WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

**TallGuy** · January 6th, 2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by GordonGecko

wow, almost 34 feet of "fake" up there. That's some parapet

Yeah, that's what I feared. Not quite the 'real' height of the originals as advertised. Thanks O'Daniel!

**ZippyTheChimp** · January 6th, 2012, 04:52 PM

I think the core extends past the roof slab.

I guess that's 'fake' too.

**GordonGecko** · January 6th, 2012, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by lofter1

No doubt the roof top mechanicals will rise nearly to the top of that parapet. Better to have them hidden.

Better yet IMO to have mechanicals inside on a lower floor, with a restaurant & observatory on the top floors with public roof deck. Although nowhere near as bad as originally proposed, this tower is still the triumph of fear

**ZippyTheChimp** · January 6th, 2012, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by GordonGecko

Better yet IMO to have mechanicals inside on a lower floor, with a restaurant & observatory on the top floors with public roof deck. Although nowhere near as bad as originally proposed, this tower is still the triumph of fear

So everyone can fry on the roof.

**GordonGecko** · January 6th, 2012, 05:13 PM

Ok you got me there on the electromagnetic radiation, didn't consider it. I would have hoped though, that since they were going with the only child WTC tower, that they could have designed some sort of shielded cover that would have still allowed some open air observation platform along the permiter

**ZippyTheChimp** · January 6th, 2012, 05:20 PM

I guess they just didn't want to deal with any problems (real or imaginary) that might arise if they put people up there.

**O' Daniel** · January 6th, 2012, 06:04 PM

Hope this answers your questions.

Click image for larger version.

Name: topj.jpg
Views: 3425
Size: 70.2 KB
ID: 14676

**lofter1** · January 6th, 2012, 06:24 PM

Nice ^ Thanks

Does the Radome simply protect the antenna or does it have a bigger purpose?

**lofter1** · January 6th, 2012, 06:24 PM

I should have looked HERE before I asked

**O' Daniel** · January 6th, 2012, 08:34 PM

I encourage you to ask; while I might have some answers, sometimes answers lead to more questions, so I'm also learning in this process.

The radome used in this building is quite innovative and unique: it is formed of modular sandwich-panel-system sections, all of them arranged in octagonal modules. What engineers had as challenge was to create a configuration that also needed to stiffen the mast structure in order to face wind loads, not to mention the aesthetics; clear example of this is the helices or stakes recently added to the design, these helices will mitigate vortex shading.

Spire by Otie O'Daniel, on Flickr

**TallGuy** · January 6th, 2012, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp

I think the core extends past the roof slab.

I guess that's 'fake' too.

Ehh.....no but looking at O'Daniel's post after yours that small bit of core is not a significant % of the area within the parapet. It's just my position that if they were to use 1,362/1,368 as the roof height to symbolically match the originals, then that space should be occupiable space, as in within the building proper, even if it is a storage area. I'm nitpicking I know.

**ZippyTheChimp** · January 6th, 2012, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by TallGuy

It's just my position that if they were to use 1,362/1,368 as the roof height to symbolically match the originals, then that space should be occupiable space, as in within the building proper, even if it is a storage area. I'm nitpicking I know.

Since 2007, the CTBUH no longer recognizes the "height to roof" category, and includes parapets.

In that light, One World Trade Center was designed to symbolically match the Twin Towers. Assuming a parapet would still be needed to shield the mechanicals, if they built the roof slab at 1368, the CTBUH would have listed the height as 1403.

4WTC is measured the same way, 977 feet to the top of its parapet.