Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf
It really is muddled and confusing! The John Hancock Center and the Sears Tower both had antennas designed with the structures, and both of them have large, tall bases that were initially built as part of the building. The antennas were then added to the base structures, but none of it seems to count as building height. If the antennas were removed, the tall holders would still be there. Trump Tower in Chicago had the spire added after the building was designed and under construction and it seems to rest on the roof much like the old WTC antenna did, yet it is counted in the building height since it's just there for looks. IMO, none of them should count or all of them should. Another great example is the massive antenna on the Prudential Building in Chicago. It was clearly designed with and built into the building, but today it is not used since there are many taller buildings around it. Why isn't that counted as a spire now? This is all really stupid and needs to be clarified once and for all.
|
Yeah it does get kinda confusing. If you go to the CTBUH website and read about the three types of criteria they judge on they all should count. But for some reason they favor one of the three over the other two. I was hoping that they would give us more of an up close view in more types of light. Most of the renderings are good but dont give an up close view.