Your opinion of what height a building becomes a skyscraper?

[Matthew Lovatt]

There is much debate over the world at what height does a building become a skyscraper?

Please follow the link below and have your opinion.

http://ess.ntu.ac.uk/sutton/formfile...dingsheigh.htm

[urbanlife]

I would say that it is a subjective opinion because I have always felt the height a building becomes a skyscraper varies with each city. If a city has a downtown that is full of 2-4 story buildings and a couple buildings that are 10-14 stories, then those couple buildings are considered skyscrapers. But on the other end, a city like NYC I would consider anything over 750ft to be a skyscraper and anything over 500ft to be a really tall building.


Basically, I figure you take the smallest number of the tallest buildings in a downtown and generalize that where they become taller than most of the other surrounding buildings, then they become skyscrapers.

[photoLith]

Id say 500 ft is a skyscraper.

[ue]

150m. But I like urbanlife's logic.

[FREKI]

150m+

[uaarkson]

Originally Posted by FREKI

150m+

agreed.

[Scottolini]

500'

[volguus zildrohar]

We people seem to like nice round numbers to pin things to. As you can imagine, Matthew, this isn't the first time this topic has been brought up on this forum and I'll give the same answer I have before - 500 feet is a nice round number between 0 and 1000 and that's where I make my cutoff.

[ChiSoxRox]

Basically, my idea of skyscraper is the height level where the skyline thins out dramatically. I tend to use round numbers more as an idea for how dense the skyline is, as "this city has x 500 footers and y 300 footers."

So Chicago is probably over 500 feet in the Loop, while St. Louis is down around 400 feet and Des Moines is 300 feet.

The closest city to me has two 400-footers (801 and Ruan) and my mental image of big city is either those two looming over Grand Avenue or the LaSalle and Mag Mile canyons in Chicago.

[MolsonExport]

just when it surpasses being a skyreacher

[Dac150]

Highrise: 300' - 499'

Skyscraper: 500' - 999'

Supertall: 1,000' +

[Matthew Lovatt]

Please select from the below. If you view please be sure to voice your opinion as this is assiting me with my dissertation and your view is important

Kind Regards

Matt


100 meter (326ft)
200 meter (656ft)
300 meter (984ft)
400 meter (1312ft)
500 meter (1640ft)
600 meter (1968ft)
700 meter (2296ft)
800 meter (2624ft)
900 meter (2952ft)
1000 meter (3280ft)
Other Reason.

[Steely Dan]

i'm one of those luddite americans, so forgive for not being familiar with meters, but as an old-schooler around these parts whose first exposure to internet skyscraper geekery was Marshall Gerometta's "hot 500 list" from the good old days where he tabulated every building on the planet that stood 500 feet or taller, i've always maintained that benchmark as the point at which a highrise becomes a "skyscraper". so i guess that converts to about 150 meters or something close to it.

with the explosive growth in supertall structures this past decade, maybe that benchmark is becoming a bit out-moded, but old habits (mental constructs) die hard.

[Cirrus]

skyscraper is the height level where the skyline thins out dramatically

Yes.

Different for every city.

[Dan in Chicago]

100 meters. It's a clean, simple metric definition - metric not only in units (meters), but for using the number 100. It also corresponds roughly with the average layman's idea of a skyscraper. I agree that the perception varies by city, but it's also useful to have a widely recognized benchmark for stats and comparisons.

[Hed Kandi]

Accept nothing less than 200m.

[hunser]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

Accept nothing less than 200m.

me too.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'm one of those luddite americans, so forgive for not being familiar with meters, but as an old-schooler around these parts whose first exposure to internet skyscraper geekery was Marshall Gerometta's "hot 500 list" from the good old days where he tabulated every building on the planet that stood 500 feet or taller, i've always maintained that benchmark as the point at which a highrise becomes a "skyscraper". so i guess that converts to about 150 meters or something close to it.

with the explosive growth in supertall structures this past decade, maybe that benchmark is becoming a bit out-moded, but old habits (mental constructs) die hard.

Generally riding in Steely's boat...

[tech12]

I guess i'd go with the 100 meter designation too...which then leads me to say that it might as well just be 300 feet instead (rather than 336'), which i guess makes sense to me as SF has tons of 300-400 foot towers (50 of them to be precise). I consider any reasonably tall building to be a "skyscraper" or "tower" or whatever, and once it becomes really tall, then it's a...."supertall skyscraper" or "a very tall tower" or "a really tall building" etc...i'm not too picky about my terms. I consider anything above 200 feet to be a "highrise" (SF has tons of these too, coming in at 73 total). Emporis on the other hand apparently considers anything above around 100 feet or so to be a "highrise".

[DecoJim]

I mostly agree with Urban Life. A 600 foot tall structure appears to scrape the sky until a 1000 footer is built across the street. Also the minimum height of buildings that have been called skyscrapers has generally increased since the Home Insurance building in Chicago was completed.

The only building that I have personally observed that really appeared to "scrape the sky" was the Sears Tower (now Willis Tower). On more than one occasion when I have been to Chicago, the top 15-20 stories were obscured by clouds.

Humans in general seem to have a desire to classify, quantify, or pigeonhole everything will demand a specific number such as the 500 feet or 150 meter round number. This number will have to arbitrarily be increased from time to time until the space elevator is built.