# BUILDING HEIGHT: Should Spires Count?



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

*Should spires (masts, antennae, misc. "toppings" etc.) count when assessing the height of buildings, or should the basic structure(s) be the only criterion? This poll was inspired by the latest controversy regarding the tallest buiding in the U. S. It was recently determined that NYC's newly-constructed "Freedom Tower" (One World Trade Center) edges Chicago's Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) by virtue of it's spire.


Willis (formerly Sears) Tower vs Freedom Tower (1WTC)








Photo from Associated Press file​*

*Source: http://news.yahoo.com/1-world-trade-center-named-tallest-us-building-161340779.html


Note: Please pardon the repetition if this topic has been done to death...*


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

spires that are part of the actual design yes, but spires that are just put on top of the building should not be counted. if you do not count the spire of the burj khalifa where else would you count the the building too and on the other hand buildings like the guiyang twins just should not be counted as over 400m tall, they are nice buildings with a flat roof and a good looking pinnacle on top, but that pinnacle should not count towards the height. spires and antennas should be only there for good looking or function for the latter, not for title grabbing. so like ctbuh i think some spires shall be counted and others not, but since the ctbuh standard was avoided by just calling antennas spires now i think the definition of what a spire and antenna is should be thought about again. the ruling of 1WTC shows how random the decission was, they ruled the height of the building not to the roof nor to the pinnacle, they ruled it towards 1776 feet under the lightning feature just to please the '1776' number, which should have no rule in an objective ruling of a buildings height.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

I voted No because in my opinion a spire should never be counted towards a building's height other than pinnacle height. In my opinion roof height should be the official height. A spire is not a part of a building, a spire is merely a thin steel stick on top of a building. Counting them together with guyed masts or chimneys in pinnacle height: OK. But they definitely should not be counted in official height. I have developed a roof height measurement system that would in my opinion eliminate height cheating (or at least signifficantly decrease it). Here is the thread for my roof height measurement system:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1630487


----------



## Hudson11 (Jun 23, 2011)

It's easier to allow anything which is affixed to a building to count. However, spires which are apart of crowns or have some kind of architectural significance should definitely count. 
The best example being this










but, IMO having a mast like this to hold an important feature at a height figure of symbolic/historic significance should qualify it as a spire, despite what's below (or above)


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

*Thread-starters 2 cents:*

*If the spire (whatever form it takes) is an integral part of the structure's architectual design, it counts, otherwise, it doesn't. Metaphorically, if my head is cone-shaped, it factors-in to my height, if a cone-shaped hat sits atop my (normal) head, it doesn't.*


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Voted yes.


----------



## DZH22 (Aug 9, 2009)

I voted no specifically because of buildings such as the New York Times Tower.

The way I see it, if you lopped off a spire and started it from the ground, it wouldn't be viewed as a building. If it's not good enough to be a building on its own, then it shouldn't count in the official height of that building. Obviously it is very subjective due to different designs, but too often I see a tacked on (unnecessary) stick adding hundreds of feet and completely distorting comparability among skyscrapers.


----------



## Azrain98 (Nov 27, 2011)

antenna = no
spire,topping = yes  lol


----------



## TowerVerre:) (Dec 1, 2012)

Why it is so impotant as how high a building counts? One WTC doesn't look different whether it is 541m or 411m, it will also make the same profits and it will be equal impressiv.


----------



## Riley1066 (Mar 7, 2013)

All spires should count, only some antennas should count.

Two criteria should be at play here ... 
1: Is the element architecturally integrated with the building's design?
2: Does the element earn money for the building's owner?

If either of these are YES for the element in question then it should count towards the building's overall height regardless of whether or not its an "occupiable space"

If your building's antenna earns money ... then it should count ... if your antenna does not earn money ... it should not count.

If the structure is 100% antenna, then it wouldn't be considered part of the "Building" category IMHO.


----------



## fanspy (Nov 12, 2013)

I voted yes because you're talking about the overall height so you might as well include the spire.


----------



## Lindemann (Sep 11, 2002)

I don't mind what's the official measurement, but I always compare the real height and 'grandeur' of buildings based on the highest occupied floor.


----------



## univer (Oct 25, 2012)

In top 50 World's Tallest Buildings in 1990: there are only 11 buildings have a spire. I agreed if we count the spires. 

But now in 2013, 30 of 50 buildings in top 50 tallest buildings have a spire more than 10m. And the number of skyscraper have a spire increases rapidly,is unfair for others skyscrapers .

I even make a list few month ago : 


univer said:


> Tallest Spire*(S)* and Antenna*(A) *for 200m+ skyscraper(roof height in brackets)
> 
> 1. 4 Times Square- 127m(214m) A
> One Trade Center- 124m(417m) S
> ...


----------



## nameless dude (Dec 16, 2008)

Imo if it acts as an architectural feature and contributes to the overall design of the tower than yes it could be counted to some degree, but if it isn't anything more than a tacked on antenna than no


----------



## Jan (Jul 24, 2002)

Spires that are an integral part of the appearance should count, but I think what you need is a proper definition of what is spire, and what is a stick on a roof.


----------



## Jewish (Mar 26, 2013)

To topicstarter: You have already answered to your question: *Building height*, not spire height.


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

Then answer what is the *building*. Isn't the spire part of it if included by an architect?


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

patrykus said:


> Then answer what is the *building*. Isn't the spire part of it if included by an architect?


Nope, it is only an addon on top of a building :cheers:


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

right.....





























just putted on top


----------



## Jewish (Mar 26, 2013)

patrykus said:


> Then answer what is the *building*. Isn't the spire part of it if included by an architect?


*Building*











*Spire*











See the difference?


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

patrykus said:


> You can use roof height if you wish but you can't expect anyone to dismiss a part of a building solely based on its width  And yes width *alone* doesn't describe shape in any way. It merely limits its size in one dimension. In case of your system and kingdom tower you could subjectively set minimal width to whatever you like and all above could still without a doubt be considered a spire unless there were habitable floors inside.
> 
> And spires are defined by shape and function as I said. Antennas have different function which unlike width is an actual feature. But I would consider including them to the height. It would spare us trouble examining rare extreme cases like 1wtc.


I expect anyone to use roof height? Where did I ever say that? Yet it is you who tells me that I "can't" use roof height hno:

You say that width "doesn't" describe a structural element, so what, I say that function "doesn't" describe a structural element in the case of spires and antennas (underlining 22 times "in the case of spires and antennas"), am I obliged to obey you? Nope. Do I expect you to obey me? Nope. Do I expect anybody to obey me? Nope. You continue to present official CTBUH height rules to me as if they were mandatory, well, they aren't. I use roof height and roof height has different rules, so what applies to your measurement doesn't apply to my measurement and vice versa hno:

Also, if you would read my roof height measurement methodology you would know that it doesn't use width "alone" to describe shapes, it uses width (minimum width rule), relative width (50% width of previous structural section rule) and relative height (central height angle rule) together :cheers:

As to the numbers like the above mentioned 50% relative width and a minimal width of 15 meters and an angle requirement of minimaly 30 degrees, that is what my methodology uses, but if any organization would offer to accept my methodology I would gladly accept their feedback and I would gladly modify these numbers so that all sides are happy. As I said it is a work in progress and so far its the only exact roof height measurement methodology out there. I will one day pursue it officialy and try to propose it to official organizations but not until I'm an engineer, so it is quite a few years away from even becoming a possible chance of being official one day :cheers:


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

Don't be childish. Nobody force you to do anything. All we expect is some reasonable explanation why would over over 100m of the building be excluded from the official height if it doesn't differ at all from the rest of it. And the only reason you give is because it's gets too narrow.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

It's the same stuff he's been saying in threads for years. :yawn:


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

patrykus said:


> Don't be childish. Nobody force you to do anything. All we expect is some reasonable explanation why would over over 100m of the building be excluded from the official height if it doesn't differ at all from the rest of it. And the only reason you give is because it's gets too narrow.


Well, your "can't"s and "doesn't"s gave me the impression that you demand me to present an explanation which will make you say that roof height has a right to exist. I mean, my apologies if I am wrong but this is the impression I got from your posts. Those weren't exactly well chosen words by you.

The explanation is that spires don't count in roof height. But no explanation can satisfy you because you don't like roof height. There's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean that other people aren't allowed to use roof height because you don't accept the explanation for roof height. I accept this explanation, many other people accept this explanation, if you don't accept this explanation, very well, you have a right to do so, but don't flame on other people that they are "childish" just because they disagree with you :cheers:


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

Kanto said:


> The explanation is that spires don't count in roof height.


The question was WHY they don't count towards the roof or buildings height if crowns do. And the only reason you give is because they are too narrow.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Yup, that is the reason. Solid crowns and solid parapets are the roof while antennas and spires are addons on a roof. It's all about shape. A roof isn't just the top slab of a building (many buildings don't even have a top slab), a roof is the top part of a building that is still suffieiently wide in realtion to the width of the structure below it. This is characterized by the three factors I meantioned in my previous post, namely width, relative width and relative height of the structural element :cheers:


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

Kanto said:


> It's all about shape.


Thing is it's not. You could cut kt at any point and top part would still have the same shape. This is why you developed the width rule because you couldn't find any other reason to cut the top portion of it.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ As I said earlier, width is an aspect of shape. But yes, the width rule was developed by me to deal with buildings like the Kingdom Tower or Burj Khalifa :cheers:

You see, the fact that solid parapets and solid crowns count towards roof height wasn't made by me, it was made by SSP, which has been using it this way long before I made my measurement methodology. On the other hand SSP had no system to define the roof of a building like Burj Khalifa or the Kingdom Tower, so I had to develop a method how to determine this. We all gonna agree that these buildings do have a spire, but they are not one big spire. This means that they must also have a roof, but the problem was finding it. That is why I made the width rule and the central angle rule :cheers:

In my opinion this was the option that was the most fair. If I would count the ceiling of the top occupied floor as the roof, BK and KT would have a disadvantage in comparison with more conventional towers, but if I would count their pinnacle as their roof, they would have an advantage in comparison with more conventional towers, so I think this way it is as fair as it can be :cheers:


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

I feel you have hard time understanding what shape means. These two below have the same *shape*, they differ in *size*. There is no shape argument when chopping off the top of kt you just do it at random point.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Yes there is a shape argument in chopping off the Kingdom Tower's spire. I think you are experiencing a bit of a memory loss because you seem to have forgotten about what you called "Da angle". Namely the relative height rule which involves the central angle (30 degrees minimum to be roof and not spire) :cheers:










Do you see identical shapes on this pic?










But you know all too well what I meant with shape and you are merely playing with words. You know all too well that with shape I meant all geometrical attributes, so width too. I explicitly stated that. This is just how I use the word so I seriously don't understand why you'd like to play with words so much hno:


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

All of the kingdom tower doesn't meet your angle rule so the width is the only one that does the "chopping". Spire in kt isn't defined by shape in any way in your system because you could set minimal width to whatever you like living you with the spire of exactly the same shape just different length.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Yes, width matters. I explained it many times before that width is one of the things that matters in defining roof height. As to why I set it to 15 meters, I explained that one too:



> As to the numbers like the above mentioned 50% relative width and a minimal width of 15 meters and an angle requirement of minimaly 30 degrees, that is what my methodology uses, but if any organization would offer to accept my methodology I would gladly accept their feedback and I would gladly modify these numbers so that all sides are happy. As I said it is a work in progress and so far its the only exact roof height measurement methodology out there. I will one day pursue it officialy and try to propose it to official organizations but not until I'm an engineer, so it is quite a few years away from even becoming a possible chance of being official one day


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

The remaining question is why the width alone matters so much if all above it is smooth continuation of a building that is below it. The same shape, proportions, cladding, materials and function. It is as much of an continuation of a building roof, walls or however you call it as crowns are in other buildings. And width rule only artificially deny that fact.


----------



## Severiano (Jul 5, 2006)

Spires shouldn't count. Some are ridiculous. Like the new WTC being taller than the Sears Tower. Or Nanjing Zifeng Plaza being taller than the Sears Tower. Just ridiculous.


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

We all know that. But what should we do with those?


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

The thing is most people who think spires shouldn't count to the official height comes from the "1wtc vs sears" club. They don't think too much about it. They mostly have those two buildings in mind. Wtc spire counts, sears antenna doesn't. So unfair, right? But they don't think what ridiculous implications not counting spires would bring to other towers like kt or burj. Truth is they really don't know what to do with it. In one of the older threads while there were some people agreeing that spires generally shouldn't cont nearly all of them still agreed that in burj it should still without a question be counted in. So they would like to have in fact two systems coexisting in one reality. But that's not going to work.

To support my words with some facts I think it's worth mentioning that even a group of professionals motivated enough start new height measuring organization, setting up new website and collecting new data for still counts burj and kt to it's top because those buildings ARE 800m and 1000m respectively. They are not 200m lower or taller. They are what they are. Of course that means they are counting some spires in and some out making their system inconsistent and therefore compromised leading us to the conclusion that there is no other way than counting spires in all cases weather it is fair or not.

http://buildingheights.org/


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

patrykus said:


> The remaining question is why the width alone matters so much if all above it is smooth continuation of a building that is below it. The same shape, proportions, cladding, materials and function. It is as much of an continuation of a building roof, walls or however you call it as crowns are in other buildings. And width rule only artificially deny that fact.


Width matters because width is one of the fundamental differences between a building and a mast. Spires and antennas are by definition thin steel sticks, so it is their very description that describes small width. That is the reason why both spires and antennas shouldn't be counted, because they are too thin, either on their own or in relation to the building on top of which they are. Too thin to be considered a part of the building :cheers:

So that also, answers your question, what should we do with the Kingdom Tower - measure its height to the roof :cheers:


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

Kanto said:


> Width matters because width is one of the fundamental differences between a building and a mast.


In case of kt it is even the only difference


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Yes, width, together with its central angle are what decides where the roof of the Kingdom Tower is, so you are correct :cheers:


----------



## patrykus (May 14, 2008)

Which in itself is not enough to stop calling a section a part of a building  Which I'm sure you will find out soon after you start seriously trying to sell your idea


----------



## jetmty1 (Dec 30, 2005)

NO, IT SHOULD NOT COUNT.

It is like if my height is 1.75 cms then i rise 3 hairs with gel. then i say mi heigh is 1.80 cms ......SAME THINGS

exceptions should be when the spire is part of the architecural design for real not just over a flat roof.


----------

