HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2010, 5:46 AM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 2,711
Mountain isn't man made. Antenna is. There's a difference.
__________________
Consumer Ethic:
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
-------------------
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/preppy381
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2010, 7:14 AM
STR's Avatar
STR STR is offline
Because I'm Clever!
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
I've always supported spires over antennae and flagpoles, or anything else that wasn't included as part of the building's design. That is, strictly for architectural purposes. Antennas, flagpoles and clocks come and go, but spires and other strictly architectural features are permanent.
Nowhere does this state why "permanence" is of any importance. So what if a building's height changes? Ships are lengthened and occasionally shortened, on rare occasion so are bridges. The very idea of permanence is a myth. A building is a machine, constantly changing. Take a long enough time period, and nothing is permanent. Parts get replaced and metal corrodes beyond repair.

Quote:
It would be like ripping off the hood ornament of a Mercedes to replace it without an antenna. It would actually decrease the value of it. Imagine if they did that to the Chrysler Building for an antenna.
Irrelavent. A car is a mass-produced serial object from a specific period of time. A skyscraper is not. As such, the car's perceived ideal condition is as close to factory-fresh as possible. A building is expected, and even required to change over time. Unless you want an office building with no air conditioning, limited electrical, and only landlines, a typewriter and a mail drop to communicate with the world.

Quote:
The Empire State Building for instance has not always had its antenna, and it might in the future be removed, too.
It didn't have the mast either. That...was an add-on.

Quote:
Although, I live 5 miles from downtown Austin, and the one building we have that has a spire really only makes a major impact with its roof. I can see the spire day and night, but the spire's impact on the skyline is pretty much unimportant, especially compared to other buildings with higher roofs.
No system is perfect, but it is more rational to accept a spire making a building taller, than to pretend that arbitrary parts of the building don't exist.
__________________
There are six phases to every project 1) enthusiasm, 2) disillusionment, 3) panic, 4) search for the guilty, 5) punishment of the innocent, 6) praise for the non-participants. - Guy Tozzoli
Build your own Model Skyscrapers** New York City 2015 3D Model W/ New WTC ** World Trade Center (1971-2001) 3D Model
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2010, 8:21 AM
jodelli's Avatar
jodelli jodelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Removing the antenna from the CN Tower would be major harm.. It's main purpose is a giant antenna for christ's sake! It would completely remove the purpose of the entire thing!
The touristy observation deck was added as an afterthought.. it was originally going to be just a giant concrete antenna..
Structurally-wise the CN wouldn't feel a thing, would be in no danger of collapse, etc.
What difference would it make if a horde of tiny biological units couldn't get their fix of Idol and the like?

Have a look at the obsolete, rusting microwave towers still standing in parts of the southern Ontario landscape and you'll see the future of broadcasting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2010, 8:33 PM
Skyscraper Sebastian's Avatar
Skyscraper Sebastian Skyscraper Sebastian is offline
Skyscraper Fan
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 207
My opinion is that there is no official height to buildings, it's either the roof or pinnacle. For pinnacle height, I count whatever is on the structure. While some argue that attenaes can be taken off and be manipulated with, you can do the same with spires. What would happen if the Chrysler Building added an extension to it's spire to 1260 ft. Would the Chrysler Building be taller than the Empire State Building? What would happen if the Aon Center, 1136 ft. tall, added 30 floors to it's building to make it 1460 ft. tall, would be taller than the Sears Tower? What I'm saying is the roof height, attenae height, and the spire height can be manipulated to whatever height. Though I do encourage roof height since the Sears Tower has been put way down the list. The Sears Tower got beaten by the Petronas Towers in 1998. I believe the Sears Tower is taller than the Petronas Towers. First of all, the Sears Tower looks much more magnificient than the Petronas Towers in the diagrams and from pictures. The Sears Tower has both a taller pinnacle and roof height than the Petronas Towers, though "officially" the Petronas Towers beat the Sears Tower. The Petronas Towers cheated their way through to the top. The difference between attenae and spire are very minimal. In both an attenae and a spire you can take it off, both are capable of transmitting radio signals, both are tall and skinny, and even some attenaes aren't "open" where you can see the skeleton. I think that attenaes and spires should be counted equally. There IS NO official height, there IS roof and pinnacle height. I don't care what CTBUH states about the rules. This is my opinion and I'm not changing it one bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2010, 8:36 AM
sw5710 sw5710 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,510
Aviation charts count everything!.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2010, 1:56 AM
CyberEric CyberEric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Does your height include your hair?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 5:41 PM
zeno333 zeno333 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 156
I feel the Willis Tower is clearly the tallest.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC4Life View Post
Yahoo! / AP

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/asteris...145951835.html

With an asterisk, WTC is back on top in NYC
WTC claims NYC height record, but experts likely to disagree on ranking among world's tallest

By David b. Caruso, Associated Press | Associated Press – 2 hrs 4 mins ago






Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2012, 8:56 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
A Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chattanooga, TN/Stuart, FL
Posts: 2,856
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.
It's a spire with an antenna inside. Although to settle arguments, a skypod like the ones in the CN Tower would have made the mast an "extension" of the building and thus bring roof height a little bit above the Sears. But considering the financial problems already I don't think that will ever be possible.
__________________
It always seems impossible until its done.
- Nelson Mandela

Never stop. Never stop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2012, 2:34 AM
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
The Willis tower is the tallest building in america by roof and 1 wtc is the tallest by pinnacle and that's the way things are, funny on how all you wills tower lovers out their where crying foul when taipei 101 was built and you where supporting antennas and spires back then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2012, 5:08 AM
Dense_Electric Dense_Electric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 131
That's fair, and if it were any other building I might be willing to concede that point, but it's the World Trade Center. I'm not the kind of person who thinks a building has to be the tallest to be "the best" by some arbitrary designation, but making it the tallest in the country (to 1776 feet, no less) is symbolic enough that I'll make an exception and say, "yes, the spire counts."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2012, 5:59 AM
Fishman92 Fishman92 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life View Post
The Willis tower is the tallest building in america by roof and 1 wtc is the tallest by pinnacle and that's the way things are, funny on how all you wills tower lovers out their where crying foul when taipei 101 was built and you where supporting antennas and spires back then.
Too true for some. Also, you need to look at the difference between where and were. Might help.

Can't wait to see new steel go up today (maybe)!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2012, 8:14 AM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,110
This whole Chicago and New York tallest building argument is getting old fast. Who cares what city has the tallest? As long as the tallest building in the Western hemisphere is American, we should all rest sound and happy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 12:05 AM
TouchTheSky13 TouchTheSky13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 122
I'm really glad to see this beautiful tower rise from the ashes of ground zero. But I still can't get over the fact that it will not unquestionably be the tallest building in the country. What I think they should do is top the building off with a pyramid or funnel shaped steel and glass structure that would support the spire and bring the roof height to 1492 ft. The spire would remain in its current location and top off at 1776ft. This may cause 1 WTC to look like an obelisk or a giant glass and steel Washington Monument, but I don't think that would be such a bad thing. Obelisks have been symbols of power and might dating all the way back to the time of the Egyptians. If you don't know what I mean, the structure that I am proposing would look a lot like the roof of 3 WFC. There is no excuse for this building not to be the tallest in the country, absolutely no excuse. But anyway, I digress. What do you all think?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 12:19 AM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 1,800
I think if you really care, and I mean really care...then you have a problem, and I feel sorry for you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 12:20 AM
Dense_Electric Dense_Electric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 131
I think being the tallest building in the country/world/whatever is overrated. Oh, it's nice, sure, but it shouldn't be the only standard of how good a building is. As long as it's at least as tall as what was destroyed, then I'm content.

As for the obelisk idea, I personally think that would look horrible on this building. On a different structure, perhaps, but the current plan looks just fine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 12:22 AM
TouchTheSky13 TouchTheSky13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dense_Electric View Post
I think being the tallest building in the country/world/whatever is overrated. Oh, it's nice, sure, but it shouldn't be the only standard of how good a building is. As long as it's at least as tall as what was destroyed, then I'm content.

As for the obelisk idea, I personally think that would look horrible on this building. On a different structure, perhaps, but the current plan looks just fine.
Having a 408ft. spire though is kind of ridiculous. it's like a guy who's 6'0 wearing a top hat and saying he's taller than a guy who's 6'2. It just looks too big.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 12:24 AM
TouchTheSky13 TouchTheSky13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by uaarkson View Post
I think if you really care, and I mean really care...then you have a problem, and I feel sorry for you.
That was a bit uncalled for. You shouldn't make make assertions about people you don't even know. Just saying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 12:33 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,105
Answer is no. The mast counts too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 12:42 AM
Towersteve Towersteve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13 View Post
Having a 408ft. spire though is kind of ridiculous. it's like a guy who's 6'0 wearing a top hat and saying he's taller than a guy who's 6'2. It just looks too big.
agreed but its too late now. I'm glad this building is at least being built and nearing completion. That and a lot of other towers in Gotham are proposed/under construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 3, 2012, 12:46 AM
TouchTheSky13 TouchTheSky13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
Answer is no. The mast counts too.
I think that depends on who you ask. Most people don't feel like it is legitimate, nor should they. I'm not against spires, but sticking a giant needle on top of a building that is 1368 to the roof and saying that is taller than a building that is 1451 to the roof is bogus.
They ought to find a way to increase the roof height. Perhaps they could rap the communications ring in glass. If they counted it as the roof, it would bring the roof height to roughly 1400ft. That would at least be something. Plus, the architects are going to look really stupid when Durst makes it a thin antenna (which is not an architectural feature, and therefore not included as part of the building) without a radome. I sure hope that doesn't happen because that spire design is really pretty.
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 1:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.