Four Residential Bldgs in NYC with DOB heights

[Antares41]

Here are four more buildings with heights and links to NYC DOB:

455 East 86th street (Channel Club) 39fl, 367ft-6in; 112.4m
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=43754
COO : http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/M/000/...M000091210.PDF

330 East 75th Street ( Saratoga), 39fl, 363ft-8in.; 111.2 m
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=44237
COO: http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/M/000/...M000110674.PDF

303 East 60th Street(Evan View),38fl, 357ft; 109.2m
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=44238
COO: http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/M/000/...M000097592.PDF
There are two listing in the diagram for this building, should get rid of one of them.

304 East 65th Street (Rio), 39fl, 367ft-8in.; 112.5 m
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=43751
COO: http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/M/000/...M000094355.PDF

Again I believe these are roof heights. All have significant structures on the roof which add to total height.

[knarfor]

I don't think those are the roof heights. I'm fairly certain the heights on the CO's are the heights to the top of the highest occupied floor. I checked my theory using some buildings I know well, and I think I'm right.

For instance, the DOB lists the height of 70 Pine Street as 801' 3.25". I have a copy of the architect's elevation rendering, that is exactly the height to the top of the highest occupied floor (not counting the observation deck, which the city, for some reason, does not include in the # of floors).

The DOB says the Chrysler building is 857.5' tall on some CO's and 780 feet tall on others. On all of them it lists the building as 77 stories. However, if you look at the list of floors and their uses that accompanies all the CO's, the city only allows occupancy up to the 71st floor, which is about 783' up. So the number given there is to the highest occupied floor, which was floor 71 at the time. The 857.5' figure obviously references the top of the 77th floor.

The Citicorp Building works the same way. They list the height as 810' 9" to the 57th Floor; but there are two more floors above it that are not certified for occupancy (the damper floor, and a mechanical floor) so they are not counted in height or in the total number of stories.

So be careful with those numbers. They are not always totally accurate. Nor are they always counting the same thing.

I'm not sure how to interpret the information for some of the buildings you posted. The first and second buildings have 3 occupied floors and 3 mechanical rooms above them. So I believe the heights for those buildings only refer to the height of the occupied floors. So the first one would be 367.5' to the 36th floor, and the third one would be 357 feet to the 36th floor.

The second and fourth buildings have 39 occupied floors, according to the CO, and are 363'8" and 367'8" respectively. I don't see how they could have floor-to-floor heights under 10 feet. I've never seen it. Any ideas? We need to know how to count this information before we can use it.

[Antares41]

Yes I hear what you are saying as I explained in a previous post the owner ususally list what is being counted that is why I am adding the links to the COO so that the administrator can see what the height encompasses. Even with this information I still find obvious error. As was the case with the Yorkville Tower , 1623 Third Ave which is a 42 stories but the COO says it is 969ft. which if you look at any skyline of the upper east side is obviously incorrect. Also as you read what is listed in the COO I do not think it is a safe assumption to believe all floor-to-ceiling heights are the same for a given building, especially if they list mechanical rooms or water pump room that are near the lower floors.

I choose to investigate heights of buildings for which no information is currently listed, which to me is preferrable to leaving them blank. Whether they are accepted or not depends on what level of possible inaccuracy the diagram administrators are willing to live with, nevertheless, I would like to know the verdict before I post any more information.

[LMich]

I'm very wary for the sole fact of how inconsistent their system seems to be. The only way I'll be comfortable adding them is if you write a description for each height of what you think it is too. Maybe, it be best if you just tell me your estimates for the total building height using these numbers to calculate an estimate since the system seems to be so inconsistent.

[knarfor]

Originally Posted by Antares41

Yes I hear what you are saying as I explained in a previous post the owner ususally list what is being counted that is why I am adding the links to the COO so that the administrator can see what the height encompasses. Even with this information I still find obvious error. As was the case with the Yorkville Tower , 1623 Third Ave which is a 42 stories but the COO says it is 969ft. which if you look at any skyline of the upper east side is obviously incorrect. Also as you read what is listed in the COO I do not think it is a safe assumption to believe all floor-to-ceiling heights are the same for a given building, especially if they list mechanical rooms or water pump room that are near the lower floors.

I choose to investigate heights of buildings for which no information is currently listed, which to me is preferable to leaving them blank. Whether they are accepted or not depends on what level of possible inaccuracy the diagram administrators are willing to live with, nevertheless, I would like to know the verdict before I post any more information.

Ya, I agree with Lmich. Give us what you consider to be an accurate estimate based on the numbers you find in the CO's, and your knowledge of the buildings. Its fine to use the CO's as a basis of an estimate, but I would prefer it if you adjusted the numbers given by them to account for what they seem to obviously be missing.

Of course, all floor-to-floor heights are not consistent within a given building, but they certainly are never much less than 10 feet in a residential highrise. A 10 Foot floor height gives about an 8 foot ceiling. No floor in a highrise can have a shorter ceiling than that. Mechanical rooms, lobbies, and other floors are nearly always taller than a typical floor in a skyscraper.

Let's use one of the buildings you posted as an example. If a building is 367 feet tall and 39 stories overall, it would have an average floor-to-floor height of 9.4 feet. Of course, that is already unworkable as it is. None of the floors can have less than an 8 foot ceiling. Granted, all of the floors may not have the same height. Say that half of them were 10 feet tall. The remaining floors would have to be 8.8 feet tall. It simply would not work. The ceilings of those floors would have to be under 7 feet tall.

So if the average floor-to-floor height is under 10, its almost certain that the heights given are wrong.

Originally Posted by knarfor

So if the average floor-to-floor height is under 10, its almost certain that the heights given are wrong.

Or, the number of occupied floors are simply incorrect, that another possibility. Basically what you are both are saying is that we well do each building on a case-by-case method, which is fine with me since there really is no general way to approach or use this information. Again it comes down to level of comfort and degree of accuracy desired.

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by knarfor

So if the average floor-to-floor height is under 10, its almost certain that the heights given are wrong.

Or, it's a case of the number of occupied floors are simply incorrect.

Here one from NYDOB that the same as listed in Emporis:

52 East End Ave 40fl. 381ft-6in. ( same as emporis)
http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/M/000/...M000101244.PDF

Now at 40 stories and 381.5ft with floor-to-floor under 10 (9.53 to be exact) is that plausible! Or, perhaps it just leads us to conclude that the same level of scrutiny needs to be applied to height and floor count regardless of the source.

Look basically what I am hearing is that you rather access these heights on a case-by-case basis which is fine by me (actually less work). Again, it comes down to degree of comfort with the numbers, and, the level of accuracy desired for building that currently have little or no information. You both expressed your opinion for which I am grateful, now I know how to proceed.

Beyond accuracy and comfort there is going to be a need for consistancy and as my example illustrates you will have to apply the same degree of scrutiny for all sources of this type of information.

[LMich]

If the information is already ambiguous, there is no way to provide any consistency beyond the fact that these will be taken case by case. So, where we go from here is that you list a building and link, tell us the D.O.B. height, run it up against an emporis.com if available, and then offer a total structure height or main roof deck estimate. I hope I'm reading this wrong, but I sense a tone of annoyance. If that's the case, I probably should have never asked for a filling in of heights for the missing heights in the New York diagram, now knowing that D.O.B. isn't even consistent, itself. I think it's rather unreasonable to ask us for consistency, when the source, itself, has now been shown not to be consistent.

[Antares41]

More frustrated than annoyed.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "consistancy of scrutiny". All I am saying is that I get a sense that if I took the numbers from Emporis there would be little or no scrutiny, I may be wrong but that has been my experience.

But, if they come from the NYDOB there is a question of correctness per Knarfor post and explaination that the floor-to-floor ratio did not seem plausible. It would be consistant if he questioned the Emporis number with the same vigor as he did the NYDOB numbers, and labelled them in some cases to be just as ambigious as my example show is sometimes indeed must be the case.

With all that said I agree with your position and will apply it in any future information I submit case-by-case.

[knarfor]

I would not trust that Emporis number, no. It isn't plausible.

We don't take Emporis's numbers for granted, believe me. The issue has been discussed ad-nauseum among Editors, among the members of the Approval Committee - of which Lmich is a member - and among the Senior Committee - of which I am a member. No editor should take any number for granted, and I don't think most do. If they do, they aren't doing their jobs.

The standard we discussed years ago for estimating the height of modern residential buildings (where no type of height information is available) is basically to multiply the number of floors by 10 feet and then adjust to account for any extras like tall lobbies, taller floors, spires, etc. Sometimes with Luxury residential 11 feet is a better estimate. For office buildings 13 feet is usually a sure bet, unless you are talking about a building built before the 50's; then 12 feet is usually better. You'd be surprised at how close you can get to the actual height of a building if you estimate that way. Usually within 20 feet.

[Antares41]

[QUOTE=knarfor]I would not trust that Emporis number, no. It isn't plausible.

We don't take Emporis's numbers for granted, believe me. The issue has been discussed ad-nauseum among Editors, among the members of the Approval Committee - of which Lmich is a member - and among the Senior Committee - of which I am a member. No editor should take any number for granted, and I don't think most do. If they do, they aren't doing their jobs.
QUOTE]

Thank You! that what I need to read and that is what I meant by "consistancy of scrutiny". It would be simply illogical for anyone to request consistancy for data you are not responsible for listing. But, the committee is responsible for establishing a "process" of screening and questioning data regardless of the source, that is an accessible expectation.
From what you just told me I have a better belief that my efforts won't be wasted.

[knarfor]

I'm glad. We do try our best.

[Antares41]

^Just one final note in reference to your quote:

"The second and fourth buildings have 39 occupied floors, according to the CO, and are 363'8" and 367'8" respectively. I don't see how they could have floor-to-floor heights under 10 feet. I've never seen it."

I did a little research and it maybe that for apartment buildings you may need to modify your floor-to-floor criteria because the information I been able to gather appear to indicate that floor-to-floor under 10 feet is not a rare event for apartments and hotels. Here are a few I uncovered in NYC:

Note all height and floor count data is from Emporis:

Building -------------height(ft)/floors ------calculated floor-to-floor average

One East River -------- 486/ 50 ---------------- 9.72
The Capri ---------- 473/ 48 ---------------- 9.85
Sovereign Apts. ------ 450/ 48 --------------- 9.37
Park Lane Hotel ------ 450/ 46 ---------------- 9.78
Lucerne Apts. ------ 443/ 45 ---------------- 9.84
Manhattan Plz Apts. --- 428/ 46 ---------------- 9.30
Harlem River Apts. ----- 404/ 44 --------------- 9.18
The Horizon ------403/ 42 --------------- 9.59
Waterside Apts. ------ 400/ 41 -------------- 9.75
Tracy Tower Apts. ----- 400/ 41 ------------- 9.75
400 Plaza Apts. -------392/ 40 ------------- 9.8
One Sherman Sq. ------ 378/ 42 ------------ 9.0 the lowest I found

And there are many more!

Any apartment building built from mid 70's to now in NYC could possibly be sub-10ft . Not trying to change your mind, just your perspective; information worth considering .