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

[ablerock]

Originally Posted by NYguy

But that is not the case. I feel I need to explain the history of the spire again and why there was a need for a distinctive design for it.

Libeskind's site plan called for a tower with an asymmetrical spire reaching 1,776 ft. At the time his plan was chosen, the broadcasters had been planning their own 2,000 ft broadcast tower, but ran into complications (Bloomberg). They even considered putting it in Jersey City and Bayonne. Once the coalition saw that they were talking seriously about building tall again at the WTC, they jumped on the bandwagon. David Childs, who was to be the actual architect of the building merged their plan with Libesking's own, creating a 2,000 ft hybrid that included an observation deck at 1,776 ft as a nod to Libeskind's plan. Libeskind considered this too much of a deviation from his site plan and went to war with Childs. Governor Pataki - who had singlehandedly picked Libeskind's site plan over the choice of his own selection committee - agreed that in fact the tower was supposed to rise 1,776 ft with an asymmetrical spire. A beaten David Childs got back to work on a basically stumpier version of his tower - with an asymmetrical spire tacked on top reaching 1,776 ft.

The follies continued when the NYPD pointed out that the tower itself was in fact too close to West Street (another part of the site plan). All plans were thrown out, and Childs got to work on the tower that we pretty much see today. The spire, meanwhile, had evolved along with the building. It would now be an open lattice like design with the antenna hidden inside. That was later changed to an enclosed design (for protection from the elements). The spire itself was to be an abstract reference to the Statue of Liberty's upraised torch. The mast behind it was never intended to be visible.

Now, one thing that has not changed, whether you prefer it the way it is now, or the way it was meant to be - the current mast is no architectural feature of the building. The architect himself has stated as much, so don't take my word for it, take his at least.

Thanks for that summary!

To my eye, it's tantamount to building the tower and not putting putting the glass on. It's only the ugly internal skeleton of what was meant to be and that's fairly obvious. Design lost to Profit this round. It's nice when they play a little more nicely together. That's what's disappointing.

But I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Rebuilding was what was most important. And there are so many other amazing things being built in NYC to enjoy.

[Renton]

Saw Matt lauer talking on the today show about the final section going up tomorrow. They are going to broadcast from up there tomorrow. Last night the weather forecast for friday was supposed to be sunny and 80. Now I see a 30 percent chance of rain. Hopefully its not like today. Its been pouring all morning.

[pnapp1]

Originally Posted by NYguy

An oddly laughable opinion on a skyscraper forum. I agree though, that the height is not the most essential thing here. That will be what it will be. But it is the appearance that concerns me most. After defending what a lot of people consider to be a boring and bland skyscraper, that mast is something that I cannot. The building itself looks nice enough, but that garbage on top should have remained hidden. Maybe they can extend the parapet another 400 ft.

Or at the very least, paint the damn thing white.

[drumz0rz]

Originally Posted by fimiak

But it does have an architectural structure height of 2063ft. Why pretend as if it doesn't simply to make the 1WTC more impressive, or to differentiate between masts and antennas? The highest point of a man-made structure is the height of that structure, whether its an office building, an antenna, a mud hut, a deck of cards, etc..its bizarre to measure a structure by anything other than its top point.

Because the people who build buildings like this want to boast about it's height. They whine and complain that while company A builds a building that's X,XXXft tall to the roof line, B then just adds a mast to the top of their building making it X+1ft tall and thus stealing the coveted title of "tallest" from them.

Like, how about a more "real world" example. The Drake Hotel will rise 1,398ft to it's flat roof with no spire / mast / antenna. That's the tallest roofline in NYC, taller than 1WTC. If we count the spire, then the Drake Hotel will be second tallest. If we don't, it'll be first. That's why they've created different measurement systems.

Pinnacle Height measures to the top of the highest point. Architectural height is what is being debated, and I think most of us agree that the "Spire" on 1WTC should not count in that regard much like how the mast on the Empire State Building isn't counted either.

All in all, there's really no measurement beyond some 100% arbitrary way for this building to be 1,776ft. Of course that doesn't stop Durst from citing that number in every press release and still claiming the title of tallest in the west. In the end, we're just moaning about a useless statistic that has no real impact on the beauty of the building.

Originally Posted by NYguy

http://archrecord.construction.com/p...ade-center.asp

I hadn't seen that diagram before. You can really tell it's the exact same mast, they just took away the radome. Seeing this, I can now see why a lot of you think the mast us ugly. It doesn't make sense the way it was constructed. The beacon on top is going to look especially awkward and out of place as it was designed to be the slender tip to a sleek spire, not the awkward diamond shaped balloon that it'll be when it goes up. Also, seeing how the Radome would have covered the mast, it still made sense to mark the height at 1,776 ft (and exclude the lightning rod) because there would have been a more defined structure that ended at that height. The way it's being built it's just a plain boring mast with no special significance to one element over another.

Durst really robbed NYC and the architectural world when he fattened his pockets by cutting out the radome. In a way, it's almost symbolic of this whole new WTC project. A meaningless skeleton that fails to fulfill the legacy it was originally intended to recreate. In the end I think the new WTC complex will be a grouping of pretty buildings (the best of which are just stubs in the ground at this point... lets see how those get ruined as well) but they'll never live up the awe and majesty of the original complex. I, like many I'm sure, loved the twins. That fascination predated 9/11 as I was enamored by them when I first saw them. These new towers don't stir those feelings at all sadly.

[NYdude]

Originally Posted by Renton

Saw Matt lauer talking on the today show about the final section going up tomorrow. They are going to broadcast from up there tomorrow. Last night the weather forecast for friday was supposed to be sunny and 80. Now I see a 30 percent chance of rain. Hopefully its not like today. Its been pouring all morning.

There is a chance of afternoon showers/t-storms, but the day should overall be partly cloudy.

[ih8pickingusernames]

Originally Posted by JMGarcia

By that logic, I guess we should discount not just spires when counting height but tons of building who's tops have un-occupiable latices, pyramids, arches, cylinders etc. on top. e.g. BofA Atlanta, 111 Huntington Boston, even the height of the Burj and Shanghai WFC will need to be chopped.

So if someone were to build a building with 1 real floor and the next 99 floors could not be occupied because they were lattice/ cylinders/ pyramids then I will have constructed the tallest building in the world?

[JMGarcia]

Originally Posted by ih8pickingusernames

So if someone were to build a building with 1 real floor and the next 99 floors could not be occupied because they were lattice/ cylinders/ pyramids then I will have constructed the tallest building in the world?

Indeed you would have, to the tallest point of the man made structure. This is why I keep saying there are only 2 important heights. 1-Tip of the man made structure and 2 - roof height. You would have the tallest in category 1 but not in category 2.

The foolish hybrid category that the CTBUH uses for its "official" height is pointless. An antenna can have more contextual and architectural impact (Conde Naste TSQX) than a spire (NY Times). So why try to differentiate.

[JMGarcia]

Originally Posted by NYguy

... But it is the appearance that concerns me most. After defending what a lot of people consider to be a boring and bland skyscraper, that mast is something that I cannot. The building itself looks nice enough, but that garbage on top should have remained hidden. Maybe they can extend the parapet another 400 ft.

Agreed and agreed. They have robbed the aesthetics of this building by exposing the support structure and covering it with lights. It's one thing to redesign the spire to get rid of the radome, but this isn't a redesign. A nicely designed antenna could've been more architecturally appealing than this support structure.

[Traynor]

Instead of all the debate about the way they measure height... Just get it directly from the horse's mouth:

CTBUH Height Criteria


(Screen capture from CTBUH website HERE )

[JayPro]

I touched on this before and I'll elaborate here.

I'm cool with the elecom element of this building (spire/antenna/mast whatever agument be damned quite frankly) for one reason.
It fits NYC's character to a tee.
How?
I'm tickled pink that you should ask:
So it's been laid bare? As if the typical New Yawkah gives a damn what anyone thinks once he feels the need to bare his soul on a matter.
It's ugly? Since when has this town ever gotten anal over satisfying any outside party's opinion of what a major metropolis ought to look like. The people here are proud of their less than lace-gilt roots and this antenna/whetever suggests that in a truly *big* way.
Out of proportion, you say? What, if anything, pray tell, is smalll in this city?

You might well have guessed by now that I'm not in this discussion to follow what a gaggle of obsessive-compulsive bean-counters in this CTBUH dognmatize re height figures. I'm simply registering at this point the awe I'm in over how *honest* this spire is about its function and form.
I understand that the Durst people may themselves have been less so about why the radome sheath was ditched. But can we agree, perhaps, that what they did to value-engineer the spire shows decidedly a lot of guts, just as what we see right now is a 414' setup of vertical guts in the sky? That's what I'm talking about.

Also @whoever suggested that the beacon sticking out atop the mast looks awkward:
To each his own, my friend. But imagine a minimalist, abstract flame on a big, brawny candle. And Imagine that flame shooting out two concentrated beams of light that rotate every minute and can (hopefully) be seen on a clear suburban night 50 miles out.

I say let the multinational quadrillionaires take the prettified stuff set to sprout up along the 57th Street corridor (and I don't mean that disparagingly; because both 107W and 205W are gonna pop some eyes out). You want a display of Big American tenacity, toughness, grit and plain ol' chutzpah...and how more New York can you get there????

This is it Downtown.

[Chibears85]

Here is the video from 7:30am EDT from NBC's Today show announcing the Spire will go up tomorrow!

• Video Link

[WTCman7301]

Does anybody know what time they will be raising the spire tomorrow?

[Trevor Birchett]

7 am et

[Chibears85]

Originally Posted by Trevor Birchett

7 am et

Right when NBC's TODAY show starts. But really it rises at 7:30am. I really encourage everyone to watch NBC's Today show tomorrow to watch the spire rising, the host will be up with it, and I imagine they will show live shots of it rising in HD (Not not earthcams 'HD', REAL TV HD).

[QUEENSNYMAN]

Yes will see if I can get there.

[Trevor Birchett]

Reminder for those not in Eastern Time: Today is tape-delayed, so that means what the East Coast viewers see at 7 AM Eastern, West Coast viewers will see the same thing at 7 AM Pacific. So wherever you are, tune in during your local 7 AM hour to watch.

Also, really quick, let me introduce myself. I've been lurking in this thread for a few years now, and haven't posted all that much. I'm Trevor, I live in Memphis, TN. I guess that's all anyone wants to know, haha.

Oh...and don't worry, I won't go on endless rants about the spire or base.

[TransitEngr]

I really wonder what this beacon of light is going to look like on a clear night. I wonder if it will resemble the super bright rotating beacon on the Eiffel Tower....

Anyway.... so assuming the final top piece of the spire is installed tomorrow.... about how long before they start running the beacon light? 2 months? 6 months?

[Chibears85]

Originally Posted by Trevor Birchett

Reminder for those not in Eastern Time: Today is tape-delayed, so that means what the East Coast viewers see at 7 AM Eastern, West Coast viewers will see the same thing at 7 AM Pacific. So wherever you are, tune in during your local 7 AM hour to watch.

Also, really quick, let me introduce myself. I've been lurking in this thread for a few years now, and haven't posted all that much. I'm Trevor, I live in Memphis, TN. I guess that's all anyone wants to know, haha.

Yep, only twice have I seen Today be LIVE over the entire country was on 9/11 and the days after the Boston Bombing.

Sadly I wont see it live, or even on TV because I usually leave my house at exactly 7am

[deepen915]

Originally Posted by pnapp1

or at the very least, paint the damn thing white.

this.. ^

[deepen915]

and i'm definitely gonna wake up early to catch the spire beacon installation tomorrow! Exciting day for sure!