# Sears Tower, The true tallest?



## floridian-will (Nov 16, 2006)

Ok I may be a little behind the times but I have been looking at some diagrams of the worlds tallest buildings and noticed that the Sears Tower would be the true current tallest if the US counted masts. Is this true or are the diagrams inacurate. If im right than then it seems that the Sears Tower is still kind, until Burge Dubai comes.


----------



## SLKRR (Dec 18, 2006)

If you want to count masts, the champion is that one out in North Dakota that puts Sears Tower to shame. (That's one reason I think they shouldn't count.) It doesn't matter, though, because Burj Dubai is still going to whup them all.


----------



## harvesterofsorrows (Nov 5, 2005)

Sears tower's antennas don't count.

Although it does have the highest Occupied floor.

It is taller then the current tallest if you include the antennas though...

And Is this in the right place?


----------



## Brendan (Feb 24, 2006)

Who cares.

Sears Tower is no longer the tallest. If you count the antennas then you have to count those tall TV Towers in the USA. So no, it's never going to be the tallest ever again.


----------



## Vekkis (Nov 21, 2006)

harvesterofsorrows said:


> Sears tower's antennas don't count.
> 
> Although it does have the highest Occupied floor.
> 
> ...


 Taipei 101 has the highest occupied floor and yes this is in the wrong section.


----------



## harvesterofsorrows (Nov 5, 2005)

It does??


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

floridian-will said:


> Ok I may be a little behind the times but I have been looking at some diagrams of the worlds tallest buildings and noticed that the Sears Tower would be the true current tallest if the US counted masts. Is this true or are the diagrams inacurate. If im right than then it seems that the Sears Tower is still kind, until Burge Dubai comes.


First off, this thread was posted in the wrong place. I'm moving it to the Skyscrapers, Structures, and Architecture section. 

As to your question, it isn't that the US doesn't count antennas and other countries do. The decision as to which building is the world's tallest is made by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), located in Chicago. For whatever reason, it has decided that spires (Petronas Towers, Freedom Tower, etc.) are to be counted in calculating a building's height because they are architectural and structural elements deemed part of the building. Antennas, on the other hand, are considered appurtenant elements and therefore are not included in height calculation. This is why Petronas passed Sears as world's tallest years ago. Although it had a shorter roof height than Sears, with its spires it was taller than Sears without its antennas.

Such was the inspiration for this smilie:
:tiasd:


----------



## floridian-will (Nov 16, 2006)

The Sears Tower has a taller structural peek, while the petronas tower is a spire and they are allowed to count those sticks on top of spires, I still think the Sears Tower is taller, no matter what the records say. Are those masts on top of the Petronas Towers? If so than thats really design biased. Is Teipei 101 taller without its mast? If not than I think I would call the Sears Tower taller than both, I know many of you dont care because the Burge Dubai building will shrink them all but I do. And what bulding is in North Dakota that shames the Sears Tower?


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

floridian-will said:


> The Sears Tower has a taller structural peek, while the petronas tower is a spire and they are allowed to count those sticks on top of spires, I still think the Sears Tower is taller, no matter what the records say. Are those masts on top of the Petronas Towers? If so than thats really design biased. Is Teipei 101 taller without its mast? If not than I think I would call the Sears Tower taller than both, I know many of you dont care because the Burge Dubai building will shrink them all but I do. And what bulding is in North Dakota that shames the Sears Tower?


The height of buildings are divided into four separate categories, by which they're compared. Of course, you can ignore what the officials say about things and say that Sears is still the tallest. That simply is something that wont be recognized by the official authorities. 

Personally, I don't judge skyscrapers by how tall they are. I love the Sears tower and don't really give a damn if it was the 20th tallest in the world. But the fact remains that through the current categories used to judge skyscrapers, Sears only beats T101 in one category, which is the highest point at the top of the antenna. 

The other three categories are : highest architectural top, highest occupied floor, and highest to roof, which are all held by T101 at the moment. 

When they were talking about masts, the North Dakota TV mast thing (a huge antenna) is the tallest structure in the world, though it is uninhabitable, and is guyed by cables to support it.


----------



## Chitowner245 (Oct 18, 2006)

At least the antennas on top of Sears are actually used for something, while spires are just worthless decorations used for the sake of height records and aesthetics.


----------



## SLKRR (Dec 18, 2006)

i_am_hydrogen said:


> Such was the inspiration for this smilie:
> :tiasd:


By far the best smilie on SSC. I love it.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

The red lines represent the height to antenna
The blue lines represent height to roof
The yellow lines represent height to highest occupied floor (I believe the floors above are mechanical/maintenance floors)

I believe that for the T101, the top to antenna is the red line, as well as the top to structural top, while for Sears, the top to antenna is the red line, but the structural top is the blue line (no spires, so to roof)


I actually dont know the exact definition of roof vs. architectural top. I think architectural top includes spires, while roof is the top of the concrete. 

You see from this, how Petronas claimed the title of architectural/structural top from Sears.

_source_

Heights from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101

Diagram courtesy of SSP:

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?1241105


----------



## floridian-will (Nov 16, 2006)

WOW thanks for all the info guys, truly very helpful. And that explains alot about that smiley, it really is the best smilely on SSC or anywhere ive seen for that matter.


----------



## floridian-will (Nov 16, 2006)

In the movie "Entrapment" they showed the Petronas Tower with wraparound balconies, is that accurate?


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

I would pretty much used the highest occupied floor b/c that height is actually used.


----------



## FastFerrari (Feb 7, 2007)

we all know some like or dislike this thread....Sears yes it still the tallest we have eyes but only in one of the 4 categories....however when Dubai completes its 800m or however tall it is this will be needless....well only on the world look...however still tallest in US..MAYBE?


----------



## harvesterofsorrows (Nov 5, 2005)

FastFerrari said:


> we all know some like or dislike this thread....Sears yes it still the tallest we have eyes but only in one of the 4 categories....however when Dubai completes its 800m or however tall it is this will be needless....well only on the world look...however still tallest in US..MAYBE?


Yeah, the Americas, until Chicago spire gets built!


----------



## Ginza (May 13, 2006)

Sears Towers,The true second tallest building:banana: :lol: :cheers:


----------



## Gaeus (Mar 21, 2007)

It doesn't matter. In 2 - 4 months, Burj Dubai will surpass all and all those arguments of which is the tallest will finally end.


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

:lol:, correct


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

the sears in my eyes will always be taller than the Taipei 101. you couls have a box with a mile high spire...


----------



## NaptownBoy (Jul 25, 2005)

Height isn't all that important, in my opinion. I'd rather look at the _whole_ skyline and how it utilizes its height.

The Sears Tower could be the 23rd tallest and I wouldn't care at all. But I'd rather have a not so tall Sears Tower--which is the focal point of one of the world's greatest skylines--over some soulless, 3,000-foot crapfest located in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

poshbakerloo said:


> the sears in my eyes will always be taller than the Taipei 101. you couls have a box with a mile high spire...


Taipe 101 is taller in all categories so why do you think sears tower is still taller? because of the antenna's?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

ZZ-II said:


> Taipe 101 is taller in all categories so why do you think sears tower is still taller? because of the antenna's?


the Taipei 101 may have a slightly higher roof but it is so narrow at the top that it can hardly count, at the top of the sears its still quite wide and also the sears tower has more floors anyway...


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

the height counts not the number of floors


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

ZZ-II said:


> the height counts not the number of floors



but with more floors then you could go higher up the building...any way the Taipei 101 at the top is more like a step ladder with a very small room...


----------



## ToRoNto g-town (Nov 26, 2005)

^ that makes zero sense... taipe 101 is taller than sears get over it and stop saying dumb things


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

who cares at this point? the taipei 101 and the unfinished burj dubai and shanghai WFC are taller now.


----------



## harvesterofsorrows (Nov 5, 2005)

CHICAGOANS CARE!!!!!


----------



## JAKUB POLEWSKI (Dec 19, 2005)

What's the problem ?! Let build some skyscraper about 900 m tall in Chicago, but in '60/'70 architecture style 

Phiii...


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

hehe, great idea


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

aaarrrgggg i can't explain myself properly!!!!!!aaarrggg I'm BURNING BURNING BURINGING FIRE AARRGGG


----------



## Chi649 (Mar 30, 2005)

ZZ-II said:


> Taipe 101 is taller in all categories so why do you think sears tower is still taller? because of the antenna's?


The only reason why the antennas are not included is because of CTBUH, which created the 4 categories and they decided antennas do not count in the official height. Sears still holds the world record for tallest tip height or pinnacle height, which is one of the 4 categories CTBUH created. CTBUH is based in Chicago but when the decision was made, CTBUH was still based at Lehigh University in Pennsylvaina.

Should the antennas count? Well, do they strongly contribute to a person's perception on how tall the Sears Tower is? Obviously, YES. In fact at night, they are the most visible part of the building because they are illuminated, and you can see them for miles and miles away. The antennas are solid thick white masts which are thicker than most spires. Furthermore, the antennas are lit up in different colors, for example, green and red for Christmas. So they really are an architectural element of the building, the building just wouldn't look right without them. So CTBUH's ruling about antennas, as it pertains to the Sears Tower, is nonsensical.


----------



## bnk (Mar 25, 2006)

ATLksuGUY said:


> *TALLER? REALLY*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 .,


----------



## Latoso (Mar 23, 2005)

Chi649 said:


> Should the antennas count? Well, do they strongly contribute to a person's perception on how tall the Sears Tower is? Obviously, YES. In fact at night, they are the most visible part of the building because they are illuminated, and you can see them for miles and miles away. The antennas are solid thick white masts which are thicker than most spires. Furthermore, the antennas are lit up in different colors, for example, green and red for Christmas. So they really are an architectural element of the building, the building just wouldn't look right without them. So CTBUH's ruling about antennas, as it pertains to the Sears Tower, is nonsensical.


^^Exactly! Even if I didn't believe that their reasoning was bs, which I do, the CTBUH didn't even follow their own guidelines. They say the antennas don't count because they are not architectural elements and that they were added after the fact. Fine. If that's the case, then the official height of Sears should be counted to the top of the antenna stubs which were built as part of the original structure and are tied in to the steel frame of the building. They were designed in the event the Sears Tower should ever get antennas. If you count them, the official height would be above 1500 feet, beating Petronas and possibly Taipei 101. Here are some pre-antenna pics to prove my point.


----------



## Brendan (Feb 24, 2006)

I think that the only people that believe the antennas should count are from Chicago itself..

Sorry guys, but if you count the antennas, then you'd have to say that the KVLY/KTHI TV Mast in Blanchard, ND is the tallest, which it isn't so.. ya.


----------



## Latoso (Mar 23, 2005)

Brendan said:


> I think that the only people that believe the antennas should count are from Chicago itself..
> 
> Sorry guys, but if you count the antennas, then you'd have to say that the KVLY/KTHI TV Mast in Blanchard, ND is the tallest, which it isn't so.. ya.


So if you unplug the tv mast in North Dakota and leave it standing as a spire and an architectural statement, by your reasoning it should be the world's tallest building.:bash:


----------



## Brendan (Feb 24, 2006)

Latoso said:


> So if you unplug the tv mast in North Dakota and leave it standing as a spire and an architectural statement, by your reasoning it should be the world's tallest building.:bash:


Um no, that's not what I said at all. The antennas on the sears tower are not counted. If they were counted, CTBUH would have to count the tv mast, so in both ways, the Sears Tower is not the tallest in the world, and never will be.


----------



## Smallville (Jan 31, 2007)

The Sears tower is still the tallest building in the world. For a while anyway. I am not from chicago nor do I live there now.


----------



## Latoso (Mar 23, 2005)

So why even bother counting anything that's not habitable? True, it won't change things for Sears, but if antennas don't count, nether should spires.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Latoso said:


> So why even bother counting anything that's not habitable? True, it won't change things for Sears, but if antennas don't count, nether should spires.


Spires are supposed to be architecturally integral to the skyscraper itself, spires are supposed to have architectural merit as part of the design of the building, whereas an antenna's purpose is functional, rather than aesthetic or symbolic. 



NaptownBoy said:


> Height isn't all that important, in my opinion. I'd rather look at the _whole_ skyline and how it utilizes its height.


Completely Agree! Who cares whether the Sears, ESB, or anything is the tallest or not. A building's merit as a beautiful piece of architecture does not stem from its height.


----------



## Chi649 (Mar 30, 2005)

Brendan said:


> I think that the only people that believe the antennas should count are from Chicago itself..
> 
> Sorry guys, but if you count the antennas, then you'd have to say that the KVLY/KTHI TV Mast in Blanchard, ND is the tallest, which it isn't so.. ya.


Brendan, that is ridicolous. First of all, we need to classify if something is a building or not. If it is not a building, it has no relevance to this discussion. By your logic, someone could build a 3000ft spire and call it the world's tallest building.

Therefore, you could still count the antennas of the Sears Tower and not have to say that the TV mast in Blanchard is the tallest. Why? Because a TV mast cannot be considered a building.

People do care about height records. There are many in Australia that are proud to have the title of tallest residental building in the world. I do not think negative of them because of that.

A big part of the reason why Chicagoans care about the Sears record is because people made a big deal of it when the other buildings supposedly passed Sears.

But after Burj Dubai, who cares about Sears record anymore. At that point, the debate will be how long Sears had the record.


----------



## SLKRR (Dec 18, 2006)

I think it's absolutely hilarious how Chicagoans have completely reversed themselves on this:

1997 or so:

"Petronas isn't the tallest because only the highest floor should count. Anything above the highest floor is not really part of the actual building. Who cares about some dumb spires? The habitable space is what matters! Sears is still the tallest! Chicago rules!"

2003 or so:

"What? Taipei 101 has a higher floor than Sears? Well, we all know that antennas are what should count. Who cares about where the highest floor is? The actual highest tip is what matters! Sears is still the tallest!! Chicago RULEZZZ!!" 

Don't worry guys, by sometime next year you can drop the rationalizations and just accept that Sears is no longer the tallest.


----------



## Chi649 (Mar 30, 2005)

^^ People have a lot of different opinions on how height is measured. It was true then and it is true now. There are still plenty of people that think neither antennas nor spires should count. They existed in 1997 and they're still around today.

I am however not one of those people. I simply believe that if something greatly effects your perception on how tall a building looks, then it should be included in the official height. Simple as that. There is no rationalizing involved.


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

slowly i've the opinion they should also count antennas. for example the ESP. can anyone imagine it without its antenna??


----------



## SLKRR (Dec 18, 2006)

Chi649 said:


> ^^ People have a lot of different opinions on how height is measured. It was true then and it is true now. There are still plenty of people that think neither antennas nor spires should count. They existed in 1997 and they're still around today.
> 
> I am however not one of those people. I simply believe that if something greatly effects your perception on how tall a building looks, then it should be included in the official height. Simple as that. There is no rationalizing involved.


It was tongue-in-cheek...  I think having the four categories is probably the best way to go, since there will always be some with different opinions. If I "had my druthers," I'd prefer not to count spires as "official." Especially glorified flagpoles like some of the newer spires appear to be. Then again, how can you justify not including the spire in the height of the Chrysler building? The more I think about it, the better it seems just to maintain the different categories.


----------



## depressio (Jan 28, 2006)

Good point SLKRR; I was just about to make a post about the Chrysler Building. I think that by looking at the Chrysler and the Sears, you have to say that you need to have anything count.


----------



## Chi649 (Mar 30, 2005)

SLKRR said:


> It was tongue-in-cheek...  I think having the four categories is probably the best way to go, since there will always be some with different opinions. If I "had my druthers," I'd prefer not to count spires as "official." Especially glorified flagpoles like some of the newer spires appear to be. Then again, how can you justify not including the spire in the height of the Chrysler building? The more I think about it, the better it seems just to maintain the different categories.


Its all good SLK 
I share your view on Chrysler and the four categories. Some of the newer buildings have functional spires, which are included in the officical height even though they are also antennas. I would put Sears into this category. As it currently stands, Sears is treated like a building with a cell tower on top, but the antennas are so much more than that.

A perfect example of a glorified flagpole would be NY Times Tower. Its spire looks exactly like a flagpole to me. When completed, it will be officially taller than John Hancock in Chicago. It's obvious which one will look taller, so I guess the 4 categories is an attempt to create a fair playing field and please everyone. The problem is that most people think only one of the categories really count.

The ESB's official height is its roof at 1250'. When Trump Tower Chicago is completed, it will be 1362' to the top of the spire, which will be its official height. Therefore, Trump will be oficially taller. However, I will consider ESB taller than Trump becuase the thick part of ESB's antenna reaches 1365'.


----------



## Adrian Smith fan (Mar 17, 2007)

well sears wont hold on the title after the Great Burj Dubai finishes and capture all the records


----------



## Chi649 (Mar 30, 2005)

^^ Is there a thread for that building, Burj Dubai or whatever you call it?


----------



## SLKRR (Dec 18, 2006)

Chi649 said:


> Its all good SLK
> I share your view on Chrysler and the four categories. Some of the newer buildings have functional spires, which are included in the officical height even though they are also antennas. I would put Sears into this category. As it currently stands, Sears is treated like a building with a cell tower on top, but the antennas are so much more than that.


I think this is a good point - maybe the problem is not that we should include antennas, but that Sears' antennas should actually be considered spires because of their size and design...? I think of the AT&T Corporate Center's four spires, and they don't look any more significant or integrated into the design than the two on Sears. I struggle to consider _all _antennas, however. There is a building near where I live that is 5 stories tall, with a TV antenna on the roof no shorter than 80m. There is simply no way I can consider this 5-story building to be 100+m in height - I'm sure you've seen similar structures. Maybe the definition of what can be considered a spire needs to be revisited? (You guys are winning me over, now!  hehe)



> A perfect example of a glorified flagpole would be NY Times Tower.


That's the one I was thinking of, but there are others, too. If that pole is a spire, I think you are perfectly within your rights to claim the Sears antennas as spires, too.



> The problem is that most people think only one of the categories really count.


That's what happens when one of the categories is considered "official" (i.e., spires).



> The ESB's official height is its roof at 1250'. When Trump Tower Chicago is completed, it will be 1362' to the top of the spire, which will be its official height. Therefore, Trump will be oficially taller. However, I will consider ESB taller than Trump becuase the thick part of ESB's antenna reaches 1365'.


Another good example where maybe an antenna needs to be reclassified as a spire. This also brings us back to Taipei 101 and whoever it was complaining upthread about how small the upper floors of that building are. Look at the upper floors of the ESB! They are miniscule, too, but still count as floors. 

I can't believe I'm starting to agree with you all... hno: :lol:


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

Chi649 said:


> ^^ Is there a thread for that building, Burj Dubai or whatever you call it?


of course: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=466683


----------



## Aceventura (May 6, 2007)

Chi649 said:


> ^^ Is there a thread for that building, Burj Dubai or whatever you call it?


:hahaha: :rofl: :rofl: :laugh: :lol:


----------



## Latoso (Mar 23, 2005)

I agree the 4 categories are the best way to go. I personally don't care if Sears is tallest or not, I like it regardless. My issue is with the haphazard enforcement of the CTBUH definitions. The official height of the Sears Tower to the top of structure, not counting antennas, should be to the top of the steel tubes that hold the antennas because they are part of the original structure. It won't mean much as far as any titles go, but at least it would be the true height.


----------



## ToRoNto g-town (Nov 26, 2005)

^ i can agree with that, the real issue with the CTBUH is that they don't recognize the CN towere as a real 'building'.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

It's all abit ridiculous saying one building counts and another doesn't based on irrelevant criteria such as whether people live inside, spires, etc. It's as silly as saying the Eiffel Tower doesn't count because it doesn't have an office inside it. If you are talking about height, then talk about height. The Sears Tower was the tallest office building, but not much else.

At 1815 feet, the Canadian National Tower has been #1 for 3 decades and will finally lose it's title to the Burj Dubai. And for those who think occupancy does matter, hundreds of people do actually work at the Canadian National Tower: at its base, and yes, in the tower.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon (May 6, 2007)

gladisimo said:


> The Sears Tower
> I check 90m Antenna & Spire(pen)?? i guess


----------



## SLKRR (Dec 18, 2006)

isaidso said:


> It's all abit ridiculous saying one building counts and another doesn't based on irrelevant criteria such as whether people live inside, spires, etc. It's as silly as saying the Eiffel Tower doesn't count because it doesn't have an office inside it. If you are talking about height, then talk about height. The Sears Tower was the tallest office building, but not much else.
> 
> At 1815 feet, the Canadian National Tower has been #1 for 3 decades and will finally lose it's title to the Burj Dubai. And for those who think occupancy does matter, hundreds of people do actually work at the Canadian National Tower: at its base, and yes, in the tower.


If it's "ridiculous saying one building counts and aonther doesn't based on irrelevant criteria such as whether people live inside, spires" then you should count the many communications towers which are taller than the CN Tower, the tallest being KYLV-TV in North Dakota. I mean, as long as you don't want to be "ridiculous," of course.  I guess it's only ridiculous if _your _building doesn't count.


----------



## kurakura (Apr 11, 2007)

This thread is goin to be irrelevant soon......:lol:


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

yeh, burj dubai will overtake all towers on the earth....SWFC will also have an taller roof than sears, Petronas and Taipe 101 ^^


----------

