Quote:
Originally Posted by TouchTheSky13
I think that depends on who you ask. Most people don't feel like it is legitimate, nor should they. I'm not against spires, but sticking a giant needle on top of a building that is 1368 to the roof and saying that is taller than a building that is 1451 to the roof is bogus.
|
This is exactly how I feel with regard to spires like those stuck on top of Trump (Toronto and Chicago) or Bank Of America (NYC) for example. However, when the spire is an integral part of the actual roof such as the Chrysler Building or the Petronas Towers, then that is a different view point.
I find it so hypocritical that the spire on BoA is counted as building height, but the antenna on the Sears tower isn't. If these types of spires are counted, then all antennas should be. That way you will be counting to the very top of a part of a building. I agree with the posts made earlier, the antenna height is included for obvious reasons in air navigation charts, and thus should be for building heights elsewhere.