Is Super Tall still Super?

[Kanto]

Originally Posted by KillerZavatar

this is a post i created before seeing this thread


source: http://ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/Heigh...S/Default.aspx

CTBUH.org is one of our best sources for information and with them adding a new category and adding it for a good reason, it may be a good idea to start a new subforum for these buildings in our world development forums too. i know this has been discussed before and the reason we never had it was because it would be pointless to just create a new word, but now with an official source drawing the line on that mark, we magatall-enthusiasts may be up to something =D. this topic is to provoke a bit and see reactions from all you guys, would it be a good idea? would you like or dislike this change?

I 1000% agree with you. A new megatall cathegory should be added into the world development subforum. And it should be for buildings 600 meters or more. I disagree with HK999 because as Jan said before, 300 meters was chosen because it is a nice and easily memorable number and is very close to another nice and easy memorable number which is 1000 feet. 600 meters is very close to 2000 feet which are both nice numbers. the cathegories jave to be easy to identify and to remember, that's why a megatall should be 600 meters / 2000 feet or more

[ZZ-II]

Megatalls for towers at 600m+ is perfect imo....the next category should be for 1000m+ towers.

[Myster E]

Ultratall for 1000+m, infintall for 10,000m plus for those of us that dream

[KillerZavatar]

also if we had a new subforum we could move all these visionary projects in there that we have threads of. these never builts and stuff, easier to find them then and stuff.

[CULWULLA]

Originally Posted by HK999

Ok, I'll post my opinion from the other thread: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...9#post86545499

Well I think that 600m is still too tall for a new category. There are far too few towers which fall under that category.
For now, there are only 2(!) 600m+ towers U/C: Shanghai Tower and Ping An FC. Burj is completed and Makkah Clock Tower is T/O.

I guess 500m+ would fit better.

KillerZavatar' response:

My response:
I agree on the first statement, although we can't know for sure what will happen to these proposals / visions in these uncertain economic times.


Exactly. That's why I would recommend to add the 500m+ towers (6 U/C) at the first step.

i said 500m back in 2008. half km is a milestone. not 2000ft.
should be metric not imperial.
yes i undertstand 2000ft is double 1000ft,but i reckon 500m has so much more projects.
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=600142

[Tiaren]

How about that:

Highrise: ?m - 149m
Skyscraper: 150m - 299m
Supertall: 300m - 599m
Megatall: 600m -999m
Gigatall: 1000m - ?m

[ZZ-II]

500m is just 200m more than 300m...so ab bit less height to call it megatall imo. 600m is twice the height of a supertall, sounds better to me.

[ZZ-II]

I think a new category in the world development forums should include all 600m+ projects, not just the U/C ones.

[ikops]

In the end it's only semantics.

[KillerZavatar]

Originally Posted by ZZ-II

I think a new category in the world development forums should include all 600m+ projects, not just the U/C ones.

i agree, all the proposals, the cancelled projects and the visions that are still here on the forum. it is already a lot of stuff that came up over the years

[HK999]

Originally Posted by CULWULLA

i said 500m back in 2008. half km is a milestone. not 2000ft.
should be metric not imperial.
yes i undertstand 2000ft is double 1000ft,but i reckon 500m has so much more projects.
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=600142

I agree. And let's be honest, we'll get bored with 600m+ towers pretty soon, simply because there are just a few. On the other hand there are a good chunk of 500m+ towers, which would compensate the difference / ratio between the megatall and supertall categories.

Just think about it: 2 600m+ towers U/C (Shanghai Tower and Ping An FC), a few proposed (not even certain if they get built eventually...)

And then we still have the 300m+, 400m+ and 500m+ in the same forum (about 200 towers U/C, approved, in preparation or proposed). The proportions just don't seem right to me.

That's why I see absolutely no reason in having a separate "elite" category just for a few towers.

[BrunoMed]

Supertall - 300m - 600m
Megatall - 600m - 1000m


Gigatall - 1000m - 1500m
Teratall - 1500m - 2000m
Ultratall - 2000m - 2500m
Multitall - 2500m -

[Hudson11]

I don't think there are even 100 "super" talls in the world yet. And Dubai is the only one with more than 10 at the moment. So yes, supertalls are super.
that thread necromancy though.

[ThatOneGuy]

Hypertall. Gigatall sounds kinda stupid.

[DZH22]

For me, it really comes down to the roof. Is it a supertall to the roof? If so, then it's still super.

There are too many bs supertalls that barely make it due to thin spires. A stick is no comparison to a full floor plate.

[Jan]

I don't really use the terms skyscraper or high-rise in relation to a height definition, as these terms are really about relative height and appearance.

The 300 meter mark for supertalls came into being when 300 meters was still considered elite, while being quite close to the round American equivalent of 1,000 feet. Round numbers generally make nice thresholds in conversation, so 600 meters / 2000 feet is being used in relation to megatalls now. I don't think we need to worry about the 900 meters / 3000 feet (yet).

I think the 300 meter mark still works fine to define supertall as it's still quite a feat to build a 300 meter tall building, even though they're popping up more than ever these days. It means it's out there by any measure. Besides, changing the meaning of a pretty well embedded term is usually futile.

[Crowns n' Spires]

2000ft for a Megatall? Then there won't be any ever in the US

[Blue Flame]

Originally Posted by Crowns n' Spires

2000ft for a Megatall? Then there won't be any ever in the US

Yeah, there will be, but not anytime soon. I'm am sure that before the end of this century, the United States will have at least one building above 2000ft.
Of course, my guess is also that by then, the world's tallest building will be considerably above a mile in height.
I think that supertall classification should stay the same, and just add the "megatall" classification to cover the new taller buildings 600m or more. When there are 5 or more buildings in the world exceeding 1000m, then you can add in a new classification like "hypertall".

[Eric Offereins]

I'm sure there will be, perhaps just a spire reaching 2000ft. NY is already getting close, allthough 1776ft might be a limit for now.

[Shaddorry]

Originally Posted by BrunoMed

Supertall - 300m - 600m
Megatall - 600m - 1000m


Gigatall - 1000m - 1500m
Teratall - 1500m - 2000m
Ultratall - 2000m - 2500m
Multitall - 2500m -

You're close, but this is how I see it:

Lowrise - < 100m
Highrise - 100m - 200m
Skyscraper - 200m - 300m
Supertall - 300m - 600m
Megatall - 600m - 1000m


HYPERTALL - 1000m - 2000m
Gigatall - 2000m - 3000m
Teratall - 3000m - 4000m
Ultratall - 4000m - 5000m
Petatall - 5000m - 8000m
Yotatall - 8000m - 10 000m
Monolisk - 10 000 - 15 000
Orbitalisk - 15 000m +