Talk:List of tallest buildings in Miami

message: 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)
thread_title: The correct conversion from meters to feet is one meter is equal to 3.281 feet, not 3 feet

message: It used to be in the timeline, it was there back in 2007 when it became a featured list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Miami&oldid=160890894
Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only 5 stories in the 20's,emporis does anyone go as far as to know when the additional 16 were added on? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there's really a reliable source for this. Nothing in SSCenter at all. Emporis lists it at 68 meters, 21 floors and completed in 1926. The SkyscraperPage has it at 225 feet (68m), 19 floors and completed in 1922. Was it really only 5 stories originally? If it was only 5 stories in the 1920's it's unlikely that it would have been taller than the McAllister Hotel, or the Freedom Tower if the additional 16 floors were added in 1926. 1305cj (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was the Congress Building removed?

message: What's the issue with the sources, ...bare URL's? I used the 'Cite your sources" tag. How else should they be done? 1305cj (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What was wrong with them? They included abouted as much as they could (author, date, publication, accessdate, title, URL, etc), they already had the applicable parameters. Just remove unnecessary sources such as skyscraperpage and !maybe structurae.de if the are basically dead. Even Emporis should be removed as they are just a data mining aggregate site and NOT any longer the CTBUH database. B137 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Used the template to include all the information (author, date, publication, accessdate, title, URL, etc) in the parameters, for SSCenter/CTBUH and Emporis as you've said before Emporis often contains neat facts beyond the numerical data. 1305cj (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: citing sources

message: I don't think cancelled buildings should be on a list of tallest buildings, as they are not actual buildings, and the list could be in the hundreds or cherry picked like was done here. Who determines which cancelled buildings to include or not include? It's the only featured list of tallest buildings to include this strange category. List of tallest buildings should only include buildings, not imaginary buildings. Mattximus (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should not be there; however, exceptional proposals might be mentioned, such as the Empire World Towers. I would like these articles to have a little more prose and not just a monotonous regurgitation of selected facts as the intros to all the featured lists are. Also, this is supposed to be a demoted list. B137 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why include imaginary buildings? 

message: Also an odd ref for two unique "building booms". 
A worrying 41.68 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 35 in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Palm Beach metro area live with one or more of their parents. That's the highest rate in the nation, and more than ten points higher than that national average of 30 percent. That data was collected between 2009 and 2013.
That's highest rate of any metro area in the nation.
Now, of course, before you figure, "Well, that's just a part of the culture here," please know it wasn't always this way. In 2000, only 28.10 percent of people between the ages of 18 an 35 lived with a parent. That's an astounding jump of nearly 14 percent over 13 years -- a time when Miami underwent two distinctive economic "booms."
In fact, since 1980, Miami saw the largest percentage increase of any U.S. metro area of young adults living at home. It's jumped about 16 percent since then.
"...simply can't afford to pay $1,800 a month for a glorified studio in the area."
Miami Leads Nation in Millennials Who Still Live With a Parent Miami New Times
B137 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Millennials, affordability

message: This interesting PDF that came out in 2014 when the FAA OEI (one engine inoperative) proposal was floating, it claims to compare on page 8 the total building area in the downtown sub markets in 2000 and 2011:
http://www.miamidda.com/pdf/Exhibit1-07142014-MiamiDDA-FAA-OEI-Findings-Comments-Doc.No.FAA-2014-0134.pdf
In 2011 the total was supposedly 100 million square feet, in 2000 it was about 65 million sq ft. Equal to 100 large high rises, or 25 of the largest 4 million sq ft skyscrapers (Ping An Finance Center, Willis Tower, Goldin Finance 117, Shanghai Tower)
. B137 (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Total building space downtown area

message: With the goal of improving this talk page, an archive has been set up.  1305cj (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Have the issues leading to placing a factual accuracy warning on the page in October 2014 been addressed/resolved? If not, what were they? 1305cj (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an objection. B137 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I asked. What is the objection? 1305cj (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Every building has a source cited, as up to date as possible. While no source is infalable, (1450 Brickell for example, may not be 500 feet, but for now the most widely accepted verifiable source lists it as that so it was moved from #21 on the list to #35) the SkyscraperCenter and Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) have made corrections in their databases before, and if/when that happens then the numbers should be corrected here. If you simply disagree with the current available source for an individual entry on this list (or two, or three) that's no reason to dispute the factual accuracy of the entire article. There was no discussion from October 2014 of why the factual accuracy dispute was put on the article in the first place. Over a year seems like plenty of time to check factual accuracy and correct any concerns. 1305cj (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason te FLRC "failed" was because it did not log or cache properly so no one saw it. The accuracy of virtually the only source for 90% of the buildings is very questionable, that is a dispute of factal accuracy. Thank you for doing good work, including tedious reference work, and learning quickly or pretending not to know at first. But the article is not ship shape yet. B137 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the recognition. What in your opinion would make the article "ship shape"? 1305cj (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A better source that either goes by FAA official data, because there's no way they don't have legitimate info for something this dire, or another quality source for empirical data collected after the fact: empirical data. Even the "corrections" done by CTBUH, mostly amounted to one guy doing some Google Earth calculation, I don't fully understand it. This isn't a no-win scenario, but sometimes there just isn't an easy fix-all answer. I have mentioned in no uncertain terms the idea of teaming up with the FAA to get real data, to the CTBUH database editor. B137 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems like you're trying to introduce original research and fringe theory into this list. You haven't made a case or cited a source to support any claim that anyone's using Google Earth, or FAA data for building height. Despite your (alleged) contacts to those involved. The FAA does not even have a(n available) database of structural heights. Wikipedia requires reliable sources and verifiability. This list, perhaps more so than any other list of tallest buildings, complies with those Wikipedia guidelines and is up to date. Tagging it with a Factual Accuracy Dispute when you can provide no reliable dispute amounts to vandalism  isn't right. Please remove it. 1305cj (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy dispute 

message: I've made a bit of an edit to this section to make it easier to read and understand. First was adding a link to a more recent CTBUH article about FAA approval for 2 supertall towers. Next I removed the line
"Under an expired proposal, it was approved by the FAA to rise 1,049 feet (320 m), the highest general height limit in the downtown area." 
This was already explained in the first line of the section and seems redundant and confusing. The link to the Federal Aviation Administration page makes no sense here as that page is about the agency and there's nothing to be learned about height limits so it has nothing to do with this article. The last part about the One Engine Inoperative policy should probably have a citation, but that may not be critical as the reader understands that it is a proposal. The last line however, written as a statement of fact, does need a source. 
"This policy was never adopted; in fact the FAA went back to using the old standard height limits of up to 1,049 feet (320 m) AMSL with quicker approvals for any proposal under the limit for its zone."  This also again just restates what was said in the first line that the FAA approved 1,040 ft limit. I don't think the article loses anything by removing this line until it can be clarified. 1305cj (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAA height limits 

message: When does a building go from planned to approved? The Skyscraper Center CTBUH database still lists One Brickell City Center, and One Bayfront Plaza, and even Skyrise Miami (currently listed as 'under construction') as proposed, not approved. I would add One River Point to the list now but I'm not sure if it's past the planned stage and actually approved. I can't find any discussion in the archives about a "Planned/Proposed" category, although I thought I have seen it before maybe on other lists. Earlier talk about imaginary buildings only addressed cancelled buildings. Would planned buildings be considered "imaginary" as well? It may not happen as often but there have been proposed buildings that get cancelled like The Edge On Brickell so there's really no need to list every proposal, thought or idea anyone has for a building until it's actually at the approved stage. 1305cj (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approved or Proposed?  

message: Not intending to step on any toes here or anything but I think the recently added photo and caption of 1050 Brickell in the Notes section should be removed. As Note A states ..."none of the tallest buildings in Miami have a defined spire", the photo seems to be an attempt at making a contradiction or editorializing in the photo caption. The top of 1050 Brickell appears to have a type of trellis or pergola atop the HVAC walls, possibly as a decorative architectural feature, it is interesting but I'm not sure why that would be considered "elaborate". On a much much closer look there is what appears to be a pole or antennae of some sort, most likely functioning equipment -aircraft warning light, and not counted in the architectural height of the building. I don't see how that could be considered a spire by any sense of the definition, no matter how "slight".  1305cj (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spires, in Miami? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Tallest miami. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest miami until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Regards, SONIC678 16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tallest miami" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The Waldorf Astoria Miami max above ground height is 317 meters or about 1,040 feet, would just surpass Atlanta (311 meters) and Texas' tallest buildings (305 meters), including the under construction The Waterline in Austin at about 311 meters (1,020 feet). The max possible building height in Miami under current FAA height rules is 1,049 feet (320 meters) above sea level, or realistically 1,046' (319 meters) above ground level, allowing a one meter site elevation (common in Miami). B137 (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest in Southeast, Waldorf at 317 meter (1,041') max