Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

1 World Trade Center Becomes the Tallest Building In NYC

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the touching-the-sky dept.

407

darthcamaro writes "On 9/11, terrorists took the lives of thousands of Americans — and removed a pair of icons from the New York City skyline. For the last 10+ years, The Empire State Building was the tallest building in NYC, but that changed today. 'Poking into the sky, the first column of the 100th floor of 1 World Trade Center will bring the tower to a height of 1,271 feet, making it 21 feet higher than the Empire State Building.'"

cancel ×

407 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WHO CARES? GET SOME PRIORITIES. ALSO, FP, BITCH! (0)

Subject Line Troll (581198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848819)


 

News for nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848827)

OK, the definition might have changed while I was away, but still

Re:News for nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848893)

Engineering tall buildings qualifies as "News for Nerds", though moving into 18th place [wikipedia.org] isn't necessarily front page news for nerds.

Re:News for nerds? (0)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848897)

There's a difference between "News for nerds" and "News that ONLY nerds would appreciate."

That said, I don't think this story should be here, but I didn't to to firehose, and did nothing to keep it from appearing here, so I won't complain.

Re:News for nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848945)

Not really, this isn't news for nerds its more like nerds that hate the rich and America.

Typical (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848841)

Fuck everyone else who was in there, they weren't Americans.

Re:Typical (1, Funny)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848859)

They were terrorists.

Flipping great! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849109)

This new trade center is humanity's giant, middle finger, flipping off terrorists to all corners of the earth.

Re:Flipping great! (1)

r1348 (2567295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849333)

Then don't count me as part of humanity, thanks.

Re:Flipping great! (-1, Flamebait)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849485)

Consider it a deal. Kill yourself.

Re:Typical (3, Insightful)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849177)

GP is referring to people that may not have been American citizens but were there working or on vacation who unfortunately died that day.

What's up with the trolls? (4, Insightful)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848879)

I actually find it interesting and a feat of engineering to have such a tall building. What is up with all the trolls? Get a life you guys. This was a tragic event that should never be forgotten. If there was no mention on Slashdot I would think that someone was asleep at the wheel.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (5, Funny)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848917)

Knock Knock
Who's there?
9/11
9/11 who?
You said you'd never forget!

Re:What's up with the trolls? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848939)

You mean, not forgetting the 3.000 people who died as opposed to the 100.000 who died in the shameless wars after? Fuck you.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848977)

Two Planes, Three Towers.

Never Forget.

Support (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849121)

You mean, not forgetting the 3.000 people who died as opposed to the 100.000 who died in the shameless wars after? Fuck you.

Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that.

And unlike you I'm not afraid to say what I think.

So double-fuck you, and you can have your own fuck back as no-one wanted it to begin with.

Talk about lack of shame... AC's today. Hmph.

Re:Support (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849251)

"Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that."

You have no actual idea whether that is true or not. You
merely believe what your masters tell you to believe.

You're "brave" behind your keyboard, but you wouldn't dare talk shit in person like you do here,
because if you did someone would teach you some respect for others.

I doubt they did (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849319)

I very much doubt that more than a small number of the people killed in the Middle East wars of the first decade of the 21st century were anti-American. It is this kind of demonisation of "the other" that is the pretext for wars.

The people in the towers weren't guilty of anything either.

Dust on an old man's sleeve
Is all the dust burnt roses leave
Dust in the air suspended
Marks the place where a story ended

T S Eliot, Four Quartets.

Re:Support (5, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849415)

Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that.

The perpetrators were mainly Saudi, they trained in Afghanistan and the US public links all this with the war in Iraq - where a shitload of innocent people died, probably all of whom had nothing to do with 9/11. And even in Afghanistan a bucketload of innocent people died.
 
  Iraq body count [iraqbodycount.org]
 
  Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan [wikipedia.org]
 
But I can't seem to find a link for a war in Saudi Arabia, or the number of civilian deaths there.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (4, Insightful)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849195)

Why is this marked troll? U.S used 9/11 to justify the murder of far more innocent civilians. It is atrocities committed by Americans around the world that need never be forgotten.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849311)

Muslims are not civilians. They are jihad soldiers. Come visit me in Beirut if you don't believe it--maybe your views are distorted because the Muslims in your country are not typical.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (-1, Troll)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849343)

Collateral damage and accidental civilian casualties are not murder.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849437)

As opposed to the 10,000 people who died as a result of speed-related traffic accidents on US highways. Every year.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (-1, Troll)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848965)

The loss of life was tragic. The destruction of buildings which were monuments to NYC and capitalism gone wrong was an event to celebrate. Fuck NYC.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (4, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849129)

This site really does attract a lot of assholes.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849323)

This site really does attract a lot of assholes.

Slashdot.org or the World Trade Center Site? Probably right on both counts.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849341)

This site really does attract a lot of assholes.

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Should be good news for you then :D

Re:This site really does attract a lot of assholes (4, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849385)

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246),
so that would be a good thing for you?

Re:What's up with the trolls? (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849093)

I actually don't understand the importance of not forgetting. It seems like a nice enough thing to say, but I want a genuine justification for why it should be remembered, as opposed to mourned and then moved past? I know this sounds incredibly cynical, but I think the United States penchant for remembering tragedies and not achievements is unhealthy for the national psyche in the long run.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849163)

It's also a failed notion. December 7th.

All events, good and bad, will be forgotten except for a plaque, a recording, and a paragraph in history books that rarely ever gets covered.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (5, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849217)

There's a difference between "remembering" and "obsessing over".

We still "remember" Pearl Harbor. We still "remember" the Alamo. We still "remember" the Boston Massacre. But I'm pretty sure very few people are still angry at Japan/Mexico/Britain, and I'm pretty sure we're not going to use them as casus belli anytime soon.

Britain still "remembers" the Gunpowder Plot. France still remembers the Bastille. Both of those events are centuries in the past, yet they are still worth *remembering*.

There's nothing wrong with *remembering* that these things happened. There *is* a problem with obsessing over it and continuing to use it as justification for everything from invasions to the TSA. For example.

PS: We *do* remember achievements (the Apollo program, etc), even some we didn't really accomplish (who single-handedly beat the Nazis? We did!).

Re:What's up with the trolls? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849367)

As for Pearl Harbor, I'm pretty sure that caused a similar reaction, main difference was that there was a distinct and relatively satisfying conclusion to the resulting war. (that famous picture of the sailor kissing a woman when he returns home comes to mind)

Here, not so much.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (4, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849425)

We still remember. It adds to our determination. Nothing, including the war on terror is over until we say it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed Perl Harbor? Hell no!

Re:What's up with the trolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849483)

Damn, I almost got whooshed on this one!

Re:What's up with the trolls? (3, Insightful)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849363)

You make a good point. How many people know the political and economic decisions that led to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? When I say we should not forget, I speak generically about not forgetting the past for fears of repetition. We should remember 9/11 in my OPINION as a combination of how building should be built, safety concerns with first responders, our governments (US) habit of arming and propping up power-hungry leaders to play political chess with our enemies. There is an awful lot we can learn from history. I think it is short sighted to just look to the future without learning from the past (mistakes or achievements).

Re:What's up with the trolls? (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849381)

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

--George Santayana

That is why. Also, I don't know what history books you read, but the US history books I studied included the achievements too. They just aren't brought up as often (and usually are associated with tragedies, since those are the times when achievements become the most significant).

Re:What's up with the trolls? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849117)

This was a tragic event that should never be forgotten

You're absolutely right. The failure of our government to rebuild immediately after 9/11 was a tragic event that should never be forgotten. The new WTC tower is symbolic of nothing more than America's decline.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (5, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849141)

Why shouldn't this be forgotten?
I think it's high time we got over it.

I also think it's high time we got rid of the Patriot Act and the TSA
-- Like that would ever happen --

So go ahead shrieking "9/11 NEVER FORGET!" To remind us how we let the terrorists win.
Because they did.

Try not to feel like a criminal the next time you undress yourself at the airport while waiting in line to get your nads zapped with a healthy dose of radiation.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849199)

Yes being 21 feet taller than the tallest building in that city must have added so many huge technical challenges. Sure its impressive, but this isn't about impressive technical challenfes, its a nationalist hooray for us. Its drivel.

9/11 was a tragic event, but never forgotten? Why? what does remembering it teach us? I don't see any important lesson in it. Bad shit happens? Sometimes a few dedicated people will fuck shit up for other people?

Much more to remember is peoples terrible overreactions which continue to this very day. 9/11 was pretty forgetable compared to the backlash it caused. Compared to the massive expansion of govenrment securituy apparatus, compared to the exercises in airport security theater? Meh, 9/11 itself was just a few guys bringing some buildings down and killing a bunch of people.

There really isn't very much impressive about it, it wasn't even a repeatable strategy, as before the day was out. The ONLY reason it worked in the first place was because passengers were expecting a normal "hostage situation" hijacking, where it made sense to stay in their seats and wait for the situation to be resolved. By the end of the day the whole plan was useless to try again.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849441)

There really isn't very much impressive about it, it wasn't even a repeatable strategy, as before the day was out. The ONLY reason it worked in the first place was because passengers were expecting a normal "hostage situation" hijacking, where it made sense to stay in their seats and wait for the situation to be resolved. By the end of the day the whole plan was useless to try again.

So, what you are saying is that it isn't a repeatable strategy because people remember what happened last time? Interesting.

Yes, I get your point about the security theater, and agree. Personally, I think the terrorists succeeded beyond their wildest dreams because of that, but that still doesn't mean we shouldn't remember the attack.

Re:What's up with the trolls? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849473)

It isn't done yet they have another 500 feet to go for its planned height.

This is merely the milestone of becoming the tallest building in NYC since the towers fell.

If you want to rant ask why 1776' instead of 2001' or even one foot for every person who died.

They finally build something ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848889)

Wow they actually started building something again there ? I lost interest after years of bullshit surrounding that site. Penn and Teller said it best on their "Bullshit" show, they should've just rebuild roughly the same towers right away and say "Business as usual motherf***ers".

Re:They finally build something ? (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849105)

The new tower is roughly the same size and dimensions as the old North Tower. The roofline is exactly the same and the footprint is exactly the same. The main differences asthetically are the antenna is now an architectural spire, the building is glass-clad, and the corners have a facet that tapers upward. Structurally, the base is made from reinforced concrete, the stairwells and elevator shafts are surrounded by a couple of feet of concrete instead of drywall, and the structure is a bit more redundant with a reinforced concrete core. The fireproofing is still spray-on, so still not up to 1930s standards there :)

Re:They finally build something ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849269)

We should have built 2 ICBM silos there, put in the latest and greatest ICBMs with the highest yield warheads we have, and put up a bronze plaque stating, "The next time someone attacks us, we launch these missiles at everything they hold dear."

Re:They finally build something ? (2)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849465)

We should have built 2 ICBM silos there, put in the latest and greatest ICBMs with the highest yield warheads we have, and put up a bronze plaque stating, "The next time someone attacks us, we launch these missiles at everything they hold dear."

Yes, because that sort of thing tends to work so well against those who want to be martyrs in the first place...

Foundation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848905)

I think everyone should read the foundation series by Isaac Asimov to see how the US fits like first Galactic Empire.

Shameful that it took so long (4, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848907)

Stupid bickering between the city and developers kept the World Trade Center an embarrassing hole in the ground for over 9 years. This building should have been finished years ago.

Re:Shameful that it took so long (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848983)

Don’t forget the insurance companies. The way policies are written, equivalent buildings would have to been built. Which means, basically building new towers over the sites of the old ones (insensitive on so many levels) and not fixing the road layout.

Re:Shameful that it took so long (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849039)

Yep. Should have just dusted-off the old WTC schematic, made a few tweaks to modernize the internal skeleton, and then rebuild the whole damn thing again. Plus add a temporary middle finger to the top, aimed towards Mecca.

"You destroy it; we'll rebuild it. You destroy it again; we'll rebuild it again. And again and again." Just like the Senate and People of Rome. They lost 3 navies before finally crushing Carthage. They refused to give up.

Re:Shameful that it took so long (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849139)

I think you meant to say to point the middle finger towards Washington D.C.

Re:Shameful that it took so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849155)

That would be retarded. the design was inherently flawed.
No simple tweaks would fix that.

Re:Shameful that it took so long (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849475)

No the design was not inherently flawed.

Re:Shameful that it took so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849171)

Just like the Senate and People of Rome. They lost 3 navies before finally crushing Carthage. They refused to give up.

Wasn't military spending one of the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire?

Re:Shameful that it took so long (3, Insightful)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849241)

an AC asked:

>Wasn't military spending one of the causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire?

It was a lack of military spending and an inability to adapt their military to cope w/ changes in military technology (the development of the composite bow by the horsemen of Central Asia) which resulted in the downfall of the Roman Empire, that and dry-rot from w/in due to a dis-affected population (a huge majority of which were slaves) which wearied of being manipulated so as to make the wealthy and powerful, wealthier and more powerful (seem familiar).

William

Re:Shameful that it took so long (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849347)

Yes it collapsed but that was ~600 years after the defeat of Carthage, so that had nothing to do with it. The ultimate reason Rome collapsed was due to wasteful spending on extravagance (welfare, stadium events, monuments galore) which led to a devaluation of their currency to try to keep the whole edifice propped up, and an eventual loss of the middle class as they became a feudal system of serfs and lords. Their economy was a shambles.

Re:Shameful that it took so long (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849411)

Yep. Should have just dusted-off the old WTC schematic, made a few tweaks to modernize the internal skeleton, and then rebuild the whole damn thing again. Plus add a temporary middle finger to the top, aimed towards Mecca.

"You destroy it; we'll rebuild it. You destroy it again; we'll rebuild it again. And again and again." Just like the Senate and People of Rome. They lost 3 navies before finally crushing Carthage. They refused to give up.

Temporary middle finger? Personally I would have liked the new design for the building to be in the shape of a middle finger. With anti aircraft artillery on the roof for good measure.

And? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848909)

This has been all over the news, but I just don't see how it warrants all the attention. The real story is what held up construction on the new tower.

Re:And? (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849045)

There was much coverage of it on local TV over the years--enough that I sometimes wanted to throw a rock and say "Shuddap and build it already!"

The floor-every-week build pace seems to make up for it, but I worry that will make the towers that much more fragile.

Re:And? (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849255)

I am willing to give the mountains of political crap a pass in this case. I believe everyone involved saw the necessity of getting every last detail right.
This site through duty, not choice, has changed from a symbol of economic prominence to an iconic symbol of free men everywhere.
If it stands for eternity, it won't be long enough.

Nice building you have there (-1, Troll)

chekkerness (2430014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848923)

I hope someone flies a plane into it and kills thousands more. It would be hilarious.

Re:Nice building you have there (1)

NeverSuchBefore (2613927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848985)

That's too extreme. Surely we could compromise? Perhaps just a bomb?

Re:Nice building you have there (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849097)

Fuck you faggot.

Re:Nice building you have there (0)

chekkerness (2430014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849153)

What do you have against me?
What do you have against faggots?

Re:Nice building you have there (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849297)

You're an asshole.
Faggots are assholes too.

Re:Nice building you have there (0)

chekkerness (2430014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849325)

Why am I an asshole?

Euphemism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39848937)

Mine's bigger.

Took way too long. (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848957)

Almost 11 years to build a building. Nuts. The Empire State was built in just 2.5 years using primitive 1920s technology, and the first WTC in the same amount of time.

  I think the long dragout time is symbolic of how America has lost its ability to get things done in a quick fashion. (And why people turn to India or China or Russia instead.) Too much bureaucracy and second-guessing and twiddling of thumbs.

Re:Took way too long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849131)

The Empire State Building took 410 days to build, not 2.5 years.
The parent post should not be modded "Funny". It is embarrassing that it took them 11 years to get their shit together.

Re:Took way too long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849147)

They spent nine of those years dicking around; the actual construction time is in line with the original WTC.

Re:Took way too long. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849211)

Almost 11 years to build a building. Nuts. The Empire State was built in just 2.5 years using primitive 1920s technology, and the first WTC in the same amount of time.

The original WTC was planned in 1958 and the dedication ceremony was in 1973. Groundbreaking was in 1966.
8 years planning and re-planning, 7 years building.* Roughly similar to the current WTC project.

Wikipedia:
In 1958, Rockefeller established the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association (DLMA), which commissioned Skidmore, Owings and Merrill to draw up plans for revitalizing Lower Manhattan. The plans, made public in 1960, called for a World Trade Center to be built on a 13-acre (53,000 m2) site along the East River, from Old Slip to Fulton Street and between Water Street and South Street ...
After a year-long review of the proposal, the Port Authority formally backed the project on 11 March 1961.[11] ...
In March 1965, the Port Authority began acquiring property at the World Trade Center site.[72] The Ajax Wrecking and Lumber Corporation was hired for the demolition work, which began on 12 March 1966 to clear the site for construction of the World Trade Center.[73]
Groundbreaking was on 5 August 1966,

The topping out ceremony of 1 WTC (North Tower) took place on 23 December 1970, with 2 WTC's ceremony (South Tower) occurring later on 19 July 1971.[79] The first tenants moved into the North Tower in December 1970, and into the South Tower in January 1972.[91] The buildings were dedicated on 4 April 1973; Tobin, who had resigned the year before, was absent from the ceremonies.[92]

Re:Took way too long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849225)

Last time I checked, the freedom tower was started in 2006.

Re:Took way too long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849461)

Let me guess... The local MacDonalds will serve only "freedom fries" aswell?

Re:Took way too long. (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849477)

To be fair, a lot of the problem is they built the thing on a graveyard.

In context, 11 years is pretty good time for building a giant skyscraper on the final resting place of a few thousand people who all still have plenty of living relatives.

Remake (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39848997)

Get ready for a remake of Escape from New York.

Re:Remake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849421)

good luck landing a glider on top of the new design.

A monument to terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849043)

A year after 9/11 they should have broke ground on new twin (or more) towers, similar in design but BIGGER.
THAT would have sent a message and been a proud symbol of American resilience.
Instead, almost ten years later there were still two holes in the ground, symbols of bureaucrats and committees and EPA studies.
Now we get a single tower with fewer floors (but a very tall antenna!), a monument to the success of the 9/11 attacks.

Re:A monument to terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849469)

No offense but the EPA studies are much deserved considering countless first responders and construction workers have gotten sever illnesses from working the debris at ground zero. You want to go to work in a big pile of asbestos powder every day? Hell, I'm hoping I don't get health problems later in life just from having to commute through the train station down there while they were doing construction stirring up who knows what toxic chemicals. The worst part is the government basically told all the "9/11 heros" to fuck off and die since America apparently "doesn't do" health care.

We could have done better (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849047)

I think a 1,300' tall office building shaped like Maurizio Cattelan's L.O.V.E sculpture -- preferably in gold -- would have been both a National Symbol of defiance against those who would harm us and a proud display of the typical NYC manner of greeting.

Construct, not building (1, Insightful)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849053)

If it's not habitable, it's not a building, per se, ie, it's not "the tallest building in NYC".

Maybe the tallest non-supported construct. Tallest building is many months off.

NOT news for nerds btw. I've been doing drafting and architecture for over 20 years,
this is just NEWS. If we start 'building out' the definition of nerd... we're are just going
to have to call this a "news site". You can't say there are "nerds" in every occupation,
where are the molecular gastronomists? That's nerdy. Where are all my tuner nerds?
THIS version of nerds, means, from the very beginning, techy, electronic driven NERDS.

And it won't work to call this just a news site, cause news, is usually news on the first day.
Not 4 days later, a week later, a month later.

It'll happen soon, probably this year. Readership will decline pretty hard. Slashdot
has not in months, nee well over a year, surprised me with a fresh story that I didn't
catch somewhere else, ON THE DAY IT HAPPENED. Without a retool, this is probably
my last year reading Slashdot.

-AI

Re:Construct, not building (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849095)

Not to be a grammar nazi, but "building" is exactly what it is. Once it's habitable, you call it a "built".

Re:Construct, not building (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849479)

Not to be a grammar nazi, but "building" is exactly what it is. Once it's habitable, you call it a "built".

That's fine, and I accept that, as it is, 'the definition'.

However, we went further and callled it the tallest building.
And there, is the rub. As for "record" of tallest building, it
is not... since the record is for 'habitable buildings', ie, not
this one.

Thus, tallest construct.

-AI

Re:Construct, not building (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849161)

It was anti-semantic people like you that were responsible for the destruction of the first one. Please stop.

Re:Construct, not building (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849229)

If it's not habitable, it's not a building, per se, ie, it's not "the tallest building in NYC".

Would you prefer "Tallest ongoing erection in NYC?"

Re:Construct, not building (4, Interesting)

WilliamBaughman (1312511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849283)

Clearly Slashdot is news for the kind of nerd who nerds out about what kind of news is for nerds.

I come to Slashdot because every once in a while I find one insightful, useful comment that changes my whole understanding of a technical issue. Because the timing and location of those comments are unpredictable and they occur seemingly at random the great "comment hunt" triggers all of the same mental processes as a gambling addiction. So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.

Re:Construct, not building (2)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849505)

Because the timing and location of those comments are unpredictable and they occur seemingly at random the great "comment hunt" triggers all of the same mental processes as a gambling addiction. So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.

So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.

Dammit... is that why I keep coming back? Darn these addictions.

-AI

Re:Construct, not building (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849305)

If it's not habitable, it's not a building.

That's actually the rule on "tallest building". The Ryungyong Hotel [wikipedia.org] mess is the reason for that.

Of course, Burj Khalifa [wikipedia.org] is the tallest building in the world, and by a big margin, over 300 meters.

Re:Construct, not building (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849489)

I've experienced the same. I read everything somewhere else, then come here to see it a few days later. I don't read the comments, it's all drivel now.

I hate to be that guy, but slashdot has gone to shit and it just needs to be put out of it's misery.

Another new normal (1)

WilliamBaughman (1312511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849055)

It took me years to adjust to the towers not being there. While I was still in high school, only a few blocks from the site, the bare foundation became a part of what was normal and it was incorporated into my sense of home. After graduating, I left New York. Whenever I returned, I saw the foundation, and it was still a part of home, a part of New York that was the same whenever I visited. When I returned last year, it was startling to not see the bare foundation, and see a building under construction. I think that for years, seeing that tower will be as alien to me as not seeing the old ones.

Re:Another new normal (1)

Almandine (1594857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849497)

Stuyvesant?

So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849071)

Where's the OTHER tower going to be?

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849389)

Over the ashes of the Kaaba.

YAWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849167)

Wow, someone constructed a tall building and created yet another eyesore among the NYC skyline. Big whoop.

Empire State is still taller... (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849247)

From Wikipedia:
"and with its antenna spire included, it stands a total of 1,454 ft"

All they've put up at the site is a couple of girders marked 1271 ft. -- That is NOT "tallest in NYC" if those girders aren't any more habitable than the radio antenna atop Empire State.

This 'news' is total "feel good" PR bullcrap.

And, the Empire State Building has stood for more than 70 years. Top that, newbies.

Re:Empire State is still taller... (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849331)

And, the Empire State Building has stood for more than 70 years. Top that, newbies.

And it /survived/ a plane crash.

Who is going to want to live/work there? (1)

Gavin Scott (15916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849277)

I mean, isn't it going to be both a bit creepy and scary?

You've got the memories of all the people who died next door, and if there's one thing that would get a terrorist excited it would be the idea of knocking down the tower *again* after we went to the trouble to rebuild the thing.

You're going to need one heck of an immunity to superstition and a lot of faith to not at least consider these things.

I'm really curious to know how much occupancy they have lined up and whether the rates reflect any of this.

G.

Re:Who is going to want to live/work there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849371)

You're going to need one heck of an immunity to superstition and a lot of faith to not at least consider these things.

In other words, if you're not a religious fucktard, you'll be fine.

Disappointing... (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849375)

This would have been a cool set of buildings on any other site. As a replacement for the WTC it's kind of lame. I wouldn't the buildings rebuilt has they'd been. But I would have liked something comparable. Perhaps the twin towers had a high vacancy rate and they saw no way of filling all that space?

It is extremely embarrassing to see how long it took to get the building to this point. As others have mentioned it speaks to the sad state of affairs in this country. Almost anywhere else it would have taken a fraction of the time and would have likely cost less to build too. I realize that a lot the delays were related to bureaucratic red tape, but it doesn't matter the reason, it's a problem because this happens every day across the United States. In my area a couple of large scale projects, which could have been a boon have stalled because of garbage like this. I guess those guys didn't have the political pull and financial backing to finally get things going.

I also find it rather obnoxious that standards allow a spire affixed to the structure to be counted towards total height. But it was rather amusing hearing all the talk this morning about this building being the tallest in the Western Hemisphere like that mattered.

*shrug* (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849377)

I know WTC/9-11 is the focal point for cloying sentimentality for the US and I know New Yorkers insist that NYC is the only place on the planet of note, but seriously? This is not news for nerds. This isn't even news.

i've been watching it go up out my kitchen window (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39849391)

It seemed to be barely moving for months but this spring they must have really picked it up a notch because suddenly it's been growing fast! To me the old WTC is so reminiscent of the dotcom days. I had just moved to NYC and was for a small tech firm. Always loved perusing the O'reilly books at the WTC Borders on some down time. Nice to see them finally bringing it back, definitely gives me some optimism even if the USA and the world will never be the same again. But better or worse I'm packing up and heading to the west coast next year anyways. If you're not working in finance or maybe some wing of the entertainment industry there's nothing for you in New York anymore. All that crap about "Silicon Alley" is just hype. The only people hiring are hedge funds who want some kind of shady derivative algorithms coded up...but anyways, at least the WTC is back in one form or another.

Rust (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39849423)

And it's already rusting.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>