Reply With QuoteWNY: A selectively inclusive offender. Seems the fist would have to be shown holding a very broad brush.
Cheers.........and I forgot to mention: make sure the 'offending finger' is facing towards Mecca!Originally Posted by DUMBRo
WNY: A selectively inclusive offender. Seems the fist would have to be shown holding a very broad brush.
Pointed Spat Over World Trade Spire
Developer's Plan to Alter Top of New Tower Arouses Architects' Ire
By ELIOT BROWN
As construction of One World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan moves toward completion, the building's owners are sparring with their architects over what goes on top of the 104-story tower—a dispute that could stop the structure being recognized as America's tallest.
The owners, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and developer Douglas Durst, are intending to drop a plan to enclose the 408-foot antenna with an ornamental white shell. They say it would be too expensive and treacherous to maintain. Removing the shell would save about $20 million, Mr. Durst said.
Removal would leave a slimmer metal structure holding the antenna. The tower's architects at Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP have strongly criticized the move as removing a crucial architectural element.
"Eliminating this integral part of the building's design and leaving an exposed antenna and equipment is unfortunate," David Childs, the building's lead designer, said in a statement. "We stand ready to work with the Port on an alternate design."
Mr. Durst, chairman of Durst Organization Inc., said in an interview that it would have been almost impossible to carry out repairs on the exterior of the shell, as maintenance workers wouldn't be able to safely access it. "They should have done a better job designing it," Mr. Durst said of the shell.
Removing it, he said, "is not the end of the world."
Mr. Childs in his statement denied this, saying Skidmore Owings & Merrill devised a workable maintenance plan with engineering consultants hired for the purpose.
SOM/dbox (left); Durst Organization TALL TALE: Owners and architects are split over enclosing
the 408-foot antenna atop One World Trade Center in Manhattan at a cost of $20 million,
rendering left, which could imperil its claim to be the third-tallest U.S. edifice.
One World Trade Center, initially called the Freedom Tower when it was conceived in the years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is the largest skyscraper on the 16-acre site where three other office towers are planned. Last month, it became the tallest building in New York when its exterior steel rose to 1,271 feet, surpassing the Empire State Building.
Completion is scheduled for the end of 2013.
The spire—designed with a twisting, geometric dome shell to encase the functional broadcast antenna—is intended to bring the tower's height up to a symbolic 1,776 feet, which would make it the tallest building in North America.
Omitting the shell, however, raises the question of whether the structure at the top would be counted toward the official height of the building, or whether it would rank as the third-tallest in the U.S. at 1,368 feet to the roof—behind the Willis Tower and a Donald Trump-built tower, both in Chicago.
In the traditional way of measuring height, architectural spires are included, while antennas aren't. While the owners insist it is still a spire, the arbiter on such matters—the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat—hasn't yet weighed in.
The Durst Organization, which agreed to buy a $100 million stake in the tower in 2010, wanted to remove the shell to save costs soon after it came into the project. But that attempt was rejected by the Port Authority's previous executive director, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Durst said he raised the issue over maintenance concerns again. Skidmore Owings & Merrill resisted, saying the worries were overblown, according to people familiar with the matter, but the Port Authority in January sided with Mr. Durst, he said.
Asked whether architects could find a compromise design, Mr. Durst demurred. The scaled-down top, he said, "is going to be mounted on the building over the summer. There's no way to do anything at this point."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories
So would that make the new building going up on the site of the former Drake Hotel on Park & 57th the tallest in NYC when completed?
I remember that SSP post with the email exchange with the Durst organization, that another email attempt would get a more ridiculous response.The Durst Organization, which agreed to buy a $100 million stake in the tower in 2010, wanted to remove the shell to save costs soon after it came into the project. But that attempt was rejected by the Port Authority's previous executive director, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Durst said he raised the issue over maintenance concerns again. Skidmore Owings & Merrill resisted, saying the worries were overblown, according to people familiar with the matter, but the Port Authority in January sided with Mr. Durst, he said.
Does Durst think these panels are going to be dropping off regularly, that they will need to be replaced like light bulbs?
Yes, get it done before anyone can rethink the idea.Asked whether architects could find a compromise design, Mr. Durst demurred. The scaled-down top, he said, "is going to be mounted on the building over the summer. There's no way to do anything at this point."
Ha, more irony.
What makes this "spire" different than any others that count towards the height? Bank of America and New York Times are similar, as is Chicago Trump Tower. From what I understand there is no broadcast equipment going in the spire itself, rather the rings below. The rest of the spire above the cables that support it would be purely ornamental.
Clearly this is a cost cutting measure and they're getting ripped a new one because of it... rightfully so.
It looks like they did more than just remove the "shell" from the antenna.
The ring, as much as I didn't like it, looks completely stripped down and much worse than even before.
It goes from tacked-on to eyesore.
I don't think this is true. The higher you are, the more line of sight you have to the horizon. And if they want to make money, why wouldn't they rent transmission space on the antenna tower? It's a valuable resource.
It's going to look like the ESB antenna.
C1975.....June.....Dec.....Yesterday
Yesterday & full update:
http://newyorkyimby.blogspot.com/2012/05/construction-update-one-world-trade.html
In Merry's last post the new rendering looks a bit better than the rusty-looking space-age thing on this thread's previous page.
Scumonkey had it right when he called the old one a 'diaper'.
@Zippy: Any idea when that '75 pic was taken? Looks like summer but what month?
Loving those perfectly lined up comparison pictures, Zippy.
I'm not sure it was 1975, just circa 1975.@Zippy: Any idea when that '75 pic was taken? Looks like summer but what month?
The North Tower doesn't yet have it's antenna (I mean spire); the buildings under construction are Independence Plaza.
Saw this on Reddit by user HomeWorld:
The antenna is still the same height, with a 15' diameter, not 6'. Here's a picture of it in the fabrication shop a former classmate of mine took yesterday:
In the center of the C1975 shot, notice the arched bridge of the West Side Hiway crossing over Canal Street. The raised elevation of the West Side Hiway was one reason that the WTC super block was elevated so high along West Street.
That bridge looked like THIS in 1979. Not sure when it came down, but I'm thinking early 80s.
Here's how it looked in 1974, from the HAER group of shots of the West Side Hiway found at the Library of Congress:
Looking west along Canal:
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks