Taipei 101 Now World's Tallest Building
mstamat writes "A 101-storey skyscraper in Taipei is from today the world's tallest building. The new scyscraper is 508 metres (1,667 feet) tall, beating the 452-metre (1,483-feet) twin Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur. The full height was achieved after adding a 60-metre (197-ft) spire on top of the building. The story is on
Reuters." There's plenty of information about the building available.
I would like to note that the CN-tower in Canada at 553m is the worlds tallest free-standing building, and still is.
If however architectural spires were not included in the height either, the Sears tower (excluding aerial) would be far taller than the Peronas towers (I am not sure about Taipei 101 however).
So in answer to your question, adding a pole to the top of a building doesn't make it a bigger building. To improve your buildings height you must add a spire (i.e. a real fat pole that serves no particular purpose apart from aesthetics). The rules are stupid, I know, but then again, I didn't make them up, and at least they stop people from using carbon fiber rods to cheat.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?1178316.
Until the Petronas Towers were built, the Sears Tower in Chicago held all four titles. Petronas displaced the Sears Tower only by virtue of an enormous spire, which was part of the architectural design but did not actually have usable space. Thus Petronas got a boost to its Structural height by virtue of its spire, but the Sears Tower actually remained the leader in Highest Occupied Floor, and Roof, and Tip. Unfortunately, Structural height is the one used in the public domain to assert the title of Tallest. You can see that the Sears was taller by far in every intuitive sense of the word by looking at this scale drawing. And the illustration actually omits the Sears' antennae masts.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
The Sears tower still rules. Period.
CN tower is definitely the "world's tallest building". http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=4 9675
In principle I agree with you, but in practice it gets difficult. ... office space" is that it forgets the mechanical areas; the HVAC, etc.
The problem with "highest floor of rentable
Now, if the architect finds a cool way to get this volume into a fun shape, I think it should count.
One example, the First National Bank of Omaha Tower . The lit up portion at the top is all mechanical areas, but it is tall and skinny instead of just another floor. The top of the structure should count.
Another example is One Worldwide Plaza. the pyramid at the top is the mechanical space. Sure, it is taller than the equivalent square mechanical space, but it should count.
Now, the very top part of the cone is purely architectural. Should it not count, since it is technically a spire?
I think I need a new sig here.