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

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

^^^
What were you expecting him to do, come after Durst with a knife? As far as public figures go, that is pretty angry. Of course, an architect, especially if he wishes to earn more commisions, must face the economic realities that developers face.

No, but he should be livid and outraged rather than so mildly dissapointed, but it's hard to tell how he really feels just from media coverage maybe he is.

[marshall]

Pardon my french, but if David Childs has any balls he will go to bat for his design and not merely lament the Durst redesign half-assed. Childs is the one who has been front and center promoting the design, and the symbolic height, so the way I see it, Durst has thrown Childs and SOM under the bus. I hope Childs stands up to this stupid redesign, we shall see if he has any backbone.

[JayPro]

It's not any kind of petulant breath-holding contest between starchitect and engineer that the people miffed at this "redesign" (translated: denudation) really want to hear about. They want to see if the public officials who initially gave their blessing to see the original plans go forward have the 'nads to call Dusrt and the PA on the carpet for manipulating a design process that all parties involved swore up and down was absolutely finalized months if not weeks ago.
Succinctly, the reason(s) why Durst and the PA chose this precise juncture in Tower 1's construction to make their spurious announcement needs to be examined rather closely. I call shenanigans.

[NYYskyline]

are they going to still have the antenna have the NY across the sky at night or would a spire do that?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Totojuice

The primary argument used for not building a 2000 ft tower (as David Childs wanted to do in his redesign), was that Libeskind insisted on the importance of reaching a "symbolic" height of 1776. 1776 was shoved down our throats for years

The spire of 1,776 ft was the most important aspect of the site plan. It was the only design element, other than the descending spiral of heights, that was mandated.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

This has to be THE single most important element of the entire complex. When you cut corners to save costs normally it's not on the focal point of a building. Wow.
I propose an SSP forumer riot!

That would be funny, a massive "occupy the WTC" rally at the construction site..

Originally Posted by meh_cd

I wish I didn't prefer downtown over midtown, otherwise I'd just write the entire redevelopment off at this point.

LOL, I was thinking I've had enough, but I at least want to stay and see the end credits.

Originally Posted by Dac150

Not entirely true - he's bringing Conde Nast Downtown, which is significant.

Are you referring to the company or the antenna....

Originally Posted by marshall

I never got why the original goal was only to build as tall as the original twins, 1368...seems a bit odd, why wouldn't they shoot for the stars as it were, and build the tallest in the country by roof height?

They could have done any number of scenarios, but a site plan was chosen. The site plan specifically called for a tower with a spire (an asymetrical spire) that reached 1,776 ft. (The broadcasters at that point were planning their own 2,000 ft broadcasting tower, and only got on board after the site plan was chosen). The spire itself was to be representative of the Statue of Liberty's upraised torch. David Childs interpreted it in his own way, but after a lengthy battle, it was ruled that Childs in fact had to alter his tower in a way that gave us Libeskind's spire at 1,776 ft. After that however, it was revealed that the NYPD had long been concerned by the tower's location so close to West Street (something else determinded by the site plan). As a result, the tower had to be pushed back from the street, given a smaller footprint and more secure base. Until then, the occupied portion of the tower was to be no higher than 1,150 ft. The redesign and repositioning of the tower just so happened to push the height of the tower close enough to the originals that David Childs decided to mark the heights of the originals with the new. Of course, the spire was still there as part of the site plan.


original plan on West Street (Fulton view)

Originally Posted by Yankee fan for life

Does The Durst Organization really have and finale say does the port authority or SOM have any saying on the matter ?

The Port Authority has final say, and they agreed to this months ago.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

No, but he should be livid and outraged rather than so mildly dissapointed, but it's hard to tell how he really feels just from media coverage maybe he is.

David Childs is probably weary of all the battles he's had with this tower. This tower has been constantly redesigned, from tip to toe. Some of it has been his own doing, but he can't be too happy about someone disregarding parts of his design. Consider that if the spire weren't part of the site plan, it could have resulted in a different design.



__________________________________________________________________________


More reports have picked up in the change...

http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/bl...tallest-tower/
Is $20M too high a price to pay for America’s tallest tower?

May 10, 2012
by Crain's New York Business

As owners of 1 World Trade Center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Durst Organization have decided against wrapping the 408-foot antenna that will top their 104-story building with a decorative white sheath. They say the wrapping would cost $20 million and be too hard to maintain. Without that covering, it looks like 1 WTC will not measure up as America’s tallest tower, since the spindly exposed antenna will not be counted as part of the building’s height. The structure’s architect also says that without that shining white cover, 1 WTC will also be uglier.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0,873654.story
1 big difference
Willis Tower may retain distinction as tallest in U.S.

Blair Kamin
May 11, 2012

For years, architecture buffs have assumed that Willis Tower's days as America's tallest building were numbered. The One World Trade Center tower in New York was going to top it with the help of a spire that would rise to a symbolic height of 1,776 feet, evoking the year of the Declaration of Independence. That would eclipse the Willis, which rises to 1,451 feet.

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.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/05/...s-in-jeopardy/
1 WTC’s tallest building status is in jeopardy

May 10, 2012

In January, the Durst Organization confirmed it was removing the fiberglass and steel casing (known as the radome) around the mast, that would have brought the 400-foot pole to 23 feet in diameter. Without the cladding the diameter of the spire would be just six feet, rendering it unlikely to be counted as part of the building’s height by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

“This definitely raises questions,” said Kevin Brass, the public affairs manager for the council. “Our criteria are very specific. We include spires and not antennas. If this is an antenna, it won’t be part of the height measurement. The cladding was an integral part of the design and made the extension part of the permanent look and feel of the building.”

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...nter-mast.html

[Zapatan]

good to see a big fuss is being made over all this at least

[1wtcspiresavor]

Hey guys I have been following this forum for years, I know who most of you are and recent situations finally caused to create an account.
Now that being said I think just sitting here whining on forums wont change a thing .. we have ONLY three options!

1. Just live with it and do nothing (aka stop complaining)
2. Everyone get together and fight this; arrange protests, get SOMs attention, get the medias attention, get tourists at the sites attention! We have numbers here, power is always in numbers; it is just a question of can we organize the numbers we have?
3. Start a fund raiser to raise 10 million dollars. (Though this is an option it is the hardest and least likely of the two with less than a 5% chance of success) However I have been thinking about the numbers and this could be pretty kool if you think about it
NYC has 8 million people; so theoretically if everyone gave a $1.25 we would be good! However the chances of 1 person running into everyone in NYC and getting money from everyone and it being at least a buck 25 is near impossible. However if we have 100 people collecting money the 8 million people they would have to meet goes down to 80,000. Now if you cut that by 50% you now have 200 members trying to meet 40,000 people and get a $1.25. Very hard yes, unlikely ... no not at all! Large universities, stadiums, concerts, and just on the streets of New York would be a very good place! For one person to meet 40,000 people it would take 11 hours if they were to meet someone every second! As youc an see this idea is plausible but very unlikely because obviously people cant spend 8 hours doing this for a week or so since we all have jobs and other obligations.

These are your options everyone, two are not very good; but options are options!

[gramsjdg]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

due to the buildings tapering it would be virtually impossible for more roof height to be added without it looking freakishly awful.

I have a feeling this is set in stone, I don't know why there isn't an enfuriated uprise by the architects.

The CTBUH had the official (architectural height) listed as 1374 feet and changed it back to 1776, I don't know what that means but I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

Well, there IS another option to make this building structurally taller without compromising the current design: Put a glass and steel (same as curtain wall facade) pyramid roof on it similar to the Washington monument's "cap" It could be an observation area (like the Pingyang tower) and there would be no antennas. The HVAC equipment could vent out the sides. That would bring the actual roof height to between 1500 and 1550 ft. Maybe Otie or STR could render it?

It would make it look more like an obelisk or monument- but isn't that what its supposed to be ?

[599GTO]

Any e-mail addresses for Durst? Need to contact.

I'll try hard to send a concerned yet polite message. He'd probably forward my e-mail to the FBI if I really told him what I really think of him.

[eseninobrandon]

why the fuck are they complaining about 20 million dollars that can be saved!? This tower costs 4.8 billion if were gonna pay for it ur gonna make it like we want it!!!

[SPIREINTHEHOLE!]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Any e-mail addresses for Durst? Need to contact.

I'll try hard to send a concerned yet polite message. He'd probably forward my e-mail to the FBI if I really told him what I really think of him.

http://www.durst.org/contact/

Interesting article I found. Apparently this Durst empire has a history of hindering the world trade center buildings; old and new.

http://www.rew-online.com/2011/09/09...nd-the-towers/

In the 1960s, when the Port Authority was poised to begin development of the original twin towers, patriarch Seymour Durst, along with Lawrence Wien and Harry Helmsley, began buying newspaper ads criticizing the project. They formed the Committee for a Reasonable World Trade Center, which argued that the “mountain” was impractical and would present a hazard for airplanes. They said the height should be lowered to 900 feet. (The North Tower’s radio antennae would eventually reach 1,727 feet.)

Some 40 years later, Seymour’s son, Douglas Durst, and Anthony Malkin, Wien’s grandson and owner of the Empire State Building, took out their own ads, creating the Continuing Committee for a Reasonable World Trade Center. They criticized what was then called the Freedom Tower, arguing that the time wasn’t right for another massive glut of subsidized office space.

[Dense_Electric]

The Facebook thing is still open, and I've re-opened the petition until the end of the year.

Get on Facebook now and invite EVERYONE on your friends list. Post this thing to news stories related to the spire. Do everything you can!

Facebook page


Petition

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by meh_cd

Let me try and list the changes made to the building so far.

1. NYPD demands 20 story concrete base.
2. Restaurant is scrapped. "Won't be profitable!" They say. Even go so far as to remove the service elevator so that if they ever do want to put a restaurant in, it will be all the more difficult.
3. Conde Nast says they will need some kind of relatively large vent somewhere on the lower floors for their test kitchens. We still don't know what that will look like.
4. The prismatic base cladding shatters into a million pieces if you look at it wrong, it is decided that strapping sheet metal and glass fins to the side will solve the problem.
5. They scrap the chamfered corners that they spent who knows how long engineering and building.
6. The West Street plaza is redesigned from a nice little meeting area into another cordoned off area. Move along!
7. Spire enclosure is scrapped and we are left with a skeletal antenna that will look exactly like the one at 4 Times Square.

Did I miss anything?

I might just be done caring about this whole site. Why waste time imagining what it's going to look like if every change since the redesign has been a disappointment.

Don't be surprised if they end up cheaping out on the lobby, and even on towers #2&3.

[NYC2ATX]

Originally Posted by Dac150

I have to say that it doesn't look terrible from that render, though it's a far cry from what should be. Once the ring fills out with equipment it will look more visually tolerable.

I know what I said before about the antenna being a reminder of the old twins, but I agree here. It's not awful. I happen to love 4 Times Square's antenna, and I feel as though I could never picture the Empire State Building without its broadcast equipment up top. But when you get right down to it, 1 WTC's symbolic height is in jeopardy, and I'm disappointed that $20 million is too expensive for one of the city's largest developers that they can just throw that away.

Hell, people have already dropped more dough for a coveted unit at One57.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

I might just be done caring about this whole site. Why waste time imagining what it's going to look like if every change since the redesign has been a disappointment.

Don't be surprised if they end up cheaping out on the lobby, and even on towers #2&3.

Yeah, if they cheap out on 2WTC I'm done too... 'cause this is the only remaining tower which is really unique and beautiful.

[MadGnome]

The new antenna tower in the conception drawing doesn't look bad. But, that's not what it's going to look like. Part of the reason for the shell was to hide all the ugly ass antennas. Take a close look at the ESBs tower. That's what prime antenna real estate winds up looking like. And this spire will be as prime as you get.

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

Well, there IS another option to make this building structurally taller without compromising the current design: Put a glass and steel (same as curtain wall facade) pyramid roof on it similar to the Washington monument's "cap" It could be an observation area (like the Pingyang tower) and there would be no antennas. The HVAC equipment could vent out the sides. That would bring the actual roof height to between 1500 and 1550 ft. Maybe Otie or STR could render it?

It would make it look more like an obelisk or monument- but isn't that what its supposed to be ?

Again no.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by hunser

Yeah, if they cheap out on 2WTC I'm done too... 'cause this is the only remaining tower which is really unique and beautiful.

Of all the places to not go cheaper, this is the place.

[NYonward]

Durst is true to form in past and now. He was against 1WTC from the beginning because it was competition and would cost him money. Now that he has a stake, he's against anything ornamental because it will cost him money. All the more reason not to have someone like him make this decision....it's a $3B tower, what's $20M more?

Originally Posted by Towersteve

I'm tired of people resorting to insulting people's opinions. It's not backwards thinking it's a difference of opinion. There are plenty of people (probably a majority on this board, and in the public) who were very disappointed with this design. If it were a typical skyscraper it wouldn't be a big deal. (although a bland 1,373 foot tower is not a giant achievement in the current age of skyscraper building). This is not a typical skyscraper. You can choose to ignore the symbolism of this building but a lot of people don't. Your opinion isn't any better than theirs.

It's backwards in that you are hoping for something to change that already happened. Different minds prevailed with the tower's design so just get over it. The original comment I replied to had a rant about Wall Street, which is just misguided. Fight that battle where it makes sense.

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

That is very well said... Despite it all, the tower itself will be great and an achievement to have watched risen!

I like its design and it will be iconic in my opinion.

[Towersteve]

It's backwards in that you are hoping for something to change that already happened. Different minds prevailed with the tower's design so just get over it. The original comment I replied to had a rant about Wall Street, which is just misguided. Fight that battle where it makes sense.

Lots of buildings have "already happened." We're allowed to have opinions on them too. And this completed redesign hasn't already happened. I think as taxpayers who have funded a lot of this complex we have every right to be outraged. Yes, I'm happy a large tower is being built. But as far as this redesign and the failure of the rest of the complex to get off the ground in a reasonable time frame without continuing reductions sends a terrible message.