ville-marie Le George - 45 étages

[Fortier]

Le 173m commence à se répéter pas mal pour une "erreur de stagiaire"!

[Megafolie]

...au-dessus du niveau de la mer?

 

Modifié 21 novembre 2018 par Megafolie

[Djentmaster001]

Ok, so I went to the sales office today. Here's some info 

1. The project looks fantastic honestly, a lot of amenities and great location + connectivity to Lucien L'Allier

2. Groundbreaking starts in May 2019, delivery 2022

3. I asked about the height, according to their database (straight from the architect themselves): 172 metres tall

[budgebandit]

172 meters above sea level and not street level (most probably)

[Bero]

Mais c'est quoi cette mode d'evoquer la hauteur d un batiment par rapport au niveau de la mer??!! C est n importe quoi! La hauteur d'un batiment se fait par le sol ou il est construit. Point.

ca peut interesser les geometres eventuellement et ou les architectes qui veulent impressionner. La hauteur au niveau du batiment est un repere concret.

Modifié 4 décembre 2018 par Bero

[Djentmaster001]

24 minutes ago, budgebandit said:

172 meters above sea level and not street level (most probably)

The person said it was structurally 172 metres. At this point we'll wait till 2022 to see cause we have 143.6 (round up to 144), 172 and 173.6 metres now. Everything they showed from visual presentation to pictures all showed it taller than TDC1 as well. 

Edit: I still don't buy the 172-metre height and it'll probably be 144 metres but still, every single thing they showed made it higher than TDC1 and everything else except L'Avenue.

Modifié 4 décembre 2018 par Djentmaster001

[Megafolie]

Ça fait vraiment plusieurs fois dans ce fil que les deux hauteurs sont évoquées. C’est plutôt drôle, j’ai comme l’impression que quelqu’un va finir par faire un « pool » pour déterminer qui a raison. Je ne pense pas avoir vu autant de confusion dans d’autres projets dernièrement sur MtlUrb. 

[MtlMan]

Je trouve ça bizarre que des architectes évoquent la hauteur de l'édifice par rapport au niveau de la mer (fleuve) plutôt que par rapport au sol. Pcq, entre le niveau de l'eau et celui de la base de l'immeuble, il y a plusieurs mètres. Et ils compteraient ça comme faisant partie de la hauteur de l'immeuble?

Ça me semble manquer de rigueur intellectuelle. 

PS: Le down voter devrait avoir assez de courage pour expliquer la raison de son action. Qu'y a-t-il dans ce questionnement (oui, un simple questionnement) qui mérite ça? J'imagine que c'est trop forçant de formuler une réponse sensée dans des phrases complètes.....

[rufus96]

1 hour ago, MtlMan said:

Je trouve ça bizarre que des architectes évoquent la hauteur de l'édifice par rapport au niveau de la mer (fleuve) plutôt que par rapport au sol. Pcq, entre le niveau de l'eau et celui de la base de l'immeuble, il y a plusieurs mètres. Et ils compteraient ça comme faisant partie de la hauteur de l'immeuble?

Ça me semble manquer de rigueur intellectuelle. 

PS: Le down voter devrait avoir assez de courage pour expliquer la raison de son action. Qu'y a-t-il dans ce questionnement (oui, un simple questionnement) qui mérite ça? J'imagine que c'est trop forçant de formuler une réponse sensée dans des phrases complètes.....

I'm not the one who downvoted you, but perhaps I can shed some light as to why geodetic heights are used on architectural drawings.

Typically, when going through the planning and approval stages for a project, you'll need to go through site plan approval with the city and various related authorities. They will need to see the project's site plan relating to a survey. Surveys typically provide site levels measured with respect to a datum - "0," which is sea level, and is fairly universal. This helps avoid confusion. If you can establish the level of your building with respect to a universally recognized datum, then you can easily extrapolate the building height from it. I wouldn't say that this practice is lacking in rigor. It's very much the standard. Other disciplines (civil engineers etc.) will also typically use this information. It makes coordination between disciplines that contribute to designing a building much, much easier. It's also important to realize that sites are very rarely flat, so the building will in fact have multiple different heights, and they need to relate back to the original "0" datum. 

I can't comment on the confusion with respect to this project, but the above is my two cents based on my experience in architectural practice. 

[MtlMan]

il y a une heure, rufus96 a dit :

I'm not the one who downvoted you, but perhaps I can shed some light as to why geodetic heights are used on architectural drawings.

Typically, when going through the planning and approval stages for a project, you'll need to go through site plan approval with the city and various related authorities. They will need to see the project's site plan relating to a survey. Surveys typically provide site levels measured with respect to a datum - "0," which is sea level, and is fairly universal. This helps avoid confusion. If you can establish the level of your building with respect to a universally recognized datum, then you can easily extrapolate the building height from it. I wouldn't say that this practice is lacking in rigor. It's very much the standard. Other disciplines (civil engineers etc.) will also typically use this information. It makes coordination between disciplines that contribute to designing a building much, much easier. It's also important to realize that sites are very rarely flat, so the building will in fact have multiple different heights, and they need to relate back to the original "0" datum. 

I can't comment on the confusion with respect to this project, but the above is my two cents based on my experience in architectural practice. 

This is a welcome contribution from you, thank you. Much preferable to a superficial and too easy downvote. I understand better, and happily stand corrected on this.

?