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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



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 9th, 2007, 10:39 AM   #41
gladisimo
If I could be anyone...
 
gladisimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF, FC, HK
Posts: 2,525
Likes (Received): 39

Quote:
Originally Posted by Latoso View Post
So why even bother counting anything that's not habitable? True, it won't change things for Sears, but if antennas don't count, nether should spires.
Spires are supposed to be architecturally integral to the skyscraper itself, spires are supposed to have architectural merit as part of the design of the building, whereas an antenna's purpose is functional, rather than aesthetic or symbolic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NaptownBoy View Post
Height isn't all that important, in my opinion. I'd rather look at the whole skyline and how it utilizes its height.
Completely Agree! Who cares whether the Sears, ESB, or anything is the tallest or not. A building's merit as a beautiful piece of architecture does not stem from its height.
__________________
I left my <3 in HK

RIP Dopey - 9/2005 - 20/2/2008
gladisimo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 9th, 2007, 09:16 PM   #42
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
I think that the only people that believe the antennas should count are from Chicago itself..

Sorry guys, but if you count the antennas, then you'd have to say that the KVLY/KTHI TV Mast in Blanchard, ND is the tallest, which it isn't so.. ya.
Brendan, that is ridicolous. First of all, we need to classify if something is a building or not. If it is not a building, it has no relevance to this discussion. By your logic, someone could build a 3000ft spire and call it the world's tallest building.

Therefore, you could still count the antennas of the Sears Tower and not have to say that the TV mast in Blanchard is the tallest. Why? Because a TV mast cannot be considered a building.

People do care about height records. There are many in Australia that are proud to have the title of tallest residental building in the world. I do not think negative of them because of that.

A big part of the reason why Chicagoans care about the Sears record is because people made a big deal of it when the other buildings supposedly passed Sears.

But after Burj Dubai, who cares about Sears record anymore. At that point, the debate will be how long Sears had the record.
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2007, 09:55 PM   #43
SLKRR
recifense honorário
 
SLKRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Recife, Brasil
Posts: 993
Likes (Received): 1

I think it's absolutely hilarious how Chicagoans have completely reversed themselves on this:

1997 or so:

"Petronas isn't the tallest because only the highest floor should count. Anything above the highest floor is not really part of the actual building. Who cares about some dumb spires? The habitable space is what matters! Sears is still the tallest! Chicago rules!"

2003 or so:

"What? Taipei 101 has a higher floor than Sears? Well, we all know that antennas are what should count. Who cares about where the highest floor is? The actual highest tip is what matters! Sears is still the tallest!! Chicago RULEZZZ!!"

Don't worry guys, by sometime next year you can drop the rationalizations and just accept that Sears is no longer the tallest.
SLKRR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2007, 10:21 PM   #44
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

People have a lot of different opinions on how height is measured. It was true then and it is true now. There are still plenty of people that think neither antennas nor spires should count. They existed in 1997 and they're still around today.

I am however not one of those people. I simply believe that if something greatly effects your perception on how tall a building looks, then it should be included in the official height. Simple as that. There is no rationalizing involved.
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2007, 10:26 PM   #45
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6525

slowly i've the opinion they should also count antennas. for example the ESP. can anyone imagine it without its antenna??
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 12:24 AM   #46
SLKRR
recifense honorário
 
SLKRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Recife, Brasil
Posts: 993
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi649 View Post
People have a lot of different opinions on how height is measured. It was true then and it is true now. There are still plenty of people that think neither antennas nor spires should count. They existed in 1997 and they're still around today.

I am however not one of those people. I simply believe that if something greatly effects your perception on how tall a building looks, then it should be included in the official height. Simple as that. There is no rationalizing involved.
It was tongue-in-cheek... I think having the four categories is probably the best way to go, since there will always be some with different opinions. If I "had my druthers," I'd prefer not to count spires as "official." Especially glorified flagpoles like some of the newer spires appear to be. Then again, how can you justify not including the spire in the height of the Chrysler building? The more I think about it, the better it seems just to maintain the different categories.
SLKRR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 01:18 AM   #47
depressio
Lime and limpid green
 
depressio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 293
Likes (Received): 15

Good point SLKRR; I was just about to make a post about the Chrysler Building. I think that by looking at the Chrysler and the Sears, you have to say that you need to have anything count.
depressio no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 05:22 AM   #48
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLKRR View Post
It was tongue-in-cheek... I think having the four categories is probably the best way to go, since there will always be some with different opinions. If I "had my druthers," I'd prefer not to count spires as "official." Especially glorified flagpoles like some of the newer spires appear to be. Then again, how can you justify not including the spire in the height of the Chrysler building? The more I think about it, the better it seems just to maintain the different categories.
Its all good SLK
I share your view on Chrysler and the four categories. Some of the newer buildings have functional spires, which are included in the officical height even though they are also antennas. I would put Sears into this category. As it currently stands, Sears is treated like a building with a cell tower on top, but the antennas are so much more than that.

A perfect example of a glorified flagpole would be NY Times Tower. Its spire looks exactly like a flagpole to me. When completed, it will be officially taller than John Hancock in Chicago. It's obvious which one will look taller, so I guess the 4 categories is an attempt to create a fair playing field and please everyone. The problem is that most people think only one of the categories really count.

The ESB's official height is its roof at 1250'. When Trump Tower Chicago is completed, it will be 1362' to the top of the spire, which will be its official height. Therefore, Trump will be oficially taller. However, I will consider ESB taller than Trump becuase the thick part of ESB's antenna reaches 1365'.
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 05:27 AM   #49
Adrian Smith fan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 505
Likes (Received): 18

well sears wont hold on the title after the Great Burj Dubai finishes and capture all the records
Adrian Smith fan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 05:40 AM   #50
Chi649
Registered User
 
Chi649's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,156
Likes (Received): 12

Is there a thread for that building, Burj Dubai or whatever you call it?
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 03:30 PM   #51
SLKRR
recifense honorário
 
SLKRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Recife, Brasil
Posts: 993
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi649 View Post
Its all good SLK
I share your view on Chrysler and the four categories. Some of the newer buildings have functional spires, which are included in the officical height even though they are also antennas. I would put Sears into this category. As it currently stands, Sears is treated like a building with a cell tower on top, but the antennas are so much more than that.
I think this is a good point - maybe the problem is not that we should include antennas, but that Sears' antennas should actually be considered spires because of their size and design...? I think of the AT&T Corporate Center's four spires, and they don't look any more significant or integrated into the design than the two on Sears. I struggle to consider all antennas, however. There is a building near where I live that is 5 stories tall, with a TV antenna on the roof no shorter than 80m. There is simply no way I can consider this 5-story building to be 100+m in height - I'm sure you've seen similar structures. Maybe the definition of what can be considered a spire needs to be revisited? (You guys are winning me over, now! hehe)

Quote:
A perfect example of a glorified flagpole would be NY Times Tower.
That's the one I was thinking of, but there are others, too. If that pole is a spire, I think you are perfectly within your rights to claim the Sears antennas as spires, too.

Quote:
The problem is that most people think only one of the categories really count.
That's what happens when one of the categories is considered "official" (i.e., spires).

Quote:
The ESB's official height is its roof at 1250'. When Trump Tower Chicago is completed, it will be 1362' to the top of the spire, which will be its official height. Therefore, Trump will be oficially taller. However, I will consider ESB taller than Trump becuase the thick part of ESB's antenna reaches 1365'.
Another good example where maybe an antenna needs to be reclassified as a spire. This also brings us back to Taipei 101 and whoever it was complaining upthread about how small the upper floors of that building are. Look at the upper floors of the ESB! They are miniscule, too, but still count as floors.

I can't believe I'm starting to agree with you all...
SLKRR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 03:42 PM   #52
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6525

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi649 View Post
Is there a thread for that building, Burj Dubai or whatever you call it?
of course: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=466683
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 03:47 PM   #53
Aceventura
Registered User
 
Aceventura's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Miami
Posts: 1,899
Likes (Received): 2046

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi649 View Post
Is there a thread for that building, Burj Dubai or whatever you call it?
Aceventura no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2007, 09:49 PM   #54
Latoso
C.B.P.
 
Latoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,189
Likes (Received): 3

I agree the 4 categories are the best way to go. I personally don't care if Sears is tallest or not, I like it regardless. My issue is with the haphazard enforcement of the CTBUH definitions. The official height of the Sears Tower to the top of structure, not counting antennas, should be to the top of the steel tubes that hold the antennas because they are part of the original structure. It won't mean much as far as any titles go, but at least it would be the true height.
__________________
LATOSO
C.B.P. - Citizens for Better Planning

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die. - Daniel Burnham
Latoso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2007, 11:33 PM   #55
ToRoNto, g-town
Registered User
 
ToRoNto, g-town's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 748
Likes (Received): 10

^ i can agree with that, the real issue with the CTBUH is that they don't recognize the CN towere as a real 'building'.
__________________
I Own
ToRoNto, g-town no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2007, 06:20 PM   #56
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,640
Likes (Received): 10789

It's all abit ridiculous saying one building counts and another doesn't based on irrelevant criteria such as whether people live inside, spires, etc. It's as silly as saying the Eiffel Tower doesn't count because it doesn't have an office inside it. If you are talking about height, then talk about height. The Sears Tower was the tallest office building, but not much else.

At 1815 feet, the Canadian National Tower has been #1 for 3 decades and will finally lose it's title to the Burj Dubai. And for those who think occupancy does matter, hundreds of people do actually work at the Canadian National Tower: at its base, and yes, in the tower.

Last edited by isaidso; May 12th, 2007 at 06:25 PM.
isaidso está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2007, 05:38 PM   #57
CarlosBlueDragon
CarlosRedDragon
 
CarlosBlueDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Beijing/Shanghai/Guangzhou/HK
Posts: 1,848
Likes (Received): 678

[QUOTE=gladisimo;12758527]

The Sears Tower
I check 90m Antenna & Spire(pen)?? i guess
CarlosBlueDragon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2007, 08:48 PM   #58
SLKRR
recifense honorário
 
SLKRR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Recife, Brasil
Posts: 993
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
It's all abit ridiculous saying one building counts and another doesn't based on irrelevant criteria such as whether people live inside, spires, etc. It's as silly as saying the Eiffel Tower doesn't count because it doesn't have an office inside it. If you are talking about height, then talk about height. The Sears Tower was the tallest office building, but not much else.

At 1815 feet, the Canadian National Tower has been #1 for 3 decades and will finally lose it's title to the Burj Dubai. And for those who think occupancy does matter, hundreds of people do actually work at the Canadian National Tower: at its base, and yes, in the tower.
If it's "ridiculous saying one building counts and aonther doesn't based on irrelevant criteria such as whether people live inside, spires" then you should count the many communications towers which are taller than the CN Tower, the tallest being KYLV-TV in North Dakota. I mean, as long as you don't want to be "ridiculous," of course. I guess it's only ridiculous if your building doesn't count.
SLKRR no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2007, 09:13 PM   #59
kurakura
means tortoise in malay
 
kurakura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ipoh-Singapore
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 1

This thread is goin to be irrelevant soon......
kurakura no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 13th, 2007, 10:47 PM   #60
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6525

yeh, burj dubai will overtake all towers on the earth....SWFC will also have an taller roof than sears, Petronas and Taipe 101
ZZ-II 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 10:55 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