Building Spires. Should they be counted in a building's height?

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by HardBall

Wait, think about what you are saying carefully. So if F&F actually put the same antenna into the original blueprint of 4TS, then the antenna on the building automagically becomes a "spire", and so that it would become a supertall that is taller than Chrysler?

So you are saying that the height of the building's final arbiter is nothing about the physical entity of the building itself, but some markings and captions on the sheet of paper on which its original schematic is drawn???

Of course, I already said that Kanto's is harder to grasp; but not because it's more complicated (which it is), but rather because your definition is non-sense (it has no precise definition). But I guess I was wrong, you do in fact have a precise definition, that only depends on what happens on paper, and has nothing to do with any real object in the reality that we know.

Couldn't have said it better myself, also I have heard that the CTBUH may count 1 wtc's antennae because their isn't antennae equipment on it... yes you just read this right, is this what we have come to ? Adding antennae equipment to a spire or antennae makes it not count ? Is this seriously what distinguishes a building ? If so then God help us all. I mean what the hell is happening here ?

[deepblue01]

I have a feeling this discussion is merely about 1WTC and it keeping its 500m status. no matter what the final 'height' is, it won't be a 500m tower and I think many of us already accepted that even before the spire change

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by deepblue01

I have a feeling this discussion is merely about 1WTC and it keeping its 500m status. no matter what the final 'height' is, it won't be a 500m tower and I think many of us already accepted that even before the spire change

I actually think it is a 419 meter building, and the Sears is clearly taller. I didn't make my measurement system because of 1 WTC, but it helped me realize how many buildings had cheated to get their height, so I saw the need and did something about it. But I want everyone to keep in mind that I still use the pinnacle measurement, because sometimes there is some visual height added, like with the Sears, and its massive and wide antennae's, so when I make a site for this, I am going to include my real height measurement, and pinnacle.

But I would like to point out that I am not saying this because of 1 WTC. The antennae on 1 WTC adds very little to no visual height, and is definitely a 419 meter building.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by deepblue01

I have a feeling this discussion is merely about 1WTC and it keeping its 500m status. no matter what the final 'height' is, it won't be a 500m tower and I think many of us already accepted that even before the spire change

My real height system ranks it as a 419 meter building, and ranks everything fairly

[patrykus]

"your system" ? Now thats funny. You still don't have any! Maybe stop posting posters with dashes and finally tell as why burj spire is counted, and pingan isn't. Why dream dmc isn't and abraj is. Can you finally do this? Or maybe you will start choping off all the buildings like kanto? He in all his madness at least have some methodology. You people don't like ctbuh standards but yet you can't propose any better.

Originally Posted by Kanto

Do I have to repeat myself, I was talking about a COMMON man/woman looking at a building, not about complex measurements of a newly opened building. THAT WAS THE POINT. And additionally, the calculations involved in my system can be very easily recognized on a building with the naked eye. That is what I'm talking about, I talk about common people looking at a building with the PRIMARY height measurement on their mind, estimating the building's size and dimensions with their naked eye

And I am talking about people who actually will have to measure the damn thing. Facts are simple. Ctbuh with plans have easy job determining height of 99,99% buildings. With your system measuring every single building will be a DAMN PAIN IN THE ASS.

And you say it is for common people looking at a building? Fascinating. Didn't you just said "we will have to live with this" in case of burj-burj example?

Yeah, your system is clear for common people "looking at the building"...

...except for this two...



and these...



and these...



and these...



and these...



You really can't see it?

What you people fail to understand is that present and future architecture varies in all weird shapes and sizes that you can't measure them fairy. Thats just not possible! and every single measuring system will be cheated and will fail. Developers will always adapt their projects to the system to reach the height at lowest cost possible. That's why we have spires today (which at least looks nice) and thats why we would have crescents and stupid empty crowns with yours. Seriously there really have to be a reason why no serious people from the business are backing up your ideas.

So anyway now what's next? Your system is used and instead of these cheaters:



we'll have these?



No thanks

[Kanto]

So much wrong with that post Well, so let me start:

1, In your examples of building duels you essentially say that "look their pinnacle height is different", well, why shouldn't it be? Pinnacle height is also different than official, height, yet you have no problem with that. In fact, you even put an example (Uberwillis vs Khalifa) where official height decides identically as roof height does. In other words, your arguments are doublebladed and with doublestandards

2, My system is not at all difficult to count for the officials who have plans of a building. It is very easy, look for the top occupied floor, look for the differences in width of different sections and look what is uninhabited and less than 9 meters. Nothing pain in the ass here

3, Adding ultrasmall occupied floors like Abby does and adding crowns is a lesser cheat than adding spires, because they are far more expensive and can either be practicaly used in the case of occupied floors or have a massive appearance in the case of crowns

4, Your flawed assumption that just because CTBUH officials aren't flooding this thread they don't like it and it must be bad is just plain and simply wrong. The average CTBUH official doesn't come to threads on SSC to start a huge revolution of their system, you know And shall I remind you that in a large SSC poll 85% of voters voted against official height?

Btw, here, look at this, if you have so much problems accepting that something with greater pinnacle height is ranker lower what will you say about this? Apparently you belowed CTBUH official height has betrayed you

[patrykus]

Really? The last two comparison charts I posted looks so much different in fact

And you don't see the difference between sears with incorporated spires and the original one with completely out of place antennas ??

What about the thin sears example which looks to be lower deserves to be lover and you still force people to say it's taller.

What about ubersears with spires, which clearly deserves to be taller not because of it's spires but how wide it is at the top.

What if crown's structural nature allows constructing crowns from three pipes three times taller than three separate spires build from the same pipes?

What if emaar knowing you system put, light, little elevator, floor, little sit, laptop and some Pakistani guy to "work" just under the tip of the spire?

What about chrysler. Will it lose it's title of first supertall?

To the "simplicity" of your technique you forget to mention triangles, angles, black spots on sun, and who knows on what else. For ctbuh it is: Look in the plans -> here is spire, here is antenna. or maybe even either of both. Done.

Once again if these your system will cause close to no effect on cheating and will be more complicated do you really think you have the right to destroy what people worked on decades and force to use your system not guarantying any effect, and being still not fair in many examples?

And one more thing: I really don't wanne see crescent on the burj tip

[Kanto]

LOL, black spots on the sun, that made my day

Well, but now to serious matters:

Really? The last two comparison charts I posted looks so much different in fact

Nope, they don't

And you don't see the difference between sears with incorporated spires and the original one with completely out of place antennas ??

There is none

What about the thin sears example which looks to be lower deserves to be lover and you still force people to say it's taller.

Look is a subjective thing. The Willis Tower looks to be taller than Taipei 101 yet Taipei is 6 meters taller

What about ubersears with spires, which clearly deserves to be taller not because of it's spires but how wide it is at the top.

Width isn't height. Again, look at the Willis/taipei example

What about ubersears with spires, which clearly deserves to be taller not because of it's spires but how wide it is at the top.

A crown must be enclosed to be considered a crown and not a, for example, tripod spire.

What if emaar knowing you system put, light, little elevator, floor, little sit, laptop and some Pakistani guy to "work" just under the tip of the spire?

Then it is a part of the building because it has an occupied floor.

What about chrysler. Will it lose it's title of first supertall?

Yup.

To the "simplicity" of your technique you forget to mention triangles, angles, black spots on sun, and who knows on what else. For ctbuh it is: Look in the plans -> here is spire, here is antenna. or maybe even either of both. Done.

My system is equally simple. Just look at the width, highest occupied floor and angles and you got it.

Once again if these your system will cause close to no effect on cheating and will be more complicated do you really think you have the right to destroy what people worked on decades and force to use your system not guarantying any effect, and being still not fair in many examples?

Wrong. It will have a massive effect of preventing cheating. With your width examples you make it sound as if the Pentagon and Abby should be considered the two tallest building because they are so wide. That is total nonsense. Making a thin building is no cheating as long as it is habitable (more than 9 meters or with an occupied floor). In other words, my system is fair, CTBUH's is not. In all the examples you gave my system proved to be fair.

And one more thing: I really don't wanne see crescent on the burj tip

Me neither

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by Kanto

A crown must be enclosed to be considered a crown and not a, for example, tripod spire.

I see. Like in Lotte Tower... or Infinity?

Originally Posted by Kanto

Wrong. It will have a massive effect of preventing cheating.

Yes we know that.



or even...

Originally Posted by Kanto

In all the examples you gave my system proved to be fair.

????????????? Because you compared them to taipei vs willis (which you said is unfair)? LOL what a logic

The rest is self explanatory: like Chrysler dethronement. COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC. And you didn't even answered all my questions. Oh and the first question was sarcastic, I'm glad you don't agree

Originally Posted by Kanto

Me neither

Then better get used to the mekka tower because it is what we are going to get in tallest towers of the future

[Kanto]

There is nothing unfair on the Kingdom Towers you posted

And I did answer all your questions, I even quoted them so you can clearly see my answer. It is impossible to make that more clear. Also, I didn't compare your examples to anything, the Willis Taipei comparison was an answer for another question, as you can clearly see in my previous post cause I made it clear with the quotes what answer relates to what question. One thing you fail to see is that all the examples you gave truly haven't got any problem or unfairness in them. In all of these examples my system is perfectly clear and fair

And there is nothing wrong on dethroning Chrysler, just as there was nothing wrong on dethroning Pluto

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by Kanto

There is nothing unfair on the Kingdom Towers you posted

Haha. Of course, and they look completely different, especially on the second picture

I'm enlighten now. Please teach me

[Kanto]

Oh, and these 4 look completely different too? One pair has spires and the second pair has antennas, take a look at your perfectly doublebladed arguments:

[patrykus]

Oh Kanto how naughty you are, not answering in context

[Kanto]

I gave you answers to all of your questions. If you don't like them, you have a right to do that, but don't blame me that I didn't give you answers

[patrykus]

okay

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by patrykus

"your system" ? Now thats funny. You still don't have any! Maybe stop posting posters with dashes and finally tell as why burj spire is counted, and pingan isn't. Why dream dmc isn't and abraj is. Can you finally do this? Or maybe you will start choping off all the buildings like kanto? He in all his madness at least have some methodology. You people don't like ctbuh standards but yet you can't propose any better.



And I am talking about people who actually will have to measure the damn thing. Facts are simple. Ctbuh with plans have easy job determining height of 99,99% buildings. With your system measuring every single building will be a DAMN PAIN IN THE ASS.

And you say it is for common people looking at a building? Fascinating. Didn't you just said "we will have to live with this" in case of burj-burj example?

Yeah, your system is clear for common people "looking at the building"...





You really can't see it?

What you people fail to understand is that present and future architecture varies in all weird shapes and sizes that you can't measure them fairy. Thats just not possible! and every single measuring system will be cheated and will fail. Developers will always adapt their projects to the system to reach the height at lowest cost possible. That's why we have spires today (which at least looks nice) and thats why we would have crescents and stupid empty crowns with yours. Seriously there really have to be a reason why no serious people from the business are backing up your ideas.

So anyway now what's next? Your system is used and instead of these cheaters:



we'll have these?



No thanks

You are actually starting to sound angry, you act as if your life hinges on the success or failure of our systems.

"your system" ? Now thats funny. You still don't have any! Maybe stop posting posters with dashes and finally tell as why burj spire is counted, and pingan isn't. Why dream dmc isn't and abraj is. Can you finally do this? Or maybe you will start choping off all the buildings like kanto? He in all his madness at least have some methodology. You people don't like ctbuh standards but yet you can't propose any better.

I have told you over and over for all these examples...... the Burj counts because the beginning of its spire has a width of more then 30 feet, and is actually part of the building, and it also meets the requirement of covering 50% of the area below it.

Pingan doesn't meet the width requirement.

Dream DMC doesn't meet the width requirement.

Abraj has habitable space in the spire, therefore it counts.


My system works, the chart I posted is proof of that, and just about everyone has agreed that it is better then CTBUH's. All of the pictures you have posted below are easily explainable, and I noticed you used a double standard here too, like Kanto said.

So tell me, why is it you are doing everything you can to try to disprove are system, it seems like you are emotionally invested in someway ? Why do you care so much about the CTBUH measurement to state lies over and over ?

Everyone knows that their is no difference between a spire and an antennae, and everyone has agreed with this, so are you lying to everyone else, or are you really lying to yourself ?

A crown counts because it meets both requirements, and looks like part of the building, not to mention that it costs much more to build.

At first you sounded skeptical, then you sounded judgmental, now you sound angry, why do you care so much about the CTBUH measurement ?


Also, crescents don't add height, the only reason Abraj's adds height is because there is habitable space inside it, so technically it is part of the building. Now, was that really that hard to understand ?

[patrykus]

I'm calm like a teddy bear now If you really care how I feel Kanto made all really clear that I really don't have to convince anybody anymore. Any sane person can come here read all the staff and draw his conclusions. I really don't need to know anymore how the start of the spire is determined in pingan or why in generally wider building like this spire doesn't deserve to be counted and in burj does. Or that you guys deny to accept that these systems are as imperfect as ctbuh as I shown it as well with many examples. Or how serious organization would use notions as "real height" instead of architectural or structural. And for the end I don't really care that nothing will change even if you success in introducing any of these systems as I shown with kingdom tower example since this is your time you are wasting. The only thing I would be sad about would be installation of crescent on top of the burj to keep it's height. But then again I truly don't believe anyone will be eager to use this systems so I think burj is safe . Still I'll keep this thread in subscription as I wonder where you will be like in 10 years with this and how you decide whose system to chose. That should be interesting

Piece

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by patrykus

I'm calm like a teddy bear now If you really care how I feel Kanto made all really clear that I really don't have to convince anybody anymore. Any sane person can come here read all the staff and draw his conclusions. I really don't need to know anymore how the start of the spire is determined in pingan or why in generally wider building like this spire doesn't deserve to be counted and in burj does. Or that you guys deny to accept that these systems are as imperfect as ctbuh as I shown it as well with many examples. Or how serious organization would use notions as "real height" instead of architectural or structural. And for the end I don't really care that nothing will change even if you success in introducing any of these systems as I shown with kingdom tower example since this is your time you are wasting. The only thing I would be sad about would be installation of crescent on top of the burj to keep it's height. But then again I truly don't believe anyone will be eager to use this systems so I think burj is safe . Still I'll keep this thread in subscription as I wonder where you will be like in 10 years with this and how you decide whose system to chose. That should be interesting

Piece

It is spelled "Peace"

Also, I see you have moved on to the 4th stage of denial ? Nearly everyone that has come on here has agreed with my system, so they must not be sane by your logic, am I right ?

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

It is spelled "Peace"

Also, I see you have moved on to the 4th stage of denial ?

What can I say, this is what I truely feel now after what I've seen today. But why are you asking me about denial. Do you hold an monopoly on this or what? You were denying today quite a lot

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Nearly everyone that has come on here has agreed with my system, so they must not be sane by your logic, am I right ?

Then I guess bright future is in front of you, but let me wait with the shampain till really respected persons from these forums will express the support. Otie, DinoVabik, Fury, Spectre, Vito Corleone, Cullwula just to name the few. Taller,Better is probably a good sign although I haven't seenn him participating much in the supertall forums.

[Ondro]

Originally Posted by patrykus

Then I guess bright future is in front of you, but let me wait with the shampain.

Champagne. And I really want to know why you are defending CTBUH so much. I don't see any sense in it.