Roof height, last occupiable floor, pinnacle height?

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That isn't the correct distinction, at least not if you're going by CTBUH standards. Anyone who told you that is wrong.

Anyways, why not take it to the spire/antenna threads. This should be for 1 WTC.

This took 3 seconds.

The CTBUH ranks the height of buildings using three different methods:


1. Height to architectural top of the building. This is the main criterion under which the CTBUH ranks the height of buildings. Heights are measured from the level of the lowest, significant, open-air, pedestrian entrance to the top of the building, inclusive of spires but excluding items such as flag poles or antennae.
2. To highest occupied floor: Height to the floor of the highest occupied floor of the building.
3. To tip of spire/antenna: Height to the tip of spire, pinnacle, antenna, mast or flag pole.

So it looks like that the antenna/spire height is in fact the correct distinction.

Anyway, I will take this to another forum, even though I believe it is a valid topic for the 1WTC page.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

This took 3 seconds.

So it looks like that the antenna/spire height is in fact the correct distinction.

No, it isn't. Re-read the three criteria. Which of those three options are you referring to?

There is no change to the

1. Architectural top,
2. Highest occupied floor, or
3. Height of Spire or Antenna.

Again, if you're using their criteria, there is no change in height with the change in design.

[KevinFromTexas]

One thing I've noticed recently while perusing the City of Austin's website for site plans is developers and architects rarely ever measure their building's height beyond the main roof. In fact, in Austin at least buildings that are applying for a height variance only have to obey the height restriction up to their main roof. Things like mechanical penthouses and stair/roof access towers are exempt up to 15 percent of the building's overall height. I collect building heights as a hobby, and I've been finding heights for a lot of buildings that I had been told were one height when in fact that was only to their main roof. So in some cases the building's true height might be another 10 to 15 feet taller.

So I like to measure buildings to several points mainly their main roof and mechanical penthouse or roof access tower and then any architecturally significant structure like a spire and then even some unique roof or setback level. Still, I think measuring buildings officially by their architectural height is the best even if that includes a spire since it is how the architect intended it. I don't know, you wouldn't put a huge frame on a painting thereby covering up important parts of the painting that the artist intended you to see would you? So I believe in measuring buildings and ranking them using multiple criteria, roof, architecture (including spires), and highest occupied floor.

And I rarely worry with measuring things like flagpoles or antennae unless I can find the heights for those fairly easily, and even then only when they're large/noticeable from street level. I usually just include those as a note. And also antenna heights can change fairly often. While I was viewing those site plans, I saw a lot of permits for building owners wanting to add height or even remove antennae from their building. Trying to track those structures is a lot more difficult, so unless it's a large one that is likely to stay there for a long time, I don't even bother with seeking them out.

[xXSkyscraperDudeXx]

Originally Posted by MadGnome

For anybody who takes the CTBUH seriously, they're the ones who fooled everybody into thinking the Petronas towers were taller than Sears, when looking at a comparison drawing would have made it obvious how absurd their standards are.

I've always hated the Petronas Twins/towers, On the other side I like the other buildings...

[Hudson11]

yeah, those metal rods they call spires are no worse than the one they stuck on top of the New York Times Tower.

quick, which set is taller? http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?

[xXSkyscraperDudeXx]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

yeah, those metal rods they call spires are no worse than the one they stuck on top of the New York Times Tower.

quick, which set is taller? http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?

If your talking about which tower is taller between the Willis/Sears Tower & 1WTC there, Obviously the Willis Tower Hands down!

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

yeah, those metal rods they call spires are no worse than the one they stuck on top of the New York Times Tower.

quick, which set is taller? http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?

Really though the spires atop the Petronas Towers probably have way more style than that stick atop the New York Times Tower and even the Bank of America Tower.

Not every building needs a spire, but the Petronas Towers did. Spires like the ones the New York Times Tower has looks kind of tacky though since they're just stuck up there. I have to admit, I have a love hate relationship with spires. Curiosity of their architectural design and engineering is interesting to me, but sometimes they look a bit chaotic and gangly.

[gramsjdg]

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet: When I look at Sears vs Taipei 101, Sears has much more bulk at a higher elevation than Taipei 101; with Taipei, you could almost consider that upper base or pedestal for the spire as part of the spire itself. I think bulk or sq footage of floors should be a factor in the equation- it is obvious with Sears vs Petronas, even if you count the Petronas spires. Chrysler's spire, however, is much more substantial in size and completely integral to the building in a way that the Petronas spires are not.

[plinko]

^You've obviously never seen Petronas in person. The spires on those are every bit as integral as that of the Chrysler.

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by plinko

^You've obviously never seen Petronas in person. The spires on those are every bit as integral as that of the Chrysler.

and exactly how integral is the spire on the chrysler building?
Take that away, you still get a masterpiece but not the world's tallest building. Same with the Petronas Towers.

[elysium]

Originally Posted by FrancoRey

So, looks and aesthetics aside, was there ever a 'formal' verdict on whether or not this revised spire will count as part of the height of 1WTC? I remember there was concern not long ago about the revision making it more an 'antenna' than a spire, thus disqualifying the building's height as 1,787 feet. I know it's not the original spire plan but it still looks to be very much a structural addition and not an antenna casing.

Pls don't flame me; there just are simply far too many posts for me to find this on my own. Thnx.

I don't know why anyone cares about height that isn't roof height. To me it's just cheating to include either spires or antennas. It would be like measuring someone's height by measuring to the top of a very tall hat.

[TechTalkGuy]

When I see a spire, such as the Chrysler Building (as a random example), I count the height to the tip of the spire.

That's how I view One World Trade Center.

Same thing with the Willis (Sears) tower in Chicago -- the tallest of the two antennas.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

When I see a spire, such as the Chrysler Building (as a random example), I count the height to the tip of the spire.

That's how I view One World Trade Center.

Same thing with the Willis (Sears) tower in Chicago -- the tallest of the two antennas.

For the purposes of ranking though officially, it appears ridiculous when a substantial skyscraper is ranked lower than a shorter tower with a toothpick on it. I think they should change the ranking method. Spires shud not count, or if they do, only if they pass certain minimum criteria in terms of dimension, etc,,

[TechTalkGuy]

Originally Posted by aquablue

it appears ridiculous when a substantial skyscraper is ranked lower than a shorter tower with a toothpick on it.

I am no fan of the design of the NY Times Tower whatsoever!
That design clearly cheats it's ranking with the useless spire and prison bars that destroy any hope for humanity in the design.

But the spire for the Chrysler Building should be counted because it completes the design, which is pleasing to the eye.

The design of the spire atop of One World Trade Center was changed due to cost-cutting measures, but the height remains the same.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by TechTalkGuy

I am no fan of the design of the NY Times Tower whatsoever!
That design clearly cheats it's ranking with the useless spire and prison bars that destroy any hope for humanity in the design.

But the spire for the Chrysler Building should be counted because it completes the design, which is pleasing to the eye.

The design of the spire atop of One World Trade Center was changed due to cost-cutting measures, but the height remains the same.

I still don't like counting spires because if you count them sometimes, you have to count all the cheaters. Unless they find a way to remove the cheating spires from the assessment.

[TechTalkGuy]

I can certainly understand your point of view, aquablue and appreciate the dialog.

Once the spire is complete, we will be able to more focus on other areas of this tower, such as the base because as we all know, that design too was changed (for safety and security reasons).

[Guiltyspark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, it isn't. Re-read the three criteria. Which of those three options are you referring to?

There is no change to the

1. Architectural top,
2. Highest occupied floor, or
3. Height of Spire or Antenna.

Again, if you're using their criteria, there is no change in height with the change in design.

The Spire which did count was turned into an antenna by removing all the architectural elements. Antennas don't count.

[simms3_redux]

For the past couple years I have paid most attention to top view height. I work about 370-390 ft up in one of the taller buildings in SF right now, which would be one of the higher views as a percentage of office space that high up in all but the largest cities, even if the height is not that impressive. Still, in addition to my own building, which has 17 more floors above me, I count 12-13 additional straight office buildings with at least 10 floors of office space higher than my own view.

I think I only think that way because I've only worked in highrises, but even so...to me it's more impressive to see buildings that have "tall facades". Glass curtain facades look taller at night than in the day.

Of course NYC is very tall, but because of the higher floor counts in all the residential buildings in Chicago and the proximity of the supertalls, that skyline looks TALL. Houston looks tall. LA looks tall. Miami looks taller than it is, again because of the residential. Atlanta can appear tall. Atlanta cheats in height a little with the spires, though they certainly define the skyline and make it more interesting than the boxes in SF or LA.

Height of top floor view
# floors

[stormkingfan]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

I say a building's height should go to the roof, and any height above that can be attributed to the overall structural height.

So tallest "buildings" would only count up to the roof height, which is the building aspect of the structure, and the structural height will be the entire thing.

I agree with you there. Bldg height to the roof or the top of the cupola on some older bldgs (imo, a cupola counts as a floor since the floor is enclosed). The antenna is another structure.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by xXSkyscraperDudeXx

I've always hated the Petronas Twins/towers, On the other side I like the other buildings...

I love the blatant honesty of this diagram. Not to mention the street level honesty of these buildings.

Willis Tower is just relentless in its stacking of office floors. All the way to the top. No quadruple height lobbies, ridiculously tall mechanical floors or slender tapering spires. Nope...just hundreds of thousands of rentable square feet of office above the observation decks of those other towers. Good thing I don't work on the 90-something floor of Willis or I'd probably laugh at every observation deck I visit.

But seriously, I grew up most my life in an industrial town where the tallest building was a whopping 16 floors, so no worries, I'm not trying to spew a bunch of local pride here. But I like to make fun of the marketing campaigns behind these where "it's the tallest whatever by __________ technicality!"