HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Diagrams & Database > Diagrams


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2023, 10:08 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Potential database inconsistency: Roof heights vs crown heights.

This is a bit subjective I guess but I noticed when looking through the tallest buildings by roof in the USA that the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco is visually well behind where it should be, unless the semi open air LED cap doesn't officially count as a roof.

If that's the case I could see that but Steinway Tower in NYC is also open air yet is listed at 1,428 feet to the roof. In reality it's more like 1,257 w/o the open air crown.

One could argue Salesforce's roof is at 1,070' though, sure looks like it from the aerial photos as there is mechanical equipment on top.





Image credit: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...lesforce-tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2023, 11:39 PM
CRKMRRMK CRKMRRMK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 100
Delete

Last edited by CRKMRRMK; Nov 2, 2023 at 8:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2023, 4:34 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,909
One height is hardly a solution. Antennae aren't officially considered part of a building's architectural structure. Our community is equally divided on whether architectural spires should be officially counted. No one would take SSP seriously.

More precise instructions on roof height and top floor height may have dealt with some of these inconsistencies however, the only way to truly address inconsistencies is an oversight committee that checks all the edits as buildings are inherently inconsistent/ bespoke from one another. That's not practical for a volunteer site.

Some editors go crazy with listing every single function preformed in a building. Others only list the main (I wish SSP allowed more than one main usage) and significant side usages above ground. It all adds to the site's ambiance

Another one. 0 should be displayed for structures without any basement. I'm a stats guy. Understandably, building specs are secondary in SSP database
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2023, 4:45 PM
CRKMRRMK CRKMRRMK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 100
Delete

Last edited by CRKMRRMK; Nov 2, 2023 at 8:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2023, 4:52 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,909
That makes zero sense. Illustrators just draw buildings. Editors are the ones that research and input heights.

Editors can be illustrators. Editors don't have to be Illustrators. I'm the latter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2023, 6:01 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
One height is hardly a solution. Antennae aren't officially considered part of a building's architectural structure. Our community is equally divided on whether architectural spires should be officially counted. No one would take SSP seriously.

More precise instructions on roof height and top floor height may have dealt with some of these inconsistencies however, the only way to truly address inconsistencies is an oversight committee that checks all the edits as buildings are inherently inconsistent/ bespoke from one another. That's not practical for a volunteer site.
Measuring the height of a building is surprisingly complicated lol.

Can the Salesforce Tower be updated to 1,070' / 326m to the roof? If buildings like Steinway or the London Shard can count their tops then so can Salesforce IMO.

I suppose it doesn't really matter but SSP should uphold its reputation of being as fair, consistent and accurate as possible
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2023, 6:51 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,909
I agree with you. However, what becomes of the current 295 metre roof height. CTBUH has the top floor as 276 metres. Are the heights in SSP for an older version when there were parapets above a mechanical penthouse instead of an enclosed area ? Is CTBUH just wrong? Could be. I count 6 floors of spandrel glass which would be around 26 metres in height. I don't have all the info.

As for The Shard, the fins or let's call them shards extending out of the top of the building's structure appear a lot taller than the 5.5 metres in the diagrams.

nevermind. elevations are abundant for this tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2023, 7:02 AM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 9,318
There is some inconsistenty in how heights are recorded and compared in the website. The database collects "roof" heights but are those always the horizontal roof structure or the parapet which could be around the roof and a few meters taller? More work will need to be done on this in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2023, 2:29 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,909
A Parapet is a wall. The facade that extends above the BMU tracks on Salesforce is the traditional sense of a parapet. The crown below the BMU track and above the mechanical roof is inbetween our definitions. It's like a modern version of a hipped roof on a classic skyscraper like Chrysler in New York. I don't know if the hipped roof is included in the roof or spire height for that tower. The half of the community opposed to the inclusion of spires in official counts would treated the hipped roof separate from the spire. That makes sense to me although I'm indifferent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2023, 8:58 PM
Quilmeño89's Avatar
Quilmeño89 Quilmeño89 is offline
Illustrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Quilmes
Posts: 846
I think there is a grey between roof and spire. In order not to add a fourth height, I would replace spire with top height or something similar (and that would include spires, pinnacles, parapets, small chimneys or water tanks, which are an integral part of the building, but not the actual roof).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2023, 7:21 AM
Martin H Unzon's Avatar
Martin H Unzon Martin H Unzon is offline
Editor/Ilustrador/Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ciudad de Mexico
Posts: 2,766
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2023, 11:32 AM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 9,318
The building height database was designed when using roof and spire heights was the convention. the database also allowed for antenna heights, and summerized all three in pinnacle height. other known heights for a building can be added to the database, such as lower setbacks.

Then eventually, using architectural height became preferred, but the database has never been adjusted to properly take this into account. An overhaul of this part of the building database will need to be done.

(also, this thread should really stay in the main diagrams section of the forum since it's discussing a main part of the diagrams system)
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Diagrams & Database > Diagrams
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:53 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.