HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    One World Trade Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21061  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 11:43 PM
CarlosV's Avatar
CarlosV CarlosV is offline
Bionic Boogie
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 3,821
^^^

MRNYC looks massive!!!! i have to go there and shoot it from that angle again...thanks
__________________
I Love NY
September 11, 2001 Never Forget
Save water, shower with a friend!
SSP member since 2003
Please do not use any of my photos or videos without my permission. thanks
     
     
  #21062  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 11:45 PM
sw5710 sw5710 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,519
The idea to kill the spire is a proposal submitted by Durst. It has not been confirmed.
     
     
  #21063  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 11:47 PM
NewYorkSkyline117 NewYorkSkyline117 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw5710 View Post
The idea to kill the spire is a proposal submitted by Durst. It has not been confirmed.
Thats good to hear...I think we should wait before sending backlashing emails. If that spire does get confirmed, I'm probably gonna lose alot of interest. :/
     
     
  #21064  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2012, 11:59 PM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by gramsjdg View Post
Those renderings are from a much older version of the spire and communications ring -they haven't been recolored, that was the previous plan from around 2005 or so... NYguy could probably confirm that...
This.

The render that you posted SoaringSkyline can be found on the first page of this thread. It's what the spire/antenna was going to look like at first, then got changed to what we think Durst is attempting to redesign.
     
     
  #21065  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:00 AM
Fluffybagel's Avatar
Fluffybagel Fluffybagel is offline
🇺🇸🏫🏢🏣🏦
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 104
If this plan is put into effect, wouldn't it officially (by architectual height) not surpass Willis Tower? Gee, that sucks. 2nd tallest in America, what a downgrade... There have been many disgraceful "changes" to the building, and the site in general. This just crosses the line, though.
     
     
  #21066  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:00 AM
Bill Ditnow Bill Ditnow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 270
Instead of writing to Durst, you should write to the reporter of the Wall Street Journal, whose e-mail is at the end of the posted article. So far as I can tell, his is the only article that mentions architectural changes to the spire per se. If that is correct then write to him (and to all the other New York papers, or call their newsrooms) and ask for further clarification and whether any renderings of the proposed changes are available. The only way to do anything is to generate more news articles about this, which will awaken public interest. Writing to Durst is ridiculous; of course everyone will receive the same form reply. But inquiries from newspapers will generate a very different response.
     
     
  #21067  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:11 AM
NewYorkSkyline117 NewYorkSkyline117 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 514
*sigh* ^^^^^ true
     
     
  #21068  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:15 AM
Fluffybagel's Avatar
Fluffybagel Fluffybagel is offline
🇺🇸🏫🏢🏣🏦
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ditnow View Post
Instead of writing to Durst, you should write to the reporter of the Wall Street Journal, whose e-mail is at the end of the posted article. So far as I can tell, his is the only article that mentions architectural changes to the spire per se. If that is correct then write to him (and to all the other New York papers, or call their newsrooms) and ask for further clarification and whether any renderings of the proposed changes are available. The only way to do anything is to generate more news articles about this, which will awaken public interest. Writing to Durst is ridiculous; of course everyone will receive the same form reply. But inquiries from newspapers will generate a very different response.
That's actually a pretty good idea; Durst has been trying to pull us off with the same copy and paste response routine with your name , [Your name here], added to make it seem as if it was actually read. Emailing it to the WSJ reporter instead may at least alert someone who may actually care the least about the public's opinion; as it is a reporter's job to do so. Another thing, the petition has 6 signatures. Dense_Electric has the link posted on the page before, but I'll post it again:http://www.change.org/petitions/save-our-spire The more support, the less grotesque our appeal will seem.
     
     
  #21069  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:24 AM
Bill Ditnow Bill Ditnow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 270
Being a journalist, let me explain how this works.

The initial article by the WSJ focused on the business aspect of the proposed change (understandable for a business-oriented newspaper). The stuff about the proposed architectural change was almost an afterthought.

The story was then picked up and rewritten (shortened) by the wires, most of which eliminated the architectural part entirely.

However, the architectural/aesthetic change, an afterthought in the first story, can now serve as the basis of a new story in which this change is the focus. Contact the WSJ and other New York newspapers and ask them to look into this, and ask Durst what specifically is planned and whether there are renderings of the new look. Almost certainly at least one paper will check it out and when it does, all the other papers will follow and you will have generated all the interest that you want.
     
     
  #21070  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:24 AM
NYC GUY's Avatar
NYC GUY NYC GUY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluffybagel View Post
If this plan is put into effect, wouldn't it officially (by architectual height) not surpass Willis Tower? Gee, that sucks. 2nd tallest in America, what a downgrade... There have been many disgraceful "changes" to the building, and the site in general. This just crosses the line, though.
All the articles I've read say that it will still be 1776' and in a thinner casing.
     
     
  #21071  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:29 AM
NewYorkSkyline117 NewYorkSkyline117 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by 599GTO View Post
Just sent an email. EVERYONE should too. No point in sitting back and crying amongst yourselves.

As far as i'm concerned, I am done with this building and defending it if we end up with some disgusting thin needle at the top. The height needs to be officially reduced, it's NOT 1,776 anymore. They need to change their marketing and revise there press releases of it being the tallest building in America or the Western Hemisphere because it's NOT. POS cheap, tacky developers and their watered down building. I was just recovering from my disappointment that the striking 2,000ft kissing towers by Norman Foster (which would probably have been complete by now) weren't selected, this mess that is the WTC complex and finally warming up to this and now bam I don't like it anymore.

It will look so awful and out of proportion. The ugly needle thing works a little better on towers like One Bryant Park because that doesn't have a flat roof. Same as the ESB. It will look awful on this.

Hopefully something nice and tall rises in Midtown.
Exactly. I mean really, save it for 420 park god damnit. Besides, on that tower it would just look like a much taller version of Bloomberg Tower
     
     
  #21072  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:37 AM
marshall marshall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 291
That's exactly what I've been saying, both in my emails I sent to them and my voicemail today. I said that a skinny spire would not work on this building because 1WTC tapers as it rises, and needs a thick spire to cap it off and streamline it visually. I sincerely hope that if they do go forward with re-design, that they find some middle ground and do not strip the spire bare, at least leaving somewhat of a substantial girth to it. Durst better come clean or come out with a proposed rendering of what they are proposing and stop hiding behind vague press releases!
     
     
  #21073  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:44 AM
NewYorkSkyline117 NewYorkSkyline117 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshall View Post
That's exactly what I've been saying, both in my emails I sent to them and my voicemail today. I said that a skinny spire would not work on this building because 1WTC tapers as it rises, and needs a thick spire to cap it off and streamline it visually. I sincerely hope that if they do go forward with re-design, that they find some middle ground and do not strip the spire bare, at least leaving somewhat of a substantial girth to it. Durst better come clean or come out with a proposed rendering of what they are proposing and stop hiding behind vague press releases!
i DON'T GET IT, WHy must they strip the radome? I was reading the plans for the spire and they said that the material of the radome was still penetrable for signals?
     
     
  #21074  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 12:52 AM
Fluffybagel's Avatar
Fluffybagel Fluffybagel is offline
🇺🇸🏫🏢🏣🏦
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC GUY View Post
All the articles I've read say that it will still be 1776' and in a thinner casing.
It will by pinnacle height, but antennae don't count to architectural height. However, it did when it was a spire. If this is put into effect, it won't be arguable whether or not it will count towards height anymore officially. It won't, period. I still wonder if the PA and the media will still claim it's 1776ft though, even if Durst's plan is put in effect.
     
     
  #21075  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 1:11 AM
marshall marshall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 291
I just hope nothing has been decided yet..what I don't get is that in some of their responses, Durst officials mentioned (I'm paraphrasing) that the spire and radome (in its current SOM form) would be difficult to maintain? And this was only thought of NOW??! I don't buy it. I just think it's about money and Durst wants all the broadcast rights for the top of 1WTC and if that means a totally functional, but totally ugly antenna, then they just don't care apparently. But we shall see.
     
     
  #21076  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 1:13 AM
Bill Ditnow Bill Ditnow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 270
As I say, contacting the news media to ask for a follow-up story on the architecture and not just the business end is your best bet. You'll get nothing out of Durust but the news media will.
     
     
  #21077  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 1:21 AM
oblivionlml oblivionlml is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluffybagel View Post
If2nd tallest in America, what a downgrade...
The originals were shorter than Willis Tower so why is it such a problem now?
     
     
  #21078  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 1:35 AM
Fluffybagel's Avatar
Fluffybagel Fluffybagel is offline
🇺🇸🏫🏢🏣🏦
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by oblivionlml View Post
The originals were shorter than Willis Tower so why is it such a problem now?
Big problem, actually. First off, media has the whole nation thinking it would be taller. And you shouldn't compare the old wtc with the new one. The new one may reflect on the original, but their two different complexes. I don't care about beating willis in height, just that 1776 was a brilliant idea for the building's height. It was patriotic and provoked a sense of nationalism to the site. Let's just hope Durst will stop tampering with the design, so we can have this height back.
     
     
  #21079  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 2:29 AM
IntoTheLens827 IntoTheLens827 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 122
SPIRE CHANGES? What is going on now!?!?

Ok, What the heck is going on now!?!? COME ON! RU KIDDEN ME!?!? This can't be happening! I really hope this isn't true! Well (AS FOR MY SAYING), IT WILL BE A VERY BIG MISTAKE TO CHANGE THE DESIGN! I want the Spire to stay the same with a FULL SYMBOLIC HEIGHT OF "1,776 Feet", NOT 1,368 Feet! Why wait this long & less then 3 months before the start of the SPIRES CONSTRUCTION!?!? SIGH! RU KIDDEN ME!?!?! "LETS ALL STAND UP TALL TOGETHER FOR THIS ONE & LETS NOT LET THEM CHANGE THE SPIRE ON US"! -Greg / IntoTheLens827.

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE, RATE, & COMMENT. Thank You!
MY VIDEO:
Video Link
     
     
  #21080  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 2:29 AM
NYC GUY's Avatar
NYC GUY NYC GUY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 575
So which spire is most likely going to be built. Durst's antenna or the original spire?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.