HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 6:49 PM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,380
Arrow Roof height, last occupiable floor, pinnacle height?

where does a buildings height end for you?

Last edited by KevinFromTexas; Nov 19, 2013 at 6:39 AM. Reason: Removed the images because they were improperly credited.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 6:58 PM
Duffstuff129's Avatar
Duffstuff129 Duffstuff129 is offline
Charismatic Stallion
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 555
Quote:
all from skyscrapercity.com
Not enough. Please read the rules about citation.

On topic: I prefer roof height, but antennae is also good as long as it doesn't start the stupid "spire v. antennae" argument. I don't understand how a non-functioning pole is more of a structure than a broadcasting pole, and yes I know that I'm making a bit of a generalization in regards to spires.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 7:24 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,619
For me it isn't a straightforward answer, it depends on the building's architecture.

I wouldn't count either of the spires on the New York Times or Bank of America or Bloomberg, but I would count the one on the Chrysler.

I count the spires on Petronas, but not the antennas on Sears.

SWFC is easy, there's a roof on top of the bridge.
Jin Mao is to the top of the spire.

The new 1WTC is also to the top of the spire.

To be clear though (particularly in the case of say NYT or BofA), I don't care about the roof height. The parapet is what defines the architecture in those cases.

Personally, I don't really care that much if the end result is that one building is deemed taller than another one 6,000 miles away. You'll never see them in the same context anyway and thus the argument is kind of futile. I care more about the building itself as well as what it looks like in its own context.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 7:47 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: 33,068
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.
__________________
Facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 9:10 PM
Ordo_'s Avatar
Ordo_ Ordo_ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
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 totally agree with this.

I think the roof definition is best. Highest occupied floor would be my second best option, but there is still functional space in the building (the occupiable space above that floor). Its a complete farce that spires are still counted in building heights. I wish at least this site would change until CTBUH gets its bureaucratic act in line.
__________________
"Postmodernism was literally the greatest joke ever played on architecture."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 9:31 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
I count the spires on Petronas, but not the antennas on Sears.
thats messed up to me, and makes no sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 9:36 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 787
To me, somewhat of what mark said

Tallest building-highest occupied floor or highest accessible floor

Tallest structure-anything, including antenas or antena masts or towers like CN tower

Last edited by The North One; Jul 26, 2010 at 5:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2010, 10:10 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
thats messed up to me, and makes no sense.
Like I said, to me it's about the design intent. The antenna bases on Sears probably should count, but beyond that the antenna over the years has changed several times. It doesn't contribute overall to the architecture of the building. The Hancock, the old 2WTC, the Empire State, 4 Times Sq, 1 Shell Square are all similar for me.

If you changed out the spires on Petronas or Chrysler, it would dramatically alter the building's architecture.

Like I stated, I don't count all spires and I don't count any antennas.

In the case of New York, I look at it this way:

ESB: 1,250'
Chrysler: 1,046'
American International: 952'
Bank of America: 945'
40 Wall: 927'
Citicorp: 915'
Trump World: 861'
G.E.: 850'
Citispire: 814'
Chase Manhattan: 813'
4 Times Square: 809'
MetLife: 808'
Bloomberg: 806'
New York Times: +/- 800' (top of the parapet wall)

I realize that it doesn't create a clear cut system, but that's just how I see it. And for those that would argue with me about this, I guess the Chrysler Building isn't a supertall then and was never the tallest building in the world?
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2010, 1:32 AM
Aleks's Avatar
Aleks Aleks is offline
cookies, skittles & milk
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,177
i see it the same way plinko!
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2010, 1:35 AM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,380
personally i believe height is height,if its on the building its a part of it,thats the way it will be seen and presented. in my mind the ESB is 1454 ft. and the Willis tower is the 2nd tallest building on earth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2010, 1:44 AM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Forest Park / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 682
They should include antennas into the height or simply count to the roof. The spires over antennas bit is a little dull.



photo from gladisimo at skyscrapercity
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...7&postcount=12
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=465257
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2010, 2:26 PM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT View Post
They should include antennas into the height or simply count to the roof. The spires over antennas bit is a little dull.



photo from gladisimo at skyscrapercity
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...7&postcount=12
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=465257
i agree i mean you do see the antennas and they are a visual part of the tower so they should be counted
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2010, 3:06 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: 33,068
Antennas are attachments and are not part of the structure, same goes for flagpoles and stuff.
__________________
Facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2010, 3:10 PM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
Antennas are attachments and are not part of the structure, same goes for flagpoles and stuff.
true though the sears tower would not be the sears tower without its antenna's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2010, 5:33 PM
ColDayMan's Avatar
ColDayMan ColDayMan is offline
B!tchslapping Since 1998
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus
Posts: 18,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
Like I said, to me it's about the design intent. The antenna bases on Sears probably should count, but beyond that the antenna over the years has changed several times. It doesn't contribute overall to the architecture of the building. The Hancock, the old 2WTC, the Empire State, 4 Times Sq, 1 Shell Square are all similar for me.

If you changed out the spires on Petronas or Chrysler, it would dramatically alter the building's architecture.

Like I stated, I don't count all spires and I don't count any antennas.

In the case of New York, I look at it this way:

ESB: 1,250'
Chrysler: 1,046'
American International: 952'
Bank of America: 945'
40 Wall: 927'
Citicorp: 915'
Trump World: 861'
G.E.: 850'
Citispire: 814'
Chase Manhattan: 813'
4 Times Square: 809'
MetLife: 808'
Bloomberg: 806'
New York Times: +/- 800' (top of the parapet wall)

I realize that it doesn't create a clear cut system, but that's just how I see it. And for those that would argue with me about this, I guess the Chrysler Building isn't a supertall then and was never the tallest building in the world?
I generally agree (particularly with Petronas and Chrysler) except for this:

Quote:
The new 1WTC is also to the top of the spire.
It's the same theory as BoA or 4 Times Square. Take the "spire" off the new 1WTC and it doesn't alter the architecture either, really.
__________________
Click the x: _ _ X _ _!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2010, 6:00 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,619
^True, but the spire on the new WTC is being designed as an architectural element. I personally think it's odd looking (as is the whole building), but that's a subjective view.

Then again, it's all subjective as the CTBUH has established criteria for all this based on the fact that after 1997 nobody could agree anymore.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2010, 6:04 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork View Post
true though the sears tower would not be the sears tower without its antenna's.
Wrong...

source

The nearly 300' antennas that are there today weren't installed until much later. The building opened with the two bases sticking up (I'm sure somebody knows the height).


source
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2010, 8:38 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Forest Park / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
Antennas are attachments and are not part of the structure, same goes for flagpoles and stuff.
That's the official stance by the people who decide the height of buildings, but seriously... an antenna is just as tangible as a spire. They are both physically there, so if one counts then the other should count. This is a debate that has been going on for a long long time. Those pieces on top of the Sears Tower and Empire State Building really do enhance the visuals and let people more easily recognize the buildings, just as a decorative spire does. If you removed them, I'm sure most people would agree the buildings would look odd without them. Oh well, there is an official stance on the subject that at the moment, isn't up for change.
__________________
“Chicago ain't no sissy town.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2010, 12:15 AM
Tex17 Tex17 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork View Post
true though the sears tower would not be the sears tower without its antenna's.
No apostrophe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2010, 12:23 AM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
Wrong...

source

The nearly 300' antennas that are there today weren't installed until much later. The building opened with the two bases sticking up (I'm sure somebody knows the height).


source
thats not what i meant,i know that about the tower. what i meant was that when you think of the Sears tower you think of it with its antennas not just its roof height. the image that everyone thinks of has the antennas.
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 1:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.