Yeah, I pointed that out on the comments page. Tower? Really? 120 feet is a decent height in some places, but it's hardly a tower.
By the way, Emporis' definition of a high rise is a building that is at least 115 feet tall, or one that has at least 12 floors. I kind of think it's a dumb cutoff point. Also, the Austin Fire Department, along with most other cities classify buildings that are at least 75 feet tall to be a highrise. That's even more ridiculous though. I remember the articles a while back (a few years) about sprinkler systems being retrofitted into some of the older dorm buildings around UT. The policy said any building at or above 75 feet (a highrise) had to have sprinklers and other fire safety devices. Believe it or not, some of the older dorm buildings didn't have them, or hadn't been updated in years.
Originally Posted by Myomi
Greyco needs to do a better PR job
I'm always sticking up for the correct terms and information on the subject in Statesman articles or anytime a new project comes along. Even if it's not a highrise or skyscraper project, I try to point out what exactly a 100 foot building looks like or one that is 200 feet or just 50 feet. They should put me on the payroll. LOL Seriously, you'd be surprised how many people are oblivious to building heights, and beyond just the normal general public's ignorance of the subject. I would expect the general public wouldn't know how tall most buildings are or know where to find that info, but for these anti-development folks who are raising their voice and opposing these developments, they should know better. If they claim they know what they're talking about and say they're involved and paying attention to the subject, then they should have better information and arguments than they usually bring up. I'm not even trying to change their mind or convince them that skyscrapers are a good idea, just hoping that they and others make informed decisions and opinions on the subject.