Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't choose because I think Miami and Atlanta could both get supertalls (well another one for Atlanta), but I see Atlanta getting it first between the two
That's true. Atlanta does not yet have a super tall. Bank of America Plaza's roof is only up to 933 FT. I don't consider basically a giant pole adding real height so Atlanta doesn't yet have a supertall. The only southern city which has a completed supertall is Houston. LA too if you count it as a southern city.
I guess you don't consider the spire on the Empire State Building as part of that one either then? How about the one on the Chrysler Building?
MANY buildings around the world have spires. They are part of the architectural design. Period. Maybe you're thinking about antennas?
I guess you don't consider the spire on the Empire State Building as part of that one either then? How about the one on the Chrysler Building?
Personally, no, I don't consider those spires to be part of the actual height of those structures. Just compare the Petronas Towers to the Sears Tower. The Petronas Towers have architectural spires which exceed the height of the roof of the Sears Tower, but when you compare the structures side-to-side, the Petronas Towers tend to look significantly shorter.
This is actually reflected in the height debate among tall-building enthusiasts. Some go purely by "highest occupiable floor." I'd tend to go by height of the roof, such as it is, so long as the roof has stairwell access. That does indeed mean that the "true" height of the Chrysler Building is under 1,000 feet.
Heck, if not, we might as well start counting North Dakota's several 1,500+ ft. radio towers in the supertower discussion. We might as well count smokestacks and undersea platforms.
I personally wouldn't count a needle or anything else as part of the structural height of a building. It's not like I am going to climb the needle to get a better view, haha.
Heck, if not, we might as well start counting North Dakota's several 1,500+ ft. radio towers in the supertower discussion. We might as well count smokestacks and undersea platforms.
If they've got human residences or offices in them, go right on ahead. If not, then they are totally different types of structures than we're considering in this thread.
Well sure, that's the idea. Only count the areas that are usable by humans. Otherwise, you could just build a short, squat office building and top it with a gigantic "architectural spire" and claim the title of world's tallest building.
IMO, if it's not part of the main structure of the building then it doesn't count. A lot of companies and cities have stuck a spire or antenna to the tops of buildings at the last minute just to claim a title.
IMO, if it's not part of the main structure of the building then it doesn't count. A lot of companies and cities have stuck a spire or antenna to the tops of buildings at the last minute just to claim a title.
That is very true! In Dallas the Renaissance Tower went under a renovation and later they decided to put a 176 foot spire on top of the building so the building would be the 2nd tallest building in Dallas!
Miami, obviously. There are already more skyscrapers there than most cities on the East Coast (not just the South). Atlanta would seem to be another candidate, but they don't believe in density.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.