NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1055

Otie · #**21081** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 2:43 AM**

You guys are confused, the antenna will remain as designed (the steel sections are already done and stored at the ADF/DCM shop); what's at stake is the architectural radome enclosure that wraps the unsightly antenna.
Hope this helps:

Radome enclosing antenna at One World Trade Center by Otie O'Daniel, on Flickr

1WTC | Mast and radome enclosure by Otie O'Daniel, on Flickr

NYC GUY · #**21082** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 2:48 AM**

^^^
But is it more likely that they will keep the radome. Also I just thought of this if they build just the antenna could they put the radome in later?

Yankee fan for life · #**21083** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 2:49 AM**

People all of you should relax and clam down as you can see by going back to the wall street journal article they have retracted their statement about any design changes and that was the only article that i saw that said their would be design changes, and if their is a design change wait and see how the final design comes out for all we know it might be a better design.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP3cb3...4845ce644.html

Roadcruiser1 · #**21084** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 3:04 AM**

Here is what I don't get Otie. If the sources I posted a few pages back are correct then One World Trade Center would still be counted as 1,776 feet tall even without the radome right?

NYguy · #**21085** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 3:09 AM**

Reread this post: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=20985

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

So now the total height should be measured to roof height right? It is just an antenna, not an architectural spire.

No, the antenna will still be "housed" inside the spire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC GUY

All the articles I've read say that it will still be 1776' and in a thinner casing.

It will be thinner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluffybagel

It will by pinnacle height, but antennae don't count to architectural height. However, it did when it was a spire.

It's still a spire, that hasn't changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan88

WTC Tower Seeks Radio, TV Signals .

By ELIOT BROWN

The owners of One World Trade Center are planning to install a broadcast antenna in the 1776-foot building's spire in a bid to lure some of the more than two dozen television and radio stations currently broadcasting from the Empire State Building.

The plan, which came after Durst Organization executives pitched the Port Authority on the idea, calls for other changes to the planned 408-foot spire on top of One Trade Center. Its architectural cone would be stripped away, putting in place a thinner, more functional spire that the Durst Organization said would save about $20 million.

Also, I posted the press release from the Port Authority, so it's official unless they change course. The spire is Durst's call:

http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/pre...adLine_id=1544

But also, when originally conceived, the broadcasters were going to help build the spire. That may not be the case now, but it wouldn't hurt to get some complaints over there as well (unless of course, they're the real reason behind the change). These people were also going to build their own 2,000 ft broadcasting tower. Saul Shapiro is the head of that group

Fluffybagel · #**21086** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 3:27 AM**

Oh, that's a slight relief. But I'm still not happy.

NYguy · #**21087** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 3:53 AM**

Meanwhile, older and recent shots show the impact this tower has already had dominating the lower Manhattan skyline...

jeffnye

Tattoo Dave

Bridif

NewYorkSkyline117 · #**21088** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 3:55 AM**

I still don't get it..in the original articles long ago about the radome, it said the fiberglass allowed signals to pass through, would it make a difference?

Arawooho · #**21089** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 4:04 AM**

I am also very confused, is there a comparison between the new spire and the old one?

Zapatan · #**21090** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 4:43 AM**

Does anyone else not notice that they keep using the word "would" in the articles, that makes me think this is not a definite plan.

sw5710 · #**21091** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 4:59 AM**

1 year ago. (Remember the vent)

jthornton17 · #**21092** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 5:35 AM**

All i've got to say is thank God that the original Freedom Tower design isn't being built. If you haven't seen it, just go back to the early pages of this thread. I believe it's in there. It was awful. I have to agree the outside foam that was going to surround the ant. is very cool looking. Kind of reminds me of the globe at Epcot. But it is what it is.

m0by · #**21093** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 8:21 AM**

I don't get the whole anxiety...
They changed a lot so far... the whole base, the communication ring (compared to the first rendering) and now MAYBE the spire.
We haven't seen any renderings so far and just need to wait! Maybe you will like it - who knows?!

You didn't say the old North Tower of 1WTC (-2001) did look ugly either...! And this tower was even more massiv at top compared to the new 1WTC and had a thin antenna too.

And who really gives a damn if this building will be the tallest in the US?
It will be a landmark and a symbol of America! And you can be proud of it!

I'll love this tower, even with a thinner spire!

Just my two cents...

sterlippo1 · #**21094** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 10:48 AM**

thanks NY Guy for actually posting some pictures

. except for one from carlos of course

, since all this started with the spire no one is posting any pics!

Fluffybagel · #**21095** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 12:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by m0by

I don't get the whole anxiety...
They changed a lot so far... the whole base, the communication ring (compared to the first rendering) and now MAYBE the spire.
We haven't seen any renderings so far and just need to wait! Maybe you will like it - who knows?!

You didn't say the old North Tower of 1WTC (-2001) did look ugly either...! And this tower was even more massiv at top compared to the new 1WTC and had a thin antenna too.

And who really gives a damn if this building will be the tallest in the US?
It will be a landmark and a symbol of America! And you can be proud of it!

I'll love this tower, even with a thinner spire!

Just my two cents...

Well it was because the original north tower's antennae was just an afterthought added on in the late 70s. This has been planned years ago, so like some other people, I'm confused why their only catching this "flaw " now.

NYguy · #**21096** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 1:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluffybagel

Well it was because the original north tower's antennae was just an afterthought added on in the late 70s. This has been planned years ago, so like some other people, I'm confused why their only catching this "flaw " now.

Well, some people still fail to understand that the reason the spire is included in the height at all is because it is an architectural feature of the building, and that has always been the case here. As I've said before, the spire has been the focal point of the design (and battles over it) since the conception of the master plan, long before the design of the tower itself. This is not just some random "pole" stuck on the top of the building, and shouldn't be treated as such, because if that were the case, they could have gone in an entirely different direction with the design. It's what we were made to believe, and I'm sticking with that.

Now, Durst is taking a lot of heat for these changes, but the Port Authority has played with the notion of changing the design of the spire before. The one thing that was commited to was that there will be a spire. Durst will use the antenna at the "other" Conde Nast building as a marketing "package" together with this one. That's really what it's about. They aren't architects, and couldn't care less about what it looks like, as long as there is something up there that fits the guidelines for the spire reaching 1,776 ft. It's too bad, really.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/03/...nna-for-1-wtc/

Quote:

...the Durst Organization has gotten the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey on board to install a radio and television broadcast antenna inside the building’s spire.

The antenna would be located inside a slimmer, less conical spire than initially planned that would save $20 million but drew criticism from the project’s architects, Skidmore Owings & Merrill.

I don't know what the new spire will look like, but I don't need to see it to know I don't want a "slimmer" (smaller) spire. But that's the way its played.

roccocell

NewYorkSkyline117 · #**21097** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 1:54 PM**

This isn't confirmed so please stop freaking out. It's just so utterly disgusting that they would even consider such a f-ing horrid idea.

CarlosV · #**21098** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 2:49 PM**

I am always very happy when i get to see and capture thru my lens workers atop the tower.....well working!

1.

DSC_0098 copy by Ceva321, on Flickr

2.

DSC_0098a copy by Ceva321, on Flickr

aquablue · #**21099** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 3:57 PM**

Why the bleep do they need a broadcasting tower her anyway? go build one on an old brownfield site in Jersey FFS. This is the WTC, a symbolic place where aesthetics should be respected and placed at priority level #1.

SoaringSkylines · #**21100** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorkSkyline117

This isn't confirmed so please stop freaking out. It's just so utterly disgusting that they would even consider such a f-ing horrid idea.

To people that are saying this^^

Yes, it may not be confirmed yet, but NOW IS THE TIME TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEFORE IT IS CONFIRMED. Because this tower only has just a few months left until they go to the spire-- or shall I say "ugly anorexic needle."

Because most likely the plan will be accepted because you better believe; when you talk about anything being "financially better", the Port Authority is ALL over that.

So now is the time to stop them before they give it the okay. Like I said, this is the new face of America and we are going to have to live with seeing this (hopefully) for about 120-150 years. Don't let them turn this all around and ruin it for New York and America in just a few weeks.