Sears/Hancock Spire Possibilities

[dropdeaded209]

Ok so I was looking at harryc's awesome photos this afternoon and I had a sudden thought: If there ever came a time when the antennae on top of the Sears Tower and/or JHC were rendered unnecessary (I don't know if that time will come, I'm just putting it out there) would it be possible to remove the antennae and replace them with spires that mimicked the antennae? By doing so, assuming the CTBUH still counted spires in overall building height, Sears and Big John would leap up over many buildings to suddenly rank highly (again).

I don't know if anyone has ever brought this up before, but as I was looking at the photos I realized how odd the skyline would look without those dual masts on both buildings shooting up into the sky (although there are pictures out there of Sears without them, I've never seen a photo of the Hancock Center without antennae).

Anyway, I figured I'd throw the question out there and see what people have to say. Is this scenario impossible, an abomination to the form is function ideal, or a way to steal back some thunder from KL and other cities who use spires to cheat their way to the top?

[staff]

Originally Posted by dropdeaded209

or a way to steal back some thunder from KL and other cities who use spires to cheat their way to the top?

If the antennae were replaced around the turn of the millennium it would probably have caused controversy and it would definitely "steal back some thunder" (even though I think and hope that Chicagoans are more mature than that ) from the Petronas Towers, but I don't see how Sears Tower going from like the 25th tallest building to the 19th tallest in 2020 (assuming skyscraper construction continues at the same pace) is making any sort of "statement" or difference in the big scheme of things.

[Steely Dan]

i'll have to echo staff, there would no longer be any real point to doing such a thing for some absolutely meaningless bragging rights.

besides, the antennas ARE functional, which makes them better than mere decorative poles (form follows function and all of that chicago school dogma), regardless of what the CTBUH may say regarding spires and building heights.

[dropdeaded209]

I'm certainly in agreement on that. Would there ever be a time when the antennae would not be necessary, though? Do they transmit mostly television or is it a mix of TV and radio?

[Scruffy]

i can't speak for the Chicago ones but the antenna atop the empire state building and the conde naste building are both heavily used. And the load will be split with 1WTC when its completed.

on a side note, the sears tower and the hancock would look absolutely naked without its antennas. i hope that day does not come

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I doubt it will come. When it comes to modern buildings with large structural antennae (that were planned, not added later), I don't think there are a whole lot of examples of the antennae being removed. Yes there were antennae on Marina City West, but those were tacked on and not integrated with the design. When you look at a building like the Prudential building, it just makes more sense to spend the marginal amount of money maintaining the antenna then it does to commit the large lump sum of taking it down. I would imagine that even in the event of a taller buildings with antennae in Chicago eclipsing the Sears and Hancock that they wouldn't bother taking them down.

[elkinm]

I don't think it will make a difference.
I believe that by the rules whether it is a spire or an antenna does not matter, it is weather it was part of the original design and build.

The Sears and Hancock were built in something like 1974 an 1969, but the antennas were only added in the 80's.

Had the antennas been in place when they were first built, then they would count towards building height.

I personally don't like it and judge buildings by roof and highest floor.
Either way when the Spire goes up in Chicago, these discussions will probably subside somewhat.