Roof height, last occupiable floor, pinnacle height?
 

where does a buildings height end for you?

Not enough. Please read the rules about citation.

On topic: I prefer roof height, but antennae is also good as long as it doesn't start the stupid "spire v. antennae" argument. I don't understand how a non-functioning pole is more of a structure than a broadcasting pole, and yes I know that I'm making a bit of a generalization in regards to spires.

For me it isn't a straightforward answer, it depends on the building's architecture.

I wouldn't count either of the spires on the New York Times or Bank of America or Bloomberg, but I would count the one on the Chrysler.

I count the spires on Petronas, but not the antennas on Sears.

SWFC is easy, there's a roof on top of the bridge.
Jin Mao is to the top of the spire.

The new 1WTC is also to the top of the spire.

To be clear though (particularly in the case of say NYT or BofA), I don't care about the roof height. The parapet is what defines the architecture in those cases.

Personally, I don't really care that much if the end result is that one building is deemed taller than another one 6,000 miles away. You'll never see them in the same context anyway and thus the argument is kind of futile. I care more about the building itself as well as what it looks like in its own context.

I say a building's height should go to the roof, and any height above that can be attributed to the overall structural height.

So tallest "buildings" would only count up to the roof height, which is the building aspect of the structure, and the structural height will be the entire thing.

I totally agree with this.

I think the roof definition is best. Highest occupied floor would be my second best option, but there is still functional space in the building (the occupiable space above that floor). Its a complete farce that spires are still counted in building heights. I wish at least this site would change until CTBUH gets its bureaucratic act in line.

thats messed up to me, and makes no sense.

To me, somewhat of what mark said

Tallest building-highest occupied floor or highest accessible floor

Tallest structure-anything, including antenas or antena masts or towers like CN tower

Like I said, to me it's about the design intent. The antenna bases on Sears probably should count, but beyond that the antenna over the years has changed several times. It doesn't contribute overall to the architecture of the building. The Hancock, the old 2WTC, the Empire State, 4 Times Sq, 1 Shell Square are all similar for me.

If you changed out the spires on Petronas or Chrysler, it would dramatically alter the building's architecture.

Like I stated, I don't count all spires and I don't count any antennas.

In the case of New York, I look at it this way:

ESB: 1,250'
Chrysler: 1,046'
American International: 952'
Bank of America: 945'
40 Wall: 927'
Citicorp: 915'
Trump World: 861'
G.E.: 850'
Citispire: 814'
Chase Manhattan: 813'
4 Times Square: 809'
MetLife: 808'
Bloomberg: 806'
New York Times: +/- 800' (top of the parapet wall)

I realize that it doesn't create a clear cut system, but that's just how I see it. And for those that would argue with me about this, I guess the Chrysler Building isn't a supertall then and was never the tallest building in the world?

i see it the same way plinko!

personally i believe height is height,if its on the building its a part of it,thats the way it will be seen and presented. in my mind the ESB is 1454 ft. and the Willis tower is the 2nd tallest building on earth.

They should include antennas into the height or simply count to the roof. The spires over antennas bit is a little dull.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8366/untitledcj5.png

photo from gladisimo at skyscrapercity
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...7&postcount=12
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=465257

i agree i mean you do see the antennas and they are a visual part of the tower so they should be counted

Antennas are attachments and are not part of the structure, same goes for flagpoles and stuff.

true though the sears tower would not be the sears tower without its antenna's.

I generally agree (particularly with Petronas and Chrysler) except for this:

It's the same theory as BoA or 4 Times Square. Take the "spire" off the new 1WTC and it doesn't alter the architecture either, really.

^True, but the spire on the new WTC is being designed as an architectural element. I personally think it's odd looking (as is the whole building), but that's a subjective view.

Then again, it's all subjective as the CTBUH has established criteria for all this based on the fact that after 1997 nobody could agree anymore.

Wrong...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/...9/42087014.jpg
source

The nearly 300' antennas that are there today weren't installed until much later. The building opened with the two bases sticking up (I'm sure somebody knows the height).

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/sears2.jpg
source

That's the official stance by the people who decide the height of buildings, but seriously... an antenna is just as tangible as a spire. They are both physically there, so if one counts then the other should count. This is a debate that has been going on for a long long time. Those pieces on top of the Sears Tower and Empire State Building really do enhance the visuals and let people more easily recognize the buildings, just as a decorative spire does. If you removed them, I'm sure most people would agree the buildings would look odd without them. Oh well, there is an official stance on the subject that at the moment, isn't up for change.

No apostrophe.

thats not what i meant,i know that about the tower. what i meant was that when you think of the Sears tower you think of it with its antennas not just its roof height. the image that everyone thinks of has the antennas.