ISMA - "Building? What is that?"

ISMA

Advancing public appreciation of tall building principles & technologies.

Or, alternatively, the first and foremost Website providing answers to that question of questions: "Just what is a tall building?"

CONTENTS

1 - Introduction
2 - Commentary
3 - Connections

http://www.prairienet.org/~rkrause/isma.html

1 · INTRODUCTION
The International Superstructure Mensuration Alliance, as it was known and founded a year ago, is now my personal research project: "ISMA". I have many new objectives. One is to provide increased public appreciation of tall buildings and the concepts behind them. Two, is to clear up the multitudes of myths and confusion that currently make this task almost impossible -- the media, professional, and otherwise attempts at precluding people's appreciation of true tall building design whether that be the result of attempted political or financial gain.
As you can see, I have begun a total restructuring of my Website to reflect the recent and dramatic priority shifts. So, please excuse ongoing development of content. Also, if you have any information that you think might be of value here, please submit it. Your contributions will help to make the ISMA and the Internet itself a more useful and trustworthy resource.
--Randall Krause
Researcher
2 · COMMENTARY
Well, here it is! This is the place. Information for this section is being developed (much has come from years of reasearch and debate, however), simply to keep up with the numerous deceptions and fallacies that reside not only outside, but within the field.
"The best way to conceal a lie is between two truths" —The X-Files
Check back often, as this section will be the new focal point of ISMA.
What is the meaning of tall?
Tall refers to the exceptional emphasis of a given body's vertical dimension, in essence, closely paralleling the term 'long'.
What is the meaning of high? How does it differ from tall?
High and height refer to the same thing: vertical ascension of a given body, generally refering to something visually imposing. And, while tall and tallness may actually imply high and height respectively, the reverse is not necessarily true.
What is a building?
For those who have not been keeping track, this is on my personal list of English's most controversial words. So, what better chance for me to explain it straight-and-simple:
building noun (class of construction): any relatively large, permanent construction with definite form and function; abstract anything that suggests a building in structure or effect
structure noun : an organized material collective
construction noun (class of "structure") : an artificial, engineered structure
Although Jeff Herzer claims I am trying to broaden the original meaning of building, I actually declared these definitions public only after years of careful research (incl. a composite of many existing technical definitions) as well as intensive interviews withindividuals from a variety of backgrounds.
Examples of buildings include Pyramid of Giza, Washington Monument, Seattle's Skyneedle, Hoover Dam, Houston's Senior Road FM Site communications tower, Brooklyn Bridge, the North Sea's Troll Gas Platform, Nordstrom's airplane hangar on Boeing Field, Amtrak Empire State Express passenger train, the Titanic ship — you name it! Even your car is a type of building... a traveling coach. It all depends on perspective.
Are a building's boundaries always definite?
No. In fact that's just the problem — well, part of it anyway. One should note that a building can be above ground, under ground, under water, floating in space, flying in the air, any combination of the above or any representation of the above. There can also be buildings within buildings, overlapping buildings, and disjointed buildings. In most cases such buildings still extend in accordance with the prior definition only so far their name was intended for a specified purpose. However, the problem is those constructions which have been specifically designed to intigrate with their environment (say, via transit lines, sewage pipes, telephone cables, electrical conduits, sidewalks and other infrastructure, etc.). Their extents are almost indeterminable... that is unless they're somehow factored into more fundamental parts.
What is a tower?
A tower is a tall building. You were expecting something more?
What about a tower that is mostly structure? It could not conceivably be a building.
A building, to be a building, must be mostly structure anyway. In fact, that is its characteristic essence; that is what defines "building"! Whether that structure is distributed vertically, horizontally, or spatially is irrelevent to the definition at hand.
Isn't a building supposed to defined by architecture?
Not in the least. While the execution of works of architecture necessarily includes building, building is not exclusive to architecture, but rather engineering. The term building can be employed for any of an innumerable variety of developments. (Try saying that ten times fast.) In fact, the term architecture is sort of out-of-date, standalone, unecessarily exclusive. The new and happening thing is architectural engineering technology which stresses the reality of building, not some dream, as people like Jeff Herzer would view it. And, with the recent worldwide growth of skyscraper development, architectural engineering has taken on a whole new significance.
What are some general-purpose terms that can be used to describe tall building development?
Here are the recently proposed supplemental definitions for edifice.
edify, edified, edifying verb
to build upward, esp. a skyline; to top out
edifier noun
one who plans, designs, or constructs edifices
edification noun
process of building up a skyline, esp. on an existing cityscape
edificiary noun
one who researches, records, or recommends edificial constructions; a tall buildings enthusiast (pronounced like beneficiary)
edifice noun
a very tall (sometimes massive) structure; a beautiful, extraordinary, or monumental building, often used in reference to a skyscraper tower
edificial adjective
of or relating to edifices, esp. their design or construction
edifaction noun
the act of providing information or expertise about any aspect of edifices
What is a skyscraper?
A skyscraper is any superstructure tower in which static and dynamic forces are transfered directly to the foundations exclusively via a rigid or semi-rigid frame. While a skyscraper may always be a tall building, the reverse is not necessarily true. Examples of skyscrapers include One World Trade Center (incl. communications tower) in NYC and John Hancock Center (incl. both communications towers) in Chicago.
What about guyed towers? Are they skyscrapers?
No. They are in category all by themselves. While most may indeed utilize a rigid frame, cable stayed towers in general have a whole set of engineering equations specific to their design. In fact, attempting to guy a freestanding tower will almost assuredly result in disaster.
So, CN Tower is correctly referred to as "the tallest freestanding structure"?
Wrong! Whoever claims this is true is undoubtedly naive. Think about it: Even a guyed tower is, in totality, a "freestanding structure". The adjective, freestanding, is modifying the term structure, which itself includes both the guy cables and the tower because that's the essence of its design. Now, in the case of CN Tower, perhaps a more "politically correct" title might be "the tallest freestanding tower in the world." Of course, even that is only true above ground and above water -- I believe. It all depends on where along the hull the MARS TLP Gas Platform is in fact secured by its tendons.
What is a high-rise?
Like a skyscraper, a high-rise is a special kind of tall building. Exclusively, it is enclosed and multistoried, and serviced by a vertical transportation system (i.e. elevators). A high-rise may or may not be a skyscraper. Examples of high-rises include Toronto's Canadian National Tower, NYC's Seagram Building, Los Angeles' Bank of America Tower, and Singapore's OUB building.
What is the difference between an antenna and a communications tower?
Also like a skyscraper, a communications tower is a special kind of tall building. It can be either a guyed tower or a skyscraper and is specifically constructed for the siting of antennas, that is, radio or television transmitters or receivers which are fixed to the top or more often along the side of the tower structure. The towers themselves compose a subclass of signal towers. As such they may include ladders, platforms, strobe beacons, etc.
Like most buildings, communications towers are rarely "standalone"; they are often, in one way or another, intrinsic structurally and architecturally with some surrounding construction. But, of course, in no case is a communications tower an "antenna". Plain and simple, very high antennas are incapable of standing-alone and the communications towers that hold them do not transmit or receive radio waves anyway. Therefore people who nonchalantly substitute the one word for the other word are what I like to consider promoters of deception.
What is the tallest building above-ground in the world?
That is the 3,250 foot MARS TLP oil and gas drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The gigantic deck is supported by a buoyant hull that is in turn connected to several piles in the seabed by steel tendons. (I'm not sure if this height stat includes the foundation piles or not. If you happen to know, then please enlighten me.)
What is this I hear about Petronas Towers being the world's tallest building?
You hear the result of pure economic hype and political propoganda. Hmm. Let's get this straight: They are indeed tall, but not nearly the tallest on Earth. Isn't it amazing, what people will actually believe just because the news says so? Silly, silly.
But the CTBUH lists the Petronas Towers as having the highest structural or architectural top.
Indeed. here is their latest band-aid approach at creating a world's official tallest list:
Height to tip of spire or antenna
World Trade Center, One (1728-ft), NYC, United States
Height to structural or architectural top
Petronas Towers (1483-ft), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Height to top of roof
Sears Tower (1450-ft), Chicago, United States
Height to highest occupied floor
Sears Tower (1431-ft), Chicago, United States
Is it correct? Does it cover all possibilities? Does it solve the debate? No, notta, and not in a lifetime.
First, if we were to take just the above-ground portions of the buildings in the listabove, World Trade Center would have the highest structural top, World Trade Center would have the highest roof, Sears Tower would have the highest walkable floor, and World Trade Center would have the highest spire. So many mistakes. Tisk, tisk. I guess that's why CTBUH is considered the authority as Jeff Herzer says.
Second, they use that word, "antenna". You know, this alone makes me question their authority. What do they expert in? Ignorance?
Third, CTBUH suggests a roof is different than a spire. In reality, spires are just a class of roof, or "top (covering or summit) of a building," which itself is a structural top. These people are breaking constructions down in impossible ways! How disrespectful. This organization just likes to make excuses. After all, if everyone is happy (or so they think), then that makes for better public image.
Wasn't Sears Tower reawarded several titles for "tallest building"?
Correct — misinformation that is. CTBUH is a master of confusion and contradiction. Read their Website. They claim to be the authority. Their goal: to encourage better buildings, not taller ones. But, their ranking system is centered solely on height. What hypocrites. Even worse, they believe real tall buildings don't have upper portions that serve a functional purpose. What anti-technologists!
What is the tallest building in the United States?
At 2063-ft above ground, that would appear to be the KVLY communications tower near Blanchard, North Dakota. Formerly (and most notably) known as KTHI ("HI" for highest), it was constructed in 1963 and completed in only a month's time! KVLY serves NBC television channel 11 to the valley area.
The KXJB tower near Galesburg was for decades the equal of KTHI. It has been less fortunate, however, facing collapse on two separate occasions: once in 1968 after a helicopter failed a guy wire and again in April 1997 after one of the valley's worst ice storms. Not to worry. A temporary 735-ft tower has been in place since July and a permanent 2063-ft replacement (much stronger than the first) should be ready by this August. KXJB serves CBS channel 4 to the surrounding region.
Wasn't CN Tower voted to be one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World?
Yes, exclusively by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Let's get things straight: There are no official Seven Wonders of the Modern World. There never have been. If there was, we'd be witness to a much more eclectic list of constructions than what the ASCE has so kindly, but unfairly chosen to highlight.
Sears Tower is said to have the highest public building observatory. Is that correct?
Don't believe everything you hear. Above ground, Two World Trade Center's observation gallery is actually a few feet higher than Sears Tower's Skydeck (as it always has been). But, while NYC may have an edge in the United States, CN Tower truly has the world's highest: the Space Deck.
# # #
Well, as promised: straight facts. That's right. Being human, I will admit to the occasional "mistake" and like anything, there are always a few "exceptions". But, I have nothing to gain by straight-out lying to you, although the owners/press officials affiliated with some of our tallest buildings do. You know... CN Tower, Sears Tower, Petronas Towers; they all claim to have the tallest building! They also make superficial opinion out of inherent fact purposefully to deceive you. That's right. All their nonsensical efforts at are certainly not in attempts to increase general public's awareness of what a tall building is...what it really means from the heart.
3 · CONNECTIONS
Could you imagine this site complete without some sort of connection to the world of so-called tall-building enthusiasts? Well, perhaps the following links might be of interest to you? Don't say I didn't warn you, however. Many of the authors continue to use the Web merely as a more efficient medium of misinformation mindshare. When necessity calls, take all their claims with a grain of salt.
The World's Tallest Buildings Page by Jeff Herzer
Probably the most comprehensive (and controversial?) Internet magazine for high-rise enthusiasts. These pages include everything: the most up-to-date (but not accurate :) building rankings, links to featured Websites, interviews with architects, and skycam views from atop some tallest favorites! This is also a great place for those stubborn enough to say building is exclusive to architecture.
The High-Rise Pages by Hans Netten
This site is like a WTB from other side of the world. Hans' attempt at a broader range of tall building-related topics definitely makes this a must-see for any enthusiast, esp. people who accept technology in architecture and are not bounded by the naivete of "traditional tall building".
Great Structures of the World by Grant Ranson
Grant has taken an interest in researching the tallest, longest, and most voluminous structures with much attention to detail. I hope to see a continual addition of facts and figures relating to wondrous engineering achievements.
The Skyscrapers Page by Chumnan Boonyaputthipong
A fairly eclectic listing of Internet related sites pertaining to skyscrapers, their architects and organizations. Here, you'll find stuff you never thought to look for and more.
"...who's the tallest of them all?" by Chicago Architecture Foundation
The CAF has detailed some of the issues involved in the Sears vs. Petronas debate -- but have done nothing to solve the problem. There is also a "tallest building" online poll. But wait! There's only two buildings to choose from, neither of which are tallest anyway!
Nalyd's Skyscraper Page by Dylan Leblanc
Includes his own rendering detailing the comparative heights of the world's tallest buildings. Quite detailed and extensive.
Toronto Buildings by Michael
A site quite thoroughly detailing Toronto's numerous high rises.
The Twistscraper by Dani�l Stocker
An interesting twist on the common engineering ideal of "form follows function".
Updated 27-May-1998.
International Superstructure Mensuration Alliance, ISMA and the associated name, logos, and Website contents are copyright 1999, Randall Krause. All other names are property of their respective owners. Permission is granted to distribute text or graphics only with proper attribution for non-commercial purposes only. Any other unauthorized use is prohibited.
This Website is in no way affiliated with the organization who administers the server on which it resides.

1 · INTRODUCTION
The International Superstructure Mensuration Alliance, as it was known and founded a year ago, is now my personal research project: "ISMA". I have many new objectives. One is to provide increased public appreciation of tall buildings and the concepts behind them. Two, is to clear up the multitudes of myths and confusion that currently make this task almost impossible -- the media, professional, and otherwise attempts at precluding people's appreciation of true tall building design whether that be the result of attempted political or financial gain. As you can see, I have begun a total restructuring of my Website to reflect the recent and dramatic priority shifts. So, please excuse ongoing development of content. Also, if you have any information that you think might be of value here, please submit it. Your contributions will help to make the ISMA and the Internet itself a more useful and trustworthy resource. --Randall Krause Researcher



2 · COMMENTARY
Well, here it is! This is the place. Information for this section is being developed (much has come from years of reasearch and debate, however), simply to keep up with the numerous deceptions and fallacies that reside not only outside, but within the field. "The best way to conceal a lie is between two truths" —The X-Files Check back often, as this section will be the new focal point of ISMA. *What is the meaning of tall?* Tall refers to the exceptional emphasis of a given body's vertical dimension, in essence, closely paralleling the term 'long'. *What is the meaning of high? How does it differ from tall?* High and height refer to the same thing: vertical ascension of a given body, generally refering to something visually imposing. And, while tall and tallness may actually imply high and height respectively, the reverse is not necessarily true. *What is a building?* For those who have not been keeping track, this is on my personal list of English's most controversial words. So, what better chance for me to explain it straight-and-simple: building noun (class of construction): any relatively large, permanent construction with definite form and function; abstract anything that suggests a building in structure or effect structure noun : an organized material collective construction noun (class of "structure") : an artificial, engineered structure Although Jeff Herzer claims I am trying to broaden the original meaning of building, I actually declared these definitions public only after years of careful research (incl. a composite of many existing technical definitions) as well as intensive interviews withindividuals from a variety of backgrounds. Examples of buildings include Pyramid of Giza, Washington Monument, Seattle's Skyneedle, Hoover Dam, Houston's Senior Road FM Site communications tower, Brooklyn Bridge, the North Sea's Troll Gas Platform, Nordstrom's airplane hangar on Boeing Field, Amtrak Empire State Express passenger train, the Titanic ship — you name it! Even your car is a type of building... a traveling coach. It all depends on perspective. Are a building's boundaries always definite? No. In fact that's just the problem — well, part of it anyway. One should note that a building can be above ground, under ground, under water, floating in space, flying in the air, any combination of the above or any representation of the above. There can also be buildings within buildings, overlapping buildings, and disjointed buildings. In most cases such buildings still extend in accordance with the prior definition only so far their name was intended for a specified purpose. However, the problem is those constructions which have been specifically designed to intigrate with their environment (say, via transit lines, sewage pipes, telephone cables, electrical conduits, sidewalks and other infrastructure, etc.). Their extents are almost indeterminable... that is unless they're somehow factored into more fundamental parts. *What is a tower?* A tower is a tall building. You were expecting something more? What about a tower that is mostly structure? It could not conceivably be a building. A building, to be a building, must be mostly structure anyway. In fact, that is its characteristic essence; that is what defines "building"! Whether that structure is distributed vertically, horizontally, or spatially is irrelevent to the definition at hand. *Isn't a building* supposed to defined by architecture?** Not in the least. While the execution of works of architecture necessarily includes building, building is not exclusive to architecture, but rather engineering. The term building can be employed for any of an innumerable variety of developments. (Try saying that ten times fast.) In fact, the term architecture is sort of out-of-date, standalone, unecessarily exclusive. The new and happening thing is architectural engineering technology which stresses the reality of building, not some dream, as people like Jeff Herzer would view it. And, with the recent worldwide growth of skyscraper development, architectural engineering has taken on a whole new significance. What are some general-purpose terms that can be used to describe tall building development? Here are the recently proposed supplemental definitions for edifice. edify, edified, edifying verb to build upward, esp. a skyline; to top out edifier noun one who plans, designs, or constructs edifices edification noun process of building up a skyline, esp. on an existing cityscape edificiary noun one who researches, records, or recommends edificial constructions; a tall buildings enthusiast (pronounced like beneficiary) edifice noun a very tall (sometimes massive) structure; a beautiful, extraordinary, or monumental building, often used in reference to a skyscraper tower edificial adjective of or relating to edifices, esp. their design or construction edifaction noun the act of providing information or expertise about any aspect of edifices *What is a skyscraper?* A skyscraper is any superstructure tower in which static and dynamic forces are transfered directly to the foundations exclusively via a rigid or semi-rigid frame. While a skyscraper may always be a tall building, the reverse is not necessarily true. Examples of skyscrapers include One World Trade Center (incl. communications tower) in NYC and John Hancock Center (incl. both communications towers) in Chicago. What about guyed towers? Are they skyscrapers? No. They are in category all by themselves. While most may indeed utilize a rigid frame, cable stayed towers in general have a whole set of engineering equations specific to their design. In fact, attempting to guy a freestanding tower will almost assuredly result in disaster. So, CN Tower is correctly referred to as "the tallest freestanding structure"? Wrong! Whoever claims this is true is undoubtedly naive. Think about it: Even a guyed tower is, in totality, a "freestanding structure". The adjective, freestanding, is modifying the term structure, which itself includes both the guy cables and the tower because that's the essence of its design. Now, in the case of CN Tower, perhaps a more "politically correct" title might be "the tallest freestanding tower in the world." Of course, even that is only true above ground and above water -- I believe. It all depends on where along the hull the MARS TLP Gas Platform is in fact secured by its tendons. *What is a high-rise?* Like a skyscraper, a high-rise is a special kind of tall building. Exclusively, it is enclosed and multistoried, and serviced by a vertical transportation system (i.e. elevators). A high-rise may or may not be a skyscraper. Examples of high-rises include Toronto's Canadian National Tower, NYC's Seagram Building, Los Angeles' Bank of America Tower, and Singapore's OUB building. What is the difference between an antenna and a communications tower? Also like a skyscraper, a communications tower is a special kind of tall building. It can be either a guyed tower or a skyscraper and is specifically constructed for the siting of antennas, that is, radio or television transmitters or receivers which are fixed to the top or more often along the side of the tower structure. The towers themselves compose a subclass of signal towers. As such they may include ladders, platforms, strobe beacons, etc. Like most buildings, communications towers are rarely "standalone"; they are often, in one way or another, intrinsic structurally and architecturally with some surrounding construction. But, of course, in no case is a communications tower an "antenna". Plain and simple, very high antennas are incapable of standing-alone and the communications towers that hold them do not transmit or receive radio waves anyway. Therefore people who nonchalantly substitute the one word for the other word are what I like to consider promoters of deception. What is the tallest building above-ground in the world? That is the 3,250 foot MARS TLP oil and gas drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The gigantic deck is supported by a buoyant hull that is in turn connected to several piles in the seabed by steel tendons. (I'm not sure if this height stat includes the foundation piles or not. If you happen to know, then please enlighten me.) What is this I hear about Petronas Towers being the world's tallest building? You hear the result of pure economic hype and political propoganda. Hmm. Let's get this straight: They are indeed tall, but not nearly the tallest on Earth. Isn't it amazing, what people will actually believe just because the news says so? Silly, silly. But the CTBUH lists the Petronas Towers as having the highest structural or architectural top. Indeed. here is their latest band-aid approach at creating a world's official tallest list: Height to tip of spire or antenna World Trade Center, One (1728-ft), NYC, United States Height to structural or architectural top Petronas Towers (1483-ft), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Height to top of roof Sears Tower (1450-ft), Chicago, United States Height to highest occupied floor Sears Tower (1431-ft), Chicago, United States Is it correct? Does it cover all possibilities? Does it solve the debate? No, notta, and not in a lifetime. First, if we were to take just the above-ground portions of the buildings in the listabove, World Trade Center would have the highest structural top, World Trade Center would have the highest roof, Sears Tower would have the highest walkable floor, and World Trade Center would have the highest spire. So many mistakes. Tisk, tisk. I guess that's why CTBUH is considered the authority as Jeff Herzer says. Second, they use that word, "antenna". You know, this alone makes me question their authority. What do they expert in? Ignorance? Third, CTBUH suggests a roof is different than a spire. In reality, spires are just a class of roof, or "top (covering or summit) of a building," which itself is a structural top. These people are breaking constructions down in impossible ways! How disrespectful. This organization just likes to make excuses. After all, if everyone is happy (or so they think), then that makes for better public image. Wasn't Sears Tower reawarded several titles for "tallest building"? Correct — misinformation that is. CTBUH is a master of confusion and contradiction. Read their Website. They claim to be the authority. Their goal: to encourage better buildings, not taller ones. But, their ranking system is centered solely on height. What hypocrites. Even worse, they believe real tall buildings don't have upper portions that serve a functional purpose. What anti-technologists! What is the tallest building in the United States? At 2063-ft above ground, that would appear to be the KVLY communications tower near Blanchard, North Dakota. Formerly (and most notably) known as KTHI ("HI" for highest), it was constructed in 1963 and completed in only a month's time! KVLY serves NBC television channel 11 to the valley area. The KXJB tower near Galesburg was for decades the equal of KTHI. It has been less fortunate, however, facing collapse on two separate occasions: once in 1968 after a helicopter failed a guy wire and again in April 1997 after one of the valley's worst ice storms. Not to worry. A temporary 735-ft tower has been in place since July and a permanent 2063-ft replacement (much stronger than the first) should be ready by this August. KXJB serves CBS channel 4 to the surrounding region. Wasn't CN Tower voted to be one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World? Yes, exclusively by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Let's get things straight: There are no official Seven Wonders of the Modern World. There never have been. If there was, we'd be witness to a much more eclectic list of constructions than what the ASCE has so kindly, but unfairly chosen to highlight. Sears Tower is said to have the highest public building observatory. Is that correct? Don't believe everything you hear. Above ground, Two World Trade Center's observation gallery is actually a few feet higher than Sears Tower's Skydeck (as it always has been). But, while NYC may have an edge in the United States, CN Tower truly has the world's highest: the Space Deck. # # # Well, as promised: straight facts. That's right. Being human, I will admit to the occasional "mistake" and like anything, there are always a few "exceptions". But, I have nothing to gain by straight-out lying to you, although the owners/press officials affiliated with some of our tallest buildings do. You know... CN Tower, Sears Tower, Petronas Towers; they all claim to have the tallest building! They also make superficial opinion out of inherent fact purposefully to deceive you. That's right. All their nonsensical efforts at are certainly not in attempts to increase general public's awareness of what a tall building is...what it really means from the heart.


3 · CONNECTIONS
Could you imagine this site complete without some sort of connection to the world of so-called tall-building enthusiasts? Well, perhaps the following links might be of interest to you? Don't say I didn't warn you, however. Many of the authors continue to use the Web merely as a more efficient medium of misinformation mindshare. When necessity calls, take all their claims with a grain of salt. The World's Tallest Buildings Page by Jeff Herzer Probably the most comprehensive (and controversial?) Internet magazine for high-rise enthusiasts. These pages include everything: the most up-to-date (but not accurate :) building rankings, links to featured Websites, interviews with architects, and skycam views from atop some tallest favorites! This is also a great place for those stubborn enough to say building is exclusive to architecture. The High-Rise Pages by Hans Netten This site is like a WTB from other side of the world. Hans' attempt at a broader range of tall building-related topics definitely makes this a must-see for any enthusiast, esp. people who accept technology in architecture and are not bounded by the naivete of "traditional tall building". Great Structures of the World by Grant Ranson Grant has taken an interest in researching the tallest, longest, and most voluminous structures with much attention to detail. I hope to see a continual addition of facts and figures relating to wondrous engineering achievements. The Skyscrapers Page by Chumnan Boonyaputthipong A fairly eclectic listing of Internet related sites pertaining to skyscrapers, their architects and organizations. Here, you'll find stuff you never thought to look for and more. "...who's the tallest of them all?" by Chicago Architecture Foundation The CAF has detailed some of the issues involved in the Sears vs. Petronas debate -- but have done nothing to solve the problem. There is also a "tallest building" online poll. But wait! There's only two buildings to choose from, neither of which are tallest anyway! Nalyd's Skyscraper Page by Dylan Leblanc Includes his own rendering detailing the comparative heights of the world's tallest buildings. Quite detailed and extensive. Toronto Buildings by Michael A site quite thoroughly detailing Toronto's numerous high rises. The Twistscraper by Dani�l Stocker An interesting twist on the common engineering ideal of "form follows function".

Updated 27-May-1998. International Superstructure Mensuration Alliance, ISMA and the associated name, logos, and Website contents are copyright 1999, Randall Krause. All other names are property of their respective owners. Permission is granted to distribute text or graphics only with proper attribution for non-commercial purposes only. Any other unauthorized use is prohibited. This Website is in no way affiliated with the organization who administers the server on which it resides.