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

[Daquan13]

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

My point, aluminum, is that a) the height of the FT has been set as essentially identicial to the old (very, very tall) Twins, PLUS a tall structural spire, and b) the name has gone into popular usage.

It's absurd to pretend the FT is anything other than a very tall building - the day it was proposed it would have been the WTB - and a waste of time and energy to worry about the name. Regarding the spire: the FT's is actually far more robust, and far better integrated into the overall design, than the vast majority out there. It's no more "cheating" to count it than it is to count the Chrysler's spire, or the ESB's "mooring mast," for that matter.

Regarding the name, if it drops out of popular usage I guess the "jingophobes" will have their day. Somehow I don't see "World Trade Center One" catching on, though... just doesn't roll off one's tongue. IF the name "FT" goes away, I suspect people will call this tower "the World Trade Center" and tend to forget that the other towers belong to it, too.

Agreed!!

Lower Manhattan Development Corp. still calls it the Freedom Tower, as do some of the officials, along with the news media.

Also, there are other towers with spires that count as part of their height. How about the Petronas Twin Towers over in Kuala Lumpur? And their floor count is 88.

Pataki mainly called the tower Freedom Tower because of it's height, 1,776 feet, which also represents the year that the Declaration of Indepedense was sign into law, marking America's freedom of independense - July 4, 1776.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by j korzeniowski

i wish they went for erecting a 1,776' pole, but cheated by building a 1,368' office tower on a pole only 408' high! what a disgrace!

haha!

[aluminum]

Although FT's not very tall but a good point is that its coming with almost 3 more supertalls around it.

[Aleks]

are there any pictures of the site currently?
i don't usually visit this thread often so i get behind a lot.

[CitySkyline]

Originally Posted by aluminum

Although FT's not very tall but a good point is that its coming with almost 3 more supertalls around it.

"Not very tall"??? I know what you're getting at, but considering it's as tall as the original WTC (to the roof, I mean), that's pretty darn tall!

Before they were destroyed, I remember straining my neck just trying to see the top of the Twin Towers from the ground. People (not meaning you, just people in general) seem so hung up on "World's Tallest" that they seem to forget that the original WTC towers were very tall. I never saw anyone look up at them from the ground and consider them anything but really really tall. I'm sure the FT will have the same reaction. Let's face it, 1,368 ft. *is* very tall.

[aluminum]

^^^ For standards of the Big Apple, its tall but not very tall. Otherwise, for a normal city, its very tall.

In my city, I consider 250' as very tall. lol

[chitownblues]

Originally Posted by CitySkyline

"Not very tall"??? I know what you're getting at, but considering it's as tall as the original WTC (to the roof, I mean), that's pretty darn tall!

Before they were destroyed, I remember straining my neck just trying to see the top of the Twin Towers from the ground.

I guess your doctor advised you against ever visiting Chicago then, right?

[aluminum]

Originally Posted by chitownblues

I guess your doctor advised you against ever visiting Chicago then, right?

Damn right chitownblues, if FT is very tall for him, he may get an heart attack if he sees the Chicago Spire.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by aluminum

^^^ For standards of the Big Apple, its tall but not very tall. Otherwise, for a normal city, its very tall.

In my city, I consider 250' as very tall. lol

for standards of the big apple not very tall??? what? it will TOWER over nyc. what do you mean? other than the ESB, nyc doesn't have any other 1,000 footers. so if you wanna talk about 'standards' then i would say the FT will most definately be very tall.

[aluminum]

^^^ believe me, FT alone won't get that much dominating effect with WTC2, WTC3 and WTC4 around it. WTC2's roof is only about 6-7% shorter than FT's. And WTC3 is also pretty tall. And maybe if the Midtown towers are built, FT will get some more close competitors.

It certainly won't TOWER over NY like you say. When people will be looking at the skyline, FT won't be the only thing they're looking at.
In contrast, the CS may have that kinda towering effect.

[JMininger]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

for standards of the big apple not very tall??? what? it will TOWER over nyc. what do you mean? other than the ESB, nyc doesn't have any other 1,000 footers. so if you wanna talk about 'standards' then i would say the FT will most definately be very tall.

Not technically true. Last I checked, Chrysler was a 1k footer. Ok, people hate spires but unfortunately both NY Times and BOA are 1k footers too.

I do agree with you though on this point. What exactly are the new standards for NYC? I think I remember the WTC setting the standard but those buildings aren't there anymore. Now, ESB dominates the skyline, but that is in midtown. FT will be roughly the height of the old WTC. Seems like it meets the standard of very tall for NYC to me. Yes, I understand that it will be close to buildings that are also 1K. It will still be the tallest building in NYC (discounting any active proposals). Look, I love NYC, one of my favorite places, but it doesn't own the standard for tall buildings any more. Just doesn't. Doesn't look like it will again anytime soon. FT in New York will be very very tall.

[aluminum]

NYC is a kind of city where you can expect new buildings to be taller 1368'.
I mean, if you say that they are building a 1368' roof to some guy, he may reply "They hit 1250' feet waaay back in 1931 ! What's the big deal if they make a building taller only by about hundred feet, 80 years later"

Yet, for some people 1368' is still very tall. They're NOT wrong about anything. Its just that every person has his/her own different way of thinking.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by aluminum

Although FT's not very tall but a good point is that its coming with almost 3 more supertalls around it.

Its taller than the old WTC. Its taller than the Sears Tower. Whats else do you want? Not to mention the 3 other tall buildings right next door.

[CitySkyline]

Originally Posted by aluminum

^^^ For standards of the Big Apple, its tall but not very tall. Otherwise, for a normal city, its very tall.

In my city, I consider 250' as very tall. lol

But, see, that's the thing: in New York, the FT *will* be very tall. Just use the Diagrams page and you'll see it tower over everything else, including the Empire State Building: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?29543085

Even discounting the FT's spire, you'll notice that at 1,368 ft., it stands tall next to the ESB (which at the 1,368ft level is just a skinny antenna). If you then add and include the FT's spire (which we really should do), then it makes it that much taller than the ESB. In New York, there's currently nothing even close to the ESB.

As for Chicago's 2000ft tower, of course that would tower over FT, but alas, NY isn't building any 2000 footers and it doesn't currently have any 2000 footers. Right now 2000 ft. buildings aren't common in the world. For the immediate future, there will only be 2: Chicago's and Dubai's. So, perhaps it's semantics, but I'd argue that those two should be given new labels (perhaps "insanely tall"?). And, yes, FT won't be insanely tall. But like I said before, the WTC towers were always considered very tall by all who saw them. There's reasons why people were slack-jawed when viewing them from the ground. I'm sure the same will happen for the FT (and WTC 2 and perhaps 3 as well).

Anyway, like you said in your other post, we could debate this ad-nauseum, since it all depends on your definition of "very tall." If you think FT won't be very tall, oh well. I'm just happy that we're getting something equal in height to the original WTC, considering that Silverstein's original idea was to build 4 50-story buildings!

[aluminum]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Its taller than the old WTC. Its taller than the Sears Tower. Whats else do you want? Not to mention the 3 other tall buildings right next door.

Its NOT taller than sears and not bigger and taller than old WTC. Spires Suck! People like you gave the world's tallest title to the petronas. Raising very tall decorative spires to increase official height was the worst thing ever happened to skyscrapers.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by aluminum

Its NOT taller than sears and not bigger and taller than old WTC. Spires Suck! People like you gave the world's tallest title to the petronas. Raising ver talll decorative spires to increase official height was the worst thing ever happened to skyscrapers.

A yeah, the Freedom Tower IS taller than the Sears Tower, Petronas, and the old WTC. Maybe you need to pay a visit to the diagram section of the forum to see for yourself.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by aluminum

NYC is a kind of city where you can expect new buildings to be taller 1368'.
I mean, if you say that they are building a 1368' roof to some guy, he may reply "They hit 1250' feet waaay back in 1931 ! What's the big deal if they make a building taller only by about hundred feet, 80 years later"

The difference is that in its day, companies didn't need the larger floorplates that today's office buildings need. Look at the vast majority of skyscrapers built back then. The reason they had those graceful spires on top was directly related to the floor sizes. So, you can take the ESB, make the 1,250 ft equal to the base, and that's still very impressive.

Of all the tallest buildings being built today, not many are strictly commercial towers. In fact, you're not going to see a 1,000 ft office tower built in Chicago, and no office tower much higher (roofwise) than the Freedom Tower in New York.

In about 5 months, we'll have at least four towers under construction in New York with roof heights of at least 1,000 ft. That's four more than the entire time I've been on this skyscraper forumn.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The difference is that in its day, companies didn't need the larger floorplates that today's office buildings need. Look at the vast majority of skyscrapers built back then. The reason they had those graceful spires on top was directly related to the floor sizes. So, you can take the ESB, make the 1,250 ft equal to the base, and that's still very impressive.

Of all the tallest buildings being built today, not many are strictly commercial towers. In fact, you're not going to see a 1,000 ft office tower built in Chicago, and no office tower much higher (roofwise) than the Freedom Tower in New York.

Exactly, companies need more room to function and trade. A 50 floor office building (with larger plates) is more practical than a 100 floor office tower (with smaller plates).

Look at the Singer Building. Demolished for lack of space, and yet look what replaced it: a giant box with large floor plates.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by aluminum

Its NOT taller than sears and not bigger and taller than old WTC. Spires Suck! People like you gave the world's tallest title to the petronas. Raising ver talll decorative spires to increase official height was the worst thing ever happened to skyscrapers.

So the granddaddy of the supertalls, the ESB, sucks?

I seem to recall that it used a very tall decorative spire to increase height in order to beat out the Chrysler.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I seem to recall that it used a very tall decorative spire to increase height in order to beat out the Chrysler.

That spire was actually added in the 1950's to serve as a broadcasting tower. Unless you mean the portion that holds floor 102?