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 14th, 2007, 06:43 AM   #61
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

After seeing those diagrams, it is clear that the Petronas Towers are not bigger than the Sears Tower.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 16th, 2007, 02:03 PM   #62
Brendan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wollongong, NSW
Posts: 2,219
Likes (Received): 23

deleted

Last edited by Brendan; January 1st, 2012 at 07:26 PM.
Brendan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 05:17 AM   #63
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

I don't count structural height at all when it comes to skyscrapers be it spires, antennas, lattice work, or crowns. I find them as nothing more than cheating for height. This is like standing on your tippy-toes just to be biggers. Just b/c the CTBUH mentioned that spires count, doesn't mean that they are correct. If on person stood on the top floor of the Sears Tower, and the other on the top floor of either of the Petronas Towers, who would be higher? The answer would be who is looking down at the other, and I doubt it would be the Petronas Towers there.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2007, 09:01 AM   #64
Brendan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wollongong, NSW
Posts: 2,219
Likes (Received): 23

deleted

Last edited by Brendan; January 1st, 2012 at 07:26 PM.
Brendan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 04:12 AM   #65
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

My last post had nothing to do with the location of those buildings. I didn't even mention that at all if you re-read it, especially what I said in the first sentence. The point I was making is that by having a taller occupied floor, the Sears Tower beats the Petronas Towers in that.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 05:47 AM   #66
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
It seems to me that you are trying to stretch the variables as much as you can just to make the Sears Tower seem the tallest, probably because you're from the same country as it.

Btw, if someone were to stand on the top of Taipei 101, and someone to stand on the Sears Tower, the person on Taipei 101 would be higher.
From some of your posts on this forum, it is clear you have a strong dislike for the Sears Tower. Therefore, it is not suprising that you would never be inclined to include the antennas in the official height, no matter how compelling the evidence. Ironically, you continously accuse others of being biased when you are strongly biased against the Sears Tower yourself.

Chicagoans probably care more because of hometown bias but we also realize more than anyone else how the antennas greatly effect perception of Sears's height.

Last edited by Chi649; May 18th, 2007 at 06:05 AM.
Chi649 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2007, 07:16 PM   #67
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6525

in a few months or even weeks we can close that thread
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2007, 01:25 PM   #68
Tazmaniadevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tampa
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 1

When the WTC North Tower fell in 2001, it was the tallest building in the World at 1728 ft to the top of the TV Tower. This was using the last category of the Tall Buildings council. Why this was never pointed out was always a puzzle to me. Even the people at the WTC never mentioned it. Since then the Sear Tower has increased its tallest antenna, but it's pretty much a moot point with Burg Dubai passing everyone in all categories.
Tazmaniadevil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2007, 04:30 PM   #69
redbaron_012
Registered User
 
redbaron_012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11,562
Likes (Received): 3095

Yeah except the category of lift capacity...I hear that the skyrise lifts only fit one person...if they breath in !
redbaron_012 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 12:34 AM   #70
samsonyuen
SSLL
 
samsonyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace
Posts: 8,350
Likes (Received): 314

I think the Petronas is the shortest of the three, Sears the second tallest behind Taipei 101.
samsonyuen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2007, 10:43 PM   #71
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6525

when you count the absolute height yes, but without antennas the petronas are taller . do you count antenna's?
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2007, 08:05 AM   #72
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,635
Likes (Received): 10789

It's bizarre that people are quibbling about who has a bigger *****, I mean tower. Antennas, spires, crowns, etc. If you are talking height, then talk height.

The CN Tower is the tallest building. It's concrete and hundreds of people work there. The only significant difference between it and the Sears Tower is that it wasn't divided into 160 floors on the inside and embellished with windows on the exterior. I see a distinction between a building and a tv mast, but not the CN Tower and other skyscrapers. Reclassifying the CN Tower as a structure rather than a building so that the Sears Tower can keep it's record has always seemed sneaky more than anything else.

Height is height, and the Sears Tower lost that distinction in 1976. Call the CN Tower what you want, the Sears Tower is still much shorter. That said, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter I suppose. If people want to believe that the Sears Tower is #1, let them.

Last edited by isaidso; May 25th, 2007 at 08:12 AM.
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2013, 04:21 PM   #73
SliceFTW
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 66
Likes (Received): 12

Sky city Is going to destroy all records!!!
SliceFTW 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 08:50 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