# First supertall?



## Simfan34 (Oct 9, 2009)

Am I correct in believing the Chrysler Building was the first supertall tower?


----------



## PinkFloyd (Jun 13, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I'd give that honour to the Eiffel Tower.


----------



## KlausDiggy (Jan 21, 2013)

Eiffel Tower = first 1000 ft structure
Chrysler Building = first 1000 ft Skyscraper


----------



## univer (Oct 25, 2012)

Simfan34 said:


> Am I correct in believing the Chrysler Building was the first supertall tower?


yes,but in roof height Chrysler Building has just 282m(spire 319m).
the first supertall by roof height is Empire State Building 381m(spire 443m).


----------



## daniel84 (Apr 24, 2013)

univer said:


> yes,but in roof height Chrysler Building has just 282m(spire 319m).
> the first supertall by roof height is Empire State Building 381m(spire 443m).


I also share this opinion, i think the first super-tall was Empire State Building..


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

KlausDiggy said:


> Eiffel Tower = first 1000 ft structure
> Chrysler Building = first 1000 ft Skyscraper


Agree and one could argue that a structure should count as a super tall. Btw, do people count 1000 ft or 300 m as the threshold for super tall? I thought it was 300 m as only the US, Liberia, and Burma use British Imperial Units these days.


----------



## Kanto (Apr 23, 2011)

For me the Eiffel tower was the first supertall and the Empire State Building was the second one :cheers:


----------



## tim1807 (May 28, 2011)

The ESB was indeed the second one, but the Eiffel Tower is imo a Lattice tower and therefore not considered as supertall.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

isaidso said:


> Agree and one could argue that a structure should count as a super tall. Btw, do people count 1000 ft or 300 m as the threshold for super tall? I thought it was 300 m as only the US, Liberia, and Burma use British Imperial Units these days.


I'm going with the Chrysler building, and yes you are right according to the CTBUH. A supertall begins roughly at 985 feet if you convert 300 meters into feet. That means in the U.S. Chicago has 6 and Houston has 2 instead of just the one.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

isaidso said:


> Agree and one could argue that a structure should count as a super tall. Btw, do people count 1000 ft or 300 m as the threshold for super tall? I thought it was 300 m as only the US, Liberia, and Burma use British Imperial Units these days.


"Supertall" is a completely subjective term, so it would depend on who's talking. If a group like CTBUH or some people SSC have an opinion, that can lend more credence, but it's still subjective.


----------



## URBAN BEAUTY (Nov 9, 2011)

For me a SupertaLL begins at the 1000ft mark.


----------



## Simfan34 (Oct 9, 2009)

I think the reason that the definition of supertall is at 300m at the first place is because of its closeness to 1000ft- which is substantially less arbitrary than 300m.


----------

