SkyscraperCity Forum banner
Cancel

Measuring tall building height?

5002 Views 33 Replies 6 Participants Last post by  db2, 
D
Recently a few of us debated, in the 41 McLaren Street North Sydney thread, how the CTBUH measures tower height.

Is it from lowest pedestrian entrance or from the lowest point on site. The literature at the CTBUH says this:

All categories measure the building from: the level [1.] of the lowest, significant, [2.] open-air, [3.] pedestrian [4.] entrance to…

[1.] Level: finished floor level at threshold of the lowest entrance door.

[2.] Significant: the entrance should be predominantly above existing or pre-existing grade and permit access to one or more primary uses in the building via elevators, as opposed to ground-floor retail or other uses that solely relate/connect to the immediately adjacent external environment. Thus, entrances via below-grade sunken plazas or similar are not generally recognised. Also note that access to car park and/or ancillary/support areas are not considered significant entrances.

[3.] Open-air: the entrance must be located directly off an external space at that level that is open to air.

[4.] Pedestrian: refers to common building users or occupants and is intended to exclude service, ancillary, or similar areas.
Click to expand...
I am unsatisfied where we are at the moment, especially in regards to the height of 41 McLaren Street. That tower is listed, both here and at The Skyscraper Center, using lowest point on site. Why? Culwulla says that the CTBUH head honchos gave the all clear to using the lowest point on site.

That seems counter to the rules listed by the CTBUH at their own website.

Using the 41 McLaren Street rules here in Melbourne would result in a bunch of towers growing in height. Dean did a huge job re-listing Melbourne tower heights, I've consolidated those listings here and here.

I've asked that The Skyscraper Center Melbourne towers be adjusted using the 41 McLaren Street rules on multiple occasions (nothing has changed thus far). I do note that Oriolus has adjusted the heights of the Melbourne towers in the Victorian forum titles.

Now that I've thought about this a bit more here is what I would like to see happen:

  • SkyscraperCity should continue to use CTBUH rules in the thread title heights.
  • Till proven otherwise I believe the CTBUH rules are clearly listed on their website (see portion above). Lowest pedestrian entrance is the rule, not lowest point on site.
  • The Melbourne towers that Oriolus adjusted upwards, using Dean's numbers, should be adjusted back downwards
  • The 41 McLaren Street height both here and at The Skyscraper Center should be changed from 161m back down to 156m unless there is an unambiguous public statement from the CTBUH that says that they now adhere to a lowest point on site rule. My honest opinion, whoever Culwulla spoke to at the CTBUH misspoke and that private correspondence is not evidence enough that 41 McLaren Street should be measured using a different formula than other towers here in Australia.
  • If CTBUH has changed the rules (which I don't believe) then we should adjust all Australian to using that criteria (e.g. Collins Place will grow by 5m for instance)

I am not having a go at anyone (not Culwulla, not anyone). I just want tower heights to be accurate. I am a stickler for the details, and at the moment we have an inconsistency that should be cleared up; the quicker the better.

P.S. For those wanting to criticise the existence of this thread as being irrelevant, or who cares, or get a life I point you towards this post by Oriolus. Please be respectful that some of us do sweat the details.
  • Like
Reactions: Oriolus and Tupac96
Save Share
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Oriolus
Thanks for your post db. My thoughts are exactly as you said below:

db2 said:
I got to admit I am uncomfortable, I know folks like PaPa Riddlz, Grollo & Dean have been trying to follow the Pedestrian Entrance rule since that is wording the CTBUH have published.

I'd be much happier if the CTBUH to put out an unequivocal statement, on their site, asserting that the lowest point on site is the ground (as against mandated pedestrian entrance). I can't help but feel, at the moment, that some parts of the CTBUH may think they pedestrian entrance rule applies whilst others at the CTBUH think the lowest point on site rule applies.

I also know that everyone is trying their best in this regards.
Click to expand...
I have changed the heights for any of the Melbourne threads where Dean has ascertained the "correct" figure, but we do need more resolution on this issue. Culwulla, are you able to provide more details about what exactly the "head honchos" told you, and / or who you deal with at the CTBUH? The CTBUH Height and Data Committee consists of 20 people, who meet occasionally, but not recently by the looks. I note that Marshall Gerometta, who some of us may know from Emporis, is the 'Skyscraper Database Editor'. Is he your contact, and if so, was he speaking officially on behalf of the whole Height and Data Committee?
  • Like
Reactions: db2
Save Share
Reply Quote
CULWULLA
Always been lowest part of site
time to move on
Please close thread


Cheers
Save Share
Reply Quote
D
CULWULLA said:
Always been lowest part of site
time to move on
Click to expand...
Cul,

This may be true (or maybe not), but current evidence from the CTBUH is directly contrary to your assertion (see the quoted part in the first post). We can't move on, this is an open topic.

The CTBUH clearly state lowest pedestrian entrance on their site? Why?

Heck in this June 2015 Aurora Melbourne Central post of yours you clearly assert the lowest pedestrian entrance rule:

CULWULLA said:
SOME HEIGHT CHANGES FOR MELBOURNE PROPOSED TALLS
cant use carpark ramps as lowest part of site. has to be pedestrian minimum,
Aurora Central is now officially 268.5m (my original height). not 271m.
285.5m AHD and 17m ground RL from proper significant entrance on La Trobe street.

the back lane = RL15.5m.
a carpark ramp entrance and isn't considered a proper entrance by the CTBUH -" note that access to car park and/or ancillary/support areas are not considered significant entrances."

i tend to agree with this. not my doing. i was emailed this.
Click to expand...
So I ask, how is it possible that measurements have always been from the lowest point on site when even you yourself asserted two years ago the lowest pedestrian entrance rule?

CULWULLA said:
Please close thread


Cheers
Click to expand...
No, this thread should not be closed until we resolve this situation. How we measure towers is fundamental. The height of 41 McLaren Street is measured using one methodology whilst many many other Australian towers are measured using a different formula.

At the end of this we need to be using the same rule for all Australian towers. When we have clarity from the CTBUH we can close this thread. We are not there yet. As an aside, PaPa Riddlz has stated that he will continue to measure Melbourne towers using the entrance rule.

We need to contact the CTBUH about 41 McLaren Street and this topic in general. Once they have spoken we can put this matter to rest.

P.S. Does anyone have contact details for CTBUH? I'd like to email them about this.
Save Share
Reply Quote
P
^^FWIW, I was the guy that messaged Cul about those tower heights update like 2 years ago, was aurora, 280 queen and a few others I've forgot. I just wanted it to be as accurate as possible and noticed some melb tower heights weren't quite fitting the CTBUH criteria.

For those interested, below are the plans for the tower in question in North Sydney, the lower part on Harnett street at around 65.5m RL and then 69.5m RL up on the resi entrance threshold. See for yourself but I think its fairly clear cut that the Harnett st measurement doesn't satisfy the criteria, just a bunch of fire stairs, tower escapes, loading docks & carpark entrances.

[2.] Significant: the entrance should be predominantly above existing or pre-existing grade and permit access to one or more primary uses in the building via elevators, as opposed to ground-floor retail or other uses that solely relate/connect to the immediately adjacent external environment. Thus, entrances via below-grade sunken plazas or similar are not generally recognized. Also note that access to car park and/or ancillary/support areas are not considered significant entrances.
Click to expand...
https://postimg.org/image/g6xzgmhgz/

https://postimg.org/image/khcnc7mk3/



I agree with db2, this issue is well worth debating and clearing up. If it means some towers lose/gain official height then so be it.
  • Like
Reactions: db2
Save Share
Reply Quote
CULWULLA
every bldg from melb or bris or gc ,perth whatever which ive added to ctbuh database is always measured from lowest point of site as long as its a main road or footpath.
Save Share
Reply Quote
D
CULWULLA said:
every bldg from melb or bris or gc ,perth whatever which ive added to ctbuh database is always measured from lowest point of site as long as its a main road or footpath.
Click to expand...
Yes, it may be inconvenient, but some of those buildings may indeed have slightly incorrect measurements according to the listed CTBUH rules (on face value).

Note, many Melbourne towers measured from plans, by Grollo, PaPa Riddlz and Dean, likely have correct measurements (aka the pedestrian entrance rule). One instance would be the 268.5m height of Aurora Melbourne Central.

Let's get a proper CTBUH ruling then we can do our best to update building statistics accordingly. As PaPa Riddlz says, if some buildings grow or shrink, so be it.

The aim should be to have every Australian tower measured using one rule and have them listed appropriately and accurately at The Skyscraper Center.
Save Share
Reply Quote
CULWULLA
when i asked couple of years back i asked what is lowest part of site and how high above. i was told 17mRL. then someone said something about a driveway? the laneway isnt a driveway. now that i know its about rl15.5m. thats the height its from.
i don think there is many that will change heights.? i have them all from lowest part of site.in southbank and docklands its restricted anyway because of extreme low site elevation ranges from 1m-3m.
Save Share
Reply Quote
Oriolus
CULWULLA said:
Always been lowest part of site
time to move on
Please close thread
Click to expand...
What? :uh: It very clearly hasn't, but you implied that you had inside information we could have assumed foreshadowed a change in CTBUH's position on the subject. And we took you word for it. Especially since I think a lot of people agree that lowest part of the site makes more sense.

But an attitude like this makes me think that wasn't true at all. And you don't have anything further to say I think we can consider the matter resolved in that there is not any indication that CTBUH has or is changing its position - lowest pedestrian entrance still aplies, and agree with all of db's recommendations below:

db2 said:
Now that I've thought about this a bit more here is what I would like to see happen:

  • SkyscraperCity should continue to use CTBUH rules in the thread title heights.
  • Till proven otherwise I believe the CTBUH rules are clearly listed on their website (see portion above). Lowest pedestrian entrance is the rule, not lowest point on site.
  • The Melbourne towers that Oriolus adjusted upwards, using Dean's numbers, should be adjusted back downwards
  • The 41 McLaren Street height both here and at The Skyscraper Center should be changed from 161m back down to 156m unless there is an unambiguous public statement from the CTBUH that says that they now adhere to a lowest point on site rule. My honest opinion, whoever Culwulla spoke to at the CTBUH misspoke and that private correspondence is not evidence enough that 41 McLaren Street should be measured using a different formula than other towers here in Australia.
  • If CTBUH has changed the rules (which I don't believe) then we should adjust all Australian to using that criteria (e.g. Collins Place will grow by 5m for instance)
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: db2
Save Share
Reply Quote
D
Oriolus,

In the Victorian forums, if we wish to go back to CTBUH lowest-pedestrian-entrance rules, then these tower heights in the titles need to be changed:

- Aurora Melbourne Central, from 271m back to 269m

- Queens Place, from 250m/251m back to 246m/249m

- Empire Melbourne, from 198m back to 197m

- Wesley Place, from 149m back to 148m

- By the Gardens, from 232m/216m back to 231m/214m

- Swanston Central, from 238m back to 237m

- 311 Spencer, from 176m back to 171m

In the NSW forums:

- 41 McLaren Street should be 156m, not 161m
Save Share
Reply Quote
D
Culwulla,

If we agree that the CTBUH uses a lowest-pedestrian-entrance rule then we should do our best to have accurate figures at The Skyscraper Center. My understanding is that you are the one who curates that list.

Most Melbourne towers are already accurately listed (thanks to you, Grollo, Papa Riddlz and Dean).

However, 41 McLaren Street really should be 156m, not 161m (using strict CTBUH rules).

Separately, can you please update Victoria One to 246.8m and 78 levels.

If a whole bunch of Australian towers are listed incorrectly, well it is what it is. We should do our best to fix this heights when and if we gather more information. Usually a tower's height won't change that much (usually 1m). Obviously not every single Aus tower listed at The Skyscraper Center will be readjusted (too much work).
Save Share
Reply Quote
CULWULLA
most heights are correct and accurate. il change the ones i think should be either added to or lowered in height. its not rocket science guys.
  • Like
Reactions: db2
Save Share
Reply Quote
D
CULWULLA said:
most heights are correct and accurate. il change the ones i think should be either added to or lowered in height. its not rocket science guys.
Click to expand...
Excellent. So we have agreement then? CTBUH rules are indeed lowest pedestrian entrance.

If so, 41 McLaren St should be listed at 156m (the one that started this saga).

Whilst you are editing The Skyscraper Center (for 41 McLaren) please change Victoria One height to 246.8m. This one is not due to pedestrian entrance, rather it is due to an actual measurement done on the final tower (a bit taller than planned).

Otherwise, I am pleased we finally ended up at a consensus. Good outcome.
Save Share
Reply Quote
Dean
You posted this about a week or so ago. Did this actually happen or were you just talking thru your arse???

CULWULLA said:
ive just got confirmation from head honchos at ctbuh after i mailed them plans elevations ect. and yes as i thought the height is taken from the lowest road level at RL65m.
i thought it was obvious
Click to expand...
Save Share
Reply Quote
CULWULLA
thru my arse? wtf
i sent an email to ctbuh, no idea when they will reply. il let everyone know but gee, dont everyone hang on edge of seat. surely other things to do.
Save Share
Reply Quote
D
There is nothing to wait on; I thought we finally all agreed upon the lowest-pedestrian-entrance rule? I can't see how an email to someone at CTBUH will change anything; the CTBUH already has their position stated clear as day; an individual at the CTBUH may well misspeak and end up making more of a mess here.

The CTBUH height measuring rules are clear. It's the pedestrian entrance rule, and most Australian towers adhere to that rule already.

Personally, all I am waiting on is:

- The Skyscraper Center height for 41 McLaren to change to 156m (it's height above the lowest pedestrian entrance).

- Various thread title heights to change here at SSC, for example Aurora Melbourne Central to go from 271m back to 269m (same for 41 McLaren).
Save Share
Reply Quote
CULWULLA
lowest part of street underneath tower face.it may have a carpark entry or pedestrian.
Save Share
Reply Quote
D
CULWULLA said:
lowest part of street underneath tower face.it may have a carpark entry or pedestrian.
Click to expand...
You're jesting surely?

The CTBUH absolutely says the exact opposite (something we have been over again and again, see quoted part of first post). Quoting the CTBUH exactly (again):

Also note that access to car park and/or ancillary/support areas are not considered significant entrances.
Click to expand...
Help me understand what is going on here. Why do you say that carpark entrances are allowed whilst the CTBUH own literature specifically disallows carpark entrances.

41 McLaren Street is 156m according the CTBUH's own rules. Please fix it at The Skyscraper Center ASAP. I will not let this go until this is resolved.
Save Share
Reply Quote
Locke
db2 said:
41 McLaren Street is 156m according the CTBUH's own rules. Please fix it at The Skyscraper Center ASAP. I will not let this go until this is resolved.
Click to expand...
I have joined your protest db2!

Down with this sort of thing!


  • Like
Reactions: kichigai, hayds and Oriolus
Save Share
Reply Quote
CULWULLA
db2 said:
You're jesting surely?

The CTBUH absolutely says the exact opposite (something we have been over again and again, see quoted part of first post). Quoting the CTBUH exactly (again):



Help me understand what is going on here. Why do you say that carpark entrances are allowed whilst the CTBUH own literature specifically disallows carpark entrances.

41 McLaren Street is 156m according the CTBUH's own rules. Please fix it at The Skyscraper Center ASAP. I will not let this go until this is resolved.
Click to expand...
you might have to let it go, as im waiting for an answer and havnet got it yet:cheers::nuts:
Save Share
Reply Quote
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Infrastruktura drogowa General Photography Inwestycje ukończone DN Archives Obras públicas e Lançamentos imobiliários
Top