Burj Dubai -- world's tallest Building

[Cometmaker 0]

The only criteria that could possibly make sense is to measure the actual height. What is so difficult about that?

Here are some example criteria:

- height above ground

- height of highest level of occupancy

- height above ground including spire

- total height not including spire including sublevels

If you measure the total constructed height (to a solid natural base) of a building, offshore oil rigs are the tallest buildings.

[RayK 0]

The only criteria that could possibly make sense is to measure the actual height. What is so difficult about that?

Here are some example criteria:

- height above ground

- height of highest level of occupancy

- height above ground including spire

- total height not including spire including sublevels

If you measure the total constructed height (to a solid natural base) of a building, offshore oil rigs are the tallest buildings.

A building is defined as a roofed and walled stucture. And while there might be many tall structures, not all of them are buildings, instead they are some other type of structure. If we can agree on this definition then a spire should not be included in the height of a building as it is not roofed and walled. Nor could an offshore rig be considerd a very tall building as only a small amount is roofed and walled although it could be a tall stucture defined in a different way. There could possibly be many tall stuctures where the builder is claiming they have build the tallest stucture and that structure being properly defined.

[PhilO 0]

Ray - as a matter of actual fact though, there are different criteria being used when people talk about "the world's tallest building" because some *do* include spires, etc., so I think the point here is that such claims are fairly meaningless until the context is established (such as building with the highest inhabitable floor.)

[RayK 0]

Phil and Cometmaker, I agree with you both, if what you mean is that there should be a set of criteria properly defined and limited to some type of essentials. But once that criteria is defined it cannot be that difficult to measure which stucture is the tallest structure within their specific properly defined criteria.

[Cometmaker 0]

None of the "competitors" agree even among their own groups of designers and contractors on the criteria, let alone among other competitors. My statement in reply to Stussy88 is that there is no independent verification of this structure's current height, regardless of which criteria one uses, and despite the fact that it is easily measurable.

[RayK 0]

None of the "competitors" agree even among their own groups of designers and contractors on the criteria, let alone among other competitors. My statement in reply to Stussy88 is that there is no independent verification of this structure's current height, regardless of which criteria one uses, and despite the fact that it is easily measurable.

I understand that, so what? One should then define the criteria and then invite one's competitors to verify according to your standards.

[Stussy88 0]

The only criteria that could possibly make sense is to measure the actual height. What is so difficult about that?

Here are some example criteria:

- height above ground

- height of highest level of occupancy

- height above ground including spire

- total height not including spire including sublevels

If you measure the total constructed height (to a solid natural base) of a building, offshore oil rigs are the tallest buildings.

Forgive me, but are you not just being perverse?

Surely you would accept that the height of the Empire State building includes the spire as measured from the ground? One would not say a cathedral is say two-storey because the spire is disqualified since no-one actually occupies the bell tower, anymore than one would say that some of London's tallest buildings are tube stations because of their depth into the earth?

[Cometmaker 0]

Forgive me, but are you not just being perverse?

Surely you would accept that the height of the Empire State building includes the spire as measured from the ground? One would not say a cathedral is say two-storey because the spire is disqualified since no-one actually occupies the bell tower, anymore than one would say that some of London's tallest buildings are tube stations because of their depth into the earth?

I see you are unaware these example criteria and measurements aren't my methods of measurement.

[Paul's Here 0]

The only criteria that could possibly make sense is to measure the actual height. What is so difficult about that?

Here are some example criteria:

- height above ground

- height of highest level of occupancy

- height above ground including spire

- total height not including spire including sublevels

If you measure the total constructed height (to a solid natural base) of a building, offshore oil rigs are the tallest buildings.

Forgive me, but are you not just being perverse?

Surely you would accept that the height of the Empire State building includes the spire as measured from the ground? One would not say a cathedral is say two-storey because the spire is disqualified since no-one actually occupies the bell tower, anymore than one would say that some of London's tallest buildings are tube stations because of their depth into the earth?

There are several ways to calculate the answer because it depends upon what how you define what it is you are measuring. The addition of spires does not make a building taller. See some issues here. As mentioned there,

If you count only habitable space and measure from the sidewalk level of the main entrance to the structural top of building (excluding flagpoles and spires), then Chicago's Sears Tower, built in 1974, may still be the tallest building in the world.

[Stussy88 0]

Forgive me, but are you not just being perverse?

Surely you would accept that the height of the Empire State building includes the spire as measured from the ground? One would not say a cathedral is say two-storey because the spire is disqualified since no-one actually occupies the bell tower, anymore than one would say that some of London's tallest buildings are tube stations because of their depth into the earth?

I see you are unaware these example criteria and measurements aren't my methods of measurement.

To cite criteria one does not support seems an unusual method in debate.

[KPO'M 0]

Forgive me, but are you not just being perverse?

Surely you would accept that the height of the Empire State building includes the spire as measured from the ground? One would not say a cathedral is say two-storey because the spire is disqualified since no-one actually occupies the bell tower, anymore than one would say that some of London's tallest buildings are tube stations because of their depth into the earth?

I see you are unaware these example criteria and measurements aren't my methods of measurement.

There's an organization based in Chicago that has defined some generally accepted measurements of tall buildings:

http://www.ctbuh.org/

Lest you think they have any hometown bias, they are the ones who declared that the Petronas Towers passed up the Sears Tower back in the 1990s. As a partial sop, they created the "highest occupied floor" "top of roof" and "floor to tip" measurements (though Taipei 101 has passed it on 2 counts), but have always viewed the "architectural top" as their most significant measurement.

[RickWilmes 0]

Lest you think they have any hometown bias, they are the ones who declared that the Petronas Towers passed up the Sears Tower back in the 1990s. As a partial sop, they created the "highest occupied floor" "top of roof" and "floor to tip" measurements (though Taipei 101 has passed it on 2 counts), but have always viewed the "architectural top" as their most significant measurement.

Here is my standard of measurement. I walk up to the front door of the building. I reset my watch, which has an altimeter, to zero. I than enter the building and ride the elevator to the top floor. I than find access to the roof of the building and go to the roof. I then take a look at my watch and determine the height. I do not care who is living on the floors beneath me or whether or not they are counting the 13th floor. All I know is that when I stood at the entrance to the buildiing I zeroed out my altimeter and when I reached the roof it gave me a measurement. As far as I am concerned, this is the height of the building. I then I think, so what?

[Arnold 0]

Lest you think they have any hometown bias, they are the ones who declared that the Petronas Towers passed up the Sears Tower back in the 1990s. As a partial sop, they created the "highest occupied floor" "top of roof" and "floor to tip" measurements (though Taipei 101 has passed it on 2 counts), but have always viewed the "architectural top" as their most significant measurement.

Here is my standard of measurement. I walk up to the front door of the building. I reset my watch, which has an altimeter, to zero. I than enter the building and ride the elevator to the top floor. I than find access to the roof of the building and go to the roof. I then take a look at my watch and determine the height. I do not care who is living on the floors beneath me or whether or not they are counting the 13th floor. All I know is that when I stood at the entrance to the buildiing I zeroed out my altimeter and when I reached the roof it gave me a measurement. As far as I am concerned, this is the height of the building. I then I think, so what?

Are you lying down, or standing when you take the reading?

[RickWilmes 0]

Are you lying down, or standing when you take the reading?

Thank you, Arnold. Since you ask, I am standing on my hands in tribute to Leonard Peikoff's History of Philosophy courses.

[PhilO 0]

Are you lying down, or standing when you take the reading?

It wouldn't matter as long as the position was the same each time. e.g.:

measured height = (actual height + position offset) - (position offset) = actual height

The bigger issue is that the watch altimeter is most likely working by measuring air pressure which would would not be very accurate in this context. Even a low end GPS reading, especially one reading taken quickly, would not be that accurate.

[Cometmaker 0]

To cite criteria one does not support seems an unusual method in debate.

For my future clarity in communication, can you tell me if it would have been easier and clearer to see that I was making statements of fact rather than statements of my position, if I had simply linked to external sites as other posting members had done?

[Paul's Here 0]

To cite criteria one does not support seems an unusual method in debate.

For my future clarity in communication, can you tell me if it would have been easier and clearer to see that I was making statements of fact rather than statements of my position, if I had simply linked to external sites as other posting members had done?

No. Your intention was clear to me. You cited commonly accepted methods of measurement, and said "Pick one". You needn't have a particular preference. I don't find simply linking to sites without giving the essential point to be a very informative method of arguing or debating.

[B. Royce 0]

To cite criteria one does not support seems an unusual method in debate.

For my future clarity in communication, can you tell me if it would have been easier and clearer to see that I was making statements of fact rather than statements of my position, if I had simply linked to external sites as other posting members had done?

No. Your intention was clear to me. You cited commonly accepted methods of measurement, and said "Pick one". You needn't have a particular preference. I don't find simply linking to sites without giving the essential point to be a very informative method of arguing or debating.

I agree with Paul. Your intention was clear to me.

[Jay P 0]

Altimeters? GPS? Umm... why not just stand on the ground and measure the shadow cast by the building compared to the shadow cast by a stick of a known height?? That is, assuming it really mattered to you.

I'm content to let people who actually care about such things split hairs and argue about which building in the world is really the tallest.

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

Altimeters? GPS? Umm... why not just stand on the ground and measure the shadow cast by the building compared to the shadow cast by a stick of a known height?? That is, assuming it really mattered to you.

I'm content to let people who actually care about such things split hairs and argue about which building in the world is really the tallest.

You could just stand a little distance away, make a measurement at ground level then make another measurement on some angle up to the top. There you have two sides of a right triangle, you know what to do

[Free Capitalist 0]

Take a look at this:

http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/2008/08..._dubai_1009.jpg

[piz 0]

Take a look at this:

http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/2008/08..._dubai_1009.jpg

Is that an actual photo? Because it looks like one of those "artist's conception" things.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Looks to be an actual photo. It's from the official website and has a date stamp on it. Besides, the top with the cranes would look less real if 3d-generated.

[Joss Delage 0]

Nowadays, what are the challenges involved in building the tallest building in the world? I'm genuinely ignorant of engineering generally, and civil engineering in particular. My first thought was that for gradual height increments the challenges were more in execution & financing than in innovation, and that the engineering improvements for each building were gradual, and not especially driven by the XYZ metters added. I.e., that the technology used to build this tower would be roughly comparable to the one used to build any tower of similar design, standing, & prestige, even if not among the absolute tallest. Am I wrong?

[Free Capitalist 0]

There are major structural impediments that had forbidden the World Trade Center towers to be taller than they were -- first and foremost, wind resistance. The further a building rises from the earth and away from the earth's rotational inertia, the more the air will buffet it. Think of 50 mph winds, perpetually buffeting the tower even at perfectly calm weather. Then add storms to that. Also earthquakes. Such were the physical limitations that have put a very real cap on how tall skyscrapers could be just a decade or two ago. I'm not sure how Burj plans to solve that.