other two. I was hoping that they would give us more of an up close view in more types of light. Most of the renderings are good but dont give an up close view.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 5:58 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,404
It would be fine for a competing organization to come up with a different set of criteria. CTBUH doesn't have a monopoly on this stuff. Of course they'll probably be believed more in the short term, particularly if the new org's goal seems to be to make the US look good vs. being objective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 3:10 PM
meh_cd meh_cd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by YankeesfaninUT View Post
Technically it is still a spire. It was designed as a spire. Just because they are removing the radome does not change that. They weren't even going to put broadcast equipment on it until last year. The building was designed with this in mind. Most antennas are usually added onto buildings later. The antenna on top of the original WTC wasn't added until 1978. They were engineered and designed to have these antennas installed but they were not part of the architecture. When it is finished it still wont have any equipment on it. There is no rule anywhere that says you cant add equipment to your buildings spire at a later date and have that change it to an antenna.
You don't even know what you're talking about. They certainly were planning on using it for broadcasting equipment the entire time. The current "spire" is just the antenna without the enclosure and they plopped the beacon and lightning rod on top of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 6:35 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,872
David Childs clearly was quoted saying he was ready to work on an alternative design with the PA.


So is that not happening or are people just really overlooking that? I find it impossible to believe he wouldn't try.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 7:18 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
David Childs clearly was quoted saying he was ready to work on an alternative design with the PA.


So is that not happening or are people just really overlooking that? I find it impossible to believe he wouldn't try.
Durst said he gave the architects a chance, but they never made another spire design.

Durst has also said that this is a done deal. It will be hilarious if the CTBUH count the antennae, everyone in the 1 WTC thread will be rejoicing, even though everyone else will realize that it clearly is not a 541m building. Calling it taller then the Sears tower and Shanghai WFC is ridiculous. Some people over at SSC are working on an alternative to the CTBUH measurement also.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 7:40 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveNewWorld View Post
Durst said he gave the architects a chance, but they never made another spire design.

Durst has also said that this is a done deal. It will be hilarious if the CTBUH count the antennae, everyone in the 1 WTC thread will be rejoicing, even though everyone else will realize that it clearly is not a 541m building. Calling it taller then the Sears tower and Shanghai WFC is ridiculous. Some people over at SSC are working on an alternative to the CTBUH measurement also.
I think they didn't come up with an alternate design because they assumed that the radome would be kept. Childs said himself, or was at least quoted saying so last month that he would stand ready to work with the PA on a new one in midst of major disspointment. I agree though that it was beyond stupid of them not to come up with an alternative design though when they had the chance, if they are working on one right now, then they will have enough time.

I also agree that it is silly to call it taller than Sears or the SWFC. I don't really care what the CTBUH says either, it is and always has been a ~1400 foot tower with a 400 foot pole, although the previous spire worked so well with the design.

And it's not like buildings haven't cheated in height before either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 7:58 PM
YankeesfaninUT YankeesfaninUT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by meh_cd View Post
You don't even know what you're talking about. They certainly were planning on using it for broadcasting equipment the entire time. The current "spire" is just the antenna without the enclosure and they plopped the beacon and lightning rod on top of it.
I apologize. I was misspoken. Yes they were planning on offering it to customers for broadcasting. I meant to say that they only finalized the deal earlier in the year. If it gets counted great, if not then we move on. It wont be the end of the world. I'm sure whatever is put up it will be attractive and will compliment the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 8:22 PM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I think they didn't come up with an alternate design because they assumed that the radome would be kept. Childs said himself, or was at least quoted saying so last month that he would stand ready to work with the PA on a new one in midst of major disspointment. I agree though that it was beyond stupid of them not to come up with an alternative design though when they had the chance, if they are working on one right now, then they will have enough time.

I also agree that it is silly to call it taller than Sears or the SWFC. I don't really care what the CTBUH says either, it is and always has been a ~1400 foot tower with a 400 foot pole, although the previous spire worked so well with the design.

And it's not like buildings haven't cheated in height before either.
Yeah, this is just a high profile building. Even if the CTBUH says it doesn't count, you know that their site will say tallest building in America, and they will say 1776 feet. Then on the other hand the Sears will continue to say tallest building in America. Should be interesting. Either way, anyone that possesses some level of intelligence and isn't biased can tell which buildings are clearly taller.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 9:40 PM
meh_cd meh_cd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by YankeesfaninUT View Post
I apologize. I was misspoken. Yes they were planning on offering it to customers for broadcasting. I meant to say that they only finalized the deal earlier in the year. If it gets counted great, if not then we move on. It wont be the end of the world. I'm sure whatever is put up it will be attractive and will compliment the building.
Fair enough, I figured that is what you meant. My callout was a bit harsh.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 12:13 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,842
I have realized that this is one of the most retarded arguments in the world of skyscrapers. I honestly don't even give a crap anymore. Spire,antenna, flagpole. They're all crap people put on buildings. I don't see how the difference matters. Spires can be removed as well, just like the rest of a building. The Chrysler's spire isn't permanently connected to the tower. It was originally an addition to the building. These rules can be broken very easily and everyone is getting so uptight about it. Again, if Childs is thinking of redesigning the spire, then he has to add floors to the spire in order for 1 WTC to become taller than the Sears. In essence, I really don't think it matters if 1 WTC is the tallest or not. The original WTC or Twin Towers were succeeded by the same tower just a year after they were built so 1 WTC is basically a replacement for them along with the rest of the complex. If the new antenna or spire can muster up to be a more suitable version of the radome clad we lost, I'll be happy. The WTC was already the tallest building around at one point so it isn't much of a lost if we don't even see it become New York's tallest again. We're getting new supertalls in Manhattan and other highrise projects around the city. Other U.S. cities are also growing up their skylines and are developing their centers. Regardless, NYC might have the tallest rooftop in the country with 225 W 57th St or Madison Ave & 42nd St , so if you're unhappy with the World Trade, Midtown and other projects in Lower Manhattan can be your focus. I just want the skyline to get taller and longer.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.

Last edited by jd3189; Jun 5, 2012 at 12:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 2:40 AM
UrbanImpressionist's Avatar
UrbanImpressionist UrbanImpressionist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Born and raised Clevelander, former Atlantan and Dallasite, and now 'probational' New Yorker, ha
Posts: 205
Folks the beauty of this building's top was lost wayyyyy before the spire issue, when whomever (rolleyes), decided/allowed the placement of a circular broadcasting ring atop a rectangular building and roof (gag). That's the biggest travesty of this project.

Anyone who went to a decent design or architecture school would have recognized that as major mistake creating too much visual conflict and failure to provide a cohesive form. At least they should have place the broadcasting structure as a square base with a trapezoid profile or an asymmetrical placement of the spire such as on the BOA building.
__________________
R. J. Vojir - Cityscape Oil Painter

www.UrbanImpressionist.com ______ Twitter: @UrbanImpress ______ UrbanImpressionist on Facebook______ UrbanImpressionist on Youtube
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 2:53 AM
BraveNewWorld's Avatar
BraveNewWorld BraveNewWorld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanImpressionist View Post
Folks the beauty of this building's top was lost wayyyyy before the spire issue, when whomever (rolleyes), decided/allowed the placement of a circular broadcasting ring atop a rectangular building and roof (gag). That's the biggest travesty of this project.

Anyone who went to a decent design or architecture school would have recognized that as major mistake creating too much visual conflict and failure to provide a cohesive form. At least they should have place the broadcasting structure as a square base with a trapezoid profile or an asymmetrical placement of the spire such as on the BOA building.
Couldn't agree more, this was probably the best version

[MODERATOR EDIT - IMAGE REMOVED]

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Jun 8, 2012 at 4:27 PM. Reason: Uncredited image
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 3:24 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,872
Well, call me crazy but I actually like the circular ring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 3:36 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
Well, call me crazy but I actually like the circular ring.
OK, you're crazy. [Just kidding...to each his own] I love the rendering above and had not seen it before.
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 8:01 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.