Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas
I've always supported spires over antennae and flagpoles, or anything else that wasn't included as part of the building's design. That is, strictly for architectural purposes. Antennas, flagpoles and clocks come and go, but spires and other strictly architectural features are permanent.
|
Nowhere does this state why "permanence" is of any importance. So what if a building's height changes? Ships are lengthened and occasionally shortened, on rare occasion so are bridges. The very idea of permanence is a myth. A building is a machine, constantly changing. Take a long enough time period, and nothing is permanent. Parts get replaced and metal corrodes beyond repair.
Quote:
It would be like ripping off the hood ornament of a Mercedes to replace it without an antenna. It would actually decrease the value of it. Imagine if they did that to the Chrysler Building for an antenna.
|
Irrelavent. A car is a mass-produced serial object from a specific period of time. A skyscraper is not. As such, the car's perceived ideal condition is as close to factory-fresh as possible. A building is expected, and even required to change over time. Unless you want an office building with no air conditioning, limited electrical, and only landlines, a typewriter and a mail drop to communicate with the world.
Quote:
The Empire State Building for instance has not always had its antenna, and it might in the future be removed, too.
|
It didn't have the mast either. That...was an add-on.
Quote:
Although, I live 5 miles from downtown Austin, and the one building we have that has a spire really only makes a major impact with its roof. I can see the spire day and night, but the spire's impact on the skyline is pretty much unimportant, especially compared to other buildings with higher roofs.
|
No system is perfect, but it is more rational to accept a spire making a building taller, than to pretend that arbitrary parts of the building don't exist.