[iloveclassicrock7]

Which building is taller ?

If you go by CTBUH measurement, the building on the left is 541 meters, and the building on the right is 417 meters, do you agree with this ?

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

really?

 

[iloveclassicrock7]

really?

The other thread wouldn't let me add a poll, because I waited 5 minutes to submit it, so I asked for it to be deleted. If you are talking about the topic of discussion, I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought since there hasn't been a poll on this for a while.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

It is impossible to completely agree on the terms. Some buildings may have tall spires (which officially count) but low roof heights. SOme buildings may have other features that make them hard to measure officially. I made this picture to show it.
Which one would be the tallest?

 

[chris123678]

Spires, antenna's etc, should not be included in a buildings final height.
Building should be measured to the roof, or parapet.
Considering that spires must be added to a building like antennas, means it's not part of the building.
Spires should only count if their built up from the roof to their desired heights.
Not hoisted from the ground and installed.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

^ I'd agree with that the most.

 

[iloveclassicrock7]

Could you guys vote ?

@ ThatOneGuy

the 3rd is the tallest since their is a floor at the top. But I am going to add a rule to my measurement system that would solve that problem

 

[ThatOneGuy]

It is impossible to fully agree but I'd say:

1st picture: The one on the right is taller.
2nd picture: I disagree; they are the same height.

In my picture, I'd say tower 2 is the tallest since it has the tallest roof and occupied floor height.

Tower 4 is taller than tower 1, since the spire is perfectly incorporated/blended into the design. Without it, it would look unfinished.

Tower 1's spire (although a proper architectural element) does not count, since it does not flow with the rest of the design. Therefore all 'needle' buildings (like kingdom tower) are the tallest at the spire, whereas flatter-topped buildings like 1WTC stop at the roof/parapet, even if they have a spire.

Tower 3 is the shortest, since the floor on the antenna does not connect to the rest of the building. Therefore, the floor in the antenna and the antenna itself do not count.

Order
#2 - Tallest
#4
#1
#3 - Shortest

 

[iloveclassicrock7]

It is impossible to fully agree but I'd say:

1st picture: The one on the right is taller.
2nd picture: I disagree; they are the same height.

In my picture, I'd say tower 2 is the tallest since it has the tallest roof and occupied floor height.

Tower 4 is taller than tower 1, since the spire is perfectly incorporated/blended into the design. Without it, it would look unfinished.

Tower 1's spire (although a proper architectural element) does not count, since it does not flow with the rest of the design. Therefore all 'needle' buildings (like kingdom tower) are the tallest at the spire, whereas flatter-topped buildings like 1WTC stop at the roof/parapet, even if they have a spire.

Tower 3 is the shortest, since the floor on the antenna does not connect to the rest of the building. Therefore, the floor in the antenna and the antenna itself do not count.

Order
#2 - Tallest
#4
#1
#3 - Shortest

I completely agree with everything you said, like I said I am working on something to solve the tower 3 issue. Also, do you have any idea why people aren't voting ?

 

[ThatOneGuy]

Sorry just now I saw it. I voted no.

 

[iloveclassicrock7]

Sorry just now I saw it. I voted no.

I actually wasn't directing that toward you, I was just asking.

 

[deepblue01]

I agree with the way they rank towers because they do reveal the roof height and those that really like towers and skylines rather than just going for 'national pride' wouldn't give a hoot as to which tower is taller. If it looks good, it looks good.

1WTC is obviously a cheat but who cares? On its own, it looks awesome, when ranked in between other towers, the true height comes out, but again who cares?

Do you like it, if yes, then it doesn't matter how tall it is.

If the spire is part of the building, then its part of the building, period.

Is the ranking system really that important?

 

[Kanto]

Do I agree with the official CTBUH height measurement? Definitely no! In my opinion there is absolutely no difference between an antenna and a spire. Counting one but not the other one is nonsense. While I think that pinnacle height and top occupied floor should be kept as secondary measurements, roof height should be the primary measurement method. I have created a system with which one can determine the roof height of any building. This solves the issue which the CTBUH used to excuse their removal of the roof height category. I will post my system below :cheers:

Main rules:

1, A section of a building must be at least 50% as wide at the bottom as the section below it is wide in the spot where it has the widest side, to be counted into roof height.

2, A spot on the building must be at least 9 meters or 30 feet wide to be counted into roof height

Additional rules:

1, The roof must be minimally at the level of the top of the ceiling slab of the top occupied floor even if it means counting a part of the structure which would not be counted according to the main rules.

2, If in one single section the top angle of a triangle between the 2 corners of the roof calculated by the main rules and the middle top of that section, is at least 30 °, the roof is the top of that section.

Here are diagrams of the top tallest buildings in the world built or under construction to get a better grasp of the system:

Feedback will help me to perfect this system, if needed so everybody please comment and rate what do you think about it :cheers:

 

[iloveclassicrock7]

I agree with Chris on this. For me, the roof of the Burj dubai is the very top. A spire is a piece of metal that sits on the roof. The Burj would look very incomplete if you cut off the area that Kanto is calling the spire, because of the continual setbacks, and it definitely being part of the design i say that the Burj has an architectural height of 828 meters. Just about every building is very easy to decide for the spire though.

 

[Jan]

I've been a member of their heigh-committee for some years, and the question about counting spires would pop up every once in a while, usually ending in leaving everything as is. The reason why they won't change their architectural spire rule is that it's a fairly clear rule what is to be counted or not, and as such minimizes the grey area, but also because the rule has been in place for some decades. By this rule, they counted the Petronas Tower spires as height, while the Sears Tower antennas in Chicago were not, and by doing so declared the first one as the new tallest, even though by mass the Sears Tower appears higher at the top. When changing the height criteria drastically, some of the famous heights, which have pretty much been set in stone, might go out of whack, changing your own history while at it.

However, the problem is that in this day and age, a lot of tall buildings have some kind of wacky something sticking up, and that the current rule produces a number of questionable comparisons, some posted above (especially in post #4). There are a number of cases in which the spire really is an integrated part of the whole architecture and as such don't a clear point which could be considered as a roof. Chrysler Building and Burj Khalifa are good examples of that. But in many, many other cases, the "spire" is nothing more then a stick on top of a roof, even if it is a non functional one. Trump Chicago is a classic example of that. Actually it's possible buying into some kind of "tallest" title rather cheaply the way the rules are interpreted. A number of one on one votes here have shown that there is no popular support for counting these as part of the height, and it is my opinion as well that these should not be counted. By the way, post starter's question has been raised and answered here.

What that height committee really should to is to draft a set of qualitative benchmarks instead of function-based rules, and judge the questionable cases on an individual basis and decide whether whatever sticks out ought be counted as height or not. Until then I don't take some of these vanity heights too serious.

 

[patrykus]

^^ Qualitative rules could work and could be "fair" as everybody demands, but I don't think council will ever chose such technique as, after all, ctbuh is statistical organization and a very important one for this business. As you were one of the ctbuh members I guess you are connected either to architectural or developers world. Now answer me this, what guarantee architect can give to the client that his building will be counted to the certain height if client told him to reach that given height at lowest cost if the rules are subjective? This is serious money we are talking about as surpassing another competitors is major factor for some projects. How developer will know if the architect recognized "the line" correctly? The responsibility is on ctbuh hands and thus imo they will never set subjective rules.

 

[Jan]

Now answer me this, what guarantee architect can give to the client that his building will be counted to the certain height if client told him to reach that given height at lowest cost if the rules are subjective?

Well if you want to be sure you can send up the drawings for evaluation before you decide on the final design, or even better, discuss the issue before you start drawing. As said, the way things work now clients can relatively easily buy their way into the height rankings. It's really just like buying yourself one of these high-hats and add 10 inches to your official height:

^ actually in the old days they wore these high hats for reasons of looking taller and thus more important

 

[patrykus]

That would mean possibility of several costly redesigns caused just by misunderstanding of the rules. Furthermore there would be high risk of accusations against ctbuh that some projects has been favourised more than others. When we use strict rules such problems doesn't exist. And thus no one is going to change that.

 

[Uaarkson]

I regard the CTBUH as a tool to understand a building's dimensions, rather than a justification for arbitrary dick measuring, which requires a special brand of autism you won't find anywhere outside of this website and others like it.

 

[patrykus]

I take it you are not a supertall developer