Talk:List of tallest buildings in Miami

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)

Why was the Congress Building removed?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Overhaul
A fairly recent creation, The Skyscraper Center is now the official online database of the CTBUH. This kind of obsolesces Emporis and SkyscraperPage, the former of which is a general database on nearly all known (to them) structures) and the latter is intended for skyscraper diagrams. There is much conflict between these sources and Emporis has been contacted over errors in the past, and is only intermittently responsive (they cover a huge amount of data). The Skyscraper Center replied and updated 900 Biscayne Bay in one day and additionally there were other buildings that were already corrected from their erred Emporis entries. They admit that their data is spotty under 150 m, and that might be a good cutoff point for this list, though it would be sad to see some of the classics found near the bottom of the list removed. It might be better to remove Emporis and SkyscraperPage references entirely except where they are absolutely needed or are a good supplement. Emporis often contains neat facts beyond the numerical data. B137 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * SSCenter seems responsive and proactive to corrections. Two more buildings that need a correction are the Doubletree Grand Miami and [Montage/Monarc at] Met 3, which is listed at ~375 feet but which was upgraded to about 438 allowance by the FAA, and in fact it now has too many floors for the former height. The Doubletree might not indeed break 400, it has very short and compact floors, but it has 41 actual floors plus the large skylight, so it can not possibly be 365 feet only. B137 (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about Skyscraper Center (CTBUH) being the most reliable source and maybe obsolescing the others, especially SkyscraperPage. It's taken some time but I've gone through the list and rechecked/updated sources listing Skyscraper Center/CTBUH and Emporis on all. If SSCenter and Emporis don't match I've used SSCenter as primary source. This is a good faith effort to improve this lists accuracy and update it so it won't be considered for FLRC. There were a few 3-5 that numbers didn't match up and were moved on the list. I'll put a Verify Source tag on those, if SSCenter is responsive to queries and changes their data then they should be updated here. Possible disputed buildings are 1450 Brickell, Brickell House, and Brickell World Plaza. Also both sources list the Carbonell as "estimated". 1305cj (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * SSCenter still has the DoubleTree listed as 118m/388ft while Emporis has it as 111m. Maybe the floor count is wrong(?) but until a reliable source can be found to support another claim it should not be listed here as ~___.


 * Also both sources, SSCenter and Emporis have the Viceroy 141m/465ft at 46 floors, not 500ft with 50 floors. 1305cj (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It literally has 50 floors. Count them. All the other buildings they changed due to my emails and digging, DoubleTree was "bumped up" to that height from the 365 it was at before, but because they did the bare minimum by their floor count algorithm that doesn't take into account the large Quonset skylight of at least 20 feet of additional height. The list shall be cut off at 150 m to settle the "controversy", all the buildings below this are not notable, the heights are contended, and most are built of concrete and stucco so rough that giving a measurement even to the exact foot let alone inch or decimal is misleading and disingenuous. This still leaves about 40 buildings, more when a bunch more are completed soon. I thank your causing of a stir for motivating me to actual go to these lengths and clean the article up. B137 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What is your source for 50 floors? Also much like sometimes an antenna wont count but a spire might, I'm not sure the added Quonset skylight would count towards a buildings height, officially by the CTBUH anyway. Confirm this with an official source.1305cj (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't take it so personally, I'm not intending to "cause a stir", just want to see sources cited for referral. CTBUH/Skyscraper Center and Emporis are generally accepted sources and when they list a building at x it should be that, unless or until the source makes a correction. People look up Wikipedia for information as accurate and as reliable sources possible, not one persons guess or opinion. I guess it could be left at "~400" as long as you put a qualifier in the notes stating "-no sources back this claim, it is B137's opinion." Oh and why do you get to decide what cutoff height of buildings listed here?? 400 ft seems to be the standard for most other cities without this much contention. The list should be reverted back, with sources.1305cj (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose to remove part of table. The list should be restored. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   23:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. Have you even been to Miami? Mr. 305? I emailed CTBUH, the building has 50 real floors, and if you count the double height units it would be about 54 "equivalent". Every other building you fussed about has been changed on SSCenter because of my emails. Actually, 492 feet / 150 meters is widely accepted as a lower "skyscraper" cut off point, or in the imperial world 500 feet. Now 600 meters or about 200 meters is the "new" definition. Back when Emporis was CTBUH database (for the award they use 100 meters (http://www.emporis.com/awards) they gave 150, 200 meters seems to be a possible new "standard" for this important topic as a plethora of new buildings, including booms in tens of new countries, are built. There exists a random fact that at one point I could be considered an internet troll, it's a sad life. B137 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not an "..added Quonset", it's a permanent architectural feature. B137 (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is customary for tallest buildings lists to have a cut-off point by height. See WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists for more information regarding format of tallest buildings lists. Data Cutoff and Limits section states that "Cities with fairly large skylines should use the 400 feet (122 m) cutoff point. Examples include San Francisco, CA, Miami, FL, Seattle, WA and Los Angeles, CA". This list should be restored back to this standard. 1305cj (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "....both sources, SSCenter and Emporis have the Viceroy 141m/465ft at 46 floors..." Are you sure private Pyle? (http://skyscrapercenter.com/building/viceroy/4271) B137 (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from name calling. And yes when I made the request SSCenter did list the Viceroy at 141m/465ft. They adjusted their numbers, great! My point is still valid, show the numbers as currently listed by a source. The previous edit of 500 ft was/is still wrong. Also your claim that 150 meters is widely accepted cutoff point and 6oo meters is the "new definition"?? Where is it widely accepted and who changed the definition, when? 1305cj (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

To be clear

 * EVERY building I have contended or inquired about has been wrong, and the info has been updated with CTBUH where possible. I have suspicions for the majority of the shorter buildings that are not as well tracked, but even larger ones such as Marquis Miami and Viceroy (Miami) were wrong, the latter by almost 100 feet. The only reason this list is still nominally a "featured" list is because something went wrong with my demotion submission a year or two ago. As I have stated elsewhere, I think these list articles on buildings are going a little too far, in a few ways. B137 (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to you contending info, I encourage it. But until the CTBUH changes their numbers you shouldn't just go onto this list and make changes based on your suspicions and opinions. 1305cj (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 3O Request Greetings, all. 1305cj had requested a third opinion on this dispute. Unfortunately, I have to decline the formal request, as more than two of you are participating in this dispute as of now. I would suggest trying WP:DRN or opening an WP:RFC. However, I would make the general point that every change needs to be backed up by reliable sources, and that Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That's all I was asking for, confirmation that Wikipedia requires verifiable sources. I would now like to return this list back to 400 foot standard set by WikiProject_Skyscrapers/Tallest_building_lists1305cj (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, with all these changes, CTBUH is not a reliable source and WP:RS should come into play. Perhaps just Miami, but perhaps many cities have these fallacies and the "tallest building list" should not be nearly what it is today, let alone so many are "featured".
 * Also, that "cutoff point" arbitration has existed since the first edit of the page by Hydrogen Iodide, and may just his brainchild. The bones of the wp:article have not changed since 2007.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skyscrapers/Tallest_building_lists&oldid=155102354 B137 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No changes, just reverting back to the 400 ft list before you deleted it. CTBUH has long been an accepted source, it shouldn't be thrown out just because you disagree. They make corrections, disputed buildings are still a small percentage of the complete list. I'm not sure your point of bringing up 2007. The current layout of these lists including cutoff points is standard now and used by all city lists. If you think it should be changed you should take it up on the talk page at WikiProject_Skyscrapers/Tallest_building_lists not just make arbitrary changes here without so much as requesting community input. 1305cj (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * How do you know that the majority of the buildings are correct. Like I said, all the buildings I looked into were wrong. They were the more obvious because they were off by a lot, but many others work out quite suspiciously as well. They are doing a new thing now where they go by Google Earth, but I don't think they're about to go through all their databases any time soon, though I recommended that for Miami at least. B137 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

citing sources
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Why include imaginary buildings?
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)


 * 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)

Agreed. Any cancelled or "in development/construction" builds should not be included until fully complete. Hazeledla (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Is "Manhattanization" really a demographic indicator?
About 50 skyscrapers including 45 residentials were built from 2000 to 2008, the first "building boom". The population from 2000 to 2014 (just before new wave of buildings were opening) went up by about 40,000, just before any "new boom" buildings were built. It says 23,000 units were built in the first boom, that would work out to 450 units per these 45 buildings. That is larger than most really are, but of course there were plenty of smaller buildings, conversions, and perhaps a greater demand for existing buildings including single-family homes in this period. It is feasible that units would average two demographic occupants each; despite many being investments as they are often sublet. That notwithstanding, some are three or four or even five bedrooms and could easily have ten residents. I am just trying to get a macro view of things, as high profile development is often cited as "transformational" even though there are so many examples of large demographic changes with little or no visible construction, or abandoned properties in the example of the unoccupied figures given for suburban areas in the recession. In the case of Greater Downtown Miami (Julia Tuttle to Rickenbacker east of 95), the numbers easily work out between development and demographics ✅.

This relates to an effort to broaden the scope of this article and perhaps save its reputation as featured despite dubious data by adding qualitative content to make it unique. B137 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For the second boom, "Since the market revived in 2011, 239 new condo towers with 33,738 units have been proposed or are under construction in Miami-Dade County, according to Peter Zalewski of Miami-based real estate consultant Condo Vultures."

Read more at Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/12/us-miami-traffic-idUSKCN0T12F620151112#fUUthEUuFyCxHAsy.99
 * This of course is including proposals for the whole county and might include unlikely ones. B137 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoted in late 2014 referring to just 14 blocks of Brickell from south 4th to South 15th:

Peter Zalewski, an expert in Miami’s condo market who writes a column for the Miami Herald, said the Chinese are late in the game to consider building during the current cycle.

“There are 17 towers and 5,300 units going up just in the 12-block stretch,” Zalewski said. “It’s overwhelming.” from Miami Herald

Millennials, affordability
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)

Total building space downtown area
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)

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

Timeline
I'd like to edit this down a bit to make it more readable/understandable. Since this is about buildings in Miami there's no point in mentioning what's not on the list -buildings in other cities not Miami no matter how close (Biltmore, Coral Gables). Nor any 'coulda /woulda' statement like the next one about the New World Tower, since scenario's like this could be made about any building on the list. 1305cj (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to save the info here is all that was removed. Not completely out of place in the article, but certainly not necessary. It does provide clarification where the "real" boundaries of Miami are not well know to all, where sports broadcasts sometimes call sunny isles Miami, and the whole County is loosely referred to as "Miami". B137 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Not included in this list is the Coral Gables Biltmore Hotel located in nearby Coral Gables, Florida, which is located just outside Miami and would have qualified as the tallest building from 1926 to 1928 standing 315 ft. If the New World Tower, constructed in 1965 at 357 ft had been four feet higher, it would have surpassed the Dade County Courthouse and been the tallest building until 1972 when One Biscayne Tower was completed. From 2003 to 2008..."


 * I guess the difference here being that other locations like Sunny Isles Beach, and Miami Beach have their own lists of tallest buildings, Coral Gables does not. Granted many people confuse or don't know city boundaries, but that's not a need to perpetuate it here. If we really wanted to mention it, maybe we could add yet another table to this list, similar to New York City's Tallest buildings in each borough, or Detroit's tallest in suburban cities. Maybe something like this: 1305cj (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I added Metropolis at Dadeland in Dadeland, an edge city that is in an unincorporated part of Miami-Dade County. Interestingly, by postal codes etc, unincorporated areas are written as "Miami, Florida 331xx". Sometimes incorporated addresses are as well. Anything goes really. That's pretty much why they added "Miami" to Dade County, the de facto recognition. For another thing, Dade sounds draconian. B137 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there was any point in carrying it out that far, unless there's some other claim to be made -tallest building in unincorporated Miami-Dade? I really just suggested this in jest, another table on Tallest Miami is not really needed as there is one for tallest in each neighborhood and links to Lists for all the cities that have buildings meeting the height cutoff, and for Florida which has a timeline of tallest in the state showing when the Biltmore held the record. Dadeland wouldn't be included in any of those categories. 1305cj (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

___

Tallest buildings in surrounding cities
This lists the tallest building in surrounding cities making up the greater Maimi-Dade Metropolitan Area based on standard height measurement. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed.

Factual accuracy dispute
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) Going back through the history there was no discussion on the talk pages about any accuracy dispute at that time. Page was only nominated for FLRC in November 2014. I've removed the "factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information" tag on the page since I've gone through and updated all sources and believe everything is as up to date as possible now. The page has been cleaned up, original research and spam links removed, I'd like to remove the accuracy dispute tag now too if there's no objection. 1305cj (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is an objection. B137 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's why I asked. What is the objection? 1305cj (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Thank you for the recognition. What in your opinion would make the article "ship shape"? 1305cj (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Is there a particular building for which the stated height is in dispute? If not then the template should go. If there is an actual issue with the reliability of the sources offered in support of the article, then a different template might be appropriate, but not "factual dispute" in any case. (The possibility of there one day being a definitive list by the FAA, which list doesn't exist today, is seems beside the point. If it doesn't exist today, it's not a source.)  JohnInDC (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FAA height limits
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)

Approved or Proposed?
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)

Spires, in Miami?
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Sky-buildingtowercolor.jpg

"Tallest miami" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest miami. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC  678  16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Tallest in Southeast, Waldorf at 317 meter (1,041') max
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)