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

[1Boston]

I'm surprised Durst has the ability to change the design of the spire into an antennae especially so late in the construction progress. Can they just do that or do that have to request it, cause it seems like it affects a lot of things like the entire design and height of the building. If they can then the PA is gonna have to stop advertising the "symbolic 1776'" thing.

[SoaringSkylines]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

I'm surprised Durst has the ability to change the design of the spire into an antennae especially so late in the construction progress. Can they just do that or do that have to request it, cause it seems like it affects a lot of things like the entire design and height of the building. If they can then the PA is gonna have to stop advertising the "symbolic 1776'" thing.

Agreed. The building TECHNICALLY isn't even going to be 1,776 ft. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the precise measurement on the ground around the base to the very tip top tip of 1WTC, it will be 1,787 feet. (I'm even hearing 1,792; including the lightning rod).

THEN AGAIN, that may change now since apparently it's okay to do sudden changes to the architecture.

[rjb001]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Does this affect the final height?

The is the one question I'd like to know the answer to. They're not also making it slimmer, are they?

[Onn]

Originally Posted by marshall

I agree, I mean, what's next? First off, let me say that I actually like the design for 1wtc (as envisioned by SOM and Childes) but it seems like things keep moving in the wrong direction..There was a huge opportunity to build a truly great, evocative, and cutting edge new World Trade Center. The powers that be apparently decided to go the cheap route, cutting corners whenever possible. Well guys, this is NOT the building to do that on!I actually made my peace with this building and it was growing on me, but if they actually change the spire it will look ridiculous. The proportions will be totally wrong. It will look like a skyscraper with a really bad haircut if they give it a skinny minny antenna. I guess at least it will still have the indoor observation decks, which will be nice, and the building will be the same height as the old towers...But they need to leave the design ALONE!!!!

Like someone forgetting to put bathrooms in the Memorial Plaza? Clearly a bunch of amateurs are designing everything. This spire redesign should not come as a surprise to anyone, by the way! The Port Authority has been trying to cheapify the project from the beginning! We're lucky to be getting a tower at all, there were far worse, and probably cheaper, proposals for rebuilding the site. An antenna would be a huge downgrade for sure. My issue is that this could mean the tower losing its 1776 ft height, meaning it would be even less out of contention for world's tallest building. What a total disgrace.

[CarlosV]

^^^
FYI, it was decided "to respect the memorial plaza" that no toilets would be build above ground. they will be located in the museum below (for a price).


DSC_0077 copy by Ceva321, on Flickr

[Onn]

Originally Posted by CarlosV

^^^
FYI, it was decided "to respect the memorial plaza" that no toilets would be build above ground. they will be located in the museum below (for a price).

First I've heard of it, and I've been following the project for 5 years now. Second, that doesn't make any sense, where are people supposed to go to the bathroom?

[dchan]

Originally Posted by Onn

First I've heard of it, and I've been following the project for 5 years now. Second, that doesn't make any sense, where are people supposed to go to the bathroom?

This isn't a large park, nor is it an isolated park in the middle of nowhere. For example, right across West St. is the Winter Garden, which has excellent bathroom facilities.

[sterlippo1]

Originally Posted by Onn

First I've heard of it, and I've been following the project for 5 years now. Second, that doesn't make any sense, where are people supposed to go to the bathroom?

in the museum below

[aquablue]

If they change the spire, I'd be very upset. For one thing, it would show that NY really doesn't give a shit about aesthetics, just business. A site like this is so visually important. Putting dollars over aesthetics is just philistine behavior.

[NYC GUY]

What exactly is the radome of the spire?

[NYC GUY]

1 WTC seeks broadcast antenna to lure stations
Share

The Associated Press
Published: Tuesday, Mar. 6, 2012 - 6:14 am
NEW YORK -- Officials at the 1,776-foot World Trade Center tower want to install a broadcast antenna in an effort to attract radio and television stations currently broadcasting from the Empire State Building.

The senior vice president of the Durst Organization, Thomas Bow, tells the Wall Street Journal (http://on.wsj.com/xupqXR) the development firm wants the tower to become the premiere broadcast facility in New York City, just like the original towers had been before the terrorist attacks in 2001.

A spokesman for Malkin Holdings, an owner of the Empire State Building, declined to comment.

Durst says it expects to be able to take in about $10 million a year in rents and fees from potential broadcasters.

The tower is currently under construction. It's expected to be completed at the end of 2013.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/06/431...#storylink=cpy

Found this article online.

[gramsjdg]

Originally Posted by lake of the nations

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. CTBUH defines a spire as an architectural feature. The radome on the ANTENNA MAST is what makes it a spire as the radome is an architectural feature. In removing that element the spire is no longer a spire but an antenna mast, therefore the height of the building without the radome is 1368 ft.

[Yankee fan for life]

What the wall street article is saying is that a interior antenna will be installed and the outer cone casing will be thinner and less conical then the original design and from what,i am hearing through the grape vine is that the Radome will be removed.

[cadiomals]

If it ends up looking like the ugly thin needles on top of the New York Times, Conde Nast and Bank of America buildings, I'm gonna be pissed. I never bought into the whole 1776 feet tall hype in the first place but this definitely will not count. At least the radome spire was actually a spire, noticeable and somewhat artistic. This will be nothing.

[Yankee fan for life]

Can some one show me where does it define that the criteria for a spire must have a Radome casing because the only purpose for a Radome is for structural, weatherproofing.

[marshall]

So, if they make the spire into a skinny antenna, will that decrease the height? Will it still be 1776 feet? Personally, I always thought that arbitrary 1776 height figure was stupid anyway, I mean, the real measure of height is a building's structure, not the antenna or spire on top..Thats where the real height comes from..Also, 1wtc will only be the same height as the old twin towers if the parapet is on the roof, not the roof slab itself...If they were going to keep changing the design like this, why even bother? Personally, among the final WTC designs, I was in favor of Norman Foster's "Kissing Towers" it was much taller and more interesting architecturally....I like 1wtc, but the spire is SUCH an integral part of its design because of how it tapers, they need to leave the damn thing ALONE!!

[SoaringSkylines]

Will someone please provide us with renderings NOW with what it "may" look like?

Like if it DOES happen, give us a speculation picture of that ugly skinny stick at the top.

[Towersteve]

Originally Posted by BStyles

Well this was a troll-ish remark. We're already at the top and yet people want more and more...sheesh. It amazes me that after a decade, there's still an argument left. Get up with the times, people, the proposals are in the past. We have bigger things to worry about, so please, take your concerns to an appropriate thread.

Hearing things through the grapevine does not count as official information, especially from a group of journalists who don't know any better. You're better off awaiting official reports when NY Guy posts them.

This seems on topic to me. He mentions the spire revision proposal and the buildings design. I understand why it's annoying to bring up the design at this point but I don't think it makes someone a troll. I would feel like its a bait and switch if they change the spire at this point. But until such a decision is made (not proposed) I am not that concerned about it. Have a good day everybody.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by BStyles

Well this was a troll-ish remark. We're already at the top and yet people want more and more...sheesh. It amazes me that after a decade, there's still an argument left. Get up with the times, people, the proposals are in the past. We have bigger things to worry about, so please, take your concerns to an appropriate thread.

Hearing things through the grapevine does not count as official information, especially from a group of journalists who don't know any better. You're better off awaiting official reports when NY Guy posts them.

Okay first off, it was not a trollish remark, I was making a point relevant to the last few comments regarding the spire that they should NOT consider changing the spire design, period! I'm sure I am among the vast majority who have followed 1wtc who think they should not change the design anymore. As I stated, I'm fine with 1WTC if they just leave it alone, and not change the spire. Hopefully they won't. Period.

[Roadcruiser1]

To stop the arguments in this thread I decided to do a research on masts. Technically even if the radome is removed and the spire is made skinny it would still be a mast. From what I read as long as a mast on a structure is held up by stays or guy wires it is a mast and therefore would be part of the structure. Therefore One World Trade Center is 1,776 feet high when complete.

To prove it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_masts_and_towers

The terms "mast" and "tower" are often used interchangeably. However, in structural engineering terms, a tower is a self-supporting or cantilevered structure, while a mast is held up by stays or guys. Broadcast engineers in the UK use the same terminology. In US broadcast engineering, a tower is an antenna structure attached to the ground, whereas a mast is a vertical antenna support mounted on some other structure (which itself may be a tower, a building, or a vehicle). Masts (to use the civil engineering terminology) tend to be cheaper to build but require an extended area surrounding them to accommodate the guy wires. Towers are more commonly used in cities where land is in short supply.

Look at Otie's picture. Credits to Otie of course. The mast is held up by guy wires. As long as it is held up by those wires it counts as part of the building. Correct me Otie if I am wrong since I just read this up online. I only study buildings so I am not an expert on masts.