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.

Comments

Adding a spike to the top...

[aiyo]

..is like sticking a toothpick on my dick to gain that extra two inches. Not very fair huh?

Re:Adding a spike to the top...

[Joel Carr]

..is like sticking a toothpick on my dick to gain that extra two inches. Not very fair huh?

Well I'll take your word that that is what it is like, having never done it myself. But it has to be said, it sounds extraordinarily painful. Each to his own I guess. :-P

---

Re:Adding a spike to the top...

[CaseyB]

All the pedantics and handwaving become irrelevant when you just look at the buildings side by side.

The Sears tower still rules. Period.

Spires shouldn't count

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks spires shouldn't count? I think it should be the highest floor of rentable, realistically usable office space.

Am I wrong?

Re:Spires shouldn't count

[POds]

Nope, i've thought this myself.. Its stupid.. if i wanted, and with appropriate concil approval i could put a 508 spiral on my house and then my house would be the talest building in the world...

Should be floor, but then you'r gunna run around with people saying "Technically, this" and "Technically that"... So theres no use in changing it now!

Re:Spires shouldn't count

[big tex]

In principle I agree with you, but in practice it gets difficult.
The problem with "highest floor of rentable ... office space" is that it forgets the mechanical areas; the HVAC, etc.

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?

World's tallest building?

[Takara]

I would like to note that the CN-tower in Canada at 553m is the worlds tallest free-standing building, and still is.

Re:World's tallest building?

[ftvcs]

I always thaught the highest building was that little shack on the mount-everest.

The rules only include spires, not poles

[donscarletti]

According to the criteria that are used to judge the height of the world's tallest buildings, only real floorspace and "architectural spires" are able to be counted in the total height. Aerials, flagpoles, lightning rods and other such utilitarian additions are not included. If that were not the case, the massive CN tower in Toronto would still be the tallest building after 30 years, with the Sears tower in Chicago coming second with it's Aerial sticking far above the top of the actual measured region.

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.

A diagram of the tallest 10 buildings

[jensen404]

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?1178316.

Re:Nothing to learn?

[Saeger]

Haven't we learned anything of World Trade Errors?

What? Like being too chickenshit to build taller? Lesson learned; terrorists won.

--

Sears is still 2nd, petronas is 3rd

[abde]

It's worth noting however that there are FOUR definitions of "height" when used in ranking the world's tallest buildings:

Tip Height is defined as the vertical elevation from the base to the highest man-made part of the building, or any fixed attachment thereto, whichever is higher. This includes flagpoles, antennae, fences, cooling towers, signs, aircraft warning lights, and all kinds of chimneys. Mobile parts such as extendable signs may be included in the measurement as long as the variation of their heights is regular; in this case the maximum height shall constitute the tip height. Attachments such as flags, loose ropes or wires, and trees shall not be considered.

Structural Height is defined as the vertical elevation from the base to the highest architectural or integral structural element of the building. This includes fixed sculptures, decorative and architectural spires, ornamental fences, parapets, balustrades, decorative beacons, masonry chimneys, and all other architecturally integral elements along with their pedestals.

Roof Height is defined as the vertical elevation from the base to the highest exterior portion of the shell enclosing the building's interior space. This excludes spires, parapets, and other protruding non-habitable elements. In the event of ambiguity between the enclosing "shell" and the projecting element, then the roof's thickness shall be established by setting its height 10 cm above the highest reach of inhabitable space inside the building.

Highest Occupied Floor Height is defined as the elevation from the base to the top of the floor slab of the highest occupiable interior level, excluding mechanical, storage, or stairway penthouses whose walls are set back from the perimeter of the highest non-mechanical floor. In the event that the floorplate is not of uniform level, then its height shall be defined as the median height taken across its entire area.

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.

highest public deck?

[m0i]

The true question:
is the 448m roof of this new tower higher than the CN Tower Skydeck at 447m? If floor(447) is higher than topfloor(Tapei101), then IMO the highest still is the CN Tower (even if it's not considered a true building by charts).

MOD PARENT UP - Even Guinness agrees on CN!

[overturf]

CN tower is definitely the "world's tallest building". http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=4 9675