`   :: , that would be such tremendous fun!   ::In terms of cathedrals and such, you could get such a great sense of the layout which you often can't see from the ground or from a plan.  In the case of Wells Cathedral, for example, when you look at a ground plan it is apparent that there is a long central axis which is crossed by three ``arms``. What the plan doesn't tell you is that the first transverse arm is actually two projecting towers, the second transverse arm is the main transept which is the same height as the nave and has a lower aisle on both sides, and the third transverse  arm is a pair of projecting chapels that are only as high as the aisles. On the plan alone (without knowledge of the conventions) it would be very easy to miss the importance of the first arm (towers) and overestimate the size and visual significance of the ``eastern transept`` (off the presbytery).  ::You could also see details of the West Front statuary that are only visible with binoculars. It would be a tremendous asset in checking out the state of the stonework, without a cherry-picker.  ::You can also see the relation of the building to its environs... Wow!   ::On the other hand, hovering midway up a facade, in order to counteract perspective, is not the way that an architect ever intended a building to be viewed. The ideal height to view a well-designed building is human height.  The main exception to this is in the interior of a theatre where the architect has generally designed the best view to be from the more elevated seats: not the stalls, not ``the Gods``, but the ``Dress Circle``.  ::Thanks for your message, Rod!   `