daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



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 15th, 2012, 05:18 PM   #32741
Kimiwind1184
Speed Metal God
 
Kimiwind1184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wisconsin/Osaka/Rabat
Posts: 2,286
Likes (Received): 1152

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
that official height measurement is just an imaginary number which has got nothing to do with the real height of the building
Dude, what you say is irrelevant in many ways! Antenna is an antenna, and spire is a spire. Definitely there is a big difference between the two when inserted in a building. In regards to that, I would put a tall antenna on the top of any building I want and that would drastically change the final height, but of course that would never be counted. Don't be too much optimistic about the height of WTC 1, it's just a mere 419 meters tall building now and you have to live with it.
__________________
'Running fast in a herd while being as dumb as shit, I think, is a very good adaptation for survival.’
Kimiwind1184 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 15th, 2012, 05:27 PM   #32742
RandomNameTag
Skyscraper fan
 
RandomNameTag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: rural Georgia, United States
Posts: 468
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
That is the reason that highest floor is another good measurement. It is 621 meters at the highest floor. But considering that the rest of the building is actual structure, that they actually constructed,the roof is 828 meters.
Burj Khalifa was actually a contributing factor that lead the Council to get rid or the roof height measurement.

The upcoming Kingdom Tower in Jeddah is even more of a challenge. I'd like to see what Kanto has to say about the "roof height" of that!
RandomNameTag no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 05:47 PM   #32743
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 Kimiwind1184 View Post
Dude, what you say is irrelevant in many ways! Antenna is an antenna, and spire is a spire. Definitely there is a big difference between the two when inserted in a building. In regards to that, I would put a tall antenna on the top of any building I want and that would drastically change the final height, but of course that would never be counted. Don't be too much optimistic about the height of WTC 1, it's just a mere 419 meters tall building now and you have to live with it.
An antenna and a spire are for 98% the same, so it indeed is relevant

As to Burj Khalifa, I have thought quite a bit about it. I will post my thoughts later today or tomorow in the architecture section
__________________
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 15th, 2012, 05:48 PM   #32744
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepblue01 View Post
If its not built in the US, it's not good!!!!

Comments and discussions like these indicate insecurity.

How do you get 'too used to them'?



If anything, I find structures like ESB and Eiffel Tower overrated. They are used to represent present/past national glory more than anything else in today's world. would you agree?

Yes ESB was built earlier than the rest, but Petronas is something distinct as well, is it not?

I wouldn't find ESB boring to be honest.

Oh btw, anything built in China is just super not good !!!!

No I do not agree with you, the Empire State Building is gorgeous and the Petronas Towers get old quickly after you see numerous pictures of them, I just don't find them inspiring whereas the ESB was built so long ago yet it is still famous as hell
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 05:49 PM   #32745
Kanto
Roof height crusader
 
Kanto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S-4, Papoose Lake
Posts: 5,925
Likes (Received): 3546

I agree with you. The ESB is a far superior design compared to Petronas
__________________
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 15th, 2012, 05:52 PM   #32746
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomNameTag View Post
Burj Khalifa was actually a contributing factor that lead the Council to get rid or the roof height measurement.

The upcoming Kingdom Tower in Jeddah is even more of a challenge. I'd like to see what Kanto has to say about the "roof height" of that!
I remember when it was rumored that there will be livable floors in the spire making in Kanto's mind roof height almost at the top of the building. Man how excited he was And then it has been cleared out that livable floors won't go much higher than to half of the height. I bet that made him upset. And who now cares about imaginary numbers And kingdom towers design didn't even change.

Roof height is obsolete in these days. Anybody who disagree is living the past. The only thing in my mind that is questionable is whether we should count antennas as well, because different in function and sometimes not included in the design, they still describes in the same degree as spires engineering achievement.
__________________
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 15th, 2012 at 06:10 PM.
patrykus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 06:05 PM   #32747
Vito Corleone
Moderator
 
Vito Corleone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York - Chicago
Posts: 311
Likes (Received): 324


Yeah, you are right. The CTBUH doesn't even list roof heights anymore on their building pages.
Vito Corleone no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 09:09 PM   #32748
jch009
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

Confused...

First off, please don't bite my head off if I am repeating what's already been discussed. I have been following this project for a long time on this site, but not nearly as closely as you all and this is the first time I've felt compelled to post, mainly because I have nothing to offer

I know you all have been discussing the new antenna, and I have looked back at many a post. But I am still confused as to what the actual roof will look like at this point? Mainly because when you go to www.wtc.com they have a new video on the first page with the older roof render (which is the one I love). Yet I thought the (in my opinion hideous-) ring was the current choice?

Any help would be appreciated. I really wish they'd go with the one in the new video - it looks fantastic.

Thanks.
jch009 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 09:13 PM   #32749
PDC1987
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 94

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanto View Post
The height of 1WTC didn't change, it still is 419 meters to the roof, as it was before and 541 meters to the pinnacle, as it was before. The only thing that changed is the design of the antenna. The cover of it was removed. Because of that the CTBUH now categorizes it as an antenna, not as a spire and therefore it doesn't count it into its official height measurement, however, that official height measurement is just an imaginary number which has got nothing to do with the real height of the building
Stop spreading misinformation, especially to someone who doesn't know better and was asking about it. That poster was asking a clear-as-day question regarding official figures, not your inane irrelevant opinion.

The height of 1 WTC *did* change, as the CTBUH decides these things, *not* you. That "imaginary" number comes from an industry-wide accepted method of height measurement.

A spire is an architectural part of a building, while an antenna, flag pole or mast are not as they serve another purpose and are literally just tacked on to the top of a building. Spires do, and should, count towards building height.

GET OVER IT and move on already.
PDC1987 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 09:13 PM   #32750
Otie
Researcher
 
Otie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,117
Likes (Received): 2186

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrykus View Post

Roof height is obsolete in these days. Anybody who disagree is living the past.
That's a truth some will refuse to accept no matter how much you try to explain.
Otie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 09:31 PM   #32751
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

The CTBUH still lists the building as 1776 feet to the ARCHITECTURAL tip, that's what I'm going with until told otherwise, a few news articles about how the height may not officially be 1776 is not confirmation enough, there was no certainty.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 09:35 PM   #32752
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 PDC1987 View Post
Stop spreading misinformation, especially to someone who doesn't know better and was asking about it. That poster was asking a clear-as-day question regarding official figures, not your inane irrelevant opinion.

The height of 1 WTC *did* change, as the CTBUH decides these things, *not* you. That "imaginary" number comes from an industry-wide accepted method of height measurement.

A spire is an architectural part of a building, while an antenna, flag pole or mast are not as they serve another purpose and are literally just tacked on to the top of a building. Spires do, and should, count towards building height.

GET OVER IT and move on already.
Wrong! This is what he asked:

Quote:
Sorry, I'm not understanding the changes, what actually happened with the spire? It will be redesigned or removed from the project? The WTC1 was supposed to have more then 500 mts, right?

Thanks!
____________
I answered exactly to what he asked, what happened to the spire and what the PHYSICAL height is and whether the antenna is now counted to official height, so PDC please don't throw false accusations at me
__________________
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 15th, 2012, 10:08 PM   #32753
NewYorkSkyline117
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Morris County
Posts: 1,091
Likes (Received): 243

I think he was referring to how you called it an "imaginary" number when really it's significant
NewYorkSkyline117 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 10:14 PM   #32754
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,311
Likes (Received): 246

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDC1987 View Post
Stop spreading misinformation, especially to someone who doesn't know better and was asking about it. That poster was asking a clear-as-day question regarding official figures, not your inane irrelevant opinion.

The height of 1 WTC *did* change, as the CTBUH decides these things, *not* you. That "imaginary" number comes from an industry-wide accepted method of height measurement.

A spire is an architectural part of a building, while an antenna, flag pole or mast are not as they serve another purpose and are literally just tacked on to the top of a building. Spires do, and should, count towards building height.

GET OVER IT and move on already.
There is a 300m building in Houston, and I am going to add a 250m spire to it. It will be the tallest building in America!

Here is a picture of it

iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 10:22 PM   #32755
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

First of you couldn't.

Second, what you don't understand is that official measurement system has to be consistent for all towers. You can't measure the spire for Burj khalifa but not for 1wtc even if for boxy towers this option would have sense.
__________________
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 15th, 2012, 10:23 PM   #32756
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
First of you couldn't.

Second, what you don't understand is that official measurement system has to be consistent for all towers. You can't measure the spire for Burj khalifa and but not for 1wtc even if for boxy towers this option would have point.
Yeah you could. More than 50% is still a building, so you technically could. The main thing to think about here is not the skyscraper in Houston. It's that you can build a 300m building, and add a 250m spire, and call it America's tallest building
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 10:26 PM   #32757
patrykus
Registered User
 
patrykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 3,778
Likes (Received): 1794

what? Not counting burj spire to the height? Really?
__________________
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 15th, 2012, 10:31 PM   #32758
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
what? Not counting burj spire to the height? Really?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I am saying that technically you could build a 300m building and add a 250m spire like this, and it would be the tallest in America by CTBUH standards.

iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 10:43 PM   #32759
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
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I am saying that technically you could build a 300m building and add a 250m spire like this, and it would be the tallest in America by CTBUH standards.
I see, so you don't have arguments against second (essential) part of my post

As for the spire I think it isn't technically possible without wires all the way up for such a thin spire. What's more nobody would decide to build such building because it would be subject to jokes, and probably baptized most stupid and ugly building on earth.

But hey, say someone build this. There is this saying in my country: The exception proves the principle
__________________
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 15th, 2012, 10:43 PM   #32760
The tallest building
Registered User
 
The tallest building's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 114
Likes (Received): 5

the old world trade center was set as an icon to represent economic strength and in a few years of the post office in chicago is fully built then one world trade center will not be much of an icon anymore. the post office will

also posted in the post office redevelopment plan
The tallest building no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
construction updates, development, ground zero, manhattan, new york city, nyc, port authority, supertall, world trade center

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 06:09 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