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: Feb 28, 2010, 6:30 PM
Matthew Lovatt Matthew Lovatt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5
Your opinion of what height a building becomes a skyscraper?

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 7:49 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC Metro
Posts: 8,449
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 8:50 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is online now
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Millvale, Pittsburgh
Posts: 6,626
Id say 500 ft is a skyscraper.
__________________
My fine art photography website : http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/c...itherland.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 8:52 PM
ue ue is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: somewhere up north
Posts: 5,564
150m. But I like urbanlife's logic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 9:20 PM
FREKI's Avatar
FREKI FREKI is offline
Kicking it Viking style..
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 6,076
150m+
__________________
Some of my photothreads:
Madeira - Sweden - Tenerife - Hong Kong
- Iraq - Norway -Rome - Chicago - Gomera
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 9:34 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI - USA
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by FREKI View Post
150m+
agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 9:35 PM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,480
500'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 9:39 PM
volguus zildrohar's Avatar
volguus zildrohar volguus zildrohar is offline
Be Cool Or Be Cast Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The City Of Philadelphia
Posts: 15,032
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.
__________________
je suis phillytrax sur FLICKR, y'all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 9:44 PM
Dralcoffin's Avatar
Dralcoffin Dralcoffin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,144
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.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 10:47 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Liver & Onions
Posts: 18,557
just when it surpasses being a skyreacher
__________________
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. -Donald Rumsfeld
Didn't you notice on the plane when you started talking, eventually I started reading the vomit bag?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted: Feb 28, 2010, 10:58 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,323
Highrise: 300' - 499'

Skyscraper: 500' - 999'

Supertall: 1,000' +
__________________
New York, New York- A city so nice they named it twice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 3:55 PM
Matthew Lovatt Matthew Lovatt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5
Smile Your opinion of what height a building becomes a skyscraper?

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.

Last edited by Matthew Lovatt; Mar 2, 2010 at 4:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 4:02 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
born again cyclist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Old Style City
Posts: 14,120
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 5:35 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
Coastal elitist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,341
Quote:
skyscraper is the height level where the skyline thins out dramatically
Yes.

Different for every city.
__________________
BeyondDC: twitter | flickr | blog | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 6:05 PM
Dan in Chicago's Avatar
Dan in Chicago Dan in Chicago is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 595
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 6:53 PM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,534
Accept nothing less than 200m.
__________________
Vancouver Projects and Construction - Updated April 6, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/2dp6pc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 7:00 PM
hunser hunser is offline
Wiener Blut
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 10026 NY / 1040 Wien
Posts: 2,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hed Kandi View Post
Accept nothing less than 200m.
me too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 7:06 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
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...
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 7:27 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,210
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".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted: Mar 2, 2010, 7:48 PM
DecoJim's Avatar
DecoJim DecoJim is offline
Art Deco Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 655
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.
__________________
My Detroit and Lego architecture photos: flickr/decojim/
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
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 1:10 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.