Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:01, 20 March 2007

Architecture List‑class Top‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

October 2005 issue of National Geographic

According to the October 2005 issue of National Geographic, "Taipei Towers Above All Others" and "At 1,670 feet, the 101-story skyscraper dubbed Taipei 101 eclipses by 187 feet what were the tallest buildings in the world: the twin Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumper, Malaysia."

The magazine also goes on to state the "20th-Century Records" as...

Taepei 101 Taiwan,
1,670 feet, 2005
Sears Tower Chicago
1,450 feet, 1974
World Trade Center Towers New York
1,368 and 1,362 feet, 1972 and 1973
Empire State Building New York
1,250 feet, 1931
Chrysler Building New York
1,046 feet, 1930

I think the National Geographic has their sources correct. The Sears Tower is NOT the tallest building. The below skyscraper image cannot, and should not, be trusted.

Units

I added back in units, which are needed in a list this long and, also more convienet for c&p. I had edit conflict so I will try add that stuff back in. Greyengine5 02:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yikes, sorry for the edit conflict. :) --Golbez 02:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Np! I got most but not all of yours so you might want to check it out. hazards of wiki-ing! Greyengine5 02:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sears Tower

Look at this picture and tell me Sears Tower isn't highest Image:Skyscrapercompare1.PNG. Or at least higher than the Petronas Towers.--Jerryseinfeld 01:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The world body that handles these kinds of things considers spires part of the height, but not antennae. The spires on Petronas just manage to peek over Sears' roof. However, we all know it's not really the tallest, it has only 88 floors compared to 108 or 110, I forget, and its top floor is much lower. However, the least POV way of handling this is to stick with what the CTBUH says, and mention that image and the different interpretations. Taipei at least finally settles the bulk of the battles, by being taller than both Sears' top floor, and Petronas' spire - but it's still not taller than Sears' antenna. --Golbez 08:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Bank of China

The link from BOC (Shanghay) (No. 75) leads to BOC (Hong Kong) (No. 11). Please Fix it. 85.64.106.107 12:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. Lawrence Lavigne 13:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Two buildings to watch in Australia

Q1, Gold Coast, Queensland. Basically finished, 275m to roof, 323m to top of spire.
Eureka Tower, Melbourne. Finished in 2006, 322.5m to roof, with a 53.75m communications mast being proposed.

JamesHoadley 03:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are both apartment buildings, so I'm left asking, is there a list for World's Tallest Apartment Buildings? ie Non-Commercial.

Observation towers and other structures

Currently The CN Tower in Toronto Canada is the tallest free standing structure (it is not considered a skyscrapper) it is currently the tallest man-made structure in the word. There are plans for a taller tower to be built in Tokyo, Japan, though as of April 28th, 2006 construction has not begun.

Freedom tower

Shouldn't Freedom Tower be listed here? --Brianhe 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, in a "future" section. --Golbez 06:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China

China is China. Taiwan is Taiwan. Hong Kong is a SAR of the People's Republic of China. Alanmak and Instantnood are so busy edit warring over this article, that they've screwed up wikilinks. The "Bank of China Tower" repeatedly became "Bank of the People's Republic of China of Tower". KNOCK IT OFF. SchmuckyTheCat 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the first two sentences it's pretty clear that user:SchmuckyTheCat is still asserting his point of view, which is in contradition with the official political NPOV policy on Wikipedia regarding Chinese-related topics. And, for everone's information, it was user:Alanmak's first recent edits to this list [1] that Bank of China Tower was replaced with Bank of People’s Republic of China Tower. [2] — Insta ntnood 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about using the names "China" and "Taiwan" to refer to China and Taiwan contradicts any Wikipedia policy. And I don't care who changed it, you reverted to it, which is all I need to know about whether or not you're actually paying attention to your edits or just revert warring. SchmuckyTheCat 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't care what your care and what you don't. All I need to is your're not adhering to an official policy of Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by user:Alanmak..

Regarding [3] [4] [5] - In his edits user:Alanmak, notably this edit sumamry, is demonstrating that he has effectively disregarded the constitutional status of special administrative region with respect to the administrative division hierarchy of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Cf. articles 30 and 31 of the 1982 Constitution of the PRC). He has kept asserting his point of view that special administrative regions are ordinary subnational entities, comparable with provinces and equivalence of the PRC. He has also equated the English words country and sovereign state, or more accruately, regarding them as synonym, as reflected by this edit summary. — Insta ntnood 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of parentheses from "People's Republic of China" from a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the constitutional provisions of the People's Republic of China or Hong Kong's status in the world. You'll notice that Hong Kong is the only sub-national entity of the PRC called out in the article. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of the discussion here I won't go into arguing on whether or not special administrative regions are subnational entities (for some may even argue colonies and protectorates are also subnational entities with very different degree of separation.) Nevertheless it's never wrong to say they're not ordinary subnational entities or administrative divisions. — Insta ntnood 08:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commerzbank Tower

I am confused to where the Commerzbank Tower should be placed. The tower is 300.1 metres tall when measured up to the signal light. However, this spire which positions the signal light on the tower is removed from it's statistics and the tower has only been measured upto the roof of the building which is 259 metres. I am confused to whether this structure placed on top of the building can be classified as an architecturally integral element. - Erebus555 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can and must be taken into account. Somebody please put it up on the list.- THe iP 12:53, 26. September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest Skyscrapers Table Reformatting

The table of the tallest skyscrapers should be reformatted. Currently, the every five entries goes W-G-W-G-W and then repeats. The table would look better if it alternated between this pattern and the inverse of it so that there was a continual alteration of white and grey. If this is followed through, it might be good to remove the grey cells in between the groups of five. I wanted to check for any conflicting ideas for how the table should be formatted before I changed such a large table. —David618 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an example of my proposed reformating. —David618 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the order of the colors in the table but have left the breaks every five entries in place. —David618 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings Under Construction

Should we include buildings currently under construction in this list? Like Burj Dubai? It currently should be around the 30th tallest building in the world. --KCMODevin 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so because they are constantly changing. I think they should be added when they have been officially topped out. The Burj Dubai is still under construction and will be for a couple more years. It will keep growing and passing through the ranks. I think it should be more of a case if they should be added when topped out or when actually completed and opened... - Erebus555 20:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, we should have a future section, and as the buildings reach certain heights structurally, they should be moved up through the list. --KCMODevin 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea but I still think that it would take too much updating. Buildings are constantly growing and when a new floor has been constructed or added then that would mean it is updated on the list and when you consider that a floor is added at least every day, it would not be worth it. For example, the Rose Rotana Suites saw some of the fastest construction ever for a skyscraper of its size, this would have had to be constantly updated if a future section was added. Therefore, I consider it impractical. - Erebus555 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's impractical for a small amount of people, but this is a more popular article than others, and it wouldn't take much work. Plus this site does NOT have to be 100% up to date with a u/c building's height floor to floor. It just should be updated as it reaches significant heights... Burj Dubai was announced to be at about 287m recently. We should just go with their announcements, as it raises through the list, it should likewise be updated. It would also currently be the world's 42nd tallest building. --KCMODevin 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but how many developers give out anouncements like the Burj Dubai. The Burj Dubai is to become the worlds tallest building so there is a lot of focus on it. For the shorter buildings such as the IFC in Shanghai and the Trump Tower in Chicago, there are not announcements. It will be difficult and really not worth the effort. - Erebus555 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that we have to do this with every building out there? --KCMODevin 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well what buildings are going to include on your list then? Ones which are going to be in the top 200 when completed? Well then the IFC in Shanghai will be one and that still doesnt get construction updates. I'm sorry but this list really is not going to be helpful. The only example you give is the Burj Dubai, can you think of any other towers outside Dubai which give out announcement and should be included on this list. Freedom Tower would be one - again - there is focus on it because it is such a sensitive issue among alot of people. - Erebus555 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, and apparently you didn't read it or understand it... Onlly do it with significant top 20-30 buildings that do these annoucements. Like Burj Dubai and Freedom Tower --KCMODevin 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries vs. sovereign states

Re [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - In the article the titles of those columns are country. Country ≠ sovereign state. Cf. list of countries and list of sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 20:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of skyscrapers, not a list of political entities, so please avoid politicising it. Insisting on writing "Hong Kong (People's Republic of China" or even "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" adds repeatitive information and unnecesary clutter to the table. Please do not expect general readers to know the difference between your politicised use of commas and parentheses.--Huaiwei 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wonder who's politicising. Web-based E-Mail account registration, economic information in The Economist, place of origin of exported productions, etc., what's written for Hong Kong? China? or People's Republic of China? Why do we have a list of countries and a list of sovereign states? — Insta ntnood 08:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong, Hong Kong is equally unhelpful. SchmuckyTheCat 08:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent pictures

I know someone put new pics up on the article, which is good for variety, but shouldn't we have a limit to what can and can't be? Also, is there any thought of creating a gallery? I was thinking no buildings under 300m and only one per country; that way, we don't have a gallery 36 deep. Any thoughts? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of buildings with 100 floors or more

Page necessity

I know it's always good to have a list of every kind so people can reference it, but is something like this necessary as a stand-alone page and not merged into List of tallest buildings in the world? And whether it is or not, shouldn't we include projects under construction with over 100 floors, like the Burj Dubai, the Chicago Spire, the Freedom Tower, etc? Jimbo 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ok

If more people agree, than I agree it should be merged. I made this page to illustrate a point however.

A skyscraper has more dignity when its height is founded upon real habitable floor space and floor height. It seems to me some of these large towers are stabbing ever upward with little more than steel toothpicks vying for the claim of the tallest building in the world. Arguably, most of these are nothing more than an average sized building with an especially impressive spire attached to the top of it, as if there were a race to glue straws together in order to claim the tallest building. Some people might want to see which of these super tall towers are 'real' buildings, catch my drift? For example, the difference between the Petronas Towers and the Sears Tower, by looking at height statistics it might seem like a Petronas tower trumps the Sears Tower in magnitude. Looking at floor counts and floor space the 110 story Sears Tower is simply a hulk compared to a Petronas tower and its architectural height carries to the very top of the building. The Petronas Towers both are just 88 stories tall and have decorative steel structures that push up just past the Sears tower in architectural height.

On the subject of Burj Dubai and other tall skyscrapers, they should be added when the 100th floor is poured or erected (concrete vs steel) and moved up the list as more floors are poured or erected. For those who aren't aware of this new construction project, Burj Dubai is coming very close to pouring its 100th floor. If all goes according to plan it will have the greatest number of floors of any building in the world sometime in early February, 2007. By its completion it will be by far the tallest structure in the world with a whopping projected floor count of 162. mKleid 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK OK mKleid

U r right...there is an express interest that some people have in plainly seeing which buildings have 100 floors, as well as which ones are coming. 69.140.245.155 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Under Construction vs. Approved

Is the bottom of the page supposed to be listing only builings under construction? Many of these skyscrapers are still only proprosed, and the others are approved, but not under construction. Should they therefore be listed under this category? Raime 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it will be better to include buildings really under constructions. Many approved or under preparation buildings will be never build. Anyone oppose ?--Jklamo 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine, but we should keep towers that are "In preperation", only because they won't stop once they get the ball rolling...at least I don't think they would. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are only counting buiildings that are "In Preparation" or "Under Construction", then shouldn't at least the proposed Russia Tower be removed? I agree with taking off all "Approved" or "Proposed' buildings, but I also agree that the the Chicago Spire, as "In Preparation", should remain. Raime 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noida Tower

What evidence is there that the Noida Tower is under construction? It is still considered to only to a "Vision" on Emporis, and unless a reliable article can be cited, it should certainly not be listed as "under construction", or even be on this page for the time being. Raime 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Dubai placement debate

Wikipedia is a democracy and changes should be based on general consensus. There seems to be a debate over the placement of unfinished buildings in the first catagory. My intent of the first catagory was to list buildings which have poured or erected 100 floors whether they are done or not. I think the confusion has arised over the title 'completed buildings.' I feel that the title should actually be changed to include the definition of Burj Dubai. The second one exists to show which buildings are imminently (over the next few years) ready to appear in the first catagory. mKleid 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you shouldn't have Burj Dubai in *both* tables. --Golbez 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it seems to me like this is a Burj Dubai marketing page-in-disguise if placed in both. It's almost like you want to push the fact that it's tall and getting taller. We all know it, so it doesn't need to be in both; pick one and stay with it. Since it's not done, I feel it needs to stay in "Under Construction". I don't know why you said there's confusion; there is none. A finished building, from my understanding, could be one of three ideas: 1.) it's topped out, 2.) habitable, or 3.) has all the siding/walls in place. The Burj doesn't meet any of those, and before you take issue with my criteria, the Ruyenyong (sp?) Hotel's got at least one of them (topped out). So, until it, at the very least, tops out, I see absolutely no reason for a dupe placement...but hey, that's just my opinion. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Tower validity

Even though the top floor will be numbered 102, the actual floor count is 82 (the numbering's starting at 20). With that said, does that even make it eligible for this list? What parameters are we gonna set for this? I, for one, think the Freedom Tower needs to go; if the BoA Tower started its numbering at 80, it too could have one of the top spots on this list...even at a whopping 386ft! Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what, it shouldn't be 102; it is either 108 (counting unoccupied floors in the podium and above the observation deck) or 82 (counting only the occupied floors). Do such 'unoccupied floors' count on other buildings? If not, then the Freedom Tower is not eligible. But if they do, it is. Raime 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!!! What the hell's going on?!?

Was I just brain-dead for about 4 days, or was there absolutely no talk or discussion about even suggesting merging this article in with the List of Tallest??? I know it was briefly mentioned (by myself, in fact) about 3 months ago, but this isn't just one of those be bold things that everyone's talking about, you know! Something like this takes planning and cooperation on all accounts; hell, if I just merged every article I saw that could be integrated with another, I'd be banned from ever using this site for all the merges! If no one objects, I'm moving it back to its own article until we can get a concensus of whether to move it or not. You've got 72 hours from this point to make your case. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 12:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page because I see know reason for it to have its own page when it could be just a subsection of this one. The burden of proof is for you to prove that it deserves its own page. If we waited to build consensus for every action on Wikipedia then nothing would get done.
Note: I even left the article intact so it could be discussed on how to incorporate it. --JEF 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing about concensus: it's not as though I'm saying every single minute detail needs to be straw-polled before editing. I agree; nothing would ever get done. However, moving a page entirely on a whim or because you see a reason to move it isn't acceptible. It's more detremental to the project, even if it was in good faith. This is one of the very reasons we have discussion and appropriate concensus to begin with. Personally, I feel it merits being merged as well. However, if I did that back in December like I wanted to, I would have either been warned for being a "troll" or worse. While Wikipedia's not a democracy, it's only fair to give people who work long and hard on something to have a say before someone goes and makes their article disappear. So, why don't we have a vote right here and now as to whether this article should stay merged or if it should be a seperate list? I'll start off.... Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article split vote

Please vote either Support or Against as to whether this article should be split back to its original format. Support means revert back to two seperate articles, Against means leave as-is.

Against, while I don't agree at all with his methods, Jorfer was right in merging these lists. It appears whomever set it up in the first place intended it to be some sort of cloaked marketing campaign for the Burj Dubai, as he wanted it in both the "Completed" and "Under construction" sections, which would defeat the purpose of this list anyway. As a subsection of this current list would suffice the people interested in knowing what towers are 100+ stories, but it might be wise if we're to keep this list at all if we include only true 100+ story buildings, unlike the Freedom Tower, which is only 88 stories; however, since the 1st floor's labeled "20", it has it's top floor numerically labeled "108", technically allowing it onto this list. So, in spite all my ranting and raving, I agree it should be here on this new merged list...just check with people next time you make major changes like this, Jorfer, please? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torre Espacio in Madrid (236 m): construction is over

Torre Espacio was inaugurated by Madrid's major today, so I guess it should be added to the list. Here's a link to the piece of news (in Spanish, sorry): http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/03/19/madrid/1174336648.html

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 *'''Against''', while I don't agree at all with his methods, Jorfer was right in merging these lists.  It appears whomever set it up in the first place intended it to be some sort of cloaked marketing campaign for the [[Burj Dubai]], as he wanted it in both the "Completed" and "Under construction" sections, which would defeat the purpose of this list anyway.  As a subsection of this current list would suffice the people interested in knowing what towers are 100+ stories, but it might be wise if we're to keep this list at all if we include only '''true''' 100+ story buildings, unlike the [[Freedom Tower]], which is only 88 stories; however, since the 1st floor's labeled "20", it has it's top floor numerically labeled "108", technically allowing it onto this list.  So, in spite all my ranting and raving, I agree it should be here on this new merged list...just check with people next time you make major changes like this, Jorfer, please? [[Philadelphia Eagles|Eagles]][[User:EaglesFanInTampa|Fan]][[User talk:EaglesFanInTampa|In]][[Special:Contributions/EaglesFanInTampa|Tampa]] [[User talk:EaglesFanInTampa#Your signature|(formerly Jimbo)]] 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
+==[[Torre Espacio]] in Madrid (236 m): construction is over==
+[[Torre Espacio]] was inaugurated by Madrid's major today, so I guess it should be added to the list. Here's a link to the piece of news (in Spanish, sorry):
+http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/03/19/madrid/1174336648.html