SkyscraperCity banner

Add a new megatall section


  • Total voters
    371
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 189 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It's been suggested we add a megatall (over 600 meter / 2,000 feet) section. The reason not to is that the number of megatall projects is limited, so it's going to be a few extra clicks going back and forth for those interested in anything 300 meter plus.

Then again, we're a skyscraper site, so yeah. :)

I just ran through the supertall forums and tagged those over 600 as megatall. We could move these to one new section, although that we be under construction, proposed and visions all in one.

Let me know what you guys think of adding a megatall section. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
Honestly I think the problem is with the definition of a megatall. 600 is an arbitrary increase from 300, whereas 300 is the sum of the prior two classifications--100m (highrise) and 200m (skyscraper). If the CTBUH is going to be arbitrary, it should at least be consistently arbitrary.

If they made megatalls start at 500m, then they it would have been the sum of the prior two classifications (300m supertall, 200m skyscraper), and we'd have a lot more "megatalls" to talk about. As it stands, I don't see a point in making a seperate megatall section at present.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,714 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
No one is the official arbiter when it comes to defining these terms. Supertall came in existence through the 300 meter / 1000 feet threshold because those are round numbers in either system, and a height which sets you apart from the rest. Megatall is based on the same principle, but just with double the numbers.
 

·
BriniaSona
Joined
·
96 Posts
500+ and then HyperTall or UltraTall can be 1k Plus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,974 Posts
I think a new category should be added as well. There are just too many projects ongoing over 300+, and while they were all "landmarks" 10 years ago, now they've become fairly common, even for residential buildings. So putting world record holders and buildings 330 meters together seems a bit strange.

However, I'd second what has been said on the posts above, 500meters should be the cutoff between the supertall and megatall project categories. A couple of reasons :
- 500 meters is more significant than 600 meters, because 500 meters is 1/2 km. So it's a round number
- Basically any building over 500 meters will be deemed a landmark, or the city's most prominent sight... A building that is 570 and one that is 630 are in the same category to me, while a building that is 470 meters might be considered fairly/much less important than a 530-meter tower. So I think getting over that 500-meter threshold is more important.
- On a more practical side, there are still very few projects over 600 meters and it would be a bit of a shame to have an almost empty category, fllled mainly by architects' visions rather than actual projects getting built up. I'm sure than 5 years from now, such a category would have enough buildings/projects, but as of 2016, it would remain quite empty.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,556 Posts
Although Megatall makes more sense to be 600m but lowering the threshold can help making the section more alive since we have a bigger number of towers that are 500m+.

My personal favorite is 600m since 500m is still on the short side and lacks the intensity and grandeur that 600m+ towers give.

Another aspect I would like to present, if we took 500m for megatalls, is the fact that some towers (ex. 1WTC) might have a rooftop lower than 500m but a thin spire that reaches above 500m hence will be considered a megatall which is a bit of a stretch TBH. Unless we decide on it according to rooftop not architectural height!

600m is not only double the supertall height (300m) but can fix this issue as well :)
 

·
Ex user
Joined
·
1,598 Posts
It seems most people support new section. However the main question is 500 or 600 m. If you ask me, arguments for 500m+ are valid. Since there is no much difference between 570m and 620m tall skyscraper. And in addition there are lot of buildings between 500-600. Thus by defining new section as 600m+ there will be lot of significant skyscrapers left behind and new section might be a bit empty.

But on the other hand, I think 600m+ is better 'long term' choice. Since 500m might be a bit of short for making it a new standard. As someone mentioned supertall is sum of prior two categories highrise + skyscraper, suggesting new category should be consistently sum of prior two. But it would be very much consistently to make new category sum of all prior categories: highrise(100m) + skyscraper(200m) + supertall(300m) = megatall(600m)


If you ask me I would define megatall as 600m+ and would put all those buildings between 500 and 600 m in new section as temporary solution tagging them with something like 'submegatalls' taxonomy...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
It's a good idea to create a new megatall section. Like others said before i also would prefer 500m+ as a definition of a megatall. In the end all definitions are more or less arbitrarely, but 500 seems a good choise to me. :cheers:
 

·
Que paza!!!
Joined
·
2,715 Posts
I agree that Megatall must be towers over 600 metres, but for the forum, as some say, I think it would be more useful to lower the bar, 450 or 500 metres, maybe there could be some definition in the middle, like XSupertall, or Supertall+ at 450 metres.
I see with the tag Megatall there are only 3 projects under construction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
No one is the official arbiter when it comes to defining these terms. Supertall came in existence through the 300 meter / 1000 feet threshold because those are round numbers in either system, and a height which sets you apart from the rest. Megatall is based on the same principle, but just with double the numbers.
But if you use that kind of standard--round numbers in each system--you end up with tweener buildings that don't meet one standard or the other, typically that 1000ft>300m, but also 300ft<100m, and 2000ft>600m. It's messy, and seems like an unnecessary consideration, even though a fair number of us forumers are Americans.

I obviously can't speak for all the Americans here, but I personally would be quite fine with this forum using metric height definitions alone, at least when dealing with significant figures like building heights. Hell, at this point, you tell me a tower is 225m, I know about how tall it is. Tell me it's 750ft, and I'm lost.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
The 500 Meter height would make; "One World Trade Center" a Megatall Tower. And that Tower doesn't look all the tall to me; because that Spire shouldn't be counted as part of the height since it doesn't look like part of the Tower. I do know that officially it is considered part of the Tower and not something attached.
 
1 - 20 of 189 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top