Toronto The HUB | 258.46m | 59s | Oxford Properties | Rogers Stirk Harbour

There is a general messy-ness about this tower that i like, especially compared to some recent office builds like the plain glass box that is 16 York. The style is reminiscent of office projects in London's financial district.
 
innsertnamehere said:
but the planning industry likes metric.

All the plans available to this board are not construction drawings, and therefor are dimensioned in metric.

speaking of feet vs. metres, is there a specific reason the database uses only feet to describe building height? I feel like it should at least provide both measurements.

Pretty much the only two industries to still rely on imperial in Canada are construction and the railroad industry.. because of their heavy overlap with the US.
Click to expand...

I personally don't measure my height in meters or centimeters and don't know anybody who does. Its all in feet and inches. Same goes for weight, all in pounds. You guys can try to nitpick all you want but the reality is that the imperial system is still alive and well in Canada.
 
ProjectEnd said:
So a bunch of dumbass, dinosaur, contractors like Imperial? Who cares. We need to move on with the rest of the world.

Let The States, Myanmar and Liberia flounder. The hell with all of them.
Click to expand...

Hi. Dumbass contractor here.

Being proficient with multiple tools is viewed as a plus by most people. There are times and places where imperial is much easier to work in, for a variety of reasons (materials standardized in imperial, divisibility of values for layout, adapting old structures that were laid out in imperial, etc.)

Metric is great for some things, and awkward for others. There's no shame in maintaining fluency in multiple systems.
 
travis3000 said:
I personally don't measure my height in meters or centimeters and don't know anybody who does. Its all in feet and inches. Same goes for weight, all in pounds. You guys can try to nitpick all you want but the reality is that the imperial system is still alive and well in Canada.
Click to expand...

Sure, but should it be that way?

Do you think of your height or weight in those measures because you genuinely find them to be a superior way to measure yourself? Or do you used them because it's what you're used to, what you grew up with, and common parlance?

Most global citizens think of these measures in metric now. They didn't always. It takes time.

We needn't outlaw the older perception, but neither do we need to facilitate it.
 
whatever said:
Hi. Dumbass contractor here.

Being proficient with multiple tools is viewed as a plus by most people. There are times and places where imperial is much easier to work in, for a variety of reasons (materials standardized in imperial, divisibility of values for layout, adapting old structures that were laid out in imperial, etc.)

Metric is great for some things, and awkward for others. There's no shame in maintaining fluency in multiple systems.
Click to expand...

@ProjectEnd can be a tad blunt in his manner of opinionation at times, LOL.

That to one side, there really isn't an intrinsic reason not to go metric in the trades (which some partially have).

It is an annoyance to some to learn new systems.

If you have to reference older items/designs as you would in contracting, their measurements in metric might be a tad odd or more challenging to remember for a time.

But ultimately, contractors will get used to the same length of timber or pipe or beam in a metric measure and life will go on.

Nothing wrong with maintaining the ability to understand more than one system. There may be something wrong with purposefully maintaining an outmoded one.

But we probably should catch everyone up to metric..............before we replace it with something better! LOL
 
Easier said than down when our largest trading partner (the US) is stuck in Imperial. Canada went metric and the US was expected to do the same in the 70's...but didn't. Hence our mixed up system of half and half. It's good to know both and they both work in there own way. I have to work in bot at times but most people I work with still are still using imperial. What's the solution?
 
whatever said:
Hi. Dumbass contractor here.

Being proficient with multiple tools is viewed as a plus by most people. There are times and places where imperial is much easier to work in, for a variety of reasons (materials standardized in imperial, divisibility of values for layout, adapting old structures that were laid out in imperial, etc.)

Metric is great for some things, and awkward for others. There's no shame in maintaining fluency in multiple systems.
Click to expand...

It's less the 'fluency in multiple systems' than the 'using ones' seniority on a site to perpetuate an outdated system' that gets me. Too many site-supers and old-guard-developers insist on two sets of dimensions and stats in plans because "that's what I'm used to". I work with heritage buildings every day and there's almost nothing that can't be expressed more accurately in metric than in imperial.
 
The argument doesn't matter because we are stuck with both measurement types; however, my opinion is that being fluid in both systems improves your dimensional awareness in the same way knowing multiple languages improves your cultural and linguistic awareness. Philosophically, Metric is more abstract but easier to scale and makes more sense when you are dealing with multi-dimensional calculations (density, force etc.), while Imperial is more intuitive and has more meaning in the field. Ultimately, the real field test of what is better or worse is about avoiding grave errors of judgement. Metric, Imperial, and Metric / Imperial mishmash all have their strengths and weaknesses in this regard. Standardization helps avoid errors but it's no substitute for awareness. Anyone interested in this topic should check out the classic "Universal History of Numbers" by Ifrah
 
TrickyRicky said:
Imperial is more intuitive
Click to expand...
In before half the thread gets deleted for being off-topic...

Metric: 7mm is followed by 8mm, followed by 9mm, etc.
Imperial: 3/4 in. is followed by 25/32 in., followed by 13/16 in., followed by 7/8 in., followed by 15/16 in. (and that's assuming I did my math correct)

Metric: there are 1000 meters to one kilometer
Imperial: There are 8 furlongs to a mile, there are 660 feet to a furlong (because 666 would be too evil), so there are 5280 feet to a mile (and that's if I did my math correct)

Should I keep going with the examples of just how intuitively easy imperial system is?
 
FWIW - 99% of the construction cost estimates I do are in metric- all the take offs and quantities are m2, kg etc.

They do spit out a cost per sf at the bottom that most clients like to see - as that is what they are used to dealing with - sellable per sf cost etc.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's less the 'fluency in multiple systems' than the 'using ones' seniority on a site to perpetuate an outdated system' that gets me. Too many site-supers and old-guard-developers insist on two sets of dimensions and stats in plans because "that's what I'm used to". I work with heritage buildings every day and there's almost nothing that can't be expressed more accurately in metric than in imperial.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand how metric is "more accurate" than imperial. I have no problem working in decimal inches if that's what the job calls for, and millwrights routinely work down to thou tolerances. Accuracy has nothing to do with the system you're working in.

And "accuracy" is kind of an odd complaint to bring into construction. The tolerances built in most drawings are already taking into account the limitations of human measurements (not to mention variations in site conditions, material conditions, etc), and those errors are going to far exceed the mil here and there that you might gain by working in metric. I've worked on a few heritage buildings myself, and the built condition is generally so wonky that drawings turn into a bit of an interpretive art anyway.

Maybe it's more realistic to say that you have a preference for metric, which is neither more nor less rational than anyone else's preference for imperial?
 
whatever said:
I don't really understand how metric is "more accurate" than imperial. I have no problem working in decimal inches if that's what the job calls for, and millwrights routinely work down to thou tolerances. Accuracy has nothing to do with the system you're working in.

And "accuracy" is kind of an odd complaint to bring into construction. The tolerances built in most drawings are already taking into account the limitations of human measurements (not to mention variations in site conditions, material conditions, etc), and those errors are going to far exceed the mil here and there that you might gain by working in metric. I've worked on a few heritage buildings myself, and the built condition is generally so wonky that drawings turn into a bit of an interpretive art anyway.

Maybe it's more realistic to say that you have a preference for metric, which is neither more nor less rational than anyone else's preference for imperial?
Click to expand...
so they take imperial and change the way it works so that they can actually use it?

That doesn't tell me it's equally useful, but rather tells me it's so useless that people need to modify it to make it usable. At that point you may as well go with a system of measurement that is actually designed for that type of work, not try to create some bastardized version of a fundamentally broken system.

why is it necessary to have all these sub-categories of measurement that need additional explanation and clarification constantly to ensure no miscommunication, when you can just use a singular consistant system that works in all scenarios?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top