PDA

View Full Version : World's Tallest Building


Jinx
10-11-2001, 11:53 AM
I recently read that the world's tallest building is in Indonesia? Is this correct?

Fear Itself
10-11-2001, 11:57 AM
Petronas Towers (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/petronas_towers.html); Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

lieu
10-11-2001, 11:58 AM
I believe it's the twin Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur.

Jinx
10-11-2001, 12:24 PM
Yes, that's what I meant! I got my "...esia" crossed with "...ysia". Whatever...

Thanks, y'all!
- Jinx

Ike Witt
10-11-2001, 12:45 PM
World tallest building is a strange animal. Petronas Towers are considered the tallest buildings in the world, however the top floor of the Sears Tower is quite a bit higher than the top floor of Petronas. However, spires are considered when the height of a building is concerned so Petronas maxes out a whopping 10 metres taller.

Earthling
10-11-2001, 01:39 PM
Chicago will once again own the tallest-building honor upon completion of 7 South Dearborn (http://www.som.com/html/7_south_dearborn.html). But, the contest is not over (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question680.htm).

Whack-a-Mole
10-11-2001, 01:49 PM
If you go to the Sears Tower they still claim the title of world's tallest (whether that is official or just them I couldn't say).

The deal is, as already mentioned, that the Petronas Towers are taller only by virtue of the spire placed atop the building. The Sears Tower claimed this was unfair since their antennas give them the edge again but the official ruling was the antennas were not part of the structure while the spires were.

In 1997 the Council on Tall Buildings came up with four criteria for tallest building:

1) Height to the structural or architectural top.
2) Height to the highest occupied floor.
3) Height to the top of the roof.
4) Height to the top of antenna.

Petronas wins on point #1 but I think the Sears Tower wins on the rest ( this site (http://cpl.lib.uic.edu/004chicago/timeline/searstower.html) [also my source for above criteria] says the Sears Tower only wins points 2 & 3 but makes no mention of who wins 4...I can't imagine any other building that would beat it though unless you count space needles).

It seems apparent that Sears should probably hold the title since it seems to win in the most notable categories (i.e. how far can you get off the ground in one) and it wins in more categories than any other building. Nevertheless the Petronas Towers are now regularly referred to as the tallest.

Shylock
10-11-2001, 01:53 PM
Wow. If you followed Philistine's second link, there's that mention of the Bionic Tower. 4,000+ ft high? 300 stories? How serious is that....

Whack-a-Mole
10-11-2001, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Philistine
Chicago will once again own the tallest-building honor upon completion of 7 South Dearborn (http://www.som.com/html/7_south_dearborn.html). But, the contest is not over (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question680.htm).

Interesting...the second link here includes a top ten list that is dated as being updated on July, 2001, yet it does not include the World Trade Center. IIRC the WTC, when it was up, just barely missed the Sears Tower for the tallest building title and should certainly have been on any top ten list in July, 2001.

Arjuna34
10-11-2001, 01:59 PM
Here's Cecil's column on this topic:
Is the world's tallest building in North Korea? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000721.html),

and here's the resulting heated discussion from the Comments on Cecil's column forum:
Tallest Buildings (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=31546)


Arjuna34

Ike Witt
10-11-2001, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Philistine
Chicago will once again own the tallest-building honor upon completion of 7 South Dearborn (http://www.som.com/html/7_south_dearborn.html).

Is this building under construction already? Because buildings that tall probably take at least 3 years, if not longer, to build. Also, according to skyscrapers.com (http://www.skyscrapers.com/public/worldmap/city/skyscrapers/detail.cfm?id=101030&bid=7&lang=e) the 7 South Dearborn building is in the 'Never Built' category. Does anybody have current information on its status?

epolo
10-11-2001, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
4) Height to the top of antenna.

Petronas wins on point #1 but I think the Sears Tower wins on the rest ( this site (http://cpl.lib.uic.edu/004chicago/timeline/searstower.html) [also my source for above criteria] says the Sears Tower only wins points 2 & 3 but makes no mention of who wins 4...I can't imagine any other building that would beat it though unless you count space needles).
I'm pretty sure that #4 was held by the WTC. I think the WTC was the reason they came up with #4. But since it's now moot, I won't knock myself out looking for a cite. :(

Omniscient
10-11-2001, 02:31 PM
Whack-a-Mole, that list is certainly screwed up. The "Amoco Building" in Chicago listed #10 is now called the AON Building and has been prior to "July 2001" as their table cites. It makes no mention of the WTC, which IIRC were #4 at one time, though perhaps this is due to the attacks and they didn't change the date on the table.

Here's what seems to be a much better link (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001338.html), however it also still has the AON Building named as Amoco.

Petronas wins on point #1 but I think the Sears Tower wins on the rest ( this site [also my source for above criteria] says the Sears Tower only wins points 2 & 3 but makes no mention of who wins 4...I can't imagine any other building that would beat it though unless you count space needles).

Regarding the antenna thing. For years the Sears Tower's top floor and antenna were the heighest in the world (for buildings, not including the CN tower). In 1999 or so, the WTC-1 increased its antenna by several meters and surpassed the Sears Tower. I believe it was for HD-TV broadcast ability. For about 3 months the WTC was the winner of #4, until the Sears Tower made the same improvements to its antenna for HD-TV and took back the title. Odds are that your source dates back to either than that 3 month or so window, or perhaps it simply wasn't aware of the Sears Tower's addition. Nevertheless, right now, the Sears Tower is has the highest antenna in the world on a building.

The Great Gazoo
10-11-2001, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by adam yax
Originally posted by Philistine
Chicago will once again own the tallest-building honor upon completion of 7 South Dearborn (http://www.som.com/html/7_south_dearborn.html).

Is this building under construction already? Because buildings that tall probably take at least 3 years, if not longer, to build. Also, according to skyscrapers.com (http://www.skyscrapers.com/public/worldmap/city/skyscrapers/detail.cfm?id=101030&bid=7&lang=e) the 7 South Dearborn building is in the 'Never Built' category. Does anybody have current information on its status?

The financing fell through on 7 North Dearborn earlier this year. It is not nearing completion. The old building on that site still stands, although it is empty and surrounded by scaffolding and looks like it will be torn down soon.

The Sears Tower is the tallest building in the world. I don't care what some spire-lovers in Malaysia think. :D

I believe that the Sears Tower holds 3 of the top 4 categories for tallest building (tallest occupied floor, tallest building including antenna, height to the top of the roof, height to the structural or architectural top.) With the WTC terrorism, the only category Sears does not lead is height to the structural or architectural top. So 3 out of 4 sounds like tops to me!

Flymaster
10-11-2001, 03:31 PM
Here's a good site for all of you skyscraper fans: http://www.skyscraperpage.com

buddy1
10-11-2001, 04:07 PM
Years agao I read that F.L. Wright prposed building a mile-high skyscraper. Is such a tall building feasible? In view of the sept. 11 disaster, will higher skyscrapers EVER be built in the USA?
pERONALLY, i WOULD LOVE TO SEE US BUILD HIGHER SKYSCRAPERS-IT WOULD SOLVE THE CONGESTION PROBLEMS OF THE CITIES.

Earthling
10-11-2001, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by adam yax
Is this building under construction already? Because buildings that tall probably take at least 3 years, if not longer, to build. Also, according to skyscrapers.com (http://www.skyscrapers.com/public/worldmap/city/skyscrapers/detail.cfm?id=101030&bid=7&lang=e) the 7 South Dearborn building is in the 'Never Built' category. Does anybody have current information on its status?Well, everything on SOM (http://www.som.com)'s web site gives one the impression that the 7 South Dearborn project is still on. But this Chicago Sun-Times article (http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-tall11.html), dated July 11, 2001, says it's not likely, though the developer would still like to build it. Then again, given what happened on 9/11, they're probably having second thoughts, so who knows.

Here's (http://www.feedmag.com/streetlevel/chifeat.html) a link on Frank Lloyd Wright's mile-high tower.

And shame on Howstuffworks.com for the misinformation. I was too busy reading the article and didn't even notice their 10-tallest list. Ack.

The Great Gazoo
10-11-2001, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by buddy1
Years agao I read that F.L. Wright prposed building a mile-high skyscraper. Is such a tall building feasible? In view of the sept. 11 disaster, will higher skyscrapers EVER be built in the USA?
pERONALLY, i WOULD LOVE TO SEE US BUILD HIGHER SKYSCRAPERS-IT WOULD SOLVE THE CONGESTION PROBLEMS OF THE CITIES.

Part of the reason they don't think it is feasible to build "Mile High Chicago" IS congestion. All the people who would work and live there (could be 100,000) would cause the Mother of all traffic jams.

But it is apparently feasible, engineering-wise.

BobT
10-11-2001, 05:12 PM
The Master speaks on this issue:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000929.html

There was a very long thread about the tallest building in Comments About Cecil's Column.

And don't even try bringing up the issue of the CN Tower. It's been talked to death.

BobT
10-11-2001, 05:14 PM
Sorry, I didn't notice Arjuna34's earlier post about the column and subsequent debate.

Mike.V
10-11-2001, 05:27 PM
The world's tallest building, IMO, should be the Sears Tower: it is taller in 3 of the 4 categories previously listed. The WTC did have the tallest antenna (ever since its completion, NOT for 3 months), but about a year ago the Sears Tower increased the height of its antennas by a few feet, giving it the new title.

And regarding 7 South Dearborn, that project has been all but dead for over a year. There was some rumor that another company would buy the "building" (site,design, etc.) but I haven't heard anything about that in a while.

Oh, and one more thing, the Sears Tower and the Twin Towers are/were a whopping 22 stories taller then the Petronas Towers.

Sorry for the lack of cites.

mhendo
10-11-2001, 05:51 PM
It's amazing how many of these tall buildings get approved but then are not built. A few years ago, a builder in Melbourne, Australia named Bruno Grollo (a self-aggrandizing wanker if ever there was one) got approval to build the worlds tallest building in the city. It was going to be something over 120 floors and about 520 metres tall. The project has, however, been shelved. Many people in Melbourne opposed it, saying it would stand out like a sore thumb in what is not, by world standards, a high-rise city.

There is considerable rivalry in Australia between Sydney and Melbourne, and when news that Melbourne might build the world's tallest building got around, there was some consternation in Sydney. But there was also considerable amusement, including some jokes, like:

Q. What's will be the best thing about Melbourne's Grollo Tower?
A. You might be able to see Sydney from the top floor. :)

Last i heard, one landmark still going ahead in Melbourne was Eureka Tower, destined to be, at 300m (1000 feet), the world's tallest all-residential building.

Broomstick
10-11-2001, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by adam yax
Originally posted by Philistine
Chicago will once again own the tallest-building honor upon completion of 7 South Dearborn (http://www.som.com/html/7_south_dearborn.html).

Is this building under construction already? Because buildings that tall probably take at least 3 years, if not longer, to build. Also, according to skyscrapers.com (http://www.skyscrapers.com/public/worldmap/city/skyscrapers/detail.cfm?id=101030&bid=7&lang=e) the 7 South Dearborn building is in the 'Never Built' category. Does anybody have current information on its status?

Just after September 11 here in Chicago it was reported on the news that the backers of the plan for 7 South Dearborn were reconsidering building the thing. So it looks like it's on hold.

Broomstick
10-11-2001, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
Part of the reason they don't think it is feasible to build "Mile High Chicago" IS congestion. All the people who would work and live there (could be 100,000) would cause the Mother of all traffic jams.

Most people working in the Chicago Loop don't drive now - they take the train or bus, thereby reducing traffic.

About ten years ago I heard that about 400,000 people a day trudge into the Loop to work (yours truly among them these last 18 years) and there are only 65,000 parking spaces. And that was before Daley started eliminating parking spots at every opportunity.

Naw, the REAL problem would be keeping the Starbucks in the building stocked with bad coffee....

ElvisL1ves
10-11-2001, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by mhendo
[Q. What's will be the best thing about Melbourne's Grollo Tower?
A. You might be able to see Sydney from the top floor.

Sounds like the Warsaw joke about the Stalin-era Palace of Culture.
Q: Why is the best view in Warsaw from the Palace of Culture?
A: That's the only place you don't have to look at the Palace of Culture.

The Great Gazoo
10-11-2001, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Broomstick
Originally posted by The Great Gazoo
Part of the reason they don't think it is feasible to build "Mile High Chicago" IS congestion. All the people who would work and live there (could be 100,000) would cause the Mother of all traffic jams.

Most people working in the Chicago Loop don't drive now - they take the train or bus, thereby reducing traffic.

About ten years ago I heard that about 400,000 people a day trudge into the Loop to work (yours truly among them these last 18 years) and there are only 65,000 parking spaces. And that was before Daley started eliminating parking spots at every opportunity.

Naw, the REAL problem would be keeping the Starbucks in the building stocked with bad coffee....

And then add 100,000 MORE! All in one block! Can't you see the congestion, even if everyone walks or takes public transportation. Have you ever tried to get on the Red Line or a bus to the Loop during rush hour??? You can't get a seat and have to wait for 3 trains or buses to pass before one comes by that has any room to stand! And that's at Belmont which is 4 miles from the Loop.

BTW, I have you beat by 4 years - I started working in the loop in 1979. I walk 2 miles to work so I don't have to get on the bus or the El.