HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 6:20 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Some raw meat....


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/op...-of-fancy.html

Heights of Fancy





By THOMAS LESLIE
May 30, 2013

Quote:
THE installation of the 408-foot spire atop One World Trade Center earlier this month made it, according to some reports, the tallest building in the United States.

So far, nothing is official: the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the international organization of skyscraper engineers, designers and builders that certifies a building’s height, will weigh in only when One World Trade Center is completed. At an expected, historically symbolic 1,776 feet, the New York tower seems to have a solid claim.

But Chicagoans who live in the shadow of the 1,451-foot tall Willis Tower, which has held the title of nation’s tallest for some 40 years, should cry foul — because deciding just how tall a building is turns out to be more complicated than it might seem.

The council has gotten into the habit of wading in to such disputes ever since Malaysia’s Petronas Towers claimed to dethrone Chicago’s Willis Tower — then called the Sears Tower — in 1998. Like that dispute, the coming argument over One World Trade Center centers on the distinction between “architectural” and “functional” height, and it raises questions about just what skyscrapers are intended to really do.

The council has three categories for measuring the heights of tall buildings: height to “architectural top,” “highest occupied floor” and “height to tip.” This may seem like splitting hairs, but the differences can be considerable....

The council could address this by changing its criteria from “height to architectural top” to “height to structural top,” the tallest integral piece of structure required for the building to be fully occupied. This would disqualify the bolt-on spire that was flown to the structural top of One World Trade earlier this month, just as it would have disqualified the Chrysler’s functionally suspect (if admittedly elegant) spire. Such a change would, of course, leave Willis Tower as the country’s tallest.

As a Chicago partisan, I’m rooting for Willis Tower to come out ahead in the coming decision. And for me, like most Chicagoans, it will always be Sears.


Thomas Leslie, a professor of architecture at Iowa State University, is the author of “Chicago Skyscrapers, 1871-1934.”


__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted May 31, 2013, 1:09 PM
DrNest's Avatar
DrNest DrNest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,119
For me there should only be two categories. Height to the roof, and height to the tallest part of the building (be that spire, antenna, water tank etc etc)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 4:19 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 19,968
My opinion is that antennas or spires should count as the structural height unless they are less then say....2% of the average floor space. In other words I don't mind them counted as height so long as they are visible from a distance. If it's just a thin spire that can't be seen from more than a couple of miles away, it should be counted.....just my two cents.

I see your point about antennas vs spires though. Just top play devil's advocate though, an antenna is something that might be more likely to be replaced as opposed to a spire, and makes it seem less a part of the building.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
Well since a moderator renewed the spire debate, I'll quickly throw my two cents in...

The article NYguy posted points out just how ludicrous it is to count spires but not antennae. That the fact that an antenna actually does something is what makes it not count is completely baffling to my sense of logic. Neither a spire nor an antenna is part of the building in the sense that it does not house people, which is what a building does.

Regardless, both 432 Park Avenue and One World Trade Center will greatly add to NYC's skyline and although neither are the best examples of architecture, they each have their pluses and I welcome their additions to the skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2013, 4:59 PM
Guiltyspark's Avatar
Guiltyspark Guiltyspark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 937
[QUOTE=Surrealplaces;6164654]My opinion is that antennas or spires should count as the structural height unless they are less then say....2% of the average floor space. In other words I don't mind them counted as height so long as they are visible from a distance. If it's just a thin spire that can't be seen from more than a couple of miles away, it should be counted.....just my two cents.

I see your point about antennas vs spires though. Just top play devil's advocate though, an antenna is something that might be more likely to be replaced as opposed to a spire, and makes it seem less a part of the building.[/QUO

I think your idea of "can it be seen from a 'few' miles away" would add even more ambiguity to a horribly flawed system. I think it would be easier to just say spires and antenna don't count.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2013, 7:56 PM
Guiltyspark's Avatar
Guiltyspark Guiltyspark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 937


Height to the top of the last occupied floor is really what should matter. The height diagrams on this very website show the absurdity of ranking buildings up to their tippy top.

Last edited by Guiltyspark; Oct 22, 2013 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2013, 6:16 PM
Thaniel Thaniel is offline
Jeez Louise.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post

I think it's worth pointing out this picture is wrong. The top of the rings would be almost exactly 1,400 feet tall. The top of the edge of the parapet below the comm rings would be 1,368 feet.

I don't know if I should even offer my opinion on the matter since I might be booed out of existence. While I do like One World Trade center better then the Willis Tower (or any tower for that matter) I don't consider it to be taller. To me the roof of the tallest standing floor is the top of the building regardless of whatever you attach to the top be it an antenna or a functionless architectural element.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2013, 6:50 PM
NYC2013 NYC2013 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 20
IMO, the antenna on top of the ESB is apart of the building. It just looks natural. But when you add an antenna on top of a flat roof building, it doesn't look natural. It doesn't flow with the building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2013, 7:42 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
I wouldn't count ESB's antenna, although it flows perfectly with the building it already pushes it's height with it's tower mast. The tower AND the antenna just make up too much of a percentage of it's height.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2013, 7:04 AM
ArtDecoRevival ArtDecoRevival is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 108
I don't think it should be counted either, but they'll get pressured into counting it I have a feeling. I was even kinda on the fence about the spire-as-intended being counted (was never a fan of the fact that a bldg with no spire and a 1600 foot roof can be officially surpassed by a 1400 foot bldg with a large ornamental design attached to the top), but this is definitely not worthy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 12:22 AM
Thaniel Thaniel is offline
Jeez Louise.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4219670.html

Council On Tall Buildings To Decide Whether Willis Tower Or One World Trade Center Is U.S.'s Loftiest





11/05/2013
When including spire/antenna/masts would it be unheard of to say the building with the most horizontal area above it's top flat floor up to the highest point is to be the tallest.? For instance if you'd say above x height (One's parapet) we have this much horizontal area consistently for every foot up to this height and the next building down could not match that then it would be rendered just spire/antenna/mast height. Or something like that? If One WTC could not match Willis Tower's horizontal area at given level then any height above that could not be counted as being taller or something? Willis might win that because it has two antenna but also it's antenna are thinner than One's spire so who knows.


I think Burj Khalifa might lose it's title as the tallest if that were the case though cus it's pretty slender all the way up. I don't even know what I'm saying anymore lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 12:33 AM
franktko's Avatar
franktko franktko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 1,297
Great attempt at trying to make these rules simpler!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2013, 6:17 PM
houstonguy1984 houstonguy1984 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 6
Height to the last occupiable floor is most important.

To me, building height should be measured to the height of the last occupiable floor. Nothing else should matter. I'm only 5'6" tall, but if I wore a highly decorated 2 ft. top hat on my head, should I be considered taller than 7'1" Shaquille O'neal? Of course not! The Willis Tower in Chicago should still be considered taller than the new WTC and Petronas Towers because the functioning/productive parts of the building rise up higher than the WTC's or Petronas Towers. It's stupid that the new WTC's spire "counts" and the Willis Tower's antennae don't... why? It's an argument over semantics. Both are long skinny towers on top of a flat roof, and both contribute equally to the building's overall look. The same thing with Petronas Towers in Malaysia, those spires shouldn't count any more than the antennae on the Willis tower, they really don't serve any function... in fact the antennae on the Willis Tower should count MORE because they actually serve a function in communication and aren't just a waste of space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2013, 6:26 PM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,523
Never understood the hat argument...a hat isn't attached to you.
__________________
New York City,The City That Never Sleeps,The Capitol Of The World,The Big Apple,The Empire City,The Melting Pot,The Metropolis,Gotham

Buildings Over 200 Meters 62 Completed 20 Under Construction 50 Proposed 0 On Hold
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2013, 6:49 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Regardless of what the specifics are we know which tallest buildings have more credibility when it comes to being a supertall.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2013, 5:10 PM
The_Architect's Avatar
The_Architect The_Architect is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 3,385
If you're going to include spires then it should be the pinnacle point that man has reached, so antennas count. If not then it should be roof. This subjective decision between the two is stupid.
__________________
Hope is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of our greatest strength, and our greatest weakness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2013, 5:54 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
To me, if the antennae EDIT: (not crowns or spires) is part of the original plan, and not merely an addition later added, that should be counted. Examples: the Original WTC North Tower's antennae I wouldn't count, (if I recall, it was added a few years later-could be wrong, though). Another example... ESB's official height would be 1,250 ft.

So... if done this way, I would still consider 1WTC taller.

Okay, impale/crucify me Chicago...
__________________
Revelation 21:4

Last edited by JDRCRASH; Nov 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2013, 5:01 AM
Guiltyspark's Avatar
Guiltyspark Guiltyspark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
To me, if the antennae EDIT: (not crowns or spires) is part of the original plan, and not merely an addition later added, that should be counted. Examples: the Original WTC North Tower's antennae I wouldn't count, (if I recall, it was added a few years later-could be wrong, though). Another example... ESB's official height would be 1,250 ft.

So... if done this way, I would still consider 1WTC taller.

Okay, impale/crucify me Chicago...
The "part of the original plan" concept never made any sense to me at all. Should we designate the Blue Cross Blue Shield building in Chicago as only 125 meters tall? That's how tall it was originally after all. It was not until 2010 that they added the extra floors. Buildings can change in height over time.

Plus, you cant tell me that the masts on top of Sears are any less connected structurally to the tower than the mast on 1WTC. "But the antenna on Sears can be changed!" you say. Well so could the one on 1WTC. They could tear the whole thing off the building or add height to it.

People have made it so damn complicated, but it should be easy. Use the eyeball test. Where does true the building appear to end and where does the cheating start. It really isn't that hard.

417m for 1WTC.
442m for Sears.
356 for Trump.
381 for ESB.
282 for Chrysler.

See. Simple. No cheating and height charts that visually make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2013, 4:26 AM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
The antenna is not part of the building, but is an attachment that disqualifies Sears. But any pole that is part of the architecture counts....

The only thing that can be done is to differentiate between building height, and structural height. A building can be a structure at the same time but have 2 different height designations.

The WTC building height ends at the roof which is the highest habitable floor, and it's separate structure designation goes to the pinnacle.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2013, 6:20 AM
IMBY IMBY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,161
We all know now what's going to change our city's skylines, after this verdict came about, that the WTC is the tallest now in the country. Yup! Look for more and more and more spires/hats!

Even a much-smaller city now can erect a building with a thousand foot steeple, and claim to have the tallest in the country. Even a city like Des Moines, Omaha, Indianapolis could pull that off!

You know, already, Chicago has one on the drawing boards! Perhaps the spire will look like a raised middle finger pointing east, rising to 2000 feet!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 6:33 PM
marcus's Avatar
marcus marcus is offline
marcus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 798
How about flagpole heights?

My question stems from the fact that Raleigh claims to have the tallest between Charlotte and Philly with PNC plaza at 164 meters to the spire (and 130.1 m to roof). But Baltimore's William Donald Schaefer Building is 150 meters to roof height and taller than 164 meters to flagpole height. If the flagpole was included in total height, it would be Baltimore's tallest. But it is not included in the final height. Why is that? Aren't spires and flagpoles both decorations?



Interestingly enough, the Bank of America building has an antenna taller than PNC Plaza and maybe taller than WDS as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.