Quote:
Originally Posted by dleung
|
lol, funny.
But seriously, I don't think anyone here is against the use of spires. They're just against having them count towards a buildings height.
Personally I think that instead of having 3 different standards with the most weight given to height to architectural top. There should only be two categories and equal weight given to both;
One for
Roof Height
Which would height to the roof or ceiling of the highest floor (occupied or mechanical floor)
And one for
Pinnacle Height
Which would be to the absolute highest point on a building. The type of structure; antenna, spire, fins, etc. that provides any additional height above the roof height could be noted.
Canadian Buildings would be ranked as follows (including u/c buildings);
Roof Height standard;
1. 978ft - FCP
2. 902ft - Scotia
3. 874ft - Aura
4. 784ft - Commerce Court West
5. 776ft - Trump
6. 774ft - BOW
7. 768ft - ICE East
8. 745ft - TD Canada Trust Tower
9. 731ft - TD Center
10. 715ft - Bay Adelaide Center West
Pinnacle Height standard;
1. 1,165ft - FCP (antenna)
2. 942ft - Commerce Court West (antenna)
3. 909ft - Trump (spire)
4. 902ft - Scotia
5. 874ft - Aura
6. 863ft - TD Canada Trust Tower (spire)
7. 820ft - Tour CIBC (antenna)
8. 774ft - BOW
9. 768ft - ICE East
10. 756ft - 1250 René-Lévesque (spire)
On second thought I'd say the roof height would be more meaningful, but there still should be a category to consider pinnacle height.