# Do you agree with the architectural height measurement ?



## chris123678 (May 21, 2012)

I personally have nothing against spires. I like the look of them but here are two things to consider.
1. Most people stop at the roof and not the tip of the spire.
2. No one from the ground or even high up would address a spire as a "spire" more as a point, or antenna.

If you include one, you should include both.
In the case Of 1wtc, it's really a cheating way to the top, considering, it's antenna that had a spire covering it.
Spires shouldn't be counted.
If You Build a 900 foot building, and add a 1000 foot spire, is it really the tallest in America?


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ I 1000% agree with you. Either they should count both or they should count none :cheers:


----------



## iloveclassicrock7 (Feb 23, 2010)

Jan said:


> I've been a member of their heigh-committee for some years, and the question about counting spires would pop up every once in a while, usually ending in leaving everything as is. The reason why they won't change their architectural spire rule is that it's a fairly clear rule what is to be counted or not, and as such minimizes the grey area, but also because the rule has been in place for some decades. By this rule, they counted the Petronas Tower spires as height, while the Sears Tower antennas in Chicago were not, and by doing so declared the first one as the new tallest, even though by mass the Sears Tower appears higher at the top. When changing the height criteria drastically, some of the famous heights, which have pretty much been set in stone, might go out of whack, changing your own history while at it.
> 
> However, the problem is that in this day and age, a lot of tall buildings have some kind of wacky something sticking up, and that the current rule produces a number of questionable comparisons, some posted above (especially in post #4). There are a number of cases in which the spire really is an integrated part of the whole architecture and as such don't a clear point which could be considered as a roof. Chrysler Building and Burj Khalifa are good examples of that. But in many, many other cases, the "spire" is nothing more then a stick on top of a roof, even if it is a non functional one. Trump Chicago is a classic example of that. Actually it's possible buying into some kind of "tallest" title rather cheaply the way the rules are interpreted. A number of one on one votes here have shown that there is no popular support for counting these as part of the height, and it is my opinion as well that these should not be counted. By the way, post starter's question has been raised and answered here.
> 
> What that height committee really should to is to draft a set of _qualitative_ benchmarks instead of _function-based_ rules, and judge the questionable cases on an individual basis and decide whether whatever sticks out ought be counted as height or not. Until then I don't take some of these vanity heights too serious.


I was over in the WTC thread talking about this, and everyone kept saying what the CTBUH says is fact, and honestly it isn't, of course most people there want to believe that 1 WTC is 541 meters, so their stances are biased. But I seriously think there needs to be some type of measurement that competes with the CTBUH measurement. Eventually we are going to have some person that makes a 300m building, and adds a 300m spire, and calls it the tallest building in America. It is already happening. The federation tower has a roof height of 360 meters, and the spire brings it to a height of 506 meters,so the spire is about a 1/3rd of the buildings height. The BOA gets close to a third of its height from the spire, and get this its top floor is only 234 meters high yet they call it a 370 meter building. Same goes for the NYT tower. So if there are a bunch of buildings that get a 1/3rd of their height from spires, how long is it till we have buildings where the spire covers 1/2 half the height ? Not very long, the original version of the freedom tower was a 300 meter building they were passing as a 541 meter building. Luckily it didn't get built. 

Here is the version of the freedom tower I am referring to 










Here is thing thought, a fact is something you can't challenge, you can challenge the CTBUH, so therefore their beliefs are just an opinion, their voice is loud in the architecture community, but it is still just an opinion.


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

if the spire is more than 50% of the buildings height it is not called a skyscraper anymore, but a tower and for towers spires and antenna's should always be counted in my opinion. anyway i think at one point there will be buildings that are like 600m and have a 300m spire on top, not for the sake of breaking records, but because it makes sense to build a 300m observation tower instead of a 900m tower for the same result. so i think the rules should stay, but people should always consider roof height and the official height. the antenna should not be counted for a different reason. if an old skyscraper like the ESB gets renovated and gets a new antenna with a different height than the previous one it would otherwise change its height and buildings should not be able to do so without also changing their completition date, because otherwise it would change history. so counting antenna's would make everything far to complicated, because they are too easy to change and there are reasons to change them from times to times. spires however have to be counted, because otherwise it would make it impossible to measure buildings like Burj Khalifa. so i am in favor of the CTBUH measurements.


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

We all know that no one agrees with the CTBUH's official height measurement, but there are over ten other "best" ways to do it. 

There are the roof height fans, who think the official height should be the roof height. It works 90% of the time, but there are exceptions. If roof height was the official measurement, then 432 Park Avenue would be 1,398 feet, and 1WTC only 1,374. However, 1WTC has a communication ring that appears as a setback of the roof that rises just over 1,400 feet into the air. Also, it has a 418 foot mast atop it, to push it higher and higher into the sky at 1,792 feet. Not to mention the extreme bulk of 1WTC, which, if I recall correctly, is the third or fourth largest _skyscraper _ in the world by square footage at 3.5 million behind only Sears, SWFC, and possibly the main clock tower of Abraj-al-Bait. 432 Park is a fraction of that. 1WTC is also the most expensive building in the world, currently at $3.9 billion, just surpassing the ICC Hong Kong, while 432 Park will be considerably less. Exceptions to this rule are rare, but this one warrants mention.

Another huge argument is the Sears-Petronas conflict, as well as the Sears-Taipei 101 conflict. I'll cover them in the order stated.

Sears' official measurement is 1,451 feet, and Petronas' is 1,483. However, Petronas' rooves are 1,242 feet, 209 feet lower than Sears'. Sears' tips _at the time Petronas were complete_ were 1,707 feet. (In 2000, the Western one was extended to 1,729 feet.) Petronas' pinnacles were only at 1483 feet, 224 feet below Sears'. The main argument for those in favor of Petronas was that since they had two towers, they could have built one building much larger, but that isn't the case. Petronas' combined square footage is 4.25 million, while Sears' is 4.48 million, so there was more space in Sears alone than Petronas combined. (Also, 1 and 2WTC could have combined for a total of 8.7 million square feet, dominating the world still today had they not been destroyed.) Sears took the title in every measurement except the crooked CTBUH's, and lost. 

The same goes for Taipei 101. It only has 2.08 million square feet, while Sears, as previously stated has more than twice as much. I don't care if a little VIP club was stuck 22 feet above Sears' roof, the building had much more space as it is. Again, its tips at that time were 1,707 and 1,729 feet, which is 37 and 59 feet taller than Taipei 101's at 1,670 feet. I think Sears should have been world's tallest building until the Burj Khalifa was built, and still, the Burj only has 3.3 million square feet, which means it would take a 36% increase in space to take that title from Sears. Its tip being over 1,000 feet higher than the Eastern antenna of Sears invalidates the argument altogether, so the Burj should definitely be the world's tallest.

I personally think there should be two classes: *World's tallest building to the roof *and *world's tallest building to the tip*. This way there couldn't be any controversy whatsoever. You may notice I am a huge fan of square footage, for I believe it is the best was to tell a building's true size. It's a great tie-breaker.


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

Delete.


----------



## Jan (Jul 24, 2002)

L.A.F.2. said:


> I personally think there should be two classes: *World's tallest building to the roof *and *world's tallest building to the tip*.


I agree in spirit, but I know only one guy on this planet that would like to go back and look at, or go after the blue prints of all buildings to determine the highest-floor-height or roof height, and it would take at least 100 of him to make that happen in the next ten years. It's practically impossible, really.


----------



## Hudson11 (Jun 23, 2011)

I like this comparison better, makes the CTBUH's system seem ridiculous


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

Jan said:


> I agree in spirit, but I know only one guy on this planet that would like to go back and look at, or go after the blue prints of all buildings to determine the highest-floor-height or roof height, and it would take at least 100 of him to make that happen in the next ten years. It's practically impossible, really.


Hey Jan. I can see what you are saying, but I think each firm could go back and pull up the measure without it being too great a hassle. If not, we could go for plan B and ask Kanto to do it :tongue3:.


----------



## 1Filipe1 (Jul 13, 2012)

personally im confused on which i think it should be yes or no, but when you look at a building with a spire on it you dont stop and look at just the roof and dont look up past that you look at the entire building, antenna or spire you still look to the tip, you can't tell me the BOA tower in ny, you dont look up to the spire, i think it should either be you count spires and antennas or you count neither, i feel you should count both, i mean the willis tower's antennas is just part of the building, same as the antenna of the ESB and eventually the antenna of the wtc but idk im kind of iffy lol


----------



## windowsoftheworld (May 20, 2012)

No i don't. To me the highest building should be the one with the highest roof, not spire.


----------



## deepblue01 (Oct 27, 2008)

I think the system should be kept as it is. Towers don't need to be 'official' for it to look good. Does it matter where your favorite tower sits on the list? 

I've liked the petronas and Jin mao for so many years now and I haven't really thought much as to where they stand on the list, in fact, I don't know what they are ranked as of now. All i know is that I like them.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

L.A.F.2. said:


> Hey Jan. I can see what you are saying, but I think each firm could go back and pull up the measure without it being too great a hassle. If not, we could go for plan B and ask Kanto to do it :tongue3:.


LOL, in fact I already did something like that with supertalls finished as of this year. Problem is that without official help I often had to rely solely on Wiki or the SSP diagrams. Also, in the case of Burj Khalifa I had to utilize an experimental method of determining roof height. Finally, Abby and the Empire State Building appear to have a higher roof height than for what they look like because they have occupied floors in the thin upper sections, which would normaly be classified as spires (though I'd like to add that this is especially speculative in the case of Abby since the CTBUH doesn't have data on its top occupied floor, only Wiki does). The purple numbers are completely questionable while the green ones should (but I'm not guaranteeing it) be accurate :cheers:


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

Wow! This is a fantastic list. :lol: How long did it take you to make?


----------



## Jan (Jul 24, 2002)

Kanto's list already makes a lot more sense compared to lining these up according to spire height. Well done.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Thanks :cheers:

As to LAF2's question how long did it take to make it, well, each of the 6 diagrams took about one evening to make but there have been many corrections done after I was finished with them when I found more accurate info. I also consulted the heights with another forumer who gathered info too :cheers:


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

Yeah, that's pretty much all the information really needed for a history of the world's tallest buildings post-1930. :cheers:


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

yet i still think observation and tv towers, should always be measured to the pinnacle. they are basically a spire from bottom to top anyway. usable spire, but still


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ In my opinion towers have a roof just as skyscrapers do and all habitable buildings should be measured together :cheers:


----------



## Amastroi2017 (Jun 17, 2012)

ThatOneGuy said:


> It is impossible to completely agree on the terms. Some buildings may have tall spires (which officially count) but low roof heights. SOme buildings may have other features that make them hard to measure officially. I made this picture to show it.
> Which one would be the tallest?


That third building is not logical. Nice idea to try and prove your point but you didn't think it through. How are people supposed to reach that highest occupied floor, climb the poles? So we can discount that because no building will ever be built like that simply because it is not feasible logically.

CTBUH might count spires but roof height is the only height I go by. Spires cheat just as much as antennaes in my opinion. 

I don't even count as building as a supertall unless the roof reaches 1,000 feet or higher. 984 feet is arbitrary for Americans so we prefer a different set of numbers, 1,000 ft. for supertall and 2,000 ft. for megatall.


----------



## Azrain98 (Nov 27, 2011)

yes ...idk


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Amastroi2017 said:


> That third building is not logical. Nice idea to try and prove your point but you didn't think it through. How are people supposed to reach that highest occupied floor, climb the poles? So we can discount that because no building will ever be built like that simply because it is not feasible logically.
> 
> CTBUH might count spires but roof height is the only height I go by. Spires cheat just as much as antennaes in my opinion.
> 
> I don't even count as building as a supertall unless the roof reaches 1,000 feet or higher. 984 feet is arbitrary for Americans so we prefer a different set of numbers, 1,000 ft. for supertall and 2,000 ft. for megatall.


Well actually that second building is more logical than one might at first assume. Of course the drawing is a bit simple and looks unrealistic, but cases of that nature do indeed occur. There are skyscrapers with the strangest and most unreasonable designs, in Frankfurt there's even one with an upside down hanging pyramid on the top.








(source:http://www.arcadis.de/Projects/Hochhaus_TRIANON_FFM.aspx)

These two tallest buildings in the city of Frankfurt (they're also the highest two office buildings in Germany) actually each have a pretty interesting top which once more show the problems and difficulties discussed in this thread:

The Commerzbank Tower:








(source:http://upload.wikimedia.org)

And the Messeturm:








(source:http://en.wikipedia.org) (the building in the front at the right is the Trianon from above, with the upside down hanging pyramid at the top)

Measured by their structural height, the Commerzbank Tower is officially 2 meters taller (259m versus 257m of the Messeturm), when including the spire it would be 300m tall. 
The highest floor of the Commerzbank Tower (190m) is considerably lower (38m lower) than the highest floor of the Messeturm (228m) though.

Now both buildings in a way trick with the height in the sense that each top of these two buildings just houses airconditioning and other technological facilities. There are no offices in the pyramid of the Messeturm just as there are no offices in the top of the Commerzbank Tower either. 
(But there are smaller higher rooms inside these technological structures though which maintenance personell can access.)

So here in this comparison we even have two beautiful examples where even the definition of the "top floors" of the buildings could be debateable because the highest (maintenance) rooms are inside a strictly technological structure mounted ontop of the actual highest office floors and can not all that easily be accessed (not via elevator).

And we have beautiful examples of how many different possible ways of measuring the height and comparing or ranking these two buildings there can be. Overall height including spire structural height/ roof top height, highest floor etc. 

The pyramid of the Messeturm in Frankfurt probably wouldn't fully count in Katanos suggestion for example, simply because at some point it just gets to thin to count. At some point it just isn't 9 meters wide anymore. 
But more reasonably in this case would probably be counting either all of the pyramid or none, because its not habitable space, just a technological structure.
The roof top of the Messeturm might even also not be all that easy to define, unless one fully counts the entire pyramid and looking at the pyramid closely one will notice that its certainly debateable.

And besides spires and roofs and hanging pyramids and plain technological (airconditioning) structures we also find cladding and design elements on the top which follow no function but certainly form the optical or visual top of the building. 

And one especially unique and very new example might be the top of the Shard in London where the top of the pyramid shaped building consists of cladding elements sticking up above the roof:








(source:http://designalmic.com/the-shard-londons-tallest-tower-renzo-piano-building-workshop/the-shard-londons-tallest-tower-by-renzo-piano-building-workshop-21/)

So discussing the ranking of skyscraper heights one might really seriously ask oneself: 
What should one consider these Shards top edges? Should they be treated simmilar to antennas or spires? Or like the steelstructure or roof structure of the rest of the building?....

And with the Chinese Pearl River tower having Wind turbines inside, in the future we might sooner or later even see skyscrapers with some sort of interestingly designed windmills or solar panels on the very top, raising the question how moving or rotating elements on the top shoud then be considered.

So all in all I personally figured that in addition to the optical appearance of skyscrapers I really only care much about two compeltely solid and strong facts for comparing their heights: 
What's the very highest single point of the building and what's the highest floor that's actually a habitable or truely useable (or publically visitable floor) regarding the buildings true purpose (excluding just some completely unimportant windowless room or storage room as part of technical or maintenance space for example).


----------



## heightincreasing (Dec 12, 2012)

i think it should be where the point a human person can stand at.... because i could make the world tallest building with a couple miles long rods cellotaped together


----------



## univer (Oct 25, 2012)

among the 50 buildings the highest in the world, half of them have a spire over 10m. Certain even have a spire over 100m ( for exemple One World Trade Center 124m spire). Is very unfair for the buildings aren't have a spire. List of tallest building in the world will become "list of tallest spire in the world " :lol:


----------



## hunser (Nov 25, 2008)

univer said:


> among the 50 buildings the highest in the world, half of them have a spire over 10m. Certain even have a spire over 100m ( for exemple One World Trade Center 124m spire). Is very unfair for the buildings aren't have a spire. List of tallest building in the world will become "list of tallest spire in the world " :lol:


The Burj has a 200m tall spire. For me it's all the same: spire, antenna, crown, some fancy roof elements... count them all. But this should be just the 2nd category. *1st* one should be *highest occupied floor* (because the roof is sometimes hard to define). Not a single megatall (except the Burj) has floors >600m. The Shanghai Tower for example has a 80m tall crown.


----------



## univer (Oct 25, 2012)

hunser said:


> The Burj has a 200m tall spire. For me it's all the same: spire, antenna, crown, some fancy roof elements... count them all. But this should be just the 2nd category. *1st* one should be *highest occupied floor* (because the roof is sometimes hard to define). Not a single megatall (except the Burj) has floors >600m. The Shanghai Tower for example has a 80m tall crown.


for me *1st caterory is roof height* because with "highest occupied floor",the problem is that a passerby can't estimate the height of buildings when he see them. Plus it is more difficult to determine the exact height of occupied floor


----------



## Jan (Jul 24, 2002)

If the architectural height rule would apply to people, the lady on the right would win!


----------



## endar (Jul 27, 2011)

^^ omg :lol:
but so true


----------



## Eric Offereins (Jan 1, 2004)

Jan said:


> If the architectural height rule would apply to people, the lady on the right would win!


lol. 

looks are more inportant than height, I'd say. :cheers:


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

but seriously a random person looking up a building and asking how tall is this building without much knowledge about it would not recognize where a crown starts and wouldn't even care to know, the person most likely just wants to know how tall the tip of the crown is. counting to the highest occupyable floor is fair, but still overcomplicating things if that would be the standard measuring.

also hair is not counted towards human height because it is not permanent, a spire is however, antenna's are not counted because they are not necessarily permanent either.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Spires are not necessarily permanent either. They can be removed. I agree that crowns should be counted because they look like part of the building, however spires do not look like a part of the building and therefore shouldn't count. They look just like a mast on top of a building. That's why I count crowns in my roof height but not spires :cheers:

Btw, that hair pic is incredible, it made my whole week :hilarious


----------



## univer (Oct 25, 2012)

in top 50 World's Tallest Buildings in 1990: there are only 11 buildings have a spire more than 10m. It's not really a big problem.

But now 2013, 29 of 50 buildings in top 50 tallest building have a spire more than 10m.So I think the architectural height measurement should to be change, because the number of supertall have a spire increases rapidly,is so unfair for other skyscraper !

New York Times Tower is a emblematic example: In roof height 227m, New York Times Tower is the *317th tallest building in the world*. But with spire height (319m) he becomes *the 47th tallest building in the world *:bash::bash:


----------



## HK999 (Jul 17, 2009)

univer said:


> New York Times Tower is a emblematic example: In roof height 227m, New York Times Tower is the *317th tallest building in the world*. But with spire height (319m) he becomes *the 47th tallest building in the world *:bash::bash:


The Shimao International Plaza in Shanghai is a big cheater too.
Roof height: 246m
Spire height: 333m.

And the towers counts as a supertall. I don't mind spires being tall, but not _that_ tall.

Everyone cheats these days.


----------



## Jan (Jul 24, 2002)

With the antenna hoisted on top of the World Trade Center this discussion is popping up again.

Obviously this is an antenna we are talking about, so if we're going by the rules, this ought not to be counted. 

Notice how the CTBUH is trying to save their face by saying that if the antenna is architecturally designed, it's really more of a spire then a antenna and happily can be included in the height. I guess they just don't want to be the one spoiling the 1776 number. 



> The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, a Chicago-based organization considered an authority on such records, says an antenna is something simply added to the top of a tower that can be removed. By contrast, a spire is something that is part of the building's architectural design.


Te me it's just a stick on a flat roof surface. It's fine to list the World Trade Center as 1,776 feet, but that number ought not to be used _when making comparative statements_, such as claiming that this is America's tallest. According to the new interpretation, One World Trade Center is almost 100 meters taller then the Sears Tower, even though the latter has a higher roof. That's just bullshit.

I'll put up another one one one about this May 14th, see how the people think about this.


----------



## elliot (Dec 19, 2003)

Here's fuel for the debate.

Q1 is a so-called supertall... taller than BMO. I think Aura (u/c) is a taller building than Q1 if you ignore the tiara and flagpole.










Source: skyscraperpage.com


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

if CTBUH counts the antenna of 1WTC as a spire, they have to come up with a good explanation otherwise they may lose a lot of credibility, if it looks like they rule some buildings differently, because of location or media representation.


----------



## redbaron_012 (Sep 19, 2004)

Makes you realise how great the original WTC was...Two towers 110 stories high with roof areas the same as the footprints. Then one had a antenna on top as well. People accepted the height as the rooftop where the Empire State building could use it's mast as part of it's height, then the Antenna atop that.
As for previous render of Q1 compared to two Toronto buildings. How do you think we feel with Eureka Tower with a flat top at 298m.Our previous tallest Rialto Tower also in Melbourne is taller to roof and it was built in the 1980's !!! 
I accept architectural design like the Chrysler building in New York have to include it's crown, the idea of a stick sticks in my craw...somewhat !


----------



## deadhead262 (Feb 28, 2012)

KillerZavatar said:


> if CTBUH counts the antenna of 1WTC as a spire, they have to come up with a good explanation otherwise they may lose a lot of credibility, if it looks like they rule some buildings differently, because of location or media representation.


Not really, they have already lost all credibility. If they count all the other spires, then they must do the same for 1wtc. It is a architectural element, that is included in the design and was built together with the building, and as far as I know the antenna equipment is on the communications ring


----------



## Curtain (Oct 28, 2002)

Jan said:


> With the antenna hoisted on top of the World Trade Center this discussion is popping up again.
> 
> Obviously this is an antenna we are talking about, so if we're going by the rules, this ought not to be counted.
> 
> Notice how the CTBUH is trying to save their face by saying that if the antenna is architecturally designed, it's really more of a spire then a antenna and happily can be included in the height. I guess they just don't want to be the one spoiling the 1776 number.





Curtain said:


> Ctbuh have got this wrong, how is 120 Collins counted and not Riparian.


CTBUH have lost all credibility with this antenna / spire nonsense. They are quite happy to place provisos on what constitutes a residential building vs an office based on "main use" of floor space, but if a telecommunications spire is shaped decoratively suddenly it's main use is irrelevant and get counted as part of the architecture. The most ridiculous example of this is how CTBUH rule that 120 Collins st antenna is counted yet riparian plaza's spire which actually decends part way down and into the facade of the building isn't counted.

Going by this rationale because the 1WTC beacon enclosure looks like something out of buck Rodgers and theres a symbolic height they will count the whole thing as architectural which is grossly unfair.

Q1 spire was never more than a exploitation of CTBUB definitions of height and a grab at the worlds tallest residential building title, first designed to 298m beating eureka by 70cm and then extended to 323m just in case. The highest residential floor in Q1 is 219m, the building was a total misnomer yet CTBUH's policies made Eurekas apartments all the way up to the penthouse at 278m irrelevant as eureka was never the official title holder.


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

Delete.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

I apologize for replying this late. I wasn't on the forum during last week, but now that I'm back I will answer all questions. First of all I would like to thank everybody in this thread for their opinions, no matter what they are because my roof height measurement is a work in progress and every "beta tester" helps me to make it better and more refined. Thank you for your replies :cheers:

As to the case of Burj Khalifa, I agree with LAF2 that the roof height of 747 meters is not the best decision I made. At that time I thought making the width limit 9 meters or 30 feet would be the best, however later I started doubting if that was a good move. because of this I have decided to review my measurement system. I will post it with all details in a separate thread tomorrow. Just for a sneak peek, I changed the 9m/30f width limit to 15 meters or 50 feet but I will list this in greater detail tomorrow :cheers:

Btw, yes, LAF2, there is a rule that a geometrical section must be at least 50 % as wide as the geometrical section below it. But there are other rules which shape this 50 % rule as well, so I'll list them tomorrow :cheer:


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

Alright, thanks for the explanation Jano. Looking forward to hearing what you come up with. Emporis has main roof height at 2,426 feet, but I don't know how they got that number. It'll be interesting seeing what you come up with. :cheers:


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

Kanto, you should not call your measurement roof height, since roof height is already defined and it just contributes to confusion. Maybe it should be called K-Height instead or something :cheers:


----------



## L.A.F.2. (Jun 26, 2012)

If we gave it enough support here, we could get K-Height to be recognized on a larger scale. It's certainly well thought out. :cheers:


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

KillerZavatar said:


> Kanto, you should not call your measurement roof height, since roof height is already defined and it just contributes to confusion. Maybe it should be called K-Height instead or something :cheers:


There is an official definition of roof height? Where could I find it? I thought roof height didn't have any exact official definitions :dunno:


----------



## KillerZavatar (Jun 22, 2010)

http://www.ctbuh.org/News/GlobalTal...York-Times-Op-Ed-Weighs-in-on-WTC-Debate.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/opinion/heights-of-fancy.html?_r=2&

article regarding 1WTC and CTBUH's heights


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

^^ Those are very good articles, thanks for posting :cheers:

Although they do not provide a concrete measurement system of roof height. I've searched as well and haven't found any that would go in depth as defining what is roof height.

I only found a short definition on Emporis and I don't buy Emporis' definition at all because of two things:

1, Solid Crowns and parapets are indistinguishable from the rest of the building and look like part of the building. Measuring only 'til the top floor plate would mean that 98 % of all buildings would be cut many meters below their visual structural top, seemingly randomly. This would be identical to the seemingly random differentiation between a spire and an antenna.

2, Many modern buildings don't have any top floor plate at all, and on the other hand, many buildings have such a plate as support on the tip of their open air lattice crowns or spires. This makes the heights decided by this system even more random.

To put the long story short, Emporis' roof height is far worse than CTBUH's official architectural height uke:

The good thing is, Emporis isn't an official skyscraper height council, so it is just as official as my roof height definition is. Because of that I think that my height measurement does have the right to be called roof height. A roof is not a top floor plate, a roof is the top of a building, above it, there are only addons while below it, there is the building itself. Parapets and solid crowns meet this definition :cheers:

Btw, if I'm gonna succeed in my studies and become a structural engineer, then one day I plan on pursuing roof height promotion and I hope that the more refined roof height measurement I am making (it's a work in progress) will one day be recognized by the architectural and engineering community :cheers:


----------

