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 7th, 2007, 04:01 PM   #21
Jarmo K
3:36
 
Jarmo K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 232

600 (:
__________________
arhitektuurihuvilistele: http://www.arhitektuurid.blogspot.com/
Jarmo K no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:04 PM   #22
z0rg
fok julle naaiers
 
z0rg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Madrid
Posts: 24,725
Likes (Received): 15915

We better update the category "supertall" to 400m+ at least. 300m is nothing special anymore. I'm also starting to feel that something is wrong when people call "skyscraper" a 150m- highrise.

0 - 50m = Lowrise
50 - 100m = Midrise
100m+ Highrise
150m+ Skyscraper
400m+ Supertall
1000m+ Megatall
__________________
What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger.

More than 300 supertall projects on going in China.

Last edited by z0rg; September 7th, 2007 at 04:34 PM.
z0rg no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:07 PM   #23
Gattberserk
Smith
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by malec View Post

Once over 300m, special attention in the design process is usually given to what happens at this height, the effects, etc. This is why IMO there's a special category for buildings over 300m. I think the burj dubai is still a supertall because it still functions like a conventional supertall, it's just a very tall one.

I not too sure about this though, But i think a structure shape that direct wind upward can already been a factor that is special even for a supertall.

CS is also design to aid directing wind current, significantly reduce the amount of moment the wind would cause for the stucture to oscillate at the top
__________________
WORLD TALLEST STRUCTURE


Kingdom Tower of Jeddah
Gattberserk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:09 PM   #24
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,760
Likes (Received): 10141

i dont know about that malec. yes some of the principles apply to new bldgs over 300m and same for 600m towers but i really do believe a 100storey bldg or 500m+ should be another kettle of fish.
when you say what about to 100m or 200m, these are hard to compare because they are so short. I always had theory that a skyscraper starts at 500ft or 150m.these can be called HIGHRISE. (150m-300m). then 300m-500m (SUPERTALL) and 500m-800m (MEGATALL) and 800m+ (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 7th, 2007, 04:18 PM   #25
Zicyx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 188
Likes (Received): 7

What about starscraper for buildings higher than 1000 meters.

But i think that 600 meters is better because there are already so many buildings higher than 500 meters.
Zicyx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:20 PM   #26
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,760
Likes (Received): 10141

another thing to remember is if we do agree with 600m for a megatall, the new section will be hardly worth creating as there would only be a handful of projects.
So basically the new megatall section would only work, if we agree to 500m. because there will be 20 or so projects.
__________________
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 7th, 2007, 04:22 PM   #27
xlchris
Not much
 
xlchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Haarlem
Posts: 11,087
Likes (Received): 201

I agree with 500m+, now it are only a handfull of projects, later on it are becoming more and more!
__________________
"
xlchris no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:24 PM   #28
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,817
Likes (Received): 5

I say 600m.

Building - 0 - 150m
Skscraper 150m+
Supertall 300m+
Megatall 600m+

Ther may not be anything 'megatall' at the moment, but the categories above seem to me to just feel right.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:26 PM   #29
Gerard
registered muse
 
Gerard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 2,431
Likes (Received): 710

300+ is not enough anymore.
And in the near future is guess there will be more 600+ proposals and U/C's.

But maybe my grudge against Taipei 100 being a megatall and WFC and ICC not is the real reason.
Standing under a 300+ building is standing under a supertall building i can tel you. Maybe it's an option to make several supertall threads (ST 300-399, ST 400-499 and ST 500+ )
Gerard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:29 PM   #30
Buyckske Ruben
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,968
Likes (Received): 214

Take 600m as megatall or hypertall

Euhmm...600m definitly is the best choise. Why because in th near future 500m will be ordinary. For me the term mega or hypertall better for 600m than 500m.

End another category for 'Stratoscrapers' above 1 km: Like Burj Dubai, or maybe in the future City of Silk end Al Burj...
Buyckske Ruben no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:34 PM   #31
Myster E
Registered User
 
Myster E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,286
Likes (Received): 73

I'd stick with 500+m as Megatall for now, we seem to have more and more 500+m towers proposed/approved but only a handful are under construction.

800-999m I'd class as ultra tall but again only a handful of these will be proposed or approved in the near future, we only have one building on earth which is under construction at this height.

1000+m I wouldn't bother compiling any of these until realistically for another 10-20 years, post 2015 I would expect more and more of these to be proposed in the middle east, Asian countries such as South Korea, China or maybe Japan.
Myster E está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:34 PM   #32
Castle_Bravo
Urban experience...
 
Castle_Bravo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warsaw (PL) / Utrecht (NL)
Posts: 2,278
Likes (Received): 200

I think that the 600+ category is better than 500+. Primo: Today there are 500+ towers (Taipei, Sears Tower with spire and all), secondly: the scale of a 600+ tower (Federation Tower, Burj Dubai, Chicago Spire and other) is much bigger than 500+. I think that the Megatall category should be created special for a few buildings- a SUPERelite catgory ,if we also take 500+ and almost 500+ (ICC, WFC) there would be a few dozens of buildings: U/C, built and planned, and megatall- it sounds like something unreal
__________________
Odgadnij wysokość
Castle_Bravo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:37 PM   #33
giovani kun
====(^.^)====
 
giovani kun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 世界 に
Posts: 2,902
Likes (Received): 559

dowgrade the 300m towers !

CULWULLA as far as I know the term SUPERTALL is for buildings over 1km+ or over one mile towers ..so the logical path is to dowgrade the 300m towers to another name ..and let the Supertalls define the TRUE Super-skyscrapers
giovani kun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:51 PM   #34
Xelebes
Salad Days Are Here
 
Xelebes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Едмончук/Oil Capital of Canada
Posts: 3,626
Likes (Received): 746

Mega is a prefix for million. Let's save that for spacescrapers.

My suggestions:

Ultratall - +500 m
Hypertall - +800 m
Mountaintall - +1000 m

Megatall - +10 000 m

Edit: Rethinking here:

Single floor residence 0-6 m
Lowrise 6-25 m
Midrise 25-50 m
Highrise 50-150 m
Skyscraper 150-300 m
Tall Skyscraper 300-500 m
Supertall Skyscraper +500m

That makes sense.
__________________

Last edited by Xelebes; September 7th, 2007 at 04:57 PM.
Xelebes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:56 PM   #35
mightygoose
Registered User
 
mightygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 141
Likes (Received): 10

600m for one reason, can we really say any buildings that are currently completed deserve the title... i dont think so. i think we should make it 600m and make it canon now as in the next 5 years there will be several more. when they setup the supertall room there were plenty because they left it real late. id rather have a decision and a sparsely populated board than leave it up in the air so peeps can argue till the cows come home...
__________________
guess the final height of the burj dubai and get a shiny plaque for your signature...
[linkie]
mightygoose no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:58 PM   #36
Xelebes
Salad Days Are Here
 
Xelebes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Едмончук/Oil Capital of Canada
Posts: 3,626
Likes (Received): 746

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelebes View Post

Single floor residence 0-6 m
Lowrise 6-25 m
Midrise 25-50 m
Highrise 50-150 m
Skyscraper 150-300 m
Tall Skyscraper 300-500 m
Supertall Skyscraper +500m

That makes sense.
Yeah, I'm sticking with that.
__________________
Xelebes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 04:59 PM   #37
Escoto_Dubai2008
Dubai, 21st Century City
 
Escoto_Dubai2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Santa Tecla, El Salvador
Posts: 2,808
Likes (Received): 411

I think 500m+ is ok for now. Because in the future maybe we will talk of towers of 1000m, 1200m and maybe 2000m.
__________________
Andrés Escoto: "Apasionado por un sueño"

Mis Blogs

!Somos seres humanos,....! !Nuestras vidas tienen valor!
Escoto_Dubai2008 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 05:08 PM   #38
LMCA1990
Top tier
 
LMCA1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: España con ñ
Posts: 14,965
Likes (Received): 3456

I say 500m+.
LMCA1990 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 05:12 PM   #39
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317

500m +

There simply aren't enough 600m+ buildings to warrant a new Megatall forum.

And about making hypertall skyscrapers shorter than megatalls: no. Hypertall just sounds so much bigger and better, you know?

There. Glad we got that sorted.
Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 05:22 PM   #40
elliot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,193
Likes (Received): 32

You need to add "none of the above" to this poll.
elliot 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 02:01 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