Talk:List of tallest buildings in Miami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured list star List of tallest buildings in Miami is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
September 20, 2007 Featured list candidate Promoted
WikiProject Skyscrapers
Architecture Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, which aims to create, expand, and maintain articles that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. To participate, visit the project page for more information.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Featured list FL This article has been rated as FL-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] The correct conversion from meters to feet is one meter is equal to 3.281 feet, not 3 feet

Instead of posting this message in every article talkpage, I think I should say this here. In most of the building articles on the list, the correct height figure in feet is stated, but the height figure in meters is off. The 3 to 1 conversion used in the Miami building articles is one yard, but one yard does not equal one meter; a yard is shorter. This small difference of 3 inches might seem small, but in a building about 600 feet tall, the 3 to 1 conversion yields 200 (yards), but the 3.281 to 1 conversion yields 183 (meters); a difference of 17. I have corrected most of the conversion mistakes, but the editor who did the incorrect conversion(s) should keep this in mind. Skyscraper Phoenix 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Bayfront Plaza

Where is the information stating that this building will be 381 meters tall? According to Emporis, it will be only 360 meters tall (with spire) and therefore will be the third, not the 1st, tallest skyscraper in the city. 72.192.10.173 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been approved for 320 meters according to Emporis. It is currently the only building approved over 300 meters and 1 of 3 that have been approved or proposed to be over 300 meters. Of the 3 it is projected to be the tallest. LostLucidity (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Met 3 not under construction

I know this is original research, but Met 3 isn't under construction (as Emporis states) as of 4/4/2007. I drove by it today and the site still serves as a parking lot for the construction crews of other buildings in the area. Anyone know when actual groundbreaking will occur? - Marc Averette 23:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this still pending? It's been almost a year. Thanks! LostLucidity (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I was downtown about two weeks ago. They have a covered fence around it with a big '3' so you can't see in too well from a car, but I believe I caught a glimpse of cars parked inside. At least '2' is finally going up. - Marc Averette (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height of Four Seasons

The height of the Four Seasons Tower was listed as 789 ft / 240 m, but thge building's article has it at 794 ft / 242 m. I chnaged the height on this page to match with the article, but was wondering if anyone knows the exact height of the building. Emporis seems to think it is the shorter height, so is that the one we should go with? Raime 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, we should definitely go with Emporis' information. I'll change the building's article. Raime 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listing of neighborhoods in image captions

I don't think we should be naming the neighborhood in which a building is located in an image caption. If anything, this should go as a separate column in the tables, entitled "Neighborhood" or "Region". The captions are already lengthy as it is; they do not need more infomation. Raime 05:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bordering on OR?

I know my edit was original research, but it was all factual. Therefore, considering that anything taken from a source is "original research", then therefore the only other option is plagarism. I think my edit needed to be edited, not deleted. The fact of the matter is that 76 years did seperate the 7 after 3 top tallest buildings in NYC, and only one year in Miami, original or not, that's 100% fact. It's not a direct comparison, but it should be stated, even if just compared to other cities.

The fact that 7 of the 10 tallest buildings in the city were built in ONE year is very, very important to note. ReignMan 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not say it wasn't factual. Feel free to add the information about the 7/10 buildings being completed in one year. You're right, that is important to note. I'll even re-add it myself, although it is slightly debatable to list U/C buildings as official tallest buildings in a city. But a comparison to New York City skyscrapers is not necessary, nor does it belong here. New York City's top ten tallest skyscrapers are by far taller than that of Miami's. If you are going to look at specifics, New York City saw the construction of 14 buildings taller than 400 feet and 83 highrises in one year - 1930. In 1931, 64 more highrises were constructed. In 1960, 61 were constructed. And so on. Comparing the skyscrapers of New York City to Miami is inappropriate in the lead of this list. New York City's skyline is about half a century older than that of Miami's, so it is expected that its tallest buildings would be spread out over a variety of years, whereas Miami's would not. Rai-me 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I get that much, but still, it bears noting that Miami is growing at a rate unheard of in human history. I'm just so used to "where does it stand compared to New York." Like crime, everyone says that Detroit, Compton, St. Louis, and Camden are the worst, but Opa Locka is the worst. Florida cities never get recognised for their size and stature, and even crime rates. The more people realise that Miami is violent, and has massively underbuilt transit systems, the sooner it will be fixed! It's about time that we started to show the world, that this is a HUGE city, not a mere 400,000 pop. town. We're the 4th biggest Urban Area in America for god's sakes (according to the United Nations[1].)
The idea isn't to say, "we're the biggest, or best, or anything of that nature, but the 2nd for crime, the 4th for size, and the 3rd for skyscrapers, etc. Lets at least try to keep up with these other cities on our articles, ours are rated GA, but Houston's (boastful, bad facts, etc.) is FA! We need to make our articles better.
In conclusion, I read the edit you made, and I like it. I think the article shows what it needs to now.ReignMan 05:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, and I definitely agree. I also love the city, and want to see its receive the recognition it deserves. And I completely agree with improving articles related to this great city. I just don't think that hyping up the skyline is the way to do it. Even if this was not what you were trying to do when you added the information, that is the way it appeared. But anyway, as you said, it is all good now. The information is presented, and hopefully Miami's terrific skyline will get the recognition it deserves with this FL. Rai-me 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of Emporis?

Look at this latest photo of the Biscayne Wall, 2/23/2008. Emporis.com claims that Marinablue (left) is 615 ft, 900 Biscayne Bay (2nd from left) is 712 ft, while Marquis Miami (right) is 679 ft. Does anyone see a problem here? How is Marinablue nearly 100 ft shorter than 900 Biscayne? Impossible. Also Marquis is clearly now taller than 900 Biscayne.

Is there a better source than Emporis.com? This is only one of several recent examples of data conflicting with common sense. - Marc Averette (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Those height measurements you are disputing are in feet not meters. No building in Miami surpasses 300 meters as of yet. LostLucidity (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The bad data appears to be that 900 Biscayne Bay is 712 ft. It is most likely around 620-630 ft (just a bit taller than Marinablue at 615 ft), while Marquis Miami is still going up to be 679 ft. They must have had to trim down 900 Biscayne Bay and Emporis isn't aware of the blueprint change. - Marc Averette (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with you from what I see from the photos. Perhaps calling the building directly might yield more accurate data or send Emporis.com an e-mail with what you're reasoning here. I might try myself if I have time. LostLucidity (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There's also a second problem in the picture: If Marina Blue is 615 feet tall, how come Ten Museum Park looks like its about 70 feet (5 - 7 stories) shorter? Ten Museum Park is about 585 feet tall and I doubt a 30 foot vertical difference would look so large in the photo. Cheers. Trance addict 08:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
They probably did scale down 900 Biscayne Bay; I count only 60 floors from the photo above and this one on Emporis. (Use the hole). Cheers. Trance addict 08:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Comparing the above image of 900 BB with the rendering on Emporis, it looks like the developer chopped off the decor on the roof and several floors of the building itself. Cheers. Trance addict 08:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems like 900 Biscayne Bay definitely had a piece of its rooftop "spire" excluded from the final design; you can see that on this SkyscraperPage.com diagram, two black spires bring the total height to 712 ft, but without the rooftop structures (which are not present in any photos), the structure only reaches 650 ft, 30 ft shorter than the Marquis. This would also account for the loss of 5 floors. This ref, albeit a forum, supports that it was topped off at 650 ft and 63 floors. As for the Ten Museum Park confusion, I think it may just be the angle of the photograph. This photo makes the height difference seem much smaller, and 30 feet seems correct. In addition, there are many sources that can "vouch" for Ten Museum Park being 575 ft and 50 stories outside of Emporis and SkyscraperPage: [1], [2], [3]. Cheers, Rai-me 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Biscaynewall close-up image appears visually distorted to me, making the height difference between Marina Blue and Ten Museum Park smaller. The Biscaynewall image at the top of this thread and the skyline panorama on the article seems less distorted than the Biscaynewall closeup. I think both of those images portray the height of Ten Museum Park better than the close up. As for the SkyscraperPage diagrams, they are out of scale compared to the actual Biscayne Wall skyscrapers. The height of the top floor of Ten Museum Park clearly doesn't reach the height of the lower roof of Marina Blue. The main roof of Marquis Miami clearly isn't at the same height as the top of Marina Blue. Despite the three sources, I'm not convinced that Ten Museum Park is 585 feet tall. Or it could be that the given height of Marina Blue and Marquis are both wrong, as we have been using these two buildings as measuring sticks. Perhaps a law of cosines can settle this matter. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 07:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The older one was taken from a boat, so the upward angle creates an illusion. The newest one is taken at 10x optical zoom from a southbeach apt about 120 ft up, so it's more level with the front and center of the 4 buildings. Marc Averette (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Even so, I still think Ten Museum Park reaches 575 ft; SkyscraperPage diagrams are often not exactly to scale, but the height figures given below usually are accurate. After closer examination of the first, newer image given above, it appears that Ten Museum Park reaches almost the exact same level as the lower roof of Marinablue, and not beneath it; therefore, it is safe to assume that the SkyscraperPage diagrams are slightly off, but the height figures are not - perhaps Marinablue's roof was just drawn as a little too low, and Ten Museum Park's a little too high (if you look, it is drawn slightly above 575 ft, and is closer to 580 ft). Also, the lower roof of Marquis is hard to pinpoint in the image, as the higher roof seems to be the one which faces the water. I think that the lower roof height can be marked by the two small, black prongs that come out roughly 1/9 of the way down the building, and this seems to be exactly on par with the highest roof of Marinablue and slightly lower than the roof of 900 Biscayne. I say that we should leave the heights of Ten Museum Park, Marquis Miami, and Marinablue as they are on the table, as there are many references which support these heights and an examination of the image doesn't present any clear mistakes other than the height of 900 Biscayne Bay. Given that, I will change the height of 900 Biscayne and remove the accuracy tag, but leave the dubious tag on Ten Museum Park for now until we come to a definite decision to leave the height as is or reduce it. Comments? Cheers, Rai-me 00:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New skyline photos

I took a few shots of the skyline. This one is from MacArthur and shows just central downtown (Brickell is hidden behind everything):

And this one is taken from I-195. It shows much more of the skyline (Omni & Edgewater), but Brickell is still hidden:

Looks like the only way to get everything in one shot is from an airplane, but I can take another one from the southern angle on the Rickenbacker, which would showcase Brickell much better. - Marc Averette (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 300-ft buildings

Is it necessary to list buildings between 300 to 399-feet? It seems unnecessary to list them as the list is a bit large. --Comayagua99 (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A good example to go by here would be the Chicago page, which has a cutoff of 500 ft, yet contains 91 finished buildings. Miami, which now has a cutoff point of 300 ft, still only has 80 finished buildings. Instead of blind cutoff points, they should be based on how many there would be depending the level cutoff. - Marc Averette (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Chicago is an extreme example; as the city with (arguably) the third-largest skyline in the world, it it is not a problem for it to have more skyscrapers than Miami in its list. If anything, the Chicago list should be shortened rather than this list be made longer. This list can be compared to Houston, which uses 400 ft as a cutoff and has 45 entries. The Miami list, when it had 40+ 50+ entries, was already longer than the vast majority of tallest building lists, especially when factoring in its large future buildings section. I definitely think that the section should be removed, as a) the list was already bordering on "too long" prior to the addition, b) the new section has no references, c) the future section does not include 300 ft+ buildings, and d) several of the newly listed buildings are redlinked. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Data cutoff, it is appropriate for Miami to use a 400 ft cutoff. Cheers, Rai•me 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (Text alteration made by Rai•me at 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
Well, 'b' is hardly an issue, as the refrences can easily be added. And as for 'd', if you go to List of tallest buildings in Jacksonville, almost all of those buildings, (even some of the "tall" ones) are redlinked. But even so I can see why the cutoff should probably be 400, since the list is getting a little long to manage. - Marc Averette (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Articles for every entry aren't required for all tallest buildings lists, but since this is a featured list, it is held to higher standards and could be brought to WP:FLRC if other editors feel it has "too many" redlinks. That was pretty much my reasoning behiond point 'd'. Cheers, Rai•me 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we just create a new sub-section titled "Other notable buildings below 400ft" and only list those buildings which have their own Wikipedia articles. Some of these buildings already have articles and might as well be listed in the article of Miami buildings. However, I think it's best to keep them out of the main completed list, as it is a bit lengthy. --Comayagua99 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to smaller and lesser known high-rise buildings, it is sometimes hard to define notability. For example, what makes 1221 Brickell Building more notable than Brickell Bay Tower? I still think it would be best just to leave the 300 ft-399 ft buildings off the list. Of course, the shorter buildings that do have articles could be added to {{Miami skyscrapers}}, making them accessible from this page and all other Miami skyscraper articles. I think that that would be the best solution. Cheers, Rai•me 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I also believe that buildings between 300 and 399 feet should not be included. All these lists need a limit. 400 feet is perfect due to the size of the skyline. As Raime noted, we can add buildings that do have articles to the Miami template. There is no point to include so many buildings. If we go to 300 feet, then what would prevent the list from going to 250 feet? I think we should stick with the guidelines listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Data cutoff. But, if editors believe those guidelines should be changed, then we should move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)