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.


View Poll Results: What height should a MEGATALL be classifed as?
500m+ (1640ft) 198 39.52%
600m+ (1968ft) 303 60.48%
Voters: 501. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 11th, 2007, 03:03 PM   #201
Gattberserk
Smith
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
i think magic half a km high is a good height for mega smega tall.
yes 600m is a good figure only because its near imperial measurement of 2000ft, but these days and future is all about the metric system wether you like it or not.
Oh issit? But up to now the definition of a mountain still stood firmly only above 600m, not 500m.


I will still stand by another category after 600m+ and NOT 500m. Metric system uses SI units, but the metric system begin at 1m or 1km. Make it either this and not anywhere in between, if not you are screwing the metric system instead. 1km for future category is the best option and everything will fall in nice


Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
but 600+ bldgs arent going to come along every week. there a once a year if that and thats ony proposals.
cncity-YES i agree, that was my original idea months ago when all this happened with dividing up 300m+ projects. I wanted a CONSTRUCTION section which was separted from propodsals. this is where all confusions and mix ups are. theres just too many.
Atleast with construction section, you know there actually underconstruction not just an airy fairy vision or far out proposal.
maybe thats the answer?
Cul, i will just say wait... What the rush now seriously?



No 500m please. Also dun use Megatall, it will cause no link to the prefix uses such as Giga, Tera etc.
__________________
WORLD TALLEST STRUCTURE


Kingdom Tower of Jeddah

Last edited by Gattberserk; September 11th, 2007 at 03:10 PM.
Gattberserk no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 11th, 2007, 06:25 PM   #202
paw25694
Batik
 
paw25694's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Jakarta
Posts: 4,749
Likes (Received): 36

600m
__________________
Visit Indonesia
Click here
"The sound of invitation is rising, waiting for you to come... It's time to visit, Indonesia"
paw25694 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 07:05 PM   #203
Norb
Registered User
 
Norb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 288
Likes (Received): 8

I agree that SI prefixes should be avoided, apart from the fact that we have hyper- and ultra- prefixes to use still...
Norb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 08:32 PM   #204
jlh630
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 7

Whatever the height is chosen to be, I think the term should be ultratall. Megatall should be out because of the SI prefix confusion, and hyper- implies something fast...not big/tall. Ultra and super both imply something above and beyond the norm, with ultra being the greater of the two.
jlh630 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 08:55 PM   #205
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 228

If the new term is going to have significance then I'd say it should at a height that seperates different generations of sky scrapers, say 600-700 meters.
MoreOrLess no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 09:21 PM   #206
Nr. 2
Paranoid
 
Nr. 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ulm
Posts: 84
Likes (Received): 0

We need a new poll for mega vs. hyper.

Vote for hyper = 600+
Nr. 2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 09:57 PM   #207
Coldwake
Voice of Reason (usually)
 
Coldwake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,399
Likes (Received): 672

I say 600+ because it's truly a stand out height.

Also, even if it is slow at first you could sticky the development of the buildings and open the forum to all Megatall discussion. It would be a good place to discuss anything related to Megatalls. If we start getting an influx of proposals then it could be closed off to all non-development updates like it is right now.
Coldwake no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 11:20 PM   #208
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6526

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nr. 2 View Post
We need a new poll for mega vs. hyper.

Vote for hyper = 600+
not really
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 11:41 PM   #209
44p
build the NWTC
 
44p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Houston
Posts: 696
Likes (Received): 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nr. 2 View Post
We need a new poll for mega vs. hyper.

Vote for hyper = 600+
yes!

supertall-300M-600M megatall-600M-800M hypertall-900M+
44p no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 04:26 AM   #210
Bob Weaver
Registered User
 
Bob Weaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

I am all for the new title of Mega-tall. It would give an aire of supremecy to these new towers. 600+ is my vote as well.
Oh yeah and doesnt Mega just sound right
Bob Weaver no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 04:29 AM   #211
WonderlandPark
nomadist
 
WonderlandPark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,957
Likes (Received): 478

I say leave it for now.

And it should be 600m ~ 2000 ft, it really makes the most sense.
__________________
Images of travel, cities and architecture on pixelmap
WonderlandPark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 05:12 AM   #212
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,760
Likes (Received): 10143

theres no rush, but it is getting ridiculous when i come back after 1 day and i have to search back 3 pages to see a thread. theres simply too many threads in supertall section.
as i said we will be waiting awhile for 600m supertalls.
__________________
Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020.. https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 05:20 AM   #213
jlh630
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by GASpedal View Post
If you simply want to divide the supertall category, why not start a "supertall 500+" section? Does it always have to be a new superlative?
I think this is a great idea. Why should the thread be divided into ONLY supertall and "megatall" categories. We can have a thread for megatalls at say 600+, and then split the supertalls into a 300-450m and 450-600m sections. People who think that a new term should be applied to an entirely new breed of skyscrapers (600m+) will have their way, and people who want to see the supertall thread cleaned up will have theirs. The only win/win solution if you ask me.
jlh630 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 06:33 AM   #214
labcreation
Registered User
 
labcreation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Croydon, S.London
Posts: 117
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnurT View Post

Anyway, my preferrence is 500m+
10-50m: Lowrise
50-100m: Midrise
100-250m: Highrise
250-500m: Supertall
500m+: Megatall
I Agree with this. It's more logical.
labcreation no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 02:17 PM   #215
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,760
Likes (Received): 10143

300m+ supertall
500m+extemetall?
800m+ megatall
1000m+ hypertall
__________________
Sydney Harbour Bridge -1932, Sydney Opera House- 1973, Sydney Tower- 1981, Crown Sydney- 2020.. https://www.buildsydney.com/forum
CULWULLA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2007, 02:23 PM   #216
Gendo
Registered User
 
Gendo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SE Idaho
Posts: 1,548
Likes (Received): 77

Well I think 500m+ is a good separation point.

Then Hypertalls could be 1,000m+ once a few start being built.
Gendo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2007, 09:12 AM   #217
Mr. Alloy
Modulator
 
Mr. Alloy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 419
Likes (Received): 2

My opinion has already been stated a few times by others, but here it is again:

Highrise < 300
300 =/< Supertall < 600
600 =/< Megatall < 1000
1000 =/< Hypertall

(1300 =/< RIDICULOUStall)
__________________
Counting down the days to Jan. 30, 2009!

(Or Dec. 30, 2008. Whatev.)

Guess the final height of the Burj Dubai and get a shiny plaque!
Mr. Alloy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2007, 08:46 PM   #218
the sock
Registered User
 
the sock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,725
Likes (Received): 80

what about over 1km=MEGATALL and over 1mile=UNBERLIVEABLYTALL
the sock no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2007, 11:35 PM   #219
-Corey-
Je suis tout ā vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,221
Likes (Received): 5223

So when are we going to have the 500 m-sub-forum?
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2007, 12:16 AM   #220
Gaeus
500-Internal Server Error
 
Gaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,498
Likes (Received): 87

Kanye West's Mouth = 150 m
Rosie O'Donnell Bigger Mouth = 300 m
Sarah Silverman's Ego = 400 m
Britney Spears' Fat Belly = 500 m
Paris Hilton's Prison Bar = 750 m



NOTE: That was off-topic and I'm just trying to have a good Friday night start.

Back to the topic:

After reading many thoughts, I think one idea really fits it all.

Supertall x 300 m
Supertall x 400 m
Supertall x 500 m
Supertall x 600 m
----------------------
Megatall x 750 m

I revised my previous idea. It seems my first one is not too smart and its pretty general.
Gaeus 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 06:21 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