Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrodill
I was always under the impression,that a tower, or maybe a better term would be tall building, was dependent on the surrounding buildings? ie: If a structure was 80M, as the # of floors are not always an accurate measure,floor to ceiling, and the surrounding buildings in the area were all 50-70M even if if they were 9 flrs 10 flrs..etc..that the 80M blg even at 10 flrs. for example would be considered a tower?
If the bldg. was located in a smaller urban setting where 11-12 flrs or 80M plus was one of the tallest structures and towered above the surrounding buildings. Is this not a tower? In a perspective point of view?
Curious what architects and others think?
|
Official definitions:
Oxford: a tall narrow building, either free-standing or forming part of a building such as a church or castle:
Merriam-Webster: a building or structure typically higher than its diameter and high relative to its surroundings that may stand apart (as a campanile) or be attached (as a church belfry) to a larger structure and that may be fully walled in or of skeleton framework (as an observation or transmission tower)
I'm not sure about the relative nature definiton. Would the Richardson building not be a tower if it was located in Manhattan?