# DEFINE: "SUPERTALL"



## Mr. Fusion (Jul 1, 2006)

To be honest, I had never heard or read the word *"supertall"* before discovering SkyscraperCity. It is a word that is used frequently and carelessly at times here, and obviously has different meanings to different people.

If you had to draw a line in the sand [no pun intended Dubai] what would you consider "supertall" and why?

:grouphug:


----------



## Sinjin P. (Jul 17, 2005)

Hmm, I don't know but I think those are the ones that go beyond 300 meters... Oh well, when many go beyond 300, maybe the standards would change by then.


----------



## Mr. Fusion (Jul 1, 2006)

*& I chose...*

... Burj Dubai is the World's First "Supertall"

Not because I think Dubai's construction boom is the best thing since air conditioning, but that it is the first very tall building in a long time that will not just beat the current record by a small margin, but will _shatter_ Taipei 101's benchmark. To me this huge leap in height is a good place to distinguish the next generation of tall buildings. :yes:

:grouphug:


----------



## SA BOY (Mar 29, 2003)

its always been defined by anything over 300m/1000ft. Anything over 500m needs a new term-maybe ultratall?


----------



## panamaboy9016 (Mar 29, 2006)

*IDK..*

I'll either have to say Burj Dubai as the true Super tallest or say that it has to be over 300m. I voted for the Burj Dubai one though.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Supertalls are buildings with a roof height over 300m.

There are people who might think differently, but they're wrong.


----------



## Plasticman (Mar 1, 2006)

Ha! It's all relative based on the city you live in and what period you live in.

For Atlanta today, a supertall is obviously anything over 1,000' since we have one. About 20 years ago a supertall would have been anything over 700' since we had one then too.

50 years ago, the tallest buiding in the SE was the little ole L&C Tower in Nashville at a massive 409'. And yet when I was a little kid and went to the top of it, it DID appear massive because I'd never seen another building that big and it stuck up all alone. So at that time 400' would have been a supertall.

Eventually as more cities cross the 1,000 foot line, then I would venture 1,500 would be the next threshold for a supertall.


----------



## LSyd (Aug 31, 2003)

i picked 350 meters, although IMO, it's properly 335 meters, or 1100 feet...and it needs a significant spire, or in better terms, "awesomeness presence of height."



Mr. Fusion said:


> ... Burj Dubai is the World's First "Supertall"
> 
> Not because I think Dubai's construction boom is the best thing since air conditioning, but that it is the first very tall building in a long time that will not just beat the current record by a small margin, but will _shatter_ Taipei 101's benchmark. To me this huge leap in height is a good place to distinguish the next generation of tall buildings. :yes:
> 
> :grouphug:


Empire State Building was first...while "shatter" was a subjective term, it clearly and fairly eclipsed the Chrysler Building's height (1086 lower roof vs. 1046 spire,) but the ESB also had the "functional spire" (rooms up to the top, heigher observation deck, now only used for special occasions) up to 1250.

then it went unrivaled for 40 years. :master: 

-


----------



## westisbest (Apr 25, 2005)

Its a skyscraper, not a low rise, mid, high, super, ultra, super dooper


----------



## Obelixx (Apr 14, 2005)

SUPERTALL is for me:
- a guyed mast taller than 300 metres
- a tower, chimney or similiar free-structure taller than 250 metres
- a skyscraper taller than 200 metres


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Obelixx said:


> - a skyscraper taller than 200 metres


No, that's ridiculous.


----------



## jason poon (Jun 25, 2006)

I voted for 300m,
coz it is realy a milestone on most cities.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

300m/1000 ft


----------



## Citystyle (Jan 6, 2005)

Buildings over 250m are "supertall" habbital buildings but the term usually relates to 300m+ and i think that is fair considering the boom in height today.


----------



## Greg (Nov 9, 2003)

I think 300m is the definition for a supertall.


----------



## Brendan (Feb 24, 2006)

I think it all depends on where the building is. For example, if they built a building in a city which was around 100m but double the height of the previous tallest, then you could probably call it a supertall.

But in terms of international skyscrapers, I would say 450m.


----------



## crazyevildude (Aug 15, 2005)

I've always thought 300m/1000ft was the accepted standard for a supertall, it seems to make sense as it is a clear milestone height in both feet and metres.

I suppose it may need changing in future if buildings taller than that become common place. Or perhaps just a new term for even higher buildings will be needed. Hyper-tall perhaps?


----------



## zee (Nov 30, 2005)

^^ super duper tall :rofl:

i think the burj dubai is a true supertall..300 is too common of a height now so i wouldnt class that as supertall


----------



## MexAmericanMoose (Nov 19, 2005)

crazyevildude said:


> I've always thought 300m/1000ft was the accepted standard for a supertall, it seems to make sense as it is a clear milestone height in both feet and metres.
> 
> I suppose it may need changing in future if buildings taller than that become common place. Or perhaps just a new term for even higher buildings will be needed. Hyper-tall perhaps?


i agree with this dude


----------



## pflo777 (Feb 27, 2003)

thats not a poll question, as there is a clear and obvious architectural definition for this.
Although this definition is a bit old, as construciton methods have changed.

Usually supertalls are skyscrapers above the "common" higt of higrises that are up to 250 meters.
Thats because above that, you need special, indiviual structural systems, that are usually unique for each of that buildings...e.g. John Hankock with its famous corss bracings, sears with its bundled tube/christams tree system, or look at SWFC now.

Below the 250 m, the structural systems are because of economic reasons pretty standart...nothing innovative.

As construciton methods change over the time, the height of indivualized supertalls rises, and their economics become better, so the definiton for supertalls from an structural point of view becomes more difficult

Maybe in 20 years well have methods to build buildings above 500 m in a standardized way like we build 100m skysrapers now.


----------

