Spires included in building height?

[speedog]

So some discussion in the "Calgary Construction XXIV" thread got me wondering what constitutes as a spire when it comes to building height. A few examples to peruse...

Jamieson Place...


Arriva 34...


Oxford proposal...


So what constitutes a spire - all of the above three buildings/proposals have elements at the top that could be considering spires. If the space is just an extension of elements of the building (the pointed peak on Arriva 34), then is that considered a spire or not. Jamieson certainly appears to have two smallish spires - would they be considered as a part of the official building height or not?

Some information gleaned from the internet for all that is worth...

Jamieson Place

• SkyScraper - Spire height 558 feet, roof height 518 feet
• WikiPedia - Spire height 568 feet, roof height 560 feet
• Emporis - Spire height 568 feet, roof height 518 feet

Arriva 34

• SkyScraper - Height 420 feet - no mention of spire
• WikiPedia - Height 420 feet - no mention of spire
• Emporis - Height 418 feet - no mention of spire

It's amazing that for even just two buildings that one can find such discrepancies - obviously some web sites must have some erroneous information or their determination of heights and the elements measured are different.

I'm torn on this - I do see spires as a part of a building but at the same time I do understand how a spire can be used to artificially increase the height of a building just to attain some record. Arriva 34 would be an even more interesting point as there's probably nothing in that peaked section but girders and such to affix the outside cladding to and yet most would not consider that to be a spire - in fact, there are many iconic buildings that have similar elements at the top of them that may or may not be considered spires. Thus I remain confused as to what constitutes a spire element and what does not - is the antenna structure at the top of the Calgary Tower included in it's official height or not? Is that a spire element or not? And what about the iconic Empire State Building - spire element or not? WikiPedia lists three different height references, tip, roof and top floor which all happen to be different.

Yeah, I know people have differing opinions on building heights - to me there should be an overall height measurement, top floor height and roof height although Arriva 34 and Jamieson Place just mess me up.

[Surrealplaces]

I think for simplicity sake you have to include the spire. It's unfortunate because the buildings official height does not always accurate reflect the building's appearance.

It's the only way height can be recorded in an official way. My own thoughts would be to have the spire height recorded only if it's a certain percentage of the roof's square footage.....say at least 0.5% of the roof's square footage. Of course the problem then becomes what constitutes the final roof height...Petronas towers or Burj Kalifa for example would be complicated. In the end if the Spire is constructed into the building itself, you pretty much have to include it. In many cases it's a cheesy way to gain some height, but it seems to be the only way to keep things apples to apples.

[shreddog]

Spire/architectural element ... Yes
Antenna ... NO!

Yes this creates the issue with Petronas and Sears, but still a bldg is a bldg, architectural elements and all. In all honesty, I think the gamemanship related to bldg height is really a non-issue in this day and age for the general populace, so really why does it matter. A building looks nice or not - regardless of "official" height.

FYI, here is an interesting debate on this from a year ago ...

Originally Posted by Dan in Chicago

BINGO! That's the way to go, in my opinion. In fact, it's the new standard just recently adopted by BuildingHeights.org (which is published by Phorio). By this rule One WTC is 12th tallest in the world.

Here's a comparison between the CTBUH standard ("architectural height") on the left and Phorio's ("building mass height") on the right:



You can imagine that the buildings in the diagram are New York Times Tower, Two Prudential Plaza, and First Bank Tower.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Spire/architectural element ... Yes
Antenna ... NO!

So in the case of Jamieson Place, what would be considered an spire/architectural element and what would be considered an antenna if the two small items at the south facing top side are even antennas? Certainly they appear to be part of elements that run pretty much all the way down the south facade of that building and as such, are they spires or not?

[Spring2008]

Imo - crowns yes, anything that looks like a stick - no.

For Jamieson, i'd count to the top of the dark blue piece, for Arriva, to the top of the feather looking crown, not that stick.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Imo - crowns yes, anything that looks like a stick - no.

For Jamieson, i'd count to the top of the dark blue piece, for Arriva, to the top of the feather looking crown, not that stick.

Agree no sticks!!!

I can't believe that One World Trade Centre can include that abomination on the roof in their height. No sticks or glorified antennas.

[WhipperSnapper]

The cheater argument and resulting ideas to bring fairness to how a building is measurement is being a little too obsessive and needlessly complicates something so simple. Height based on massing becomes ridiculously subjective for something that can be definitively measured.

A stick can be an architectural ornament or have absolutely nothing to do with a building's design and only exists as a leaseable facility to 3rd party users. They may have similar massing. Heck, they may appear identical. However, their function and existence are vastly different.

One of the most iconic towers of the 20th Century is also one the biggest cheaters