NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 77

Atlriser · #**1521** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 7:38 PM**

Lord lord, convince the wind it's blowing....this is OLD and BORING! If you just want to debate the merits and height of FT, please transport yourself back 3 years when people were discussing this and cared to hear about it. The standards are VERY clear on what constitutes a buildings height. Whether you like them or not is IRRELEVANT to the record books. Move on!

Dac150 · #**1522** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlriser

Lord lord, convince the wind it's blowing....this is OLD and BORING! If you just want to debate the merits and height of FT, please transport yourself back 3 years when people were discussing this and cared to hear about it. The standards are VERY clear on what constitutes a buildings height. Whether you like them or not is IRRELEVANT to the record books. Move on!

How could you say the the discussion of the height of a skyscraper on a skyscraper forum is irrelevant?

The fact remains that when completed the Freedom Tower will be the tallest in the United States next to the Chicago Spire.

Chicago Spire- 2,000 ft
Freedom Tower- 1,776 ft
Sears Tower- 1,721 ft

The Freedom Tower is taller by 55 ft. That is the plain simple fact.

Atlriser · #**1523** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 8:44 PM**

Good grief....thanks for those stats...I was so unaware of the heights and my comment definitely requested you provide them....I stand corrected?? GEEZ! We have some great reading skills here don't we. Just get back to news about the tower in summary.....not arguing over what constitutes height of a tower vs the design and such.....GEEZ AGAIN? Talk about clueless and unable to read a posting!

Dac150 · #**1524** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 9:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlriser

Good grief....thanks for those stats...I was so unaware of the heights and my comment definitely requested you provide them....I stand corrected?? GEEZ! We have some great reading skills here don't we. Just get back to news about the tower in summary.....not arguing over what constitutes height of a tower vs the design and such.....GEEZ AGAIN? Talk about clueless and unable to read a posting!

I was tending to the debate in the above posts, and to be honest with you there is no need for you to act like a smartass. You would think what I was doing.

CoolCzech · #**1525** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum

Its NOT taller than sears and not bigger and taller than old WTC. Spires Suck!

Oh, give it a REST already. What are the upper reaches of the Burj Dubai, if not a desperately elongated spire with mini-floors, a la the mooring mast of the ESB? What metaphysical difference, exactly, does it make it a structure is inhabited by people or by broadcast equipment?

Time has demonstrated the wisdom of Libeskind's concept of a symbolic height for the FT: no one the day it was proposed could have predicted the taller towers planned and already built today. The height of the FT is STILL symbolic because of what it represents, whereas no one now can remember the height of the Petronas, unless they are an utter geek.

The FT's roof height equals that of the old Twins. That ALONE demonstrates that anyone who claims the FT is somehow not "tall" is a clown.

CarlosV · #**1526** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 11:12 PM**

foto courtesy of from alonzo-ny wny

David Child's blatant rip-off of the Freedom Tower for Astana, Kazakhstan

Alliance · #**1527** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 12:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum

NYC is a kind of city where you can expect new buildings to be taller 1368'.
I mean, if you say that they are building a 1368' roof to some guy, he may reply "They hit 1250' feet waaay back in 1931 ! What's the big deal if they make a building taller only by about hundred feet, 80 years later"

Yet, for some people 1368' is still very tall. They're NOT wrong about anything. Its just that every person has his/her own different way of thinking.

Yeah. You need to cork it. Big time.

That being said, I think roof height will become the official height mesurement and by that standard, its shorter than Sears. I'm honestly surprized that they didn't go for what would have been #1 in the US. I think the 1776 imo is a lame gimmick. I'd rather see an alpha dog building.

But this building is such a wierd combination of Liebskind's vision and political wrangling, I'm not surprised (and I'm probably not alone) that I have some feeling of lost potential in Freedom Tower. The highlights of WTC imo, are WTC2 and 3.

...but hey, apparently Kazakhstan thinks its worth of a rip off.

CitySkyline · #**1528** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 3:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

...
That being said, I think roof height will become the official height mesurement and by that standard, its shorter than Sears. I'm honestly surprized that they didn't go for what would have been #1 in the US. I think the 1776 imo is a lame gimmick. I'd rather see an alpha dog building.
...

You have to remember what the mood was like here in NY soon after 9/11. There was all this talk about building short so there wouldn't be any new targets for the terrorists, etc. I was genuinely worried at the beginning that they were going to put up a bunch of short towers (or, no towers at all! Don't forget that some people were clamoring for the whole site to be just a memorial

)

Fast forward a few years later and I was genuinely shocked (in a pleasant way) when they revealed a building as tall as WTC (not counting the spire). I'm not talking about the previous design with the wind-mills, I mean the current design, where we'd actually be getting real floors all the way to the top.

I suppose they could've made it even taller (roof height, I mean) but I believe there were still apprehensive people among the designer/politicians, wondering if companies would actually want to work in such a tall building. And, some thought that building so high would appear arrogant and foolish.

Today, the fear brought on by 9/11 is quickly becoming a distant memory and companies seem eager to return to the area. But by now, it's too late for yet another design change (and I'm one New Yorker who is tired of the delays!)

You put it all together and I'm not surprised they didn't build it higher. But, since I remember how tall and big the Twin Towers were (especially when viewed from the ground), I'm more than satisfied with the height of FT. (As an aside, I'll mention that I've been to the Sears Tower and from the ground, it doesn't appear as tall as the Twins did, for the simple reason that it "tapers" as it goes up, whereas the Twins were solid straight walls all the way up; while it does taper slightly, the FT will similarly have walls that go all the way up to the top, which is a design element I'm glad we'll be getting!)

Let's remember that the original WTC stopped being the World's Tallest a long time ago. We New Yorkers got used to not having the tallest. Oh, well, no biggie! (no pun intended

)

aluminum · #**1529** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 5:29 AM**

All the time, I was trying to imagine FT to be 1776' roof with exactly same shape, and people lookin' at it from liberty island and sayin'
" Wow ! Now that is something !"
But if you New Yorkers yourself hate this idea like hell, No problem man !

Scruffy · #**1530** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 6:35 AM**

one other factor thats important to remember is that this is after all a financial venture. when the roofline went up from the birdcage tower to this one, every called this the white elephant cause no one would want to lease space in it. terrorist target, bad mojo, whatever reason they had. so on a financial stand point, it didn't make sense to build another million sq feet and have the roofline go up another 400 feet. it would have been nice but not a good investment. now though, with the office space demand what it is, it might have been worth it. maybe not. towers 2,3,4 really do not have major tenants except for the ones the city itself put there to fill space.

aluminum · #**1531** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 6:43 AM**

^^^ The recent upturn in office demand in NY has been great. Another 25 floors on top of FT are nothing as compared to the total office space being planned for coming years in NY.

SNT1 · #**1532** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 9:18 AM**

Wow. I know 1WTC's spire is sketchy at best, but I never thought there are anti-Spire Nazi's around here. Will we bitch about 1WTC until it's T/O? Or maybe forever?

Speaking of which, 1WTC's basic shape is ripped off Philippines' proposed Lopez Center (its a SOM design, and proposed just before 1997's Asian financial crisis)

Dr. Taco · #**1533** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 3:49 PM**

^^ guys?? ^ whats up with ^ all of this ^^^ crap?? ^^
I thought this kind of stuff was for when the building was under proposal.... Lets see some construction pics!

so, who thinks this shape will be the new box?
The Kazakhstan copy is much more of a ripoff of freedom tower than FT is of Lopez, IMHO

br.reese · #**1534** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 5:15 PM**

Whatever goes up, they'll have a passion to take it down.........

PIZ · #**1535** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dac150

How could you say the the discussion of the height of a skyscraper on a skyscraper forum is irrelevant?

The fact remains that when completed the Freedom Tower will be the tallest in the United States next to the Chicago Spire.

Chicago Spire- 2,000 ft
Freedom Tower- 1,776 ft
Sears Tower- 1,721 ft

The Freedom Tower is taller by 55 ft. That is the plain simple fact.

I don't mean to get into a debate here, but just to voice my opinion. Considering Spires as a final height? I never looked at how tall a house was counting the chimney as part of it's height, I always felt that the highest point to a building should be considered by the highest point a human being can stand on (that being the roof in most cases). This being said, the Sears Towers Sky-deck is higher then the roof of the freedom tower, I do not see how Spires ever gotten to the point of being considered in the final height! Counting the spire is basically saying to developers "Go ahead, you can cheat, add a spire, we will count it!". So I can go and build a building 500 feet tall, add a 2000 foot spire to it, and claim it as the worlds tallest!! Come on now people, spires are non-sense! If you look at the Petronas Towers next to the Sears Tower, it is so evident which building is taller, Sears Tower looks so much more massive and taller then Petronas Towers!! I think the person who designed the Freedom Tower added such a tall Spire just because of the fear that no one would go in the building if the roof was to 1,776 feet, they are cheating and getting away with it, plain and simple!!

..........'PIZ'

aluminum · #**1536** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 6:06 PM**

^^^PIZ, you are always perfectly right,man. Completely, totally agree with your post.

Dac150 · #**1537** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 6:09 PM**

I would not say by putting the spire on the Freedom Tower is "cheating". It's more solid and incorporated into the design than the antennas on the Sears Tower.

aluminum · #**1538** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 6:13 PM**

^^^ At least Sears tower doesn't count the height of its antennas and therefore doesn't cheat. 1451' official is the perfect base to roof height of the building. Neither does JHC and if it did, it would've become the 2nd tallest completed building the world ! Nor does the antenna on top of ESB, neither did our very own WTC north tower !

Dr. Taco · #**1539** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 6:14 PM**

go ahead, just keeeeep talking about it

Dac150 · #**1540** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum

^^^ At least Sears tower doesn't count the height of its antennas and therefore doesn't cheat. 1451' is the perfect base to roof height of the building.

Thats the Sears Tower, this is the Freedom Tower, and whether you like it or not the spire will be counted into the final height. Deal with it.