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: Should the height of Supertals be increased from 300m to 400m?
yes, its time to increase the height of supertall to 400m+. 131 39.94%
No, leave the height as 300m. 197 60.06%
Voters: 328. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 8th, 2007, 09:26 PM   #41
SpaceScraper
SpaceScraper
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 159
Likes (Received): 8

I hope no one is actually proposing that we no longer allow threads for buildings under 400M. Some of the most inspiring buildings do not satisfy this criteria. For example,

Dubai's Rose Rotana Hotel 333M
The London Bridge Tower (the Shard) 310M
Saint Petersburg's Ohta Center 396M

Would this site be better off without them?
SpaceScraper no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 9th, 2007, 06:45 AM   #42
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,754
Likes (Received): 10132

^not far from it. we just have a section for under 400m skyscrapers thats all.
we would have to remove about 50 threads to a 500m/ 600m section.depending on what everyone wants.

interesting results in poll.
40%= 400m+
60%= 300m+
__________________
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 9th, 2007, 07:22 AM   #43
Cliff
Tan
 
Cliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 4,317
Likes (Received): 172

This is just something I coined up which I feel is quite comfortable, this would give every category a slightly more even spread of buildings, even at the more elusive very very tall ranges.

Lowrise 0-50m
Midrise 50m-100m
Highrise 100m-200m
Skyscraper 200m-300m
Supertall 300m-500m
Megatall 500m-700m
Hypertall 700m-1000m

* for this table though, only the roofs of habitable floors are counted, which may very well push Burj Dubai down to the Megatall range, and Taipei 101 to the Supertall Range.

It'll be many years till the first 1000m+ building gets completed, so lets wait till then to think up a word.

$0.02
Cliff no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 07:35 AM   #44
FM 2258
Registered User
 
FM 2258's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,436
Likes (Received): 611

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZ-II View Post
i totally agree, 300 = supertall is a very old designation and shouldn't be changed.
Yeah, for us Americans 1000(984.252)ft/300m is pretty solid goal for building height. Next you have for the rest of the world another "1000", 1000 meters or 3000 (3280.84) ft. Once you get over a kilometer, I would call that a megatall. When you get to a mile then you can call the ultra tall.


To get a building safely over a kilometer tall I think it will take much more of an engineering challenge than something lower. In a previous post I said 2500feet should be mega but I think the kilometer should be reached before it's called MEGA.


Edit, I think I meant to post this in the SUPER/MEGA/ULTRA tall thread.
FM 2258 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 01:13 PM   #45
Faisal
Registered User
 
Faisal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 23

leave it as 300m
__________________
Kuwaiti Forum


Faisal no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 03:37 PM   #46
TohrAlkimista
Registered User
 
TohrAlkimista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Milano
Posts: 13,169
Likes (Received): 886

For me, maybe from an european point of view , +300 is surely a SuperTalls.

Maybe we can create another section of the +500 towers and call it HyperTalls or MegaTalls.
__________________
TohrFlickr
||| ||| |||
36 Hours in Milan
TohrAlkimista no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 03:42 PM   #47
Jude12
Architecture Student
 
Jude12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Manila - Sydney - Hong Kong
Posts: 3,074
Likes (Received): 43

leave it to 300+m
Jude12 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 05:40 PM   #48
[email protected]
Registered User
 
jet2sp@ce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vienna
Posts: 809
Likes (Received): 111

I would leave it as it is, or we could make new categories:
Highrise buildings up to 150m
skyscrapers up to 350 or 400m
Supertalls all above.
jet2sp@ce no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 02:54 AM   #49
CULWULLA
Registered User
 
CULWULLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 62,754
Likes (Received): 10132

so seems many would like to leave 300m as supertall because it really is a milestone or achievment. but since theres so many thats why i thought another category for skyscrapers over 500m would be good idea.
yes 600m is double height of 300m but there isnt that many atm, so 500m seems like a sensible figure?
whats everyone think? leave 300m as supertall and create 500m megatall section or what ever the name?
__________________
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 10th, 2007, 02:58 AM   #50
Gamma-Hamster
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,891
Likes (Received): 97

Leave everything as it is and wait until there will be enough 600 m towers for a new 600m section.
Gamma-Hamster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:00 AM   #51
Gaeus
500-Internal Server Error
 
Gaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,498
Likes (Received): 87

I agree with that.
__________________
GO REDSKINS!!!!!
Gaeus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:31 AM   #52
Gendo
Registered User
 
Gendo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SE Idaho
Posts: 1,548
Likes (Received): 77

I'd rather just see a new group called hypertall/megatall.
Gendo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:41 AM   #53
-Corey-
Je suis tout ā vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,218
Likes (Received): 5222

Quote:
Originally Posted by CULWULLA View Post
so seems many would like to leave 300m as supertall because it really is a milestone or achievment. but since theres so many thats why i thought another category for skyscrapers over 500m would be good idea.
yes 600m is double height of 300m but there isnt that many atm, so 500m seems like a sensible figure?
whats everyone think? leave 300m as supertall and create 500m megatall section or what ever the name?
Yeah, i agree with u
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:46 AM   #54
jamude18
In Your Thoughts
 
jamude18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: los angeles
Posts: 1,195
Likes (Received): 5

400 m its better!!
__________________
No Mas Farc
jamude18 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:51 AM   #55
Canadian74
Registered User
 
Canadian74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 533
Likes (Received): 1

Increase it to 400m...
Canadian74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:54 AM   #56
burj-dubai-forever
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

i'd rather have it changed to 400m+. for there are way too many 300m+ buildings being constructed.
burj-dubai-forever no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 04:09 AM   #57
walli
BANNED
 
walli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 753
Likes (Received): 27

I voted yes because there are absolutely too many threads here. Supertall has lost meaning!
walli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 04:40 AM   #58
44p
build the NWTC
 
44p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Houston
Posts: 696
Likes (Received): 18

no 300+.
44p no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 06:56 AM   #59
305Lover
Registered User
 
305Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Miami
Posts: 936
Likes (Received): 730

Leave it at 300m!!! If you raise it, Miami will never be part of that list!!
305Lover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 04:09 PM   #60
great184
visionary
 
great184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Miami-Manila-Bohol
Posts: 1,722
Likes (Received): 281

300m meters is pretty tall still, especially in an area that doesn't have any supertalls. Even a 200 meter building can look imposing if everything around it was below 100 meters. Don't change.

And what is with this having so many buildings over 300 meters. I'll tell you what: Count all the buildings in the worlds over 100 meters above, or even 200 meters above. Then Count the number of 300+ meter buildings. Then tell me if you can say 300+ buildings are very common.
__________________
Arguably, one of the best 3d cities in SSC - South Sea Central

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1536278
great184 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 01:09 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