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 May 16th, 2012, 02:43 PM   #1
The tallest building
Registered User
 
The tallest building's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 114
Likes (Received): 5

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

Hi, after the recent rambling on in the one world trad center thread, I decidd to start this one up due to people going WAY offtopic on that one. Anyways, I was wondering if anyone thinks whether or not spires should count in to building height? I prefer antennas to be prefered over spires unless spires have antennas at the top because antennas arre a useful part of the building for broadcast purposes. So debate, should it or not?
The tallest building no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 16th, 2012, 04:29 PM   #2
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

I personally think the ceiling roof is the final height. I think like this. If I built a building that is 1,000 feet tall = 300 meters high to the roof, then I put up a spire or antenna that is 655 feet tall = 200 meters.
Now I have a skyscraper that is 500 meters tall, thats 1640 feet tall.

But I will always see the building as 1000 feet tall.
It might be nice to have a spire or antenna as a supplement rather than an observation deck atop the skyscraper, and you can count how high the building is the spire included, but the final height will be the height of the roof of any building.

I think Kanto who is a member here calls himself "roof height crusader" and I agree with him on this.

Last edited by Tommy Boy; May 16th, 2012 at 04:35 PM.
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2012, 05:45 PM   #3
deepblue01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 859
Likes (Received): 66

It really does depend how much each person values 'height'

WTC being called a 500m+ tower when it is really a 400m tower was silly in the first place. Maybe the change to an antenna would save the US some face when people realise how long the stick actually is?

I think people should be more formal when addressing 'height'. I always separate them into two main categories:

-Structural height

-Height to highest floor

If you can separate the two, then there shouldn't really be any conflicts of interest.

Spires are to accompany some towers. If we start removing the spires, then the next move will be to remove the crowns etc etc...

I don't like towers because of their height btw so all in, it doesn't affect me
deepblue01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2012, 08:40 PM   #4
The tallest building
Registered User
 
The tallest building's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 114
Likes (Received): 5

I know that there should be 2 categories.
The tallest building no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2012, 09:06 PM   #5
Kopacz
Registered User
 
Kopacz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Stalowa Wola
Posts: 1,998
Likes (Received): 1599

I think the spires can always be included in the height, but official should be only counted toward the building's elements. A roof (even slanted) or facade elements (glass extensions such as the ones on the Shard) are ok, but everything else is just a nice addition (such as the crowns on Dubai's skyscrapers).
1WTC was disappointing once I noticed that a lot of its height is "fake".
Kopacz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2012, 09:56 PM   #6
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Here is the proof that roof, top floor, and pinnacle are the only objective measurements


Look at this image below, if you go by CTBUH standards, the building in the middle with the huge white spire is 550m. If you go by Roof height it's 300m, and top floor height would put it around 300m. This image shows the flaws of CTBUH measurements.






Now if you look at my image of the Sears Tower on the left, it shows that by CTBUH measurements, this 300m building with a 250m spire would be taller then the massive Sears Tower which has a roof height of 442 meters, this proves that top floor is the best measurement. Nonetheless you still have to count the Burj Khalifa, so how should this all work out ? Well I propose they have a measurement where anything above the top floor, must be atleast 50% of the width below it to count, and must have a total width of more than 30 feet to count.

I add the second requirement, so that we don't have thin spires like those on the Petronas tower count








Last edited by iloveclassicrock7; May 16th, 2012 at 10:08 PM.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2012, 11:11 PM   #7
Tommy Boy
MEGATALLS for AMERICA
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 264
Likes (Received): 112

1WTC was disappointing once I noticed that a lot of its height is "fake".[/QUOTE]

Me too I was so disappointing that I was angry and sad.
The roof height is the most important in my eyes but you can have a spire or antenna and count that also as long as the FINAL height is the roof. Thats my opinion
Tommy Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2012, 11:58 PM   #8
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

OK, during today I was working on a height measurement system, which would enable to get a roof height even out of buildings as Burj Khalifa or Abby. As classicrock stated above, using relative width is the way to go to eliminate cheating sticks, a.k.a. spires, while leaving aspects like crowns as wide as the building itself counted, simply because they look like a part of the building, not like just a thin steel stick on the building. The system goes as it follows and I'd like to hear opinions of as many people as possible about it:

Spires and antennas aren't counted in this model

A spire/antenna (therefore a structural element that doesn't count) is determined by 2 relative numerical rules similar to the relative numerical rule that 50% of a building must be habitable in order for the building to be classified as a skyscraper.

According to these rules a spire/antenna is a structural element which has a width less than 20% of the width, which the building has at 25% of its pinnacle height, this would mark a spire/antenna limit above which there is a spire/antenna and below which there is the building itself.

Only exceptions are if:
a, There is a habitable floor in an area normaly considered a spire/antenna
b, The building continues to taper above the spire/antenna limit with angles id tapered before the spire/antenna, then a triangle is made between the two border points of the spire/antenna limit and the top of the section in which the tapering angles from below the spire/antenna limit still apply. If the top angle of this triangle is more than 30°, then that part can be still counted towards the roof

I made a picture showing this new method of mine with the roof heights written in red with red horizontal lines being roof heights, violet lines being spire/antenna limits and horizontal/vertical red lines being the lines of the triangle described above.

Feedback on this system is very welcome and would certainly help me perfect my system to hopefully one day reach a state in which it can be viewed as a viable alternative to the CTBUH official height system


[IMG]http://i47.************/2duat8m.png[/IMG]
__________________
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 May 17th, 2012, 12:09 AM   #9
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

1. Why do you count crowns?
2. Why don't you count Mokka tower completely (There are offices even in the crescent)?
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 12:33 AM   #10
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
1. Why do you count crowns?
2. Why don't you count Mokka tower completely (There are offices even in the crescent)?
I count crowns because they are big and appear as a part of the building, not just a thin steel stick on the building. In my opinion crowns and parapets should be counted, but spires and antennas should be not

As for Abby, I don't know where it has its top occupied floor. If it has occupied floors even above the roof height I have made in that picture, then the roof height should be increased based on my 1st exception law which dictates that if there is an occupied floor in a thin section that thin section is still a part of the building and counts towards roof height. Pretty much like ESB, which has a roof height of 381 meters in my opinion

Btw, you know where Abby has its top occupied floor? Plz tell me so that I can update my diagram
__________________
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 May 17th, 2012, 12:38 AM   #11
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

I said, it has offices in the crescent.

Burj spire is large and looks like a part of the building. Why don't you count it then?
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 12:41 AM   #12
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

But at which height are they in that crescent?

As to Burj Khalifa, I had to somewhere draw the line from where the 20% should be counted. Because I wanted to make even fatter spires not count, but didn't want to get into problems with possible podiums, I decided the 25% will be the ideal number
__________________
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 May 17th, 2012, 12:45 AM   #13
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Answer me this: you count crowns because they look like part of the building, why don't you count the burj spire which aslo look like a part of it?

the crescent, here you go:

[IMG]http://oi54.************/dxk65h.jpg[/IMG]
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 01:00 AM   #14
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Because the top of Burj Khalifa gets way too thin as it goes up

Btw, by crescent I thought you meant the whole spire. That pic is just kinda hard to believe, you sure it isn't a joke?
__________________
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 May 17th, 2012, 01:05 AM   #15
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
Because the top of Burj Khalifa gets way too thin as it goes up
But it is your words, you count the part of the building which look like a part of it. How can you say burj is 700m when continuous part of the building goes much higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
Btw, by crescent I thought you meant the whole spire. That pic is just kinda hard to believe, you sure it isn't a joke?
It isn't a joke, it has been posted in abraj ssc thread.
__________________
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C
PolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CComingSoon/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/CPolishTowersU/C

patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 02:51 AM   #16
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,481

Haha, that Abraj pic is so cool!
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 03:33 AM   #17
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Kanto, read this!

I like what you started there Kanto, but the Burj actually looks 828 meters tall when you look at it, compared to 1 WTC which looks like a 417m building. So here is what I propose that solves our problems, I think that we should eventually work together to make a good system, then make a website for it. I am going to college to be an architect, so it would be right up my alley...

Here is the system I propose.

Spires, antennae, and structural addition's that sit on a flat roof only count if they cover more then 50% of the roof's width. Here is an example to explain this




Now, there is one more requirement for spires/antennae's etc... It must have a width of more then 30 feet

Here is the result

RED - Actual Height

Black - Pinnacle




So here are the rules to start, it will get more complex as we combine my system and Kanto's, to figure out a good system.

Rule 1 - Spires, antennae, and structural addition's that sit on a flat roof only count if they cover more then 50% of the roof's width
Rule 2 - It must have a width of more then 30 feet



Let me know if any of my diagrams are wrong due to their being floors in a spire or any other problems.


Taipei 101 and Jin Mao Tower are a WIP

Last edited by iloveclassicrock7; May 17th, 2012 at 03:39 AM.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 03:41 AM   #18
HardBall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 178
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
Answer me this: you count crowns because they look like part of the building, why don't you count the burj spire which aslo look like a part of it?

the crescent, here you go:

[IMG]http://oi54.************/dxk65h.jpg[/IMG]
If this impression is true, then the building should definitely count upto at least half way up the crescent. It should pass muster with the 30ft width rule as well.

Although I'm still waiting for some hard confirmation that there are actually offices in the structure.
HardBall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 03:50 AM   #19
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall View Post
If this impression is true, then the building should definitely count upto at least half way up the crescent. It should pass muster with the 30ft width rule as well.

Although I'm still waiting for some hard confirmation that there are actually offices in the structure.
There are floors inside the spire, so the whole spire counts.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 04:22 AM   #20
marsh
Registered User
 
marsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 25

I'm glad someone started a thread to talk specifically about spire/antenna issues, because the One World Trade Center was becoming hijacked lol..As I've stated before, I do NOT think spires/antennas should be counted towards final height, on 99% of skyscrapers. If that flawed logic was followed, anyone could stick a big ass spire on top of a short building and claim it to be the world's tallest. Most buildings have a clear, visual, structural roof, like 1WTC, Shanghai Financial Center, etc. This is what should be measured as real height. The spires are just window dressing...The Burj Dubai is an unusual case because the top is SO spindly and the setbacks are so numerous near the roof that it is visually hard to tell where the structural part ends and where the spire would begin...In the Burj's case, I would count the spire as roof height, because the entirety of the top part is so narrow and visually hard to discern. However, in 99% of skyscrapers, there is usually a clear visual top of roof. So I will count 1WTC's height as 1368/1374 feet. Period. Want a higher building? Build higher to roof level. Simple.
marsh 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 12:10 AM.


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