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.


View Poll Results: Do you agree with the CTBUH architectural height measurement ?
Yes(explain below) 24 47.06%
No(explain below) 27 52.94%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 11th, 2012, 10:49 PM   #41
Azrain98
catlover
 
Azrain98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Precinct 5,Putrajaya Idol: Do Kyung Soo [EXO]
Posts: 2,244
Likes (Received): 2635

yes ...idk
__________________
EXO & f(x)
Azrain98 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 12th, 2012, 05:43 AM   #42
Alemanniafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 676
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amastroi2017 View Post
That third building is not logical. Nice idea to try and prove your point but you didn't think it through. How are people supposed to reach that highest occupied floor, climb the poles? So we can discount that because no building will ever be built like that simply because it is not feasible logically.

CTBUH might count spires but roof height is the only height I go by. Spires cheat just as much as antennaes in my opinion.

I don't even count as building as a supertall unless the roof reaches 1,000 feet or higher. 984 feet is arbitrary for Americans so we prefer a different set of numbers, 1,000 ft. for supertall and 2,000 ft. for megatall.
Well actually that second building is more logical than one might at first assume. Of course the drawing is a bit simple and looks unrealistic, but cases of that nature do indeed occur. There are skyscrapers with the strangest and most unreasonable designs, in Frankfurt there's even one with an upside down hanging pyramid on the top.

(source:http://www.arcadis.de/Projects/Hochh...IANON_FFM.aspx)

These two tallest buildings in the city of Frankfurt (they're also the highest two office buildings in Germany) actually each have a pretty interesting top which once more show the problems and difficulties discussed in this thread:

The Commerzbank Tower:

(source:http://upload.wikimedia.org)

And the Messeturm:

(source:http://en.wikipedia.org) (the building in the front at the right is the Trianon from above, with the upside down hanging pyramid at the top)

Measured by their structural height, the Commerzbank Tower is officially 2 meters taller (259m versus 257m of the Messeturm), when including the spire it would be 300m tall.
The highest floor of the Commerzbank Tower (190m) is considerably lower (38m lower) than the highest floor of the Messeturm (228m) though.

Now both buildings in a way trick with the height in the sense that each top of these two buildings just houses airconditioning and other technological facilities. There are no offices in the pyramid of the Messeturm just as there are no offices in the top of the Commerzbank Tower either.
(But there are smaller higher rooms inside these technological structures though which maintenance personell can access.)

So here in this comparison we even have two beautiful examples where even the definition of the "top floors" of the buildings could be debateable because the highest (maintenance) rooms are inside a strictly technological structure mounted ontop of the actual highest office floors and can not all that easily be accessed (not via elevator).

And we have beautiful examples of how many different possible ways of measuring the height and comparing or ranking these two buildings there can be. Overall height including spire structural height/ roof top height, highest floor etc.

The pyramid of the Messeturm in Frankfurt probably wouldn't fully count in Katanos suggestion for example, simply because at some point it just gets to thin to count. At some point it just isn't 9 meters wide anymore.
But more reasonably in this case would probably be counting either all of the pyramid or none, because its not habitable space, just a technological structure.
The roof top of the Messeturm might even also not be all that easy to define, unless one fully counts the entire pyramid and looking at the pyramid closely one will notice that its certainly debateable.

And besides spires and roofs and hanging pyramids and plain technological (airconditioning) structures we also find cladding and design elements on the top which follow no function but certainly form the optical or visual top of the building.

And one especially unique and very new example might be the top of the Shard in London where the top of the pyramid shaped building consists of cladding elements sticking up above the roof:

(source:http://designalmic.com/the-shard-lon...g-workshop-21/)

So discussing the ranking of skyscraper heights one might really seriously ask oneself:
What should one consider these Shards top edges? Should they be treated simmilar to antennas or spires? Or like the steelstructure or roof structure of the rest of the building?....

And with the Chinese Pearl River tower having Wind turbines inside, in the future we might sooner or later even see skyscrapers with some sort of interestingly designed windmills or solar panels on the very top, raising the question how moving or rotating elements on the top shoud then be considered.

So all in all I personally figured that in addition to the optical appearance of skyscrapers I really only care much about two compeltely solid and strong facts for comparing their heights:
What's the very highest single point of the building and what's the highest floor that's actually a habitable or truely useable (or publically visitable floor) regarding the buildings true purpose (excluding just some completely unimportant windowless room or storage room as part of technical or maintenance space for example).
__________________
TIVOLI - I LOV IT !!!

Last edited by Alemanniafan; December 12th, 2012 at 05:58 AM.
Alemanniafan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2012, 04:36 PM   #43
heightincreasing
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

i think it should be where the point a human person can stand at.... because i could make the world tallest building with a couple miles long rods cellotaped together
heightincreasing no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 12:34 AM   #44
univer
Registered User
 
univer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 325

among the 50 buildings the highest in the world, half of them have a spire over 10m. Certain even have a spire over 100m ( for exemple One World Trade Center 124m spire). Is very unfair for the buildings aren't have a spire. List of tallest building in the world will become "list of tallest spire in the world "
__________________
Number of 150m+ Completed Buildings (June 2017)
Hong Kong : 376 ; New York : 254 ; Dubai : 179 ;

Guangzhou : 175 ; Wuhan : 171 ; Shenzhen : 155.

Kanto liked this post
univer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 12:41 AM   #45
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |¦┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

Quote:
Originally Posted by univer View Post
among the 50 buildings the highest in the world, half of them have a spire over 10m. Certain even have a spire over 100m ( for exemple One World Trade Center 124m spire). Is very unfair for the buildings aren't have a spire. List of tallest building in the world will become "list of tallest spire in the world "
The Burj has a 200m tall spire. For me it's all the same: spire, antenna, crown, some fancy roof elements... count them all. But this should be just the 2nd category. 1st one should be highest occupied floor (because the roof is sometimes hard to define). Not a single megatall (except the Burj) has floors >600m. The Shanghai Tower for example has a 80m tall crown.
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 10:33 PM   #46
univer
Registered User
 
univer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 325

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
The Burj has a 200m tall spire. For me it's all the same: spire, antenna, crown, some fancy roof elements... count them all. But this should be just the 2nd category. 1st one should be highest occupied floor (because the roof is sometimes hard to define). Not a single megatall (except the Burj) has floors >600m. The Shanghai Tower for example has a 80m tall crown.
for me 1st caterory is roof height because with "highest occupied floor",the problem is that a passerby can't estimate the height of buildings when he see them. Plus it is more difficult to determine the exact height of occupied floor
__________________
Number of 150m+ Completed Buildings (June 2017)
Hong Kong : 376 ; New York : 254 ; Dubai : 179 ;

Guangzhou : 175 ; Wuhan : 171 ; Shenzhen : 155.

Kanto liked this post
univer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2013, 07:24 AM   #47
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,333
Likes (Received): 15818

If the architectural height rule would apply to people, the lady on the right would win!

__________________

endar, Kanto, L.A.F.2., univer, Wunderknabe and 1 others liked this post
Jan está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2013, 10:38 AM   #48
endar
someah sareng kayungyun
 
endar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pasunda'an
Posts: 32,910
Likes (Received): 8081

omg
but so true
__________________
A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within
-Will Durant-
__________________________________________

Kanto liked this post
endar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2013, 03:56 PM   #49
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,585
Likes (Received): 28147

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
If the architectural height rule would apply to people, the lady on the right would win!

lol.

looks are more inportant than height, I'd say.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2013, 04:06 PM   #50
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8231

but seriously a random person looking up a building and asking how tall is this building without much knowledge about it would not recognize where a crown starts and wouldn't even care to know, the person most likely just wants to know how tall the tip of the crown is. counting to the highest occupyable floor is fair, but still overcomplicating things if that would be the standard measuring.

also hair is not counted towards human height because it is not permanent, a spire is however, antenna's are not counted because they are not necessarily permanent either.
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2013, 05:53 PM   #51
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

Spires are not necessarily permanent either. They can be removed. I agree that crowns should be counted because they look like part of the building, however spires do not look like a part of the building and therefore shouldn't count. They look just like a mast on top of a building. That's why I count crowns in my roof height but not spires

Btw, that hair pic is incredible, it made my whole week
__________________
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/

L.A.F.2., Wunderknabe, endar, univer liked this post
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2013, 11:29 PM   #52
univer
Registered User
 
univer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 325

in top 50 World's Tallest Buildings in 1990: there are only 11 buildings have a spire more than 10m. It's not really a big problem.

But now 2013, 29 of 50 buildings in top 50 tallest building have a spire more than 10m.So I think the architectural height measurement should to be change, because the number of supertall have a spire increases rapidly,is so unfair for other skyscraper !

New York Times Tower is a emblematic example: In roof height 227m, New York Times Tower is the 317th tallest building in the world. But with spire height (319m) he becomes the 47th tallest building in the world
__________________
Number of 150m+ Completed Buildings (June 2017)
Hong Kong : 376 ; New York : 254 ; Dubai : 179 ;

Guangzhou : 175 ; Wuhan : 171 ; Shenzhen : 155.

Kanto, L.A.F.2. liked this post
univer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 06:10 PM   #53
HK999
University of HK / 香港大學
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hong Kong SAR / 香港特區
Posts: 3,389
Likes (Received): 336

Quote:
Originally Posted by univer View Post

New York Times Tower is a emblematic example: In roof height 227m, New York Times Tower is the 317th tallest building in the world. But with spire height (319m) he becomes the 47th tallest building in the world
The Shimao International Plaza in Shanghai is a big cheater too.
Roof height: 246m
Spire height: 333m.

And the towers counts as a supertall. I don't mind spires being tall, but not that tall.

Everyone cheats these days.
__________________
Sapientia et Virtus 明德格物
Industrial Organization, MSc

Kanto liked this post
HK999 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 10:37 AM   #54
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,333
Likes (Received): 15818

With the antenna hoisted on top of the World Trade Center this discussion is popping up again.

Obviously this is an antenna we are talking about, so if we're going by the rules, this ought not to be counted.

Notice how the CTBUH is trying to save their face by saying that if the antenna is architecturally designed, it's really more of a spire then a antenna and happily can be included in the height. I guess they just don't want to be the one spoiling the 1776 number.

Quote:
The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, a Chicago-based organization considered an authority on such records, says an antenna is something simply added to the top of a tower that can be removed. By contrast, a spire is something that is part of the building's architectural design.
Te me it's just a stick on a flat roof surface. It's fine to list the World Trade Center as 1,776 feet, but that number ought not to be used when making comparative statements, such as claiming that this is America's tallest. According to the new interpretation, One World Trade Center is almost 100 meters taller then the Sears Tower, even though the latter has a higher roof. That's just bullshit.

I'll put up another one one one about this May 14th, see how the people think about this.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
Jan está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 02:29 PM   #55
elliot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,193
Likes (Received): 32

Here's fuel for the debate.

Q1 is a so-called supertall... taller than BMO. I think Aura (u/c) is a taller building than Q1 if you ignore the tiara and flagpole.



Source: skyscraperpage.com
__________________

Kanto liked this post
elliot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 03:06 PM   #56
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8231

if CTBUH counts the antenna of 1WTC as a spire, they have to come up with a good explanation otherwise they may lose a lot of credibility, if it looks like they rule some buildings differently, because of location or media representation.
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 03:13 PM   #57
redbaron_012
Registered User
 
redbaron_012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11,559
Likes (Received): 3093

Makes you realise how great the original WTC was...Two towers 110 stories high with roof areas the same as the footprints. Then one had a antenna on top as well. People accepted the height as the rooftop where the Empire State building could use it's mast as part of it's height, then the Antenna atop that.
As for previous render of Q1 compared to two Toronto buildings. How do you think we feel with Eureka Tower with a flat top at 298m.Our previous tallest Rialto Tower also in Melbourne is taller to roof and it was built in the 1980's !!!
I accept architectural design like the Chrysler building in New York have to include it's crown, the idea of a stick sticks in my craw...somewhat !
__________________
"Make no small plans, for they have not power to stir the blood" - Daniel H. Burnham

Last edited by redbaron_012; May 11th, 2013 at 03:18 PM.
redbaron_012 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 04:34 PM   #58
deadhead262
Registered User
 
deadhead262's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Cape town
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 223

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
if CTBUH counts the antenna of 1WTC as a spire, they have to come up with a good explanation otherwise they may lose a lot of credibility, if it looks like they rule some buildings differently, because of location or media representation.
Not really, they have already lost all credibility. If they count all the other spires, then they must do the same for 1wtc. It is a architectural element, that is included in the design and was built together with the building, and as far as I know the antenna equipment is on the communications ring
deadhead262 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 04:40 PM   #59
Curtain
Registered User
 
Curtain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,523
Likes (Received): 748

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
With the antenna hoisted on top of the World Trade Center this discussion is popping up again.

Obviously this is an antenna we are talking about, so if we're going by the rules, this ought not to be counted.

Notice how the CTBUH is trying to save their face by saying that if the antenna is architecturally designed, it's really more of a spire then a antenna and happily can be included in the height. I guess they just don't want to be the one spoiling the 1776 number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtain View Post




Ctbuh have got this wrong, how is 120 Collins counted and not Riparian.
CTBUH have lost all credibility with this antenna / spire nonsense. They are quite happy to place provisos on what constitutes a residential building vs an office based on "main use" of floor space, but if a telecommunications spire is shaped decoratively suddenly it's main use is irrelevant and get counted as part of the architecture. The most ridiculous example of this is how CTBUH rule that 120 Collins st antenna is counted yet riparian plaza's spire which actually decends part way down and into the facade of the building isn't counted.

Going by this rationale because the 1WTC beacon enclosure looks like something out of buck Rodgers and theres a symbolic height they will count the whole thing as architectural which is grossly unfair.

Q1 spire was never more than a exploitation of CTBUB definitions of height and a grab at the worlds tallest residential building title, first designed to 298m beating eureka by 70cm and then extended to 323m just in case. The highest residential floor in Q1 is 219m, the building was a total misnomer yet CTBUH's policies made Eurekas apartments all the way up to the penthouse at 278m irrelevant as eureka was never the official title holder.
__________________

Jan, Kanto liked this post
Curtain no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 04:58 PM   #60
L.A.F.2.
Georgia Tech
 
L.A.F.2.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,406
Likes (Received): 5307

Delete.
L.A.F.2. 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 10:19 PM.


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