(September 29, 2015 at 10:38 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 29, 2015 at 9:59 am)Cato Wrote: I have been enamored with skyscrapers since I was a boy, but have always been bothered by spires counting towards height when ranking; i.e., One WTC being considered taller than the Willis Tower is bullshit in my opinion. In fact if just roof height is considered, 432 Park Avenue is taller than One WTC. Add to this that antennas aren't counted and it all gets confused. To me it's a bit like having your height taken while wearing heals.

Is there any rhyme or reason to this or is it simply subjective maneuvering in order to get your building higher on the list?

No doubt the building owners want the status, but even antennas must be structurally supported. IMO it makes sense to consider the absolute high point. Otherwise, there are many arbitrary points with which to justify the claim, not just roof, but tops of parapets, mechanical penthouses, etc.

I agree. Everyone can agree on the absolute height of a building in terms of the highest man made doohickey on the building; not everyone will agree on a subjective measurement point that falls short of the height of the antenna. As Chad points out, there can be an endless number of arbitrary points to measure to, and not every building will necessarily have the element that is deemed the measurement point, or that element might not be the highest point of every building. If you say you measure to the building parapet, what happens when the mechanical penthouse is higher than the parapet? What happens with buildings like the Chrysler Building that doesn't have parapet walls - or the parapet walls it does have occur on the 70th floor but there are 15 occupied floors above the floor with the parapet walls?

Naw, best just keep it to absolute height of the building.

(September 29, 2015 at 10:33 am)vorlon13 Wrote: In the same vein (but the other way) of post #5, why isn't the south tower of the Golden Gate Bridge considered to be 946 (m/l) feet tall instead of 746 ??

(the water is 200+ feet deep where they built the south tower, height is height, no?)

Much like Cato's question and Chad's answer, it depends on where you are measuring from. The height above roadway is different than the height above water (which can vary because of tides so they probably take an average) and absolute height of the towers from the base of construction to the tippy top. Most people generally don't think about the structure below the water's surface so it's a reasonable approach to record the height of the towers as the height from the surface most people see/think of: the water level.

(September 29, 2015 at 10:33 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Are bridge questions OK ??

In the same vein (but the other way) of post #5, why isn't the south tower of the Golden Gate Bridge considered to be 946 (m/l) feet tall instead of 746 ??

(the water is 200+ feet deep where they built the south tower, height is height, no?)

I would guess that it is for a reason similar to the fact that basements and foundations below ground do not normally count in height.

What do you regard as the most significant piece of architecture of the past 50 years?  Why?

(September 29, 2015 at 10:37 am)Crossless1 Wrote: What are your favorite architectural innovations and why?

The wall-hung toilet for one...otherwise I would say say the construction crane. Not much would get done with those.

(September 29, 2015 at 11:16 am)Pyrrho Wrote: What do you regard as the most significant piece of architecture of the past 50 years?  Why?

Beyond its inspiring design, Frank Gehry's Guggenhiem in Bilboa relied on highly sophisticated and innovative computer-modeling to manufacture the exterior wall cladding. Each piece had its own complex geometry and had to be custom built and tagged for perfect fit.

How about a pro bono framing and roof plan for my dream home?



It's going to need a 150 mph wind load rating because I might build in tornado alley, and a 300 psf roof load rating because it might be built in Alaska. The stairs go down not up so you might as well throw in a foundation and basement plan too.

Thanks in advance!

I'm curious to know what you think of Biotechture and the future of architecture as a potential source of environmental impact reduction (by building houses and business structures that don't simply suck up resources, etc), either through tax incentives to build in new ways or by penalizing less-efficient methodologies to the point they're no longer economically viable for the builders.

I'm less worried about the economic method than I am wondering what you think is the direction of new building techniques/codes.

(September 29, 2015 at 11:49 am)popeyespappy Wrote: How about a pro bono framing and roof plan for my dream home?

---

---

Dude... washing machines right next to a bedroom?
Put more bedrooms on the second floor, make a library/office on the ground floor where that bedroom is, on the right.

Build an underground parking garage, that way you have much more area for more cars. Put an elevator for help in carrying hte groceries...

oh wait... that's my dream house!

Designed any micro houses?

What do you regard as the finest piece of architecture ever made?

What do you regard as the most beautiful building ever made?