Should spires be counted in official height?

[JGFrisco]

Here's a question, guys. What, exactly, is part of the building?

Let me give you an example. We are considering 360 to be 562' tall, but the last 100' is a spire and a pointed antenna. Without that, it's about 465'. But we use the 562'?

The Tower of the Americas is listed as 622' in the almanacs, but this is the roof - the antenna reaches 750'. So why is the Tower listed as 622, but 360 is listed as 562'. What is the deciding factor as to what exactly is the "height" of the building.

Another example - the Sears Tower has higher floors than the Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur, but the spires on the latter made it taller. But it is really?

What is the convention?

[Dragonfire]

I think that if it's a spire or something similar, it's counted because it's part of the building's structure. TV antennas don't count because they're not permanent structures and they're usually added after the building's completed.

[andrew.A..T..X]

Originally Posted by JGFrisco

Here's a question, guys. What, exactly, is part of the building?

Let me give you an example. We are considering 360 to be 562' tall, but the last 100' is a spire and a pointed antenna. Without that, it's about 465'. But we use the 562'?

The Tower of the Americas is listed as 622' in the almanacs, but this is the roof - the antenna reaches 750'. So why is the Tower listed as 622, but 360 is listed as 562'. What is the deciding factor as to what exactly is the "height" of the building.

Another example - the Sears Tower has higher floors than the Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur, but the spires on the latter made it taller. But it is really?

What is the convention?

I really dont know what kind of spires they put into official height, and which they dont. I dont think that spires should count at all. You could have a ten foot building with a 5000 ft spire, and technically it would be the tallest in the world. Frost is taller than 360, but the spire makes it officially taller. Same with Sears and Petronas. I don't understand

[JGFrisco]

I drove through Austin on I-35 from the south, and there's a point around Onion Creek where the skyline opens up, and Frost appears clearly taller. You can't see anything of the 360 spire from the there.

Of course, the top of Frost is decorative too, but it's a full building thing, not just an antenna sticking up.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by JGFrisco

I drove through Austin on I-35 from the south, and there's a point around Onion Creek where the skyline opens up, and Frost appears clearly taller. You can't see anything of the 360 spire from the there.

Of course, the top of Frost is decorative too, but it's a full building thing, not just an antenna sticking up.

If it's where I'm thinking, it's not a great vantage point for comparing heights. I think it's proximity to I35 makes it look taller (even if you factor in the higher elevation Frost sits on). Many of the other buildings right near I-35 look real tall from that angle... in fact, I always remember that route into Austin to be the most impressive "reveal" of the skyline... I think the highway is much lower there, especially as you get near the river. For comparison, drive N on Mopac, as you cross the river and get a nice view of downtown, 360 looks much taller than Frost.

Also, 360's highest occupied floor is 44, Frost's is 33 (although they are taller floors). 360's mainroof may be 462', but I think that's taller than Frost's mainroof. Emporis doesn't list the mainroof height, but it does say this about Frost:

Four Frost Bank logo signs were added above the main roof. The logos are 20 feet in diameter. The signs are now the highest signs on a skyscraper in Austin at approximately 420 feet high.

Meaning the main roof is <420 feet. That would make the crown over 95 feet, which seems unlikely.. but still, I think Frost's mainroof is less that 360's.

Totally agree about Frost's crown vs. a spire... Frost's crown is much more part of the building, whether it is occupied or not. It looks like it could be occupied, anyway... man, what an office that would be.

[JGFrisco]

What I was referring to was the view from way south, past Wm Cannon. It's still 7-8 miles away, and you get an undistorted view for comparison.

Maybe for comparison purposes, we should consider crowns to be part of the building, and spires not to? Or we should have separate lists or something.

I think that 360 has higher occupied floors than Frost...but Frost's crown appears to be more part of the building and thus higher than 360.

[Strayone]

I have been wondering...is the top of the base of the spire on 360 higher than Frost's 515', I'm not referring to the penthouse/ roof. The height of the needle is 563 and the spire looks to be in the 50' range. When I look at the skyline of DT I really can't tell if the building proper is shorter than the top of Frost. Even though it is at a lower (sea level) it still compares very closely on the horizon.

Regarding The Austonian and it's slender profile, it is fairly slender yet it is very well balanced. And I actually think it will seem somewhat larger in girth while it rises. Remember it is somewhat elliptical in circumference and will be wider from some angles. I would be shocked if it The Austonian was putting on some type of grand illusion at this point and that it might have the plug pulled during construction. They will surely be the premier Highrise in Austin for many, many years when it is finished.

[zx14]

considering the floors are 10 feet on 360 that is 440 feet. Now add 22 feet for the 6 inches between floors and add 10 feet for the taller first floor and you get the 472 to the roof of the building where the spire is. Now it looks like the facade around the spire is 20 feet and each section of spire is 30 feet. So the base of the spire is 472 and the first section of spire is 502 and the second section is 532 where it is now. Add a 30 foot flag pole and it is 562 feet. I might have missed a foot somewhere but if you zoom in on the 360 sight you can kind of measure using the curser. So that said it is the tallest in austin right now by 17 feet soon to be by 37 feet or 38 feet. Come on 360 workers put the pole on top. Plus whie the glass is put on the spire it will really stand out.

[zx14]

I meant to say that when the pole is put on 360 it will be the tallest by 47 feet. But wait i found the extra foot. If anyone has noticed the 43rd floor is about a foot taller than the other floors. Now I can say 563 feet with that making it 48 feet taller when the pole is on and yes even now it is 18 feet taller than Frosty. Also is there a chance that any of the projects could even increase the floor count durring construction due to sales if they felt they could sell more. Please forgive my spelling I was a science major.

[Sexas]

I alrways wonder do the "roof pole" at 360 doing anything (like cell phone tower, radio tower) ,or just purely a decor try to make his p*nis look bigger type of thing?

[andrew.A..T..X]

Originally Posted by zx14

considering the floors are 10 feet on 360 that is 440 feet. Now add 22 feet for the 6 inches between floors and add 10 feet for the taller first floor and you get the 472 to the roof of the building where the spire is. Now it looks like the facade around the spire is 20 feet and each section of spire is 30 feet. So the base of the spire is 472 and the first section of spire is 502 and the second section is 532 where it is now. Add a 30 foot flag pole and it is 562 feet. I might have missed a foot somewhere but if you zoom in on the 360 sight you can kind of measure using the curser. So that said it is the tallest in austin right now by 17 feet soon to be by 37 feet or 38 feet. Come on 360 workers put the pole on top. Plus whie the glass is put on the spire it will really stand out.

Yes it will be the tallest technically, but if you don't count the spire as official height, (which I dont think should be) Frost is still the tallest.

[bigdogc]

Originally Posted by andrew.A..T..X

Yes it will be the tallest technically, but if you don't count the spire as official height, (which I dont think should be) Frost is still the tallest.

frost looks drastically taller to me already. i guess its the massive crown that does it.

[zx14]

That is true if they measured buildings like that however there will be maybe 100 people living and looking down on the highest occupied floors or frost from the 40th floor up.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by andrew.A..T..X

Yes it will be the tallest technically, but if you don't count the spire as official height, (which I dont think should be) Frost is still the tallest.

Ah, but eliminating that technicality would reduce Frost's height by about 90", hence 360 would be tallest either way... I think we've been through this before, though. Frost's crown is about as tall as 360's spire, both being decorative and not occupied. The crown does look more like part of the building, but if you count it you need to count the 360 spire.

[DTAustin]

Originally Posted by zx14

considering the floors are 10 feet on 360 that is 440 feet. Now add 22 feet for the 6 inches between floors and add 10 feet for the taller first floor and you get the 472 to the roof of the building where the spire is. Now it looks like the facade around the spire is 20 feet and each section of spire is 30 feet. So the base of the spire is 472 and the first section of spire is 502 and the second section is 532 where it is now. Add a 30 foot flag pole and it is 562 feet. I might have missed a foot somewhere but if you zoom in on the 360 sight you can kind of measure using the curser. So that said it is the tallest in austin right now by 17 feet soon to be by 37 feet or 38 feet. Come on 360 workers put the pole on top. Plus whie the glass is put on the spire it will really stand out.

I doubt the parking floors (2 - 8) will be 10 feet high, and I think the first floor is much higher than 10 feet. Maybe the 1st - 8th floors average to 10 feet because your numbers look fairly reasonable.

[DTAustin]

Originally Posted by Sexas

I alrways wonder do the "roof pole" at 360 doing anything (like cell phone tower, radio tower) ,or just purely a decor try to make his p*nis look bigger type of thing?

The purchase contract for 360 specifically gives an exclusive easement to the developer allowing him to use the communications chases for whatever he sees fit. I also believe it allows the developer to place antenna on the building, but I'm not sure.

It's kind of BS, because the developer gets to keep some valuable property (and revenues) from the building without having to pay for it.

[Gallup]

Originally Posted by andrew.A..T..X

Yes it will be the tallest technically, but if you don't count the spire as official height, (which I dont think should be) Frost is still the tallest.

This is really a debate? I remember when Petronas Towers passed the Sears Tower everyone complained about the fact that those on the top floor of Sears would be looking down on those on the top floor of Petronas. Plus those on that top floor of Sears would be on the 110th floor and those in Petronas would be on the 88th. In 360 those on the 44th floor would be looking down at those on the 33rd floor of Frost Tower. In other words neither of those arguments hold true here. I don’t get why this is even a conversation. Not that it matters anyway, the Austonian will tower over both allaying all your fears of who is the ‘actual’ tallest. Now I’m hoping for an 800’ T-Stacy office/hotel tower. He may ditch residential altogether which in the current climate who can blame him. Oh, if 21c would only break ground then I could truly sleep well at night. It would be such a loss for this city if we lose that prize.

[andrew.A..T..X]

Originally Posted by hookem

Ah, but eliminating that technicality would reduce Frost's height by about 90", hence 360 would be tallest either way... I think we've been through this before, though. Frost's crown is about as tall as 360's spire, both being decorative and not occupied.

Good point, but there is a big difference in a crown and a pole. A crown actually adds to the image of a building and is a very noticable and important part of a building. It takes an experienced architect to come up with a good looking crown that fits a building well. A 10 year old could take a flag pole and set it on the top of a building.

[andrew.A..T..X]

Originally Posted by Gallup

This is really a debate? I remember when Petronas Towers passed the Sears Tower everyone complained about the fact that those on the top floor of Sears would be looking down on those on the top floor of Petronas. Plus those on that top floor of Sears would be on the 110th floor and those in Petronas would be on the 88th. In 360 those on the 44th floor would be looking down at those on the 33rd floor of Frost Tower. In other words neither of those arguments hold true here. I don’t get why this is even a conversation. Not that it matters anyway, the Austonian will tower over both allaying all your fears of who is the ‘actual’ tallest. Now I’m hoping for an 800’ T-Stacy office/hotel tower. He may ditch residential altogether which in the current climate who can blame him. Oh, if 21c would only break ground then I could truly sleep well at night. It would be such a loss for this city if we lose that prize.

Chill buddy, im not trying to start a fight about it, I just think that a "crown" should be added to the height, but a pole shouldn't. Just stating opinion, thats all.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by andrew.A..T..X

Chill buddy, im not trying to start a fight about it, I just think that a "crown" should be added to the height, but a pole shouldn't. Just stating opinion, thats all.

A crown and a spire are both non-functional (except for antannae, etc), non occupied decorative items... Frost's crown does look very much like part of the building, but many don't. They are the same in my opinion.

Spires are more traditional -- think Empire State, Chrysler building. They can definitely be an integral part of the overall perceived height/look of a building. But again, sometimes they are done well, other times they are just a pole at the top of a building.

Again, only my opinion, but I happen to think 360's is done pretty well. It's not overbearing considering how tall the building is. The base is good, and it's got an asymetrical feature mirroring it at the back of the roof. It's really quite nice for what it is.