America's Tallest Building in each State

**Gistok** · March-18-13, 08:50 AM

Ever wonder what the tallest building was in each state?

Well found a website that shows just that...

Detroit's Renaissance Center? State #16 in height as our tallest Building [[Marriott Detroit Renaissance Center 750ft)...

http://www.weather.com/travel/americ...dings-20130311

**401don** · March-18-13, 10:32 AM

I don't understand why office towers are built so tall for so few floors i.e. Bank of America in Atlanta is 1023 ft. for only 55 floors. Doesn't seem very energy efficient. Also I didn't realize Key Tower in Cleveland was taller than the Ren Cen.

**davewindsor** · March-18-13, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by 401don

I don't understand why office towers are built so tall for so few floors i.e. Bank of America in Atlanta is 1023 ft. for only 55 floors. Doesn't seem very energy efficient. Also I didn't realize Key Tower in Cleveland was taller than the Ren Cen.

It makes perfect sense to me. It has to do with an HQ's successful image, lifestyle choice and telling the world you're the best at what you do. It's just like asking why people buy Lincolns when they can buy a cheaper Taurus. It's not because of energy efficiency. Trump Tower Toronto is a residential tower with 13' ceilings--that's 925 ft for 57 floors, so it's not limited to office towers.

Since the days of Rome, the most important offices in the empire had the highest ceilings. There a lot of wealthy people out there that want the best, not the most energy efficient, and that's the way the market works.

**yaktown** · March-18-13, 07:45 PM

Here's a better website [[weather.com? really?!) if you're interested in skyscrapers, urban architecture, etc.

http://skyscraperpage.com/

**JBMcB** · March-18-13, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

I don't understand why office towers are built so tall for so few floors i.e. Bank of America in Atlanta is 1023 ft. for only 55 floors.

Somewhere in the building codes there's a ratio of how high ceilings need to be per square foot of floor space. It's a fire requirement - if the space starts filling up with smoke it needs to be above people's heads so they can get out. The larger the floorspace, the higher the ceilings need to be. It's why big box stores have such high ceilings, even when they don't have stuff stacked high like at Costco.

**wolverine** · March-18-13, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

I don't understand why office towers are built so tall for so few floors i.e. Bank of America in Atlanta is 1023 ft. for only 55 floors. Doesn't seem very energy efficient. Also I didn't realize Key Tower in Cleveland was taller than the Ren Cen.

I don't think you are looking at right. It isn't 1023 feet divided by 55. Some of that is mechanical, equipment penthouse screening and spire. That 1023 is referred to as the pinnacle height. The last rentable floor is around 760' feet or so. Subtract the double height lobby and the possibility of a transfer floor or mechanical floor and you have around 13' per level....which is relatively standard. I work in a building with 13'-6" floors which seems to be the new standard in modern Class A office.

People want high ceilings in offices now.......having 10' foot clear minimum is desirable. Some will go as far as to take the ceiling up to underside of deck and just expose all of the ducts and piping to create a loft type of environment. The days of those crappy Class C offices with 8 to 9' drop ceilings slicing through the windows is finally coming to an end, which will go by the way of the antiquated 6' high cubicle walls that have disappeared from offices since the 1990's.

What's more interesting is to ask: What is the tallest floor in a building that someone can either live on, work on, dine or visit?

432 Park in NYC will hold that title at about 1400 feet tall. It's 60 feet shy of mechanical rooftop of Willis Tower and will be residential.

**davewindsor** · March-18-13, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Somewhere in the building codes there's a ratio of how high ceilings need to be per square foot of floor space. It's a fire requirement - if the space starts filling up with smoke it needs to be above people's heads so they can get out. The larger the floorspace, the higher the ceilings need to be. It's why big box stores have such high ceilings, even when they don't have stuff stacked high like at Costco.

The fire code mandates it?? Prove it with a link.

Ceiling height to room width ratio is an architectural rule of thumb, not a fire code or building code requirement.

In the 50s and 60s, office skyscrapers in Manhattan were following a path of heating efficiency and the standard was 8.5' high ceilings. In 1965, the CBS Black Rock building was built [[a 38 storey office tower) and set a new trend, which raised their ceiling heights to 8'9" for prestige. [[see page 4 http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/...s/full/678.pdf )

By the 70s, 9' ceilings became the standard for Class A office buildings.

Ceiling heights have generally grown for prestige, but
in some cities which have maximum building heights like Washington DC which can't be taller than 130' on avenues, they continue to be built to the minimum ceiling heights.

**old guy** · March-18-13, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

It makes perfect sense to me. It has to do with an HQ's successful image, lifestyle choice and telling the world you're the best at what you do. It's just like asking why people buy Lincolns when they can buy a cheaper Taurus. It's not because of energy efficiency. Trump Tower Toronto is a residential tower with 13' ceilings--that's 925 ft for 57 floors, so it's not limited to office towers.

Since the days of Rome, the most important offices in the empire had the highest ceilings. There a lot of wealthy people out there that want the best, not the most energy efficient, and that's the way the market works.

And I think that's just sad. It's like the ridiculous McMansions. I do understand what wolverines saying though, make the space a bit more desirable to work in, but beyond that, why waste so much energy at this point in time. Do the people working there make a bit less because it costs the company more to look more affluent? Why not just strive to be a top notch business? Those are the people I prefer to work with.

**wolverine** · March-18-13, 11:44 PM

The whole 'energy inefficient' skyscraper idea is a myth when observed in a vacuum. The fact is that many cities that have them also reduce loading on dispersed transportation infrastructure that would otherwise serve many buildings. The elevator is one of the top most efficient motorized means of travel as opposed to extra vehicle miles traveled when companies are dispersed. Plus it should technically go without saying that skyscrapers are most commonly found in places with alot of good mass transit infrastructure.

The costs of heating and cooling are all relative to the building's age and equipment. My current highrise apartment has 10'-2" ceilings but the same square footage as the one I had in a lowrise apartment in Ann Arbor with 8'6" ceilings which was far more expensive to cool. Buildings were about the same age, both steel skeleton, and both brick exterior with clay block infill finished with plaster. But my current apartment had new windows installed in the late 1990's as opposed to the ones in AA installed sometime in the 70's. So new technology ultimately dictates what is better for the environment as well as spacial practicality.

As cooling and heating systems, curtainwall and construction methods become more efficient, the notion that skyscrapers are bad for the environment will be forgotten.

**wolverine** · March-18-13, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by old guy

And I think that's just sad. It's like the ridiculous McMansions. I do understand what wolverines saying though, make the space a bit more desirable to work in, but beyond that, why waste so much energy at this point in time. Do the people working there make a bit less because it costs the company more to look more affluent? Why not just strive to be a top notch business? Those are the people I prefer to work with.

Well, the newest of trophy buildings do indeed cost more per sq ft, but they are also occupied by companies that make a ton of money but still pay their employees well. Maybe an expensive renovation might impact it though, but I'd argue that working in a really nice beautiful office is a pretty big benefit. You want to actually enjoy the environment you work in.

**old guy** · March-18-13, 11:59 PM

I'm not down on skyscrapers, I prefer them over urban sprawl. I'm just not into the flashy, for show Trump towers type of designs. The Empire State Building insulated and re caulked its windows and building facade and reduced its energy use by 40%. That's pretty substantial for a 102 story building built in 1931.