[chiphile]

build·ing   [bil-ding]
–noun
a relatively permanent enclosed construction over a plot of land, having a roof and usually windows and often more than one level, used for any of a wide variety of activities, as living, working, entertaining, or manufacturing.


Here's a novel idea. The world's tallest building should be measured from the point it starts being a building (ground entrance) to the point it ends being one (roof). Antennas, spires, caissons, hats, roller coasters and other nonsense are not buildings. If so, and a "pinnacle is a pinnacle", then this entire site should be renamed "tv mast page.com" because those things are far taller.

Roof height or highest occupied floor should be official, because it defines a clear measurement point and takes away any argument of "it depends on the architecture."

Architects can adorn their buildings with sticks and poles for aesthetic reasons, just as people wear hats for fashion (spires) or function (helmets and antennas).

I'm really 5'10" but I wear a wizard's hat, so my official height at the doctor's office is 6'10". Why? Because I said so. My doctor says a human ends at the top of his/her head, but what does he know?

The analogies are so easy, why is it difficult with buildings? If someone built a 50 foot tall house on top of Mt. Everest, all of a sudden Everest is 50 feet taller?

"Spires count in height measurements. Antennas don't."
"Hats count, but helmets don't"
Same, just as stupid.


Here's another novel idea. THIS SITE is home to one of the most enthusastic architecture, urban design and skyscraper fans in the world. It's diagrams are the best and spot on, yet it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT (to the real world) AND HAS SHOWN NO LEADERSHIP. How many journalists have cited this aside from a random Kamin article?

The difference between a great site and a good one is relevance and leadership. Skyscraperpage, take some leadership, PUBLISH and PUBLICIZE your own rankings of the world's tallest buildings according to roof height, and you'll see your numbers cited by journalists.

"According to skyscraperpage.com...." can easily be seen in the New York Times, but only if you want it.