daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers General news, discussion and announcement forum about skyscrapers, including the Skyscraper Living forum



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 7th, 2011, 01:22 AM   #1
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

Is Super Tall still Super?

As we all know, the number of "supertall" skyscrapers (300m/1000ft) going up in the world is rapidly increasing. China alone has something like 250 supertall proposals, constructions, and skyscrapers already complete (judging from the "Chinese Supertall Construction and Projects" thread. Towers of 400m+ are becoming everywhere, and there is even a tower taller then 1000m about to go up.

My question is, is supertall still a good indicator of skyscraper height? Should the definition of supertall, and maybe even highrise and midrise be changed? What do you guys think?


Personally, I think keep everything as it is, but make a new category, "Megatall" for constructions of 500m of higher. I don't believe "Gigatall", "Hypertall" or any of those other categories for 600m/1000m+ are needed yet because there are nowhere near enough of those to justify a new category.

Opinions? Go right ahead.
__________________

tuanntqm liked this post
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 7th, 2011, 02:22 AM   #2
Turbosnail
Registered User
 
Turbosnail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,993
Likes (Received): 266

I think as we get more and more high buildings and supertalls, the importance of height is devalued as a feature that makes a building stand out or more important. Adding height does not necessarily add curiosity to a building any longer. For me, and this is my personal opinion, the lines of a building, how it fits into it's environment and sustainability are more interesting characteristics to look at and read about than simply how high. To me height has almost become the eye rollingly predictable trait of the attention seekers in urban design, making up for other shortfalls of the developer, the city, dare I say, the country. Little man sydrome. Something like that.
Turbosnail no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2011, 01:54 PM   #3
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I don't think we need any more cathegories. What we need is to increase the height limit for the existing cathegories. 3000 years ago the pyramids at Giza were supertalls and I bet many thought about a new cathegory for them (like megatalls). Now they are mere highrises. As time passes and technology evolves what was once incredibly tall becomes normal and the title supertall doesn't belong to something normal in my opinion. In my opinion this is how the new limits should be:

Highrise: 150 meter - 250 meter
Skyscraper: 250 meters - 400 meters
Supertall: 400 meters and more
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2011, 02:36 PM   #4
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Keep it the same, just add more categories

100-200 meters - highrise
200-300 meters - skyscraper
300-350 meters - large skyscraper
350-500 meters - supertall
500+ meters - megatall

I have a feeling China will go broke building 250 supertalls (if they all get built) look what happened to Dubai! 3 massive supertalls, (Burj Al alam, Pentimonium and the Doha tower) in the middle east are all on hold or in danger of being cancelled

To me Sears and the WTC will never stop being supertalls.
__________________

A Chicagoan liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2011, 09:50 PM   #5
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

It depends how you look at it. In some countries do you have enough skyscrapers and supertalls, but in other countries they are pleased with one highrise.
I think it must remain like this ( at least for the time being ) because the supertall-boom stops within 3 years due the lack of money.
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2011, 07:16 AM   #6
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,904
Likes (Received): 5170

CTBUH just published an article about this topic.

The Tallest 20 in 2020: Entering the Era of the Megatall
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2011, 07:50 AM   #7
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

^That article is also assuming that all of those buildings will be built, a few of them are in danger of being cancelled.

But to be fair, 1WTC nor T101 have a roofheight high enough to be in the top 20. But who knows, maybe Chicago will devise a supertall proposal sometime in the next decade.

I do fear though, that the USA will never have a building higher than 1WTC or Sears ever again, but I hope I'm very wrong.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2011, 11:35 PM   #8
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

Well maybe not any time in the next decade or so. But eventually, something taller will be built

And the article from CTBUH was a very good and interesting read. Thank you for posting it

Kanto. The Pyramids were never considered "megatalls". Ever. Please quit saying that. Just because they were once the tallest structures in the world doesn't mean people ever called them "megatalls".

Last edited by azn_man12345; December 9th, 2011 at 04:42 AM.
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2011, 01:32 PM   #9
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Of course they were considered megatalls. They were far taller than anything ever built before and for millenia after and if that isn't a megatall then nothing's a megatall
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2011, 11:51 PM   #10
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

Then nothing's a megatall. Just because it's the tallest structure doesn't mean it's a megatall. The pyramids aren't comparable to skyscrapers. They're more comparable to other smaller monuments.
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2011, 11:56 PM   #11
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Just because it is only a highrise for us now doesn't mean it was just a highrise to them. A megatall is a sovereignly tallest building in the world and that fits perfectly to the pyramids at Giza. Trust me, in, let's say the 24th century Burj Khalifa will probably be considered a lowrise
__________________
The Outbreak: A free browser online strategy game. Build up your town and compete with other towns economicaly and militarily.
http://www.the-outbreak.com/
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 04:48 PM   #12
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,330
Likes (Received): 15809

We've been calling 300 meters and up supertalls actually for a while now, mostly because 300 meters equals roughly 1,000 feet, so you have two round numbers the world can work with. Now that 600 meter (2,000 feet) tall proposals start to appear, megatalls is being used for that threshold.

Other then that it doesn't make a lot of sense to put height thresholds to words like tall building, high-rise and skyscraper as tall building and high-rise really are generic descriptions, while a skyscraper is more about appearance and context than it is about height.
Jan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 08:07 PM   #13
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

^I agree with that. The tallest building in my city is a mere 325ft/99m, but it's still allowed to be called a skyscraper because it dominates my city's skyline. Putting the threshold on shorter buildings isn't a good idea.
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 09:02 PM   #14
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15
Likes (Received): 0

Supertall will always be 300m. We need a new category above it.

400m for hypertall?

500m for hypertall?

Changing the existing categories is foolish
jigglysquishy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 11:06 PM   #15
azn_man12345
Registered User
 
azn_man12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 1,197
Likes (Received): 114

^Exactly. But 600m is now the limit for "Megatall" according to CTBUH, so it's almost as if this discussion is pointless :'(
azn_man12345 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 11:17 PM   #16
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,330
Likes (Received): 15809

No one ever changed the categories, if they ever existed. The word supertalls has been around for quite a while when discussing buildings over 300 meters / 1,000 feet, and now that another numerical threshold is in sight, megatalls sounds like a logical next step. Gigatalls will probably be used for the 1 kilometer threshold.
Jan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2011, 11:17 PM   #17
steveve
Registered User
 
steveve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 335
Likes (Received): 157

What i think is appropriate.

Highrise: 149m and below
Skyscraper: 150 - 299m
Supertall: 300 - 449m
Super-Supertall: 450 - 599m
Megatall: 600m +
__________________
Flickr
steveve no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 02:31 AM   #18
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,424
Likes (Received): 10267

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveve View Post
What i think is appropriate.

Highrise: 149m and below
Skyscraper: 150 - 299m
Supertall: 300 - 449m
Super-Supertall: 450 - 599m
Megatall: 600m +
Megatall: 600m-749m
Hypertall: 750m-899m
Jumbotall: 900-999m
Gigatall: 1000-1499m
Humongotall: 1500m-1649m
Colossotall: 1650-1799m
Whoppertall: 1800m-1999m
Heavenscraper: 2000m+
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)

DarkLite, Xenoplas, Ibath liked this post
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 09:08 PM   #19
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8231

CTBUH officially using the word megatall for 600m+, time for the forum to join?

this is a post i created before seeing this thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CTBUH.org
Within this decade we will likely witness not only the world’s first kilometer-tall building, but also the completion of a significant number of buildings over 600 meters (around 2,000 feet) – that’s twice the height of the Eiffel Tower. Two years ago, prior to the completion of the Burj Khalifa, this building type did not exist. And yet, by 2020, we can expect at least eight such buildings to exist internationally. The term “supertall” (which refers to a building over 300 meters) is thus no longer adequate to describe these buildings: we are entering the era of the “megatall.” This term is now officially being used by the Council to describe buildings over 600 meters in height, or double the height of a supertall (see Figure 1).
source: http://ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/Heigh...S/Default.aspx

CTBUH.org is one of our best sources for information and with them adding a new category and adding it for a good reason, it may be a good idea to start a new subforum for these buildings in our world development forums too. i know this has been discussed before and the reason we never had it was because it would be pointless to just create a new word, but now with an official source drawing the line on that mark, we magatall-enthusiasts may be up to something =D. this topic is to provoke a bit and see reactions from all you guys, would it be a good idea? would you like or dislike this change?
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2011, 09:41 PM   #20
HK999
University of HK / 香港大學
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hong Kong SAR / 香港特區
Posts: 3,389
Likes (Received): 336

Ok, I'll post my opinion from the other thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...9#post86545499

Well I think that 600m is still too tall for a new category. There are far too few towers which fall under that category.
For now, there are only 2(!) 600m+ towers U/C: Shanghai Tower and Ping An FC. Burj is completed and Makkah Clock Tower is T/O.

I guess 500m+ would fit better.

KillerZavatar' response:
Quote:
but there are quite some buildings proposed and vision. and i think with time it will only get more. true that the new subforum would be very small at the beginning though
My response:
I agree on the first statement, although we can't know for sure what will happen to these proposals / visions in these uncertain economic times.

Quote:
true that the new subforum would be very small at the beginning though
Exactly. That's why I would recommend to add the 500m+ towers (6 U/C) at the first step.
__________________
Sapientia et Virtus 明德格物
Industrial Organization, MSc
HK999 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu