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

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by marsh

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.

What do you think of my new measurement idea ? It's 3 posts up

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

There are floors inside the spire, so the whole spire counts.

Conclusion: by your "systems", whatever it is, building may differ even by 100m or more in height depending only on the fact where they put desk with a pc and some couches

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by patrykus

Conclusion: by your "systems", whatever it is, building may differ even by 100m or more in height depending only on the fact where they put desk with a pc and some couches

And that is how it should be for an occupied floor needs a roof on its top

As to the second proposed system by classicrock, I like it. I will post a complete evaluation of both systems later today cause in 10 mins we start playing against Canada and so I have to go now to the TV

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by Kanto

And that is how it should be for an occupied floor needs a roof on its top

Wrong. The crescent would be closed no matter if there were rooms inside or not. The burj khalifa is closed by the "roof" on it's very top and you still don't count it. Now if there was some kind of room inside the spire, or observation deck on the very top for extra pay then you would count it. Now is that make any sense?

[Kanto]

If there would be an occupied floor, then it should be counted, if not, it shouldn't be counted. The definition of a building is that it is a habitable structure, therefore the top occupied floor is always below the roof

[patrykus]

So basically all you care about are imaginary numbers, since the difference is simply only this - desk, and maybe painted walls. The building is exactly the same.

[Kanto]

I think you misunderstood what a real number is and what not. A real number is a number which treats all buildings equally - roof height and pinnacle height. On the other hand an imaginary number is a number which doesn't treat all buildings equally and discriminates some buildings without reason - official height.

Also, as I said above, the definition of a building is that it is habitable therefore a desk is no minor thing, in fact it's the exact opposite, it is what defines a building it's what makes a section part of the building. That's something a thin steel stick can't do

[patrykus]

Wait? Are you really suggesting that the furniture defines buildings height? So if in future they'll remove offices in the abraj crescent it's height all of the sudden shrink by 100 meters? Do you really believing in what you're saying?

[Kanto]

D'oh, not furniture, what matters is whether there is an occupied floor there

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by Kanto

a desk is no minor thing, in fact it's the exact opposite, it is what defines a building it's what makes a section part of the building. That's something a thin steel stick can't do

You are just changing your statement from post to post, but you obviously loosing it badly.

And guess what presence of people doesn't make building anything different, more precisely doesn't make it's height anything different. Period.

[Kanto]

Oh, I get it, if disagreeing on a matter fails, attack the people opposing you

And let me tell you that everything I have written here is 100% consistent. With that desk I didn't mean furniture, I meant occupation of the floor. When you started to take it too literaly, I corrected you and told you what the meaning behind that "desk" was. When Neil Armstrong talked about a big step for humanity he didn't mean that the entire planet will fly to the moon to make a step there and fly back. Just as when in war somebody says that he wants to raise his flag in the enemy capital it doesn't mean that all he wants is to place a flag there

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by Kanto

With that desk I didn't mean furniture, I meant occupation of the floor. When you started to take it too literaly, I corrected you and told you what the meaning behind that "desk" was.

Have you read all of my last post?

I may be rough but I have something to stubborn people. And it's you who doesn't present any reasonable arguments in your last posts.

[Kanto]

I reacted only to the first part of your statement, because I already answered the second part about how important occupation is to a building's classification. CTBUH recognizes this truth as well. They have a rule that a building is only categorized as a skyscraper if at least 50% of it is inhabited, so both for them and for me presence of people in a building do have a meaning

Btw, I appear stubborn to you, you appear stubborn to me and I bet we both appear stubborn to people who don't care about height of buildings. Stubbornness is a very relative term in both application and meaning, a double-bladed sword, one could say

[singoone]

I think that your system guys is just more confusing than CTBUH.
Percentage figures and width of spire are bigger nonsence than counting spires, even if it´s not fair sometimes....
Just look at Taipei 101 for example, it clearly looks 450m tall than 400m like you stated in the diagram on the previous page. No matter where the roof or last occupied floor is. Or Shanghai tower - You would count the crown even if the roof and last occupied floor is dozens of metres below. I know crown looks more like part of the building than spire but it´s kind of cheating too, you know what i mean.
And the last type - ESB or Abraj al Bait spire(crescent) - one floor at the top of the "stick", I wonder how many proposed buildings would do that to increase the hight, just like they´re doing it with spires nowadays....

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by Kanto

I reacted only to the first part of your statement, because I already answered the second part about how important occupation is to a building's classification. CTBUH recognizes this truth as well. They have a rule that a building is only categorized as a skyscraper if at least 50% of it is inhabited, so both for them and for me presence of people in a building do have a meaning

Btw, I appear stubborn to you, you appear stubborn to me and I bet we both appear stubborn to people who don't care about height of buildings. Stubbornness is a very relative term in both application and meaning, a double-bladed sword, one could say

Answer yourself this: Do we measure a Building (upper letter intended) or a highest people located in the building?

Say we have two identical (out and inside) mekka towers. One has offices in the crescent and one has them only below the clock. Would you really try to convince anybody that one is 200m shorter than the other?

Say we have boxy tower just 50% filled. Upper part empty. Is it half of its height now?

Originally Posted by singoone

I think that your system guys is just more confusing than CTBUH.
Percentage figures and width of spire are bigger nonsence than counting spires, even if it´s not fair sometimes....
Just look at Taipei 101 for example, it clearly looks 450m tall than 400m like you stated in the diagram on the previous page. No matter where the roof or last occupied floor is. Or Shanghai tower - You would count the crown even if the roof and last occupied floor is dozens of metres below. I know crown looks more like part of the building than spire but it´s kind of cheating too, you know what i mean.
And the last type - ESB or Abraj al Bait spire(crescent) - one floor at the top of the "stick", I wonder how many proposed buildings would do that to increase the hight, just like they´re doing it with spires nowadays....

Exactly. The bottom line is that every complicated measuring system will eventually fail with some buildings because it has been crafted based on a particular building in mind. The CTBUH method is unquestionable and clear. You know there is nothing above the height mentioned. With your systems you never know that and you don't know if there is something how tall is it.

[HK999]

Ex.1:
Petronas Towers: antenna counts
Willis Towers: antenna doesn't count

Ex.2:
Trump Tower Hotel Chicago: antenna counts
ESB: antenna doesn't count

Ex.3:
BofA NY: antenna counts
Conde Nast Buidling NY: antenna doesn't count

Ex.4:
New York Times Tower: antenna counts
JHC Chicago: antenna doesn't count


Other buildings where antennae count:
Shimao International Plaza Shanghai
Franklin Center Chicago
Taipei 101
...

I say it's pretty clear that there's no real distinction between a spire and an antenna. Either we count all antennae on every single building or we don't.

[patrykus]

There is distinction. You will always know which is antenna and which isn't because they (antennas) always look the same. It's not so easy with spire. They may be thick, super large, or be a continues part of a building (like on the burj). Most Importantly they aren't just an equipment and are always included in the design not added later. Would you consider not counting burj spire to its height?

[HK999]

I admit that BK is a difficult case, I think Fury mentioned that the actual roof is 700m something.

The distinction between a spire and antenna is often minimal, that's why I'm all for both categories becoming equals. I don't have a problem with spires / antennae per se, I just think that many buildings are not treated equally.

F.e. Trump Tower and Hotel' spire is so thin and hardly visible from afar, yet it is classified as a spire, and therefore counts. There are two buildings in the U.S. which are clearly taller than Trump (360m roof): ESB (381m roof) and 1WTC (419m roof), yet they are ranked as 3rd and 4th tallest, respectively. Pretty unfair if you ask me.

[patrykus]

I agree for consistency antennas could be eventually counted. But this rise the questions. If it hasn't been in the design and has been added later is it really part of the building?

I think maybe somewhere in the future CTBUH will count antennas as well but the system as it is now is definitively better than not counting spires at all.

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by patrykus

Answer yourself this: Do we measure a Building (upper letter intended) or a highest people located in the building?

Say we have two identical (out and inside) mekka towers. One has offices in the crescent and one has them only below the clock. Would you really try to convince anybody that one is 200m shorter than the other?

Say we have boxy tower just 50% filled. Upper part empty. Is it half of its height now?



Exactly. The bottom line is that every complicated measuring system will eventually fail with some buildings because it has been crafted based on a particular building in mind. The CTBUH method is unquestionable and clear. You know there is nothing above the height mentioned. With your systems you never know that and you don't know if there is something how tall is it.

Wrong, you can't know physical height of a building from the official height because there might be an antenna above it. Then again, there might be not and that is what makes it confusing and dealing with imaginary numbers. With roof height and pinnacle height you're dealing with real numbers

And this is why both me and classicrock want to incorporate pinnacle height too. For me Abby with offices in its crescent is taller than Abby with offices only below its spire in roof height, but equally tall in pinnacle height. We never claimed roof height could determine pinnacle height, we say that both roof height and pinnacle height should be measured because 1 height measurement method just isn't enough, you can't incorporate all data about a building into one height measurement, otherwise you get a completely unequal system like CTBUH official height

As a matter of fact, officialy I wouldn't call them roof height and pinnacle height. I personally would call roof height building height and pinnacle height structural height

Btw, a box filled with half of its height floors and another half a boxy crown, the crown would be counted towards height because it would be too wide to be considered a spire

HK999, said it right, there is no distinction between an antenna and a spire. It is impossible to look at a thin steel stick and tell if it's an antenna or a spire. Later today I will present my newest idea which is kinda a fusion between my first idea and classicrock's idea. No measurement method is perfect, every measurement method fails at a certain point in its history, but I never said we want to design a perfect method, we only want to design a superior method compared to that of the CTBUH, which in my opinion has already failed

Btw, to patrykus' last question. Neither a spire, nor an antenna are a part of a building, but both of them are a part of a structure