Reply With QuoteAlso why isn't the PA running the observatory? Don't they need the revenue?
Regarded by whom specifically? It can either broadcast or it can't. If the only thing it's going to do is shine a light, it shouldn't matter that it looks like an antenna. What about the Chrysler or BofA? I hate doing this but wiki is quick & easy.If the unclad mast is regarded as an antenna, the Council on Tall Buildings will almost certainly not allow it to be included in the calculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_BuildingThe Chrysler Building is an Art Deco style skyscraper in New York City, located on the east side of Manhattan in the Turtle Bay area at the intersection of 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue. At 1,046 feet (319 m),[1][6][7] the structure was the world's tallest building for 11 months before it was surpassed by the Empire State Building in 1931[8]. After the destruction of the World Trade Center, it was again the second-tallest building in New York City until December 2007, when the spire was raised on the 1,200 foot (365.8 m) Bank of America Tower, pushing the Chrysler Building into third position. In addition, The New York Times Building, which opened in 2007, is exactly level with the Chrysler Building in height.[9] Both buildings were then pushed into 4th position, when the under construction One World Trade Center surpassed their height.
PS-Right here on WNY, there is a video regarding a building contest of sorts regarding two of the old skyscrapers, & how the builders of one kept the spire inside until its competitor was complete, then the spire was pulled out & finished, making it the tallest building at the time. If I find it I'll reference the link. It just seems these people are being arbitrary on what's allowed & what's not.
Also why isn't the PA running the observatory? Don't they need the revenue?
1 WTC has been watered down into such a piece of junk that I'd be jumping with joy if 2 WTC ended up slightly taller. Toss a restaurant into 2 WTC and it'd be perfect.Originally Posted by tone99loc
I like GordonGecko's proposal
First it was the ugly concrete fortress/base. Then they axed the chamfered corners. Then they axed the nice little plaza along West Street. And now they have confirmed that the "spire" is just going to be an ugly antenna. We all knew it was going to look different when Durst first made the announcement, but I think the ugliness has exceeded my expectations.
Durst organization has let down the city of new York and the nation.
I may be in the minority here but I think it looks MUCH BETTER without the diapers- and what ever the actual height is (different depending on who you ask) is just BS - it is what it is...And now they have confirmed that the "spire" is just going to be an ugly antenna.
Now if they would also get rid of that insipid ring under that antenna- none of which does anything to enhance this buildings ever worsening appearance.
I believe the ring is where all of the communication equipment is actually housed
Another aesthetic blow...
Real symbolism would have been to built the roof up to 1,776' and a spire that brought it to 2,013' (year of its completion). But no one involved in this project had enough intestinal fortitude to advocate that.Source: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...in-a-redesign/
May 9, 2012, 2:21 pm
World Trade Center’s Symbolic 1,776-Foot Height Is at Stake in a Redesign
It is the addition of that mast that would elevate an otherwise 1,368-foot skyscraper into a 1,776-foot structure whose defining measurement was meant to express American spirit and resolve in the face of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
While the maintenance issues are somewhat understandabl they should reconsider and use more stable material... this unsheathed "spire" is even more disconnected from the rest of the structure. Along with that heinous ring at the bottom the top portion of this tower has no relation to the rest of the buliding design. As if beings from one universe designed the building from 0-1368 ft and and beings from another universe designed the building from 1363-1776.
This is what we are left with in our "sacred" site of rememberance, a haphazard pastiche...
I wonder how many Americans know exactly what happened in 1776.
That's the year the Philadelphia 76ers were founded, right?
I don't care for the ring either but what really bothers me are the "strings" tying down the antenna.
Why won't they get rid of that?!!
I think they were there in the original render, but they were much harder to see - probably on purpose. They were present on the original 1 WTC but were hard as hell to notice. I think the new ones are a tad thicker.
Otie has a fantastic diagram on the other two main skyscraper sites that he first posted back in January. I'd post it here, but I think he visits from time to time so I don't want to overstep my bounds.
^No worries about that, my work can be distributed and posted anywhere as long as proper credit is given.
They're Kevlar guy wires and are ment add support to the antenna's steel tower against wind loads.
edit: See SSP post 19228 for more info.
Last edited by O' Daniel; May 10th, 2012 at 01:21 PM.
1 wtc communication platform ring it is the same design its just expose when broadcast tenants are found then the microwave emitters will be install.
The 1776 thing is just silly: a vapid, meaningless gesture. Real symbolism would have been to build the circular base of the antenna mast in the form of a closed fist, and the antenna mast in the form of a raised 'middle finger' - now THAT would be 'meaningful symbolism'. HeHe
:applause:
Thank you.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks