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 May 11th, 2013, 05:03 PM   #61
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

As to the question about 1WTC's mast, I could honestly see it being counted. It's been palnned from the start and had a specific number in mind. Also, the beacon certainly looks like that of an architectural element, and is multipurpose in that it not only functions as an antenna but contains a mega-light (for lack of a better term) that can be seen for 50 miles. Also, if I remember correctly, the antenna was imbedded in concrete over 100 feet below the roof of the building, so it's certainly not removable. After taking all this into consideration, I think it should actually count.
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 11th, 2013, 06:19 PM   #62
hunser
Steinway to Heaven |¦┆┊
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wien
Posts: 1,837
Likes (Received): 5031

Some fun facts about the 10 tallest skyscrapers in the U.S. (Source CTBUH):

By official height:
1. 1WTC, 541 m (1776 ft)
2. Willis Tower, 442 m (1451 ft)
3. 432 Park Avenue, 426 m (1398 ft)
4. Trump International Hotel & Tower, 423 m (1389 ft)
5. Empire State Building, 381 m (1250 ft)
6. Bank of America Tower, 366 m (1200 ft)
7. Aon Center, 346 m (1136 ft)
8. John Hancock Center, 344 m (1128 ft)
9. Chrysler Building, 319 m (1046 ft)
10. New York Times Tower, 319 m (1046 ft)

By pinnacle height:
1. 1WTC, 546 m (1792 ft)
2. Willis Tower, 527 m (1729 ft)
3. John Hancock Center, 457 m (1499 ft)
4. Empire State Building 443 m (1454 ft)
5. 432 Park Avenue, 426 m (1398 ft)
6. Trump International Hotel & Tower, 423 m (1389 ft)
7. Bank of America Tower, 366 m (1200 ft)
8. Aon Center, 346 m (1136 ft)
9. Chrysler Building, 319 m (1046 ft)
10. New York Times Tower, 319 m (1046 ft)

By roof height:
1. Willis Tower, 442 m (1451 ft)
2. 432 Park Avenue, 426 m (1398 ft)
3. 1WTC, 418m (1373ft)
4. Empire State Building, 381 m (1250 ft)
5. Trump International Hotel & Tower, 357 m (1171 ft)
6. Aon Center, 346 m (1136 ft)
7. John Hancock Center, 344 m (1128 ft)
8. U.S. Bank Tower , 310 m (1018ft)
9. One57, 306 m (1004ft)
10. JPMorgan Chase Tower, 305 m (1002 ft)

So, yeah lots of options there.
Btw if 1WTC is listed as 417m by the CTBUH, then New Yorkers will be really pissed because Trump Chicago will be taller (with its spire lol).
hunser no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 06:40 PM   #63
deadhead262
Registered User
 
deadhead262's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Cape town
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 223

I honeslty think 1wtc spire has to be counted, its as integrated into the building as any other spire.
deadhead262 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 07:14 PM   #64
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
Some fun facts about the 10 tallest skyscrapers in the U.S. (Source CTBUH):

By official height:
1. 1WTC, 541 m (1776 ft)
2. Willis Tower, 442 m (1451 ft)
3. 432 Park Avenue, 426 m (1398 ft)
4. Trump International Hotel & Tower, 423 m (1389 ft)
5. Empire State Building, 381 m (1250 ft)
6. Bank of America Tower, 366 m (1200 ft)
7. Aon Center, 346 m (1136 ft)
8. John Hancock Center, 344 m (1128 ft)
9. Chrysler Building, 319 m (1046 ft)
10. New York Times Tower, 319 m (1046 ft)

By pinnacle height:
1. 1WTC, 546 m (1792 ft)
2. Willis Tower, 527 m (1729 ft)
3. John Hancock Center, 457 m (1499 ft)
4. Empire State Building 443 m (1454 ft)
5. 432 Park Avenue, 426 m (1398 ft)
6. Trump International Hotel & Tower, 423 m (1389 ft)
7. Bank of America Tower, 366 m (1200 ft)
8. Aon Center, 346 m (1136 ft)
9. Chrysler Building, 319 m (1046 ft)
10. New York Times Tower, 319 m (1046 ft)

By roof height:
1. Willis Tower, 442 m (1451 ft)
2. 432 Park Avenue, 426 m (1398 ft)
3. 1WTC, 418m (1373ft)
4. Empire State Building, 381 m (1250 ft)
5. Trump International Hotel & Tower, 357 m (1171 ft)
6. Aon Center, 346 m (1136 ft)
7. John Hancock Center, 344 m (1128 ft)
8. U.S. Bank Tower , 310 m (1018ft)
9. One57, 306 m (1004ft)
10. JPMorgan Chase Tower, 305 m (1002 ft)

So, yeah lots of options there.
Btw if 1WTC is listed as 417m by the CTBUH, then New Yorkers will be really pissed because Trump Chicago will be taller (with its spire lol).
Pinnacle Height History is really interesting.

1931:
1. ESB-1,250 feet.

1950:
1. ESB-1,472 feet.

1969:
1. John Hancock-1,500 feet.
2. ESB-1,472 feet.

1971:
1. John Hancock-1,500 feet.
2. ESB- 1,472 feet.
3. 1WTC-1,368 feet.

1974:
1. John Hancock-1,500 feet.
2. ESB-1,472 feet.
3. Sears-1,450 feet.
4. 1WTC-1,368 feet.

1978:
1. 1WTC-1,727 feet.
2. John Hancock-1,500 feet.
3. ESB-1,472 feet.
4. Sears-1,450 feet.

1982:
1. 1WTC-1,727 feet.
2. Sears-1,707 feet.
3. John Hancock-1,500 feet.
4. ESB-1,472 feet.

2000:
1. Sears-1,730 feet.
2. 1WTC-1,727 feet.
3. John Hancock-1,500 feet.
4. ESB-1,472 feet.

2001:
1. Sears-1,730 feet.
2. John Hancock-1,500 feet.
3. ESB-1,472 feet.

2005:
1. Sears-1,730 feet.
2. John Hancock-1,500 feet.
3. ESB-1,454 feet.

By the way, you left out Conde Nast for pinnacle height.

Last edited by L.A.F.2.; May 11th, 2013 at 07:24 PM.
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2013, 05:59 PM   #65
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8231

that's why i am in favor of differences of antennas and spires. antennas can easily change in time like there on ESB. On churches even spires changed after burning down or similar, but for skyscrapers it is normally only antennas that change and therefor by not counting them it is easier and a buildings height is not changing over time once it is finished
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2013, 09:48 PM   #66
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

I really like going by pinnacle height, though. For me, it keeps the race for tallest building much more interesting and full of Cinderella stories of buildings coming out of nowhere to take the title. Also, it allows any building to be able to put up useful antenna equipment where it would automatically count, which levels the playing field. Lastly, the pinnacle of a building is so important in my eyes, and how well a building's top is done is a huge factor on my opinion of it. I prefer tapering crowns topped with spires to seemingly unfinished flat rooves.
__________________

KillerZavatar liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2013, 11:48 PM   #67
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,593
Likes (Received): 28160

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunser View Post
Some fun facts about the 10 tallest skyscrapers in the U.S. (Source CTBUH):


So, yeah lots of options there.
Btw if 1WTC is listed as 417m by the CTBUH, then New Yorkers will be really pissed because Trump Chicago will be taller (with its spire lol).
CTBUH is just not consistent in its own rules if they call the antenna on top of 1WTC a spire and count it in.
To me, neither 1WTC nor Trump has a spire.
Chrysler has a spire.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2013, 12:40 PM   #68
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,334
Likes (Received): 15832

We need a word for "stick on a building". Actually pinnacle would be the correct word for the ending of the Chrysler. Pinnacles count, spires don't.

Actually the rules as they are aren't bad because the usage of the spire doesn't leave any grey zone for interpretation. Suggesting an architecturally designed antenna is a spire and a functional designed one isn't is just going to open a can of worms.
Jan está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2013, 01:04 PM   #69
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,623
Likes (Received): 10784

I find roof height to be the most 'honest' way to measure the height of a building. It's not perfect, but at least it negates all those artificially inflated heights due to antennae and spires. Highest floor is an even more 'honest' measure in some respects.

Consider that the Shard's highest floor is only at 244m yet it's listed as a super tall.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

Sarcasticity liked this post
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2013, 08:54 PM   #70
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I'm quite a few years on this forum and during the time I became so passionate about skyscrapers that I know most of the tallest building's height from memory. In all of this time I haven't found a single relevant difference between a spire and an antenna

They say a spire is permanent and an antenna is not. Wrong, a spire can be dissasembled just as easily as it was assembled in the first place. If a kid is determined from its birth to grow a mike haircut, it is planned from the beginning and so should classify as part of his/her height according to the CTBUH.

They say a spire is architectural and an antenna is not. Wrong, an antenna can be designed by architects too and planned from the beginning. If I'll pay Daniel Libeskind to design a guyed mast for me and to plan every part of it from "the beginning" will it be one tall spire?

They say an antenna has a use while an antenna has not. Fair enough, but this use has absolutely no relevant visual impact on the stick, therefore it is not a valid argument. It's the same as with people on wheel chairs. Some of them have legs, yet they don't use them. According to the CTBUH's rules their legs would be just a decoration and therefore not counted as legs.

I use roof height as the height that determines how tall a building is. In this cathegory I include skyscrapers and observation towers like CN or Sky tree. I use pinnalce height as the height that determines how tall a structure is. In this cathegory I count everything, skyscrapers, observation towers, chimneys, guyed masts.

As an example, a the tallest chimney has a pinnacle height of 420 meters but a roof height of 0, because it is not a building.

In roof height I count the aspects of a building that look like part of the building and I don't count those, that look like addons. I count roof clabs, parapets and solid crowns but I don't count open air lattice crowns, spires and antennas

Btw, thanks Jan for the one on one. I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully things will one day move to change in the CTBUH. I have deep respect for them but I think they really should change their rules. Sometimes even complicated changes have to be made. Take Pluto for example, for decades it was a planet but now it is not anymore. This could be the same case with skyscrapers like the Petronas Towers. Sometimes degrading something due to new rules is worth it and in this case it really is
__________________
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/

univer, KillerZavatar liked this post

Last edited by Kanto; May 13th, 2013 at 08:59 PM.
Kanto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 14th, 2013, 07:00 PM   #71
paulgood
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

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.
paulgood no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2013, 08:24 PM   #72
QuantumX
One Brickell CityCentre
 
QuantumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 13,157
Likes (Received): 19048

Okay, I've decided I'm going to have to weigh in on this one. I prefer to keep the CTBUH rule of height measurement because it is so definitive. Any ornamentation that is an integral part of the architect's original design of the building should be counted as part of its overall height.

I like Isaidso's idea of only counting to the roof as far as a building's height is concerned, but I wouldn't like it for certain buildings such as the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco. I believe in such cases, the height should be counted to the very top as with the Chrysler building because buildings such as these would look so weird cut off at the roof.

On the other hand, we do have buildings that seem to exploit the CTBUH rule such as the Trump Tower in Chicago and Bank of America in New York, and no I don't like the idea of such a tall stick being counted as part of the overall height of the building.

At the same time, the antennae on top of the John Hancock Center and the Sears/Willis Tower in Chicago and the Empire State Building in New York all look as though they ARE part of the original design of the building and I think are more stunning than a lot of spires. They also have purpose, just as office space does, where as spires have no purpose except decoration.

Still, I stand by the CTBUH rule because it's pretty definitive as a rule to go by.
__________________
"I'm going to bet you that when we're done --- I don't know when that will be --- historians will identify this as the most significant and rapid transformation of an American city.'' Former Miami City Commissioner Johnny Winton 05/22/2005

My photo threads:





KillerZavatar liked this post
QuantumX no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2013, 11:10 AM   #73
carroll4
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

I think the rules should stay, but people should always consider roof height and the official height. the antenna should not be counted for a different reason.
__________________
website | visit website | Dennis Foley
carroll4 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2013, 05:13 PM   #74
QuantumX
One Brickell CityCentre
 
QuantumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 13,157
Likes (Received): 19048

Quote:
Originally Posted by carroll4 View Post
I think the rules should stay, but people should always consider roof height and the official height. the antenna should not be counted for a different reason.
I'm for having the two specifications just as SkyscraperPage has in its Diagrams section.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
We need a word for "stick on a building". Actually pinnacle would be the correct word for the ending of the Chrysler. Pinnacles count, spires don't.

Actually the rules as they are aren't bad because the usage of the spire doesn't leave any grey zone for interpretation. Suggesting an architecturally designed antenna is a spire and a functional designed one isn't is just going to open a can of worms.
I agree! It could potentially create a situation where we have people tacking antennae onto buildings all over the place.
__________________
"I'm going to bet you that when we're done --- I don't know when that will be --- historians will identify this as the most significant and rapid transformation of an American city.'' Former Miami City Commissioner Johnny Winton 05/22/2005

My photo threads:




QuantumX no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2013, 11:24 PM   #75
univer
Registered User
 
univer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 325

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
I
I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully things will one day move to change in the CTBUH. I have deep respect for them but I think they really should change their rules. Sometimes even complicated changes have to be made. This could be the same case with skyscrapers like the Petronas Towers. Sometimes degrading something due to new rules is worth it and in this case it really is
And in the future, when another new skyscrapers will appear, the controversies will popping up again.

Tallest Spire(S) and Antenna(A) for 200m+ skyscraper(roof height in brackets)

1. 4 Times Square- 127m(214m) A
One Trade Center- 124m(417m) S
John Hancock Center- 113m(344m) A
New York Times Tower- 91m(227m) S
5.Shanghai Shimao International Plaza- 86m(247m) S

6.Willis Tower- 85m(442m) A
Burj Khalifa- 81m(747m) S
Bank of America Tower 78m(288m) S
CITIC Plaza- 69m(322m) S
10.Nanjing Greenland Financial Complex- 69m(381m) S
__________________
Number of 150m+ Completed Buildings (June 2017)
Hong Kong : 376 ; New York : 254 ; Dubai : 179 ;

Guangzhou : 175 ; Wuhan : 171 ; Shenzhen : 155.
univer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2013, 05:40 AM   #76
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

Burj Khalifa's highest floor is 1,918 feet.
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2013, 11:25 AM   #77
univer
Registered User
 
univer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 325

yes, I know, but Burj Khalifa's roof height is 747m
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post

[IMG]http://i49.************/11jaxyp.png[/IMG]
__________________
Number of 150m+ Completed Buildings (June 2017)
Hong Kong : 376 ; New York : 254 ; Dubai : 179 ;

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

Highcliff, Kanto liked this post
univer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2013, 06:14 PM   #78
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

Why should almost 200 m of unoccupiable space be included in the roof height? Sorry Kanto, but I have to disagree about that one.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
L.A.F.2. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2013, 02:14 AM   #79
Fury
Proudly Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,059
Likes (Received): 350

Hi all.

1 - The council dropped the official height to roof measurement for a reason that structures like the BK make abundantly clear.
2 - Kanto's rules for determining roof height on structures like the BK are completely arbitrary. 747 is part way between the lowest and highest elevation of section 23B making no sense whatsoever.
3 - In regards to the BK, I have posted a list of possible elevations on the structure that could be considered the roof height that numbered near 10, in response to a discussion at the time.
4 - I do agree with the current rules the council follows for the 3 official height measurements for the most part. There is room for discussion on some changes regarding certain structures though. Roof height is a dead issue for good reason.


Ray.
__________________
Burj Khalifa - The Greatest Structure of our Time !!
Fury no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2013, 04:15 AM   #80
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

I think by his measurements when a setback eliminates over 50% of the floor space of the previous floor, the roof stops there. Jano?
__________________

Kanto liked this post
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 08:41 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