Which is taller. Discuss. Views. Go.

Personally, I stick with the notion that 1WTC is taller

If you don't make this into a Chicago vs. NYC, I'm fine with this. Otherwise it might get closed soon.


I'm not in favor of counting "aesthetical" spires to a building's height.
Sometimes it's hard to tell what's a spire, but for Sears Tower and 1WTC it's not that hard.

So, I'd say, Sears is taller.

Sears definetely. Looka t the diagram, Sears is taller! That hypo needle on top of WTC 1 is no more a spire than the twin sticks that are on top of Sears. Its just an antennae with a pretty cover on it. Sure, some outfit paid off some other official outfit to say it's a spire so that they could claim 1776 feet but c'mon, Petronus is a spire, Crysler is a spire, ESB has a spire. That thing on top of WTC1 is NOT a spire.

They need to measure these things to the roof or in the absence of that (Shanghai, Burj) to the height of the highest occupiable space.

Look at the lastest diagram over there. You have a case where you can go to the ob deck at Sears and look DOWN 60 or 70 feet to where the roof of a building that is officially 300 feet TALLER would be. That's ridiculous.

The Sears is not only higher but also far more aesthetic.

all rights to SSP and the illustrators

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/158/ssp2ssc.jpg

i love both buildings, but will go with Freedom Tower i think. i like Chicagos skyline more, but as a stand alone freedom tower looks nicer i think. but sears tower fits better to boxy chicago and freedom tower to the skyline of new york city

1 WTC. I say that because it is taller. How can you even debate that it isn't taller?

Just like Willis is taller than petronas. I'm a supporter of the actual height of a building regardless of what some people consider to be decorative or functional "spires".

Look at the lastest diagram over there. You have a case where you can go to the ob deck at Sears and look DOWN 60 or 70 feet to where the roof of a building that is officially 300 feet TALLER would be. That's ridiculous.

The highest usable floor on Willis is the ob. deck, at 1353 feet (412m). That's shorter then 1WTC's parapet, but only 18 feet taller then 1WTC's actual roof, which is 1335 feet (407m).

Not trying to be smart or anything. Just clearing things up for people who know less about the buildings.

ooh I have an answer everyone can agree on.

1WTC is slightly taller to the tip and Sears is slightly taller to the roof. That's the correct answer.




ps. willis is theworst name ever

The highest usable floor on Willis is the ob. deck, at 1353 feet (412m). That's shorter then 1WTC's parapet, but only 18 feet taller then 1WTC's actual roof, which is 1335 feet (407m).

Not trying to be smart or anything. Just clearing things up for people who know less about the buildings.

Thanks for clearing that up, I obviously didn't do the math. Point remains though, you are still looking down to where the roof would be.

willis, of course...

http://images01.oe24.at/brugger_tomaten_132760a.jpg/consoleMadonnaNoStretch2/259.364

Definitely Willis is taller. It is complete nonsense to count thin and cheap metal sticks to a building's height, whether it's an antenna or a spire. A building is defined by the fact that, unlike a chimney or a mast, it is habitable. That's why in my opinion the ceiling of the top floor a.k.a. the roof is the true height of a building.

As to which I like more, definitely Willis. Willis is in my opinion the most beautiful structure ever built. 1WTC looks good but no where near as good as Willis :banana2:

willis roof height is taller, 1wtc's spire is taller. and 1wtc's official height is taller. those three measurements exist, so there is no reason to discuss -.- when we have a diagram we see which point is higher etc, no need to say someone is wrong just because the person prefers another measurement

1WTC is taller by 36 feet, it just physically IS that much taller. It's not 325 feet taller or 83 feet shorter.

Yes I count antennas, they're very much visible (as are spires) and add to the building's height (as do spires), I can't mentally subtract an antenna yet keep a spire, it's ridiculous, it's all the same thing to me.

These 2 are roughly the same size anyways.

1WTC is taller by 36 feet, it just physically IS that much taller. It's not 325 feet taller or 83 feet shorter.

Yes I count antennas, they're very much visible (as are spires) and add to the building's height (as do spires), I can't mentally subtract an antenna yet keep a spire, it's ridiculous, it's all the same thing to me.

These 2 are roughly the same size anyways.

Totally agree

Definitely Willis is taller. It is complete nonsense to count thin and cheap metal sticks to a building's height, whether it's an antenna or a spire. A building is defined by the fact that, unlike a chimney or a mast, it is habitable. That's why in my opinion the ceiling of the top floor a.k.a. the roof is the true height of a building.

As to which I like more, definitely Willis. Willis is in my opinion the most beautiful structure ever built. 1WTC looks good but no where near as good as Willis :banana2:

Yes: habitable is the key; everything else is suspect. The ceiling of the highest inhabited floor is the most rational approach to measurement, since everything else can be monkeyed with without continuing commercial implications. Not the roof; the ceiling.

Morning all... Just check what's news here.....
Iklan gratis tanpa daftar (http://iklangoogle.net) Iklan gratis (http://iklanyahoo.net) Iklan baris (http://friendzone.info/) Review gadgets (http://www.nikmaya.com/) Buy online (http://chencake.com)

Willis/Sears looks nicer...

1 WTC is taller. The Sears Tower is a nice building, but the fact is that its shorter. I only wish they would put a Skydeck on 1 WTC :lol:

I dont consider the spires. So Willis is still USAs tallest.

Don't need to comment either way......just look and you can see which building is taller. Lucky people can't see them side by side you can tell them anything !
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5088/wtcverswillis.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/97/wtcverswillis.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us) via Maleig graphics and Someformofhuman

I say the house on the right :dunno:



http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e389/Tivoom/ScreenShot012-2.jpg

Well that's an antenna on the house on the left ;)

Definitely One World Trade Centre which has sueprior and more futuristic design, the it's architecture is pretty decent too.

I've got a question. If Daniel Libeskind would have a 1 meter haircut, would he be considered taller than the Great Khali?

http://i54.tinypic.com/10qm99i.jpg

Interesting debate here, people will argue about that forever..

Me personal opinion is that since the spires count, antennas should too..Everything on the building should count since it's part of the building..I would say no to antennas and no to spires, but some spires look amazing and make a huge role in design..So it would be fair to count antennas too..

So I'll go with 1WTC..

I know that various professional groups consider a dozen or so different criteria for ranking a structure's height. But for me, there are only two valid ways to measure a building's height. And both correspond to what the layperson or casual observer considers most important in judging a building's height.

First is roof height, because clearly to the casual observer a 1500 ft tall building is more impressive than a 1000 ft tall building with a 600 ft spire or antenna.

Second in importance is overall height, regardless of how it is achieved. Here, people generally rely more on the statistics they are fed rather than their own visual impressions.

So when comparing two buildings, each of which barely wins in one of the two categories, my preference has to be for the one with the taller roof height.

Willis Tower it is.

Well for the 1WTC/Willis comparison, roof height obviously works.

What about say, Shanghai Tower vs Pingan IFC though? Where is ST's roof in comparison to PIFC's? ST has a crown that covers it's "roof" while PIFC has a spire on top of a "cone" on top of it's "roof".

To the casual observer, those two would both be about equally imposing (ignoring SWFC, Jin Mao Tower and PIFC South Tower)

^^ Crowns and parapets are okay because they are a true part of the building. However thin steel sticks aren't okay because they are not a part of the building, they are just thin steel sticks on the building and it doesn't matter whether they are called antennas or spires.

Btw, cone = crown

And how are they not "true" parts of the building?

^^ Because they are so minute compared to the building itself. Crowns and parapets have a far greater presence on top of a building than antennas and spires have.

:lol: Every time I come here I laugh at that Libeskind picture..

Kanto, question for you:

If building would have crown tall as 1/3 of the building (for an example, building is 300m tall and has 100m tallcrown), would you consider it as part of the building or not, like the spires? :D

^^ That depends on how big it would be compared to the rest of the building, if it would be enough big compared to the roof, like Jasmil Super Tower's or Shanghai Tower's, I would count it, if it would be as thin compared to the roof as that of Abraj Al Bait, I would not. It all depends on whether it can be cathegorized as a thin steel stick or not :cheers:

Btw, as to parapets, a parapet should only be counted if it is indistinguishable from the building itself, in other words, that of 1WTC or of the Goldman Sachs Tower next to 1WTC should count but that of the New York Times Tower should not :cheers:

Well the way you say it "if X applies, then Y" fails. It's either this or that. We shouldn't have to say "Hmm, well this building's parapet is virtually indistinguishable from it's actual roof, so that should count, but this building's parapet is thinner and obviously not of the roof of the building".

^^ It's the same as the official height accepting spires but not antennas with the only difference that it is focused to fight thin steel stick cheating. That's perfectly the same "if X applies then Y" as the one being used by the CTBUH :cheers:

I say Willis tower is taller, I don't want to see all new skyscrapers with tall thin spires.

@Knto. Spires are ornamental. Antennas are not.

^^ That doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that both are thin steel sticks :bash:

I think including antennae, spires, twisty hats, kitty-litter scoops, or any other decorative cap on the top of a building in the official height is nothing more than a good old fashioned "cheat", and merely a way of breaking into the Supertall Club without having any usable floors at a truly impressive height.

^^ That doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that both are thin steel sticks :bash:

But one steel stick is part of the design and the design likely wouldn't work without it. And the other steel stick actually has a use and the building's design could work without it.

^^ Every design could work both with a thin steel stick and without it, so you see they are really the same. A spire really is cheating. A building is a building, not a thin steel stick.

Imagine Petronas without their spires. Imagine ESB without it's spire. Imagine Abraj Al Bait without it's spire.

And obviously spires aren't buildings. They're spires.

Willis (gag) Tower is obviously taller in terms of roof height. I don't like counting spires or antennas either...

But I'm going to go with Tower 1...

Imagine Petronas without their spires. Imagine ESB without it's spire. Imagine Abraj Al Bait without it's spire.

And obviously spires aren't buildings. They're spires.

No problem, all of them would look good without their spires.

Yeah right. You're just saying that to disagree with me. There's a reason roof height isn't used anymore Knto. No one's forcing you to use the official measurements. Just quit shoving roof height down everyone else's throats.

^^ Stop bullying me :rant:

How am I bullying you.

Quit trolling me

1WTC of course, because it's taller, stronger and most important more beautiful than Sears Tower.

^^ Crowns and parapets are okay because they are a true part of the building. However thin steel sticks aren't okay because they are not a part of the building, they are just thin steel sticks on the building and it doesn't matter whether they are called antennas or spires.

Btw, cone = crown

By your logic, which of the following buildings are taller? :wink2:

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2518/01wtcspire.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/01wtcspire.jpg/)

Well, if the Spire is an integrated part of the buildings design, I would count it.

1WTC without the antenna/spire looks basicaly the same, so I wouldn't count that.

The Burj Khalifa would look totaly different without all its small steps above the last floor, so I would count it.

Chicagos Willis Tower, or John Hancock Center or Trump Tower would not look much different without the antennae/spires, so don't count them

Or what is with the "7 Sisters" of Moscow? Cut off their spires and most of them would look quite different (not to mention
the FederationTower, wich is the ultimate spire-cheater - but its also a important part of the design in this one). So count them.

Its not a question of strict yes or no, its a matter of the single individual design really.
So, for Avian001 example I would say the first 2: don't count the spire and the last 3: count it ;)

By your logic, which of the following buildings are taller? :wink2:

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2518/01wtcspire.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/01wtcspire.jpg/)

The first two shouldn't count but the last three should count because in my opinion the first two have a spire and the last three have a crown :cheers:

I think it's a very fuzzy line between spire, crown, etc. which is why I made the diagram. It's a fun question though, and the fact that there could still be 5 more examples between buildings 2 & 3 proves that it is a subjective definition.

I think many people here want a definitive, black-or-white answer, but it's not possible. :)

^^ Even if possible it is still very difficult. It is the same as with the CTBUH rule that 50% of the official height must be floors in order for the building to be a building and not an observation tower. I bet that there was a hell of a battle before those 50% were approved :storm::guns1::gunz:

The 50% rule is nothing like the roof vs spire debate. If someone's trying to build a skyscraper, obviously they're going to maximize space, both height wise and area wise. An observation tower has what, maybe a few floors and an observation deck? Also, they're designs are generally narrow and wouldn't be favorable to be used for living and working.

Although buildings and towers might both be able to be considered "skyscrapers" due to how tall they are ("scraping" the sky), there is a fine line what constitutes a building and an observation/TV tower.

Also, it has nothing to do with the roof height debate.

^^ It has to do one thing with it and that is the fact that both the 50% habitable space rule and my proposed minimal thickness of an addon to be considered a crown, not a spire rule are both a matter of numbers and both are open to debate :cheers:

Why are you bringing up TV towers in a roof vs spire debate about skyscrapers? Also, stop using smileys with me. I'm not here to smile with you.

^^ Stop bullying me :rant:

Stop trolling us