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 21st, 2012, 04:24 PM   #161
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
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
Now you are forgetting about something. You are here after perfectly fair system, I'm after clear and simple one. So either it is simple or fair. Your's seems to be either for the moment
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 04:25 PM   #162
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Wrong, I'm not here for a perfectly fair system, I'm here for a system more fair than the official CTBUH height system. And my system is far more fair

And btw, there is nothing clear and simple on making differences in such perfectly identical things like thin steel sticks
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 04:30 PM   #163
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Are you saying you can't distinguish antenna from the spie ?

If your system is not fair and not simple then ctbuh has clear advantage over you
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 05:07 PM   #164
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

A spire and an antenna are indistinguishable from each other

And my system is far superior to that of the CTBUH. They are about equaly as complicated, yet mine is far more fair
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 05:57 PM   #165
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
A spire and an antenna are indistinguishable from each other
haha, well then I guess you need pair of these



But never mind. Suppose antennas are indistinguishable from spires, that it doesn't matter that your technique is almost as complicated as quantum physics and Burj-burj example is just an exception. Then it is perfectly fair and superior system right?
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 07:29 PM   #166
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

D'oh, how many times do I have to repeat that it is not perfect. It only is vastly superior to the official CTBUH height and also far simpler, that's what it is and that's all that I claim it to be. Also, the Khalifa example is in no way different to the Petronas - Willis example. I never claimed that I can make a perfect single measurement method. Of course pinnacle height would be a secondary measurement, just as it is now. Again and again you have far greater requirements for my system than you do for the CTBUH system

Also, I would bet all the money that I have that a normal person could NOT find a visual difference between a spire and an antenna. both come in all varieties of structures, dimensions and colors
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 07:53 PM   #167
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,487

Spire? Count it.
Antenna? Don't count it.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 09:22 PM   #168
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepblue01 View Post
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
Thanks, I think I finally solved this, the lineup on my list looks perfect. But I should point out that I also use the pinnacle measurement as an equal.


Last edited by iloveclassicrock7; May 21st, 2012 at 09:44 PM.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 09:30 PM   #169
HardBall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 178
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy View Post
Spire? Count it.
Antenna? Don't count it.
So what is that thing on the top of 1WTC. It used to be the central structural element of the spire with claddings, and it functions as an antenna (as much as any antenna in NYC), and it is nearly identical to the antenna on Conde Nast (4TS), which is never called a spire by any one. And yet Durst wants to count that structure as a spire.

You will find, by going through some borderline examples, that there is no clear distinction between spire and antenna among many borderline cases. The thin red line that some here purport is nothing more than a figment in their imagination.
HardBall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 10:17 PM   #170
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
and also far simpler
...

... wait for it...

...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
The basic rule is that a section on top of another section must be more than 50% of the largest dimension of the section it is on or otherwise it will be considered a apire/antenna. A section will be considered an antenna/spire if by megatalls and supertalls it has less than 9 meters or 30 feet.

Exceptions:

1, If there is an occupied floor in a section otherwise characterized as a spire/antenna, that section and all that is below it is part of the building / counted in roof height.

2, If a part of a section or another section has a top angle of more than 30° of a triangle between its top center and the two edges of the largest dimension of the section below it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
Btw, this is what a section of a building is:

[IMG]http://i50.************/11slduq.png[/IMG]

Both triangles are part of the same section because of identical angles, A=C, B=D and E=F
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 10:24 PM   #171
HardBall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 178
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
...

... wait for it...

...







It is a fairly complicated method in determining what exactly counts on sloped facade structures, and in some ways arbitrary. I personally prefer a simpler method, such as a limit on the visual width at the optimal viewing angle.

But nonetheless, this is still far superior compared to the distinction between "spire" and "antenna", which is pure nonsense. Those who believe that an unambiguous distinction can be made between the two is seriously delusional and in need of some basic knowledge of architecture and design.
HardBall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 10:30 PM   #172
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
So what is that thing on the top of 1WTC. It used to be the central structural element of the spire with claddings, and it functions as an antenna (as much as any antenna in NYC), and it is nearly identical to the antenna on Conde Nast (4TS), which is never called a spire by any one. And yet Durst wants to count that structure as a spire.

You will find, by going through some borderline examples, that there is no clear distinction between spire and antenna among many borderline cases. The thin red line that some here purport is nothing more than a figment in their imagination.
Absolutely true, there is no distinction between a spire and antennae. Also spires can be removed just like antennae's. In fact, they said there were going to have to remove the old spire of 1 WTC, to clean it I believe. Some people profit from the CTBUH's unfair measurement, so they make themselves believe that it makes sense. Any good movement will always have opposition.

Also, I agree that Kanto's measurement system is pretty complicated, but that is not always a bad thing. Both of our system's are better then the CTBUH's.

Last edited by iloveclassicrock7; May 21st, 2012 at 10:36 PM.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 10:31 PM   #173
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
...

... wait for it...

...







It is simpler because if one knows the system, he/she can calculate the height of every building. On the other hand in the case of the CTBUH official height additional knowledge has to be searched on the net if a thin steel stick is present on a building, otherwise one can't determine the height of the building
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 10:35 PM   #174
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall View Post
It is a fairly complicated method in determining what exactly counts on sloped facade structures, and in some ways arbitrary. I personally prefer a simpler method, such as a limit on the visual width at the optimal viewing angle.

But nonetheless, this is still far superior compared to the distinction between "spire" and "antenna", which is pure nonsense. Those who believe that an unambiguous distinction can be made between the two is seriously delusional and in need of some basic knowledge of architecture and design.

It can't be easier hard ball. Every exterior element that has been designed by architect counts to the architectural height. That's why ctbuh don't want to count spire in last 1wtc version because it's not part of architects design. Now read thoroughly what Kanto presented, end then what I just wrote. Which is harder to grasp?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
It is simpler because if one knows the system, he/she can calculate the height of every building. On the other hand in the case of the CTBUH official height additional knowledge has to be searched on the net if a thin steel stick is present on a building, otherwise one can't determine the height of the building
Whait... are you suggesting that ctbuh team would evaluate buildigns height with your system and without building plans?
__________________
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


Last edited by patrykus; May 21st, 2012 at 10:42 PM.
patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 10:43 PM   #175
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
It can't be easier hard ball. Every exterior element that has been designed by architect counts to the architectural height. That's why ctbuh don't want to count spire in last 1wtc version because it's not part of architects design. Now read thoroughly what Kanto presented, end then what I just wrote. Which is harder to grasp?
Quote:
Every exterior element that has been designed by architect counts to the architectural height
This is stupid, what if I add a 200m spire to my 300m building ?

Quote:
Now read thoroughly what Kanto presented, end then what I just wrote. Which is harder to grasp?
I don't think you understood that part of his statement.
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 10:48 PM   #176
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
This is stupid, what if I add a 200m spire to my 300m building ?
Is it designed by an architect or designer? It counts.
Is it creation of civil engineers? It doesn't.

Hard?

btw do you have any doubt than what is to be installed on 1wtc roof hasn't been designed by architect? If don't you need glasses too my friend
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 11:31 PM   #177
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
It can't be easier hard ball. Every exterior element that has been designed by architect counts to the architectural height. That's why ctbuh don't want to count spire in last 1wtc version because it's not part of architects design. Now read thoroughly what Kanto presented, end then what I just wrote. Which is harder to grasp?




Whait... are you suggesting that ctbuh team would evaluate buildigns height with your system and without building plans?
D'oh, everybody who wants to truly 100% determine height must have access to plans of a building. I fail to understand why you think my system should be used without plans while the CTBUH system should be used with plan. That's like saying Ussain Bolt is slower than me because I'm allowed to use a car while he is not. Utter nonsense

And I didn't speak about a measurement of a newly constructed building by the CTBUH. I was speaking about the situation in which official height figures are already easily accessible on the internet and COMMON people who know those values want to determine the height of a building they are looking at. With the official CTBUH height they still need to know whether a steel stick is a spire or an antenna (for which they have to search on the internet) in order to determine the height, however, with roof height, or in fact even pinnacle height, they can pretty accurately determine the true height just by looking at a building

Btw, that thing about architects and engineers designing thin steel sticks is utter nonsense. If an architect designs a broadcasting antenna it is a spire according to you?
__________________
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 21st, 2012, 11:49 PM   #178
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
D'oh, everybody who wants to truly 100% determine height must have access to plans of a building. I fail to understand why you think my system should be used without plans while the CTBUH system should be used with plan.
Yes, you failed obviously The point was if both systems are to be used with plans then there is no problem to determined architectural height since antenna is described as antenna and any spire is clearly visible. And I still don't get how hard can it be be to distinguish architectural part from the rest of the building even without plans. But that's your problem obviously.

Your system as ctbuh one used with plans still requires lots of calculations and additional measurement for every single building in question in contrast to just reading values from the plan. Yep, a hell lot easier.

And last question for todays night to sleep with. You keep saying your systems are meant to be additional, next to ctbuh. So the question is who will use it when ctbuh already provides numbers as architectural height, height to the tip, and height occupied?
__________________
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


Last edited by patrykus; May 21st, 2012 at 11:54 PM.
patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2012, 12:03 AM   #179
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Do I have to repeat myself, I was talking about a COMMON man/woman looking at a building, not about complex measurements of a newly opened building. THAT WAS THE POINT. And additionally, the calculations involved in my system can be very easily recognized on a building with the naked eye. That is what I'm talking about, I talk about common people looking at a building with the PRIMARY height measurement on their mind, estimating the building's size and dimensions with their naked eye
__________________
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 22nd, 2012, 12:13 AM   #180
HardBall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 178
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post
It can't be easier hard ball. Every exterior element that has been designed by architect counts to the architectural height. That's why ctbuh don't want to count spire in last 1wtc version because it's not part of architects design. Now read thoroughly what Kanto presented, end then what I just wrote. Which is harder to grasp?
Wait, think about what you are saying carefully. So if F&F actually put the same antenna into the original blueprint of 4TS, then the antenna on the building automagically becomes a "spire", and so that it would become a supertall that is taller than Chrysler?

So you are saying that the height of the building's final arbiter is nothing about the physical entity of the building itself, but some markings and captions on the sheet of paper on which its original schematic is drawn???

Of course, I already said that Kanto's is harder to grasp; but not because it's more complicated (which it is), but rather because your definition is non-sense (it has no precise definition). But I guess I was wrong, you do in fact have a precise definition, that only depends on what happens on paper, and has nothing to do with any real object in the reality that we know.
HardBall 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 02:18 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