# Supertalls



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

I just thought of this there. When we talk about supertalls we're usually talking about a building taller than 300m in height but with the construction boom today there are supertalls popping up everywhere. Right now there are 31 supertalls according to emporis and according to Skyscraperpage there are about 25 under construction at the moment. We know there are probably even more not on the lists yet so soon we'll have over 100. The name "supertall" just doesn't seem to be so special anymore and I think that this name should be reserved for only a select few. What do you think?

The thing is though, that all these new tall buildings are somewhere between 300 and 350m in height but a building taller than the Empire state building is still pretty rare. So for me, the new definition of "supertall" is taller than the ESB which is *381m* (ESB included  ).

So according to this the supertalls that exist are:

Taipei 101 - 509m
Petronas Towers - 452m
Sears - 442m
Jin Mao - 421m
2IFC - 415m
Citic Plaza - 391m
Shun Hing Square - 384m
Empire State Building - 381m

The ones UC:

Burj Dubai - at least 705m
Freedom Tower - 541m
Busan Lotte Tower - 494m
Shanghai World Financial Center - 492m
Union Square 7 - 484m
Al Bait Towers - 485m
The Trump tower in Chicago - 415m
Dalian International Trade Center - 420m
Federation tower in Moscow - 420m
The Trump tower in Chicago - 415m

What do you think of this. Do you agree that a supertall (300m+) tower isn't so special anymore?


BTW I'm counting spires just to make this list a bit bigger


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

malec said:


> What do you think of this. Do you agree that a supertall (300m+) tower isn't so special anymore?


I don't agree at all.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

I don't know. I suppose it depends on where it more than anything. I mean, if a skyline has about 10 of these, then it isn't but if there is only one which stands out from the rest of the towers in the skyline, then of course it is something impressive.


----------



## ch1le (Jun 2, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> I don't agree at all.


hehe, i can't imagine why! :cheers: 

mehehhe :tiasd:


----------



## STR (Sep 4, 2004)

In all of the entire world, there's only 32 buildings built or under contruction 300m or taller, out of the tens of millions of buildings built around the planet, and you don't think they're supertall?

What the heck are you drinking? Can I have some?


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

I think a supertall is taller than 400m.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

No 1000ft/300m sounds about right. I think it still matters, especially. I mean, how many cities will have one or more? Still not that many in the greater context of things.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

samsonyuen said:


> No 1000ft/300m sounds about right. I think it still matters, especially. I mean, how many cities will have one or more? Still not that many in the greater context of things.


I suppose you're right. Still not many cities will have them but we definitely shouldn't count spires then, only roof height. So no more :tiasd:


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I agree with you. Antennaes shouldn't count in roof height. Spires too.


----------



## RafflesCity (Sep 11, 2002)

I dont quite regard Shun Hing as a supertall.


----------



## STR (Sep 4, 2004)

samsonyuen said:


> I agree with you. Antennaes shouldn't count in roof height. Spires too.


Agreed. Neither can count as counting either will inevitably lead to abuse (i.e. Freedom Tower version 2).


----------



## Peter The Great (Sep 28, 2002)

Anything 300m+

Any higher than that...puts a lot of tall buildings in the same league as an average 100m skyscraper.


----------



## Muse (Sep 12, 2002)

STR said:


> What the heck are you drinking? Can I have some?


or what intarnation are you smoking?







....errr, and no thanks, I don't wan't some.

The arguments about whether of not a scraper no matter what size, should include it's height to roof, spire, antenna/antennae etc will go on forever on this site.

To be fair to malec, I agree somewhat on his defintition on what a supertall, should/could/would be, esp. those over 400m/1296ft.

BTW Besides this emoticon already posted, :tiasd: I think this one is pretty apt too:


----------



## Muse (Sep 12, 2002)

BTW Let's not forget some of those "supertalls" proposed amongst others in Pakistan, India and once again Dubai.

The Al Burj proposed for Dubai will reach 750m/2461ft to its highest spire and at this stage will be a residential tower. It's named The Pinnacle on emporis.com.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

300m + for me.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

Sorry I didn't mean for this to be turned into a :tiasd: debate.
I'm just saying that because there are so many 300m buildings under construction now, they'll eventually become like 200m were years ago, and 400m buildings will have the same stature as 300m ones had before.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Muse said:


> BTW Let's not forget some of those "supertalls" proposed amongst others in Pakistan, India and once again Dubai.
> 
> The Al Burj proposed for Dubai will reach 750m/2461ft to its highest spire and at this stage will be a residential tower. It's named The Pinnacle on emporis.com.


Noida Tower the supertall planned in India.


----------



## Muse (Sep 12, 2002)

^^ Although its status is "Vision" on emporis.com, Noida _would_ definitely be amazing if ever built. 

There is info on 11 supertall visions for Tokyo, from 550m to 4,000m @ Tokyo Supertalls 



malec said:


> Sorry I didn't mean for this to be turned into a :tiasd: debate.
> I'm just saying that because there are so many 300m buildings under construction now, they'll eventually become like 200m were years ago, and 400m buildings will have the same stature as 300m ones had before.


Yeah, it's all relative. Back @ the end of the 19th C., anything around 15-stories would have been amazingly tall. I guess the word "supertall" is self-explanatory though.

...and malec, it hasn't turned into a malicious debate. All is calm, all is good. kay:


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Muse said:


> ^^ Although its status is "Vision" on emporis.com, Noida _would_ definitely be amazing if ever built.
> 
> There is info on 11 supertall visions for Tokyo, from 550m to 4,000m @ Tokyo Supertalls
> 
> ...


4000m is not going to happen


----------



## Muse (Sep 12, 2002)

^^ That's why it's classified a "vision"...not a "proposal".


----------



## CULWULLA (Sep 11, 2002)

i think 300m+ is really tall, and 400m+ is a supertall. 400m really sorts the men out from the boys.
500m is another catorgory all together. maybe super duper talls?
and as for 600m+ , its hens teeth catorgory!


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

CULWULLA said:


> i think 300m+ is really tall, and 400m+ is a supertall. 400m really sorts the men out from the boys.


That's exactly what I've been saying. Today it's different than it was some years ago. Loads of 300m buildings are being built but not many 400m ones. The status has to change with time. Imagine 50 years from now if 300m buildings are as common as any and we still call them "supertalls". It wouldn't be a big deal now would it?


----------



## flatiron94 (Oct 15, 2004)

*Ditto*




samsonyuen said:


> I agree with you. Antennaes shouldn't count in roof height. Spires too.


That is exactly what I think!!!!!!!!!!

:tiasd: The tower on the right should win.


----------



## STR (Sep 4, 2004)

^Agreed. When you include spires there are >60 300m+ towers built or under construction. Without spires, there's only 30.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

flatiron94 said:


> That is exactly what I think!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> :tiasd: The tower on the right should win.


AGREE! The Sears Tower should be taller then the Petronas (who cheated to win the WTB title by putting a spire on top). :bash:


----------



## Muyangguniang (Sep 6, 2004)

Tall is for me 200+
a super tall is 500+ for me
a mega tall is 800+for me


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Suprtall IMO equals taller than the Library tower in LA, that's the lowest. (Library included)


Even in 10 years there will still only be a handfull of 1000 footers in the world, there are maybe 30 out there now, there will probably be 50 or 60 soon, I think the top 50 or 60 towers in the world are supertalls.


BTW CITIC and Shung are pretty cheap, ESB's roof is 200 feet past theirs and it's point is hudreds of feet above their top floors, their 2 points reach just past ESB's top floor.


----------



## 12231989 (Jun 29, 2005)

I would consider the world top 100 tallest supertalls and the other skyscrapers just tall


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

well if a supertall is a tower taller than 300m then dubai alone would have 17 UC, approved, or finshed, for example, and imo that is just nothing special anymore.
i think a supertall should be 350+ , the idea of 381 (ESB) is ok as well...


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

thanks to trances for that list:
it shows the "supertalls" , though there might be some smaller mistakes...

#LIST: NUMBER OF TOWERS OVER 300M 
List of Cities with towers at or over 300M at diff stages
Might be a little flawed and not 100% correct

But All Cites with towers over 300M

Chicago 9 - C-5 / UC-1 /A-1 / P-2
Shanghai 7 - C-1 / UC-2 /A- 3 / P-1
Hong Kong 6 - C-4 / UC-1 /A- 0 / P-1
NYC 5 - C-2 / UC-1 /A-1 / P-1
Kuala Lumpur 4 - C-3 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0 / H-1
Moscow 4 - C-0 / UC-2 /A-0 / P-2
Busan 3 - C-0 / UC-1 /A-0 / P-2 / H-0
Shenzhen 2 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-1
Kaohsiung 2 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-1
Nanjing 2 - C-2 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0
Bangkok 2 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-1
Nanjing 2 - C-0 / UC-2 /A-0 / P-0
Taipei 1 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0
Riyadh 1 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0
Houston 1 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0
Alanta 1 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0
Guangzhou 1 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0
Dalian 1 - C-0 / UC-1 /A-0 / P-0
Chongqing 1 - C-0 / UC-1 /A-0 / P-0
Wenzhou 1 - C-0 / UC-1 /A-0 / P-0
Los Angeles 1 - C-1 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0
Tianjin 1 - C-0 / UC-1 /A-0 / P-0
Gold Coast 1 - C-0 / UC-1 /A-0 / P-0
Beijing 1 - C-0 / UC-1 /A-0 / P-0
Mecca 1 - C-0 / UC-1 /A-0 / P-0
Tokyo 1 - C-0 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-1
Seoul 1 - C-0 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-1
Doha 1 - C-0 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-1
Miami 1 - C-0 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-1
Pyongyang 1 - C-0 / UC-0 /A-0 / P-0 / H-1

Plus like 10 others cites with towers proposed not all realistic proposed are mentioned here

AND Top of the top
Dubai 17 - C-3 / UC-8 / A-6 / P 3


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Oh Dubai, you're building 2X your next competitor. Just make a separate category


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

> Do you agree that a supertall (300m+) tower isn't so special anymore?


No, here in Europe it's still very special...


----------



## DARKNIGHT (Jun 26, 2005)

Nice list...but yea it needs a bit of an update...chicago now has at least 2 approved.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

DARKNIGHT said:


> Nice list...but yea it needs a bit of an update...chicago now has at least 2 approved.


Or maybe 3. :cheers:


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

I'm sure alot of those Dubai Towers have spires. But I bet within 20 years Cities like NY, HK, Shanghai, Chicago etc. will have at least 10 300m to roof.

Chicago will have 8 to the roof soon enough
NY will have 7 If the new planned nassau tower on long island goes through ( we have to wait for the WTC and then we'll have more!)
Hong Kong Will have a bunch, Australia is getting there, Shanghai and Korean cities are crazy, hopefully some in Japan too.


But I think the 50 top in the world to roof should be supertalls.


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

Jo48 said:


> I'm sure alot of those Dubai Towers have spires. But I bet within 20 years Cities like NY, HK, Shanghai, Chicago etc. will have at least 10 300m to roof.






thanks to malec for that compilation.

sorry i don't see many towers which would be less than 300m without its spire.

Al Burj, Proposed, 205F?, 850m+ ?









Burj Dubai, U/C, 160F (189?), 700m+ (800?)









Unnamed Res Tower, Proposed/Approved?, 110F, 400m+









23 Marina, UC/Approved?, 90F, 380m









Emirates Towers, Built, 54/56F, 309/355m









Emirates Hotel, Approved, 70F, 350m









Almas Tower, U/C, 65F, 350m









Torch Tower, Approved, 80F, 345m









Princess Tower, U/C, 90F, 340m









Najd Tower, U/C, 82F, ?m









Abbco Rotana Hotel, U/C, 72F, 333m









Al Durrah 2, Approved, 78F, 330m









One Central Park, Proposed/Approved?, 80F, 328m









Burj Al Arab, Built, 50F, 321m









Ocean Heights, UC/Approved?, 82F, 310m









Marina Gardens, Approved, 75F, ?m









Ahmed Abdul Rahim Al Attar Tower, U/C, 70F, ?m


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

Concerning the Dubai towers I count 11 from that list that are almost certain to be 300m to roof.

I'll knock off one tower as there are 3 there that aren't 100% approved yet and out of the 3 one'll probably be cancelled.

The Al Burj will be reduced in height considerably is what my mind tells me, but will still be over 300m to roof for sure.

So I say 10 is the final number here.

I can see Hong Kong and Shanghai having way more than this in the future though.


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

i can see some more for SZR, business bay and at least 1 more 300m for the marina.


----------



## dubaiflo (Jan 3, 2005)

romours and an ad in local paper say that there will be a new tower development in dubai, similar to JLT or JBR or Park Square, with a tower of 140F by KM properties, who have already proposed / approved another 140F for Park Square.


----------



## Mr. Maciek (Jul 29, 2005)

this city freaks me out.. sooner or later when all these 300m+ buildings are completed the city wont have any freakin sunlight during the day!......... ahh well its their problem hahaa!


----------

