Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, in my mind, the Sear/Willis tower will remain the tallest building in this country! Nice try, NYC!
Don't understand why they didn't build a higher tower, then add a spire to take it to the 2001 level!
If I'm not mistaken, in the early stages of the design selection back in 2003, the orginal plan was to build a tower 1,776 feet to the roof, and have 300 foot antenna to take it to 2,001.
Regardless of the plan, what was installed today is not a spire at all. You look at the Trump Tower spire or the Bank of America tower spire. Those are spires, no question about it. What your looking at is bare naked steel that was never suppose to be seen. You see the beacon at the very top? The entire spire was suppose to be cladded like that.
It's not 1,776 feet. It's 1,368ft. No denying it. If the CTBU decides to rule that thing a spire, it will cause an uproar among those who believe the Willis/Sears tower is taller.
Spires have always counted toward a building's height. Although I must say, we're a long way away from the days when spires were just on churches.
This one is oddly shaped,kinda like the obeliest at the Washington Mounument. Also one in front of the Vatican.
They go way back to the first empire,Babylonian Empire of Nimrod. This one was erected 'pun intended' as the sex organ of Nimrod who when killed and cut into pieces by one of his relatives ,his only missing body part was his sex organ. So his pagan wife put this image up in his honor.
On this replica is also a cross and many other images and writings.
Could it be this is the image of the beast that was and is not yet will be again? In other words the Revised Roamn Empire? Is this the beast of the false prophets sign,it throughout the world in front of many mosque,chruches .
Obviously, this isn't ruffling the egotistical feathers of Chicago, which has always prided itself on having the tallest, otherwise they'd be busy planning a spire for the John Hancock Tower or the Sears/Willis tower or resuming construction on that 2000-foot, Calatrava-designed Spire tower on the lake front!
If the FAA hadn't shot down the original plan for the Stratosphere Observation Tower here (2000 feet chopped down to 1149) in Las Vegas we would have had the tallest structure, perhaps not tower, in the U.S. stemming from the mid-90's!
Also, antennas and spires should not count toward height. They should use the roof of the top floor.
Not a bad point, but the idea was to rebuild the World Trade Center. The PATH train still says World Trade Center, the station is still the World Trade Center station, and One World Trade Center is this building's address, just like the old One WTC, and then there are Two, Three, and Four World Trade Center in various stages of construction. I don't think there was ever any intent to give these buildings a different name.
This one is oddly shaped,kinda like the obeliest at the Washington Mounument. Also one in front of the Vatican.
They go way back to the first empire,Babylonian Empire of Nimrod. This one was erected 'pun intended' as the sex organ of Nimrod who when killed and cut into pieces by one of his relatives ,his only missing body part was his sex organ. So his pagan wife put this image up in his honor.
On this replica is also a cross and many other images and writings.
Could it be this is the image of the beast that was and is not yet will be again? In other words the Revised Roamn Empire? Is this the beast of the false prophets sign,it throughout the world in front of many mosque,chruches .
The antenna is really not oddly shaped. It's straight up and down. The reason it looks so odd is because of those platforms you see on the antenna. Majority of them are temporary and will come down soon.
Not a bad point, but the idea was to rebuild the World Trade Center. The PATH train still says World Trade Center, the station is still the World Trade Center station, and One World Trade Center is this building's address, just like the old One WTC, and then there are Two, Three, and Four World Trade Center in various stages of construction. I don't think there was ever any intent to give these buildings a different name.
They can still call the PATH train station World Trade Center. "Center" designates the area, "One" designates a building.
The building is not in the same location as the former One World Trade Center so it can't (or shouldn't) be the same address.
The One and Two World Trade Center names should either be retired or used to identify the waterfalls that were built on the One and Two footprints.
It is and will be very confusing for non-New Yorkers to have two sets of buildings with the same name, especially considering one set of those buildings became death chambers for so many.
They can still call the PATH train station World Trade Center. "Center" designates the area, "One" designates a building.
The building is not in the same location as the former One World Trade Center so it can't (or shouldn't) be the same address.
The One and Two World Trade Center names should either be retired or used to identify the waterfalls that were built on the One and Two footprints.
It is and will be very confusing for non-New Yorkers to have two sets of buildings with the same name, especially considering one set of those buildings became death chambers for so many.
Well, confusing non-New Yorkers is a NYC tradition. Think of the green Art Deco building on 42nd Street that proclaims "McGraw-Hill" in big letters on the top. Is that where you would send someone who asked the way to the McGraw-Hill building? No. And One Madison Avenue, the original Met Life Building and once the tallest in NYC--a real landmark--up the street is a plain black building that has Met Life written on its outside.
Your perspective is interesting, and it's the first time I've heard someone say the "One and Two" should be retired. However, since the entire complex was destroyed, if we followed that path we should not name any of the buildings "World Trade Center" since they would have the name of a destroyed building. Although, how many people are actually aware that the Marriott Hotel was Three World Trade Center?
Note that I am not saying in any way that your opinion is "wrong". I'm a survivor from One WTC who returned to work on the rebuilding for a while. I know other survivors who won't step foot in lower Manhattan ever again. I am and always have been a proponent of rebuilding for future generations--many others in my situation are not. I worked in One WTC for 20 years--it was my work "home", and while the focus is naturally on the 2,800 or so who died that day, it should also be remembered that those towers stood long enough to allow about 15,000 more of us to get out alive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
