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 22nd, 2012, 11:04 PM   #201
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ondro View Post
Champagne. And I really want to know why you are defending CTBUH so much. I don't see any sense in it.
For you too sir

I'm ctbuh secret agent
__________________
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

Sponsored Links
Old May 22nd, 2012, 11:18 PM   #202
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ondro View Post
Champagne. And I really want to know why you are defending CTBUH so much. I don't see any sense in it.
Quote:
And I really want to know why you are defending CTBUH so much
We all do
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 11:44 PM   #203
spectre000
Moderator
 
spectre000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 7,913
Likes (Received): 5175

Without the CTBUH there would be chaos in determining "official" building heights. Hate it or love it, the CTBUH is necessary if we want any sense and order to building heights and rankings.

No system is going to satisfy everyone. Kudos at least to the Council for shouldering the burden.
spectre000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2012, 02:02 AM   #204
HardBall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 179
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
"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"...

...except for this two...



and these...



and these...


These are as you say, by the revised set of rules, slightly unfair in terms of construction cost/time as related to the official height of the building. No one actually claimed that the new rules would make it perfectly fair regardless of design with respect to these metrics. The only way to perfectly correlate these metrics with the official height, is to make the official height directly dependent on the region normalized cost of building similar towers.

With respect to the visual impact on the skyline, they are all very similar. If you are talking about visuals, the objection you raised thus are fairly arbitrary, and are highly debatable WRT these specific examples. So while possibly slightly unfair, this type of discrepancy does not rise anywhere close to the level of putting a 100M thin stick to raise the height of the building.

Quote:
and these...


This is simply a reg herring.

That superstructure on top of the roof is not structurally stable over time. Without any diagonal bracing or other forms of support, the beams on these large frames will begin to buckle over months, let alone years, even if the beams were made of titanium alloy. If you add in other factors such as wind load, this is a disaster waiting to happen, no structural engineer is going to approve anything close to this project.

Quote:
and these...



You really can't see it?
This one is an odd ball. But this particular example, at least by my interpretation of the revised rules, would judge Abby to be shorter, just by a smidge. Since visual width of the crescent, when measured along a horizontal line, should only be > 9m near the bottom of the crescent. The two arms of the crescent don't seem to have the width to constitute 9m total, it seems. Anyways, I said that I would favor a wider requirement of 15m anyways; in which case the crescent arms definitely don't qualify.

Maybe you have some odd definition of visual width. Maybe you counted the air space between the two arms of the crescent as well, which should not have been counted. The system should work such that, if a building has two spires 50M apart, each with diameter of 2m, the total visual width is 4m, not 54m.

Quote:
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
Nice straw man here.

The two buildings with large crowns on top do in fact contribute to its visual height substantially, which was the main goal of the revision to begin with. The goal was to measure official height closer to its visual impact at height, than the current pinnacle rule. The thin wires that you added on top of ST would not qualify anyways, since there is no point at which on this additional curved pair of beams, that the horizontal width would be > 9m, period.
HardBall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2012, 02:16 AM   #205
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre000 View Post
Without the CTBUH there would be chaos in determining "official" building heights. Hate it or love it, the CTBUH is necessary if we want any sense and order to building heights and rankings.

No system is going to satisfy everyone. Kudos at least to the Council for shouldering the burden.
That is an interesting perspective, but I am looking for a better solution, and I think I am close to finding it.

Here is the CTBUH measurement, notice how small the wtc looks next to towers which are supposedly smaller. Looks pretty unfair to me.










Now, here is my measurement, which ranks everything according to my system and its requirements, notice how real visual height triumphs.




The Abraj's crescent spire counts because there is habitable space in it.

Last edited by iloveclassicrock7; May 23rd, 2012 at 02:22 AM.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2012, 02:22 AM   #206
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Also I would like to point out something interesting that disproves the CTBUH's spire theory - Dallas Renaissance Tower
Quote:
24th-tallest building in the United States, 68th-tallest in the world. Originally constructed at a height of 710 feet (216 m); rooftop spires were added in 1987, increasing the building's structural height to 886 feet (270 m). When measuring to roof height, the building stands as the 5th-tallest in the city.[2][8]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ings_in_Dallas





_
_


So apparently spires can be added and removed even 13 years after a buildings completion....
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 10:55 PM   #207
fish
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

I am not a fan of spires that cheat their way to height.

The Petronas Towers for example, are shorter than the Sears (Willis) Tower, but the spires gave it the lead.

Petronas Tower Willis (Sears) Tower
  Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 11:41 PM   #208
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish View Post
I am not a fan of spires that cheat their way to height.

The Petronas Towers for example, are shorter than the Sears (Willis) Tower, but the spires gave it the lead.

Petronas Tower Willis (Sears) Tower
Then this system is for you. My system only counts a spire if its base is more then 30 feet wide/9m, and covers 50% of the area under it. That way, it will only count buildings with real visual height.
__________________
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.- George Orwell
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2012, 04:37 AM   #209
fish
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

I just want to add that spires work for certain buildings, such as the Chrysler and ESB for obvious reasons (the roof tapers to the spire in a seamless manner in which the spires become the tower).

For record keeping, this is trivial because there is roof height and actual height.

This shouldn't take much thought, really!
  Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2012, 12:15 AM   #210
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,643
Likes (Received): 53485


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=524747&page=6
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2012, 06:51 AM   #211
fish
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
There was no need for a spire on top of the New York Times Tower.
It does not enhance anything.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2012, 07:03 AM   #212
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish View Post
There was no need for a spire on top of the New York Times Tower.
It does not enhance anything.
I think that is what he is saying, it is a completely useless spire, if anything it makes the building look worse.
__________________
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.- George Orwell
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2012, 07:09 AM   #213
fish
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Likes (Received):

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
I think that is what he is saying, it is a completely useless spire, if anything it makes the building look worse.
What is says to me is, "No Heliport Landing".
  Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2012, 09:07 PM   #214
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,590

I like the NYTimes tower spire. It makes the building look more...business-y? It just looks more formal with the spire and more NY style. It reminds me of the First Canadian Place in Toronto (which is an absolute beauty, imo)
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2012, 11:31 PM   #215
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
I like the NYTimes tower spire. It makes the building look more...business-y? It just looks more formal with the spire and more NY style. It reminds me of the First Canadian Place in Toronto (which is an absolute beauty, imo)
It still shouldn't count for the official height though.
__________________
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.- George Orwell
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2012, 12:54 AM   #216
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,590

Never said it should.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2012, 01:03 AM   #217
CF221
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 1,770
Likes (Received): 811

I like that spire as well...
__________________
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CF221 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2012, 01:53 AM   #218
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,392
Likes (Received): 8365

i'm late for the party i know, but i tried to read quite a bit of what is going on here, started on the first page and read not all posts but got the general jist.

What i have to say is the following, i think the system we have right now is the best for now. I explain why:

1. height to tip: The height to the highest point of the structure no matter how thin it is is something understandable for everyone and if you walk with friends on the street and they ask you how tall the building is you will most likely reply "up to the highest point, that mast up there its XXXm", it would just be too complicated to explain your friends the whole system or what not.

2. architectural height (spires counted, antenna's not): this is something which is important i think, because if you count antennas you also have to accept that buildings can become the tallest building in a city or on the world years after they have been built and i just refuse to accept people saying, hey look at that church it is the tallest building although it was build hundred years before these other buildings, when in fact the church only burnt down and another top was put onto (i know that in churches it is normally noted when something changed and stuff, but i think it was a fitting analogy for some older skyscrapers as well.)

3. roof height / highest floor. A measurement like this is also important, just because the visual effect of a building can be much different when it doesn't end with a spire. And so there should also be several "tallest buildings". Tallest building by roof height, tallest building by architectural design etc etc. I mean we also have tallest structure, tallest free standing tower etc, so why not making differences in skyscrapers as well.

I see that this system also have flaws, the nanjing building compared to sears tower makes it clear that although sears tower looks more massive and taller it is counted as a smaller building and that is why i think we should use the architectural (official) height, but always have the other numbers in our mind too, so that we know that some buildings have a taller tip height or a far smaller roof height.

last but not least i hope this doesn't end in a flame war here and we all can calm down a bit. i really like to see what kanto comes up with as a system, although i think it needs a lot of improvements i like to see what he changes and how he handles the thing. I mean after all we all are just skyscraper lovers and it would be stupid to hate on each other like that
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2012, 03:50 AM   #219
deepblue01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 859
Likes (Received): 66

Thing is, if the spires are an non-removable, then its fair to say that its part of the tower?

Yes it may be cheating but normal people (ie non skyscraper fans) don't really care what the true height of towers are, unless its the tallest one. Most people just look at the tower, say wow when they know the height and take photos with them and thats it. If its recently completed, like many in China, most would just look at it as being part of the skyline and move on.

We all have our favorite towers and thats something we can't deny. Some of us is also nationalistic and would do anything to put down other nations (in the form of excuses), we can't deny that either.

Most importantly, its the tower design which i believe that is the most important part of towers, not so much the height. There are so many 200-300m towers which completely out do these supertalls but are not taken note of because of its (lack of) height
deepblue01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2012, 04:21 AM   #220
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
i'm late for the party i know, but i tried to read quite a bit of what is going on here, started on the first page and read not all posts but got the general jist.

What i have to say is the following, i think the system we have right now is the best for now. I explain why:

1. height to tip: The height to the highest point of the structure no matter how thin it is is something understandable for everyone and if you walk with friends on the street and they ask you how tall the building is you will most likely reply "up to the highest point, that mast up there its XXXm", it would just be too complicated to explain your friends the whole system or what not.

2. architectural height (spires counted, antenna's not): this is something which is important i think, because if you count antennas you also have to accept that buildings can become the tallest building in a city or on the world years after they have been built and i just refuse to accept people saying, hey look at that church it is the tallest building although it was build hundred years before these other buildings, when in fact the church only burnt down and another top was put onto (i know that in churches it is normally noted when something changed and stuff, but i think it was a fitting analogy for some older skyscrapers as well.)

3. roof height / highest floor. A measurement like this is also important, just because the visual effect of a building can be much different when it doesn't end with a spire. And so there should also be several "tallest buildings". Tallest building by roof height, tallest building by architectural design etc etc. I mean we also have tallest structure, tallest free standing tower etc, so why not making differences in skyscrapers as well.

I see that this system also have flaws, the nanjing building compared to sears tower makes it clear that although sears tower looks more massive and taller it is counted as a smaller building and that is why i think we should use the architectural (official) height, but always have the other numbers in our mind too, so that we know that some buildings have a taller tip height or a far smaller roof height.

last but not least i hope this doesn't end in a flame war here and we all can calm down a bit. i really like to see what kanto comes up with as a system, although i think it needs a lot of improvements i like to see what he changes and how he handles the thing. I mean after all we all are just skyscraper lovers and it would be stupid to hate on each other like that

Quote:
because if you count antennas you also have to accept that buildings can become the tallest building in a city or on the world years after they have been built
I can disprove this, with this building:

Dallas Renaissance Tower - 24th-tallest building in the United States, 68th-tallest in the world. Originally constructed at a height of 710 feet (216 m); rooftop spires were added in 1987, increasing the building's structural height to 886 feet (270 m). When measuring to roof height, the building stands as the 5th-tallest in the city.

Quote:
i really like to see what kanto comes up with as a system, although i think it needs a lot of improvements i like to see what he changes and how he handles the thing
I actually am working on a system myself, me and Kanto's systems actually incorporate each others ideas, mine is more based in hitting the correct visual height, while his is based on pure statistics and facts.

My system requires a spire to cover 50% of the area under it, and the spire must have a width of 30 ft/9 meters.

Here are the results of my system

__________________
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.- George Orwell
iloveclassicrock7 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 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

tech management by Sysprosium