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

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Pretty sure that what sits atop of Renaissance Tower aren't spires. To me, they look like antennae of some sort, and are surrounded by satellite dishes... Obviously they weren't part of the initial design and I'd question their design altogether.

In 1986, James T. Chiles was brought in by the owner, The Prudential Insurance Company of America to design the broadcast center and towers on top the building, one of which was 176 ft (54 m). This brought the structural height of the building up to 886 ft (270 m), securing its place as the second-tallest building in Dallas. Excluding antennas and spires, the Renaissance Tower is the fifth-tallest

To an extent, it reminds me of what's on top of 120 Collins Street in Melbourne (which isn't included in it's height, because...... it's not a spire!)

image hosted on flickr

Top floors of 120 Collins Street by Wiki.will, on Flickr

[The tallest building]

my system is simple, buildings will have two heights. Height to the very highest tip and height to top of the highest usable floor. It really simplifies things. One height uses both spires and antennas and the other doesn't use them at all. btw thnx everyone for taking notice of this thread

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine

Pretty sure that what sits atop of Renaissance Tower aren't spires. To me, they look like antennae of some sort, and are surrounded by satellite dishes... Obviously they weren't part of the initial design and I'd question their design altogether.





To an extent, it reminds me of what's on top of 120 Collins Street in Melbourne (which isn't included in it's height, because...... it's not a spire!)

image hosted on flickr

Top floors of 120 Collins Street by Wiki.will, on Flickr

Well they count whatever is on top of it.

[CHLayson]

ambiente2008 the burj khalifa is the highest.

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine

Pretty sure that what sits atop of Renaissance Tower aren't spires. To me, they look like antennae of some sort, and are surrounded by satellite dishes... Obviously they weren't part of the initial design and I'd question their design altogether.





To an extent, it reminds me of what's on top of 120 Collins Street in Melbourne (which isn't included in it's height, because...... it's not a spire!)

image hosted on flickr

Top floors of 120 Collins Street by Wiki.will, on Flickr

The spire on Bank of America in NYC looks nearly identical, yet it is a spire, not an antenna. Just another proof that antennas and spires are indistinguishable from each other

[Dimethyltryptamine]

The only resemblance between the three would be the skeletal form. Shape, height and design is totally different. BoA's is tapered from the base up... It's certainly not the best spire, but it does not look like what sits atop 120 Collins Street or Renaissance Tower.

What's your opinion on the Condé Nast Building?

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine

The only resemblance between the three would be the skeletal form. Shape, height and design is totally different. BoA's is tapered from the base up... It's certainly not the best spire, but it does not look like what sits atop 120 Collins Street or Renaissance Tower.

What's your opinion on the Condé Nast Building?

But the CTBUH counts the renaissance tower. They added the antennae/spire over 10 years later, yet they counted it.

Here is the link http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/dall...issance-tower/

Also the BOA tower is a major cheater, its spire makes up a 1/3 of the actual buildings height.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine

The only resemblance between the three would be the skeletal form. Shape, height and design is totally different. BoA's is tapered from the base up... It's certainly not the best spire, but it does not look like what sits atop 120 Collins Street or Renaissance Tower.

What's your opinion on the Condé Nast Building?

But the CTBUH counts the renaissance tower. They added the antennae/spire over 10 years later, yet they counted it.

Here is the link http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/dall...issance-tower/

Also the BOA tower is a major cheater, its spire makes up a 1/3 of the actual buildings height.

The NYT tower is a huge cheater, it covers about 3/7 of the buildings actual height, and Hong Kong also has 5 buildings over 300m.

NYC actually only has 1 building that is over 300m. I am not sure where the spire starts on the Chrysler building, but if it isn't counted, that would mean that NYC has only one 300m building, and Houston actually has 2 300m buildings, yes... Houston is above NYC by real height... pretty crazy.

In comparison, Chicago has 5 buildings over 300m with real height

[Kanto]

NYC has 2 supertalls. ESB and 1WTC which is 404 meters tall atm

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by Kanto

NYC has 2 supertalls. ESB and 1WTC which is 404 meters tall atm

This is true! I forgot about it since it hasn't been completed. I also forgot to mention HK has 5 buildings over 300m, CHI has 5 over 300m, and Shanghai has 2 over 300m. I think Dubai has 14 300m buildings.

[MattTheTubaGuy]

Personally, I think just count everything. anyone can see that Willis tower is clearly taller than Petronas Towers, and there isn't much difference between the 'antenna' on Willis Tower, and the 'spire' on Trump Tower Chicago.
Roof height is not always clear like in BK, so, to me, the only proper height should be to the tip.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by MattTheTubaGuy

Personally, I think just count everything. anyone can see that Willis tower is clearly taller than Petronas Towers, and there isn't much difference between the 'antenna' on Willis Tower, and the 'spire' on Trump Tower Chicago.
Roof height is not always clear like in BK, so, to me, the only proper height should be to the tip.

When I make a site for this, I will include my real height measurement, and height to the tip as well. I have them as equals.

[azn_man12345]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

When I make a site for this, I will include my real height measurement, and height to the tip as well. I have them as equals.

So then which one would you use to determine the actual world's tallest building? Would there be two WTBs? Say for example Taipei 101 and Shanghai World Financial Center in 2008/9? Would they have shared the title of World's Tallest Building? Despite your criticism of it, at least the CTBUH has one clear-cut category that determines WTB, in addition to the other "auxiliary" categories.

[ChiSkyline]

Tommy Boy has a valid point.
Example:
"Let's make a 200m skyscraper with a Spire of 400m and call it a supertall!!!"
IMO roof height would seem better than height to the tip. I thinks that's the proper height for a building because I believer a Spire or Antenna has any value besides it's purpose. I think the Sears Tower is still one of the tallest by roof (3rd I think).

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by MattTheTubaGuy

Personally, I think just count everything.

But that just leads to peter-measuring contests with cities getting ridiculously tall antennas everywhere and fooling themselves into thinking they are spires. Sort of defeats the whole purpose of "supertalls". I could wear a 12 inch tophat and convince myself I am 7 feet tall, but I would only be fooling myself.

[HardBall]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

But that just leads to peter-measuring contests with cities getting ridiculously tall antennas everywhere and fooling themselves into thinking they are spires. Sort of defeats the whole purpose of "supertalls". I could wear a 12 inch tophat and convince myself I am 7 feet tall, but I would only be fooling myself.

That's exactly right; and applies all the same to spires as well. So what you are saying is that any structure that does not contribute significantly to the visual dimensions of the building should not be counted, such as the new version of the "spire" on WTC1.

If that's the case, I couldn't agree more.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by HardBall

That's exactly right; and applies all the same to spires as well. So what you are saying is that any structure that does not contribute significantly to the visual dimensions of the building should not be counted, such as the new version of the "spire" on WTC1.

If that's the case, I couldn't agree more.

Correct, that is what my system is for. With my system, a spire must cover 50% of the area under it, and have a width of 30 ft or 9 meters.

[Taller, Better]

Chrysler Building has a spire. An antennae politely wrapped is not; it can make a jolly nice flag pole, however.

[Kanto]

Just found this on CTBUH about Abby:

Figures
Height: Architectural 601.0 meter / 1972 feet
Height: Occupied 558.7 meter / 1833 feet
Height: To Tip 601.0 meter / 1972 feet
Height: Observatory 558.7 meter / 1833 feet
Floors Above Ground 120
Floors Below Ground 3
# of Elevators 96
Top Elevator Speed 6 m/s
Tower GFA 310,638 m² / 3,343,680 ft²
Development GFA 1,575,815 m² / 16,961,931 ft²
# of Hotel Rooms 858

It means that the crescent office was a myth. I will make a new diagram tomorow with this newest info. I briefly looked on the SSP diagrams and it looks like Abby would have a roof height of 562 meters, but I'll examine it in greater detail tomorrow

[Kanto]

I have finalized my roof height measurement system. The rules are as follows:

Main rules:

1, A section of a building must be at least 50% as wide at the bottom as the section below it is wide in the spot where it has the widest side, to be counted into roof height.

2, A spot on the building must be at least 9 meters or 30 feet wide to be counted into roof height

Additional rules:

1, The roof must be minimally at the level of the top of the ceiling slab of the top occupied floor even if it means counting a part of the structure which would not be counted according to the main rules.

2, If in one single section the top angle of a triangle between the 2 corners of the roof calculated by the main rules and the middle top of that section, is at least 30 °, the roof is the top of that section.

Here are diagrams of the top tallest buildings in the world built or under construction to get a better grasp of the system:





Feedback will help me to perfect this system, if needed so everybody please comment and rate what do you think about it