Height Correction: London Bridge Tower

Newcastle Kid · #1 Posted **Nov 24, 2006, 4:00 PM**

London Bridge Tower is 310m to it's spire:

http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/ver...e_building.php

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=46

Newcastle Kid · #2 Posted **Nov 24, 2006, 6:06 PM**

What?

LMich · #3 Posted **Nov 24, 2006, 11:51 PM**

Huh?

The 310 m number is the height from AOD (angle opening distance). I'm not sure exaclty what that means, but it's not the base/grade elevation of the tower. 305.8 m is the correct number.

Newcastle Kid · #4 Posted **Nov 25, 2006, 3:35 PM**

When Bishopsgate tower was announced at 307m it was announced that LBT would have a spire to take it to 310m above ground level.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=46

This is a very reliable source, and it says that the spire takes it to 310m. The roof (inc. plant floors) AOD height is 309.98

LMich · #5 Posted **Nov 26, 2006, 12:32 AM**

What is AOD? I'm under the impression that AOD is not the same as the base elevation.

Newcastle Kid · #6 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 6:38 PM**

AOD is "above ordinance datum". It is the height of a building above a special set point somewher in Cornwall. The AOD height of London bridge tower to the top plant floor is 309.98m. The "above ground level" height of that is 305.8m. The "above ground level" height of the spire is 310m. The AOD height of the spire would be about 314m for instance.

LMich · #7 Posted **Nov 29, 2006, 1:08 AM**

I'll change it, but still have my reservations. One of the facts listed on the building's page here on Skyscraperpage.com reads:

- At 1003ft (1016ft AOD) it could become the tallest skyscraper in Western Europe.

Newcastle Kid · #8 Posted **Dec 1, 2006, 5:10 PM**

Thanks. The site I linked to, Skysraper news, always ends to be accurate unless it is stated that the height is an estimate.

LMich · #9 Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 1:21 AM**

Actually, after contacting a member at Emporis.com, I changed the height back. He informed me that he has seen a copy of the plans for the tower and that the 1016 feet (310 m) is ONLY from AOD and that SkyscraperNews actually has this one wrong, and that the developers are being purposefully decieving for whatever reason. 1,016 ft is found to be the AOD height and nothing more.

Newcastle Kid · #10 Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 11:22 PM**

Oh, OK. Sorry to have troubled you

wjfox2004 · #11 Posted **Dec 2, 2006, 11:42 PM**

The official height is -

306m to roof
310m to spire

LMich · #12 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 1:30 AM**

Source? That's exactly what Newcastle just go through posting, but my sources inside tell me otherwise.

wjfox2004 · #13 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 1:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich

Source? That's exactly what Newcastle just go through posting, but my sources inside tell me otherwise.

SkyscraperNews.com -

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=46

310m pinnacle above ground level.

And somehow, I think this has more credibility than Emporis.

jef · #14 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 3:49 PM**

As explained above, LMich, the plans refer to 306m above ground level.
But a 4m spire was then added to top Bishopsgate - which in its initial version was proposed to be 307m.

Jonas · #15 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjfox2004

And somehow, I think this has more credibility than Emporis.

And what if Skyscrapernews.com (a site run by one person, btw) would provide a number of 306m and Emporis.com 310m? Would then Emporis be a more credible source than skyscrapernews.com? I suspect so

I cannot check the actual source of Emporis (the data fields are locked) but it's certainly not taken out of the blue, at least not for a project of this scale. So I think it's better to investigate further and get the actual information rather than just guess which one is right and which one isn't.

Newcastle Kid · #16 Posted **Dec 3, 2006, 4:41 PM**

Gothicform, the guy who runs SSN, is HIGHLY respected, and he would not post a height without being sure of it. He is able to get interviews with developers etc... of projects in the UK, I'm sure if he was here he could sort it out.

The fact is I have seen Emporis be wrong before, but I can't remeber a time when Gothic has been wrong.

LMich · #17 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 12:40 AM**

Someone needs to email the developers, architects...any other parties who worked on this project to see if the projects been changed. That should clear it up. Like I said, I talked to the guy on Emporis.com who found the number, there, so since we have two conflicting sources we need to go straight to the actual sources. Anything else is just speculation and heresay.

Newcastle Kid · #18 Posted **Dec 4, 2006, 4:33 PM**

^^ I agree

wjfox2004 · #19 Posted **Dec 5, 2006, 12:23 AM**

I've emailed Southwark Council.

LMich · #20 Posted **Dec 5, 2006, 1:28 AM**

And I shot off two emails, one to Renzo Piano and one to the developers. I don't expect and answer, but maybe they'll surprise me.