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 March 7th, 2017, 02:16 PM   #1
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,346
Likes (Received): 8241

definitions for building height

So I was in a discussion of what roof height means in a thread and it seems the definition is not as clear as I thought. So here is what I think the words mean:

-------------------

Height to Tip: Building height to the very top from the lowest point on the ground (if building is on an uneven terrain) to the highest permanent part (antennas installed decades after construction finished count, but not counting nonpermanent structures such as a flagpole on top for a national day etc.)

Architectural Height: Height to Tip without antenna height, lightning rods,

Roof Height: Architectural Height without spires and without flat structures such as advertisement boards.

Highest Occupational Floor Height: Roof Height without parapets and without empty crowns.

-------------------

Can someone clear up if these words are even clearly defined like that?
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 7th, 2017, 09:18 PM   #2
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,528
Likes (Received): 22569

a spire is a permanent or architectural part of a building as determined by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and as such counts towards architectural height.
Hudson11 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2017, 10:50 PM   #3
A Chicagoan
I Love Chicago!
 
A Chicagoan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,915
Likes (Received): 1592

Antennae and lightning rods don't count as architectural height, but spires do. I, personally, sometimes have a hard time seeing the difference (literally).
__________________
I'm a Chicagoan and I'm proud of it!
Even though I don't live in Chicago anymore.

KillerZavatar, spidey7312 liked this post
A Chicagoan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 12:12 AM   #4
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Yeah, I used to have a problem with it, too, then I re-read the CTBUH docs more carefully and the distinction is clear: spires are permanent features of a building, just like a parapet. But antennae are often added to, upgraded, removed, etc. They are by definition, and by necessity, replaceable parts.

Spires, while occasionally "bolted on", are usually an integral part of the structure never meant to disturbed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Chicagoan View Post
Antennae and lightning rods don't count as architectural height, but spires do. I, personally, sometimes have a hard time seeing the difference (literally).
__________________

KillerZavatar liked this post
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 12:19 AM   #5
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Where are those definitions from?

Here's the CTBUH criteria, of which they list three:

http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/H...S/Default.aspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
So I was in a discussion of what roof height means in a thread and it seems the definition is not as clear as I thought. So here is what I think the words mean:

-------------------

Height to Tip: Building height to the very top from the lowest point on the ground (if building is on an uneven terrain) to the highest permanent part (antennas installed decades after construction finished count, but not counting nonpermanent structures such as a flagpole on top for a national day etc.)

Architectural Height: Height to Tip without antenna height, lightning rods,

Roof Height: Architectural Height without spires and without flat structures such as advertisement boards.

Highest Occupational Floor Height: Roof Height without parapets and without empty crowns.

-------------------

Can someone clear up if these words are even clearly defined like that?
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 12:28 AM   #6
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,346
Likes (Received): 8241

Empire State building for example was not build with an antenna in mind and is probably one of the main reasons to not include antennas, otherwise if you make a historical timeline the height of the empire state building would be rather confusing as it was increased long after it was finished. In that sense It made sense not to count it. To count spires that looked exactly like antennas look though, makes it weird again. So I personally prefer to use to tip and roof height over the architectural height definition.
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 12:31 AM   #7
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,346
Likes (Received): 8241

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuwanda View Post
Where are those definitions from?

Here's the CTBUH criteria, of which they list three:

http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/H...S/Default.aspx
Those definitions are what I thought they mean, so I just tried to describe the words myself and see if I am right. the CTBUH definitions seem to be really close to what I thought the words meant, so that's great. But still not sure about roof height.
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2017, 12:44 AM   #8
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

How can you have two height criteria used to determine the idea of tallest? People will use whatever suits them. Therefore there can be no agreement, only constant argument.

Tip height can change, and often does.

Roof height is open to many sub-definitions. Where's the roof of the Chrysler Building? Pick any skyline and see how many buildings have almost impossible-to-determine rooftops.

Using a floor definition is even worse.

The architectural top definition has no such problems because it's the top of the structure minus any antenna.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
Empire State building for example was not build with an antenna in mind and is probably one of the main reasons to not include antennas, otherwise if you make a historical timeline the height of the empire state building would be rather confusing as it was increased long after it was finished. In that sense It made sense not to count it. To count spires that looked exactly like antennas look though, makes it weird again. So I personally prefer to use to tip and roof height over the architectural height definition.
Nuwanda 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 11:16 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