HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 9:07 PM
chris123678's Avatar
chris123678 chris123678 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Posts: 473
One World Trade Center Spire Change.

There probably have been many threads about this but I've created my own.
The thread is created to discuss the spire change.
1. This Thread is for the Spire, not construction.
2. The Base Of the building may also be discussed here.
3. Safeness of building may also be here.
No stealing others work.
No rudeness.

Enjoy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 9:51 PM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,059
By Spire change I assume you mean this:

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....-building.html

Troubles with 1 World Trade Center's spire: Will Willis Tower remain America's tallest building?

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on digg Share on google Share on stumbleupon Share on myspace Share on email
For years now, architecture buffs have assumed that Willis Tower's days as America's tallest building were numbered. The 1 World Trade Center tower in New York was going to top it, surmounted by a spire that would rise to a symbolic height of 1,776 feet, evoking the year of the Declaration of Independence.

But now, as the Associated Press is reporting, new questions have arisen about 1 WTCs height, and they could be resolved in a way that lets the 1,4501-foot Willis Tower retain its title as the nation's tallest.

It turns out that 1 WTC's spire is actually a broadcast antenna that was supposed to be sheathed in a decorative cladding. This aesthetic feature would have made the antenna an integral part of the building's design--and thus, technically, a spire. Spires count in height measurements. Antennas don't.

But now, the AP says, the cladding has been shelved over maintenance issues. That puts the focus on the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which sets height measurement standards. The Council has issued a statement--I've put it on the jump--which says, in effect, "we'll have to wait and see."

One World Trade Center Statement from Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has received many media queries about the ultimate height of One World Trade Center, which is currently planned as the tallest building in North America.

We are aware that changes have been announced to the design of the structure on top of One World Trade Center, which may affect the final height measurement for the building. We understand that sculptural cladding has been removed, which will change the structure.

One World Trade Center, which is still under construction, is currently listed in the CTBUH’s Skyscraper Center at an anticipated height to “architectural top” of 1,776 feet. This includes the structure described in the materials previously provided by the architect as a spire. A spire is typically a permanent structure and part of the architecture and artistic expression of the building.

The CTBUH includes spires in its height measurement to “architectural top,” the primary category in ranking the tallest buildings in the world. But antennas, masts, water towers and other functional-technical structures – which often are not designed by the architect of the building and change according to prevalent technologies – are not included in the height measurement to the architectural top. However, they are included in measurements to the architectural “tip,” a secondary category tracked by the CTBUH. Definitions can be found on the CTBUH website at www.CTBUH.org.

At this point, since the building is far from completion, there is no final determination on the height of One World Trade Center. A final determination will be made by the CTBUH Technical Height Committee based on analysis of the drawings and other information submitted by the building owner, development and consultant team. Building designs often change during construction and final ratification of the height and formal recognition on the list of 100 Tallest Completed Building in the World occur after the building is officially completed and application details submitted.

Over 40 years the CTBUH has developed detailed criteria for measuring the height of buildings, which are widely accepted in the industry. Any disputes are resolved by the CTBUH Height Committee - a panel of industry experts specifically set up for this purpose.

...................

Personally I always found the WTC top is both an antenna and a spire and therefore it counts to be kind of stretching it but then again I was never a big fan of the whole spire thing anyways, I always view rooftop height at the deciding factor. I just hope this is resolved impartially by the CTBUH and not let the emotion of 9/11 get in the way but without at least the "decorative cladding" of the antenna I don't see how the antenna alone could count in the height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 9:56 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,404
CTBUH sets their standard for heights, based on a standard that seems reasonable. But that doesn't mean they set the standard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 10:43 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,872
according to that article, the Sears tower is over 14000 feet tall, oops.

Honestly though, I would be shocked if Childs and the PA didn't try to come up with some solution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 4:01 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,260
1WTC may become the tallest in the country, but it'll always be a butt ugly embarrassment of a building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 4:54 AM
213 213 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 188
^ Kinda gotta concur. For a project so heavily freighted with national symbolism, it's a bland, outdated design whose only real distinction is its height. Bad on Childs and bad on Pataki, et al. for delivering a building that in its caution to offend no one has nothing to say whatever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 5:29 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,872
I don't think the building is an embarrasment, but without the spire it sure doesn't look nearly as good.

But of course it's become pretty apparent that those in charge have constantly gone out of their way to botch the rebuilding. Whatever is best must not be done. Makes you want to punch someone, seriously.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 6:26 AM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by 213 View Post
^ Kinda gotta concur. For a project so heavily freighted with national symbolism, it's a bland, outdated design whose only real distinction is its height. Bad on Childs and bad on Pataki, et al. for delivering a building that in its caution to offend no one has nothing to say whatever.
No way this thread is going to last, but, as long as it's around, I want to go on record expressing my agreement. It's a shitty design, the flaws of which are made all the more apparent because of the overwhelming desire for it to 'mean something.' I'm embarrassed for New York.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 1:59 PM
Jasonhouse Jasonhouse is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 23,744
Moved to correct forum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 5:38 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,775
Why couldn't they have just made the roof height 1,776ft? Calling a noticeably shorter building NA's new tallest just seems regressive and silly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 6:05 PM
chris123678's Avatar
chris123678 chris123678 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
Why couldn't they have just made the roof height 1,776ft? Calling a noticeably shorter building NA's new tallest just seems regressive and silly.
Because that means you would have to add more floors which is impossible.
1. The Foundations laid for this tower call for it to have 104 floors. Trying to reach 1,776 means you'd have to add atleast another 15 to 20 floors. That's dangerous, and over the course of time those extra top floors will collaspe. Modern Marvels did an episode about this, If i find the link, i'll post it.
Secondly, the Building tapers. The Triangles meet at the top of the 104- and parapet. Therefore there are no ways to add floors or height.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 6:07 PM
chris123678's Avatar
chris123678 chris123678 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
No way this thread is going to last, but, as long as it's around, I want to go on record expressing my agreement. It's a shitty design, the flaws of which are made all the more apparent because of the overwhelming desire for it to 'mean something.' I'm embarrassed for New York.
Honestly, I create this thread to put an end of the converstation of the spire on the construction thread.
People are getting sick of seeing stuff about the spire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 27, 2012, 8:46 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 chris123678 View Post
Because that means you would have to add more floors which is impossible.
1. The Foundations laid for this tower call for it to have 104 floors. Trying to reach 1,776 means you'd have to add atleast another 15 to 20 floors. That's dangerous, and over the course of time those extra top floors will collaspe. Modern Marvels did an episode about this, If i find the link, i'll post it.
Secondly, the Building tapers. The Triangles meet at the top of the 104- and parapet. Therefore there are no ways to add floors or height.

He obviously meant in the early planning stages, and the building does not have 104 real floors either.

But it's silly to keep talking about how tall it could have been, we got what we got and it's ok, it would have been more ok with a spire and towers 2 and 3 (maybe someday) but still, it is what it is, midtowns developments are much more exciting.

Last edited by Zapatan; May 27, 2012 at 10:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 12:04 AM
manchester united manchester united is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
He obviously meant in the early planning stages, and the building does not have 104 real floors either.

But it's silly to keep talking about how tall it could have been, we got what we got and it's ok, it would have been more ok with a spire and towers 2 and 3 (maybe someday) but still, it is what it is, midtowns developments are much more exciting.
There are ONLY 85 real floors !!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 5:09 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by manchester united View Post
There are ONLY 85 real floors !!!!
I've never understood how they can claim to have so many floors when it isn't true--this needs to be called out for what it is. What it is not is the country's tallest building in any way IMO; that honor will remain with the Willis/Sears Tower with its true number of floors and roof height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 5:44 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,775
If there's only 85 real floors, than what are the other 19?

And yes, I meant that if they wanted a 1,776ft building from the beginning, then why just go the comically huge spire route. Obviously there couldn't be such a huge alteration once the building is already under construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 11:35 AM
hunser's Avatar
hunser hunser is offline
don't *meddle*...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York City / Wien
Posts: 4,016
1WTC has 92 "real" floors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 3:43 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,105
I am going to quote what I said on the One World Trade Center thread to make this clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
Look I am going to explain this again. One World Trade Center has a higher floor to ceiling ratio for each floor than the Twin Towers had. The Twin Towers each had a floor to ceiling ratio of about 12 feet. One World Trade Center has a floor to ceiling ratio of 13'4 feet. Another difference is the mechanical floors which are equivalent to two office floors in height. Put that together and One World Trade Center would have about 104-105 floors. It is still technically a building that goes over 100 floors. The floor count is different though, and I am sure that some of you are mad that we are getting 105 floors when the Twin Towers stood at 110 because it's a loss of 5 floors, but it is just as tall as the Twin Towers were.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 3:56 PM
Bill Ditnow Bill Ditnow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
No way this thread is going to last, but, as long as it's around, I want to go on record expressing my agreement. It's a shitty design, the flaws of which are made all the more apparent because of the overwhelming desire for it to 'mean something.' I'm embarrassed for New York.
The building is a piece of crap, obviously. The original spire would be marginally better than the cheap antenna now to be built, but it matters little. Nothing can save this building from it essential vapidness. A real shame for New York, indeed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 28, 2012, 4:14 PM
chris123678's Avatar
chris123678 chris123678 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow View Post
The building is a piece of crap, obviously. The original spire would be marginally better than the cheap antenna now to be built, but it matters little. Nothing can save this building from it essential vapidness. A real shame for New York, indeed.
Please elaborate. How is this building a "piece of crap"
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 2:02 AM.

     

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