Torre da UNIP

[Highriser_P_28]

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=59252

According to this Wikipedia page: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_UNIP the building is 100 m tall to the roof and 223 m to the antenna.
However, looking into Google Earth shows that there is a 2 m tall parapet above the roof level (should this be counted as architectural height?). To complicate things even more, there's a unevenness between the front (Rua Vergueiro) and the back of the building (Rua Apeninos) of 8 m (again, determined using GE).

My question, what should the heights of the building be? I suggest three options:

• 100 m roof, 102 m architectural, 223 m antenna;
or
• 108 m roof, 110 m architectural (parapet), 231 m antenna; (counting the slope)
or
• not count the parapet at all and consider the roof height at roof level. (though acknowledging the two extra meters)

[Manchete]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because anyone empiric edits it, there is no citation of an official information. From where the calculation comes that 25 floors at front makes 100m with floor to floor 4m each ? Normally buildings are made with 3.5m, enough even in business ones. So for this building comes 87.5m. With the increase of antenna no way this is more than 220 m because Bandeirantes Tower is the tallest structure there with 212m. Comparing a photo skyline of horizontal avenue, even with small discrepancies of terrain this is less than Bandeirantes. Emporis, a german webseite of Hamburg says totally wrong that builfing has 109,2 m estimated with no mention to tower above, 29 fl. In Brazil, observing people estimates more for the structures than what they really are and too few oficial information is provided from constructors. This site does not consider deep base lower street level and the rear is less important as entrance. So you can consider 87.5 + 111 m = 199 or 200 that is plausible.

[Highriser_P_28]

Yes, I know that the page cites no sources for the heights, but they could be considered as estimates. Though, this building likely actually has 100 m for roof, according to Google Earth (which is slightly accurate, but not exact, the margin of error is generally of a few meters, especially for newer buildings). To measure a building's height there, just check the altitudes at the top and base and then subtract one altitude from the other.

[Manchete]

Then show a screen shot measure here. It is not known if you use 3D buildings and how you get the elevations. The same you can do for the antenna. Are you going to draw all structures of Paulista avenue ?

[Highriser_P_28]

https://i.imgur.com/YpVLFF9.jpg

(Note: it doesn't count the extra 2 meters of parapet)

I wouldn't consider antenna measurements accurate, since it was being disassembled and reassembled when the imagery was captured.

[LMich]

I've always counted parapets in the "roof" height since our database doesn't have an "architectural" height. Heights are also measured from the lowest grade to the highest point (s). One just has to make sure, then, to show this in the drawing for these.

[Highriser_P_28]

I've always counted parapets in the "roof" height since our database doesn't have an "architectural" height. Heights are also measured from the lowest grade to the highest point (s). One just has to make sure, then, to show this in the drawing for these.

When I was talking about architectural height, I meant "official" height, the one used by default for sorting buildings in the diagrams.

I guess you mean it should be something like that:

110 meters roof, 231 meters antenna (since the main roof level is two meters below the parapet).