[Matthew Lovatt]

There is much debate over the world at what height does a building become a skyscraper?

Please follow the link below and have your opinion.

http://ess.ntu.ac.uk/sutton/formfiles/n0148907/buildingsheigh.htm

[urbanlife]

I would say that it is a subjective opinion because I have always felt the height a building becomes a skyscraper varies with each city. If a city has a downtown that is full of 2-4 story buildings and a couple buildings that are 10-14 stories, then those couple buildings are considered skyscrapers. But on the other end, a city like NYC I would consider anything over 750ft to be a skyscraper and anything over 500ft to be a really tall building.


Basically, I figure you take the smallest number of the tallest buildings in a downtown and generalize that where they become taller than most of the other surrounding buildings, then they become skyscrapers.

[photoLith]

Id say 500 ft is a skyscraper.

[ue]

150m. But I like urbanlife's logic.

[FREKI]

150m+

[uaarkson]

150m+

agreed.

[Scottolini]

500'

[volguus zildrohar]

We people seem to like nice round numbers to pin things to. As you can imagine, Matthew, this isn't the first time this topic has been brought up on this forum and I'll give the same answer I have before - 500 feet is a nice round number between 0 and 1000 and that's where I make my cutoff.

[Dralcoffin]

Basically, my idea of skyscraper is the height level where the skyline thins out dramatically. I tend to use round numbers more as an idea for how dense the skyline is, as "this city has x 500 footers and y 300 footers."

So Chicago is probably over 500 feet in the Loop, while St. Louis is down around 400 feet and Des Moines is 300 feet.

The closest city to me has two 400-footers (801 and Ruan) and my mental image of big city is either those two looming over Grand Avenue or the LaSalle and Mag Mile canyons in Chicago.

[MolsonExport]

just when it surpasses being a skyreacher

[Dac150]

Highrise: 300' - 499'

Skyscraper: 500' - 999'

Supertall: 1,000' +

[Matthew Lovatt]

Please select from the below. If you view please be sure to voice your opinion as this is assiting me with my dissertation and your view is important

Kind Regards

Matt:)


100 meter (326ft)
200 meter (656ft)
300 meter (984ft)
400 meter (1312ft)
500 meter (1640ft)
600 meter (1968ft)
700 meter (2296ft)
800 meter (2624ft)
900 meter (2952ft)
1000 meter (3280ft)
Other Reason.

[Steely Dan]

i'm one of those luddite americans, so forgive for not being familiar with meters, but as an old-schooler around these parts whose first exposure to internet skyscraper geekery was Marshall Gerometta's "hot 500 list" from the good old days where he tabulated every building on the planet that stood 500 feet or taller, i've always maintained that benchmark as the point at which a highrise becomes a "skyscraper". so i guess that converts to about 150 meters or something close to it.

with the explosive growth in supertall structures this past decade, maybe that benchmark is becoming a bit out-moded, but old habits (mental constructs) die hard.

[Cirrus]

skyscraper is the height level where the skyline thins out dramatically
Yes.

Different for every city.

[Dan in Chicago]

100 meters. It's a clean, simple metric definition - metric not only in units (meters), but for using the number 100. It also corresponds roughly with the average layman's idea of a skyscraper. I agree that the perception varies by city, but it's also useful to have a widely recognized benchmark for stats and comparisons.

[Hed Kandi]

Accept nothing less than 200m.

[hunser]

Accept nothing less than 200m.

me too. :tup:

[plinko]

i'm one of those luddite americans, so forgive for not being familiar with meters, but as an old-schooler around these parts whose first exposure to internet skyscraper geekery was Marshall Gerometta's "hot 500 list" from the good old days where he tabulated every building on the planet that stood 500 feet or taller, i've always maintained that benchmark as the point at which a highrise becomes a "skyscraper". so i guess that converts to about 150 meters or something close to it.

with the explosive growth in supertall structures this past decade, maybe that benchmark is becoming a bit out-moded, but old habits (mental constructs) die hard.

Generally riding in Steely's boat...

[tech12]

I guess i'd go with the 100 meter designation too...which then leads me to say that it might as well just be 300 feet instead (rather than 336'), which i guess makes sense to me as SF has tons of 300-400 foot towers (50 of them to be precise). I consider any reasonably tall building to be a "skyscraper" or "tower" or whatever, and once it becomes really tall, then it's a...."supertall skyscraper" or "a very tall tower" or "a really tall building" etc...i'm not too picky about my terms. I consider anything above 200 feet to be a "highrise" (SF has tons of these too, coming in at 73 total). Emporis on the other hand apparently considers anything above around 100 feet or so to be a "highrise".

[DecoJim]

I mostly agree with Urban Life. A 600 foot tall structure appears to scrape the sky until a 1000 footer is built across the street. Also the minimum height of buildings that have been called skyscrapers has generally increased since the Home Insurance building in Chicago was completed.

The only building that I have personally observed that really appeared to "scrape the sky" was the Sears Tower (now Willis Tower). On more than one occasion when I have been to Chicago, the top 15-20 stories were obscured by clouds.

Humans in general seem to have a desire to classify, quantify, or pigeonhole everything will demand a specific number such as the 500 feet or 150 meter round number. This number will have to arbitrarily be increased from time to time until the space elevator is built.

[Tom In Chicago]

I have no opinion on this matter. . . for the record. . .

. . .

[samne]

100 m or 300'...thats about 30 stories = highrise

150m or 500'.... 50 stories = Skyscraper!

[LMich]

My definition of what makes a building a skyscraper is rather old fashioned and visual. For me, it's being able to stand on a sidewalk below a building (no more than a dozen feet outward from said building) and not being able to easily discern the roofline.

[Phil McAvity]

I have no opinion on this matter. . . for the record. . . .

okay, so why did you post? :koko:

I agree with what urbanlife said about the context playing a big role but I also think the width of a building matters. If a building is really thin it appears taller which is why I am going to say 100m because i've seen residential buildings that aren't even 300 feet tall that are thin so they appear really tall.

[Tom In Chicago]

^I was looking for a reaction. . . thanks for playing. . .

[stormkingfan]

The old 7 World Trade Center was 573' tall. Not too far from 600', but when you looked at its north or south faces, because of its width, it looked more like a high-rise. The CBIC tower in Montreal, on the other hand, is not much taller, but it appears taller than it really is from the east or west, because it's slender.

It was said before that even a 14-storey bldg could be considered a skyscraper. Everything's relative. If it's located among 4- or 5-storey bldgs, then there's going to be a break in the town's profile.

For the longest time, I've always considered buildings over 600' a skyscraper, but if there's a big cluster of 600-700 footers viewed from a distance, then there doesn't seem to be anything that appears to be scraping the sky. Just this huge "box" these buildings are corporately forming. Until an 800 footer is placed in the middle of them.

[Matthew]

How many people in the middle of downtown Memphis could say they don't see any skyscrapers? How many people can stand beside Sacramento's tallest building and say they don't see any skyscrapers?

I agree with urbanlife. It varies from city to city.

[fordgtman1992]

Highrise: 300' - 499'

Skyscraper: 500' - 999'

Supertall: 1,000' +

Agreed. :tup:

[jodelli]

FWIW, I agree with two points being made here. The further back in time, the less should be the height requirement, as even the early 10-12 story buildings were marvels in their time.

Secondly, 150-300 m (approx. 500-1,000 ft) seems to neatly sum it up these days.
Also I remember a list a few years back of skyscrapers in New York City, and 500' was the cut off, so that was the assumption I made. (it was in the World Almanac, I believe)

[RLS_rls]

Coming from a small town I would consider 12 floors to be a skyscraper in a generic sense. Really though 200' seems a bit more legitimate.

[Zapatan]

I agree with urbanlife, it all depends on what's around it... what could be called a
"skyscraper" in say, Richmond, Va is a midrise in Chicago or NYC. I remember standing on top of a 22 story, ~80 meter hotel in Guadalajara, with only 2 story buildings around it and it felt like a supertall.

But in general, this is how I've always looked at it... buildings under 100 meters can still be considered tall buildings if nothing surrounds them but I'll start at 100 just to make things easier.

100+ meters - highrise
150+ meters - small skyscraper
200+ meters - skyscraper
250+ meters - large skyscraper
300+ meters - small supertall
350+ meters - supertall
400+ meters - large supertall

Buildings beyond 500 meters are megatalls as far as I'm concerned.

[Amanita]

I think skyscraper is subjective too, dependent on location. A building 20 stories tall here in Halifax would be a skyscraper, not so much in NYC.

[JohnMarko]

I would say 20 stories is a "highrise" or skyscraper.

But compared to current era buildings, many consider this too low.

I've noticed that for people who hate tall buildings, anything approaching ten stories is (incorrectly) considered a "highrise".

Up to 10 stories - low-rise.
10-15/20 stories - mid-rise.
Anything over 20 stories - high-rise.

As things got craziers, then you get "supertalls", etc.

But that's just me and you asked...