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

[plinko]

Like Steely, I subscribe to the 500ft and 1000ft (150m and 300m for the metric inclined) out of a historical sense. When I started looking at them in the late 1980s, only a select few cities had buildings over 500ft (NYC had like 105 in 1988 IIRC) and it was a nice cutoff. Most of them were office buildings because the residential skyscraper explosion hadn’t happened yet.

I though, also have a special spot for the 700ft (213m if need be) threshold, which up until the late 90s I had memorized. It was a very special city that had one (or more) of those. That changed significantly in the mid 90s. My first trip outside North America was in 1998 to Taipei, HK, and got to see Shenzhen from a distance. At the time, that captured a substantial handful of the non-NA 700ft ers for me. I once had a goal of seeing all of them.

Edit: in 1999 there were approx. 196 such towers in the world. I've seen 144 of them! Now there are over 1,600 and I certainly will never see all of them.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think a lot of it depends on whether the discussion is about skyscrapers or skylines. People can and do discuss skyscrapers on their own as individual buildings without much or any discussion on how they relate to a skyline. And much of that discussion is based on how a building functions compared to buildings in general such as the type of frame and foundation it requires, fire and emergency strategies, how people circulate though it, how much space is devoted to elevators, etc. Such discussions aren't relative in the way that skyline discussions are since the relationship of tall buildings to short buildings doesn't really change as tall buildings proliferate.

It's a bit different with skylines since much of that is relative in that a building only stands out in the skyline if it's tall enough and/or positioned properly relative to nearby buildings. So it can make sense to have a higher cut off for a very tall city or a city whose buildings are clustered in a way that it hides smaller ones. But while that is useful when gauging how much a skyline has grown or changed or how tall a city is at street level, even that isn't useful when comparing different skylines to each other. Mostly because just knowing the number of buildings of a given height doesn't tell how visible they are in the skyline unless there are a few that are much taller than the rest.

But if you have one city where the tallest are mostly in the 150-200m range and another where the tallest break the 200m mark, it doesn't tell you which skyline actually looks the best or most impressive. The taller skyline could have a lot of buildings that block each other from common angles while the shorter one doesn't. Or the shorter city could have more slender buildings which make them look taller than they are due to the height to width ratio. Or one skyline could be built on a higher elevation relative to surrounding land. And unless you're looking at the two skylines side-by-side, perception can be easily distorted by these factors. It makes some sense to divide skylines into size classes based on height with skylines of a similar size (height and quantity) compared with each other, the stats tell very little about which one will "win." So any cut-off point would need to be very broad and flexible to avoid cities that are fairly close in their skylines being lumped into different classes when one is slightly about the threshold and the other slightly below.

In other words, it makes sense to have different cut-off points for different purposes. But if it's just comparing cities in terms of how many building each has that exceed a certain height, people can use whatever height they're interested in.There isn't really one that's more correct than others for such general purposes.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by 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'.

this is the common and really the only logical and correct ranking.

its in feet because skyscrapers were invented in feet and thats the convention.

that said, the quibbly/close in horseshoes metric equivalent to it is perfectly fine too. just don’t use parsecs, even astronomers hate that measure.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by 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).

The 150-meter (492-foot) threshold only became a colloquial and industry-standard baseline for "skyscrapers" in the late 1990s and 2000s. People discuss skyscrapers/high-rises on forums as if they exist in a void like trading cards, not how they exist irl within the context of a cities skyline in person.

Yes, nobody claims São Paulo as the "best" skyline because it lacks defining signature buildings. It is objectively and widely regarded as one of the the largest skylines on earth because a "skyline" is not just defined by skyscrapers unless you think Charlotte or Pittsburgh have larger skylines than Vancouver or São Paulo.

Second, a 100m building is absolutely noticeable in Boston. Outside cities like NYC, HK, Dubai, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Toronto or a Chicago, a 100m is almost impossible to fully hide. Location and context matters just as much as raw height.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Former civil engineer major here.

Per US fire-code categorizes anything over 7 stories or 75' as a high-rise.

That said it really becomes rhetorical semantics. A 491' building is no less imposing or impactful to a skyline than a 524' building and no-one who isn't a city-data or skyscrapege forum member would know the difference irl.

[The North One]

500ft seems too high. There are lots of pre-war buildings we all agree to be skyscrapers that are shorter than that.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

Former civil engineer major here.

Per US fire-code categorizes anything over 7 stories or 75' as a high-rise.

That said it really becomes rhetorical semantics. A 491' building is no less imposing or impactful to a skyline than a 524' building and no-one who isn't a city-data or skyscrapege forum member would know the difference irl.

The 75' figure refers to the floor of the top level. The building will typically be 85' or more.

That's why some regions allow (and get) a lot of 85' woodframe apartments. The buildings pencil because they avoid highrise codes.

[mousquet]

It has to depend on local standards and culture.
Here in France or in Europe as a whole, I assume 100 m is still a relevant threshold.
In the UAE, it'd rather be 200, cause it seems pretty much anything has to be a supertall over there, lol.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

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

Yup, the metric system should rule everywhere anyway. Even in the US, physicists use it exclusively, thank goodness.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by mousquet

It has to depend on local standards and culture.
Here in France or in Europe as a whole, I assume 100 m is still a relevant threshold.
In the UAE, it'd rather be 200, cause it seems pretty much anything has to be a supertall over there, lol.



Yup, the metric system should rule everywhere anyway. Even in the US, physicists use it exclusively, thank goodness.

Absolutely. 96% of the world uses metric.

[ColDayMan]

Neither, depends on the locale. A skyscraper in Boise isn't the same as a skyscraper in New York City but both are skyscrapers, locally.

[Zapatan]

True about the locale, a 500 footer with nothing around seems like a giant.

In NYC, Chicago, Toronto or some Asian / ME cities it's nothing.

I think occupied space is a good measurement threshold. You could convince me that buildings with habitable space higher than 150m are skyscrapers and that supertalls would have habitable space at 300m.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

True about the locale, a 500 footer with nothing around seems like a giant.

In NYC, Chicago, Toronto or some Asian / ME cities it's nothing.

That can depend too.

A 500 footer in the heart of the loop is completely lost in the forest.

But my mom and dad live in this 513' tower up in Edgewater, 7 miles north of the loop.

It most definitely has the presence of a skyscraoer, being the tallest building in its vicinity.


Source: https://caffeinatedexcursions.com/get-to-know-edgewater-chicago-a-colorful-lakefront-neighborhood/

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

Neither, depends on the locale. A skyscraper in Boise isn't the same as a skyscraper in New York City but both are skyscrapers, locally.

I would argue that there are no true skyscrapers in Boise.

[mhays]

True, but if someone built a 400' foot tower there would be.

[WibblyWobbly]

Semi-related but I always felt like 600m was too high a threshold for the "MegaTall" category, I think it should've been 500m.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by The North One

500ft seems too high. There are lots of pre-war buildings we all agree to be skyscrapers that are shorter than that.

Yeah, hardly any +500 ft buildings existed outside of NYC and Chicago before 1970, but the skyscraper concept was clearly widely understood across the country by then.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, hardly any +500 ft buildings existed outside of NYC and Chicago before 1970, but the skyscraper concept was clearly widely understood across the country by then.

1950 might be a better year to use.

According to SSP diagrams, global # of 500' skyscrapers outside of NYC & Chicago:

1950: 13
1960: 23
1970: 54
1980: 165
1990: 355
2000: 759

[MolsonExport]

There are over 7,400 completed buildings in the world that stand higher than 500 feet (150 meters). According to official data from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), these skyscrapers are distributed across dozens of countries, but are heavily concentrated in East Asia, North America, and the Middle East.

A bit out of date:

• Rank/ Country/ Number of Buildings/ Tallest Building/
  1 China~3,596 Shanghai Tower (2,073 ft)
  2 United States~929 One World Trade Center (1,776 ft)
  3 United Arab Emirates~345 Burj Khalifa (2,717 ft)
  4 Malaysia~321 Merdeka 118 (2,227 ft)
  5 Japan~283 Azabudai Hills Main Tower (1,083 ft)
  6 South Korea~281 Lotte World Tower (1,819 ft)
  7 Canada~184 First Canadian Place (978 ft)
  8 Australia~164 Q1 Tower (1,058 ft)
  9 Thailand~144 Magnolias Waterfront Residences (1,043 ft)
  10 Indonesia~139 Autograph Tower (1,257 ft)
  11 India~132 World One (920 ft)
  12 Philippines~130 Grand Hyatt Manila (1,043 ft)
  13 Singapore~100 Guoco Tower (932 ft)
  14 Turkey~79 Metropol Istanbul Tower 1 (984 ft)
  15 Brazil~74 One Tower (951 ft)

[Riverranchdrone]

Don't call 100m short. That is all those cities like San Antonio, Phoenix and San Deigo have.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

There are over 7,400 completed buildings in the world that stand higher than 500 feet (150 meters). According to official data from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), these skyscrapers are distributed across dozens of countries, but are heavily concentrated in East Asia, North America, and the Middle East.

A bit out of date:

• Rank/ Country/ Number of Buildings/ Tallest Building/
  1 China~3,596 Shanghai Tower (2,073 ft)
  2 United States~929 One World Trade Center (1,776 ft)
  3 United Arab Emirates~345 Burj Khalifa (2,717 ft)
  4 Malaysia~321 Merdeka 118 (2,227 ft)
  5 Japan~283 Azabudai Hills Main Tower (1,083 ft)
  6 South Korea~281 Lotte World Tower (1,819 ft)
  7 Canada~184 First Canadian Place (978 ft)
  8 Australia~164 Q1 Tower (1,058 ft)
  9 Thailand~144 Magnolias Waterfront Residences (1,043 ft)
  10 Indonesia~139 Autograph Tower (1,257 ft)
  11 India~132 World One (920 ft)
  12 Philippines~130 Grand Hyatt Manila (1,043 ft)
  13 Singapore~100 Guoco Tower (932 ft)
  14 Turkey~79 Metropol Istanbul Tower 1 (984 ft)
  15 Brazil~74 One Tower (951 ft)

The UAE being third on this list is crazy considering that the entire country had maybe 4 towers taller than 500 feet by the year 2000.