being thin is good, right? . we have some pretty thin skyscrapers now.
Does everyone like your skyscraper thin or bit of meat to it?
the debate rolls on on which is our most slender. It becomes the height/width ratio .also phyiscal dimension.
divide height into width= ratio
example- 100m tall div by 30m wide=3.3. not that thin at all.
Architects say that a skyscraper is getting thin when its ratio is 10.
thus 150m scraper @ 15m wide= ratio of 10.
A ratio of 7 seems to be when a scraper starts to take on the thin look (in australia).

Our thinnest atm is Sydney Hilton. 131m @ 17m wide=7.7 but FWP is wider at 25.5m but over 200m thus ratio of 8.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5803/hiltonside0vb.jpg

FWP1
mugley
http://static.flickr.com/24/57470999_f1e8de6ae1_o.jpg

QV resi
http://web.aanet.com.au/nmharrison/qv%20web.jpg

but if you want ratios
FWP1- 205m @ 25.5m = 8.0
QV resi- 147m @ 20m =7.35
Verve501 155m @ 20m= 7.75
WT-230m @ 31m =7.4
Q1-275m @ 38m =7.2

a diagram i did a while back
http://img282.echo.cx/img282/2856/thinscrapers0ia.jpg




Also smaller bldgs can quite thin. Old skyscrapers in Sydney were built on small plots.
Sydneys 347 George st is 46m high but only 6m wide, thus ratio=7.66

Eurekas unique shape/form makes it harder to decifer its ratio.
The top 1/3 of Eureka is only 25m wide, so if you take 297m div by 25m = 11.88. but most of Eureka is 48m wide up to approx 200m.
if you "average" it out 48m and 25m= 36m and then div 297m = 8.2?

mugley
http://static.flickr.com/29/65442918_b86161231d_o.jpg



East @ world square was going to be 14m wide but its now being shelved to be a lowrise office tower.

http://www.ivolvestudios.com/images/Images/exterior/08.jpg

Q1's ratio to fin is 7.2.(275m@38m) but if you include spire= 8.4


http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2058/q1tall0in.jpg

theres a highrise apartment block in either Auckland or wellington that is amazingly thin. does anyone know of this one?

haven't got a picture of it but unilodge in brisbane is very skinny

Wonder why the hell the Hilton is so skinny given that the podium site is much wider.
I like tall thin towers coz they give the skyline a nice verticle dimension.
Sydney has alot of fat towers due I guess to the height limit and I struggle with this i.e Darling Park towers, KENS, GPT ( west/east aspect), AMEX tower, Connaught apartments, Grosvenor Place ( north/south aspect), Latitude ( north/south aspect), World Tower ( east/west aspect), Gateway ( east/west aspect) and ofcourse new Deutsche Bank tower ( east/west aspect).

I much prefer the tall skinny and sleek angles of towers such as Cove ( east/west), AAPT, Gateway ( north/south), MLC, Sydney tower ( ;) ), World Tower ( north /south) etc.

most towers rise above a podium. Sydney hilton is a hotel, so rooms need sunlight, thus thin floor plate.
Sydney's towers arent FAT because of height limits.lol
its all got to do with FSR. most bldgs have gone up to highest achievable height they can get.


yes COVE is 158m @ 21m wide thus= 7.5

http://www.seidler.net.au/graphics/031_DT01.jpg

Connaught apartments
The Connaught is wide along Liverpool Street, but thin north/south. I'm pretty sure there are only apartments at the front (north) of the building.

The proposal for 549 Queen St (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=149555) in Brisbane is bordering on the ridiculous at 186m to fin and only 17m wide. Although it most likely wont ever to built.

186/17 = 10.9

http://tinypic.com/klw1d

just measured on council digital data, Connaught measures 63m wide x 20m thick. so still not as thin as Hilton.
other notable thins- Goldfields-20m, Capita-25m, Rialto-23m,
incidentally, the 188m 33 Bligh st tower is only 25m wide thus ratio= 7.5
on smaller towers- the 88m Georgia said the be thinnest new apartment tower in OZ is only 12m wide,thus- 7.3. another is 85m Lexington also on kent st at 85m @ 12m wide=7

haven't got a picture of it but unilodge in brisbane is very skinnyHere's a pic of UniLodge (with the U and half an n missing)

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/348/1003664s4bn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Brisbanes new Vision is only 30m wide x 246m high= ratio 8.2
pretty thin.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6578/visionthin7ro.jpg

Great thread Cul. Nice to see the comparisons.

theres a highrise apartment block in either Auckland or wellington that is amazingly thin. does anyone know of this one?

The Columbard Serviced Apartments , 20 Wyndham St , Auckland CBD
Think its 18 Levels :)

http://www.columbard.com/images/hmpg2-bg2.jpg

^thats the one! thanks MM. that has to be thinnest in southern hem?
at 60m high and only 6m wide thats-
ratio of 10!
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/7082/columbard0nr.jpg

^ reminds me of the one proposed for the Sydney CBD where krispy kreams is now. That was much taller tho.

What about the Pangas House proposal for Sydney? That was thin in both aspects and really took the cake as far as pokey buildings go.

^ yeah its floor plate was 11m wide x19m. @ 150m tall. ratio= 13.6!!!
lol


http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/3069/pangashouse0qo.jpg

^ ^ that's just silly! How much actual floorspace would there be with lift core? Open the lift door and fall into your desk.

Cheers,

Adam

The bird in the pool.

^ ^ that's just silly! How much actual floorspace would there be with lift core? Open the lift door and fall into your desk.

Cheers,

Adam
adam, the lift core was located at rear.
the 50storey apartment tower had 1 unit per floor. 200sqm per fl.
some floors had access to floor above, so you could be them as double decker units.

Ahhh!! Now it makes some sense.

Why didn't they build the thing? Would have loved to have seen it with a 50m spire.

A stick with a stick..

Cheers,

Adam

i think councillors didnt see it as a nice addition to skyline.set too much of a precendent if approved.

lol! itd be funny to see it just snap in half like a french frie.

ConC or Soul would have to have a pretty high ratio wouldn't they?

Conc is 30m x50m, so ratio of 219m @ 30m=7.3
Soul is 240m x 28m wide = ratio of 8.5! wow
thats about best for an aussie one thus far?

another slender unit block from GC is the 30storey/96m WATERFORD. i have plans and side on its only 15m wide up until lev21 and only 12m wide to roof, thus ratio of 8.
wide shot. ive tried to find a side on view but cant.
http://www.waterfordonmain.com.au/images/building2.jpg

Here is an interesting one, through not from Australia.
The United Nations Secretariat Building in NYC has a ratio of 1.618033....
known as the "Golden Ratio". Those architects and mathematicians out there will know the significance of this number. Briefly, a rectangle with the ratio of its opposite sides as above is the best looking quadrilateral possible. Someone else can explain it please. The building was built like this as a symbol of peace.



http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/un_trump.jpg

It's the fat building on the left by the way, whilst the one on the right does look quite thin

the one on right is Trump tower, one on left is UN headquarters?

the golden ratio is known mathematically as phi

the ancient greeks discovered it to be the most aesthetically pleasing ratio of side lengths known to man. the entire parthenon is built using the golden ratio.

basically, if the ratio between the height and width of a rectangle = 1.618033 (phi) then the rectangle has the most aesthetically pleasing proportions it can possibly have.

a quick way to find out numbers that have a ratio of phi is the fibonacci sequence

1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 etc. each term of the fibonacci sequence is the sum of the two preceding terms. so the next term in the sequence above would be 13 + 21 which = 34

trump world tower is ony 23m wide @ 262m= ratio-11.3
wow thin
http://www.adzstock.com/Upload/Stock/Previews/18151.jpg

^Also one of the most uninspired glass boxes I've ever seen. I'm not sure why Trump is so content with Costas Kondylis.

Sydneys 347 George st is 46m high but only 6m wide, thus ratio=7.66Couln't find 347, must be a typo. I presume you meant 387 George? It's skinny alright!

Photo by Culwulla
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5402/387george5dr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^ thanks orilious. yeah 387 george is correct. this beauty was the 2nd skyscraper in sydny to reach 150ft/46m. same acrhiects as Culwulla chambers 2 years before.

One time I was on the right side of the AXA Building, and the side of the building made it look anorexic as all I could see was a side angle of 3 windows! Then naturally, on the other side, it became slightly bigger. :|

I've always thought of Franklin Lofts as a really thin tower.

The photo below probably doesn't do it justice. All of the apartments are split level, so from the north and south, the building looks extremely skinny.

http://www.walkingmelbourne.com/images/franklinlofts.jpg

Whilst not as tall as some of the others mentioned in this thread, Adelaide's approved Pinnacle office building at 21 levels/ 74m is according to emporis.com the thinnest skyscraper in Australia with a height to plot ration of 12:1

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid83/pc3ab1c7612b8f66218c7ae6498b70280/fae5ff7a.jpg