Sears tower

Salesforce Tower & Sears Tower.

Willis Tower. Have only walked by the new WTC 1 tower and the others in NYC. Live in Brooklyn.

I still didn't even go to America iam in UAE

No one☹ But i wish🙂 In the future, i'm gonna visit a couple of them🙂👍 I was in the Berlin tv tower (the tower is 368 meters tall, and i was at the height of 203 meters)

That's what happens when ypu do inconsistent google searches instead of either counting roof height or the height till tip.

Spires count, antennae do not. Simple really. A spire is part of the architectural design, antennae are put on afterwards to broadcast or receive. Now, that being said, I honestly do not believe either should count. It should go to the rooftop, period. I see the alternative as "cheating".

That’s okay. We all know the Sears Tower is and will always be King of America.

​@@ImAlwaysHere1Exactly, maybe, just maybe one day they will change that stupid rule, it makes no sense at all, it should go by roof top only.

The Empire State Building is 1,250 feet tall at the top floor, not the spire. The spire makes it 1,454 feet

I’m pretty sure they were talking about the previous intercontinental hotel that was in place before this tower went up. Intercontinental hotel is now on the top floors of this tower.

I was gonna say the same thing

Yeah but so?

thats what i was thinking i was like🤨

I was just about to say that before I read the comments! lol

That's funking stupid

The Spire is a permanent fixture to the building, and it cannot be removed. Antennas are a temporary or permanent fixtures, but they can be removed at any time.

@@marcobc5720 It's just a dumb comparison overall, spires, antennas, I mean come on! They both shouldn't matter.

@@Mrd9960 AGREED. SO TRUE.

​@@Mrd9960, Agreed with perhaps one exception. To "level the playing field", the roof of the highest occupied floor should be the official uppermost measurement for a building's height. That said, the Chrysler Building's spire is one of the best examples of a spire that seamlessly integrates with the occupied structure below to such extent its absence would completely alter the building's appearance.

Canada is a part of the North American continent which technically makes us american

@@nigeltaylor1176 México also is part of The Americas as for South America and Central America

America isn’t just the United States it’s the three countries in North AMERICA

Europa is América.

@@DeviaNZe wtf no

Technically they aren’t antennas tho. An antenna doesn’t count, that’s why the twin towers were only 1300ft bc their antenna didn’t count. A spire is technically a architectural and structural feature which should 100% be included

@Angelic Gay Wow, I didn't know that much of Burj Khalifa was not occupied space. I think we need a separate count of the actual usable floors to see which is tallest.

@@charlieackerson4211 Then just build a one story building with a 2000 foot spire and call the whole thing a 2000 foot tall building.right??

@@hifijohn if it’s a spire then yes

@Angelic Gay yeah I kinda wish they did but I’m pretty sure that the aerodynamics didn’t work the way the wanted or something along those lines

Trump Tower was the building under construction, where the Joker was at the end of the movie, so it was featured. But in the video he shows Two IFC which is misleading

@@Chris6d yep.

@@R68OrangeQTrainProductions okay I'll let everyone know 🇺🇸🏙️

Yes men....

I miss the twin towers sooooo much😭😭😭

Overrated towers.

@@mayu2124 lol nice name you must really miss them

Yes, I always think about the twin towers and then I am sad that they are gone 😭

still shouldnt count towards the buildings height in the first place

That's clears up the confusion, but not the stupidity. An uninhabitable pole is an uninhabitable pole, no matter if it's structurally attached, or added afterwards. The point of a building is to be inside it, and top floor height is the tallest part of the structure that serves the purpose of a building. Pinnacle height ratings is where spires AND antennas should be included and official height is where the ceiling of the tallest floor is.

They shouldn't be included at all, doesn't matter. You're talking semantics.

@@UR_Right24 No he's not. He's explaining the rules as they currently are. What's your problem?

Interestingly, back in 1930 the Chrysler building in NY was being constructed at the same time (and competing with) the Bank of Manhatten building for the record. The bank seemed to have it, but once finished Chrysler erected a huge spire that they had been hiding inside the building. So Chrysler took the record.

That’s when I mentally checked out lol

I knowwwww wtf

They were talking about the previous hotel which is in the same lot where the Wilshire was built

@@mrnoname7370 right, but this video isn't about the building that used to be on the same site. The video is about the building that stands there today.

Antennas do not count, you are talking about spires.

@@nickfloyo Yes, spires or whatever they are!

@@nickfloyo Same thing to me: it's bullshit. 🤣

@@thebabbler8867 A spire is considered part of the structure of the building, whereas antennas are detachable additions to the building. Consequently, spires (which are included in the construction blueprint) count as part of a building's official height, whereas antennas (which can be added later) do not. The 3 tallest buildings in the US (One World Trade Center, Central Park Tower, and Willis Tower) would be arraigned in a different order if the rules were different). Right now they are ranked by structure (which includes spires but not antennas): 1) One World Trade Center 2) Central Park Tower 3) Willis Tower If antennas and spires counted in the official rankings, the order would be: 1) One World Trade Center 2) Willis Tower 3) Central Park Tower If neither spires nor antennas counted, the rankings would be: 1) Central Park Tower 2) Willis Tower 3) One World Trade Center

That means Central Park tower is America’s tallest building not wtc they fucked up a lot on the wtc made it a shitty roof height and then the spire that’s like 400 feet long cheating it out and I’m a New Yorker. It just would of been much better and prettier if they made the roof height 1776 feet and maybe 2 identical buildings again.

This is the one if I make it back to NYC when the SkyView is done that I want to do next time.

It looks like this video is kind of outdated. The St. Regis (former Vista tower) was completed in 2020 with 101 floors at 1198 ft. tall.

@@marcobc5720the true second tallest of Chicago as well. Trump tower is about a dozen feet shorter discluding the spire

Love the Vista tower, such a unique and gorgeous building!

agreed, I also think that the Willis Tower is taller than One World Trade Center

@@zackalamuddin2186 let’s be real here we all know the original Twins towers were the tallest those were two giant

@@zackalamuddin2186 yeah because they made the new One World Trade Centre the same roof height as the north tower (417m) then has a 124m useless spire just to make it 1776ft. So not including the new wtc’s spire, these buildings are taller: 432 park avenue, Willis tower, Central Park tower, one Vanderbilt, and Steinway tower.

@@markgriffin2087 not as tall as the willis/sears tower or others but they were pretty tall

@@ComradeAtomicthe spire for the 1776 thing is dumb IMO, like really? corny and dumb

The Chicago vista tower is shorter than the Central Park tower and World Trade Center even without the spire.

@@mrnoname7370 actually it's not it's the 3rd biggest skyscraper in chicago

@@Steve-zc9ht it wouldn’t be third in NYC that’s for sure

@@californiamade5608 new York skyscrapers are ugly

@@Steve-zc9ht .... but taller than in Chicago. :-D buuhuuu

Exactly that’s y I consider it the tallest west of Mississippi and not the Wilshire grand center in LA which is a 295 foot pole “spire”. Salesfocre Tower in San Francisco is a solid building. Many consider it the tallest.

And hopefully has the latest anti earthquake technology built into it.

@@jayalberts of course it does, why wouldn’t it? The core on that tower is thick, and it’s built over 250 feet into bedrock....

@@californiamade5608 Agreed! The Salesforce Tower has a very nice design! Simple but elegant. And no spires.

@@californiamade5608 Yeah, even we Angelinos are salty cause our previous tallest one in the city (US Bank) was also locally dethroned cause of that spire, LED display of the Wilshire is pretty wild tho

I agree. Chicago could use another tall skyscraper tbh

central park tower

Clown pole! 😂

Central Park tower would be taller then.

sears tower is in my opinion the ugliest and looks so freaking weird but ok

True that. In a recent book titled Supeetall, by a Dutch architect (amazing book full of history, science, modern skyscrapers, amazing technology, and future technologies) he said One World Trade has a 410 foot antenna. That would mean the top of the building is 1776-410= 1367. That's almost exactly the height of the Twin Towers. Going from memory, Central Park Tower is 1550', Willis is 1450, two other billionaires rowers look to be 1425, and another billionaire's rower is 1398, then finally One World Trade at 1368.

Sadly not by CTBUH standards but I follow, haha ;p.

Apparently a highrise must have more than 50% habitable space for it to be a building . CN tower in Toronto is more than 500m but it is not even a skyscraper

Good point, but: You mean "voila."

@@Fluffychoupikkosthat's still stupid. Buildings less than 2/3 of the central Park tower's height can overtake it by 350 feet

So true

😂😂😂😄😄

@@chicagomiller838 no

@@chicagomiller838 no

No

It all boils down to the difference between a communications antenna and a spire, in which spires are counted when calculating a building's total height whereas antennae are not. Spires are integral to the structure of a building, meaning that they were incorporated in the original design of the building. Spires are intentional extensions to a building's height that are designed in sync with the roof. Buildings like the Chrysler Building, Petronas Towers, Taipei 101, and so on have spires, as they were intentional extensions to the buildings' height that were apart of their original designs. Antennae on the other hand are communications addons that are not apart of a building's initial design. Antennae are added to a building by entities that wish to utilize the building's height for broadcast, thus they are not permanent features. Antennae can be added, removed, lengthened, or shortened depending on who's renting the roof and what they need from it. The Sears Tower, John Hancock Center, Original World Trade Center 1, and so on have antennae, as they were added to the buildings post-construction. The John Hancock's antennae were not added until a year after construction and the Sears Tower's nearly ten years after construction. The most striking example of the addition of an antenna is the Empire State Building, of which its pinnacle from 1931 to 1950 terminated at the top of its mooring mast (the part below the antenna). In 1950 several antennae were added to the sides and top of the mast, the largest being the giant spike on top we see today. Because the examples were not intentional features of the building's designing process, they are simply antennae and are not counted. The architectural top of the JHC and Sears Tower are their roofs, and for the Empire State it is the top of its mast. Now... there is one building that rides a very thin line when it comes to this debate, and that of course is One World Trade Center. Yes, the 400ft pinnacle on top of the building is an antenna, yet it is counted as part of the building's height. How can this be? Well we have to go back to what makes a spire a spire and an antenna an antenna in architecture. The original design for One WTC's pinnacle was a communications antenna encased in decorative metal plating. Cost overruns and maintenance challenges, however, prompted the decorative plating to be excluded from final construction, leave an exposed antenna. Many claim that because of this exclusion, the bare antenna should not be counted. However, to be classified as a spire, a pinnacle must be an integral part of the structure and have been included in the original design of the building. One WTC's pinnacle's function as an antenna is irrelevant as it checks both of these boxes. It was there from the start, part of final construction, and is an integral part of the building as it sets the building's height at the symbolic 1,776 ft height. Therefore, the antenna will not be tampered with like antennae usually are. And there lies the difference. A building like the Sears Tower may stand at a pinnacle height of 1,730 ft, but it was designed to be 1,450 ft. One WTC was always going to be 1,776 ft tall, and that number will not change unlike that of a building with an antenna. Therefore, One WTC at the end of the day has an architectural spire and a functional antenna.

@@RojoFern thank you.

agreed!

agreed and also spires can give deceiving heights 😩

It's still at least enclosed space used at the top instead of the bottom. So I'd say it still has 100 feet on it. But the whole spire thing is garbage you're right about that.

It counts as it’s a floor that can’t be removed, so it’s like 470m only roof height

The new JP morgan chase building will be over 1400 ft tall as well. Its under construction

@@idotso6057 hello pole worshiper this is a comparison of the height of building not the pole…….You have to understand that pole and building are different things can you live inside a pole no but you can live inside a building they are separate things…..

@@idotso6057 hahah but you still did not get it don’t you🤣🤣

@@idotso6057 oh son don’t cry 🤣

Nobody gives a shi*

Well the antennae of the Sears Tower is not in the original design and the Freedom tower has the antennae in it's design so the Freedom Tower is taller (srry bad eng but u know i mean)

Takahashi Shimo Mo was anybody talking about central park tower? Yeah i dont think so

@Takahashi Shimo Mo im tryna say that even though the central park tower has a higher rooftop then the sears/willis tower it still wasnt in the conversation

​@Takahashi Shimo Mo but central park isnt even finished yet so idk if id count it

even if willis tower’s antennae counts it’s still shorter than 1wtc. And if we take both antennas away Central Park tower is taller than Willis tower by roof height

Dude, he’s clueless af ! I mean, just look at the diagram! Putting spire height over roof height is stupid af !

So that's why! I saw the Aon Center in the video, and I got confused because the Aon Center doesn't have an all-glass facade.

Then says the 1WTC makes the other look tiny as it's shorter than the two behind it

Also they say the Atlantic Ocean at one point, but show stock footage of the Pacific

I think they’re confused with the much older intercontinental Los Angeles

Hey. I remember you from my comments in my San Francisco and LA videos!

🤣🤣🤣

@@user-hf3eb8lj5g that’s how most feel about WSG. laughing matter

In all honesty I thought the Library Tower was bigger than the Wilshire Grand.

@@blast4me754 I seriously is though lol.

SOMEONE FINALLY SAID IT ! These stupid spires being a factor in determining a building’s height is becoming silly !

@@ascott2168 hey man how's it going

yes

@@ascott2168 yes

Yes indeed. It's crazy how many people still need simple education on what a building is lol

You are american right? Why you don't praised of one wtc?

Antenna didn't counted as building because they used for telecommunications, meanwhile spire counted as building, you can also climb the spires and it also have observation view, not like antenna. Example, spire at PNB118, the spire have observation view like i said

central park tower is taller then sears tower by roof height. please shut the hell up ive copied and pasted this to over 20 comments

Biased? One WTC been the tallest in the USA for almost a decade😮‍💨😮‍💨

It’s still gonna be counted because it’s considered a spire and not an antenna

@@abelsamuel3999 Those architects are really stupid, I don't know why one is considered an antenna (Willis Tower) and the other a spire (1 WTC), since they both work as an antenna

@@abelsamuel3999 I know it's going to be counted because American said it's part of the building .But it"s really like a 5 foot 8 man putting on a hat with a feather and saying I'm 6 foot 1, laughable and stupid.

And Most of new yorks tallest buildings are like that too 🤣

@@richardgomes4332 true but a hat isn’t part of the person so it wouldn’t count. Also they made the building 1776ft for symbolic purposes(American independence year) and the roof is exactly the height of the old twin towers to pay respect

I agree 💯 but just say Sears from now on 😉

So true! My first time in the new World Trade Center, I was sooooo disappointed. The new observation doesn’t even come close to what was there before.

But One Vanderbilt has a better observation deck than either of them.

Agree. The Woolworth bldg is beatiful also.

Seriously? The Willis Tower lost the title of "Worlds Tallest" because of the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia... not the US) used "cheater" spires to be taller. These are found throughout the world and are used by many countries to be "taller."

@@jcarp8471 correct, in Chicago they don't use spires to get taller, only in Trump Tower. But in NY they use a lot of spires, for example, the One World Trade Center.

@@kelvinpiresoli Fixed it for you... Chicago: New York City: Let's put a spire on top of our skyscrapers ;)

Spires are cool, so why not?

Yeah it’s so silly ! The roof of the Sears Tower is 208 ft taller than the Petronas Tower’s roofs, a 20-ish story difference. Just weird how these spires determine height !

Yeah

@Rhinocat1 If that were the case, then wouldn’t the Willis Tower (1450’ roof height) be considered taller than the One World Trade Center (1368’ root height), not counting the antennas on each?

@Rhinocat1 I guess I’m confused at what the difference is: The One World Trade Center uses the mast on top for communications purposes and the plans to make it architecturally appealing were scrapped. From my understanding, it was left as something of an antenna. I understood that spires were architectural and antennas are functional.

@Rhinocat1 From my understanding, 1 WTC was supposed to have a decorative casing around it, but they scrapped it last minute. Now it’s just a mast used for telecommunications. So as I see it, it has an antenna not really any different from that of the Willis Tower. I suppose the only difference was the Willis Tower was never supposed to have a decorative spire in the first place but 1 WTC was supposed to, but never got one.

@@greenyoshi48 so what? If you construct a 700 footer with a 1,100 foot spire is it now the new tallest building in USA even though it wouldn't have the highest roof even in Detroit ??? LOL

@@antonioguglielmetti2661 if the antenna was counted at the height for the sears towers it will still be smaller then the one World Trade Center

@@mastersev8365how about I build a spire on my house roof and name it the tallest building in the world lol

Spires are great if they are integral to the design like The Empire State Building, but silly looking if they are just stuck there fir no good reason like 1 WTC. I'm thinking the lead architect must have been poorly endowed.

Roof isn’t where it ends lol spires count antennas don’t

Im sorry but spires count 😄

Costa Skl and they shouldnt count literally somebody could make a 2 story building then add a crazy tall stick or spire or whatever and be called "taller" then the rest

I agree. I see one if those spires that is not integral to the design and it makes me think the lead architect was having a midlife crisis.

yo orang mana bro

@@shukriwafiq5220 Kedah

Dangerous? This is not middle east, you'll not be guaranteed to be killed because of your religion or ethnicity. Can't guarantee you MIGHT not be agressed by some racists or cowboy cops..but yeah if you look like the stereotypical muslim arab you'll probably had many mean looks and insults toward you tho.

There’s plenty of Muslims here in America. Lol.

Are you shia muslim?

Some are considered antennas (like the Willis Tower) and some are considered architectural spires (like One WTC). It's pretty arbitrary, if you ask me. Tall buildings should be measured by roof height, period.

@@timg2727 central park tower is taller than the sears tower by roof height. unless you count antennas then one world trade center is taller.

1,036 ft.

@Angel Duran Salesforce Tower in San Francisco is taller than the Chrysler building. That’s why.

Most Chicagoans call it the Sears Tower

Yeah I don't call it Willis it just doesn't sound good sears is better

I rarely hear it referred to as Willis Tower, it'll always be the Sears Tower. Also, I've been to many big cities with tall buildings and I've not seen another skyscraper come close to dominating the skyline like the Sears Tower does. It's not just the height(which is huge, yes), but the footprint along with the design which make it stand out among skyscrapers.

It will always be called the Sears Tower if you're from Chicago. Same goes for the 875 N. Michigan skyscraper, it will always be called the John Hancock Center (waiting for a company to pay millions for naming rights, LOL).

Absolutely not, the only name we will forever say will be the Sears Tower

1WTC's parapet height was designed to match the height of the original Twin Towers, while the spire height was symbolically designed to be 1776' tall.

Highest in New York at least. The highest observaorty in the western hemisphere of any building is still the 103rd-floor Sears Tower in Chicago. (WillisTower)

Isnt the roof on central park tower taller ? I agree with you though I do not see 1 world trade center as the tallest.just like first national is still the tallest in L A for me

It’s not an antenna on the one wtc it’s a spire and it does count its apart of the architecture lol u don’t know architecture at all

I still think spies are cheating .we have the heron tower in the London Square Mile and it has a 90 foot spire which makes it taller than the nearby cheese grater but if you look at those 2 buildings you would think that the cheese grater was taller due to the fact that the roof is about 70 feet taller. Jusf my opinion

Spires

@@MattNewsome28 I know architecture. The only reason why it’s labeled as part of the building architecturally is because CTBUH wants it to be like that. But on a personal perspective antennas and spires do not count to many people. It should be roof to roof at what able to be occupied.

Chicago Skyscrapers>NYC Skyscrapers

@@ryanescobar8980 nah

@@costaskl6589 New York just has allot more, but their skyline is verry messy

It's kinda annoying he did tho

Why is it annoying? Only three countries have not yet embraced the metric system.

@@Andrew-df1dr Yeah but two of them are the largest influences in the western hemisphere culturally. Not to mention the United States having a military presence all over the world. America isn't a small country, it's the third most populated country. It's really hard to be that countries haven't adopted the Imperial System.

​ @Ryan Escobar Which two? The United States and Liberia? Or the United States and Myanmar?

@@Andrew-df1dr I mean Great Brittain, though officially theyre supposed to use Metric, not many people of the British public do.

Spire

Yes

The tower replaced the old hotel in the same location. Wilshire Grand Center.

Antennas are detachable. Spires are permanent fixtures

Strangely, if it is functionable like an antenna is does not count. But if it is a nonfunctional architectural feature, then it does. Doesn’t really make much sense though. There are actually antennas on the spire of One World Trade Center. It counts, but the antennas on top of the Sears Tower or 875 Michigan (will always be John Hancock to me) do not. Another fun fact. If this is the way we count height, the Sears Tower official height should be 463 meters (1,518 feet) because the antenna bases are integrally part of the structure and were there for eight years before they added the antennas in 1982. The counting is definitely inconsistent.

@@dins5066you can detatch a spire if you try.

The pinnacle top of the Empire State building has a secret 103 floor open to celebrities only at 1,230 ft. But the building tops out at 1,250 ft. to the structural roof. (Not counting the spire) Note: The Sears Tower (Willis Tower) has the highest observatory of any building in the western hemisphere on the 103rd floor at 1,353 ft.