Harbour Centre

Dimswitch · #1 Posted **Aug 13, 2017, 8:58 PM**

I seem to recall that the purpose of the 100 foot mast on top of Harbour Centre was to replicate a ship's mast. It is not an antennae or aerial, altho there are several aerials just below it but they're not part of the mast. So I'm claiming the mast is strictly ornamental which according to WipperSnapper's rules means that the 100 feet should count towards bldgs height, but he demands "evidence". Anyone got any?

urbancanadian · #2 Posted **Aug 14, 2017, 5:34 AM**

It's not just his rules. It's the global standard for comparing heights of buildings around the world. I honestly think getting the CTBUH to change their official height for Harbour Centre would be a better place to start.

Find out what their reasoning is first, for calling it an antenna, and not a spire.

Dimswitch · #3 Posted **Aug 14, 2017, 8:38 PM**

These rules seem to vary, case in point: New York City - World Trade Tower gets listed first thx to it's lengthy antennae, so all I'm asking is for some consistency here.
Nevertheless, Harbour's mast regardless of whether you count it or not, it's still there, totally visible on skyline and it's the 3rd tallest man-made structure in Vancouver!
And here's another point, if they claimed the main entrance was the one on Cordova St. (which is 23 feet below Hastings) the top of the mast is 581 feet above street level!

sacrifice333 · #4 Posted **Aug 14, 2017, 9:44 PM**

I'm guessing as far as Vancouver is concerned it's probably same old... i.e. viewcone.

The official height, sans mast, is probably within the allowable height restriction and outside of any and all viewcones. Or at least within the permitted height granted by the city.

mcminsen · #5 Posted **Aug 15, 2017, 1:17 AM**

Here are some pics from today. It looks to me like the spire itself is ornamental. A few nights ago (~3:00 AM) I noticed that all the lights were out except a few interior lights in the restaurant and observation levels. It was basically a black silhouette in the sky. Very unusual. I thought there might have been a red beacon or something at the very top that would have always been on but nope, the whole thing was out. So, I don't think it even functions as a navigation beacon.

Aug.14 '17, my pics

Dimswitch · #6 Posted **Aug 15, 2017, 2:16 AM**

I believe the original intent was to make it look like a ship's mast. Bldg is right on the harbour and the name of the bldg is Harbour Centre so it makes sense. But even if it is an antennae, if One World Trade gets to count theirs why not us? I posed this to Wipperman and I'm hearing a deafening silence.

urbancanadian · #7 Posted **Aug 15, 2017, 7:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

These rules seem to vary, case in point: New York City - World Trade Tower gets listed first thx to it's lengthy antennae, so all I'm asking is for some consistency here.
Nevertheless, Harbour's mast regardless of whether you count it or not, it's still there, totally visible on skyline and it's the 3rd tallest man-made structure in Vancouver!
And here's another point, if they claimed the main entrance was the one on Cordova St. (which is 23 feet below Hastings) the top of the mast is 581 feet above street level!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

I believe the original intent was to make it look like a ship's mast. Bldg is right on the harbour and the name of the bldg is Harbour Centre so it makes sense. But even if it is an antennae, if One World Trade gets to count theirs why not us? I posed this to Wipperman and I'm hearing a deafening silence.

To be fair, it is a consistent rule, used worldwide, and set by the CTBUH. Official height is measured to the uppermost architectural height. Spires are considered architectural, while antennae are not. If there are neither, then it's the roof height (ie. not including the elevator core).

Take Shangri-la for example: the fins extend past the roof height, and are considered architectural, so the top of the fins is the uppermost architectural height. The window washing crane reaches higher than the fins, but is not architectural, so it's not included.

As far at 1 WTC, it's actually a hotly debated issue within the community. Many people (in Chicago especially) consider the tower to be topped with an antenna. But the CTBUH decided that the big long thing on top was actually a spire, so it was given it's official height of 1776 ft. Most would agree that the original design was a spire, but less are on board with the final (cheaper) product. It's very likely that the designation was more political than anything, with lobbying from the US/NYC because they wanted the "Freedom Tower" to have a symbolic height - 1776 ft or the year of the Declaration of Independence.

In any case, I agree with you that Harbour Centre should have a taller official height because it seems like it has an architectural spire on top.

Is there any way to find the development/building applications for the tower from back in the day? That might give us the answer.

Dimswitch · #8 Posted **Aug 16, 2017, 9:38 PM**

thx urbancanadian, and today I've finally received a response from Wipper, (quote) "you haven't even convinced me it's original to the building let alone shown me plans that it's part of an architect's vision."

Well we all know it's original to the bldg and I'm pretty sure the architect intended it to resemble a ship's mast (making it ornamental), so I will dig around and see what I can find to satisfy Mr. Snapper. Stay tuned.

jollyburger · #9 Posted **Aug 17, 2017, 7:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

I believe the original intent was to make it look like a ship's mast. Bldg is right on the harbour and the name of the bldg is Harbour Centre so it makes sense. But even if it is an antennae, if One World Trade gets to count theirs why not us? I posed this to Wipperman and I'm hearing a deafening silence.

Too bad it wasn't Harbour Centre when they built the thing. Stupid fictional mast story: Fail

WhipperSnapper · #10 Posted **Aug 17, 2017, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

I believe the original intent was to make it look like a ship's mast. Bldg is right on the harbour and the name of the bldg is Harbour Centre so it makes sense. But even if it is an antennae, if One World Trade gets to count theirs why not us? I posed this to Wipperman and I'm hearing a deafening silence.

The name is whippersnapper and I've been more than reasonable with you. You're asking for a change in the database. You need to back up that claim. Why didn't you tell me you made this thread? Those close up shots posted two days ago offer (IMO) more supportive evidence than any of your demanding PMs.

Dimswitch · #11 Posted **Aug 18, 2017, 12:56 AM**

I'm sorry Whippersnapper, I thought you could see this page, and thx for McMinsen's great pix, it sure looks ornamental to me. So all I ask is for you to give it some consideration.

WhipperSnapper · #12 Posted **Aug 18, 2017, 5:34 PM**

Of course, I'm giving it consideration. We just need to be certain that it is architectural before we make the change. It's not only a drastic change but, there will be backlash having a tower with a roof height of 145 metres as the 3rd tallest in the city.