There are many ways of calculating a buildings height (depending which source you are using) but in my opinion I the arguement is resolved so in
what I believe is a fair concept in evaluating the height of a structure is to measure all buildings to roof height, and only including the spire/pinnacle/mast or architectural feature height if it was placed atop the structure at the time of construction of the building. So hence [an example] Q1 Tower would retain its 322.5m height, as the spire was placed atop the building as part of its initial construction phase.
To use another scenario as an example, lets say if Eureka Tower were to construct its 50m communications mast, the height should not be counted, as it is placed AFTER the tower was completed, and thus only remain 297m tall, not 347m.
I think this is logically fair, as buildings should be addressed for what they were when initially built, and not as they are after future add-ons. This however should be exempted in one case only, that being if a building has undergone a radical refurbishment or transformation that completely alters its visual image, at which point any further visual enhancements, such as a spire or mast would then be counted.
To solve a much debated topic, I believe the Petronas Twin towers (at its time, were the tallest building(s) in the world standing at 452m, and not the Sears Tower who stands at 442m (initial construction height), as the spires were constructed initially alongside the towers completion, unlike the Sears Tower, who had its antennae constructed in 1982 which brought the towers height to 527m.
On an unofficial note, another category can be reserved for a buildings height, which should be evaluated by ground to pinnacle height - which would award the title of worlds tallest structure (not building) to CN Tower, Toronto at 553m, and then followed by Sears Tower, Chicago at 527m. (Unless I have forgotten to take into account of another building that has a structural tip higher than these two).
It is understood that there are four categories to addressing a buildings height, but in my case there are only two. This could easily alleviate and resolve any concerns raised.
To clarify my arguement - The understanding (by me) of 'structure' is anything man-made that reaches a full height. This includes buildings (spires, antennae, pinnacles inc.) observation towers, radio masts, etc.
But a 'building' is classified as a tower that is used for habitational purposes (office, residential, hotel, etc) and is counted to its initial construction height.
What are your thoughts? Any objections/discussion welcome.
In my opinion, if spire/mast/antenna is a part of building design, it should be considered on height of building, otherwise not. Here is an example:
In this case, I think Building B is higher than Building A. Cause in case of building A, it's just an antenna for communication purposes and clearly not a part of design. But spire and antenna of Building B is part of design, so it should be considered on height.