Joined
·
3,269 Posts
since when did spires not become counted? Just because a bunch of people are having a whinge about BHP's spire doesn't mean you can change the rules...
SPIRES? Should they be counted?
1 - 20 of 156 Posts
I've never counted spires. They're ridiculous.
As much as I would love Q1 to be the tallest resi in the world, it just plain isn't.
As much as I like BHP, it just plain isn't the tallest U/C in Australia right now.
Let's finally make it a forum policy that spires DO NOT count. Maybe if the mods agree, it can become forum law :lol:
As much as I would love Q1 to be the tallest resi in the world, it just plain isn't.
As much as I like BHP, it just plain isn't the tallest U/C in Australia right now.
Let's finally make it a forum policy that spires DO NOT count. Maybe if the mods agree, it can become forum law :lol:
Joined
·
79,912 Posts
im 50/50 with spires.
its it part of design and its a must have to make the design complete, then it should be counted. aka-empuire state, chrysler building, Q1, Burj dubai, 120 collins, ect ect.
but tacked on spires shouldnt be counted as overall height-eg-Aurora pl,sydney, E&Y,sydney, bourke place,melb,bhp,pert, ect ect.
its it part of design and its a must have to make the design complete, then it should be counted. aka-empuire state, chrysler building, Q1, Burj dubai, 120 collins, ect ect.
but tacked on spires shouldnt be counted as overall height-eg-Aurora pl,sydney, E&Y,sydney, bourke place,melb,bhp,pert, ect ect.
Personally I would prefer a height limit, not top 20. Only because if we are following a project and put alot of work into following its progress. Only for it then to be knocked out of the top 20, could be rather annoying for those that put in the effort. Also then issues of buildings going in and out of the top 20 as other developments come and go, and therefore losing the progress on the development.
Joined
·
79,912 Posts
the DB place had a 150m height limit imposed due to overshadowing on the Domain.
so genious sir norman foster added a steel frame above to give it landmark qualities and enhance the skyline, which i think it does nicely. to go from 150m to 240m is cool.
G
Guest
·The problem here? subjectivity. We all know what the official view about spires are. Go blame the twin Petronas towers in KL for starting all this. I agree non-subjectively, that when I was on the observation deck of the Sears tower in Chicago, I was higher than some n00b ill informed tourist who thought he was in the tallest building, at the time, in KL. I was higher but.... I was not in the tallest building at the time, objectively speaking. Non-subjectively, I was higher above the ground. This sounds like a huge contradiction. It is not.
However, objectively speaking, because of the agreed way to measure height of a building by an official body, Petronas were the tallest at the time.
So, objectively speaking, there is no 50/50, there is no subjectivity and this being a forum having a lot to do with skyscrapers, I fail to see one good reason why we would have a rule about spires based on subjectivity and arguments.
Just be pragmatic and deal with it. You'll win some and you'll loose some.
.
For the record, BHP is not the highest office building from when one would be on the top floor. We don't even know the final spire design yet. The architects have said it is not finalised. I suspect it will be a puny needle. However, surely the "cage" must count or you might as well discount the DB Bank's additional height as well.
For me Rialto is obviously the highest if you went to it's top floor. Argue all you want, it wont be the highest "officially" after BHP is built. I stress officially
However, objectively speaking, because of the agreed way to measure height of a building by an official body, Petronas were the tallest at the time.
So, objectively speaking, there is no 50/50, there is no subjectivity and this being a forum having a lot to do with skyscrapers, I fail to see one good reason why we would have a rule about spires based on subjectivity and arguments.
Just be pragmatic and deal with it. You'll win some and you'll loose some.
. For the record, BHP is not the highest office building from when one would be on the top floor. We don't even know the final spire design yet. The architects have said it is not finalised. I suspect it will be a puny needle. However, surely the "cage" must count or you might as well discount the DB Bank's additional height as well.
For me Rialto is obviously the highest if you went to it's top floor. Argue all you want, it wont be the highest "officially" after BHP is built. I stress officially
So who would be this 'divine' judge of what is 'beautiful' and what is 'tacked on'?
The rule needs to be either spires count or they dont.
Joined
·
79,912 Posts
^its hard. as i said previously, SOME spires should be counted while others shouldnt. where do you chop off chrylsers spire?
it has to be intricate to the design!
E&Y in sydney NEVER had a spire in its DA stage. it was designed and was getting built a sect96DA came in for a spire being attached to top facade.
So its design was final without spire, but some chief decided it neede more flare and height ,so a spire was added. its offical height went from 192m to 222m.
i still dont look at it as a 222m skyscraper. its 192m.
![]()
it has to be intricate to the design!
E&Y in sydney NEVER had a spire in its DA stage. it was designed and was getting built a sect96DA came in for a spire being attached to top facade.
So its design was final without spire, but some chief decided it neede more flare and height ,so a spire was added. its offical height went from 192m to 222m.
i still dont look at it as a 222m skyscraper. its 192m.
G
Guest
·^^ it's not hard at all. We just go by what is official. lol. Subjectivity should never come into it. Someone had to make a ruling and we are not that someone.
Can I suggest we have a "spire debate" thread. Can even make it a sticky for a few weeks.
The top 20 officially would include spires whether they are sticks or cage like or submitted post DA. It's that simple. I don't make that rule.
Are we saying we should define the rule? Even if it contradicts the officialdom?
I am not saying people are not entitled to an opinion but that is different to saying that the official way of defining something should be totally ignored.
Can I suggest we have a "spire debate" thread. Can even make it a sticky for a few weeks.
The top 20 officially would include spires whether they are sticks or cage like or submitted post DA. It's that simple. I don't make that rule.
Are we saying we should define the rule? Even if it contradicts the officialdom?
I am not saying people are not entitled to an opinion but that is different to saying that the official way of defining something should be totally ignored.
Joined
·
91 Posts
Q1 is tallest by spire.
but it seems to me that people dont work, live or play up in that spire so its not counted, eureka is the tallest !!!
Q1 stop at 275 meters, eureka stops at 300 meters, and you think Q1 is the tallest???
but it seems to me that people dont work, live or play up in that spire so its not counted, eureka is the tallest !!!
Q1 stop at 275 meters, eureka stops at 300 meters, and you think Q1 is the tallest???
Joined
·
7,155 Posts
Eureka is 299 to the roof
or was it 298?
Joined
·
79,912 Posts
Eureka is 297m high. actual rooftop is 295m.
homeroids-good idea. shouldnt detract from this thread.
rezz-yeah, thus the reason why Sunland had to apply to Queensland CASA to go above RL304.5m/1000ft. Q1s original DA was for a spire 298m high or RL304.5m.
To get worlds tallest resi, they already had it without a spire extention by 1metre.
but Subland wanted more height, to be taller then Chrysler bldg, sydney tower and Eiffel tower.
homeroids-good idea. shouldnt detract from this thread.
rezz-yeah, thus the reason why Sunland had to apply to Queensland CASA to go above RL304.5m/1000ft. Q1s original DA was for a spire 298m high or RL304.5m.
To get worlds tallest resi, they already had it without a spire extention by 1metre.
but Subland wanted more height, to be taller then Chrysler bldg, sydney tower and Eiffel tower.
Joined
·
13,059 Posts
I remember reading that Chrysler building raised it's spire at a late moment to surprise everyone. I too wonder what part of the crown of Chrysler this was..... the last single spear section or maybe including one or more of the last smaller sunrise sections ? This building is the prime example of it's spire as part of the overall design...it just melts into the shear office tower below. The Empire State also looks complete with it's mast yet can imagine the same building finished without it being there. Sears and John Hancock in Chicago have become familiar with their masts/arials? and the new Trump Tower looks finished off with it's mast yet slim poles like this or Q1......and even Burj Dubai seem contentious, but who cares when it comes to Burj Dubai ! No doubt it is very high!
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
That is true redbaron ...
As Chrysler Building was raising and so was the Trump Building with a strong competition to win the race of being the highest. Interestingly the architect of the Trump Building was Craig Severance former partner of Van Alen. Knowing that the height of Chrysler Building would be 925 feet, architect Craig Severance added few more floors and made his Trump Building to 71 floors so that it was two feet higher. It was to be 927 feet when finished.
Chrysler Building was designed with a central core system and all the structural members were of steel with a brick cladding on its exterior. The total steel required was 21,000 tons; this is enough steel to make 10,000 individual houses with RCC structure and 3,91,881 rivets would be holding this structure in place. And to cover it up the building it would require 3,826,000 bricks.
In October 1929 the structure of Trump Building was almost complete. Van Alen was sure that his competitor had no chance now to redesign and were fully relaxed, he opened his secret card. It was a new spire of 185 feet high, which was secretly delivered to the site in sections and assembled inside the elevator shaft. They came from Germany just few weeks back. It was the entire seven-storey pinnacle, complete with special-steel facing, was anchored to the building by lifting it.
http://www.cbsforum.com/cgi-bin/art...articles&key2=chrysler&action=searchdbdisplay
![]()
As Chrysler Building was raising and so was the Trump Building with a strong competition to win the race of being the highest. Interestingly the architect of the Trump Building was Craig Severance former partner of Van Alen. Knowing that the height of Chrysler Building would be 925 feet, architect Craig Severance added few more floors and made his Trump Building to 71 floors so that it was two feet higher. It was to be 927 feet when finished.
Chrysler Building was designed with a central core system and all the structural members were of steel with a brick cladding on its exterior. The total steel required was 21,000 tons; this is enough steel to make 10,000 individual houses with RCC structure and 3,91,881 rivets would be holding this structure in place. And to cover it up the building it would require 3,826,000 bricks.
In October 1929 the structure of Trump Building was almost complete. Van Alen was sure that his competitor had no chance now to redesign and were fully relaxed, he opened his secret card. It was a new spire of 185 feet high, which was secretly delivered to the site in sections and assembled inside the elevator shaft. They came from Germany just few weeks back. It was the entire seven-storey pinnacle, complete with special-steel facing, was anchored to the building by lifting it.
http://www.cbsforum.com/cgi-bin/art...articles&key2=chrysler&action=searchdbdisplay
1 - 20 of 156 Posts
Join the discussion
