What is the tallest building in America?

Рет қаралды 3,204

Күн бұрын

Although the answer to the question of what is the tallest building in America may seem very straightforward, I'm going to try to argue why it's not as simple as it appears. While I will present the building that, in my opinion, deserves that title, the idea of this video is to stimulate an open debate on this issue. While, in general, it might not be of great importance, it's certainly interesting for those of us passionate about architecture.
Taking advantage of the situation, I wanted to mention the new JP Morgan headquarters. Apart from including the One World Trade Center, the Willis Tower, and the Central Park Tower, I've casually introduced the Burj Khalifa, the Shanghai Tower, the Ping An International Finance Center, the Merdeka 118, the Emirates Towers, and the Varso Tower.
I've divided the video into these sections:
00:00 Introduction
00:42 Definition of Building
01:08 Definition of Spire
01:25 About CTBUH criteria
01:57 Indefiniteness and exceptions in CTBUH
02:44 The 'spire' of the OWTC
02:54 The Sears Tower antenna
03:10 Considerations on criteria
03:45 Height of the top floor of the OWTC
03:53 Height of the top floor of the Sears Tower
04:01 Height of the top floor of the Central Park Tower
04:09 The tallest building in America
04:22 New JP Morgan headquarters
04:31 The visual importance of spires
04:58 What is a spire?
05:13 Falsifying heights
05:35 The OWTC with a parapet instead of an antenna
06:10 Farewell

Пікірлер: 61

@oliversworldofimagination8663 8 ай бұрын

I personally go by roof height.

@mrandrossguy9871 8 ай бұрын

Also Twin Towers specifically the South Tower or Tower 2 had a Freaking ROOF OBSERVATORY DECK !! Tell me How many Other Buildings Especially Towers Have something like that Nowadays!?

@urbex_coasters 5 ай бұрын

The Stratosphere Tower in Vegas has the rides on top. But the Stratosphere doesn't really count as a building as it's more of an ovservation pod, similar to the CN Tower or the Space Needle. Speaking of the CN Tower, kniwing observatory isn't all the way up I'm not sure if it's technically the highest occupied floor by elevation vs ground or not, I know they claim it is the highest in North America but I can't believe the pod is higher than Sears Tower or Central Park Tower. Definately the highest outdoor observation deck though.

@_Breakdown 8 ай бұрын

You are absolutely 100% right! And great animation of NYC ! Did you do those other towers as well (in China / Malaysia / Taiwan ?)

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

Thank you very much! And yes, the idea is to keep doing it in the future.

@absolutelypositively 6 ай бұрын

@@Magnitudx well then I for one will keep watching

@stickynorth 8 ай бұрын

I agree! Tallest occupiable floor SHOULD be the criteria used... Great video!

@user-tl2sq1wp1u 8 ай бұрын

I believe the criteria used, should be roof height, because it is part of the overall building. Spires and Antennas are accessories, and not every building has them, like in this video with the Central Park Tower.

@JeromeWinnegan-cr2ot 5 ай бұрын

😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

@stbrian1861 8 ай бұрын

Although unofficial..., I go by a skyscraper's visual impact on the skyline. Coherence is important. The ESB fades nicely into its spire and that fades nicely into its antenna. The ESB would actually look incomplete without its antenna. OWT actually ends abruptly and a spire that looks more like an antenna suddenly appears. This is poorly executed and could've been so much better.

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

Friend St Brian, I've missed you around here 🙂. When it comes to the visual impact, I completely agree. And yes, the best example might be the ESB. But when we talk about establishing an official height, if you allow any element to count as part of the total height, there will always be someone looking to take advantage, even at the cost of creating grotesque structures, because, even if some don't realize it, the matter of height is a very sweet treat; quite profitable.

@stbrian1861 8 ай бұрын

⁠@@Magnitudx Many Thanks. Before 9/11 happened, since 1 WTC was handling nearly all of the communications for the NY/NJ Metro area, there was an idea to "clean up" the ESB's Spire and Antenna. It actually looked Very Nice. I saw a render of it somewhere online..., ?

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

I think I also read something about that, but the thing is, in any case, I would consider it a mistake to remove the antenna structure (not the devices if they're no longer in use). As you rightly said, and perhaps out of sheer habit, the ESB would look odd without it today. On another note, I must be beyond the midpoint of the Ferris wheel video. I think what's left will be quicker; perhaps I'll have it in a couple of weeks. The original darn Ferris Wheel model was a nightmare to make, especially the research, until I found a fantastic book with all the technical data. Speaking of this, I found it quite a noteworthy coincidence that the Loki series features this observation wheel, and very well represented, by the way (and I know what I'm talking about 😥😁).

@stbrian1861 8 ай бұрын

@@Magnitudx ..., Can't wait 🤗 ... I always look forward to your uploads 😊

@circleinforthecube5170 Ай бұрын

the sears always kind of felt like a sister complex/structure to the original world trade center, a big 1970s complex with hallmarks of the decade everywhere standing over its respective city as the tallest, also the antennas always looked really good on the sears and matched the Hancock well. i feel like infrastructure can be really cool, cooler than we think, many of it follows the symmetry rules such as powerlines that we use to build architecture, radio towers at night are absolutely stunning sometimes and some of them look nice in the day,

@rannicel 8 ай бұрын

Central Park Tower the goat

@RojoFern 6 ай бұрын

I suppose if you want to approach the idea of a building from a strictly utilitarian point-of-view, highest occupied floor would ultimately make sense. The problem I see with that, however, is that skyscrapers (and human habitats as a whole for that matter) have never just been boxes that we live in, despite the efforts of most 20th and 21st century architecture to make it so. Buildings are individuals in their own right with character akin to that of a ship, and for better or for worse, the pinnacles placed atop them are part of that character. I know this sentiment may ruffle some feathers, but ultimately this does include antennae, and I believe it should. It is true the main antennae of the Sears Tower weren't added to the building until nearly a decade after its construction concluded, but those antennae are nonetheless engrained into the modern identity of the building as much as any other architectural aspect of it. Yes, not all pinnacles are created equal. Some are added just to get a little height boost with no regard for how it could potentially harm the building's architectural image. However, that pinnacle, at the end of the day, is still part of said image, and just because we as fans of architecture don't like how a building looks or the reasons certain things were added shouldn't give us the right to disregard aspects of it. Perhaps this stems from a much larger debate of perspective. When most envision a "building" their minds will probably jump to a big rectangle with rooms and windows. Maybe that's the problem; maybe we need to stop seeing buildings as just "buildings" and understand their identity as structures. The other half of architecture is art, after all.

@Magnitudx 6 ай бұрын

Certainly, it is a much more complex matter than it might seem at first glance, and it is indeed so because it operates on many levels. And for that reason, your reasoning, besides being very well presented, seems perfectly valid to me. But I sincerely believe that the most interesting aspect of this debate is that no one can come out on top. Personally, I still think that ornamental spires or antennas should not be taken into account regarding height classifications. And I know it's unfair, but since we can't know if the project would have included them if they didn't affect those classifications (which are very important in terms of professional projection, brand image, and often economic aspects), then the innocent should pay for the guilty, but especially to curb that unaesthetic trend. In other words, precisely thinking about protecting the artistic aspect of architecture.

@RojoFern 6 ай бұрын

Definitely agree with you on the various approaches to the debate being a net positive. I know I said seeing buildings as utilitarian is "a problem", but ultimately there isn't really anything inherently wrong in that view. It may just genuinely be someone's perspective. I'll also say, I'm absolutely with you in believing we should move away from designs with spires. While I think most spires and antennae are architecturally pleasing and do work well with their respective buildings, it is starting to get just a little out of hand. I understand why One WTC has its pinnacle, attempting to mimic the look WTC1, and that's all good, but offenders like the Wilshire Grand Center and more recently Merdeka 118 rub even me the wrong way (even if in a vacuum I think they are perfectly fine buildings). Actually, to be totally honest with you, my favorite building concept of all time (despite being fictional) is the Glass Tower from Towering Inferno. It's the perfect case of a building's design drawing your eyes to the top without the aid of a spire.

@Magnitudx 6 ай бұрын

@@RojoFern There hasn't been a more utilitarian building than the Twin Towers, and yet, despite the apparent monolithic nature of their construction on paper, they had an undeniable appeal and something special-very special. I don't believe utilitarianism and aesthetics are mutually exclusive factors. And even, because I assume you were referring to it, in the most extreme case of utilitarianism where aesthetics isn't even a consideration, it can indeed be someone's genuine perspective. But focusing on the current topic, yes, that's the issue; it's getting out of hand. Look at the Varso Tower in Poland, or, of course, the best example: the Merdeka 118, which, having the potential to be a splendid building, ended up resembling a premium 90s mobile phone or a designer walkie-talkie. And the list goes on. For me, nowadays, and stating in advance that I am passionate about challenges, and the challenge of height still captivates me, I am more drawn to buildings with a story to tell, something to contribute, in the style (among many others) of the Aqua in Chicago, or like the 130 William or the Eight Spruce Street in NYC.

@circleinforthecube5170 Ай бұрын

@@Magnitudx i think saying that 70 years of architecture is just boxes we live in or removed from beauty is a lie, even with the vast reduction in decoration in the 50s and 60s, modern architecture wasn't trying to be completely utilitarian, even if some efforts worked towards that they failed, a 1960s building has enough decoration and design that its clearly different from a 1970s or 50s building, a 1970s house has pretty different design from a 2000s house, alot of these arguments against modernism feel like they are based off flanderizations of modern architecture then actual modern architecture, hell the entire 80s and 90s was trying to return to ornamentation, but apparently those buildings are tacky so if we do something utilitarian its boring but if we do something artful its tacky? many 70-90s houses were much better than the boring cookie-cutter foursquares of the 20s or front-heavy art deco residental buildings of the 40s? theres a reason you don't hear about them

@circleinforthecube5170 Ай бұрын

" Perhaps this stems from a much larger debate of perspective. When most envision a "building" their minds will probably jump to a big rectangle with rooms and windows. Maybe that's the problem; maybe we need to stop seeing buildings as just "buildings" and understand their identity as structures. The other half of architecture is art, after all." this feels arrogant, to say that modern architecture isint art is wild and shows a lack of understanding of different eras of modern architecture, the 60s didn't just continue with brutalism forever, our built environment sucks because of car centrism, not architecture

@DragonsFan. 7 ай бұрын

Correct answer: Highest Roof: Central Park Tower Highest with Spire: Cn tower Toronto

@BishopArchiveNoN 8 ай бұрын

Do buildings in the 900-1000 we deserve love to

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

Well, of course, all beautiful buildings deserve love 😄

@ModelSkyscrapers 8 ай бұрын

Height of any materially tangible fixed component, whether it is roof, spire, antenna, or flag pole

@APerson-ni1gb 8 ай бұрын

Freedom tower is the middle finger to America, Itself 😓

@alexe2192 8 ай бұрын

I truly believe the designation of tallest building was given to the new WTC as a symbolic gesture. And, I understand why-a symbolic act of good will in light of 9/11. I get it on a human level. But I don’t think it’s accurate, and think the Sears Tower got snubbed.

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

Of course, indeed: and sparking that debate is one of the reasons for this video. The other is that as an architecture enthusiast and (as a bit of a child at heart) a fan of tall buildings, I'm concerned about the tacit agreement not to surpass that height in NYC. A fact indirectly acknowledged by the developers of the Central Park Tower. All for a building that never had to be what it finally became, and should have been something dazzling without the need for trickery.

@jonathanandujar6412 8 ай бұрын

The tallest building right now in the western hemisphere is Central Park Tower at 1,550 feet in height located in NYC

@lucasfrazier8882 8 ай бұрын

I personally think it should be roof height not highest floor.

@jonathanandujar6412 8 ай бұрын

I agree by roof height as well

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

To me, it seems that even with the roof height, they'd still be playing tricks, but in any case, I prefer it more than the current (deceptive) spire option.

@antonioguglielmetti2661 7 ай бұрын

Maintenance floors are needed up there. The rules will be bent once again if this is the case although I would much rather roof height be the criteria.

@MitchellBPYao 4 ай бұрын

For mine it is 532m to spire x2, 429m to roof in both or 130f, 396m 120f observation deck each, the two towers 330m or 100 each with a 290m or 75f skybridge that is tilted in the middle and a 66m 20 base two sections plus a 15m high 5s hollow lobby

@peteroni21 8 ай бұрын

they made the roof height of one wtc the same as the old one wtc and the spire was made to make it 1,776 feet

@jonathanandujar6412 8 ай бұрын

Central Park Tower is the tallest building in the western hemisphere located in NYC with a height of 1,550 by roof height

@mrandrossguy9871 8 ай бұрын

Are you able to Physically Be ON that roof though from the tower ?

@NYBProductionsn 8 ай бұрын

@@mrandrossguy9871for most people, likely not, however the tallest occupabile floor would still be taller than both of the buildings shown here in the video

@MitchellBPYao 4 ай бұрын

@@NYBProductionsnin metres

@wtfa2910 7 ай бұрын

To me the tallest building is roof height no antennas no spires

@ima.get.tiv.2 8 ай бұрын

Whats the 2nd tower in the middle?

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

Central Park Tower

@tfmg8223 8 ай бұрын

I COMPLETLEY agree with this! One wtc would have looked so much better.

@thomasgilbertson7060 8 ай бұрын

I actually think you measured the Sears Tower wrong based on your criteria. Also I agree with your criteria.

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

I've used the official height of the top floor according to the CTBUH and Wikipedia because in this case, I don't have access to the original blueprints, and I assume it's accurate, but I can't guarantee it. If you have different information, I could include it in the description.

@rabid_dog268 8 ай бұрын

👍

@robertbarrett3749 8 ай бұрын

5.50 that would've looked so much more amazing than that stupid atenna

@abrilluna8675 8 ай бұрын

Sears tower

@mikedrown2721 8 ай бұрын

Name All of the countries in America

@SergioPop-po7ni 8 ай бұрын

Which one? South or North? Does that include the Carribean?

@APerson-ni1gb 8 ай бұрын

😂 porturico

@tlgamin867 8 ай бұрын

Ight, bet: 🇨🇦Canada 🇺🇸United States of America 🇲🇽United Mexican States 🇧🇿Belize 🇬🇹Republic of Guatemala 🇸🇻Republic of El Salvador 🇭🇳Republic of Honduras 🇳🇮Republic of Nicaragua 🇨🇷Republic of Costa Rica 🇵🇦Republic of Panama 🇧🇸Commonwealth of The Bahamas 🇨🇺Republic of Cuba 🇯🇲Jamaica 🇭🇹Republic of Haiti 🇩🇴Dominican Republic 🇦🇬Antigua and Barbuda 🇧🇧Barbados 🇩🇲Commonwealth of Dominica 🇬🇩Grenada 🇰🇳Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis 🇱🇨Saint Lucia 🇻🇨Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 🇹🇹Republic of Trinidad and Tobago 🇨🇴Republic of Colombia 🇪🇨Republic of Ecuador 🇻🇪Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 🇬🇾Co-operative Republic of Guyana 🇸🇷Republic of Suriname 🇧🇷Federative Republic of Brazil 🇵🇪Republic of Peru 🇧🇴Plurinational State of Bolivia 🇨🇱Republic of Chile 🇦🇷Argentine Republic 🇵🇾Republic of Paraguay 🇺🇾Oriental Republic of Uruguay

@charliemango 8 ай бұрын

What about Greenland 🇬🇱 (Denmark 🇩🇰)? This has always been kinda weird, right lol.

@tlgamin867 8 ай бұрын

@@charliemango Greenland is a part of Denmark, and I only included fully sovereign, American-based nations in my list.

@Not_ChrisXD 8 ай бұрын

In my opinion not being rude or anything but i think one world trade center is tallest just my opinion so.

@APerson-ni1gb 8 ай бұрын

WelL that just like.. Your opinion mAn

@Magnitudx 8 ай бұрын

As in this matter, it seems impossible to 'be right,' what you're expressing is your opinion, and I believe it's as respectable as any other.

@Not_ChrisXD 8 ай бұрын

@@APerson-ni1gb thanks man i'll respect your opinion too

@harryszn 8 ай бұрын

it is yeah but if u put the 1WTC beside central park tower for example.. The CPT will look taller, because to some extent, it is. 1WTC just has an absurd spire

@Not_ChrisXD 8 ай бұрын

@@harryszn true