I have read several sources that said the rooftop promenade was 1,377 feet above SEA LEVEL. Now I know from a few sources on forums (one of them being STR) that street level of the World Trade Center was 10 feet above sea level so thus that would mean that the rooftop promenade was 1,367 feet above street level. I also came across an article online from 1975 (when the outdoor deck opened) that said the promenade was 12 feet above the roof, now given the sloping hat truss nature of the roof I assume that is 12 feet above the portion of the roof directly underneath the promenade (if you look at pictures it does look like it was 12 feet above) and not the higher center of the roof that would be the very top of the building or 1,362 feet. If the part of the roof right under the promenade was 1,355 feet above street level then add 12 feet you get 1,367 feet above street level then add 10 feet to get 1,377 feet above sea level.
I guess this only matters because it is commonly stated that the south tower's deck was 1,377 (or 1,378 in some sources) feet high but that was above sea level, whereas if you go by the typical definition for measuring building height the deck was 1,367 (or 1,368) feet high. Interestingly enough if you use a nearby waterline as a standard then the Sears Tower's 103rd floor is pretty much exactly 1,377 feet above the waterline of the Chicago River very near it, and if you count Lower Wacker Drive as street level it would also be about the same distance to the Skydeck as the street level was to the rooftop promenade of the south tower of WTC but that doesn't count because lower wacker is below grade and semi-enclosed (but not underground) and thus it is measured from upper wacker which is grade level. So in distance from outdoor street level (grade level) the WTC outdoor deck was higher than the Sears Tower indoor deck but if we go by nearby waterline or lowest street level it was about the same.
If you see a silhouette of a skyline, and it had two huge rectangles sticking out, you instantly knew it was New York. That was something the Empire state building wasn't always able to do, nor will the new WTC be able to do today. That's how distinct, unique, and dominating the twin towers were.
Wonderful. I always thought that the twin towers looked far more elegant in the evening.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
I doubt it. Most of the building threads here like those for the ESB and Sears Tower have been started years after, but I reckon SSP has changed a lot since then.
I'll always think that the Twins looked better after the WFC was completed. The Twins were very brutal on their own, but the WFC framing it made for one of the most picturesque skylines.
I think I remember reading somewhere that Cesar Pelli designed the WFC to "balance out the monolithic World Trade Center and humanize the structures."
__________________
We spread out and occupy the cracks in the urban streets.
Yeah, the WTC and WFC really worked well together, kind of like one of those Japanese Ikebana flower arrangements.
__________________
"Build me to the heavens, and Life never stops"
"Live as if the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"
-Angel
"Prayers are fleeting and wars are forgotten, but what is built endures"
-Ambassador DeLenn, Babylon 5
just imagine if 9/11 never happened..the nyc skyline would be extremely differnet..most likely there would be more supertalls because people wouldnt have thought to be scared to build them...now there are more tall buildings being built in nyc
Prev
The visual representation of the strength and power of New York. Something that can never be destroyed by a event like 9/11.
Linear Mode
