# Which will be taller; Freedom or Sears?



## STR (Sep 4, 2004)

I figured this would come up eventually, so I decided to get this out of the way. Plus, it's an easy excuse to post some awesome pics.

Anyway, here's how America's current tallest, Chicago's Sears Tower, stacks up against New York's proposed Freedom Tower:


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

I always use the roof height when determining if one skyscraper is "taller" than another... in which case, Sears will remain the tallest in the US, even after Freedom is completed.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I think it should be used too (roof height), but most people will still use antennae/spire height (I still say Petronas is shorter than Sears!).


----------



## Sonic from Padova (Nov 23, 2004)

freedom tower!


----------



## empersouf (Mar 19, 2004)

Sears.


----------



## GVNY (Feb 16, 2004)

Freedom Tower


----------



## Gendo (Dec 4, 2003)

I usually go by top floor, so Sears would still have it.

Sadly they did have to redesign the Sears Tower so it could hold up those massive antennae. It really should count as a spire because it was by no means an after thought.

If they built a twin next to Freedom Tower then I'd say Sears and Freedom are sharing the title.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

I don't like the new Freedom Tower design I prefer the old one cos it was original. Even if it cheated on height.


----------



## Dubai_Boy (May 21, 2003)

Who cares !!! the sears is so much more beautiful and elegant


----------



## STR (Sep 4, 2004)

^Very true.


----------



## Taufiq (Oct 14, 2004)

I want Sears to stay at the top, but I have a feeling Freedom will be taller... plus the fact that they are from the same architectural firm should make it interesting.


----------



## Travis007 (Jul 19, 2004)

Floor height= Sears

To the spire/antenne= New World Trade centre


----------



## New Jack City (Dec 29, 2002)

Freedom tower will be taller, since the official method is by spire not roof. I really don't get the controversy, even with Petronas/Sears...we don't get to choose the method of how to determine which skyscrapers are taller or not, it's stated.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

I think a building's height should include a spire if it changes the appearance of a building considerably. It shouldn't though if it's just a pole as shown in the example of 23 marina below:








Where it says height is where it should be counted even though the section below that is part of the spire.
For me Sears will be taller because of this


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Sears


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Sears.


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

I think Freedom Tower's height has been lowered unless you count the spire (I don't). SO I think Sears will still be taller.


----------



## Tazmaniadevil (Dec 23, 2003)

The Sears Tower would not look the same without the antennas. I really think you have to count antennas if you are going to count spires. To say they are different is silly. In many cases the antenna is actually mote substantial in size.
And how many know that the North Tower of the WTC was 1729 feet high when the building was destroyed. That was the third highest structure in the world. Why the WTC never talked about that still amazes me. And did you know that until the Sears tower added height to its antennas, they were actually only 1704 ft high. I still think Sears addded height to the antennas so they would excede the WTC.


----------



## STR (Sep 4, 2004)

^No, the added height to the western antenna so the local CBS broadcast station would get better reception in the Chicago suburbs.


----------



## TheOldMan (Jul 1, 2005)

Sears Tower-I dont even see spires on top of buildings much less count them.


----------

