Talk:Willis Tower

---

Miscellaneous comments

Chicago Spire!

Why make a comment about the Chicago Spire being the tallest in the world? 1. It won't as the Burj Dubai will be completed before it and this has an estimated height of 2,684 ft. 2. This is not an artical about the Chicago Spire, maybe just make a reference to how the Sears Tower is going to be surpassed in 2010 by the Spire as tallest building in Chicago. 3. This section also reads poorly. i.e. "By either of these measures, the Sears Tower was only surpassed by the Taipei 101 in 2004,[citation needed] and around 2010 the Chicago Spire will be the tallest tower in the world surpassing the Taipei 101 and Sears Tower because it has a height of 2000 feet. The Chicago Spire will be in Chicago."

110 or 108 Stories Tall???

• By all accounts, the tower stands 110 stories tall from the ground level. Including the mechanical floors @ the top. Excluding those makes no sense because then why not exclude the mechanical floors below as well (since there are a few between floors 1 & 110).

What is the point of comparing the antenna height to the WTC? Why not then compare it to the CN Tower as well or any other tower ... This is an article about the Sears Tower, not the WTC or the events that transpired on 9/11.

Who owns the building?

• As of Feb 2007, New York based Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian, and Skokie-based American Landmark Properties Ltd [1]

Comparing the cost of building the CN Tower to the Sears Tower is fairly pointless, the CN Tower is basically a hollow concrete pillar and the Sears Tower is an office building. - SINFUL OCTOPUS 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if I'm going to mess this page up or not (first time posting anything here....) But 3.8 million square feet != 418,064 square meters I don't know which is correct but the math is clearly wrong.

The number of stories appears to differ between this page (110) and others. 50 Tallest buildings in the U.S. and Worlds tallest structures say 108. —Mulad 03:26, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is 110 stories per http://www.thesearstower.com/.

Just fyi, some sources count basement levels, while others only count levels above ground. This is why you see a variation. Most do not count parking levels, however (although I'm sure some do). --Quasipalm 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally someone got it right regarding the ludicrousness of assigning "world's tallest" title to the other buildings.

Since we have a picture of the Hancock Building from the Sears Tower, would there be a problem if I posted a personal PD picture of the Sears Tower from the Hancock Building? Just to get a visual reference between the two? BrianL03 08:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yours would be even better probably. --Golbez 15:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, your desire to contribute to Wikipedia is not a "problem". It's why Wikipedia exists! ---Isaac R 03:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I've posted the picture online here.BrianL03

This article lists the height at 520 m, yet the Taipai as surpassing it, even though that is only 508/509 m high. Explain? - Guest - Trauma

The height to the tip of the taller antenna is 527 m, but the antennae are not considered an integral part of the building. The height is only taken to the rooftop, which is 442.14 meters. The correct height of Taipei 101 is 509 meters, by the way... 508 is an error resulting from mismeasurement. There are a couple of reasons antennae do not count in the official height -- one is that they change all the time and including them would make height rankings unstable (they're considered more like furniture than structure); another is that most tall buildings have some form of antenna or lightning rod, and since these are not shown on blueprints it would be almost impossible to get height listings beyond the very tallest buildings. Montalto 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding height, the 'highest restrooms' bit in figures and statistics has no mention of source and I can personally vouch for having used restrooms in the Shanghai WFC above 423m. So I have removed this line.

I was the one that entered the statistic about the restrooms, that was over a year ago before the opening of the Shanghai WFC, I have since edited it to include this fact based on your firsthand information about the higher restrooms. I still think its interesting to point out that the Sears has the highest in the western hemisphere and the second highest in the world, this is to distinguish itself from the CN Tower which has a higher observation deck but without a restroom. To me a floor is more of an "occupied floor" if it has a restroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago103 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming Controversy

I feel it should be at least noted the controversial nature of the up coming name change. It has become a pretty big issue in Chicago with many people feeling that it is sort of like attacking a land mark. Ive heard comparisons drawn that it is like if some one renamed the Statue of Liberty the Loyd's of London Statue. There has been a lot of media coverage of local out rage over this change. If no one disagrees with me I plan on making the addition some time in the near future. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much feel there should be a section on this. In general almost every Chicagoan is laughing at this concept, and it seems as if NO one will actually call it the willis tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.244.181 (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears abandoned it. Why should they still get the free advertising? And if Lloyd's of London were to buy the Statue of Liberty, why shouldn't they call it the Lloyd's of London Statue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because things have names, and those names matter to people. It will NEVER be the Willis Tower to those who love Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.69.167 (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Its name is Willis Tower now and the page should reflect that. A section on the controversy would fit in fine. Either way ignoring the new name is a stupid idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.8.214 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This page should be "Sears Tower", you can make a new page for "Willis Tower" for the building from 2009 - on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theige (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

More sections needed

I've broken out the "tallest building" material and a paragraph on the sky deck into sections. But there's still too much random material in the first part. If anybody sees any basis for additional sections, be bold. ----Isaac R 03:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added a "history" section with a bunch of information from research I have done. ... duh! didn't know how to sign my name. Gws57 21:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Great stuff! Really improves the article. But don't forget to sign your talk page entrees with a ~~~~, which gets expanded to your name and a date stamp.. ----Isaac R 21:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sears Tower Picture

I think the new picture from User:Bmicomp is actually less clear than the old one. It's partially obscured by another building and the contrast with the sky makes the Tower look like a giant black blob. The old picture, I thought, was clear and showed window detail. At the very least it wasn't obscured by another building. Maybe we can include both shots. Any thoughts? Gws57 July 6, 2005 15:46 (UTC)

• Yeah, you have a point, it is quite obscured. The other one looked a bit dark though. Feel free to change it back. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

• The new picture has quite horrific lens distortion that makes the building in front look curved; also, it's not perspective corrected, so it looks like it gets thinner at the top. Nohat 6 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

• It's also more a picture of the building in front of it, impressive in its own right, than the Sears Tower. --Golbez July 6, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

• Points well taken. I reverted it to the previous version. -- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

The orthogonal version of the Sears Tower photo is well-intended, but I don't think it's an improvement. The original version had some perspective distortion, but at least the building still looked tall; now it looks kind of squashed. The current version is not a good representation of how the building looks in real life. Any objection to changing it back? (Full disclosure: I'm the one who posted the original version.) Image:Sears_tower_orthogonal.jpg vs Image:SearsTower.jpg -- BenMiller 23:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• I prefer the orthogonal version, myself. However, it does look like it was squashed a little in the process. I wonder if we can fix that to make it look more like it really looks orthogonally. --Quasipalm 16:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• If somone wants to create a better orthogonal version, that's fine with me, although I'd argue that if that's what we want, an illustration would be better than a photo. I don't have the software to do it, and until/unless someone does, I'd like to change the picture back. Currently users get the Sears Tower as seen in a funhouse mirror. BenMiller 19:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I really think the current photo needs to be changed. It is too long and it screws up the formatting. I think we could find a better main picture. Take a look at Image:Sears Tower ss.jpg it cleans every thing up and is also nice shot of the building. Ryan J Pasch 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Is this image better? Image:2004-08-16 800x2400 chicago sears tower.jpg Speciate 23:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Petronas Towers

Please, stop changing the building that surpasses the Sears Tower as the world's tallest as the Petronas Towers. If you read the infobox, it clearly states that it is talking about highest habitable structure by roof-top, by which account the sears tower is clearly taller. --Quasipalm 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that is not the standard for deciding the world's tallest building. The official standard set by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat states that the official manner of declaring the world's tallest building is to the architectural top not the roof-top. Under this the Petronas Towers are taller and should be listed. If you need backup you can look at the page about the tallest building in the world or I will gladly give you multiple sources that back up my opinion including a book written by the CTBUH. Aausterm 21:55, February 20, 2007 (CT)

...But it says the Sears Tower's top is 527m, and the Petronas Towers' is 452...?

I noticed that too and am now thoroughly confused. Every instance of the statistics being given clearly states that the Sears Tower is 527m/442m and the Petronas Towers are 452m/379m. The Sears Tower is obviously taller. If some criterium other than height determines the world's tallest building (which would make absolutely NO sense) this definitely needs clarification. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Petronas Twin Towers#Statistical inconsistancies re: Sears Tower. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

terror threat

I added a little section about the terror threat. It is not much.

Either it can be completely removed (i followed the be bold policy) or it can be expanded by others.

Regardless as to whether or not the section stays, I really think the reference to Oplan Bojinka should stay (as it shows the importance of this building and the risk) and the same has now been done with the US Bank building in LA after president Bush's statement about the foiled hijacking plan.

Evilbu 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not thrilled about adding a "Terror threat" section to every major landmark in the US. Earlier today I added "however some counter-terrorism experts have expressed doubt that the plot was ever fully developed or likely to occur" to US Bank Tower after reading a report in the LA Times. I guess my concern is that these "foiled terror plots" are so politically charged that it's hard to tell what's fact and what's political fiction. --Quasipalm 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll refrain from childishness so I will not just put it back on again as it seems I have a majority against me. But still I'd like to point out that what I said (regardless of whether or not it is true or implies that it was gonna happen if authorities didn't intervene) is backed up by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka Evilbu 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It says that was a possible plan. I have possible plans too, but they never got close to executing that part of the plan. I don't think we need to be told that the tallest building in the hemisphere is an "important building". --Golbez 22:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Floor Space / Window Space ratio

I reverted a short edit made by Redneb regarding floor space / window space. Not only did the edit go against all the research I had ever seen about smaller floor sizes having more availible window space for smaller tenant firms, but I worked out the math:

• Floors 1-49 have 56.25 square feet of floor space per linear foot of window space.
• Floors 50-65 have 43.75.
• Floors 66-89 have 31.23.
• Floors 90-110 have 25 square feet of floor space per linear foot of window space.

As the floors go up, the amount of window space increases relative to the decrease in floor size. If anything, the article should be edited to reflect this. Gws57 16:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I clearly had my ratio flipped around- so please revert back, with flipped ratio (Higher Window/Floor Space). Thanks. Redneb 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. How do you like it? Gws57 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Windows broken in windstorm?

I remember that in March of 1988, a bunch of the window glass on the top floors broke due to some kind of freak windstorm, causing the glass to fall to the street. I remember this because I was in town then, and the top floors of the building looked intredibly post-apocalyptic. But I can't find any articles that describe why and how this happened. Anyone have any ideas? Jkonrath 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was living there at the time and, while I was only ten, I remember that too. What you're suggesting would be kind of difficult. The best way to do it would be to try to remember what month this happened, and then get access to an archive of one of the local papers (the Chicago Tribune or the or the Chicago Sun-Times} to see if they wrote about it - I'm sure both of them did. Then cite that article in WP.Azlib77 11:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

i had a look for an article using Google News Arcive search engine, and there were some articles about that particular event, but all the articles require you to pay money to veiw them. 203.129.44.56 11:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rendering

This page is not rendering well with my browser Firefox 1.5.0.3. The picture of the building in the history section has content text behind it.

June 22, 2006 Arrests

An enterprising unregisterd, 67.22.216.150, added information on the June 22, 2006 arrest of seven men charged with plotting to bomb the Sears Tower as well as the FBI building in Miami. This resulted in the resurrection of the "terrorist target" subheading, which I don't object to as it now appears to have been a terrorist target. At any rate, I cleaned up and clarified some of their information, marked it as a current event, and started this topic to discuss anything related to these arrests. --jonny-mt 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about every possible terror target in America getting a section on terror. I'm thinking of the "uncovered plot" to destroy the US Bank Tower in LA. First off, there seems to be little evidence that these people were ever capable of doing anything beyond taking pictures and bragging to friends about their plots. Secondly, there is main stream speculation that these sorts of stories pop up as part of political theater. Thoughts? -Quasipalm 15:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

They talked to an FBI informant about purchasing guns, bombs, and other assorted Weapons of Building Destruction. Sounds like they were pretty serious to me; they just got cut off in the early stages. Obviously this news story is very good for the Bush administration, but speculation is not criteria for section deletion. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

CN Tower comparison

I don't get this comparison in the article:

"For comparison, Toronto's CN Tower, built in 1976, cost around the equivalent of US$260 million in 2005 dollars."

These are two very different structures i don't see the correlation between the two in terms of cost comparisons. one is an office building the other a telecommunications tower/toursit attraction. Duhon

Black nationalist reference

132.241.246.63 (talk · contribs) insists the men were Black nationalists. Where is this found? I don't want to violate WP:3RR, but this element of this incident seems to have eluded me. - CobaltBlueTony

X - bracing

In the article, I read the following:

"One-story high black bands appear on the tower around the 30th–32nd, 64th–65th, 88th–89th, and 106th–107th floors. These allow ventilation for service equipment and obscure the tower's diagonal "X" bracing, which Sears Roebuck did not want to be visible."

I am quite familiar with the black bands; they are part of the structure's distinctive look. But the reason given here strikes me as nonsensical. How could widely spaced horizontal bands obscure large "X" bracing? Look at the Hancock. Try to imagine how horizontal bands could be used to cover that up. I suspect it was a silly comment inserted by someone who heard something from who knows where. I will not delete it now, but will do so without a cite in the near future. Unschool 16:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I had never seen that fact cited anywhere else, it seems plausible. The diagonal bracing is not large like the Hancock's, it just occurs in 2-story bands around the mechanical floors which you can see if you look closely at the building at the right time. Montalto 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that as possible. I'd still like a cite; I've spent lots of time in its shadow, been up it many times, but have never myself noticed this, let alone heard this explanation. Unschool 06:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the bracing you are refering to is properly known as a belt truss. Belt truses improve stability from wind loads placed on many high-rise buildings. The belt trusses used in Sears Tower integrated well with the skyscraper's already tightly spaced grid of vertical members (columns) and horizontal members (spandrels). The most notable example of this structural element being used to augment the aesthetics of a skyscraper is Milwaukee’s First Wisconsin Center. --Rkrause 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes

The Sears Tower also has the most total floor space of any commercial building in the United States, and second-most overall to The Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. One-story high black bands appear on the tower around the 30th–32nd, 64th–65th, 88th–89th, and 106th–107th floors. These allow ventilation for service equipment and obscure the tower's diagonal "X" bracing,[citation needed] which Sears Roebuck did not want to be visible.

First, Sears is not the largest commercial building in the US. That goes to another building in the same city- The Merchandise Mart. Secondly, the bracing is visible so I doubt that visibility was the reason for the black panels. They could just be large spandrel panels or louvers. That information should be cited from a primary source. Please cite, edit or I will remove in two days.

I also can't believe that nothing was said about the building's innovative "bundled-tube" structural system. Gary Joseph 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Sears Tower's gross floor area (which I gather had been calculated based on the BOMA standard) is well known to be 4.5 million square feet. I do not know how this compares to the Merchandise Mart, since all published material about that building does not distinguish between whether its 4.2 million square feet is really gross floor area or useable floor area. --Rkrause 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, louvres were installed at the mechanical floors to obscure the belt trusses that surround the building. The only exception is on the 88th and 89th floors where tinted windows are also present. I cannot recall where I read this; it was likely in one of my Sears Tower books. --Rkrause 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actual number of stories

I would not necessary trust Emporis Buildings on this measurement. Some of their Sears Tower "facts" seem to be more questionable than based on truth. They explain that the number of stories is 110 only including the "elevator box". It should be noted that the two-story penthouse on Sears Tower is actually for housing the robotic window washers and it is also an integral part of the structure. (You will notice that they don't even mention this particular marvel of Sears Tower despite of its technological innovation). This brings the total number of above-ground physical floors to 110. --Rkrause 21:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the standard method of counting floors in a building ignores the mechanical penthouse. Based on blueprint readings taken by Emporis editors, the tower only has 108 floors. Yes, the mechanical penthouse is an integral part of the structure and is included in the height, but you would have to change the floor count for the vast majority of buildings if you wanted to revise the rule. And this is not a forum for discussing what Emporis includes in its facts. Try e-mailing that website if you have something to contribute. Montalto 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of there existed a "rule" for counting floors in a building. (The very notion that a penthouse can be excluded only substantiates that this is an extra-ordinarily subjective method of measurement and I would not be surprised if it was the result of more fallacies purported again by the infamous CTBUH). If penthouses are to be excluded, then all mechanical floors should be excluded as a "rule" since they do not contribute to useable square footage. But regardless, since it seems that most "floor count" reverts to this page are being substantiated by the Emporis database, then this is the best place to discuss the matter. Wikipedia should cite information that is verifiable and reputable, and is of a neutral point of view. If a source is questionable then it should be brought up by editors for discussion, not dismissed as irrelavent so that only one point of view and one source can be trusted. Since Emporis makes its own claim that contradicts what the official Sears Tower Website (as well as hundreds of books, newspaper articles, journals, and magazines continue to claim to date), then that one controversial figure should not be the only information provided to readers. --Rkrause 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpret Wikipedia's policy, the way to maintain neutrality is to use official sources ("no original research"), and the CTBUH is the closest you can come to an official source on building measurements. The Council is an organization of building professionals including engineers, architects, contractors, and building product vendors, so it represents a wide array of professional viewpoints. I don't know where your "infamous" qualification comes from; you are entitled to say it but Wikipedia aims to avoid this kind of POV. As for Emporis, its contributors are the only people compiling any serious statistics or doing significant research into building measurements, and two years ago the CTBUH adopted the Emporis database as its own official source of building data. I have said before that Emporis' data is not 100% accurate, and its editors will admit it; however they seem to try to use the best sources available on a subject that is notoriously difficult to research because they have to investigate building by building. However, they keep track of their sources so they can always tell you when they know something for sure and when they don't. With regard to the Sears Tower, you can find out from Emporis (if you communicate directly with them) the exact height of any floor in the building. The mechanical penthouse on top is 18 feet, 6.5 inches tall, and the blueprints show it starting at floor 109 with the very top roof being 110. Even if you wanted to count the penthouse, the building would only be 109 floors, which still contradicts the Sears Skydeck website and all those publications you referred to. As a member of the Skyscraperpage.com forum I can assert that I have never seen anyone insist on the inclusion of mechanical penthouses in the floor count, and if you talk to someone who lives in an 8-story building with a mechanical penthouse for a 9th floor, 99% of the time he will tell you it's an 8-story building. So I don't see the controversy. A lot of myths are propagated over the years in the media, and the idea that the Sears Tower had 110 floors is one of them unless someone can prove that the mechanical floors inside are divided differently from the way the blueprints suggest. I think it is better for Wikipedia to blow the myth (citing 1 or 2 outside sources) than to tow the old line simply because more sources do so.

You seem to have some good engineering knowledge yourself (based on your mention of belt trusses in yesterday's edits) and I appreciate your contribution in that regard. I didn't mean to try to silence you in my post above, I merely objected to your implication that Emporis was unreliable because it neglected to mention one interesting fact. Montalto 04:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

TV skyline shot triva

Since September 11th, 2001, many shots of the city's skyline (mainly on television) tend to not include the Sears Tower due to fears of it being targeted.

I added a citation needed tag, but this sounds pretty much ridiculous to me. I'm in favor of simply removing it if nobody can source this claim. gavindow 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

on oprah they have it

Height of Top Floor

The infobox lists the tower's height at the top floor as 1,354 feet. There are 108 floors. The Skydeck is on the 103rd floor at 1,353 feet. How can there be 5 floors covering only 1 foot? Does anyone have an explanation?--Chaz 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's gotta be some kind of a mistake. The official site lists the height as 1,450 without the antennae, and 1,725 with it. Aha, looking at the page, I see the discrepancy -- those five floors aren't open except for maintenence reasons, I think, which is why the height of the top floor is listed as only 1,354. -- gavindow 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true. It just seems odd that it would be listed that way. --Chaz 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Sears Tower

What about the original Sears Tower?

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=searsmerchandisebuildingtower-chicago-il-usa

Is there anything on Wikipedia about it?

--Kalmia 01:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess not. I better make a page. --Kalmia 04:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How can it be shorter than Taipei 101 with more floors?

Tapei is taller but has 9 less stories, more head space? Are there stories you can't stand up in?

The floors are larger on the 101, plus it has a spire. Judge for yourself. Soakologist 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the skyscraper height rankings are noting but a joke. The graphic illustrates it nicely. What's the point of the spire/antenna distinction anyways? But, hey, we're just writing about it, not making up new rules. --Dschwen 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV statement?

Sears, Roebuck deteriorated as market share slipped away, and management grew paranoid and introverted through the 1970s. Is that the truth, or does it use words that have emotional connotations? Arius Maximus 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Top three tallest buildings (Taipei 101, Petronas twins, Sears Tower)

Hola,

ok so like this is the way i think about it. why on everything else((like the buildings)) they count the antennas, but on the sears tower they dont count it at all? that is not only retarded but ridiculous! i think that the sears tower like any other tower, should have its antennas counted. why is it this way??? please give me some feed-back! -71.36.49.42 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page isn't supposed to feature talk about the building itself, but the article. Wikipedia is only informing about this, so why don't you e-mail the big guys who decided this in the first place? - Aki 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They were talking about the article, since both in the infobox, the main body, and the side-by-side illustration all make it perfectly clear that the Sears Tower is taller than the building that succeeded it as the "world's tallest building". I see no reason for wikipedia to unquestioningly side with these "big guys" of whom you speak. In fact, it's ridiculous to call something the world's tallest building when you're actually talking about it being the tallest "fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to highest structural or architectural top" structure. Also, so how about that Sears Tower? Anyone ever been to the top? I bet the view's awesome! Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage?

What is the building used for? Does anyone know? - Aki 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a commercial office building with a couple of retail stores and restaurants on the lower levels. Greetings from the 47th floor! CanadianMist 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't has Sears Tower! It's Chicago's.

Fact

it leans 6 inches to the west acoring to the architect 202.156.12.11 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Height

Please do not use this article to pass on frustrations on the loss of the towers supremacy in height. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has only ONE category that determines "world's tallest building". All the others are additional information gathered on the tallest ones (height to antennae, etc.) Stop f-ing around and get the facts from the Council's website and ameliorate frustrations by other means. (It is amazing that so much space is devoted to height, but nothing about its innovate structural system.)People throughout this world depend on the information here, so GET IT RIGHT!!Gary Joseph 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Count the antennae as spires and the ruckus ends? Haha. Keep fighting the good fight Gary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.59.178 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead problem

The Sears Tower is a supertall skyscraper in Chicago, Illinois, and the tallest building in the United States since 1973, surpassing the World Trade Center. By all other measures (official height, roof height, and highest occupied floor) the Sears Tower was always taller than the World Trade Center.

All measures other than what? TheHYPO

"World's Tallest Building"

I was just wondering as to why the Petronas Towers and Taipei 101 were ranked above the Sears Tower as the "World's Tallest Building". The Sears Towers' top is 527m, the Petronas Towers' is 452m, and the Taipei 101's is 509m, so shouldn't the Sears Tower be above both of those? Unless of course we were referring to top floor height or roof height, which in either case, the Sears Tower would still be above the Petronas Towers although it would fall short of Taipei 101. But yet it is ranked 3rd, so could someone explain this to me? Thank you.

Spires count. Antennae don't. Burj Dubai is set to beat them all anyway, so soon we won't have to deal with any of this. see: List of tallest buildings and structures in the world TheHYPO 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Spires count. Antennae don't." Typical b.s. excuse. It's either part of the building or it is not, jack@$$. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.59.178 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

how i ........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.171.60.254 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

South Riverside Plaza

• http://www.ubs.com/1/e/investors/agm.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lightening

In the "Statistics" section, some added a comment that the building gets struck by lightening 5000 times per year. That is clearly incorrect. An earlier revision stated 300 to 500 times per year, but provided no citation. I deleted the entire line. If someone can find the true data for that stat, please add it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martylunsford (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo Gallery?

I looked at some other buildings and memorials such as the gateway arch and they have photo galleries so I was wondering if anybody other than me thinks that the Sears tower should have a photo gallery. So maybe we could start a Photo gellery I'm just asking for opinions I don't have many good pictures but if somebody else does you could start a Photo gallery and put your photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.250.148 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have one: Commons:Category:Sears Tower. Generally speaking it is best to keep galleries out of articles themselves, otherwise we end up with articles that are more pictures than text. —Jeremy (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

contradictions in belt truss floors

If I read this correctly, the article states that there are belt trusses spanning floors 29-32, 64-65, 88-89, and 104-109. According to Emporis, there should be floors extending above each belt. For instance, the north, east, and south sections raise to 90 floors (according to Emporis), but going by this article, they should only be 89 stories tall. ataricom (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

???

Is the sears tower really the tallest building in the world? --70.238.6.139 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. See article for further info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

observation deck

i was wondering, would the observation deck in Sears tower be taller than the Las Vegas Stratosphere or Tower of the Americas in San Antonio, TX? 129.120.103.3 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ace Combat

How can the Sears Tower be in a game that doesn't occur on Earth, or at least not our Earth? The game has a completely different geography and political layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.139.161.72 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Move

Guys, the news hit today. It's all future tense. Willis Group WILL move in. Sears WILL be renamed. I hate to get involved in a move war, but the cycle is be bold, revert, discuss. I'm reverting. Until we can find some evidence of this change having actually happened, it shouldn't be moved, nor should links be changed. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are reverting too far back. This [edit is referenced in proper tense http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sears_Tower&oldid=276752992]. I'm not crazy about getting involved in an revert war so am backing off the article but the Willis name needs to be in the lead. Americasroof (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Americasroof. Willis needs to be in the lead sentence, and nothing more. Hopefully they change their minds about this. Another chicago icon bites the dust. Comiskey Park, Marshall Field, now this. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Has been made official now. I have changed the name World (talk • contributions) 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your source? According to the article, the change wasn't supposed to happen yet. DarkAudit (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ABC news made it official, also I think CNN. I heard it on ABC news. CHeck the sites World (talk • contributions) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at some article on ABC which said that the change ould occur this summer. The fact that the name would chnage was made official today World (talk • contributions) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WHEN the name becomes official, I believe we should move it then. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The name should reflect common usage in English. If most people start calling it something different, then it should be moved, but not the day it's renamed. Wikipedia titles aren't determined by official names. Dekimasuよ! 06:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While some residents of Chicagoland will continue to call Willis Tower Sears Tower, Willis Tower will become the official name of the building, and I believe this will be, on a global scale, the widely accepted name that is used, especially by mapping services like Google Maps. However, I don't know how we will develop a criteria to determine which name is the widely accepted one. We may have a situation where the maps and written literature refer to the tower as Willis Tower while people in ordinary speech, especially people in the Chicagoland area, refer to the tower as Sears Tower. I think, since we have three months to do this, we should develop some sort of criteria specific for this evaluation. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that this isn't an isolated case. Renaming events happen all the time, and pages are almost always left at the old name for a significant length of time until common use--as illustrated by things like news sources and Google Scholar--adapt the new title. See Talk:Bangalore, Talk:Blackwater Worldwide, Talk:Kiev/Naming, etc. As for what to do if Chicagoans continue to call it one thing and maps call it another, we have Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names. So I think a system to evaluate things is already in place, although the end result will probably be a move request at WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 07:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is a generic rule set on Wikipedia, how does that specifically apply for Sears (Willis) Tower? What questions should we ask to determine which name is the widely used name? Should it be search rankings on Google, should it be what a map calls the tower? (I think both of those criteria are fairly poor in this case) I have a feeling that in three or six months there will be a big debate over whether to rename this article and I think we should begin having the discussion now, not so much move or don't move, but specifically what specific criteria do we evaluate to determine which name is widely used? I tried searching yesterday to find out any naming conventions for buildings, and the closest thing I saw were naming conventions for geographic places. On a side note, Mumbai is an example of an article that is named for its current name, even though many people still call the city Bombay. JustGettingItRight (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument, of course, being what most people call it, not what many people call it. The governments of English speaking nations like the United States and India itself call the city "Mumbai". Native speakers of Gujarati and Marathi call it "Mumbai". "Mumbai, India" gets over 5600 Google News hits (inc. BBC, Times of India, Reuters, AFP, CNN) while "Bombay, India" gets 144 (most hits are in Spanish, but there's a smattering from the Kalamazoo Gazette, Modern Ghana, Wakefield Observer, etc.). "Mumbai, India" outnumbers "Bombay, India" on Google Scholar over the last 10 years (since the name change), and in the last few years the ratio has changed from 1:1 to 5:1. So there is evidence of a trend, and a majority in favor of the new name. If someone can show those two things here at some point, I'm sure the page will be moved. Dekimasuよ! 06:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT the Willis Tower yet. You tweakers need to stop jumping the gun, and change the opening sentence back. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a great blog in the Chicago Tribune that should help the Wikipedia community in its decision making process for renaming or not renaming this article in the future. A couple of main takeaways I got were that initially there is a lot of resistance to a name change, but over time a name change is accepted. Willis we always call it the Sears Tower? No, we won't JustGettingItRight (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you read the comments, you;ll find that the resistance is not just initial and that despite what Zorn says, the name change is frequently not accepted. While I'll continue to call it the Sears Tower, I do like the suggestion that following the name change it be nicknamed "Big Willie." Shsilver (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We use the current name on Wikipedia for all of the examples that Zorn gives, though most of the name changes he cites are at least a few years old. From what I gather from the news, the general feeling in Chicagoland is extremely negative to the renaming, and I think that may be the basis for some of the comments on the blog. However, I don't think that when we determine which name is widely accepted, the audience should just be Chicagoland. My guess is we will eventually have to rename this article. The question is going to be, will we do it when the name change becomes official or will we do it at some later point. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to make a move, there are plenty of buildings that aren't called by there official names, like the Gherkin, Canry Warf, in England or Library Tower in LA. Companies come and go and I expect we'll have to follow wikipedia guidelines when referring to the Sears tower. Also JustGettingItRight generally people say Chicago when referring to the metropolitan area rather than Chicagoland (which is only used by the media and advertisers). Astuishin ^(talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I gather that you're not from Chicagoland otherwise you'd know that everywhere throughout Chicagoland people refer to the Chicago metro area as Chicagoland. Of course we never use Chicagoland when speaking to people not from Chicagoland, because only people from Chicagoland know what it means. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And oh, yeah, expect great resistance to this in Chicagoland; everyone above the age of 30 still calls that big white building on Randolph the Standard Oil Building, and that was at least two name changes ago. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a life long chicagoan and i've heard very few people use the term, Chicagoland. In fact most people find it a little annoying if not condescending. I agree with you about Big Stan though. Astuishin ^(talk) 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think the general convention is to use the official name being currently used. But if the building is destroyed for any reason (demolished, etc) then call it by its most popular name. That's what we do for stadiums. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Once the name change becomes official, move it to Willis Tower and Sears Tower will be a redirect. Sears can't keep trading on something they abandoned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the Pan Am Building in New York City was changed to the MetLife Building after Pan American Airlines went out of business in 1991. I'll always think of it as the Pan Am building, but I don't think I could get a taxi to take me to "the Pan Am building" today. Get used to the new name, folks. --CliffC (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather doubt most cabbies in Chicago could get you to the Willis tower today either. Googlemeister (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There are actually a lot of Wikipedia pages where the most commonly used name is given preference over the official name when it comes to the title. Triborough Bridge rather than Robert F. Kennedy Bridge; Sixth Avenue instead of Avenue of the Americas; West Side Highway over the Joe DiMaggio Highway; Empire State Plaza not the Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza; the New York State Thruway instead of the Governor Thomas E. Dewey Thruway. Based on those precedents the page move to Willis Tower may have been overhasty. 69.106.74.227 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are different. Those are colloquial names vs lengthy official names; this is a short official name. The colloquial names are used because things predate official names but also because they're shorter. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find where the length of the name was ever a rationale for choosing what to title one of these things on Wikipedia. At the Triborough Bridge page, where I was tipped off to the others, the discussion was framed entirely on "most common name" status. I also think it's a red herring for nearly all of these, since nothing would prevent RFK Bridge, the DiMaggio Highway, or the Dewey Thruway from becoming the most common names, they just haven't. We call RFK Stadium Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, so if the renaming of Triborough had caught on with the public I do not see how long or short official names would be a pertinent issue.69.106.75.105 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 69.106.75.105; WP:COMMONNAMES makes no mention of discriminating based on the length of the name of an article topic. The official name is not always what the article should be titled. Since "Sears Tower" is still the clear common name, I agree that this move was a bit too hasty. Cheers, Rai•me 02:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What do the Ivory Coast, Bombay, and the Sears Tower all have in common? They were officially renamed and Wikipedia took the new name. --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

But unlike the Sears Tower, the articles for Ivory Coast and Bombay were not moved overnight without discussion. Both were officially renamed before Wikipedia existed, and by the time their articles were written, the official names had been long established and very common. That is not the case here. Cheers, Rai•me 04:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of nickname?

Assuming it becomes official and sourced, would the new nickname be properly spelled "Big Willy" or "Big Willie"? An quick search of Google finds

"a man's willy"  – 527
"a man's willie" –  36

but of course per WP:GOOGLE that's only a popularity test and wouldn't be citable as proof of a "correct" spelling. --CliffC (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If it became official and sourced, then they would pick the spelling. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears v. Willis

It strikes me that when referring to historical periods, the name Sears should still be used. Examples include mention that the building (then known as Sears) was tallest from 1974-1998, or the note that "In an episode of the television series, Monk, Adrian Monk tries to conquer his fear of heights by imagining that he is on top of Willis Tower." since it was called the Sears Tower at the time the episode was films and within the episode. Shsilver (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree, just like the rename of a city, we use the name of the city at the time of an incident. It'll have to be done carefully so as to be consistent, though, and right now with all the editing, it might be difficult to make those edits stick. This is the tallest building ever renamed, so we have a more complex list of changes to make. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree. We also need to take into account that while Sears Tower is no longer the official name, it remains the most common name; readers unfamiliar with the name change are likely to be confused if any and all mentions of "Sears Tower" are switched to "Willis Tower." Cheers, Rai•me 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, it would make a hash of history to retcon Willis onto historical references to the Sears Tower. Ships change names all the time for example, but nobody would alter references to the CSS Stonewall during the American Civil War into Japanese ironclad Kōtetsu. We call the Byzantine Empire's imperial capital Constantinople, not its present name Istanbul. 69.106.74.227 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The building is best known as the Sears Tower; the page should have been left under that name with the other redirecting to it. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah really. It's the Sears Tower. Changing it to Willis is just a disgrace to Chicago culture. Just keep it as Sears Tower on here. --24.13.44.207 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Skydeck

The page is locked, so I can't correct:

In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies" extending approximately four feet over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.

Bad sentence structure. Sounds like the balconies are four feet over the street. Make sure modifying words are modifying the correct words. Should read this:

In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies", approximately four feet in width, extending over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.

-- 97.113.116.173 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the pictures from the skydeck are from CNN and Chicago Tibune and have no source info on the photo files. They are apparently copyrighted, and should be replaced by free images. I'm in Seattle, or I would go up and do it myself. -- 97.113.116.173 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I just nominated the images for speedy deletion. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Rai•me 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)