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, 07:03 PM   #61
vanhenrik
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: karlskoga
Posts: 624
Likes (Received): 126

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
hi guys.
Ive been wondering lately with all these new enormous skyscrapers going up around the world and being planned they really do seem to be on another scale.
On this forum we classify "supertalls" as any building over 300m or 985ft.
I think we should have another category for skyscrapers over magic half km or 500m height.
Maybe these projects called be called Megatalls?
How can you compare a 300m skyscraper like Nina tower in HK to say Chicago Spire at 610m, twice the height and have them in same section?
Maybe some guys may think 600m or 2000ft should be megatall height?
Projects like Russia Tower and Chicago Spire and of course Burj Dubai fall into this category.
We are in a time of unprecidented skyscraper activity all over the world and we should have a section for these megatall skyscrapers because they really are in a league of there own.
I think its a bit premature to list a megatall as 1km+.
We may have Al Burj or Kuwait tower one day but lets worry about that when it happens.
lets vote on it.
also what you reckon about metric system?
it seems people have agreed 300m is better then 1000ft. there is 15ft or 5m difference.
So with megatall, 2000ft is 610m high. or should it be 600m which is 30ft lower at 1968ft.

I hope its ok to put this in this section?

is this going to led to eney results like all buldings ower 600 m are going to move to this megatall thred ?
vanhenrik no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:09 PM   #62
Gattberserk
Smith
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanhenrik View Post
is this going to led to eney results like all buldings ower 600 m are going to move to this megatall thred ?
And even if yes, its not going to make a much difference.

At 600m+, i guess only 8 thread are going over.
__________________
WORLD TALLEST STRUCTURE


Kingdom Tower of Jeddah
Gattberserk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:09 PM   #63
Dan Hochhaus
highrise addicted
 
Dan Hochhaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Freiburg
Posts: 1,223
Likes (Received): 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by khoojyh View Post
can i suggest 520m at the atleast height for megatall???
520m? This would be an odd number IMO, difficult to keep in mind. And in the long run, noone would understand what's so different between a 515m-skyscraper and another one with 525m.

500m? In that case, Taipeh101 had cracked this category already - a highrise that is not regarded to have reached a new dimension, mostly because WTC1 and Sears Tower were just as tall before, including their antennae. I agree with Hollie Maea in post #43.

So 600m is my choice - a height that was just impossible for buildings in the 20th century. Easy to remember and close to 2000 feet ("Anglo-Saxons" certainly would prefer this as a limit for megatalls, but the problematic range only covers 9.6 meters). Abraj Al Bait Towers, Freedom Tower and Federation Tower don't pass that limit, and all of them are planned with a huge spire and around or under 100 useable floors: this is still supertall, I think. On the other hand, Chicago Spire may have useable space up to the 150th floor at approx. 600m: that's a megatall to me. Only 3 +600m-megatalls are u/c right now, but if the skyscraper boom keeps going, there will be much more in a few years!

And I wouldn't change the categories we are used to.

Finally my next categories:
all buildings +1000m = Hypertalls,
divided into:
1000m - 1999m = Gigatall
2000m - 3999m = Teratall
+4000m = Petatall

Further one could keep in mind the part of the atmosphere at the building's top:
+10km = Stratotall -> reaches into the stratosphere
+50km = Mesotall -> ...................... mesosphere
+100km = Thermotall -> ...................... thermosphere (karman line)
+700km = Exotall -> ....................... exosphere...
But up there buildings would be under threat of flying satellite junk...

Anyway, there's a loooong way to go...
__________________
keep looking upwards
Dan Hochhaus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:10 PM   #64
Racingfreak
Skyscraperfan
 
Racingfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 1,251
Likes (Received): 7

500 meter for sure!

600 meter+ is ''extreme''
__________________
1.Maastoren............... 165M
2.New Orleans.............158M
3.Gebouw Delfse Poort.151M
4.De Rotterdam..........149M U/C
Racingfreak no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:10 PM   #65
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,436
Likes (Received): 611

I would think megatall would be over 2500ft.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:11 PM   #66
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6526

600m for me without a doubt
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:14 PM   #67
DAMN I m good
sould have been kazaaam !
 
DAMN I m good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brussels
Posts: 321
Likes (Received): 8

I agree with the one who said hyper tall coz ethimologicly it is more logic mega being part of the counting system (eg : micro ,milli ,centi ,deci ,hecto and finally kilo, mega ,giga ,peta ,etc ...) and the (super ,hyper) are also from the same familly so since we began with "super"tall I think the next step should be hypertall... so that my opinion

DAMN I m good no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:15 PM   #68
xXFallenXx
Registered User
 
xXFallenXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,859
Likes (Received): 170

Def. 600m. 500m is to short to be a megatall. thats only 200m between new categories. i think 1000m+ should be hypertall.
xXFallenXx no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:42 PM   #69
highup
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: london
Posts: 33
Likes (Received): 7

I THINK POLL IS A WASTE OF TIME AS PEOPLE WILL VOTE BASED ON THEIR
FAVOURITE SKYSCRAPER
ITS ONLY A FEW MONTHS SINCE SUPERTALL WAS INTRODUCED
SUPER/MEGA/HYPER WHO CARES. THE OVERIDING FACTOR WILL ALWAYS BE THE HEIGHT THATS ALL YOU NEED!
highup no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:42 PM   #70
DAMN I m good
sould have been kazaaam !
 
DAMN I m good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brussels
Posts: 321
Likes (Received): 8

and I voted for the 500 m limits I want minimum 15 treads to be in that section even if the 600 m height is better for several other reasons
__________________
Kazaaam
my miniville
DAMN I m good no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 07:43 PM   #71
jchernin
Registered User
 
jchernin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Santa Rosa/North Bay
Posts: 507
Likes (Received): 534

500m is too short!!!! the new category should start at 600m (plus its close to 2000 ft).

seems like most agree with me (for now)
jchernin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 08:04 PM   #72
Alle
Registered User
 
Alle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: G÷teborg
Posts: 2,337
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAMN I m good View Post
I agree with the one who said hyper tall coz ethimologicly it is more logic mega being part of the counting system (eg : micro ,milli ,centi ,deci ,hecto and finally kilo, mega ,giga ,peta ,etc ...) and the (super ,hyper) are also from the same familly so since we began with "super"tall I think the next step should be hypertall... so that my opinion

Agree on the name issue. Not sure if hyper is the best choice though. Ultra maybe? With a 900m or 1000m limit?
__________________
Stop the censorship in the BiH forums

Castles And Fortresses [Alpe Adria] [Bosnia]
Alle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 08:29 PM   #73
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 highup View Post
I THINK POLL IS A WASTE OF TIME AS PEOPLE WILL VOTE BASED ON THEIR
FAVOURITE SKYSCRAPER
ITS ONLY A FEW MONTHS SINCE SUPERTALL WAS INTRODUCED
SUPER/MEGA/HYPER WHO CARES. THE OVERIDING FACTOR WILL ALWAYS BE THE HEIGHT THATS ALL YOU NEED!
when you don't like it go out of this thread and don't tell us such silly things!
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 08:31 PM   #74
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 AKing View Post
Agree on the name issue. Not sure if hyper is the best choice though. Ultra maybe? With a 900m or 1000m limit?
yes, i agree. Ultratall sounds better than hyper. maybe hyper for 2000m + towers
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 08:34 PM   #75
TheGlobalizer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 671
Likes (Received): 4

I'm being a bit of a homer, but:

600 m. ~= 2000 ft. ~= current US limits

Megatall should be anything above.
TheGlobalizer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 08:39 PM   #76
Alweron
Registered User
 
Alweron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 247
Likes (Received): 8

I say 600+ meters would be a good limit for a Megatall building. Now there wouldn't be too many towers in that catergory, but I'm sure there will be. Should u consider creating that new category when there's really something to put there? Now there are only few of them, which will look quite stupid alone, don't u think?

And u can reserve the other names for towers over 1 km, but let's discus that after 10 years, shall we?
Alweron no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 09:02 PM   #77
Phobos
Registered User
 
Phobos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Porto
Posts: 9,408

500m for me,since it's half a kilometer and I think this height deserves its own category.
I also think we should use the word Hyper before Mega.Leave this one for a taller category,maybe plus 750m.
__________________
www.deforma.wordpress.com
Phobos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 09:09 PM   #78
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,506
Likes (Received): 6526

1/2 kilometer is a good reason for 500m but the distance between 300m and 500m is too small i think, only 200m.
and 600m is the double height of 300m, that sounds more like a megatall for me
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 09:13 PM   #79
mcdonnell77
Registered User
 
mcdonnell77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 180
Likes (Received): 5

I think 500m+ Becuase there are so many buildings proposed that are over 300m but not so many over 500m. This is why the supertall section is becoming crowded. If it were 600m+ then you would have an entire section dedicated to only a few buildings, and the supertall section would still be a little crowded.
mcdonnell77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2007, 09:20 PM   #80
jlh630
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Atlanta, Nashville
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 7

My vote is for 600 m. We should be defining this new "megatall" term based on height, and 600 m is a completely new dimension of skyscrapers that has yet to be reached (though it will be very soon).

It doesn't make sense to me to define this term based on how empty or full a whole new section of threads will be. There may only be a handful of 600 m towers proposed or U/C at the moment, but let's think about the future. The issue is height here...not how many threads there are.
jlh630 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