NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 1150

gramsjdg · #**22981** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:15 PM**

From the same NYT article:

“We never have, never will, refer to it as an antenna,” said Jordan Barowitz, the director of external affairs at Durst.

“When the building is complete in 18 months or so, there will be no broadcast equipment on the spire,” he added. “It will be a spire, lit with LEDs. I don’t know how you could call that an antenna. It’s a spire from which broadcast equipment will be suspended.” He referred to the three steel rings at the base of the mast, which will contain communication equipment.

Mr. Durst said the mast would “still be a fairly robust structure.”

“I don’t think it will affect the visual appearance,” he said. “I try not to get involved with the aesthetics.

Well everyone, we were all worried for nothing. If Durst says its a spire, then it must be a spire

NYCLuver · #**22982** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:16 PM**

The antenna/spire is just a slightly more refined version of the one on top of 4 Times Square. We need a higher resolution photo of that antenna/spire.

(My photo)

CitySkyline · #**22983** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:16 PM**

For what it's worth, here's an additional part from that article at: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...a-redesign/?hp

(The bold-face is mine)

---------------------------------------------

For its part, the Durst Organization expressed confidence on Wednesday that the mast would be treated as an architectural element, preserving 1 World Trade Center’s claim to superlatives.

“We never have, never will, refer to it as an antenna,” said Jordan Barowitz, the director of external affairs at Durst.

“When the building is complete in 18 months or so, there will be no broadcast equipment on the spire,” he added. “It will be a spire, lit with LEDs. I don’t know how you could call that an antenna. It’s a spire from which broadcast equipment will be suspended.” He referred to the three steel rings at the base of the mast, which will contain communication equipment.

---------------------------------------------

Personally, I preferred the original design, but at this point, I doubt they're going to use it. I can get used to the new design, especially if it will be lit with LEDs.

CarlosV · #**22984** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by m0by

I agree, a "normal" antenna won't fit to OneWTC... but I guess there will be a "cladded spire". But I'm not sure...

What a foggy day in New York. Does the Carlos Xray Cam work?

sure does!!

still pretty foggy ..it has not lifted...

notice new row of glass.....

DSC_0409 copy by Ceva321, on Flickr

.

A giant looms over the city...

DSC_0410 copy by Ceva321, on Flickr

TouchTheSky13 · #**22985** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:49 PM**

Yay!!!

TouchTheSky13 · #**22986** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:55 PM**

The new design looks like the Elder Wand from Harry Potter. Durst, f*** off. This isn't your building. This is New York's building, this is America's building. SOM needs to fight to make sure that their design is the one that is used.

uaarkson · #**22987** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CitySkyline

“When the building is complete in 18 months or so, there will be no broadcast equipment on the spire,” he added. “It will be a spire, lit with LEDs. I don’t know how you could call that an antenna.

Idiots.

Dac150 · #**22988** Posted **May 9, 2012, 9:59 PM**

Obviously Durst is not going to refer to it as an antenna . . . This is a 'wait and see' circumstance.

uaarkson · #**22989** Posted **May 9, 2012, 10:00 PM**

I don't see how it is. I have very little hope that this change will not go through.

Dac150 · #**22990** Posted **May 9, 2012, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

I don't see how it is. I have very little hope that this change will not go through.

Until it's confirmed, then yes, it is. I tend to agree though that Durst will go with the option that's more cost effective.

sw5710 · #**22991** Posted **May 9, 2012, 10:07 PM**

Carlos:

Has more steel decking gone in today for floors 101 and 102?

TouchTheSky13 · #**22992** Posted **May 9, 2012, 10:21 PM**

This is sooooo dumb. I don't trust Durst. They're lying. This new design looks bad...really bad.

Don098 · #**22993** Posted **May 9, 2012, 10:27 PM**

Again, make sure to keep this conversation going in the comments section of the NYTimes article. Durst will read those much more carefully than anything written on this forum.

NYC GUY · #**22994** Posted **May 9, 2012, 10:57 PM**

Why can't they just install the radome later?

mt_climber13 · #**22995** Posted **May 9, 2012, 11:09 PM**

So does this tower get smaller as it gets higher? Or is that an optical illusion?

Gabedamien · #**22996** Posted **May 9, 2012, 11:11 PM**

Ugh, WHAT? This is a big disappointment. I have sympathy for backers of what’s become the world’s most expensive tower, and difficulty of maintenance may be a very valid point, but... damn. That spire was a thing of beauty and absolutely a fundamental part of the design, at least from my perspective. Losing it is a major fail on their part.

And I couldn’t care less about what this means about 1WTC’s height; it will be the same real profile and dimensions regardless. I just think they are committing a major aesthetic blunder on what is to becomes a long-lasting iconic building. Ugh.

Gabedamien · #**22997** Posted **May 9, 2012, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

So does this tower get smaller as it gets higher? Or is that an optical illusion?

It depends how you define “smaller.”

The base square (by which I mean the widest part of the base) is bigger than the roof square.

From any of the cardinal points on Manhattan’s grid, the edges go straight up and down.

From any of the 45° points on Manhattan’s grid, the edges taper.

brooklynbandit · #**22998** Posted **May 9, 2012, 11:34 PM**

If they are gonna change the spire to a antenna might as well give it the classic white type that the former trade center/Willis tower type

NYC GUY · #**22999** Posted **May 9, 2012, 11:35 PM**

I just read the comments section in the NYT article and a lot of the comments said that that they were happy about the change and that 1776 feet tall was a dum idea. I still think the original spire design is better and now im just confused

chris123678 · #**23000** Posted **May 9, 2012, 11:51 PM**

I don't care what Durst say's, that is a antenna, no getting around it, just a classy antenna.
As I've said before, the changes in this building are getting ridicilous. The spire, the base, what's next?