Should Antenna's Be Included In A Building's Final Height?

[chris123678]

Should Spires really be counted in a building's final height? There's been a dispute at One World Trade Center whether the current spire is really a spire,or just a regular antenna.

Which leads me to create this thread. Spires seem to be a cheating way of reaching a certain height.

Here's an example. Build a 800 foot tower, and put a 1000 foot spire on top. Now the building is officially 1800 feet.

Crazy right?

Here's a picture illustrating my point:

[straight shooter]

I have thought of this before and agree with you, an antenna or spire should not count.

[pantin23]

I think the spire should count as long as it is no more than 1/3 of the buildings actual height.

[d4g4m]

If you are dependent on receiving a signal from an antenna and live 40-50 miles from it, who cares if it's a tall building, a spire or a big antenna and if it counts or not, as long as it's 1000 feet high. With analog, you either got a clear or snowy picture. With digital, you either do or don't get a signal. The higher the antenna, the more people and further distance people can receive a signal.

[chris123678]

Originally Posted by pantin23

I think the spire should count as long as it is no more than 1/3 of the buildings actual height.

That' doesn't seem like a bad idea at all.

[memph]

Why use an arbitrary value like that? And basically, you're saying that a tower with a 500 ft roof height and a 750ft antenna height would be considered taller than a tower with a 700ft roof height and 1200ft antenna height?

I think antennas and spires simply shouldn't be counted. In my city, the new Trump tower (green tower) is officially considered taller than Scotia Plaza (red-brown tower), only thanks to its spire, but I don't think it should be.

Toronto Trump International Hotel Chaos - Business Insider

[chris123678]

Originally Posted by memph

Why use an arbitrary value like that? And basically, you're saying that a tower with a 500 ft roof height and a 750ft antenna height would be considered taller than a tower with a 700ft roof height and 1200ft antenna height?

I think antennas and spires simply shouldn't be counted. In my city, the new Trump tower (green tower) is officially considered taller than Scotia Plaza (red-brown tower), only thanks to its spire, but I don't think it should be.

Toronto Trump International Hotel Chaos - Business Insider

I honestly can agree with that as well. Spires's seem to cheat their way to a certain height.

Antenna's don't count anyway, but if you count one (the spire) You should count the other(antenna)

[stevo6]

I agree however the idea does pose the problem of traditoinal towers like the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building where the spire is an integral part of the tower's composition.

[richb]

Both Antenna's and spires shouldn't count.

Antennas change over the years as technology and equipment changes. Just look at Sears Tower in Chicago, they have changed plenty the last couple of years.

My guess, as buildings age, the spires will likely disappear as they don't really have a function other then appearance. Things like that, tend to be removed and not replaced.

[K'ledgeBldr]

Spires are a cheaters yardstick into the record books- nothing more!