Building Height Standards?

treras93 · #1 Posted **Jul 4, 2008, 3:53 AM**

this may seem like a waste of a thread, but i cant help but wonder... why dont spires and antennas count towards the height of a building. if its part of the structure then shouldn't it count as part of the height. does this 'rule' count across the board or do some people count the spire as part of the height?

Austin55 · #2 Posted **Jul 4, 2008, 3:58 AM**

oh boy

treras93 · #3 Posted **Jul 4, 2008, 4:01 AM**

am i about to start a huge argument or what?

M II A II R II K · #4 Posted **Jul 4, 2008, 4:03 AM**

LOL

According to CTBUH guidelines spires do count toward a buildings overall height.

But personally I think that the roof height should count toward the actual building height, a spire is just an extension and should only count toward structural height as opposed to building height.

Building height should only count up to the point where a building ceases to be a building, such as at it's roof.

Austin55 · #5 Posted **Jul 4, 2008, 4:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Building height should only count up to the point where a building ceases to be a building, such as at it's roof.

agreed,if not the absoulute pinnicle hight should count.

How much do you think the people who built the patronas towers paid these people for that rule,Ehh?

Architype · #6 Posted **Jul 4, 2008, 7:51 AM**

Anything that is an architectural feature (structural), and part of the design counts. A TV antenna on top of your house would not count in it's official height, but a chimney or cupola might.

malec · #7 Posted **Jul 7, 2008, 7:58 PM**

I've always had a method which makes perfect sense to me visually but is not easy to apply because people can have arguments over what counts. For some reason nobody agrees and I can't see why, it's so obvious to me.

The method goes like this:

If the spire is visually imposing such as on the tower below then it should count.

If it looks like a pole like on the NY Times tower then it shouldn't.

Simple.

Example:

The height will be up to half of its spire, exactly where it becomes pole like.

M II A II R II K · #8 Posted **Jul 7, 2008, 8:38 PM**

So there's general agreement that a pole should count in the overall structural height, but the roof height should count for the building height, even if that roof isn't on top of the highest floor.

Extensions like what the Transamerica Pyramid has can count.

Alliance · #9 Posted **Jul 7, 2008, 9:58 PM**

Preferably Highest Occupiable Floor...but, if not then the official height should be the Roof height.

End of the useful structure of a building.

This isn't about what is "visually" sensical and I'm sick of complex nonsensical, antiquated rules, and four building heights. CTUBH needs to bite the bullet, stop providing half-hearted solutions, and offically change this now.

DHamp · #10 Posted **Jul 7, 2008, 11:42 PM**

I'm not sure if the term "highest occupiable floor" is intended to imply this, but I would like to see the highest point on the ceiling of the highest occupiable level be taken as the official height -- not the floor. The reason why is the there may be a situation where the highest floor has a higher ceiling height than the others for some reason and I think the extra interior space should count for something.

Roof height would be ok as a consolation, but there are ways to artificially inflate the roof height that can be just as bad as useless spire height.

WonderlandPark · #11 Posted **Jul 8, 2008, 12:00 AM**

The worst example of this is the NY Times building, its a POLE that makes it 1000+ feet. Asinine. Maybe some sort of definition of "useful space" or "enclosed space" which could include the above picture or a wind turbine structure. But BofA or the NYTimes should be not be supertalls, IMO.

M II A II R II K · #12 Posted **Jul 10, 2008, 5:07 PM**

I didn't consider either of them legitimate supertalls either but according to CTBUH they are and we kinda go along with those guidelines.

Alliance · #13 Posted **Jul 11, 2008, 3:55 PM**

Well, unlike CTBUH, we could demonstrate brains. There is no logical reason for spires to count other than historical precedence.

If they're not going to have LOGICAL standards, why follow them? Develop a forum policy.

Include: Above groung, but below grade floors.
Exclude: Non-functional parts of the building (spires, antennas, inflated roofs, etc)

M II A II R II K · #14 Posted **Jul 11, 2008, 4:05 PM**

I did have that policy before but then a few of the P&C mods bitched about it and said we should follow CTBUH rules, and then it turned out that the diagrams here at this site lists diagrams in order of height based on spires so also to make things consistent across the site I guess spires count here too.

Alliance · #15 Posted **Jul 11, 2008, 4:19 PM**

You can already search/order the diagrams by roof heights...why just not make this arrangement default?

M II A II R II K · #16 Posted **Jul 11, 2008, 4:38 PM**

That can be done on the database but not for the forum, and plus that would be a search feature, not where a thread is located.

Alliance · #17 Posted **Jul 11, 2008, 9:57 PM**

I guess I'm confused on what the problem is then.

M II A II R II K · #18 Posted **Jul 11, 2008, 10:00 PM**

The problem is that it turns out that for the most part in architectural circles, the CTBUH standards are followed, so it's best to follow suit, especially since this is supposed to be a professional website.

But despite all of that, we all know which buildings have the better credibility when it comes to roof height, regardless of what classifications are slapped upon us.