Are decorative spires a cheap way of adding height?

[M.K.]

Originally Posted by Trantor

btw, if you guys think antenas should count as building height, than São Paulo has several buildings over 200m.

None telecommunications towers in Sao Paulo are taller than 185m for whole structure including highrise. only TV Bandeirantes is taller than 200m, but has no highrise below, only a small lowrise... but not part of the truss tower and about money, those antennas make millions per year to be used from TV broadcasts, so they are expensive to use and to construct.

[Trantor]

antennas are not spires.

[TonyAnderson]

They're just stupid in general, unless they fit in really well with the design, such as the Empire State Building.

[vid]

Well it would be hard to deny that the spires on the Petronas Towers or Taipei 101 don't "fit with the design".

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by SouthmoreAve

I think so.....

Take for example,
Atlanta's Bank of America Plaza

Its "pinnacle height" is 1023 ft.(312m) It's the tallest building in the US outside Chicago or New York, but its ONLY 55 stories. Its roof height is 933 feet. Now, i can think of 2 cities that have taller buildings(roof height).

Los Angeles has the 1018 ft US Bank Tower.(No Spire)

Houston has 2 taller buildings than Bank of America Plaza's roof height: the 992 ft Wells Fargo Bank Plaza, and the 1002 ft JP Morgan Chase Tower.

Granted, BoA Plaza has a crown, and not a spire, but its still inhabitable(i think).

U.S. Bank Tower's top floor is at 967'...still taller than 923', but the building isn't inhabitable up to the full height of 1018'.

BOA Plaza in Atlanta has both a crown and a spire...it is definitely an integral part of the design, but is not inhabitable.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/31591113@N07/3348797925/