Talk:Freedom Tower
|
|
I don't really love that the article I started some time ago on the famous Freedom Tower in Miami has so the Manhattan building which does not even exist yet and may end up with another name altogether according to published sources.
Comments please?
Caltrop 18:39, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Clearly above it says a link to Freedom Tower (miami) so users can easily access it. Firstly the name is not going to change. Secondly the reason I made the Freedom Tower was because various articles linked directly to it and nothing linked to the Freedom Tower (miami) and I thought that the Freedom Tower was too big of an article and issue to make a joint article such as before. To me, doing anything else would create a big mess of confusion. ZackDude 22:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Hello AGAIN ZackDude
It's your old nemesis Louis Epstein (an opponent in principle of registration for website use,I do my Wikipeding from the IP address 12.144.5.2 and can be readily contacted at le@put.com). Whether Pataki's nickname formally sticks to this not-yet-past-environmental-approval structure is a different issue...but how many times must I SCREAM at you that the two buildings in China will have WALLS AND ROOFS HIGHER THAN THE LATTICEWORK THAT EXTENDS HUNDREDS OF FEET ABOVE THE FT'S ROOF before you realize that ONLY THE SPIRE AND ANTENNA...NOT THE LATTICEWORK...have any claim whatsoever to be "world's tallest"? You seem determined to turn this article into a promotional brochure for this project,and you don't answer me at my talk page,your talk page,or the Conflicts Between Users article.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com
Re: Hello AGAIN ZackDude
OK, firstly please cut the attitude and calm down. I am not your nemesis or enemy and just a fellow wikipedian, but before you write something make sure you have your facts correct. FYI the Freedom Tower's spire will reach 1776ft, not the antenna which will reach 2000ft. Secondly I find it no use that you keep changing the article around especially so the related topics links won't work for absolutely no reason without any discussion. Third, I was instructed from an administrator (here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users/archive1#12.144.5.2)) that this problem could be easily solved by just putting which source claims this and that. I have already included your point of view in the article however you do not have the authority to say without research what height this and that will be and I have searched the web and found nothing on it. If you get what I am saying I am not trying to be in any way annoying or anything to you and I would not like you to escalate something minor to something major. Also I find it insane that you think I want to turn this article into some brochure. I have made various contributions and plan to make many more on articles including the top 50 tallest buildings in the US. I have taken an interest in the Freedom Tower since the plans were first released and the fact that it is soon to be #1 in US and besides I have started the main Freedom Tower article since it was a stub including making the interactive image on the bottom and was following it very closely ever after to make sure everything is professional (like your space/punctuation) and their is no wrong or slandered info. I find it hard for anybody to disagree with me and the contributions I make and have made and if you do not then I'm sure you can go to the complaints page. I also wish to point out that there is no need to compare the Freedom Tower with almost every single building ever built which I'm getting the impression you are doing. That is for the user to notice or have a link to compare the Freedom Tower's height to other building. Please if anybody wants to add to this discussion I would greatly appreciate it if they do so.
- ZackDude 06:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I wrote articles on the Shanghai World Financial Center and Union Square Phase 7 that link to detail pages with their specifications that show they are taller to the roofs than the tops of the FT latticework.It's your saying that the latticework is taller than any other building when the buildings taller than the latticework will be completed first that I'm objecting to most.--L.E./12.144.5.2
Thank you again for cooperating in the convo, 12.144.5.2. I think there is a basic concept that you do not understand. It is true that the two towers you mentioned will be as tall as you mentioned and there is no argument over that. However, to my knowledge, you continuously state that the Freedom Tower will not be the tallest building in the world when completed. I have asked you to find a single source that says such a thing but so far you have not posted one. A good neutral source that explains everything is an article I found here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-22-freedom-tower_x.htm). It explains the difference between tall buildings and tall structures and the official regulations (what not to count and what to count) and declares the Freedom Tower the world's tallest (assuming another skyscraper hasn't been built higher by its completion which is unlikely at this point). There is incredibly more proof if you just simply do a news or web search for Freedom Tower on the internet.
Also 12.144.5.2, I notice that on your talk page you make note of using the Lynx Browser. I suggest if contributing to Wikipedia, it is appropriate to use a web browser which supports images. If you do, you will notice a few Freedom Tower images, the Freedom Tower article format, and an interactive picture which explains in detail how high the Freedom Tower will be and what reaches 1776ft and what is where. The interactive specification picture also includes a real-life picture comparison between the Petronas Towers, the Sears Tower, the Empire State Building, and the Freedom Tower including mentioning their heights and a measurement of their height on the image. This is a part of the article which I have a feeling you are missing and possibly your argument is just a big misunderstanding.
- ZackDude 22:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well,we continue to differ on which of us "just doesn't get it".There will be no one "tallest building" if everything now planned or building gets built as planned.FT would be tallest to spire and antenna and Shanghai WFC to roof and occupied floor.Those are the four CTBUH measurements.I have looked at your image in Netscape and am not unaware of the chart of comparisons carefully chosen by FT promoters.There was no secret that the Sears Tower had a higher roof and occupied floor than the Petronas Towers,just as there is no secret that the buildings under construction in China will have higher roofs and occupied floors than the Freedom Tower (and will not be the first to have higher roofs,unless you count the obs deck way above the solid structure as a roof).--L.E./12.144.5.2
Engineering-based critics however contend that taller buildings would actually be safer - can someone explain what is meant - why that would be safer etc. PMA 22:35, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
- good point. I do not understand that at all. I believe 12.144.5.2 put that in so he will have to explain that. -ZackDude 03:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to explain that.As Eli Attia wrote in [1] (http://www.phoenixproject.info/history/eliopinions.html#newsday) "as an architect who has devoted his life to designing tall buildings I can state without reservation that any 100-story building is in every respect safer than any 50-story building".
- He goes on to explain the structural engineering imperatives that make this necessarily true...the exponentially increasing stresses that taller buildings must be built to withstand and smaller buildings can not economically be built to withstand,and the laws of physics that allow only larger objects to withstand certain forces.--L.E/12.144.5.2/le@put.com
- I've gone on to add the reference to the page, and to specify that the critique comes from an architect who believes taller buildings should have been considered. Actually, this may not go far enough -- part of me thinks that more context needs to be given about Attia (he appears to have been very vocal in trying to get more architects considered for the site), but part of me thinks this needs to happen in the space of an article 9/11 memorial/Ground Zero planning rather than here.Tom 22:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thumbnails
Is it really necessary to have thumbnails if the Freedom Tower picture sizes do not get bigger? - ZackDude 19:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Here we go again
I used to explicitly link to articles on the two buildings whose roofs and occupied floors will be higher than the latticework,and you didn't like that.So now you say they don't exist?
FT latticework=1500 feet.Union Square Phase 7 roof=1555 feet.
Shanghai World Financial Center roof=1614 feet.I've seen renderings where people go over the hole in the top,right below the roof of the Shanghai WFC.
What part of that don't you understand?(The "broad-shouldered building" quote from the article was made to me at a presentation sponsored by the Skyscraper Museum in New York,that's where I saw the rendering). Also,at World's tallest structures see "The World's tallest habitable buildings" for the four CTBUH criteria,which definitely include "height to the top of antenna".--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com
dear sysops,
this article needs to be protected. the same edit wars keep perpetuating themselves.
- That is true. It can be protected however I thought 12.144 gave up on trying to change the article around. He continues to put in facts without any proof at all and has some bad habits and does not consult this talk page if a major change is done. I've been trying to tell him that and revert it back but its no use. I've kind of given up on this topic which I pretty much started and tried to montior, but because of the argument, I guess its time to move onto other Wikipedia projects that I'll get to soon. - ZackDude 17:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What in the world does ZackDude consider "proof" that he is wrong?I spell out explicitly numbers that don't lie that show that what he says is clearly wrong,and he says I have no proof?--L.E./12.14.5.2/le@put.com
Here is something that could set everyone OK. I have found a cool website about high buildings (including skyscrapers, bridges, antennas and even churches and stadiums) : http://skyscraperpage.com It offers diagrams of towers in construction, at this URL : http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?2063133 These diagrams shows a 700 m heigh skyscraper called Burj Dubai (website : http://www.emaar.com/new/projects_burjdubai.html) that should be finished in the same time as Freedom Tower, located in Dubai. I think that, according to the difficulty to define how high a skyscrapper is and to the numerous record beating projects all around the world, Freedom Tower should be considers as "among" the highest skyscrapers, and tell the other challengers in the same time (Burj Dubai, Union Square 7, Shanghai World Financial Center and maybe others). However, my mother tongue is not English, so I prefer no to do this by myself. --helldjinn, from the fr.wikipedia.org