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

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by patrykus

You haven't answered my question By you I meant "Da System" And then again if you count pingan you would also have to count dream tower. The bottom line how the system decide what to count and what not.

Well I understand this, I am saying that I don't know the width of the spire, or anything about it, so I can't let the system evaluate it yet. The building's spire meets one of the requirements, so if it meets the width requirement, its spire will be counted. The dream tower,in its current state, definitely doesn't meet the width requirement.

[Kanto]

Pingan's spire is far thinner than 9 meters and it does NOT look like part of the building. It's just a thin steel stick on top of it. Abby gets the full height because there are floors up 'til the crescent though I personally would count its roof as 591 meters cause the last 10 meters of the crescent are inhabitable and too thin.

Also, I will try to reevaluate Burj Khalifa, but most probably there is no way that it should be counted 'til its pinnacle. Minimally the thinnest section of it should not be counted.

The rest is perfectly as it should be in my opinion, good job classicrock

EDIT: Pingan's spire is 2.5 meters at bottom and 1.25 meters at the top

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Well I understand this, I am saying that I don't know the width of the spire, or anything about it, so I can't let the system evaluate it yet. The building's spire meets one of the requirements, so if it meets the width requirement, its spire will be counted. The dream tower,in its current state, definitely doesn't meet the width requirement.

So you don't know yet. I was talking especially about burj. How you decide it should be counted to the tip. And hence how for example you decide where the base of the spire is since the width depends on that point. Dream spire is just a little thinner than pingan, the only big difference is that pingan spire is continuous and dream isn't, but still some would say they are equally relevant (measured by effort put to rise them for example).

To the burj again. You have to be able to find the base of the spire, because the spire at some point gets less in 9m in diameter and you eventually end up measuring buildings like Kanto.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by patrykus

So you don't know yet. I was talking especially about burj. How you decide it should be counted to the tip. And hence how for example you decide where the base of the spire is since the width depends on that point. Dream spire is just a little thinner than pingan, the only big difference is that pingan spire is continuous and dream isn't, but still some would say they are equally relevant (measured by effort put to rise them for example).

To the burj again. You have to be able to find the base of the spire, because the spire at some point gets less in 9m in diameter and you eventually end up measuring buildings like Kanto.

Right, but like I said it isn't really a spire, it is part of the building, it just has empty space, and if it is a spire, the bottom of the empty space starts around 700m, and that area is more then 30 feet wide, so the spires width counts, and it covers 50% of the area under it, therefore it passes the test.

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

it is part of the building,

you can't measure that, What if I say dream spire is part of the building?

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

it just has empty space, and if it is a spire, the bottom of the empty space starts around 700m

?? The whole building is "empty space" and it's start at street level.

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Right, but like I said it isn't really a spire, it is part of the building, it just has empty space, and if it is a spire, the bottom of the empty space starts around 700m, and that area is more then 30 feet wide, so the spires width counts, and it covers 50% of the area under it, therefore it passes the test.

Here is a small problem with your measurement. The same thing that gives Burj Khalifa an edge in the 50% roof limit actualy gives it a disadvantage higher up. Now we both agree than every section of the Burj Khalifa is only slightly thinner than the section below it, therefore the entire building up to the pinnacle should be counted, however since the sections continue to get thinner above the last occupied floor too, the 9 meter/30 foot rule comes in and cuts the building off at 747 meters. In other words, I like your 50% roof rule, and I like your minimum 9 meter rule, the only thing I would do different than you would be that I would make only two exceptions - that an occupied floor must be below roof height and that if there is a 30° or more angle in the top of a triangle between the middle top of the section and the two border points at where exactly the width is 9 meters

I will make a detailed diagram of more buildings, even one of the CTBUH chart you posted tomorow, today I'm too tired after shouting my ass of in the finals with Russia Man, what a match that was, silver is still awesome

[Ondro]

I agree with your system too, even though I have said that before.
In my opinion, The Burj spire is an separate case, because you can actually climb it from the inside and if there was an observation deck(i know it is most likely impossible), it could easily house a small one-person elevator(well, the highest part then should be widened, but thats just like 10m of height). Therefore it IS a part of the building, hence in my view, a building is anything that can shelter you, where a person can fit. Anything else is just a stuff on a building.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by Ondro

I agree with your system too, even though I have said that before.
In my opinion, The Burj spire is an separate case, because you can actually climb it from the inside and if there was an observation deck(i know it is most likely impossible), it could easily house a small one-person elevator(well, the highest part then should be widened, but thats just like 10m of height). Therefore it IS a part of the building, hence in my view, a building is anything that can shelter you, where a person can fit. Anything else is just a stuff on a building.

Yeah, I don't consider the top of the Burj as a spire. It is part of the building.

[HardBall]

Originally Posted by Kanto

Pingan's spire is far thinner than 9 meters and it does NOT look like part of the building. It's just a thin steel stick on top of it. Abby gets the full height because there are floors up 'til the crescent though I personally would count its roof as 591 meters cause the last 10 meters of the crescent are inhabitable and too thin.

Also, I will try to reevaluate Burj Khalifa, but most probably there is no way that it should be counted 'til its pinnacle. Minimally the thinnest section of it should not be counted.

The rest is perfectly as it should be in my opinion, good job classicrock

EDIT: Pingan's spire is 2.5 meters at bottom and 1.25 meters at the top

Yeah, Ping'an spire is definitely not natural looking, nor is it visually a part of the building. From some distance (a couple of miles) in smoggy conditions, I doubt that anyone would be able to see it easily. The original design actually did not have this spire; but they kept the exact same design, and just tried to make it higher by slapping on a metal stick; at least Petronas' "spires" were part of the original design of the building. Similar things can be said about buildings like Lotte, Times building, or BoA, which also have insanely high spires that are clearly not a part of a reasonable design of the building, and look far more like antennae than any designed feature.

A building like 1WTC clearly tries to circumvent the rules, if indeed the new design of the spire has forced it to shed the cladding. It is exactly an antenna, and that's exactly how you would design an antenna, perhaps reinforced a bit to carry those load bearing rings that are now no longer going to be there. It is only still called a spire, because the original specs had more architectural elements that overlays it. Now it is in no way, visually or structurally distinct from any large antennae on other supertalls. If we count that thing a part of the height to pinnacle, then it would mean that pinnacle height is purely a matter of semantics, with no bearing on reality.

Buildings like TP101 I'm equivocating. If I remember right, it actually has a service stair and some catwalks all the way up the spire, so it's arguably a usable part of the building. But to count that just opens up another back door for buildings to claim new "roof height" and the such by putting tiny floors (like 20 sqft) very high within a thinly veiled spire. Just think about the looks of the TP101 vs the ICC. ICC has soooo much more volume and visual weight above 400M than TP101, but yet it is counted shorter. It seems that there is something amiss here.

Then there's a few odd balls like the Abby, which is hard to qualitatively say where exactly the building ends and the "spire" begins. Good argument can be made that the crescent should be counted as part of the roof. On the other hand, it almost seems that the superstructure on what we normally consider as roof is a mostly empty structure with very little commercial or living space (like a TV tower). On the other hand, it definitely is integral to the design of the building, as much as BK's or Kingdom's spire would be.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that a hard, physical measurement is the best way, and the only unambiguous way to distinguish among these designs. If the measurement is 9m at maximum visual width, then so be it (personally I favor a bit more, like 15M, which makes the architectural element visually significant from a distance, I think). We are not going to be able to come up with a better and more fool-proof way of deciding height, without allowing someone out there to cheat through loopholes. If we count by a pure metric, then a few buildings (ICC, SWFC, Willis) lose nothing, most buildings lose a small amount of height to count toward (2WTC, BK, Shanghai Tower, Abby, Chow Tai Fok, Kingkey, etc), and the real cheaters would lose a lot of height (BoA, Ping'An, Petronas, etc).

[patrykus]

Haha what a revolutions here. Kanto starts counting spires

Originally Posted by Ondro

I agree with your system too, even though I have said that before.

But do you even understand it? I'm at least trying.

Originally Posted by Ondro

In my opinion, The Burj spire is an separate case, because you can actually climb it from the inside and if there was an observation deck(i know it is most likely impossible), it could easily house a small one-person elevator(well, the highest part then should be widened, but thats just like 10m of height). Therefore it IS a part of the building, hence in my view, a building is anything that can shelter you, where a person can fit. Anything else is just a stuff on a building.

Unfortunately your reasoning is very wrong. What if spire at the lotte dream dmc tower will in fact be empty pipe with ladder inside. Is it part of the building now? For me it is very simple. Everything what was designed by architect and is not just an equipment is part of the building.

Originally Posted by Kanto

Here is a small problem with your
measurement. The same thing that gives Burj Khalifa an edge in the 50% roof limit actualy gives it a disadvantage higher up. Now we both agree than every section of the Burj Khalifa is only slightly thinner than the section below it, therefore the entire building up to the pinnacle should be counted, however since the sections continue to get thinner above the last occupied floor too, the 9 meter/30 foot rule comes in and cuts the building off at 747 meters. In other words, I like your 50% roof rule, and I like your minimum 9 meter rule, the only thing I would do different than you would be that I would make only two exceptions - that an occupied floor must be below roof height and that if there is a 30° or more angle in the top of a triangle between the middle top of the section and the two border points at where exactly the width is 9 meters

Kanto your system couldn't get any more complicated But I'm still trying to grasp it. So do I get it right?



But then the burj's spire still would'n be counted since the angle is clearly less than 30°.

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Yeah, I don't consider the top of the Burj as a spire. It is part of the building.

Seriously? Then what it is?

Just a little reminder for the end. CTBUH have 10000+ positions now in it's database. Do you seriously think they will be eager to reevaluate all heights with this all calculations proposed when they have simple system under their hand? I think you are wasting your time.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by patrykus

Haha what a revolutions here. Kanto starts counting spires



But do you even understand it? I'm at least trying.



Unfortunately your reasoning is very wrong. What if spire at the lotte dream dmc tower will in fact be empty pipe with ladder inside. Is it part of the building now? For me it is very simple. Everything what was designed by architect and is not just an equipment is part of the building.



Kanto your system couldn't get any more complicated But I'm still trying to grasp it. So do I get it right?



But then the burj's spire still would'n be counted since the angle is clearly less than 30°.



Seriously? Then what it is?

Just a little reminder for the end. CTBUH have 10000+ positions now in it's database. Do you seriously think they will be eager to reevaluate all heights with this all calculations proposed when they have simple system under their hand? I think you are wasting your time.

Although I would be happy if they used my system,I am not trying to get them to add my system. I will probably make my own site for this, and hopefully someday it's a competing system.

[Suburbanist]

Wouldn't it be easier for people to just get easy with the idea of multiple rankings based on multiple criteria?

For instance, other civil engineer structures have multiple rankings, such as tunnels, bridges, highways, dams etc.

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Although I would be happy if they used my system,I am not trying to get them to add my system. I will probably make my own site for this, and hopefully someday it's a competing system.

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Wouldn't it be easier for people to just get easy with the idea of multiple rankings based on multiple criteria?

For instance, other civil engineer structures have multiple rankings, such as tunnels, bridges, highways, dams etc.

Not really. What if in future there are more tallest buildings similar in height? How do you report the tallest building on the planet? Several different buildings by several measurements? Anyway ctbuh already provides several measuring techniques, it just seems what's everybody is most interested in is architectural height.

As for the bridges I do know that they are described by multiple criteria (as buildings by ctbuh), but do we have several different criteria to determine for instance Longest Single Span Bridges? And for buildings it is more crucial since tall towers are often build just for height and prestige so there can't be ambiguity if the building is the tallest or not depending on organization. iloveclassicrock7 if you are not going to present this to ctbuh imo it means you don't actually believe so much in the thing Anyways if you don't agree with Kanto you still have to decide how to make so your system will count burj, kingdom, and india tower spires.

[deepblue01]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

My Real Height measurement system gets perfect results, I couldn't be more happy with it.
_
_
_
_




_

_

_

Now, this is what the CTBUH's system gets, very unfair and unequal results. Just look at 1 WTC on the list and everything before it. Look at the buildings before 1 WTC, they are much taller, but apparently nowadays you need to put a spire on every building if you don't want to get passed by a building with a much lower roof, and I am here to change that.







@ Kanto, the Burj and Kingdom count because they are basically a part of the building, they aren't hoisted into place like a spire, they are just an empty part of the building. Even if it was a spire, the beginning of the empty portion, which you are calling a spire, is more then 30 feet wide anyways.

I like how you think and I believe you may have gotten the correct way of measuring towers.

PingAn spire is just like the Petronas spires. It would look good either way and the tower will still look somewhat complete.

You can clearly see that 1WTC is unfairly measured with its spre and all, The true height of it is so evident, unlike BK

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by patrykus

Haha what a revolutions here. Kanto starts counting spires



But do you even understand it? I'm at least trying.



Unfortunately your reasoning is very wrong. What if spire at the lotte dream dmc tower will in fact be empty pipe with ladder inside. Is it part of the building now? For me it is very simple. Everything what was designed by architect and is not just an equipment is part of the building.



Kanto your system couldn't get any more complicated But I'm still trying to grasp it. So do I get it right?



But then the burj's spire still would'n be counted since the angle is clearly less than 30°.



Seriously? Then what it is?

Just a little reminder for the end. CTBUH have 10000+ positions now in it's database. Do you seriously think they will be eager to reevaluate all heights with this all calculations proposed when they have simple system under their hand? I think you are wasting your time.

Yeah, that's da angle. Though I'd like to add that it is calculated only if there is a less than 9 meter part in the same section as there is a more than 9 meter part, so it isn't calculated in the case of Burj Khalifa.

Btw, here is the CTBUH diagram made according to my system:

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by Kanto

Though I'd like to add that it is calculated only if there is a less than 9 meter part in the same section as there is a more than 9 meter part, so it isn't calculated in the case of Burj Khalifa.

That sir, I don't understand at all

So your system still won't pass burj-burj test. Waiting for more then

[deepblue01]

The revised edition doesn't really change the ordering anyways

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by patrykus

That sir, I don't understand at all

So your system still won't pass burj-burj test. Waiting for more then

It passed it already a long time ago. LOL, how many times do I have to repeat that by my measurement the two Khalifas are equally tall (though if you want more detail they are equally tall by the primary measurement method and the structurally taller one is taller by the secondary measurement method)

As to what a section of a building is, it is apart of a building which shares identical angles. For example a triangle shaped roof is one section cause angles of any part of it are equal to angles of any other part of it. I'll make you a diagram of what I mean in a few mins

[patrykus]

Originally Posted by Kanto

It passed it already a long time ago. LOL, how many times do I have to repeat that by my measurement the two Khalifas are equally tall (though if you want more detail they are equally tall by the primary measurement method and the structurally taller one is taller by the secondary measurement method)

I wasn't talking about first burj-burj example but the second one in which the taller burj is by your standards the lower (not equal), so how does it pass it? You will deny reality now? Not to mention even calling them equal is complete nonsense and you call the taller one - the lower

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by patrykus

I wasn't talking about first burj-burj example but the second one in which the taller burj is by your standards the lower (not equal), so how does it pass it? You will deny reality now? Not to mention even calling them equal is nonsense and you call the taller one - the lower.

Now that is the most doublebladed argument I ever saw. how will you explain that Petronas Towers are taller than Willis Tower? Is that not denying reality? Is that not nonsense? Calling the taller on the lower? That definitely sounds like nonsense to me

Btw, this is what a section of a building is:



Both triangles are part of the same section because of identical angles, A=C, B=D and E=F