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
     
     
  #20941  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 3:30 PM
NewYorker2009 NewYorker2009 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 288
Too bad about the spire change for One World Trade. Hopefully this isn't final but who knows anymore. It just proves how Durst and the Port Authority have ruined the project once more. If it weren't for the height, the glass, and the observation deck this Tower would be a waste. I mean spending nearly $4 Billion and the best they can do is a cheap antenna. Unbelievable. I'm guessing the now antenna will not take six months to complete since it will be a thin piece of garbage. Durst should have left the development of the spire alone. The spire was the whole point of this Tower being 1,776 feet.
     
     
  #20942  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 3:37 PM
NYCLuver's Avatar
NYCLuver NYCLuver is offline
Astorian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 764
Well I wrote Durst an e-mail this morning as follows,

I recently came across an article from the Wall Street Journal detailing plans that Durst are looking into both TV and radio signal capabilities at 1 World Trade Center. That is nothing surprising, however the fact that the Durst Organization is looking to alter and change the design of 1 World Trade Center's spire is very worrisome.

I am a native New Yorker, I was born and raised here in New York City and I can tell you that changing the look of the architectural spire on top of 1 World Trade Center would be a horrible idea. I understand the motive and it comes down to money, that is no surprise, but this is not just any building we are talking about. This is 1 World Trade Center, the building that is supposed to be the focal point of the whole rebuilding process.

Now before you think I am Anti-Durst, I am not. I enjoy the two mega developments Durst has created in New York City, 4 Times Square and One Bryant Park. I love those buildings, and I love the recently implemented lighting designs at night for their spires/antenna. One Bryant Park has an architectural spire, it looks a bit like an oil rig but its something interesting and fits with the building. Four Times Square's antenna is very mechanical and in honesty is ugly, however it works with the top of the building because 4 Times Square is very mechanical on top and it actually makes the building look better than it did before the antenna was added on.

One World Trade Center's spire was designed to fit in with the building and its a beautifully done creation. To take that away and place a thinner, cheaper antenna on top would be horrible. Sometimes you just cannot look at it like a corporation and only have money on the mind. Sometimes you need to simply stop and think for a minute what you are doing and how something will look and be reflected upon. I was happy when Durst made their way to One World Trade Center but now I am not so sure.

As a native New Yorker who wants to see the spire as originally designed by the architects sitting on top of One World Trade Center, I implore you please do not alter the design of the spire. This building cannot be a disappointment. After so much time and energy placed into the design and construction, do not take away the one thing that was going to cap the tower and show the mixture of beauty and might it would have by replacing it with a simple antenna. If somehow there is a way to keep the design of the spire and put the antenna inside of it, do it.

I don't expect a reply... and I apologize for writing so much but this is certainly an issue I wanted to touch on. I don't write to a lot of people but this was something I had to mention. As I said, I am a fan of the Durst Organization, but I am not a fan of this concept.

And this is what I got as a reply, which was fairly quick.

Dan,

Thank you for your thoughtful email. The issue with the Radome is that it doesn't work on the top of the building. It's not an aesthetic issue or even a cost issue. The material simply cannot be serviced or maintained on the spire. The spire will be lit with LED lights and there will be a beacon on the top. I think it will look great and I hope you do as well.

Best,

Jordan

Which doesn't really answer anything.
__________________
New York City = My Home! :)
     
     
  #20943  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 3:46 PM
giantSwan's Avatar
giantSwan giantSwan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northeast, United States
Posts: 294
I'm still confused about this antenna issue. Can someone post a before and after?
     
     
  #20944  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 3:58 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCLuver View Post
Dan,

Thank you for your thoughtful email. The issue with the Radome is that it doesn't work on the top of the building. It's not an aesthetic issue or even a cost issue. The material simply cannot be serviced or maintained on the spire. The spire will be lit with LED lights and there will be a beacon on the top. I think it will look great and I hope you do as well.

Best,
Jordan
Then they should work on a solution that retains the same design at least for the spire. It was said to be the same material used on the CN Tower.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #20945  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 3:58 PM
marshall marshall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 291
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!!!!
     
     
  #20946  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:07 PM
NYCLuver's Avatar
NYCLuver NYCLuver is offline
Astorian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
Then they should work on a solution that retains the same design at least for the spire. It was said to be the same material used on the CN Tower.
I wrote a reply back after he had sent me that stating that I just find it odd that a world renowned architectural firm such as SOM would put a material on the structure that isn't able to be maintained?

I mean its simply ludicrous. SOM is not an amateur's architectural firm, I am sure they know what they are doing when they pick out materials for structures.
__________________
New York City = My Home! :)
     
     
  #20947  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:12 PM
marshall marshall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 291
Yeah, if the issue is one of maintenance, why the hell would they not have addressed that from the beginning, during the design phase?! I mean, HELLO!! Now isn't the time to be making major design changes, just a short time before the building tops out! They found an alternative solution for the base cladding, which is now being implemented, so could they find an alternative for the spire, without changing the visual design?? If they did change the spire into a skinny antenna, would the building still be 1776 feet tall?
     
     
  #20948  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:12 PM
SoaringSkylines SoaringSkylines is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: 900 Biscayne Bay; Miami
Posts: 182
Wow, guys.. I am totally disgusted :/ .. I'm dead serious.

Everyone is right about the whole money issue-- This just ISN'T A BUILDING.. This is the World Trade Center, a new revolutionary landmark for New York City. I feel like they will regret it in the future for not doing the originally designed spire.


I say we all start a massive nationwide protest about this. I am pretty sure about 90% (assumption) of the people in here want the original spire plans done and not this small little horrid Conde Nast stick on the nations new "tallest building."
     
     
  #20949  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:14 PM
FreedomTower2013's Avatar
FreedomTower2013 FreedomTower2013 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Well hold on silverstein properties also would have a say in this so it not like the port authority and the durst organazation can just finalize this whole thing without running it by the property owner and hopefully they wont allow this horrible change to ruin the World Trade Center. But we can only hope.
     
     
  #20950  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:15 PM
SoaringSkylines SoaringSkylines is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: 900 Biscayne Bay; Miami
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by marshall View Post
Yeah, if the issue is one of maintenance, why the hell would they not have addressed that from the beginning, during the design phase?! I mean, HELLO!! Now isn't the time to be making major design changes, just a short time before the building tops out! They found an alternative solution for the base cladding, which is now being implemented, so could they find an alternative for the spire, without changing the visual design?? If they did change the spire into a skinny antenna, would the building still be 1776 feet tall?
All the news reports (including the Wall Street Journal) are still addressing this tower as 1,776 feet... THEN AGAIN, if we're seeing sudden changes to the building like we are doing now, don't even count on it. My hopes have been let down. I JUST WANT THIS THING BUILT BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE SCREWS IT UP!
     
     
  #20951  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:21 PM
NewYorker2009 NewYorker2009 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 288
While the Port Authority and Durst may be taking features away from the Tower it still has no effect on lowering the overall cost of the building because it is the opposite right now totaling nearly $4 Billion. The Radome won't work atop the building? Since when did Durst become experts in architecture, they are a real estate business. Their top priority should be to focus on their tenants. Skidmore Owings & Merrill along with David Childs would not have proposed the Radome spire if they didn't think the material couldn't be serviced or maintained atop the building. Durst is just making excuses. Well at least someone actually answered you NYCLuver.
     
     
  #20952  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:29 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 2,079
Here is what I think folks. There is no way SOM won't push to at least dress the antenna up to resemble the spire visually.
     
     
  #20953  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:38 PM
NewYorkSkyline117 NewYorkSkyline117 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 514
I think we should all calm down because after all, this hasn't even been confirmed yet. I think as soon as they visually see what they're doing, they'll realize how fugly The design really is.
     
     
  #20954  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:44 PM
NYCLuver's Avatar
NYCLuver NYCLuver is offline
Astorian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkSkyline117 View Post
I think we should all calm down because after all, this hasn't even been confirmed yet. I think as soon as they visually see what they're doing, they'll realize how fugly The design really is.
You think they'll care? The hundred antenna's on top of the Empire State Building ruins a lot of it, and they are still there.

I just hope we do not get a 4 Times Square looking antenna because on 4 Times Square it works, the top of the building already looks very mechanical... on 1 World Trade Center, it would look horrible and unfinished.
__________________
New York City = My Home! :)
     
     
  #20955  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:50 PM
NewYorkSkyline117 NewYorkSkyline117 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCLuver View Post
You think they'll care? The hundred antenna's on top of the Empire State Building ruins a lot of it, and they are still there.

I just hope we do not get a 4 Times Square looking antenna because on 4 Times Square it works, the top of the building already looks very mechanical... on 1 World Trade Center, it would look horrible and unfinished.
I just don't understand why they would even let dunst propose an idea like that
     
     
  #20956  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 4:56 PM
dchan's Avatar
dchan dchan is offline
No grabbing my banana!
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 10021
Posts: 2,821
Whatever the outcome turns out to be, this is just another event that goes to show you how much everything needs to be in sync between the owners, designers, and constructors early in the programming process. And these change are not the first with this building, which is part of the reason why costs have skyrocketed past the initial estimates. The podium glass design was changed because they discovered the intended material was unsafe when it shattered from explosions. They had to change the loading dock design very late in the process because of some major oversights. And now, they supposedly can't use the shell material for the spire because it's hard to clean (don't know about this until it's completely verified).

Some of these problems I can understand. Unlike other buildings, One WTC is what I would consider to be somewhat experimental when it comes to new materials. The construction industry tends to be more conservative when it comes to change than others because of its physical nature - if you build something with a new, untested material, and it performs unsatisfactorily, it's cumbersome and complicated to change it once it's already up.

So many of the problems that have arisen during the construction of One WTC has to do with the complicated program that it has to follow. It doesn't merely have to provide office space; it must also be the most secure and terrorism-resistant supertall in the world while simultaneously serving as America's symbol against terrorism and "freedom-haters". As such, it must have the aesthetic appeal while being built to extremely high standards in occupant protection and against structural failure. These two ideals are somewhat antithetical, and they are definitely expensive to design and build around.

So I don't fault the architects and engineers of the building because they designed with aesthetics in mind, but couldn't predict with certainty that the materials they had chosen were inadequate for the building's programming principles.* While the designers did come up with a decent design alternative to the podium glass, the fact that they needed to change it so drastically and so late in the construction process is symbolic of why the construction industry is generally so resistant to change.


* The oversight with the loading dock design, however, was just plain dumb and needlessly expensive. It just goes to show you how important communication is between all parties involved with a project.
__________________
I take the high road because it's the only route on my GPS nowadays. #selfsatisfied
     
     
  #20957  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 5:20 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,749
Is what it is - but this just goes to show that when cost cutting opportunities present themselves, they'll be jumped on. An antenna is an antenna, however I'm more concerned about the outcome of the transit hub - an antenna / spire is small potatoes compared to that.
__________________
"I'm going there, but I like it here wherever it is.."
     
     
  #20958  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 5:32 PM
gramsjdg's Avatar
gramsjdg gramsjdg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 755
Hate to say it, but I guess I'm putting my hope in 432 Park which will now be NYC's tallest building...

They spend twice as much as it cost to build Burj Dubai which is twice as tall and now they pull this? What a friggin' joke.
     
     
  #20959  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 5:40 PM
lake of the nations's Avatar
lake of the nations lake of the nations is offline
Utilisateur enregistré
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sherbrooke
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by gramsjdg View Post
Guess what people: Eliminating the radome makes the spire into an antenna, just like the one on the original north tower.
No it doesn't.
     
     
  #20960  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2012, 5:46 PM
J_M_Tungsten's Avatar
J_M_Tungsten J_M_Tungsten is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,379
Does this affect the final height?
     
     
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 4:41 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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