The Bottle District

jlblues · PostJun 21, 2006#8012006-06-21T08:13+00:00

Well that was a very amusing discussion...

I'm not an engineer, but I'll try my best...

To measure anything, you need to have a reference point, correct? Sea level is the only point on earth which is relatively the same anywhere on the planet. What else would you use? This unchanging reference point allows you to instantly relate any measurement on your property or construction site to any USGS topographical map. Incidentally, using sea level as a datum has actually become even more useful with the advent of GPS surveying equipment.

So, say I am a construction project manager and I had a topographic map drawn of my construction site. Instead of worrying about Al Gore's changing sea levels, I could pick the lowest spot on the site and set that as 0'-0". But, what happens when I excavate the site or pile fill on the site. Now what is my reference point, or 0'-0"? How would I communicate with a subcontractor the amount of excavation which needed to be done, or how much fill I needed? Or where the top or bottom of my foundation should be poured? I suppose each subcontractor could come out and do their own survey of the site, but that wouldn't be very efficient.

urban elitist · PostJun 21, 2006#8022006-06-21T09:22+00:00

jlblues wrote:Well that was a very amusing discussion... I'm not an engineer, but I'll try my best...

To measure anything, you need to have a reference point, correct? Sea level is the only point on earth which is relatively the same anywhere on the planet. What else would you use? This unchanging reference point allows you to instantly relate any measurement on your property or construction site to any USGS topographical map. Incidentally, using sea level as a datum has actually become even more useful with the advent of GPS surveying equipment.

So, say I am a construction project manager and I had a topographic map drawn of my construction site. Instead of worrying about Al Gore's changing sea levels, I could pick the lowest spot on the site and set that as 0'-0". But, what happens when I excavate the site or pile fill on the site. Now what is my reference point, or 0'-0"? How would I communicate with a subcontractor the amount of excavation which needed to be done, or how much fill I needed? Or where the top or bottom of my foundation should be poured? I suppose each subcontractor could come out and do their own survey of the site, but that wouldn't be very efficient.

Yup, as an engineer I can 100% confirm this. It is used so that there is a universal zero datum throughout the world. It would be a disaster if every single thing built throughout the world had a different reference datum for a zero. I assure you all that it is not done simply to confuse you.

soulardd · PostJun 21, 2006#8032006-06-21T12:52+00:00

So is that universal reference point rising every year as the polar ice caps melt? Granted, the sea level is rising pretty slowly but it is still rising. Are buildings losing feet above sea level?

urban elitist · PostJun 21, 2006#8042006-06-21T13:10+00:00

SoulardD wrote:So is that universal reference point rising every year as the polar ice caps melt? Granted, the sea level is rising pretty slowly but it is still rising. Are buildings losing feet above sea level?

No, Michael Moore. The datum was set long ago and can only change if the board(can't remember the name of the group) who is responsible for it meets and agrees to change it for everone world wide, same as if we wanted to change the definition of a meter, BIPM would have to meet and agree to do so. Also I don't think mean sea level is actually based on the average height of the sea any longer. To keep the datum static it is actually based on a shpere where the gravitational feild of the earth is constant, assuming a constant density of the earth.

don koester · PostJun 21, 2006#8052006-06-21T14:42+00:00

Are you trying to spell SPHERE? And you're an engineer,huh?

Sounds very teKNIKAL.

urban elitist · PostJun 21, 2006#8062006-06-21T14:55+00:00

^Yeah that's a typo. Those happen sometimes when using a keyboard, just that most don't point out others typos on an internet forum...I'm sure you've had your share as well. We engineers are known for our poor writting skills anyways....

debaliviere · PostJun 21, 2006#8072006-06-21T15:33+00:00

don koester wrote:Are you trying to spell SPHERE? And you're an engineer,huh?

Sounds very teKNIKAL.

Was this really necessary in an otherwise civil discussion? Do you honestly think he doesn't know how to spell "sphere?" We all make spelling and grammatical errors in our posts occasionally - if each of us pointed out every mistake that another poster makes, this forum would really get ridiculous.

Knock it off.

soulardd · PostJun 21, 2006#8082006-06-21T16:02+00:00

Urban Elitist wrote:
SoulardD wrote:So is that universal reference point rising every year as the polar ice caps melt? Granted, the sea level is rising pretty slowly but it is still rising. Are buildings losing feet above sea level?
No, Michael Moore. The datum was set long ago and can only change if the board(can't remember the name of the group) who is responsible for it meets and agrees to change it for everone world wide, same as if we wanted to change the definition of a meter, BIPM would have to meet and agree to do so. Also I don't think mean sea level is actually based on the average height of the sea any longer. To keep the datum static it is actually based on a shpere where the gravitational feild of the earth is constant, assuming a constant density of the earth.

Sorry, I thought it was a fair enough question to ask without being called Michael Moore. I also think it's interesting that measuring with sea level isn't really measuring from the actual sea level.

urban elitist · PostJun 21, 2006#8092006-06-21T16:15+00:00

SoulardD wrote:I also think it's interesting that measuring with sea level isn't really measuring from the actual sea level.

You raise a good point here but this is how many measurements were originally named. A "foot" used to be equivilent to the size of the current king's foot. And even though a ft is not the same size as Bush's foot, yet is defined as "0.3048 meters" and I think meters are defined by the distance light travels in some set amount of time, it's still called a foot.

xing · PostJun 21, 2006#8102006-06-21T18:29+00:00

Guys, please remain on topic, and find a way to work out your arguments. A moderator may end up suspending the thread for awhile, if it doesn't stop.

jeff vanderlou · PostJun 21, 2006#8112006-06-21T22:27+00:00

It looks like the height of any new buildings in the Bottle District will be limited to about 20 - 21 stories if the blurb on Mayor Slay's site is correct.

http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/default.asp

xing · PostJun 21, 2006#8122006-06-21T23:07+00:00

Jeff Vanderlou wrote:It looks like the height of any new buildings in the Bottle District will be limited to about 20 - 21 stories if the blurb on Mayor Slay's site is correct.

http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/default.asp

You know, in the end, I think it's best that way.

jfknet · PostJun 22, 2006#8132006-06-22T00:07+00:00

Why not just make it 5-10 stories. Times square lighting..... Please LOL.

xing · PostJun 22, 2006#8142006-06-22T01:49+00:00

Many cities are doing that now. Chicago has been putting up LCD displays all over the State Street area.

jambo · PostJun 22, 2006#8152006-06-22T02:50+00:00

jfknet wrote:Why not just make it 5-10 stories. Times square lighting..... Please LOL.

MayorSlay.com wrote:FYI: Barb Geisman thinks the height limitation in the final PUD ordinance will probably be 50-60 stories. Somebody with a GPS will have to figure what that is in XXX feet AMSL.

5 Stories, 50 stories...I'm so confused!!!!

jfknet · PostJun 22, 2006#8162006-06-22T03:41+00:00

Xing wrote:Many cities are doing that now. Chicago has been putting up LCD displays all over the State Street area.

Yeah I was just being sarcastic. Just settle on something and build it, and worry about the Times Square lighting after you get past the etch -a- sketch phase LOL.

all about stl · PostJun 22, 2006#8172006-06-22T04:38+00:00

any ideas/reasons for why the city would put height restrictions on these buildings?

jambalaya · PostJun 22, 2006#8182006-06-22T07:47+00:00

It is possible that they are limiting the height of this development for the benefit of the residential community to the west of TBD - just a thought.

jeff vanderlou · PostJun 22, 2006#8192006-06-22T09:40+00:00

Jambo wrote:
jfknet wrote:Why not just make it 5-10 stories. Times square lighting..... Please LOL.

MayorSlay.com wrote:FYI: Barb Geisman thinks the height limitation in the final PUD ordinance will probably be 50-60 stories. Somebody with a GPS will have to figure what that is in XXX feet AMSL.

5 Stories, 50 stories...I'm so confused!!!!

You're confused? I read the Mayor's edit, "Good Question," and I couldn't make sense of it. Back to square one?

innov8ion · PostJun 22, 2006#8202006-06-22T12:24+00:00

Urban Elitist, in his response, looks not to be just any engineer -- but a "civil" engineer.

Dave

Urban Elitist wrote:
don koester wrote:Are you trying to spell SPHERE? And you're an engineer,huh? Sounds very teKNIKAL.

^Yeah that's a typo. Those happen sometimes when using a keyboard, just that most don't point out others typos on an internet forum...I'm sure you've had your share as well. We engineers are known for our poor writting skills anyways....

urban elitist · PostJun 22, 2006#8212006-06-22T12:53+00:00

innov8ion wrote:Urban Elitist, in his response, looks not to be just any engineer -- but a "civil" engineer.

That's pretty good pun.

In case you were wondering though, my concentration was/is Mechanical and I work in Design.

moorlander · PostJun 22, 2006#8222006-06-22T15:05+00:00

ToastedRavioli wrote:From Mayor Slay's Website, May 20, 2006:

"Building heights in the District will be limited to 751 feet above mean sea level."

What does "751 feet above mean sea level" mean? Isn't St. Louis already at like 400 feet above sea level. This seems stupid to restrict growth, especially upward...

From what I have gathered this was an estimate of how hight ghazi plans to build, not a zoning issue (height ristriction.)

markofucity · PostJun 22, 2006#8232006-06-22T15:07+00:00

the only thing I can gather is that no one really has any idea how tall they plan to build - including Ghazi

PostJun 22, 2006#8242006-06-22T15:08+00:00

and it also seems like anythign taller than 300 feet will require a dreaded "variance" ..... and the building will probably cast a shadow - lets hope Patti Tepper doesn;t catch wind of it ..

moorlander · PostJun 22, 2006#8252006-06-22T15:12+00:00

bpe235 wrote:
ToastedRavioli wrote:From Mayor Slay's Website, May 20, 2006:

"Building heights in the District will be limited to 751 feet above mean sea level."

What does "751 feet above mean sea level" mean? Isn't St. Louis already at like 400 feet above sea level. This seems stupid to restrict growth, especially upward...

From what I have gathered (from the mayor's office) this was an estimate of how hight ghazi plans to build, not a zoning issue (height ristriction.)

The Bottle District

Choose Display Mode