PDA

View Full Version : Request: 1 Building in Metz, France


St88
Dec 2, 2018, 7:36 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING REQUEST FORM
-----------------------------------

Official sources:
Unofficial sources: http://www.pss-archi.eu/immeubles/FR-57463-51854.html

Building Name: Tour Sainte-Barbe
Native Name:
Other Names:
Street Address: 6, rue Sainte-Barbe
City: Metz
Postal Code: 57000
State/Province:
Country: France
Official Building Website URL:
Wikipedia.org URL:
Skyscrapers.com (Emporis.com) URL: https://www.emporis.com/buildings/1353063/tour-sainte-barbe-metz-france
CTBUH.org URL :
Structurae.de URL:
• Architect:
Interesting Facts/Records (in own words):


• Floor-to-floor height:
Coordinates (with decimal fraction): 49.129299, 6.169888
Heights--
PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES FOR HEIGHTS, OTHERWISE WE WILL ASSUME THEY ARE ESTIMATES AND HEIGHTS NOT BE SHOWN.
- antenna:
- spire:
- roof: 69m
- top floor:
- other heights:

Current Building Status (Built, Proposed, Cancelled, Destroyed, etc...): built

Construction Dates--
- started: 1961
- finished: 1965
- destroyed:

Above ground floors: 21
Basement floors:
Gross Floor area:
Unit count:

Structure Type(s): highrise
Building Use(s): residential
Building Style(s): modern
Building Materials:

LMich
Dec 3, 2018, 6:19 AM
While Emporis gives these years for construction, two sources I've found mentioned it was completed in the 1950's:

https://www.republicain-lorrain.fr/edition-de-metz-ville/2016/02/18/photos-envie-de-prendre-de-la-hauteur-voici-le-top-10-des-plus-hauts-batiments-de-l-agglomeration-messine#0_5

More than that, the source above gives its height as 60 meters and PSS estimates the height as just above this. Is 73 meters perhaps too tall? Is this city covered by Google 3D?

St88
Dec 3, 2018, 7:25 AM
The data is indeed bit confusing for this tower. I think the real height is somewhere between those two numbers. 78m would make floors too tall and 60m too short. I've looked into it again and I think the PSS estimate (63m) could be correct if it's only meant to be main roof height and only for the main tower part, which has about 3m higher elevation than the side part. I changed my height estimate to 69m