NEW YORK | One World Trade Center | 1,776' Pinnacle / 1,373' Roof | 108 FLOORS - Page 499

Zensteeldude · #**9961** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 8:56 PM**

Great pics NYCLuver!

Wish y'all could see them through my eyes.

I may have been to hasty in my judgment of the persons who wrote the PA's quarterly report.

In the 6th pic NYCLuver posted you can see hanging scaffold, I believe the base curtain wall contractor is using it to install clips on the girts.

Zensteeldude · #**9962** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

schillerphoto

That is a very moving photgraph.

Kamatzu · #**9963** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 9:02 PM**

Are those the tridents in that picture at the base? Are they staying above ground?

Zensteeldude · #**9964** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 9:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamatzu

Are those the tridents in that picture at the base? Are they staying above ground?

Yes and yes, they are in there final position. Watch in the coming months as the Memorial Pavilion is built around them.

Zensteeldude · #**9965** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 9:57 PM**

Skyscrapers, you are comparing a "Big Apple" to a plum. Both are tasty but very different.

A concrete structure does not need spray on fireproofing and I have yet to meet a contractor that wanted to clean fireproofing off of glass. Also, notice all the stuff in the way on Tower One, like the crane decks and the safety nets.

Let the tower get a bit higher, let the structure take shape.

No one wants to see curtain wall go up only to see it get messed up by other trades.

Think of the curtain wall as a beautiful silk dress, it's the last thing she puts on before a night (or a century) on the town.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork · #**9966** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zensteeldude

Skyscrapers, you are comparing a "Big Apple" to a plum. Both are tasty but very different.

A concrete structure does not need spray on fireproofing and I have yet to meet a contractor that wanted to clean fireproofing off of glass. Also, notice all the stuff in the way on Tower One, like the crane decks and the safety nets.

Let the tower get a bit higher, let the structure take shape.

No one wants to see curtain wall go up only to see it get messed up by other trades.

THink of the curtain wall as a beautyful silk dress, it's the last thing she puts on before a night on the town.

ya your right,i never though of it that way...the anticipation is just killing me, but anyways thanks Zen.

sw5710 · #**9967** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 10:36 PM**

A concrete/rebar 60 story building and a steel beam building 60 floors tall.
Is one building stronger then the other?.

Zensteeldude · #**9968** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 10:49 PM**

That all depends on what you consider strong.

Both can take the gravity load equally well. But steel buildings withstand earthquakes MUCH better.

They are about equal under wind loads.

In a severe fire the concrete building is stronger.

As for cost, the steel building is more expensive, but will go up faster, so it's actually cheaper, the savings being in Labor. (A concrete building is cheaper than steel when it comes to fire codes, so the bottom line cost is about the same.)

If you want to put up a 60 story apartment building, go with concrete, and pray there are no earthquakes. Otherwise, go with steel.

(One can make a concrete building as good as a steel building as far as earthquake performance, but the amount of rebar needed to properly "Cage" the concrete would be more expensive than a steel building.)

In New York, I would go with reinforced concrete, in Los Angeles, I would go with steel.

I'm a Structural Engineer, can ya tell.

sw5710 · #**9969** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zensteeldude

That all depends on what you consider strong.

Both can take the gravity load equally well. But steel buildings withstand earthquakes MUCH better.

They are about equal under wind loads.

In a severe fire the concrete building is stronger.

As for cost, the steel building is more expensive, but will go up faster, so it's actually cheaper, the savings being in Labor. (A concrete building is cheaper than steel when it comes to fire codes, so the bottom line cost is about the same.)

If you want to put up a 60 story apartment building, go with concrete, and pray there are on earthquakes. Otherwise, go with steel.

(One can make a concrete building as good as a steel building as far as earthquake performance, but the amount of rebar needed to properly "Cage" the concrete would be more expensive than a steel building.)

In New York, I would go with reinforced concrete, in Los Angeles, I would go with steel.

I'm a Structural Engineer, can ya tell.

Thanks Zen.
800 are working on 1 WTC today. Do you know if that will increase when the number goes to 10,000 on the entire project?.

stormkingfan · #**9970** Posted **Sep 16, 2010, 11:26 PM**

I was there last Saturday, and this is probably not the first time this has been asked, but what's with the crane sitting at about the 10th floor, northwest corner?

PhxPavilion · #**9971** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 12:27 AM**

Will be nice to see once this rises above the rest of the towers.

RKOwens44 · #**9972** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 1:10 AM**

Remember also that the Burj Khalifa didn't start its cladding until the building was at around the 80th floor. There's also this building to keep in mind...

Even the aluminum cladding and window installation on the Twin Towers didn't start until the buildings were about half of their final height...

Onn · #**9973** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 2:31 AM**

^^
Yeah, but the point is that it is kind of rare today.

JSsocal · #**9974** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 3:37 AM**

Why? Because buildings are so radically different today then they were 30 years ago? Each building is individual and has an individual time frame, so relax. It's going to be built, the tower is progressing full speed ahead, and the cladding will go up when the cladding will go up.

patriotizzy · #**9975** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 8:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKOwens44

Wow. The whole WTC area looks so much better nowadays. Specially the docks area near the freeway D:

BostonBuild · #**9976** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 1:29 PM**

Looks like some insane weather moved through the city yesterday. Fortunately it looks like all is well at the site: http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/live-camera.html

Liking the new viewing angle of the PA webcam... gives you a perspective on how big it's getting. They had to move the camera pretty far away to get a full shot of 1 WTC.

dchan · #**9977** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 2:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn

^^
Yeah, but the point is that it is kind of rare today.

Is it really? If you can come up with examples to the contrary, then fine. But wouldn't it make more sense not to put up the curtain wall before construction of most of the building is complete? Would it not make sense to prevent the relatively-delicate window facade structure from being damaged by all the construction equipment and debris by, I don't know, not putting it up prematurely?

I know we're all getting tired of seeing the tower's skeleton and would love to see the glass tower finally take shape, but geez.... patience, people, patience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Wow. The whole WTC area looks so much better nowadays. Specially the docks area near the freeway D:

The docks no longer exist today because they were essentially the dumping ground for the original World Trade Center's excavated foundation. The Battery Park City area ground is essentially all landfill.

Also, take note that the original World Trade Center site was created in a process not too different than the process used to create public housing projects - eminent domain. The previous tenants on that site was Radio Row, a thriving electronics business and residential district. Of course, the PA NY/NJ couldn't quite make the claim that this was a "slum" that needed to be cleared in the name of progress and development, as had happened to many residents throughout the city whose homes were taken and razed for public housing and other projects. But the result was much the same, only prettier and more successful.

NYguy · #**9978** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 2:57 PM**

Some helpful links:

If you want to discuss your preference for the new WTC, its here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=166333

If you want to revisit the Twin Towers, its here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=184976

And here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=115522

The future of possible new tallest in New York? It's here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=177742

Anything concerning the name (of all things) ...also here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167071

The WTC Memorial...here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=158432

We aim to please, now everyone's happy....

Tectonic Photo

Domamania · #**9979** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 3:18 PM**

yay tower cranes just jumped up again. now with in a week we will arrive to floor 39 and 40, finnaly making it to the 40s now.

but one thing. How are they goign to take the cranes down once the tower is toppled off?

RockMont · #**9980** Posted **Sep 17, 2010, 4:43 PM**

If they keep going at this rate, is it unfair to expect they will be past the projected 55, at the end of the year?