Better a better skyscraper "threshold": 100m or 150m?

[Docere]

Don't really have a more detailed question in mind. Seems like 150m is more commonly used, but it's a threshold that essentially "leaves out" a lot of cities.

[craigs]

100 meters is 328 ft. That's not a skyscraper.

150 meters is 492 ft. That's just shy of where I would put the threshold (500 ft.).

[Steely Dan]

500' was the standard here at SSP from the earliest days.

An outgrowth from Marshall Gerometta's "Hot 500 list" website, which was the first internet database I was ever aware of that tried to track every single building over 500 feet tall across the globe.

Of course, that was back in the '90s, before China and the rest of Asia built thousands of such towers.

[Docere]

[deleted]

[Docere]

OK, I'm satisfied with the answers.

[Lobotomizer]

My definitions are as follows:

49' and below is a low-rise.

Between 50' and 149' is a mid-rise.

150' and above is a high-rise.

A high-rise becomes a skyscraper at 500'.

A high-rise becomes a super tall at 1,000'.

[Yuri]

100m. 150m is random. And anything in feet is completely meaningless/irrelevant.

[isaidso]

Most of the world is metric so 100m, 200m, 300m became the natural numbers people looked to. Americans naturally looked to 500ft and 1000ft; nice round numbers. 150m is a very much an American benchmark due to their conversion from British Imperial Units (feet) into a metric equivalent. 500ft is close to 150m.

On international sites like SSC, 100m has been labeled (Highrise), 200m (Skyscraper), and 300m (Super Tall). What people consider a 'skyscraper' depends on who you talk to and how influential American conventions are in your work place/country. Like Yuri, I find the 150m figure odd. I only use it when talking to Americans.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Most of the world is metric so 100m, 200m, 300m became the natural numbers people looked to. Americans naturally looked to 500ft and 1000ft; nice round numbers. 150 m is a very much an American benchmark due to their conversion from British Imperial Units (feet) into a metric equivalent. 500ft is close to 150m.

On international sites like SSC, 100m has been labeled (Highrise), 200m (Skyscraper), and 300m (Super Tall). What people consider a 'skyscraper' depends on who you talk to and how influential American conventions are in your work place/country. Like Yuri, I find the 150m figure odd. I only use it when talking to Americans.

And of course, it can be subjective: a very beautiful, 100m tower from the beginning of the 20th century will be widely regarded as a skyscraper. And maybe a 150m residential tower that were very rare in Brazil till 10 years ago and now it's everywhere will be seen as a highrise and not a skyscraper.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by Yuri

And anything in feet is completely meaningless/irrelevant.

Lol, it's not irrelevant in the United States of America.

[MolsonExport]

whatever the criteria are, they should be primarily defined in metric terms.

[Zapatan]

In my humble opinion, 2-250 meters or around 650-800+ feet.

Counting U/C buildings China has like 4,000 150 meter buildings, the USA has around 1,000 and the UAE like 500, so 150m is more of a high-rise.

I'd say supertall is more like 350-400 meters these days too, (1,150 - 1,300+ feet).

SkyscraperCity defines "skyscrapers" as 200m, I guess that's a good cutoff.

[DZH22]

100 meters is only 328', which is a joke for anything other than very small cities. If that number was actually an important skyline benchmark then we'd all be touting Sao Paolo as one of the world's best skylines. Yet I almost never see anything from Sao Paolo on any skyscraper sites.

My city of Boston is constantly shit on for being "too short" yet 100 meter buildings are all but invisible within the main skyline. Lots of times the only things you can see behind the hills are the 150m/500'+ towers, and in some cases even many of those are hidden.

The last thing is that anything outside of a city's Top 25 isn't really moving the skyline needle anymore for that city. Boston actually has 26 buildings over 150 meters, and anything within the downtown core that barely exceeds that height blends in without creating a new peak. If 150 meters doesn't even move the needle in Boston, then relying on the lower number for a larger city is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of (looking specifically at the Toronto posters here).

[MolsonExport]

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

[Docere]

Most objectionable part of this thread: the title ("Better a better"...)

[mhays]

Location matters. A 400' building can be a skyscraper in Portland (or Evanston) but not Chicago.

I'd discount spires, favoring occupiable levels instead. There's a lot of gray area so maybe somewhere in the middle.

[craigs]

200 meters/656 feet seems too high a threshold for a skyscraper.

[Altoic]

150m seems fair

[Zapatan]

Counting U/C there are easily 6,000+ buildings globally reaching 150 meters, plus I've never seen building that height literally in the clouds, that usually requires ~250m.

A building easily visible from all parts of a metro area is a proper skyscraper.

1-200 meters is a high building but doesn't quite "scrape the sky" lol.

[38 Geary]

100 meters probably includes too many short(er) buildings. 150 meters is probably a better cut off nowadays.