Just wondering, why this obsession about tallest?

[Avian001]

So many of these threads center around "tallest" obsessions. Why is this a measure of the quality of a building? Or more so, of the quality of a city???

Especially when sometimes these "tallest" buildings are absolutely atrocious on the street level?

[Aleks]

I don't really see what you're talking about. I get it but I don't see it in many threads. There's a couple threads which will talk about it like the Burj Dubai thread, the SWFC thread, the Hong Kong ICC thread but that's because those are actually thee tallest skyscrapers on earth.

The only reason why these threads mention the tallest subject is because most people don't agree on the true height of a building. But sometimes here and there people will leave comments like "Dubai deserves a tall building" or "those buildings cheat because of the spires" but the threads don't just focus on the height of the building.

Then again, most people love here skyscrapers which is why it's called SSP. So discussing heights is just a normal thing here. And the tallest "obsession" thing is started by large developing companies which is why we talk about it here. Most here don't affect how tall a building is or will be, they just comment on it.

[Avian001]

^Really? I actually see tons of discussions about being "tallest" like it's some sort of measure of quality or pride.

There are numerous heated discussions about what constitutes the height of a building. To spire, to roof, to structural element, ad nauseum.

So what about height? Isn't it far more important that a building actually respects it's context? Or that it adds to the life of a city?

[jodelli]

Originally Posted by Avian001

^Really? I actually see tons of discussions about being "tallest" like it's some sort of measure of quality or pride.

There are numerous heated discussions about what constitutes the height of a building. To spire, to roof, to structural element, ad nauseum.

So what about height? Isn't it far more important that a building actually respects it's context? Or that it adds to the life of a city?

Why is it either/or? A building can do both, especially if it concentrates life in one spot.

[slide_rule]

that's what i was wondering too. tall is not synonymous with 'poorly designed'.

people have always been fascinated with buildings heights. this generation just happens to be more competitive.

eh, the competition to have the biggest exurban house with the biggest lawn seems to be more widespread though.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Avian001

^Really? I actually see tons of discussions about being "tallest" like it's some sort of measure of quality or pride.

There are numerous heated discussions about what constitutes the height of a building. To spire, to roof, to structural element, ad nauseum.

So what about height? Isn't it far more important that a building actually respects it's context? Or that it adds to the life of a city?

Well having the tallest structures is something to be proud of yes. There are a couple "heated" discussions but not too many to say tons. People agree and disagree about this all the time and it's almost always the same people discussing it. It's only some threads with people posting "It sure is the best structure of all time" or "Dubai can go over there with their cheap buildings" over and over again. Most are newbies, they are just mostly impressed with the height not design.

Yes, it is important to have good quality in buildings. That's why a lot of people gang up on Dubai even though most of their buildings have good qualities too. People just don't see it because there are so many other structures being built so quickly that they think quality is bad.

Ps. I should stop using Dubai has an example. It's just easy finding people who either hate or love it.

[MolsonExport]

ask the late john holmes.

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by slide_rule

that's what i was wondering too. tall is not synonymous with 'poorly designed'.

Of course, it's not synonymous with good design, either. I see that sometimes around here - listing everything wrong with a building, or renderings of buildings with obvious urban design deficiencies, but a lot of the comments will be "at least it's tall!" capped off with a dancing banana.

[huggkruka]

Maybe because all skyscraper architects are men Kidding aside, humans are hardwired to want to be the best. If we know how to build scrapers, then we want to be the best at it, and since taste is subjective, only height can be a true measure.

[Atomic Glee]

But "height" by itself is not inherently a good thing - there's bad height, and there's good height. I'd gladly take a six story well-designed urban structure over a 100+ story piece of junk that's cold to the street and crushing to human scale. Just being the tallest doesn't make you the best at anything, other than perhaps some engineering in some examples.

[lawsond]

i don't see what the issue is.
this is called "skyscraper page".
so the more they scrape the sky, the better.
and why do you suppose people are equating taller with quality?
it's just taller...which is inherently interesting to people interested in skyscraping buildings.