I was over at the thread for Concord Sky discussing FCP height based on CTBUH. After I pasted the pictures to show the measurement standard for CTBUH, I realized that CTBUH didnt count the broadcasting structure at the top of FCP. It is entirely missing from the drawing.

CTBUH Page on First Canadian Place: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/first-canadian-place/543#

Screenshot 2025-01-23 at 8.05.46 AM.png


That might be an add-on structure? Still feels like it should count. And if we use the 298 m measurement as base, then we might be looking at 300m here, making FCP a supertall.

Anyone knows how this is being measured?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-01-23 at 7.49.06 AM.png
    Screenshot 2025-01-23 at 7.49.06 AM.png
    111.7 KB · Views: 58
Tyrang said:
I was over at the thread for Concord Sky discussing FCP height based on CTBUH. After I pasted the pictures to show the measurement standard for CTBUH, I realized that CTBUH didnt count the broadcasting structure at the top of FCP. It is entirely missing from the drawing.

CTBUH Page on First Canadian Place: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/first-canadian-place/543#

View attachment 627114

That might be an add-on structure? Still feels like it should count. And if we use the 298 m measurement as base, then we might be looking at 300m here, making FCP a supertall.

Anyone knows how this is being measured?
Click to expand...
298m is long-disputed. The City's shapefile has it at 287m, other sources have it in the low 290s.

Until someone actually pays for a routine disclosure app and pulls the drawings, it'll remain a mystery...
 
ProjectEnd said:
298m is long-disputed. The City's shapefile has it at 287m, other sources have it in the low 290s.

Until someone actually pays for a routine disclosure app and pulls the drawings, it'll remain a mystery...
Click to expand...
It's $75.

Honestly, I'm open to a bit of fundraising at this point to clear it. I'll kick in $10. My morbid curiosity has me..
 
innsertnamehere said:
It's $75.

Honestly, I'm open to a bit of fundraising at this point to clear it. I'll kick in $10. My morbid curiosity has me..
Click to expand...
I'd pitch in as well. It'd be funny if it is 298 and the little broadcasting structure counts... and the One won't even make it to be the first Supertall in Canada after all the trouble.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The money's not so much the issue, you'd also need a letter of permission from either Manulife or Brookfield to access the files.
Click to expand...

The City's policy does identify that they can release some documents:

Routine disclosure of building plans (viewing and copying) of wholly residential buildings submitted after December 31, 2006, is permitted between the 22nd day following the permit application date and three months following the closing of the relevant permit file by the building inspector, where no objection to disclosure has been received by Toronto Building.

If as the owner, the management company responsible for the building, or the permit applicant, you feel there may be a security risk by allowing the public access to your plans and you do not want your building plans to be disclosed by Toronto Building through the Routine Disclosure Policy described above, please submit a letter outlining the reasons for your objections by Registered Mail within 21 days of the application date.

Routine disclosure of building plans for uses other than residential and for residential buildings not meeting the criteria above is permitted to requesters who can confirm they are: an owner of the property, a director of the management company responsible for the building on behalf of the property owner, a person who has written consent from one of the above, City Councillors and their staff, or an officer of certain agencies. For City-owned buildings, authorization is required from the director of Facilities and Real Estate.

Routine disclosure of site plans, surveys and drain plans of any building and all building plans related to signs shall be provided without the consent of the property owner or property manager.

Requests for building records not routinely disclosed by Toronto Building are to be submitted directly to the Corporate Information Management Services (CIMS) office.
Click to expand...

I do wonder if the site plan would include height or not definitively. Might be worth trying.

That, or someone finds a contact at Brookfield.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The City's policy does identify that they can release some documents:



I do wonder if the site plan would include height or not definitively. Might be worth trying.

That, or someone finds a contact at Brookfield.
Click to expand...
FWIW - I’ve looked it up on the city’s own database and it’s listed as 295.84m. But there’s no Indication on whether mechanical is included in that number.
 
The broadcast towers are an addition and not an architectural element so they wouldn't be counted in the official architectural height. Unlike the World Trade Center in NY that has the spire included as an architectural element which gives it the 1776' they wanted even though by roof height it is much shorter than the other supertalls.
 
tstormers said:
The broadcast towers are an addition and not an architectural element so they wouldn't be counted in the official architectural height. Unlike the World Trade Center in NY that has the spire included as an architectural element which gives it the 1776' they wanted even though by roof height it is much shorter than the other supertalls.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about the broadcast towers. I am talking about the boardcast structure at the bottom of the boardcast tower. CTBUH did not even have that in their documentations.

I am going to paste the image again - I am referring to the house like structure on the roof underneath the antennas. As the documentation on the right shown, they are counting the roof but they don't have the structure.

1737652029633.png
 
Tyrang said:
I am not talking about the broadcast towers. I am talking about the boardcast structure at the bottom of the boardcast tower. CTBUH did not even have that in their documentations.

I am going to paste the image again - I am referring to the house like structure on the roof underneath the antennas. As the documentation on the right shown, they are counting the roof but they don't have the structure.

View attachment 627151
Click to expand...

I understand what you are referring to now. It should be part of the building height yes. Whether it is included in the 298m is unclear, but if one place is saying 295.84m then it could be a 3m mechanical penthouse to get to 298m.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The money's not so much the issue, you'd also need a letter of permission from either Manulife or Brookfield to access the files.
Click to expand...
Curious though, since the request for documentation on the actual height of the thing is unlikely to expose any real trade secrets or give any competition an unfair advantage here, would it not hurt to ask them for such permission?
 
I've stood right beside the cabinet of drawings in the facilities management office.

I think it's safe to assume the unverified 298 metres CTBUH inherited from Emporis is higher than the actual height from past references of 287 metres in preliminary planning reports and the ability to measure building heights in Google Earth.

For reference:
www.google.ca

Overview – Google Earth

www.google.ca www.google.ca
The height in the bottom right corner is 369 metres with the pointer on top of the core
The height with the pointer on the sidewalk flips between 78 and 79 metres
 
Last edited:
It's 292m in google earth and drawings may not be definitive due to how it may or may not have been built exactly to spec.

Only way is measuring it in person with a surveying theodolite. Saw a video recently saying ones they use to measure buildings can measure up to 1500m with an accuracy of within 2mm.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top