Originally Posted by aluminum
^^^ For standards of the Big Apple, its tall but not very tall. Otherwise, for a normal city, its very tall.
In my city, I consider 250' as very tall. lol
But, see, that's the thing: in New York, the FT *will* be very tall. Just use the Diagrams page and you'll see it tower over everything else, including the Empire State Building: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?29543085
Even discounting the FT's spire, you'll notice that at 1,368 ft., it stands tall next to the ESB (which at the 1,368ft level is just a skinny antenna). If you then add and include the FT's spire (which we really should do), then it makes it that much taller than the ESB. In New York, there's currently nothing even close to the ESB.
As for Chicago's 2000ft tower, of course that would tower over FT, but alas, NY isn't building any 2000 footers and it doesn't currently have any 2000 footers. Right now 2000 ft. buildings aren't common in the world. For the immediate future, there will only be 2: Chicago's and Dubai's. So, perhaps it's semantics, but I'd argue that those two should be given new labels (perhaps "insanely tall"?). And, yes, FT won't be insanely tall. But like I said before, the WTC towers were always considered very tall by all who saw them. There's reasons why people were slack-jawed when viewing them from the ground. I'm sure the same will happen for the FT (and WTC 2 and perhaps 3 as well).
Anyway, like you said in your other post, we could debate this ad-nauseum, since it all depends on your definition of "very tall." If you think FT won't be very tall, oh well.
I'm just happy that we're getting something equal in height to the original WTC, considering that Silverstein's original idea was to build 4 50-story buildings!