HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Midwest

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2008, 9:38 PM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
KC loses a 500 footer-Hyatt Regency 425' ...One Kansas City Place 575' roof height

Hey all,

You can measure building heights on google earth by going into 3D building mode, putting the pointer on the ground next to the building to get ground level elevation, then tilting your view until you are level with the top of the building and note your eye elevation. Subtract ground elevation from eye elevation and you get roughly the height of the building.

It's even easier in Miscrosoft Virtual Earth. Go into 3D Mode and simply look down at the top's of buildings, at a slightly tilted angle, and move your pointer onto it. If you are on a tall object you will automatically go into "GPL" mode and it gives you precise measurements of how tall an structure is.

Anyway, to make a long story short. KC's Hyatt is not a 500 footer, not even close. Per Google Earth I had a rough height of a bit over 400 foot, and per Virtual Earth a height of 410'.


I always thought the KC Hyatt didn't look quite tall enough to be a 500 footer.

Last edited by 2taall; Jul 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2008, 11:58 PM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,854
Have you compared other buildings up against it (ones we know the height for sure?)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 12:02 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
How do you miscalculate height by 100'? Strange.
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 4:46 AM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
The Hyatt, the light grey building with the flying sucer on top, sits next to a fairly tall boxy building, as you can see in the pics below. This boxy building, for years, was listed at about 378'. Then, for some odd reason, someone decided it was 478'. Just eye balling these buildings I can't imagine them being close to 500 feet.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 4:52 AM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
BTW, the building under construction in the second pic is around 350'. I remember KC forumers posting its construction pics and they had the height from the contractors. PLus, in Virtual Earth it says 347'. It sit in a linear line with the Hyatt in the pic, so you should be able to get a look at how it measures up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 6:03 AM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
Shouldn't the editors at emporis be a little more careful with their data sources? Who decided that it was 504 feet tall? Aren't there any official height measurements either from the architect or the FAA or whatever?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 9:00 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,494
I'd always wondered about the height of the building and the height of the neighboring IBM Building. The heights always appeared to be wrong, and I tried to research them, myself, but was never able to find out. I'd always figured they were much shorter.

How I heard some rationalize it was that the building sits on a significant slope and they simply measured from the lowest entrance. It still wouldn't account for 100-foot difference, but I assume that's where the descrepencies are coming from.

2taall, out of curiosity, have you done any of this for St. Louis, too?
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 9:18 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
you suck
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 47,081
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. I'm going to look at this some more for Austin tomorrow. Pretty much all of the heights that I found with Microsoft Virtual Earth seem to check out from what I had estimated. Only a few feet difference. What's even more interesting, is that some of the heights that I found are identical to ones I had been told by building managers and even architects which I had assumed came from blueprints. Some infact did, and I was told their heights right down to the inch. At least one of those buildings was listed with the exact same height to two points on the building in both sources, both the blueprints, and the heights listed with Microsoft Virtual Earth.

A few more I recognized from a GIS mapping service that Austin has cataloged at our main library. The heights were just printed on maps and showed several heights for a block. You'd subtract one number from a main one on the map to get the height of the building you were interested in. But this seems to be much more precise.

I know some databases most likely won't want to cite Microsoft Virtual Earth, or the GIS information for their data, but I have a feeling there are more heights in SkyscraperPage's and Emporis' databases that came from this source than most realize. It could be that some architects and building managers aren't being so precise with the heights they're giving out, at least not coming from blueprints, and maybe instead are using this service. Then again, this method really could be that accurate. For Austin, it only lists everything in the core. Downtown, a bit of West Campus, the UT Campus and immediately south of downtown. This is also precisely the area that the GIS maps covered that I looked at several years ago.
__________________
Hear me. And if I close my mind in fear, please pry it open. - Metallica
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2008, 6:31 PM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
LMich,

St. Louis has its problems with this as well. For years Queeny Tower was listed at 320' and Council Towers at 321', or vice versa on the height, and through observation I couldn't believe they were that tall. Queeny and Council are closer to 245' and 255', respectively. Also, the Pierre Laclede Center and the Sevens Building in Clayton ,and the U club Tower in Richmond Heights, were all listed around 275', but in reality they are 309', 312', and 326'.

These are the major ones in St. Louis.

If someone in KC could get blueprints of the Hyatt, and the building next to it, it would be great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2008, 4:52 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
you suck
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 47,081
I was thinking of something. The height for the Hyatt could be wrong because who ever read the original blueprints read them wrong (of course).

Some building blueprints don't always list ground level/street level at 0 feet. Some actually list "ground level/street level" as being 100 feet.

If the person who read those blueprints wasn't paying attention, the height could have come up as "504 feet" instead of the more likely shorter height.

Also, if you'll notice, that Microsoft Live Earth shows one height on the rotating restaurant portion of the building to be 404 feet. If you put your cursor over the upper left area of the revolving restaurant near the edge, it is indeed 404 feet. The additional height which brings it to 410 feet might just be a later addition. That rectangle atop the roof is likely an air conditioning unit or something that was added years later after the building was complete. So that might account for the 404 foot height. Either that or the later addition, or air conditioning unit simply wasn't listed on the original blueprints.

I'd say this is pretty much a slam dunk find. Ultimately the best source is the blueprints, but I'm starting to think more and more architects, building managers and the like actually use GIS for their information more often than we've thought.
__________________
Hear me. And if I close my mind in fear, please pry it open. - Metallica
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 1:07 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 918
Has anyone counted the actual floors? It is listed at 45 floors. Even then this may require a slueth to go in a room and measure the actual ht. To get to 500' the ceiling only need to be 11'2". That is reasonable. But if the ceilling hts are only 9' the overall hts drop to about 405'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 5:10 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,885
Thunder Bay bases its building height restrictions on mean sea level instead of ground level. If other cities do that, it could be why these numbers are skewed. Kansas City is 910 feet above MSL so they're probably basing it on something different if it is only 100ft off.
__________________
Thunder Bay Updated 2018!other photos | my geofiction | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 5:29 PM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
In Virtual Earth, the highest point of the Mutual Benefit Life Building(the boxy building next to the Hyatt) is 1206' feet above sea level. This point is the little box that sits on top of the main mechanical structure on the roof.

Taking the cursor and moving it in front of streets surrounding the Mutual Benefit Life Building we find the lowest elevation along the street(to give the building maximum height when we subtract it from 1206')is:
Grand Avenue(806'-1206')=400'
McGee Street(824'-1206')=382'


Now if we measure the Hyatt's highest point(the little structure on top of the saucer) we get 1251' above sea level.

Taking the cursor and moving it in front of streets surrounding the building we find the lowest elevation(to give the building maximum height when we subtract it from 1251').
McGee(824' -1251')=427'
Gilham(871'-1251')=380'
East 22cd(808'-1251')=443'
East Pershing(825'-1251')=426'


So from this, I have measured every possible point where the heights could have been taken from around the buildings. The maximum height of the Hyatt, per Vitrual Earth, is 443'. The maximum height of the Mutual Benefit Life Building,per Virtual Earth, is 400'.

Let's assume that Virtual Earth screwed up the Hyatt's Height, but got Mutual Benefit Life's height correct. Giving the Hyatt as much advantage as possible to be its claimed 504' tall, we maximize the height of Mutual Benefit Life to its tallest possible height of 400'.

Looking at the pics I posted of the two side by side, and keeping in mind that these buildings are only a block away from eachother, so that distortion is not going to be too much, do you think that the Hyatt is really over 100 feet higher than the Mutual Benefit Life.

Be sure to note that the 400' Mutual Benefit Life,which includes the rooftop mechanical structure, is nearly is even with the Hyatt's main roofline. This puts the Hyatt's roofline at slightly above 400 feet. So now the only questions you must ask yourself is this: is the "saucer" 100 feet higher than the Hyatt's main roofline.

No way in hell, I say. Just from eyeballing it, the saucer is 35 feet higher than the main roofline.

It looks like, from Virtual Earth, that the Hyatt's main entrance is on McGee Street. If so, at the main entrance, I estimate the Hyatt to be 420-435 feet.

Let me know what you think guys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 5:58 PM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
Height of One Kansas City Place now in question....less than 595 feet.

Basically I take the cursor in Virtual Earth and drag it along the street that One KC Place borders. I drag the cursor along the whole side of the building that faces the road and I take note of the differing heights of elevation above sea level of the road. I then take the lowest and highest elevations of the road.

Here they are below:

Balitmore Street 899-900' above sea level
West 12th Street 884-902' above sea level
Main Street 875-883' above sea level

One Kansas City Place main entrance on Main Street 877' above sea level.

Roofline of One Kansas City Place 1470' Above Sea Level. This is the structure on the roof that the spire sits upon.

Height of One KC Place
Baltimore Street 899-1470= 571'
West 12th Street 884-1470= 586'
Main Street 875-1470= 595'
Main entrance on Main street 877-1470= 593'

I think that the 632' height figure of One KC Place includes the spire, which roughly looks 35-40 feet.

What do you guys think?

What is the official street that One KC Place sits on?

Last edited by 2taall; Sep 22, 2008 at 8:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 8:19 PM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
Also, If One Kansas City Place is indeed 593' at its main entrance then St. Louis' Metropolitan Square, at 593', are now tied for tallest roof height in Missouri.

Interestingly, AT&T Town Pavillon is listed at 591' in the almanac and emporis, and has been listed at this height for years. I wonder if someone switched the numbers by accident for One Kansas City Place and AT&T.

The 632' height for One Kansas City Place could possibly to the top of its spire, which looks at least 30-35 feet tall.

Last edited by 2taall; Sep 22, 2008 at 8:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 9:05 PM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
BTW, I hope the KC people don't feel too bad because in STL we lost a 550 footer. USBank was listed at 550 feet for years. I compared phototographs and kept thinking it had to be somewhere around 475'. It actually turned out to be 484' per blueprints I found in City Hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 10:22 PM
OhGreatOne OhGreatOne is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Harlingen, Texas
Posts: 131
While you're at it, could someone re-check the height of One Atlantic Center in Atlanta for me? I have been to Atlanta several times, and marvel how this building could be listed as having a height of 820 feet. It does not appear taller than the 710-foot Westin building. If fact, from the top of the Westin's revolving restaurant, as I recall, one looks down (slightly) to the top of One Atlantic Center (formerly the IBM Building). Whaddya think?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2008, 11:47 PM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 918
It's funny how technololgy in the hands of the masses can uncover corporate/commercial slieght of hand. If your research is proven by another method then a case can be made to have Emporis redefine those buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2008, 6:07 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,494
It's not always (or even mostly) a sleight of hand by anyone. Many times heights are simply estimated. When their is a sleight, however, it's not usually a total lie. I've known some developers/owners to measure their buildings from their basements to the top of antenna and things like that. Anyway, I'm going to merge this with the other thread. There is no need for a post on every new one discovered.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2008, 7:15 PM
2taall 2taall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 264
Ok everyone,

I called the Hyatt Regency in KC today and talked to the engineerig department. The guy was really cool and he even went and got the blue prints to the building. He said the he subtracted the elevation at the main lobby of the front entrance from the elevation to the top of the saucer's roof, this doesn't include the 10 foot or so elevator shaft that sticks up a little higher than the saucer's roof.

So the height of the KC Hyatt Regency from the main entrance on McGee Street to the top of the saucer's roof is......

Drum roll..................




425 feet. <Cymbals crashing>
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Midwest
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.