Quote:
Originally Posted by Plokoon11
Technically a person won't be able to work on top of the salesforce tower crown right? I mean someone can go up there, and I think the same for the CITC spire, meaning there is a ladder inside that I would think.
|
Your point? What IS the highest occupiable floor of CITC? Subtract a 2-5 ft for where someone's eyes will see out. That's all I was getting at. We can look at "percentage" cheat that way - the delta between top floor and the structural height.
1 WTC - 40% (1,268' to 1,776')
Bank of America Tower NYC - 36% (769' to 1,200')
NYT Tower - 31% (721' to 1,046')
BofA Atlanta - 28% (750' to 1,040')
Wilshire Grand - 22% (~860'? to 1,100')
CITC - 20% (~900' to 1,121')
Salesforce Tower - 15% (912' to 1,070')
By official roof rather than top floor, things still shake out relatively the same way:
NYT Tower - 28% (748' to 1,046')
1 WTC - 23% (1,368' to 1,776')
BofA NYC - 21% (945' to 1,200')
CITC - 18%? (~915'? to 1,121')
Wilshire Grand - 15% (934' to 1,100')
BofA Atlanta - 10% (933' to 1,040')...disclosure though, if triangle thing in Atlanta is considered "roof", then roof of SF Tower is 1,070' and there is no height "leakage"
Salesforce Tower - 9% (970' to 1,070')
Anyway, long story short...lots of cheaters, mostly the new guys. Older towers are truly taller and more imposing because they go all the way up. It doesn't feel "right" to lay all these claims down because of spires and what not. SF Tower above is the only one without a "spire" and I'm calling it a cheater mainly to appease you Philly posters, but also because there is a discrepancy between top floor and overall height that is roughly equivalent to having a spire.