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 20th, 2012, 01:30 AM   #101
HardBall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 178
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
Here is how it would work. Also, based off of my rules, the Pingan tower would probably get the full height, and maybe the Chrysler building.

I hope you are not serious;

Your system basically produces same or very similar result to those based on very simplistic rules of CTBUH. And yet your system is vastly more complicated. So what is the advantage of your system here????

It seems that what you have proposed here is entirely a waste of time. We would be much better off just going back to measuring my pinnacle height, without all these minutiae, and pages of pages of mind-numbing debate over them.
HardBall no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 20th, 2012, 01:30 AM   #102
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
So you would rename architectural height to "real" and add "statistical" as architectural? That wouldn't change the rankings, and just add additional vague value of statistical height (which I don't actually get how would be calculated) so I think it wouldn't be worth the trouble to incorporate. Besides you know, notions are self explaining so I don't think you could actually name statistical height as architectural. You would have to convince people to actually use "statistical height" which I just can't imagine. But hey it's always some idea
Everything starts with an idea. Sometimes the key to success is taking something that works and making it better. We have only begun to work on our ranking system, give it time.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 01:35 AM   #103
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
I hope you are not serious;

Your system basically produces same or very similar result to those based on very simplistic rules of CTBUH. And yet your system is vastly more complicated. So what is the advantage of your system here????

It seems that what you have proposed here is entirely a waste of time. We would be much better off just going back to measuring my pinnacle height, without all these minutiae, and pages of pages of mind-numbing debate over them.
You must not have understood what I was doing. I didn't order them in the correct order, I just drew black lines to show where the building ends, it actually gets completely different results.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 01:44 AM   #104
HardBall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 178
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
You must not have understood what I was doing. I didn't order them in the correct order, I just drew black lines to show where the building ends, it actually gets completely different results.
Oh sorry; I guess I assumed that you reordered the buildings according to your system.

I see what you are doing now.

Most of the heights according to your system look pretty good. There are three that stand out which seem to be wrong in terms of the actual visual impact of them on the skylines:
  1. Ping'An IFC
  2. Pusan Lotte
  3. Taipai 101
HardBall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 01:51 AM   #105
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
Everything starts with an idea. Sometimes the key to success is taking something that works and making it better. We have only begun to work on our ranking system, give it time.
Well good luck then, I for one think guys at ctbuh will never accept statistical height to measure buildings, especially because it would additional type of measure, but you can always try
__________________
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 20th, 2012, 02:24 AM   #106
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Here is the reordered list with the real height measurement we are creating






Here is the CTBUH ranking system







Quote:
Most of the heights according to your system look pretty good. There are three that stand out which seem to be wrong in terms of the actual visual impact of them on the skylines:
Ping'An IFC
Pusan Lotte
Taipai 101
Those were errors on my part
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:13 AM   #107
Dimethyltryptamine
Registered User
 
Dimethyltryptamine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12,880
Likes (Received): 6445

I'm all for the inclusion of spires in overall height of a building. While most aren't necessarily accessible, a well designed spire looks great on a building. More spires should be used all over the world! I couldn't tell you how bored I would get if my city skyline were just boxes like some cities. Anything else shouldn't count.
Dimethyltryptamine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:26 AM   #108
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,986
Likes (Received): 12204

The building on the left, Q1, IS considered a "Supertall". The building on the right, First Canadian Place (built in Toronto in 1975) is NOT a supertall. Why? Because FCP is 2 metres short of the arbitrary 300 metre designation, and the other antennae is euphemistically called a "spire"! As you can see, the last usable floor on Q1 is not particularly high up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waldenbg View Post

And, the CN Tower, at 553 metres is NOT a Supertall, yet other towers with spires ARE.


I rest my case that thinly veiled antennae (aka Spires) should NOT be counted in the height of the building for that purpose.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:34 AM   #109
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine View Post
I'm all for the inclusion of spires in overall height of a building. While most aren't necessarily accessible, a well designed spire looks great on a building. More spires should be used all over the world! I couldn't tell you how bored I would get if my city skyline were just boxes like some cities. Anything else shouldn't count.
Ok, just tell me which one of these buildings you think is taller

iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:38 AM   #110
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taller, Better View Post
The building on the left, Q1, IS considered a "Supertall". The building on the right, First Canadian Place (built in Toronto in 1975) is NOT a supertall. Why? Because FCP is 2 metres short of the arbitrary 300 metre designation, and the other antennae is euphemistically called a "spire"! As you can see, the last usable floor on Q1 is not particularly high up.



And, the CN Tower, at 553 metres is NOT a Supertall, yet other towers with spires ARE.


I rest my case that thinly veiled antennae (aka Spires) should NOT be counted in the height of the building for that purpose.
Exactly.


Tell me if you like my ranking system


Here is my "Real Height" system, it ranks these buildings in the fair order




_
_
_
_
_


Here is how the CTBUH ranks them

iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:43 AM   #111
Dimethyltryptamine
Registered User
 
Dimethyltryptamine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12,880
Likes (Received): 6445

I'll tell you, right after you tell me who the **** would construct either of them....

Honestly though, no one is going to put a 200m spire on a 30m building.... Q1 is 275m to crown, and 323m to tip of spire. A 50m spire at 275m isn't a huge deal, and in the case of Q1 helps keep the building aesthetically pleasing.

As for FCP... the antennas on top look like shit (duh) and clearly shouldn't be counted toward the height of the building (duh). It's obvious they weren't designed with the overall aesthetics of the building in mind and were just tacked on (though they no doubt serve a purpose).

Q1 was also built 30 years after FCP... One is residential, one is commercial... It's really apples v. oranges, but I'm happy to play.

I don't know why you fellas get the bottom of the barrel when it comes to spired buildings though - maybe we can donate you a couple!
Dimethyltryptamine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:44 AM   #112
Dimethyltryptamine
Registered User
 
Dimethyltryptamine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12,880
Likes (Received): 6445

btw, please post those stupid diagrams a few more times. haven't seen them enough.
Dimethyltryptamine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:47 AM   #113
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,986
Likes (Received): 12204

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine View Post
Honestly though, no one is going to put a 200m spire on a 30m building.... Q1 is 275m to crown
"Crown", of course, meaning the hat/scoop on top. Look at the height of the highest usable floor on Q1(which looks at about 240 metres) and tell me honestly if you think it should be a "supertall".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine View Post
btw, please post those stupid diagrams a few more times. haven't seen them enough.

Why are they "stupid"? Someone has gone to a lot of work to prepare them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine View Post

I don't know why you fellas get the bottom of the barrel when it comes to spired buildings though - maybe we can donate you a couple!
Uhmm... no thanks. I don't consider enclosed antennae to be spires, especially when they are gratuitously glued on simply to become an instant "supertall"!
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:55 AM   #114
Dimethyltryptamine
Registered User
 
Dimethyltryptamine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12,880
Likes (Received): 6445

I do, yes. I see Q1 every single day, and it's an enormous building. While the highest occupiable floor isn't over 300m, it's still a supertall tower and was the worlds tallest residential building for over 5 years.

Hopefully Sunland do end up building their supposed 500m so all duh jelly peepz can't bitch about Q1 any more.
Dimethyltryptamine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 06:58 AM   #115
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,986
Likes (Received): 12204

The highest occupied floor isn't even close to 300 metres. It looks more like 240. That is not really and truly an enormous tower in 2012, is it?
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 07:08 AM   #116
Dimethyltryptamine
Registered User
 
Dimethyltryptamine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12,880
Likes (Received): 6445

Yeah, it's around 240m... In a city of 600,000 people.... surrounded by 100m buildings taking up an entire city block.... it's pretty enormous.

If it were built in Canada, it would have the most floors of any building, it would be the tallest residential tower (with/without spire)... so yes, even for 2012, in Australia, it's still a pretty enormous tower.
Dimethyltryptamine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 07:08 AM   #117
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taller, Better View Post
The highest occupied floor isn't even close to 300 metres. It looks more like 240. That is not really and truly an enormous tower in 2012, is it?
Could you tell me what you think of my real height measurement system, it is on post 110, I am just trying to get some opinions. I feel like it fixes all of these problems, also for those that don't like it, I have the pinnacle measurement considered as an equal, so once I have a site for this it would have two rows, showing the tallest buildings by both measurements
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 07:14 AM   #118
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,986
Likes (Received): 12204

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine View Post
If constructed in Canada/Toronto, would still be the tallest residential building to roof.
I believe that the 60 storey Trump Tower would be taller, but I'm not sure about that. Definitely though, 1 Bloor and Aura (both under construction) will have taller usable floors.

You seem to be drawing a delineation between residential and office towers. The term "Supertall" is for all buildings, and makes no differentiation as to their use.

photos I took the other day of the new Trump Tower:






Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
Could you tell me what you think of my real height measurement system, it is on post 110, I am just trying to get some opinions. I feel like it fixes all of these problems, also for those that don't like it, I have the pinnacle measurement considered as an equal, so once I have a site for this it would have two rows, showing the tallest buildings by both measurements

It seems to have merit! I think I would agree with most of those. But sadly in in this day and age, everyone is so anxious to have "supertalls" in their city, supertall antennas (ermm.... spires) are here to stay!
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 07:22 AM   #119
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine View Post
I'll tell you, right after you tell me who the **** would construct either of them....

Honestly though, no one is going to put a 200m spire on a 30m building.... Q1 is 275m to crown, and 323m to tip of spire. A 50m spire at 275m isn't a huge deal, and in the case of Q1 helps keep the building aesthetically pleasing.

As for FCP... the antennas on top look like shit (duh) and clearly shouldn't be counted toward the height of the building (duh). It's obvious they weren't designed with the overall aesthetics of the building in mind and were just tacked on (though they no doubt serve a purpose).

Q1 was also built 30 years after FCP... One is residential, one is commercial... It's really apples v. oranges, but I'm happy to play.

I don't know why you fellas get the bottom of the barrel when it comes to spired buildings though - maybe we can donate you a couple!



Quote:
who the **** would construct either of them
Anything is possible, so sometimes it is good to think about things in a theoretical manner.

P.S. adding **** to everything doesn't make you sound smarter, you are also making it a little to obvious that you are jealous of Toronto. Have some respect next time...
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 07:28 AM   #120
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,986
Likes (Received): 12204

I would agree that the "****s" sounded pretty childish and angry to me, too. If this angers you so much, you may want to just cool down for a few minutes before posting, as it is insulting to talk like that.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better 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 09:54 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