Hence why part of the criteria is "a spire, which neither be added or be removed". Its like saying youre born with a freakishly long neck and so is part of your overall height.
I think they should use the highest occupied floor for the tallest buildings. It incentivizes actually making the buildings useful to the highest floor where now all buildings have a spire to „cheat“ on their height
I care about 3 metrics, and as such, want 3 lists: 1) highest occupied floor 2) highest roofline/top of structure before narrow pointy bois 3) highest overall reach, including antennae
@@SoloRenegade I don't necessarily want countries to be building skyscrapers on mountains just to make a vanity project though. Less oxygen up there. But it would be an interesting little tid bit.
@@SoloRenegade Highest into (out of?) the atmosphere and furthest from the centre are not the same thing, though. And how ‘high’ is a building on the moon going to be? ;)
Height by occupied floor is the only measure that matters to me. Where can a person stand within the building? By that measure, Central Park Tower is the tallest in the US.
That seems most reasonable to me, too. I mean, you could tack a spire a few hundred feet tall on a much shorter building and claim it's the world's tallest building.
@checkoutmyyoutubepage so there should be THOUSANDS of planets? The Sun is orbited by 8 planets, at least 5 dwarf planets and tens of thousands of asteroids. The criteria that a planet needs enough mass to gravitationally sweep the trash in its neighborhood is a reasonable one to cut off all the small rocks out there. Pluto isn't even the 9th most massive, we just found it before other dwarf planets.
My brother and I use to try and memorize every city in the world by their skylines and we would obsess over the tallest buildings in the world, but when we found out they counted the freaking antennas we lost it. We always counted it by the number of stories and how high the building was in feet from the base of street level to the last story.
@@TheMuteemChannel I agree and disagree. For architectural reasons, they can be different, but if you count the height of just one why not just build a pole spire to be the tallest in a race of pointy peaks? It turns it less into a meaning, and more into, "we added a pointy hat on top!" It's like comparing a hat that adds height to hair, but because you can remove hats easier you only count hair. Now everyone grows out their hair and styles it tall to be legally 7 feet tall. Just count to the base of the roofing. It means that domes, spires, antennae, etc. are all no longer considered true height, and sets all architectural features on even playing fields.
Using number of floors to compare buildings is terrible, because different buildings have different floor heights. The Hancock Centre in Chicago is 334 metres tall with 100 floors, but The Pinnacle in Guangzhou is 360 metres tall with 60 floors.
If a vanity element like a spire counts for height, then so does a functional non-integral element like an antenna. Simple as. (Sit down Petronas Towers)
I would argue that the Sears tower should still be considered taller than One World Trade Center. One World Trade Center was *planned* with a spire, but at some point the spire was changed to a bare antenna, therefore it should not count towards the building's height. Of course, that would ruin the whole 1776 feet thing.
It’s funny you say that. I have said similar things after learning the ridiculous criteria for the “tallest building” . I really want a developer to make a 2 story building with a 200 story Spire….a spire so tall and so ridiculous that the definition would get changed. It would be nearly impossible to do given the costs involved, the lack of interest from investors, and all the regulations from government agencies governing the airspace above. I just want someone to take absurdity to its absurd end. I’d gladly pay $50.00 to go to the observation deck of the world’s tallest building if that observation deck was on the second or third floor.
1. Holding up such a structure like a 10 mile stick would in itself require so much architectural and engineering work that the effort required would need to be similar to the effort of building a traditional skyscraper. 2. Attaching it to your house would mean it’s an antenna, not an architectural spire. It was not in the planning of your house. 3. It is technically not even a tower, as most of the building is not used for habitable/functional purposes. So, it is more like a structure than a building/tower.
i mean if youre able to develop and produce enough of a material that can be made into a 10 mile long cylindrical object that is thin enough to be considered a "stick" that can also withstand being stood upright, i think you might just win the nobel prize with just the "stick" lols
The antenna vs. spire thing is so dumb. I say that most antennae are dual purpose. Visual design elements that are also handy for radio frequency communication. Maybe the height should be measured from the sidewalk to the floor of the top habitable level. It would be the difference in elevation that you experience when you interact with the structure. That way, cathedral ceilings, antennae, and spires don't come into play. We don't measure a person's height by including their platform shoes and 6" afro.
I think the point is, buildings which are built with antenna in mind are designed to still look good without them while buildings with spires will just look wrong without them
@@gabrielarrhenius6252 That's debatable and subjective. The elevation height of a floor you are standing on is not debatable. Not logically debatable at least.
Just want to compliment you supporting Givewell; the difference between ineffective and effective charity is literally 100-fold at times, it makes such an amazing difference to support the right charities! I am happy to see their work getting more press.
For literally a century in exchange for a single billion dollars. The city plows through SIXTEEN BILLION a year! all of the street parking for as long as anyone alive today shall live got sold for 1/16th of the yearly budget. What the fuck even happened there?
@@zekewalker1350 not related to this video therefore best saved for political demonizing our cities in the ideology war we created thankfully one man to thank our Twitter and chief one. Even small cities and counties chose ill-advised moves all over this nation. My small city and county certainly did and it is as Red as someone's tie of choice. Both corrupt and broke and abandoned more or less by Corporate America for its Union past in Appalachia and they left their old mills to rot allowed to. Still very cheap to live so fine by me in retirement now LOL.
Along with the double whammy of the Skyway. You're right though parking affects far more people but did you see that the Skyway rates are going up again? I know, you're as shocked as I am.
@@timmmahhhh Just nothing to do with skyscrapers and our current political demonizing and American hate of its own cities and half or more of its people causes not debates but literally loathing, name-calling and labeling our whole cities as cess-pools even vs that politician even.... as a local you promote that NEGATIVITY in our current era of division by our IDEOLOGY WAR and certain media promotes city-hate by it and of course red vs blue period.
the sears tower is so sentimental to me because my grandpa who passed away in 2010 was from Chicago, and he would tell me so many stories about that building and told me one day he was gonna take me there but sadly when I was 11, he died. A year later my Aunt and uncle came down to visit us in NC from Iowa and asked me if I wanted to go back with them for a month. They ended up surprising me with the detour to Chicago and I was able to actually go on the Sears Tower ( got changed to the willis tower by that time) and see the sky deck! It almost felt unreal to be in Chicago, and be on the Willis Tower, and it was almost bitter sweet because it wasn’t with my grandpa, but it felt almost like divine intervention the way all that went down.
The Sears Tower will always be the Sears tower to me and I’m from Nashville. I think that is the most iconic looking skyscraper I’ve ever seen. The views at night when it’s clear are breathtaking.
@@archangelcharlie That's a bit of an apples and oranges thing there. Yes, technically, it is the Willis Tower, the issue is that there isn't enough marketing to get people outside of the Chicago area to pay attention. Those in the Chicago area may just refuse to accept the change. Renaming sports venues works a bit better because there's a ton of money involved in marking things related to the venue, so people will tend to accept it over time more regularly.
I worked across in a building across the street from the Sears Tower when it was being built. I remember when Mayor Richard J. Daley autographed the last girder. I remember eating in a cafeteria in it four stories below street level. My most vivid memory was when the wind blew out some windows during construction and showered our building, and several others, with broken glass. You can fact check how far the cafeteria was below street level, but I remember going down some escalators from street level.
it's always been addressed tho. pretty much since the petronas towers were completed, every comparison just showed the sears towers top floor being much higher than the petronas towers top floors, meaning every report also had to include the whole spiel about "spires being a permanent part of the structure but antennae are not". i think folks just let their emotions take over and preferred to feel faux outrage. except for malaysians... the outrage over there is REAL. petronas towers cost a ton to the govt, which was both incompetent and corrupt. the twin towers had a very high inoccupancy rate for many years (haven't checked recently) and became an empty symbol of "malaysian pride", since it was clearly a white elephant. altho i think sears also went out of business? but not too sure if that actually meant low occupancy rate in sears/willis tower. ultimately, skyscrapers are just not a very good idea in terms of modern urban design, especially factoring in energy efficiency and population density vs transport/logistics. skyscrapers generally consume quite a lot more power per occupant than shorter buildings with similar occupancy. they also warp traffic conditions around them, requiring a lot more infrastructure to support it (and i'm not just talking about burj khalifa's infamous poop trucks).
I think it should be measured from the bottom open air pedestrian entrance to the top of the last enclosed workable floor in other words you can put a desk in there and use it as an office. No spires counted no antenna.
@@jordanwutkee2548 if it is an actual enclosed floor it counts. If someone can walk around inside or work inside (this doesn't mean office work, plumming, electrical work all that is still work). Then it counts.
The Chicago hate is real. The Sears Tower was built in 1973 & somehow still looks more attractive & more dominant than any other super tall skyscraper in the United States & arguably in the world.
@@JoeOvercoat that building fast been used by sears for majority of its existence. Litterally all of the lines point away from the sears name. Get over it.
This is great. Thanks to both of you for being good sports, and to Stewart for creating content that reinforces healthy disagreement and dialogue as a means of challenging one's own beliefs, learning something, and maybe even changing one's mind.
Seriously though, the antennae to me are integral to the aesthetic of the building to me. The Sears Tower would look noticeably different without then.
@@vidcas1711 And indeed, the Sears Tower looks much different today than when it was first completed. It's antennae were much shorter, stubbier (and, to my mind, cooler looking). Here's one angle: live.staticflickr.com/4073/5432157253_289490c0ba_b.jpg
@@vidcas1711 Years ago, in Golden Nugget restaurant, on the cover of the menu, it had an old picture of Sears without the antennas. It looked so weird! Besides that, I say we make the antennas of the Sears a permanent feature (a spire) and retake the tallest building! Heck, make it even taller! Mwahahaha!
Yes I never understood to build a whole building and at the top and end do a cost-cutting of eliminating the sheathing it to look SLEEK as a more true spire..... it LOOKS like a antenna because of that but I do not believe they have any sort of broadcast from the spire portion?
@@davidw7 Actually David, those actually are antennae. I remember when they were much shorter (presumably spires) when it was first built, but it was only a few years before they added the antennae. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Tower#Broadcasting
Why not? Sure the ones that were pointed out in this particular video are kind of silly, but they aren't always so silly and drawing a line between that and a regular roof can be tricky.
I'll never forget this, about 15 years ago my cousin, friend and I were up in the city just kinda exploring, having fun. Well we all decided hey, we been up here so many times but never been up in the Sear-Willis Tower! And I was younger so I wasnt as direction savvy as I am now so we were a little lost, and I kept asking people on the street like hey, you know which way the Willis tower is? EVERYONE I asked looked at me and kinda laughed and would go "Uhh yeah, the Sears tower is that way.."
Easy answer: (1) write a function of adding another little piece of "building" to make it taller mapping to difficulty for a building, (2) simplify each aspect of that function such that it can be explained to a high school student, including the definition of a building, (3) combine the difficulty of all structures and say what you will...
Born and raised in Chicago, and Al’s doesn’t hit anymore. They skimp on the meat and don’t dip the bread like they used to. A lot of the natives Chicago moved to the suburbs. Johnnie’s Beef is where it’s is at now
I am 52. When I was young I heard a lot of talk about how if you wanted to build tall you need to use steel. The last 25 or so have been interesting because concrete has dethroned steel to become the new king of building big.
As far as I know the Petronas towers are the tallest noteworthy buildings to rely mostly on concrete for their structure. Everything else uses a ton of steel.
@@AnHebrewChild there are actually some videos on it with the specific values discussed here on TH-cam. An the videos give examples of massive structures humans actually considered building that would make the world's tallest skyscraper look like a toothpick. I believe one of these concept structures was envisioned for Tokyo. Search the, Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid
This is like when the Guinness book of records dethroned the Causeway bridge in NOLA as the world's longest in favor of a Chinese bridge that spanned several patches of dry ground (The Causeway is 24 miles over open water)
Guinness is not about the truth, it's about marketing. I don't know wether or not the Chinese land bridge truly trumps the American one but you shouldn't take Guinness' records so seriously.
@@theviniso I don't take it seriously, it was just a real sore point for the locals. They petitioned Guinness about it and got a new category of bridge added for longest span over open water.
@@theviniso it's easy to say that but when the difference between "best" and "second best" is 200 million a year in tourist economy, the truth matters.
Guinness is a good beer, but not a good record company. It's literally, "pay us an assload of money and we will BS a new record for you." Heck, they even reject record attempts that are easily broken because the original person paid them more or was popular. A lot of gaming related records they have are easily beaten, but because some big name person did it they will never undo it.
From what I can tell, there's no requirement that a causeway be over open water, water, or even wetness at all. So, the issue isn't Guinness or the Chinese, that's just working as intended.
Always and forever the Sears Tower. In grade school in the 1970s, I went to the Scholastic book fair every year to get my new copy of the Guinness Book of World Records and all of those years, the Sears was the tallest. My son lives in Chicago and when we visit, I always speak to the tower to let it know that it will always be the tallest building in the world in my heart.
Chicago should build a tower that has a height of 890feet by highest inhabitable floor but with a very thin spire that rises to 1778feet and declare it the tallest building in America.
Fortunately, Chicago still has the most beautiful tower, the John Hancock. It's what the ancient Romans would have built if they had steel. An enormous, elegant, crossed braced siege tower. Love your work. Regards
@@Blackadder75 Hi, well when the designer Bruce Graham had it built in 1968, Star Wars was still an unrealized cheesy idea from George Lucas. I do think Graham would be very familiar with the many engravings of tapered roman siege towers, however, the same ones easily accessed with Google nowadays. The structural sobriety and severity of Roman architecture is nicely reflected in Hancock's pure structure, with no concessions to decoration or embellishment. Cheers.
@@appa609 The ancient Romans had limited, primitive forms of tool steel for tools and weapons, and did not generally avail themselves of the wootz or Damascus forging methods available at the time. They did not have structural steel for buildings, unless I'm missing the archaeological discoveries of wide flanges, channels, and angles buried in Roman soil. Perhaps all the of the ancient Roman structural steel has corroded into dust, and we're missing the whole era of ancient steel Roman buildings, but I highly doubt it. Cheers
Not from Chicago, but love the city, its rich archictural heritages, amazing food and the openly verbal people that lives there. this video somehow reminds of all those things I loved about Chicago... Anyways, I'm just here to say Al's Italian beef is the best, and that building is forever Sears Tower for me.
Arguably the Sears Tower remains one of the tallest buildings in the world. If you measure by volume, most of the taller towers (including the Burj Kalifa) habitable floorspace above the top floor of the Sears tower are nothing but “vanity floors” or small condos and offices that make up a very small percentage of the building’s total square feet. If you put a spire on a building and fill it with tiny floors, should this count for total height ? I think a better measure of height would include some kind of volumetric percentage of each floor as the building rises. This would make a much better comparison.
There is no argument that the Sears Tower is 'one of the tallest buildings in the world', but introducing a volumetric criterion to consider it taller than the Burj Khalifa is stretching the definition of tallness to a point of meaningless.
Yes, this! I know some samples are very difficult to judge (ie. Burj Khalifa and Chrysler Building), but generally one can make a pretty clear distinction between roof height and ornamentation.
@@theviniso I already consider CPT the tallest in the US. Shanghai tower vs. Burj Khalifa is a harder call. Roof height is sometimes impossible to pin down.
"From sea-level or the lowest inhabited floor (whichever is higher) to the roof of the highest occupied floor" solves everything, decoration is just that, optional. Any floors that aren't used don't count, and you measure it with a 45 degree laser and Pythagorean mathematics.
Your proposed sea level rule would be unfair to anyone building a skyscraper in some place that's situated below sea level, like Death Valley or much of Holland.
Laughing my head off at the Sears/Willis _corrections_ 😂 I remember writing an essay at college about the Petronas towers when they were new. Fascinating structure, but yeah, taller than the Sears tower? Technicality!
About time someone addresses this!!!!! It always ticked me off how they have short changed the Sears Tower when compared to the Petronas and the One World Trade. I hope Chicago can get back in the race and build "The Illinois" which is a future concept in Chicago that Metaballstudio showed in their skyscraper video.
Thank you for this thorough , comprehensive video on the subject. I'm old enough to remember the pride of saying "Sears tower is the world's tallest building" as a kid and it was easily my favorite back then. I think the measuring criteria has an arbitrary aspect to it but for me the time factor is far more relevant . Empire State building was tallest for 40 yrs, Sears tower for 26 yrs. Petronas' held it for less than that. WHo knows how long Burj Kalifa will hold it? I also found it funny the CTBUH spokesman could notremember the name of the old Prudential building (with the tall antenna) which used to be Chicago's tallest in the 1960s.
Burj Khalifa will probably hold it for a long time unless the Jeddah Tower gets finished. No one outside of the Middle East is building anything over 2000 feet going forward.
We have the same problem. Here in Los Angeles, we have the US Bank Tower vs. Wilshire Grand. The US Bank tower is more prominent and has a higher roof height, but the Wilshire Grand has a dinky spire. Look, I love the Wilshire Grand. The lights and screen at the top make for cool light shows, but its not actually the tallest and no one here thinks it is.
i agree i have been to the Wilshire grand hotel its nice but i dont think it should count but i will say this if the Wilshire grand wasnt built San Francisco would actaully hold the title of tallest building west of the Mississippi so la is lucky
Indeed it is, but I somehow can't help but feel that Kuala Lumpur is on the map architecture-wise mostly due to the fact that its tallest buildings claiming to be the tallest in the world (or one of) are only so due to their spires height and not highest occupied floor/roofheight. I still see Shanghai Tower as taller than merdeka 118 but because of its 500ft+ spire it's still classified as taller. It's as If I were 5'11" and extended my arm vertically and claimed to be 7ft+. Otherwise, just vanity height. That said, I find myself constantly looking at videos of mb118 since it has such an odd form and design that's weirdly elegant in its own unique way, which I still can't make out its design. One of the coolest looking skyscrapers no doubt.
My dad used to work in the sears/willis tower. (Also btw I'm used to calling it the Willis tower because my dad worked for Willis) I loved the "bring your kid to work" days because I could look out the window of his office from way up high. (He didn't work at the very top of the building, but he worked pretty high up)
Some of Downtown Chicago's buildings are so tall that on a lot of low cloudy days, the building tops vanish into the clouds. It's weird, if you work in the building's upper floors it looks like it's foggy outside or like there's a storm, but when you step outside on the ground you'll see the weather's fine. A cloud/fog just floated into/around the top of building. Looking up at it, it looks like the sky is falling.
that is true in Seattle too and I would bet that it's also true in San Francisco though I haven't seen it. Seattle has tall buildings too but they are not as tall as in Chicago. Whether or not you can see the tops of the buildings has to do with the height of the fog, not just the height of the buildings.
Those window sections that jut outwards just a bit so you can look straight down is scary AF when your sight goes from looking at the surrounding horizon to "Hey, I wonder how it looks do... holy jeebus!!!" Also having to use the express elevator to get to the viewing deck near the top is crazy fast compared to the usual slow elevators we're used to.
The definitions of the council also created a controversy in Minneapolis… quite a story about whether a rooftop equipment “shed” is part of the building…
Could someone please “sunset” the term “curtain wall”? I know…I know…it will probably never happen. It has been confusing architecture students and the half-dozen “civilians” who actually care for generations now. IMO…the correct term should really be “stacked wall” because 99% of modern exterior cladding systems are actually “stacked” on building structures…usually floor slab and spandrel edges using a wide array of construction techniques and components. Facades rarely “hang” like curtains. Exceptions include Norman Fosters “Willis Faber and Dumas Building” (facade by structural engineer Peter Rice) and Gordon Bunshaft’s bronze and glass cube at the Beinecke Library at Yale. People continue to call virtually any mass masonry exterior wall building that is steel framed and supports the exterior wall’s gravity loads on a floor-by-floor basis a “curtain wall”.
Still the key words are still - load-bearing - as the elephant in the room and were stone and brick but still owed its load bearing to the interior steel frame as it WAS if it is - Load-Bearing. Still if load bearing even in part? A 10 story building would have a base a few feet thick as some do especially those transitional ones or chose both. The Monadnock building Chicago utilizes BOTH and its hidden steel interior AND exterior brick and stone ... BOTH support the load of the building and is NOT labeled as having a - curtain wall. The visibly thick brick walls are therefore-- six-feet-thick at the corners -- and does support the building's weight at the perimeters, but are also aided elsewhere by a hidden steel framework. So both standards are utilized. We use the term - cladding for granite etc. slapped onto a exterior other than just a metal and glass sheathing.
@@timmmahhhh How about “shelf wall”? LOL, yeah…I have been living with the term curtain wall for 45 years and acknowledge that it is totally embedded in architecture terminology from architectural history to textbooks to manufacturers literature and on and on. Just couldn’t resist a short rant since most curtain walls I have done as a professional have been stacks of bricks that sit on shelf angles. I also dislike “storefront”…another architectural component term that will probably outlast the existence of actual stores. BTW…the late brilliant structural engineer Lev Zeitlin once developed a structural concept for a high-rise that was nearly 100% tensile. Was a huge fan of wire rope but in the end didn’t actually build much with it. More curtain-floor than curtain-wall.
@@davidw7 Here in New Haven CT, Yale University has an entire collegiate gothic style residential college campus built in the teens, twenties and thirties with steel frames and exterior cladding of granite, brick and structural clay tile. I have heard some architects still refer to these low-rise exteriors as curtain walls. Interesting, steel frames were selected for these buildings for speed. Building around a steel armature instead of sequentially starting by “piling rocks” allowed more work to be done simultaneously. Structures were topped off and enclosed much more quickly…especially on the buildings which have very complex and highly articulated gothic style exteriors.
Merdeka 118 in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia is only 495 meters tall judging by the roof height, but it claimed to be 2nd tallest building in the world at 680 meters tall because it have 190 meters tall spire 😅
1/3 of Burj Khalifa's official height is a spire... Limits should be put on how much a spire can contribute to a building's total height. That's ridiculous.
It also seems wrong to be classified as the worlds tallest building, because you have to follow these architectural rules, but one of the rules doesn’t include having its own septic system from day one
That is true, but atleast the shape is built into fit with the building and the highest occupied floor is still high. Merdeka spire is just a glorified stick that is about 25% of its height.
As a kid in the 80s living in Indiana, I took vicarious pride in the Sear's Tower. Hell yeah, that's my neighbor's building! So the incredulity really hit me when it was "dethroned" by the Petulant Towers.
Currently in Brazil they added a pinnacle in the Yatchhouse skycraper only to pass One Tower from the same city (Balneário Camboriú), and this pinnacle is right next to the helipad making helicopters divert to land.
@@SoloRenegade umm, yes, they do unfortunately when built with the building. One World Trade's top floor is about 1320 feet high, but it has an over 400-foot spire on top, that is how it gets its 1776 height.
@@richh650 No research required. I do not acknowledge illogical standards created by private people. Any criteria I define is equally valid as theirs, and my criteria disqualifies spires. spires don't count.
I suppose mentioning the current tallest building makes this video more timeless, but I would have liked a mention on the Burj Khalifa. But as always, loved the video!
I realize this is off topic, but in years to come it will become widely discussed that Sears was poised to remain a huge retailer, possibly the largest. It had a tremendous catalogue and mail order business which is essentially what todays e-commerce is. They had deals with IBM and AOL for e-commerce. I remember buying my IBM PC that came preloaded with all that software. It was bought and sold off in pieces to run it in the ground and be destroyed for maximum profit.
People already talk about this. Sears was the AMAZON of mail order shopping. You could buy anything, including a house, from Sears. They died out because they couldn't transition to online shopping fast enough, and got superseded by Amazon who did what they did but online.
That sandwich looks good. The tallest buildings here in Australia by floor height are in Melbourne but the tallest building in the country has an antenna which is on the gold coast.
Another informative, entertaining video by Hicks, with fine photography and other graphics and the participation of the CTBUH official -though he might have pointed out that Skydeck Chicago is still the highest observation deck in The US, at 1353 ft. / 412 m., versus NY's One World Observatory: 1268 ft / 386 m.. That said, the CN Tower SkyPod in Toronto beats both, at 1465 ft. / 447 m., just a smidgen higher than the roof of Willis / Sears. Hicks could do a piece on skyscraper observation "decks" or "platforms." Thanks ...
I thought spires didn't count to height because you can just slap a ridiculously tall spire onto the top of a not very tall building and have it count as "the world's tallest building" even though the actual building part isn't tall
My thoughts, exactly. You could have a building half the height of the current world's tallest, stick on a spire whose height is equal to the height of the building plus a foot, and say "there, the new world's tallest building!".
@@d.b.4671 There is also the Millennium Tower that is San Francisco’s equivalent of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Will tourists be flocking to see it in the future?😀
WE NEED TO BRING AWARENESS TO THE WEST! Some years ago the SalesForce Tower in SF dethroned the U.S. Bank building in LA as the tallest building in the west. This was absolutely fair. But then LA built some stupid “Wiltshire Grand Tower,” which is not actually taller than either of the aforementioned buildings if not for its spire. And I know art is subjective, but that spire is an unsightly thing that does not match the design language of the rest of the curvy building. It’s just there, on this short building. I believe (and you all should to) that SalesForce Tower is the tallest building west of the Mississippi River. Thank you
The measurement I would use is: 'Where is the highest place I can look outside the window?' And not on a technicality like the elevator door to the top of the spire has a window in it, I mean a window of a livingroom/bedroom/office you know? A spire or w/e is pretty, but if it's not usable space, it feels kind of pointless.
even tho One World Trade Center isnt technically the tallest in america, so isnt Sears Tower tho because theres a taller building on middle manhattan near Central Park called the Central Park Tower (it has no spire and measures 480 meters)
So what is the difference between a spire and an antenna? If I put communication equipment on top of a spire, does it then become an antenna? If I dress an antenna up nicely or just confidently call it a "spire", does that turn it into a spire? And if I put a super tall spire on top of a not-so-tall building, could I get the title of tallest building that way?
That was sarcasm by the way. Aspire is nothing more than a pointy tip on top of a building. It has no significance as far as the structure of the actual building is concerned. you could make a spire that was 500 feet long, but that doesn't make your building any more remarkable than it's top floor..
@team3am149 Thanks for the informative update. You've provided me with a very new perspective. I've completely changed my mind. I promise I'm being serious.
Fighting to have the biggest tower has been going on for centuries. Like in Belgium, Antwerp has the biggest church tower: 124.9m, completed in 1521. But they took the record from Bruges: 115.6m, competed in 1465. That's 56 years later for a mere 9.3m extra.
Pro Tip: every metric is useful until people start consciously aiming for it. Then people just manipulate their way to a higher ranking, making the metric increasingly less informative over time.
Not when you make the metric specific early on, then if people start aiming to manipulate their way in then they are creating unique buildings, "from sea-level to the roof of the highest occupied floor" doesn't allow for much manipulation but if the building has a restaurant on the 120th floor of the spire, fine they have managed to build that and pay people to work up their. If the restaurant is closed because it is unsafe, congratulations you go from 1st to 50th.
@@TheOmegaXicor Your definition of skyscraper would make sense if this applied in a place like Florida, where it is extremely flat and close to sea level, but unfortunately, people build cities in high places. Luckily, someone had a similar question on Quora and did the work for us: Paste this after the Quora homepage link : [/What-building-s-roof-is-the-highest-above-sea-level-in-the-world], for Peter Wade's answer to this question. The largest problem you will run into are buildings like the Public Investment Fund Tower in Saudi Arabia, being in the top 100 tallest buildings, but with an elevation of 991m (beating any on the top 100 list) due to that building being built in a mountainous region/country it suddenly is the tallest in the world. The cities of Denver, Colorado or Lhasa, China who are on even higher mountains and have tall buildings are additional arguments against that definition. You run into shenanigan problems, as someone will just build a "skyscraper" in definition in a place like Chile or Nepal in a decently reasonably accessible place. Boom! The base camp to Mt Everest will get a skyscraper just to have an excuse for world's tallest skyscraper, but it'd be like a single or double stored building, only barely qualifying as a skyscraper, or suddenly there is a dormitory building near an astronomical observatory that "just so happens" to fit the qualifications of a skyscraper. Especially if it is "from sea-level to the roof of the highest occupied floor". Tl;dr: But mountains exist, and skyscrapers exist on mountains, tall ones too. Suddenly, with that definition, the Burj Khalifa is now very low on a very long list.
The Sears Tower is taller in every way than the Petronas Towers. 1.) The top of the antennas is higher than the top of Petronas spires. 2.) The roof top is higher 3.) The highest occupied floor is way higher on the Sears Tower. I don't understand the logic to count the spires of the Petronas Towers as hight but not to count the antennas of the Sears Tower. The only difference between the antennas and the spires are that one has a functionality while the other is just there for decoration. By that logic someone could build a small 200m and 50 story building and just put a 700m decorative spire in top and claiming the title as the tallest building in the world. That's ridiculous. This really shouldn't be measured that way.
@@CheeseMiser It's cringier to hear people change the name they use for a landmark that's been called by another name for decades just because of a business transaction. If the Golden Gate Bridge's name was officially changed most people would still use the old name, and rightfully so.
Another piece of evidence re: how important that “tallest building” title is to Chicago is to look at the history of failed plans to recover it: The Sky Needle, The Spire, the original design for Trump tower, etc.
This would be like a 5'6" guy growing a huge mohawk and suddenly insisting that he's 6'2"
Ha, yes!
Or wearing platform shoes
Hence why part of the criteria is "a spire, which neither be added or be removed". Its like saying youre born with a freakishly long neck and so is part of your overall height.
Women use their height in heels as gospel
@@shaami8622but hair is natural
I think they should use the highest occupied floor for the tallest buildings. It incentivizes actually making the buildings useful to the highest floor where now all buildings have a spire to „cheat“ on their height
What happens when a company ends their lease and vacate the building? Is the building short until someone else comes and occupies the space again?
@@MattMcConaha yeah I didn’t use the correct terminology it would’ve been better to say „highest usable floor“
@@Simoxs7 usable for what
@@Simoxs7yea what does useable mean? you can make it so one dude can fit up there and it will be "useable"
@@mqeggusable as in practically usable. Easily accessible via stairs or elevator, with some minimum square footage.
I'm not a Chicagoan, or even an American. But to me, this building is and will forever be the Sears Tower.
Same, but more importantly than what it is called, it is obviously taller than 1 WTC.
Um acktually, it's the Sears-Roebuck Tower.
Yes.
@@imveryangryitsnotbutter nobody ever says Roebuck even if that was the company name. Even the mall stores used Sears to K.I.S.S.
@@imveryangryitsnotbutterthe company yes but the building was always called the sears tower.
I care about 3 metrics, and as such, want 3 lists:
1) highest occupied floor
2) highest roofline/top of structure before narrow pointy bois
3) highest overall reach, including antennae
highest above seal level would be interesting as well, as this would give Sears another 600ft. Which building sticks the highest into our atmosphere.
@@SoloRenegade so a hut on top of Everest?
@@SoloRenegade I don't necessarily want countries to be building skyscrapers on mountains just to make a vanity project though. Less oxygen up there. But it would be an interesting little tid bit.
@@vez3834 it would be interesting, from a scientific what-if point of view. but I agree, totally impractical.
@@SoloRenegade Highest into (out of?) the atmosphere and furthest from the centre are not the same thing, though. And how ‘high’ is a building on the moon going to be? ;)
Height by occupied floor is the only measure that matters to me. Where can a person stand within the building? By that measure, Central Park Tower is the tallest in the US.
Also if a round rock is orbiting a sun, it’s a planet.
That seems most reasonable to me, too. I mean, you could tack a spire a few hundred feet tall on a much shorter building and claim it's the world's tallest building.
@checkoutmyyoutubepage so there should be THOUSANDS of planets? The Sun is orbited by 8 planets, at least 5 dwarf planets and tens of thousands of asteroids. The criteria that a planet needs enough mass to gravitationally sweep the trash in its neighborhood is a reasonable one to cut off all the small rocks out there. Pluto isn't even the 9th most massive, we just found it before other dwarf planets.
@@richiy86 I said round rock. Pluto is round. Asteroids aren’t round.
Pretty obviouwhos the tallest
My brother and I use to try and memorize every city in the world by their skylines and we would obsess over the tallest buildings in the world, but when we found out they counted the freaking antennas we lost it. We always counted it by the number of stories and how high the building was in feet from the base of street level to the last story.
clarification: They count the SPIRES, not the antennas. But I also think it´s dumb to differanciate between spire and antenna
@@TheMuteemChannel I agree and disagree. For architectural reasons, they can be different, but if you count the height of just one why not just build a pole spire to be the tallest in a race of pointy peaks? It turns it less into a meaning, and more into, "we added a pointy hat on top!" It's like comparing a hat that adds height to hair, but because you can remove hats easier you only count hair. Now everyone grows out their hair and styles it tall to be legally 7 feet tall.
Just count to the base of the roofing. It means that domes, spires, antennae, etc. are all no longer considered true height, and sets all architectural features on even playing fields.
Using number of floors to compare buildings is terrible, because different buildings have different floor heights. The Hancock Centre in Chicago is 334 metres tall with 100 floors, but The Pinnacle in Guangzhou is 360 metres tall with 60 floors.
If a vanity element like a spire counts for height, then so does a functional non-integral element like an antenna. Simple as. (Sit down Petronas Towers)
I would argue that the Sears tower should still be considered taller than One World Trade Center. One World Trade Center was *planned* with a spire, but at some point the spire was changed to a bare antenna, therefore it should not count towards the building's height. Of course, that would ruin the whole 1776 feet thing.
All of this is now moot as Central Park tower is taller and that has no antenna.
@@tjr-007tt and grand hyatt(175 park) is coming up as well now
@@tjr-007ttExactly!
Willis.
@@archangelcharlie NEVER! lol
I guess I am gonna go 3D Print a 10 mile stick, attach it to my house, and call it the tallest building in the world
It’s funny you say that. I have said similar things after learning the ridiculous criteria for the “tallest building” . I really want a developer to make a 2 story building with a 200 story Spire….a spire so tall and so ridiculous that the definition would get changed. It would be nearly impossible to do given the costs involved, the lack of interest from investors, and all the regulations from government agencies governing the airspace above. I just want someone to take absurdity to its absurd end. I’d gladly pay $50.00 to go to the observation deck of the world’s tallest building if that observation deck was on the second or third floor.
not tallest because its not part of the building so it would be like antena
1. Holding up such a structure like a 10 mile stick would in itself require so much architectural and engineering work that the effort required would need to be similar to the effort of building a traditional skyscraper.
2. Attaching it to your house would mean it’s an antenna, not an architectural spire. It was not in the planning of your house.
3. It is technically not even a tower, as most of the building is not used for habitable/functional purposes. So, it is more like a structure than a building/tower.
i mean if youre able to develop and produce enough of a material that can be made into a 10 mile long cylindrical object that is thin enough to be considered a "stick" that can also withstand being stood upright, i think you might just win the nobel prize with just the "stick" lols
@@quengmingmeow Well... if someone builds a SPIRE taller than the Burj Khalifa, the title will be deserved.
The antenna vs. spire thing is so dumb. I say that most antennae are dual purpose. Visual design elements that are also handy for radio frequency communication. Maybe the height should be measured from the sidewalk to the floor of the top habitable level. It would be the difference in elevation that you experience when you interact with the structure. That way, cathedral ceilings, antennae, and spires don't come into play.
We don't measure a person's height by including their platform shoes and 6" afro.
100% Agree. Simple and logical.
I think the point is, buildings which are built with antenna in mind are designed to still look good without them while buildings with spires will just look wrong without them
@@gabrielarrhenius6252 That's debatable and subjective. The elevation height of a floor you are standing on is not debatable. Not logically debatable at least.
Lol, yeah it's a bit like saying poofy hair counts as height but a tall hat doesn't.
@@gabrielarrhenius6252I see that argument, but also the Empire State Building always looks wrong to me pre-antenna.
Just want to compliment you supporting Givewell; the difference between ineffective and effective charity is literally 100-fold at times, it makes such an amazing difference to support the right charities! I am happy to see their work getting more press.
Actually-Daley selling off parking to a private company is the worse thing to happen to Chicago.
For literally a century in exchange for a single billion dollars. The city plows through SIXTEEN BILLION a year!
all of the street parking for as long as anyone alive today shall live got sold for 1/16th of the yearly budget.
What the fuck even happened there?
@@zekewalker1350 not related to this video therefore best saved for political demonizing our cities in the ideology war we created thankfully one man to thank our Twitter and chief one. Even small cities and counties chose ill-advised moves all over this nation. My small city and county certainly did and it is as Red as someone's tie of choice. Both corrupt and broke and abandoned more or less by Corporate America for its Union past in Appalachia and they left their old mills to rot allowed to. Still very cheap to live so fine by me in retirement now LOL.
Along with the double whammy of the Skyway. You're right though parking affects far more people but did you see that the Skyway rates are going up again? I know, you're as shocked as I am.
@@timmmahhhh Just nothing to do with skyscrapers and our current political demonizing and American hate of its own cities and half or more of its people causes not debates but literally loathing, name-calling and labeling our whole cities as cess-pools even vs that politician even.... as a local you promote that NEGATIVITY in our current era of division by our IDEOLOGY WAR and certain media promotes city-hate by it and of course red vs blue period.
As a Chicagoan, I totally agree.
the sears tower is so sentimental to me because my grandpa who passed away in 2010 was from Chicago, and he would tell me so many stories about that building and told me one day he was gonna take me there but sadly when I was 11, he died. A year later my Aunt and uncle came down to visit us in NC from Iowa and asked me if I wanted to go back with them for a month. They ended up surprising me with the detour to Chicago and I was able to actually go on the Sears Tower ( got changed to the willis tower by that time) and see the sky deck! It almost felt unreal to be in Chicago, and be on the Willis Tower, and it was almost bitter sweet because it wasn’t with my grandpa, but it felt almost like divine intervention the way all that went down.
The Sears Tower will always be the Sears tower to me and I’m from Nashville. I think that is the most iconic looking skyscraper I’ve ever seen. The views at night when it’s clear are breathtaking.
Congrats on being an old fart with bad memory and stubbornness
It’s called the Willis Tower. What do you call Wrigley Field these days?
@@archangelcharlie why do you care so much. People can refer to it as the Sears Tower and we know what they means. Wrigley is still Wrigley
the name a tower was given when built is its name forever.
it's the Willis tower + ratio
Meassuring buildgs from the lowest to the highest restroom seams to be the best and most logical way
Your shade about renaming the Sears Tower is brilliant.
Willis
Reply if you are wrong
It’s called the Willis Tower. Also, it’s no longer called Comiskey Park.
The name of a tower when built, is its name for life. It will forever be the Sears tower.
@@archangelcharlie That's a bit of an apples and oranges thing there. Yes, technically, it is the Willis Tower, the issue is that there isn't enough marketing to get people outside of the Chicago area to pay attention. Those in the Chicago area may just refuse to accept the change. Renaming sports venues works a bit better because there's a ton of money involved in marking things related to the venue, so people will tend to accept it over time more regularly.
I worked across in a building across the street from the Sears Tower when it was being built. I remember when Mayor Richard J. Daley autographed the last girder. I remember eating in a cafeteria in it four stories below street level. My most vivid memory was when the wind blew out some windows during construction and showered our building, and several others, with broken glass. You can fact check how far the cafeteria was below street level, but I remember going down some escalators from street level.
FINALLY SOMEONE ADRESSED THIS :D
For years I've been wondering how could petronas towers be higher that the sears tower
it's always been addressed tho. pretty much since the petronas towers were completed, every comparison just showed the sears towers top floor being much higher than the petronas towers top floors, meaning every report also had to include the whole spiel about "spires being a permanent part of the structure but antennae are not".
i think folks just let their emotions take over and preferred to feel faux outrage. except for malaysians... the outrage over there is REAL. petronas towers cost a ton to the govt, which was both incompetent and corrupt. the twin towers had a very high inoccupancy rate for many years (haven't checked recently) and became an empty symbol of "malaysian pride", since it was clearly a white elephant.
altho i think sears also went out of business? but not too sure if that actually meant low occupancy rate in sears/willis tower.
ultimately, skyscrapers are just not a very good idea in terms of modern urban design, especially factoring in energy efficiency and population density vs transport/logistics. skyscrapers generally consume quite a lot more power per occupant than shorter buildings with similar occupancy. they also warp traffic conditions around them, requiring a lot more infrastructure to support it (and i'm not just talking about burj khalifa's infamous poop trucks).
@@alveolatenot so sure about petronas being a white elephant tho. It’s always crammed like hell every time I go there
Building height sure be measured by usable floors, plain and simple. Spires and any other construction is just artificially inflating the height
@@speedracer9132 I'm inclined to agree. All this definition does is guarantee that whatever the tallest building is, it is guaranteed to have a spire.
@@speedracer9132 Sure, sure. So how tall is the Chrysler Building than?
I lived in chicago as a kid in the Logan Square area from 1995 to 2001. The skyline always left me in awe. It will always be the Sears Tower to me.
The name of a tower when built, is its name for life. It will forever be the Sears tower.
Spires and antenna shouldn't be used regardless of if they were "integral to the building design." The height should be the occupied tallest floor.
The only acceptable answer ☝🏻 And to clarify, that's floor as in where you stand, not the ceiling of the highest story.
yeah petronas still taller than sears
@@ariffin128 Um, nope.
I think it should be measured from the bottom open air pedestrian entrance to the top of the last enclosed workable floor in other words you can put a desk in there and use it as an office. No spires counted no antenna.
So you wouldn't count fully enclosed steel-framed floors full of elevator and HVAC mechanical equipment above the highest office floor?
@@jordanwutkee2548 if it is an actual enclosed floor it counts. If someone can walk around inside or work inside (this doesn't mean office work, plumming, electrical work all that is still work). Then it counts.
@@justinschmelzel8806 I agree with this human 🤝
The Chicago hate is real. The Sears Tower was built in 1973 & somehow still looks more attractive & more dominant than any other super tall skyscraper in the United States & arguably in the world.
It was built in the international style, which is a timeless style.
Betcherass
That hate extended to the Olympics going to Rio for 2016.
I was just coming hear from nebula to say yeah it's more attractive to me.
John Hancock Center is pretty competitive in aesthetics.
I’ve been a Sears stan since I was a kid. The only time I’ve spent in Chicago was to change planes, and I was so damn pumped to see it from the air.
I love the continuous theme in the video of no one calling it the correct name. Long live Sears Tower!
Viva la willis
@@CheeseMiser Hip hip hooray for Sears!
@@JoeOvercoat the dying shell of a company isnt something to be proud of
@@CheeseMiser Their building most certainly is.
@@JoeOvercoat that building fast been used by sears for majority of its existence. Litterally all of the lines point away from the sears name. Get over it.
This is great. Thanks to both of you for being good sports, and to Stewart for creating content that reinforces healthy disagreement and dialogue as a means of challenging one's own beliefs, learning something, and maybe even changing one's mind.
I always wondered if they could put up cladding around the antennae to make it an architectural feature. Problem solved! 😂
Seriously though, the antennae to me are integral to the aesthetic of the building to me. The Sears Tower would look noticeably different without then.
@@vidcas1711 And indeed, the Sears Tower looks much different today than when it was first completed. It's antennae were much shorter, stubbier (and, to my mind, cooler looking). Here's one angle: live.staticflickr.com/4073/5432157253_289490c0ba_b.jpg
@@vidcas1711 Years ago, in Golden Nugget restaurant, on the cover of the menu, it had an old picture of Sears without the antennas. It looked so weird!
Besides that, I say we make the antennas of the Sears a permanent feature (a spire) and retake the tallest building! Heck, make it even taller! Mwahahaha!
Yes I never understood to build a whole building and at the top and end do a cost-cutting of eliminating the sheathing it to look SLEEK as a more true spire..... it LOOKS like a antenna because of that but I do not believe they have any sort of broadcast from the spire portion?
@@davidw7 Actually David, those actually are antennae. I remember when they were much shorter (presumably spires) when it was first built, but it was only a few years before they added the antennae. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Tower#Broadcasting
The fact that they prescribe the type of construction tells me all I need to know regarding the validity of their measure.
The love Chicago has for its Sears Tower is infectious and more than makes up for any of the "-est" titles the buildingd may have given up.
It was important because it took the title of the tallest away from NYC.
Willis
Sears
@@hifijohn important bc it belonged to NYC… lmao. Even when the convo isn’t relevant to NYC they still get pulled in somehow
Sears. the name during construction is the name for life.@@CheeseMiser
Spires shouldn't count
Why not? Sure the ones that were pointed out in this particular video are kind of silly, but they aren't always so silly and drawing a line between that and a regular roof can be tricky.
I'll never forget this, about 15 years ago my cousin, friend and I were up in the city just kinda exploring, having fun. Well we all decided hey, we been up here so many times but never been up in the Sear-Willis Tower! And I was younger so I wasnt as direction savvy as I am now so we were a little lost, and I kept asking people on the street like hey, you know which way the Willis tower is? EVERYONE I asked looked at me and kinda laughed and would go "Uhh yeah, the Sears tower is that way.."
You probably could've just looked up, lol
Easy answer: (1) write a function of adding another little piece of "building" to make it taller mapping to difficulty for a building, (2) simplify each aspect of that function such that it can be explained to a high school student, including the definition of a building, (3) combine the difficulty of all structures and say what you will...
Born and raised in Chicago, and Al’s doesn’t hit anymore. They skimp on the meat and don’t dip the bread like they used to. A lot of the natives Chicago moved to the suburbs. Johnnie’s Beef is where it’s is at now
I am 52. When I was young I heard a lot of talk about how if you wanted to build tall you need to use steel. The last 25 or so have been interesting because concrete has dethroned steel to become the new king of building big.
As far as I know the Petronas towers are the tallest noteworthy buildings to rely mostly on concrete for their structure. Everything else uses a ton of steel.
concrete has a theoretical height limit that would blow people's minds. it would dwarf anything standing today.
@@SoloRenegadewhat would that be? Do you have any particular figures? Thanks
@@AnHebrewChild there are actually some videos on it with the specific values discussed here on TH-cam. An the videos give examples of massive structures humans actually considered building that would make the world's tallest skyscraper look like a toothpick. I believe one of these concept structures was envisioned for Tokyo.
Search the, Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid
This is like when the Guinness book of records dethroned the Causeway bridge in NOLA as the world's longest in favor of a Chinese bridge that spanned several patches of dry ground (The Causeway is 24 miles over open water)
Guinness is not about the truth, it's about marketing. I don't know wether or not the Chinese land bridge truly trumps the American one but you shouldn't take Guinness' records so seriously.
@@theviniso I don't take it seriously, it was just a real sore point for the locals. They petitioned Guinness about it and got a new category of bridge added for longest span over open water.
@@theviniso it's easy to say that but when the difference between "best" and "second best" is 200 million a year in tourist economy, the truth matters.
Guinness is a good beer, but not a good record company. It's literally, "pay us an assload of money and we will BS a new record for you." Heck, they even reject record attempts that are easily broken because the original person paid them more or was popular. A lot of gaming related records they have are easily beaten, but because some big name person did it they will never undo it.
From what I can tell, there's no requirement that a causeway be over open water, water, or even wetness at all. So, the issue isn't Guinness or the Chinese, that's just working as intended.
Always and forever the Sears Tower. In grade school in the 1970s, I went to the Scholastic book fair every year to get my new copy of the Guinness Book of World Records and all of those years, the Sears was the tallest. My son lives in Chicago and when we visit, I always speak to the tower to let it know that it will always be the tallest building in the world in my heart.
The name of a tower when built, is its name for life. It will forever be the Sears tower.
As a fellow Chicagoan, I love the seriousness of this video.
Chicago should build a tower that has a height of 890feet by highest inhabitable floor but with a very thin spire that rises to 1778feet and declare it the tallest building in America.
Fortunately, Chicago still has the most beautiful tower, the John Hancock. It's what the ancient Romans would have built if they had steel. An enormous, elegant, crossed braced siege tower. Love your work. Regards
why Romans? it has by far a more Star Wars vibe
@@Blackadder75 Hi, well when the designer Bruce Graham had it built in 1968, Star Wars was still an unrealized cheesy idea from George Lucas. I do think Graham would be very familiar with the many engravings of tapered roman siege towers, however, the same ones easily accessed with Google nowadays. The structural sobriety and severity of Roman architecture is nicely reflected in Hancock's pure structure, with no concessions to decoration or embellishment. Cheers.
Bro... the romans had steel.
@@appa609 The ancient Romans had limited, primitive forms of tool steel for tools and weapons, and did not generally avail themselves of the wootz or Damascus forging methods available at the time. They did not have structural steel for buildings, unless I'm missing the archaeological discoveries of wide flanges, channels, and angles buried in Roman soil. Perhaps all the of the ancient Roman structural steel has corroded into dust, and we're missing the whole era of ancient steel Roman buildings, but I highly doubt it. Cheers
It’s ugly and looks like a big taser. Not surprising in such a violent city lol
Not from Chicago, but love the city, its rich archictural heritages, amazing food and the openly verbal people that lives there. this video somehow reminds of all those things I loved about Chicago... Anyways, I'm just here to say Al's Italian beef is the best, and that building is forever Sears Tower for me.
Arguably the Sears Tower remains one of the tallest buildings in the world. If you measure by volume, most of the taller towers (including the Burj Kalifa) habitable floorspace above the top floor of the Sears tower are nothing but “vanity floors” or small condos and offices that make up a very small percentage of the building’s total square feet. If you put a spire on a building and fill it with tiny floors, should this count for total height ? I think a better measure of height would include some kind of volumetric percentage of each floor as the building rises. This would make a much better comparison.
Willis
@@archangelcharlie I will NEVER accept the name Willis Tower!!!
Mean floor square footage height.
@@archangelcharlieSears.
There is no argument that the Sears Tower is 'one of the tallest buildings in the world', but introducing a volumetric criterion to consider it taller than the Burj Khalifa is stretching the definition of tallness to a point of meaningless.
“from the lowest pedestrian restaurant” had me in tears lmao hes said it so confidently
Hahahaha it’s Sears all right!!! 😂 same here. Always will be Sears in my heart.
Agreed, it should be the highest interior story that humans can visit
yes, and spires should not count at all
The measurement should be "to the top of uppermost roof or parapet exclusive of ornamentation"
Yes, this! I know some samples are very difficult to judge (ie. Burj Khalifa and Chrysler Building), but generally one can make a pretty clear distinction between roof height and ornamentation.
By this metric the Shanghai tower is the tallest building on Earth and the Central Park Tower the tallest in the US.
@@theviniso I already consider CPT the tallest in the US. Shanghai tower vs. Burj Khalifa is a harder call. Roof height is sometimes impossible to pin down.
"From sea-level or the lowest inhabited floor (whichever is higher) to the roof of the highest occupied floor" solves everything, decoration is just that, optional. Any floors that aren't used don't count, and you measure it with a 45 degree laser and Pythagorean mathematics.
Your proposed sea level rule would be unfair to anyone building a skyscraper in some place that's situated below sea level, like Death Valley or much of Holland.
Laughing my head off at the Sears/Willis _corrections_ 😂 I remember writing an essay at college about the Petronas towers when they were new. Fascinating structure, but yeah, taller than the Sears tower? Technicality!
10:20
Must've caught him right before his lunch break
your effervescent passion that you display in your videos is engaging thank you
It was called the Sears tower but if Ron White won his lawsuit it would have been called "Ron White's big ol fucking building"
About time someone addresses this!!!!! It always ticked me off how they have short changed the Sears Tower when compared to the Petronas and the One World Trade. I hope Chicago can get back in the race and build "The Illinois" which is a future concept in Chicago that Metaballstudio showed in their skyscraper video.
Thank you for this thorough , comprehensive video on the subject. I'm old enough to remember the pride of saying "Sears tower is the world's tallest building" as a kid and it was easily my favorite back then. I think the measuring criteria has an arbitrary aspect to it but for me the time factor is far more relevant . Empire State building was tallest for 40 yrs, Sears tower for 26 yrs. Petronas' held it for less than that. WHo knows how long Burj Kalifa will hold it? I also found it funny the CTBUH spokesman could notremember the name of the old Prudential building (with the tall antenna) which used to be Chicago's tallest in the 1960s.
Yeah...that guy was a real clown
Burj Khalifa will probably hold it for a long time unless the Jeddah Tower gets finished. No one outside of the Middle East is building anything over 2000 feet going forward.
ALL real Chicagoans only call it the Sears Tower.
We have the same problem. Here in Los Angeles, we have the US Bank Tower vs. Wilshire Grand. The US Bank tower is more prominent and has a higher roof height, but the Wilshire Grand has a dinky spire. Look, I love the Wilshire Grand. The lights and screen at the top make for cool light shows, but its not actually the tallest and no one here thinks it is.
Well, the local news networks sure think it and say so but you are absolutely right.
i agree i have been to the Wilshire grand hotel its nice but i dont think it should count but i will say this if the Wilshire grand wasnt built San Francisco would actaully hold the title of tallest building west of the Mississippi so la is lucky
@@EvanJS2005yeah I’m from sf and that shit makes me mad
As a Malaysian, that new pnb 118 tower is absolutely hugeee. It will be open soon for the public next year 😇
Indeed it is, but I somehow can't help but feel that Kuala Lumpur is on the map architecture-wise mostly due to the fact that its tallest buildings claiming to be the tallest in the world (or one of) are only so due to their spires height and not highest occupied floor/roofheight. I still see Shanghai Tower as taller than merdeka 118 but because of its 500ft+ spire it's still classified as taller. It's as If I were 5'11" and extended my arm vertically and claimed to be 7ft+. Otherwise, just vanity height.
That said, I find myself constantly looking at videos of mb118 since it has such an odd form and design that's weirdly elegant in its own unique way, which I still can't make out its design. One of the coolest looking skyscrapers no doubt.
Glad you could get this off your chest Stewart. I feel your pain, and I'm not even from Chicago.
“In Chicago, we pronounce things differently. It’s spelled W-I-L-L-I-S, but we pronounce it ‘Sears’”
Honestly, if you showed me a picture of the Sears Tower without the antennae I probably wouldn't recognize it.
My dad used to work in the sears/willis tower. (Also btw I'm used to calling it the Willis tower because my dad worked for Willis)
I loved the "bring your kid to work" days because I could look out the window of his office from way up high. (He didn't work at the very top of the building, but he worked pretty high up)
Some of Downtown Chicago's buildings are so tall that on a lot of low cloudy days, the building tops vanish into the clouds.
It's weird, if you work in the building's upper floors it looks like it's foggy outside or like there's a storm, but when you step outside on the ground you'll see the weather's fine. A cloud/fog just floated into/around the top of building. Looking up at it, it looks like the sky is falling.
that is true in Seattle too and I would bet that it's also true in San Francisco though I haven't seen it. Seattle has tall buildings too but they are not as tall as in Chicago. Whether or not you can see the tops of the buildings has to do with the height of the fog, not just the height of the buildings.
I remember going up to viewing platform at the top of Sears tower 20 years ago. Absolutely incredible experience.
Those window sections that jut outwards just a bit so you can look straight down is scary AF when your sight goes from looking at the surrounding horizon to "Hey, I wonder how it looks do... holy jeebus!!!"
Also having to use the express elevator to get to the viewing deck near the top is crazy fast compared to the usual slow elevators we're used to.
Sad to not see any mention of the original Sears Tower at 906 S Holman Ave, a truly beautiful building.
The definitions of the council also created a controversy in Minneapolis… quite a story about whether a rooftop equipment “shed” is part of the building…
Could someone please “sunset” the term “curtain wall”? I know…I know…it will probably never happen.
It has been confusing architecture students and the half-dozen “civilians” who actually care for generations now. IMO…the correct term should really be “stacked wall” because 99% of modern exterior cladding systems are actually “stacked” on building structures…usually floor slab and spandrel edges using a wide array of construction techniques and components. Facades rarely “hang” like curtains. Exceptions include Norman Fosters “Willis Faber and Dumas Building” (facade by structural engineer Peter Rice) and Gordon Bunshaft’s bronze and glass cube at the Beinecke Library at Yale.
People continue to call virtually any mass masonry exterior wall building that is steel framed and supports the exterior wall’s gravity loads on a floor-by-floor basis a “curtain wall”.
put the quotes away
I think stacked wall is equally confusing because it sounds like walls are stacked onto each other rather than on the structural system.
Still the key words are still - load-bearing - as the elephant in the room and were stone and brick but still owed its load bearing to the interior steel frame as it WAS if it is - Load-Bearing. Still if load bearing even in part? A 10 story building would have a base a few feet thick as some do especially those transitional ones or chose both. The Monadnock building Chicago utilizes BOTH and its hidden steel interior AND exterior brick and stone ... BOTH support the load of the building and is NOT labeled as having a - curtain wall.
The visibly thick brick walls are therefore-- six-feet-thick at the corners -- and does support the building's weight at the perimeters, but are also aided elsewhere by a hidden steel framework. So both standards are utilized.
We use the term - cladding for granite etc. slapped onto a exterior other than just a metal and glass sheathing.
@@timmmahhhh
How about “shelf wall”?
LOL, yeah…I have been living with the term curtain wall for 45 years and acknowledge that it is totally embedded in architecture terminology from architectural history to textbooks to manufacturers literature and on and on. Just couldn’t resist a short rant since most curtain walls I have done as a professional have been stacks of bricks that sit on shelf angles.
I also dislike “storefront”…another architectural component term that will probably outlast the existence of actual stores.
BTW…the late brilliant structural engineer Lev Zeitlin once developed a structural concept for a high-rise that was nearly 100% tensile. Was a huge fan of wire rope but in the end didn’t actually build much with it. More curtain-floor than curtain-wall.
@@davidw7
Here in New Haven CT, Yale University has an entire collegiate gothic style residential college campus built in the teens, twenties and thirties with steel frames and exterior cladding of granite, brick and structural clay tile. I have heard some architects still refer to these low-rise exteriors as curtain walls.
Interesting, steel frames were selected for these buildings for speed. Building around a steel armature instead of sequentially starting by “piling rocks” allowed more work to be done simultaneously. Structures were topped off and enclosed much more quickly…especially on the buildings which have very complex and highly articulated gothic style exteriors.
Merdeka 118 in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia is only 495 meters tall judging by the roof height, but it claimed to be 2nd tallest building in the world at 680 meters tall because it have 190 meters tall spire 😅
10:21 these slipups were so funny, i think he might be doing in purpose 😂
1/3 of Burj Khalifa's official height is a spire... Limits should be put on how much a spire can contribute to a building's total height. That's ridiculous.
It also seems wrong to be classified as the worlds tallest building, because you have to follow these architectural rules, but one of the rules doesn’t include having its own septic system from day one
@@JoeOvercoat How is it wrong? Is the Burk Khalifa not the world's tallest building?
@@thevinisonot much of a building when it doesn't work as a building
@@Milk_Bag67 What does the Burj Khalifa function as then?
That is true, but atleast the shape is built into fit with the building and the highest occupied floor is still high. Merdeka spire is just a glorified stick that is about 25% of its height.
Even if the WTC's spire didn't count, the Willis Tower wouldn't be the tallest in America, it's the Central Park Tower
Elevators would certainly classify as tall building technology, would they not?
Correct!
The sears tower is DEFINITELY taller than the willis tower
TLDR: The top of the Sears tower is counted and an antennae while the top of other towers gets to be a spire.
As a kid in the 80s living in Indiana, I took vicarious pride in the Sear's Tower. Hell yeah, that's my neighbor's building! So the incredulity really hit me when it was "dethroned" by the Petulant Towers.
States “Neither of them crack the top 20” then proceeds to show Petrona towers in 19th place lol
Currently in Brazil they added a pinnacle in the Yatchhouse skycraper only to pass One Tower from the same city (Balneário Camboriú), and this pinnacle is right next to the helipad making helicopters divert to land.
11:15 what’s up with the static at the bottom of the screen?
Title hooked me INSTANTLY
I have also been outraged how a building with a 0ver 400-foot tower/spiral on top, can be classified as the tallest.
spires don't count
@@SoloRenegade umm, yes, they do unfortunately when built with the building. One World Trade's top floor is about 1320 feet high, but it has an over 400-foot spire on top, that is how it gets its 1776 height.
@@richh650 spires don't count
@@SoloRenegade I don't like that they do, but they do. Do some simple research
@@richh650 No research required. I do not acknowledge illogical standards created by private people.
Any criteria I define is equally valid as theirs, and my criteria disqualifies spires.
spires don't count.
They should redefine it as "highest floor people can walk in an indoor space".
For skyscrapers, they should just count the height at the highest occupied floor, not even the ceiling of that floor.
I suppose mentioning the current tallest building makes this video more timeless, but I would have liked a mention on the Burj Khalifa. But as always, loved the video!
I realize this is off topic, but in years to come it will become widely discussed that Sears was poised to remain a huge retailer, possibly the largest. It had a tremendous catalogue and mail order business which is essentially what todays e-commerce is. They had deals with IBM and AOL for e-commerce. I remember buying my IBM PC that came preloaded with all that software. It was bought and sold off in pieces to run it in the ground and be destroyed for maximum profit.
People already talk about this. Sears was the AMAZON of mail order shopping. You could buy anything, including a house, from Sears.
They died out because they couldn't transition to online shopping fast enough, and got superseded by Amazon who did what they did but online.
That sandwich looks good.
The tallest buildings here in Australia by floor height are in Melbourne but the tallest building in the country has an antenna which is on the gold coast.
Buildings are built for human occupation.
Only the part that can be occupied counts.
Spires cannot be occupied.
->Spires don't count
Q.E.D.
Likewise rooves and ceilings. Habitable floor level is the only meaningful metric.
Another informative, entertaining video by Hicks, with fine photography and other graphics and the participation of the CTBUH official -though he might have pointed out that Skydeck Chicago is still the highest observation deck in The US, at 1353 ft. / 412 m., versus NY's One World Observatory: 1268 ft / 386 m.. That said, the CN Tower SkyPod in Toronto beats both, at 1465 ft. / 447 m., just a smidgen higher than the roof of Willis / Sears. Hicks could do a piece on skyscraper observation "decks" or "platforms." Thanks ...
I thought spires didn't count to height because you can just slap a ridiculously tall spire onto the top of a not very tall building and have it count as "the world's tallest building" even though the actual building part isn't tall
My thoughts, exactly. You could have a building half the height of the current world's tallest, stick on a spire whose height is equal to the height of the building plus a foot, and say "there, the new world's tallest building!".
The rules say that something like 2/3rds of the floors must be habitable to count as a building. Otherwise it's a tower
@@austinreid3951 Interesting.
@@austinreid3951 what counts as a "floor"
You must let go of logic & common sense and embrace the technicalities of the ‘definition’.
I'm pretty sure the ones by Central Park are taller now. Their superstructures are also taller than One World
Why not just have sears be the tallest building in America and one world be the tallest structure/tower in America
What about tallest skyscraper though?
@@MrDooDoo-pw7ofI guess world trade center because of the spire I don’t really know
The CN Tower still exists and is taller than both... unless you mean the US only and not America the continent.
@@theviniso yea
I got to visit the Sears tower on the first day the sky deck was open. Really fun experience
The Transamerica Pyramid isn’t exceptionally tall, but the San Francisco skyline would not be the same without it.
…and one of the architects, William Pereira, is a Chicago native.
Salesforce Tower, on the other hand, could mysteriously vanish overnight and no one would miss it. :P
@@d.b.4671 There is also the Millennium Tower that is San Francisco’s equivalent of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Will tourists be flocking to see it in the future?😀
WE NEED TO BRING AWARENESS TO THE WEST! Some years ago the SalesForce Tower in SF dethroned the U.S. Bank building in LA as the tallest building in the west. This was absolutely fair.
But then LA built some stupid “Wiltshire Grand Tower,” which is not actually taller than either of the aforementioned buildings if not for its spire. And I know art is subjective, but that spire is an unsightly thing that does not match the design language of the rest of the curvy building. It’s just there, on this short building.
I believe (and you all should to) that SalesForce Tower is the tallest building west of the Mississippi River.
Thank you
Screw pylons, even screw the roof height, I want the tallest building to be based on the highest fully plumbed bathroom
This would be a much more meaningful metric.
Perfect!
The measurement I would use is: 'Where is the highest place I can look outside the window?' And not on a technicality like the elevator door to the top of the spire has a window in it, I mean a window of a livingroom/bedroom/office you know? A spire or w/e is pretty, but if it's not usable space, it feels kind of pointless.
even tho One World Trade Center isnt technically the tallest in america, so isnt Sears Tower tho because theres a taller building on middle manhattan near Central Park called the Central Park Tower (it has no spire and measures 480 meters)
So what is the difference between a spire and an antenna? If I put communication equipment on top of a spire, does it then become an antenna? If I dress an antenna up nicely or just confidently call it a "spire", does that turn it into a spire? And if I put a super tall spire on top of a not-so-tall building, could I get the title of tallest building that way?
I used to live in Chicago and moved to Dallas last year and IM SO FUCKING ANNOYED CHICAGO DOESNT GET RECOGNITION FOR THIS TOWER
If not usable space like spires, it should not count in height, so the Sears Tower is clearly taller than the Petronas Twins.
The whole "spire" thing is absurd. "Call it a spire instead of an antenna, it will count."
Spires are a part of the architectural structure. Antennae are not, and can be changed on a whim.
@team3am149 thanks bro. I didn't know that.
That was sarcasm by the way.
Aspire is nothing more than a pointy tip on top of a building. It has no significance as far as the structure of the actual building is concerned. you could make a spire that was 500 feet long, but that doesn't make your building any more remarkable than it's top floor..
@@rickrudd The architectural structure is the frame of a building and includes the spire. Antennae, on the other hand, is something completely extra.
@team3am149 Thanks for the informative update. You've provided me with a very new perspective. I've completely changed my mind.
I promise I'm being serious.
This is the most Chicagoan video…
…and I’m completely here for it.
Sears Tower wins the title for worlds most iconic and beloved building. No one can take that away.
Fighting to have the biggest tower has been going on for centuries.
Like in Belgium, Antwerp has the biggest church tower: 124.9m, completed in 1521.
But they took the record from Bruges: 115.6m, competed in 1465.
That's 56 years later for a mere 9.3m extra.
Pro Tip: every metric is useful until people start consciously aiming for it. Then people just manipulate their way to a higher ranking, making the metric increasingly less informative over time.
Not when you make the metric specific early on, then if people start aiming to manipulate their way in then they are creating unique buildings, "from sea-level to the roof of the highest occupied floor" doesn't allow for much manipulation but if the building has a restaurant on the 120th floor of the spire, fine they have managed to build that and pay people to work up their. If the restaurant is closed because it is unsafe, congratulations you go from 1st to 50th.
@@TheOmegaXicor Your definition of skyscraper would make sense if this applied in a place like Florida, where it is extremely flat and close to sea level, but unfortunately, people build cities in high places. Luckily, someone had a similar question on Quora and did the work for us: Paste this after the Quora homepage link : [/What-building-s-roof-is-the-highest-above-sea-level-in-the-world], for Peter Wade's answer to this question.
The largest problem you will run into are buildings like the Public Investment Fund Tower in Saudi Arabia, being in the top 100 tallest buildings, but with an elevation of 991m (beating any on the top 100 list) due to that building being built in a mountainous region/country it suddenly is the tallest in the world. The cities of Denver, Colorado or Lhasa, China who are on even higher mountains and have tall buildings are additional arguments against that definition.
You run into shenanigan problems, as someone will just build a "skyscraper" in definition in a place like Chile or Nepal in a decently reasonably accessible place. Boom! The base camp to Mt Everest will get a skyscraper just to have an excuse for world's tallest skyscraper, but it'd be like a single or double stored building, only barely qualifying as a skyscraper, or suddenly there is a dormitory building near an astronomical observatory that "just so happens" to fit the qualifications of a skyscraper. Especially if it is "from sea-level to the roof of the highest occupied floor".
Tl;dr: But mountains exist, and skyscrapers exist on mountains, tall ones too. Suddenly, with that definition, the Burj Khalifa is now very low on a very long list.
@TheOmegaXicor from sea level doesnt make sense. people living in places where the ground is above sea level will have it so much easier
@@mqegg Place a dollhouse on Mount Everest, behold the world's tallest building.
@@felonyx5123 doesn't work like that, otherwise you could add about another 600ft to the Sears tower.
The Sears Tower is taller in every way than the Petronas Towers. 1.) The top of the antennas is higher than the top of Petronas spires. 2.) The roof top is higher 3.) The highest occupied floor is way higher on the Sears Tower.
I don't understand the logic to count the spires of the Petronas Towers as hight but not to count the antennas of the Sears Tower. The only difference between the antennas and the spires are that one has a functionality while the other is just there for decoration.
By that logic someone could build a small 200m and 50 story building and just put a 700m decorative spire in top and claiming the title as the tallest building in the world. That's ridiculous. This really shouldn't be measured that way.
Former Chicagoan. It will ALWAYS be Sears Tower and it was indeed robbed of its title.
I'm not even from Chicago and I cringe whenever I hear "Willis" Tower.
@@Strideo1 I cringe when I hear yall talk like this pridefully uneccepting of change
@@CheeseMiser It's cringier to hear people change the name they use for a landmark that's been called by another name for decades just because of a business transaction. If the Golden Gate Bridge's name was officially changed most people would still use the old name, and rightfully so.
Another piece of evidence re: how important that “tallest building” title is to Chicago is to look at the history of failed plans to recover it: The Sky Needle, The Spire, the original design for Trump tower, etc.