Quote:
Originally Posted by rlw777
I've heard measurements from the bottom of the top floor before for example. So if you look at any one of the renderings showing the top of the building there is clearly a parapet extending above the actual roof. My guess is that the 962' figure is not including that parapet. I'm guessing that's also why the number 962' on the height comparison diagram appears to contradict the image.
|
yes, this seems like what's probably causing the confusion. the 962' figure is probably that weird
"underside of the top occupied floor" measurement that the city uses to record building heights.
it's extremely likely that this project will be over, or at least very, very close to, the 1,000' mark if the underside of its highest occupied floor is 962'.