Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley613
Rocketphish, can we please reopen the dialogue about building heights? The international standard is to architectural tip. Every city on Earth that has a wiki for building heights measures by architectural tip. The CTBUH standards are to architectural tip. The elevations clearly show 72m to the top of the mechanical penthouse. I don't know why you have to trigger my clinical OCD like this
Edit: even SSP's own diagrams section show architectural tip. I could be wrong, but I believe every single page for every region and section on SSP registers height to architectural tip.
|
Interesting... I would have thought that OCD-folks would prefer consistency to haphazard data presentation?
If you can convince the City of Ottawa Planning Department to require proponents to state the CTBUH "architectural tip" measurement in their Planning Rationales or Elevations, then we wouldn't have a debate on our hands. But they don't. It's not a requirement.
Having spent hundreds of hours reading and posting quite a few City of Ottawa development proposals, I can confidently say that what they do require is the "maximum building height" in the statement of zoning compliance, which seems to be a measurement to the top of the roof, without any mechanical penthouse or other permitted projections, and so that's all we have to use as a known and consistent measurement. Yes, some buildings do depict the absolute height in their elevations, but most don't. In the case of buildings that do not seek a variance for the height, sometimes they don't even state the actual height at all, other than a floor count.
Now, I'm not the boss here, but the issue for me is that in the Ottawa-Gatineau forum, we report on a variety of building proposals, from low-rise infills to mid-rise projects, and from commercial warehouses to residential and office towers. We scour the development proposal documentation and extract a consistent set of data so that we can assess proposals throughout our region against each other. Having some thread titles display one height standard and others another standard is just poor information management, IMO.
I'm not really concerned about how Ottawa/Gatineau buildings compare to other municipalities, who may have different standards for their planning documentation. This is an Ottawa-Gatineau forum where we've been pretty consistently reporting the City's notion of building height in thread titles for over a decade. Luckily, for inter-city comparisons of tall buildings we have people like you who maintain those wikis, and I'm not disputing how you should record the heights there. By all means use the architectural tip, if you can determine that measurement. That's awesome, and it is more useful for tall buildings comparisons. And of course there's nothing wrong with posting this measurement to our thread if we know it.
If I haven't convinced you that we can't accurately and consistently determine and record the "architectural tip" measurement for all buildings in Ottawa/Gatineau, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
Here's the thread title format I've been using:
<Street address, with street type in short-form> | <City of Ottawa recognized building height>m | <City of Ottawa recognized floor count>f | <Project status>
Where:
"Street address" may be preceded by the City name, in square brackets, if it's not Ottawa. eg. [Gatineau].
"Street address" may be preceded by the building name, if known, and then the street address follows, in square brackets.
Recognized building height is rounded up to the nearest meter.
Recognized floor count may not include rooftop amenity spaces, if this isn't included in the proposal's reported count.
"Project status" = One of Proposed|Demolition|Site prep|U/C|Completed. Usually.