Winnipeg Legislative Building

[lkessler]

The Manitoba Legislative Building: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1887 does not appear on the Winnipeg page: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=58.

I'm guessing that's because the number of floors are missing. If that's the case, there are 3 above-ground floors and a basement.

If there's some other reason why it doesn't show up, please let me know and I can provide the needed information.

[Dylan Leblanc]

It doesn't appear in the standard Winnipeg diagram because it is not a highrise building. Only highrise buildings appear in the standard diagrams. The search form can be used to change this though. In the future I hope to adjust this, and have more types of buildings appear in the standard diagrams.

[lkessler]

To me it makes sense that buildings should be sorted by height (or by estimated height if only floors are listed).

For that purpose, who really cares whether it is called a highrise or not?

This is, after all, a building that was the tallest in Winnipeg for 49 years after it was completed. See the timeline diagram:http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=58&searchname=time

Speaking of the timeline diagram and years built. I know the Radisson Hotel was not the first building built to exceed the Legislature height. You've got 1969 as the year built. But it should be 1971.. Wikipedia is also wrong giving 1969.

I'm also sure the Radisson is taller than the 82.9 m and probably closer to 100 m, but I'll check on that. Its roof height is definitely taller than several others listed.

p.s. Love your skyscrapers site.

[1ajs]

the richardson open in 69 radision went up around the same time

55 nassu went up around then also just a couple of the top of my head

[lkessler]

I've done some research in archives of the Winnipeg Free Press.

The Radisson (then called the North Star Inn) started construction in October 1968. It was scheduled to be completed in 1969 but it was 8 months Behind schedule. The Hotel officially opened on March 1, 1971. I don't believe the full height was completed until 1970 because the Richardson building was up for a year or two before the North Star reached its full height.

And some of the heights listed for Winnipeg buildings are definitely screwy.

There is one thing that is unique about Winnipeg is how flat it is. There is almost no elevation difference between the floor levels of all the tall buildings in and near downtown Winnipeg. As a result, the horizon is a near-perfect measure of whether one building is taller than another.

I work at Manitoba Hydro. So today I went to the 21'st floor. The building has 22 floors but I didn't want to bother the President.

I took pictures out the windows and compared all the buildings to the horizon.

My vantage point from Manitoba Hydro was 81 meters since the Golden Boy on the roof of the Legislature was just 2 meters (2 fifth's of itself) below the horizon. The GB is an excellent reference point, since the height of its base and its top are precisely known.

Conclusions of Estimated heights:

55 Nassau: 81 meters is at 28 of 38 floors implies the roof about 110 m, so the skyscraper page's database's 109 is probably correct.

One Evergreen: Roof is just slightly over 81 m implies 82 m. The DB of 89 is too high. The elevator enclosure on the roof looks like it could be the 7 difference. But I think we should be talking roof height. Otherwise 55 Nassau should have another 8 meters or so to take it to 117 m.

Seven Evergreen: The top of the elevator is right on the horizon at 81 m. The roof would be 6 meters less or 75 m. The database says 82 which again is not the roof.

Eleven Evergreen: The top of the elevator is also at the horizon at 81 m. The roof is about 7 meters less or 74 m. The database says 85 m which is too high.

See the following picture. Horizon is at 81 m. Left to right is Legislature, Eleven Evergreen, Seven Evergreen, 55 Nassau and One Evergreen.




Now regarding the Radisson. Looking back at it, 81 meters is at the top of the 28th floor out of 30 with additional structure to the roof. This would add about 14 more meters bringing it up to 95 m. The database is way down on this one at 82.9 m. That is definitely wrong. There is still another 7 or so meters for the elevator shaft that then takes it up to about 102 meters if you happen to count that.

See the below picture for the Radisson, and with (left to right) CanWest Global, the Richardson Building, and the Commodity Exchange Tower.



Note: The Commodity Exchange Tower has recently been renamed to: "360 Main". And Manitoba Hydro Headquarters official name is: "Manitoba Hydro Place".

And what are the rules for the "roof" height. Do you include the elevator shaft or not?

[1ajs]

[lkessler]

Notice in 1ajs's picture taken from the Northwest, the three tallest buildings. To the right of it with the two lights at the top is the Radisson. To the right of it all lit up at the top is Manitoba Hydro Place. Notice how the Radisson is taller than Manitoba Hydro (photo is about equidistant from both buildings) and only Manitoba Hydro's solar chimney stands above it.

I estimate the Radisson as 95 m. It should be the 6th tallest building in Winnipeg. This is what I figure:

1. CanWest Global Place, 128 m
2. Richardson Building, 124.1 m
3. 360 Main (Commodity Exchange Tower), 122 m est. It is taller than the 117 given. I've been at the top and it is NOT 7 meters shorter than the Richardson Building.
4. 55 Nassau, 109 m
5. MTS Place, 96 m
6. Radisson, 95 m
7. Fort Garry Place, 94 m

Now where does my Manitoba Hydro Place fit in? It has been called Winnipeg's 4th tallest building. That is true if you go to the top of the solar chimney which is 115 m.

If you go to the top of the "penthouse" which I think is a fair call, then you are at 98.6 m and that is 5th place.

But the official "top of the building" is 88.6 m which would be 8th place after One Evergreen gets derated to 82 m which is its roof, not its elevator enclosure.

Note my pictures were at 81 meters on the 21st of 22 floors, which is consistent with the 88.6 m.

See: http://www.hydro.mb.ca/corporate/mhp...building.shtml

[1ajs]

theres also the mechcanical floor

[vid]

I appreciate the effort you took but you have to keep in mind that perspective is still at work here. Closer building will look taller and further buildings will look shorter, even if you're high up, because you're still too close to them. The better vantage point would be from outside of downtown altogether.

This is from a distance, so the heights are more "even". If this was taken from even farther away with a telephone lens, you get that "make everything flat" effect where the buildings actually look like they do in our diagrams, all lined up with no vertical perspective.



You can make estimates with this, but they will still be estimates.

As for roof heights, we do indeed count the elevator shaft and any other rooftop structures as part of roof height.

[lkessler]

Vid: I know very well how perspective works. It is like the railroad tracks drawn off to infinity where the point they are going to is (note this ) on the horizon.

But the key thing here is the horizon. My pictures have a distinct horizon in it. With a flat horizon, and with every building starting at the same elevation, then the line of the building that the horizon goes through is the same height in all buildings. This doesn't matter whether the building is close or far.

The distance item you are referring to, as related to the horizon is this: If there are two buildings the same height, then the one twice as far away will stick up half as much over the horizon as the one that is closer. Ten times farther will stick out one tenth.

Your sample picture vantage point is not a good one, and the reason is because you are too low and you don't have a horizon to compare. 55 Nassau on the left is actually 20% closer than the tallest office towers and as a result looks as tall as them, which it is not.

If you took the picture from the same place but 109 meters up, then 55 Nassau would come exactly to the horizon, and the downtown buildings would stick up above it. Perspective from there would then place the base of 55 Nassau lower in the picture than the downtown buildings because the former is closer.

And that's what I can do. I can take different vantage points at different heights (19th floor, 17th floor, etc.) and at each level find the lines through each building that goes through the horizon. I've had lots of practise with this as its always been an interest of mine since I was a kid. You can do this in Winnipeg where there are no hills on the horizon, so at least for my city, it's a very worthwhile thing to do to check and correct heights.

Thanks for the info on the rooftop structures. I'll refigure my numbers and try to make a more complete list. I may have overestimated the elevator shafts by a meter or two now that I relook.

Still, it is not difficult to estimate the height above the horizon. If you know the height of one floor (which can be measured up close to a building, or by dividing the horizon height by number of floors below the horizon) then count how many floors heights above the horizon it takes to get to the top of the building. Multiply those two together and you will get the height that the building projects above your horizon reference point quite accurately.

Yes, they are estimates and may not be official, but these estimates are accurate enough (within a meter or two) to be able to disprove published heights that are incorrect.

I would agree to use official or published numbers wherever possible, unless they can be shown to be wrong. In that case, use estimates.