Talk:List of tallest buildings in New York City

New Pictures Please

The first two pictures are years old can someone add newer ones from the same spots for 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.72.51 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

71.245.72.51 Well if you have or know of any suitably licensed pictures feel free to add them yourself over at commons so they can be used here. Otherwise, just understand that our selection of images is limited, I know it can be frustrating to wait but eventually some wikimedians in the NYC area will get around to taking new pictures and then the page will be updated.

𝒬𝔔 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unviewable in Wikipedia app

This article cannot be viewed properly in the Wikipedia iOS app. All the lists are displayed as pages of text and tags. Richferrara (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Richferrara: I know this is stale-ish, if I remember correctly their were some issues a few weeks past with css not loading properly in the mobile apps that have since been resolved, however if you are still experiencing issues the best place to raise them would probably be VPT.

𝒬𝔔 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Add 270 Park Avenue into the 'Tallest Destroyed' section?

It's currently being dismantled by JPM. Does it only get added when the building is completely demolished? Or can it be added now? 74.64.122.27 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, but that's a good question. I'm going to look at other cities / lists where buildings have been demolished and see how to proceed. — Mainly 00:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I switched the header to "Tallest destroyed or demolished" so when the current building is demolished I think it will be fair to add it. — Mainly 00:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree, since the Singer Building was already in the section it's kind of surprising that no one had caught this before actually.

𝒬𝔔 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit the page myself, but 270 Park has been torn down and its replacement is officially under construction. Should the old one be moved from "Tallest" to "Tallest Demolished", and the new one moved from "Tallest Proposed" to "Tallest Under Construction?"74.64.122.27 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello 74.64.122.27, I think I fixed it. I agree this page is hard to edit and tables are confusing. But if you go to Help:Introduction there are some tutorials that make it easier. I also recommend copying and pasting most of the complicated stuff from one section to the other and using the preview button or visual edit window to see that it looks right. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be sure to try it out next time I spot a table in need of changing :) 74.64.122.27 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Tallest new york" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest new york. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest new york until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@SONIC678: I'm not going to be commenting on that discussion as I don't really have anything to add to what's already been said. However, I think it would make it easier for other people to participate in the future if you provided the correct link both here and at the redirect itself, should've been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24#Tallest redirects. I'm not trying to sharpshoot you or call you out in public or anything, and I doubt there'd be any difference to the current discussion, just a little friendly suggestion.

𝒬𝔔 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I must've missed that. Thanks for catching that. I just forgot to change the link. Regards, SONIC678 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Tallest new york city" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest new york city. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 1#Tallest new york city until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 23:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Table in wrong section

The table listing the tallest building in each borough is in the wrong section. It currently is located in the "Tallest under construction or proposed" section. I don't know how to fix this. Bunkyray5 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bunkyray5, I managed to fix it. The page was broken because someone accidentally put only one = around "Tallest under construction or proposed" instead of two. There's a bunch of tutorials at Help:Introduction that you may find useful, tho the testing sandbox at the end of the first one is broken, but I am working with someone to fix it. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Add 5 World Trade Center to the Lead?

Hello everyone, I noticed that there is an old note in the lead that says "5WTC is not yet included despite the media reported RFP because concrete details have yet to emerge." However new details just came out a few weeks ago so I was thinking it should now be added to that section. What does everyone else think? 119.59.121.170 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

To make my proposal clearer, I was thinking change from the 743-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center and one partly-constructed, by adding 5WTC in the middle so it reads the 743-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center, the proposed 900-foot (274 m) 5 World Trade Center, and one partly-constructed, and then remove the hidden note. I just don't want to add it to have someone revert me immediately because the sources aren't good enough. Anyway, Sonic678, MainlyTwelve, Wikihelp7586, and 74.64.122.27 since all of you have edited here and are recently active I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts. 119.59.121.162 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason the minimum isn't 500 feet?

Since 500 is more important than 600 in "tall buildingology". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Probably because 500 ft isn't noteworthy enough in terms of height for buildings in the NYC context, and would also double the length of this already probably too extensive article. If you look at the "tallest buildings in" articles in general, I think you will see the cutoff varies a lot depending on what was deemed noteworthy in the local context when the article was first written. In fact I would actually be in favor of raising the limit to 650ft given the growth of the NYC skyline in the decade and a half since this article was started, but I doubt I would find consensus for that. 119.59.121.162 (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@119.59.121.162: Well Wikipedia's world list was top 300 till it was cut. Though unless there's a way to never download images under 600 feet without opting-in by clicking something or something it'd probably be best to not have pictures from 500 to 599 feet. Or possibly show File:Example.jpg links with a note that files have been converted to links for length and download time reasons. While the buildings are getting very tall now some beautiful and avant-garde architectural ideas 600-649 feet are hidden underneath that skyline, like the Gothic sprouting radiations building. Others are prominent in famous historical photographs like the Channin Building, or even on the skyline today from being tall for their area or close to the water (like one of the tallest ones between WTC and the Hudson or the one that looks like furniture). Other 600-649 foot buildings are prominent for other reasons like overshadowing everything in photos of the cathedral (Olympic Tower), New York Life commercials, being the tower Madison Avenue points to cause it ends there, being one of the two halfpipe top of death-looking buildings, being the pointy thing that crowns one end of Times Square, or being the Waldorf~Astoria. Alas, the UN building and the one at the important tip of Manhattan are too short for 600 feet, only 500-something. Thus the minimum should not be above 600 feet for as long as possible, long before it looks like Coruscant but not soon. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a list of the tallest buildings in the city, not the most important or most beautiful. Based on the scope of the article I tend to agree with the IP user above that as it stands 600 is probably too low of a number based on the building spree the city has been on recently to keep the list at a manageable length.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree 100% with Found5dollar said.

So to just to expand and avoid confusion my concern isn't over length per se, and indeed on mobile view which most people use all sections are collapsed by default anyway. My concern is that past a certain point we are listing buildings that aren't really noteworthy for their height when considered among other NYC skyscrapers. Now don't get me wrong I too like the American Radiator Building, it is a stunning architectural achievement, and both definitely notable in it's own right, as well as noteworthy in many related articles like about architecture for example. But is it noteworthy in an article where the focus is on height? I have to so no. Even with the Equitable Building, which again is not only notable in its own right but is also definitely noteworthy in many other articles, I mean you literally cannot explain the history of NYC zoning without making reference to it, but for all it's noteworthiness in other contexts in NYC it is no longer noteworthy for its height, and the focus of this list is on buildings that are noteworthy for their height.

So getting back to your mention about 300 being an OK number for a list to have, I don't entirely disagree, but it all depends on context. For a city with a small skyline probably only the top 10-20 buildings will be noteworthy for height and everything afte that will be trivia, for a mid-sized the number may be more like 40-50, and for a large like NYC, Dubai, Hong Kong, it may be over 100, but even for the largest skylines past a certain point it is still trivia. Consider even most national or continental lists which need to touch on all buildings noteworthy for height in a large area don't reach 300 entries, go ahead and check List of tallest buildings in the United States and List of tallest buildings in North America.

Now I'm not saying there's always an easy answer and people often disagree and even edit war over what is trivia and what is worthy of inclusion in any given article, but NYC's skyline has grown a lot since this article was started, however the height cutoff has not. Consider this, the skyline of Brooklyn by itself is now comparable to that of all of Detroit, but the cutoff for List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn is still 295ft, same as when that article was written when there were far less skyscrapers there, while the cutoff for List of tallest buildings in Detroit is 400 ft. I would argue that the last half of listings for Brooklyn, while at one time noteworthy for their sheer height among other Brooklyn buildings are no longer are so, and the cutoff there should be raised to match Detroit's. Consider as well List of tallest buildings in Queens uses 300ft as its cutoff, and Queens has a smaller, albeit momentarily higher, skyline than Brooklyn does, and IMO the limit for Queens should probably be 330ft or even 350ft. Again the issue is people decided a cutoff based on the skyline at the time the article was written, and then it gets set in stone because discussions to raise it invariably end in no consensus. Now this isn't a problem for cities like Detroit or Pittsburgh, because few new skyscrapers are being built there. But for NYC even 600ft is now too low, and it should be raised. 119.59.121.170 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@119.59.121.162: Would the best path forward be to change it from a "height" cut off to a "number of entries" cut off? Either the top 100 tallest building or 125 or something? that way this discussion doesn't come up every few years and every time we add a building to the list we also remove the one lowest down one?--Found5dollar (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

At another article some years ago I proposed a cut-off for number of buildings in a list not the height cut-off but consenus went against me. I think number of buildings is a far better way to manage the list article size. 100 would seem about right unless there are good reasons and a consensus to extend it beyond 100. Also this article needs other work. The table of pinnacle height should really be removed or at least a discussion started as CTBUH doesn't use this to measure building height anymore (although it seems Emporis does). And the table of proposed buildings is populated by buildings that are 'vision' according to CTBUH and not 'proposed' (they have specific definitions for these terms) and some entries should also be removed because the proposal stalled and were never built. Robynthehode (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@119.59.121.162 and Robynthehode: If these issues are persistent and we truly don't think a consensus could be reached I'd suggest moving the article through the Featured List removal process. it may be worth trying to find consensus here first and making a few bold edits to get the article back inline with what is expected from a featured list, but if we can't the removal process gets more eyes the article and often leads to issues being corrected. I was planning on reaching out to the editor that originally got this to be a FL, but they haven't made an edit on Wikipedia since 2014.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose the use of a fixed number. This is mainly because as a skyline grows so too will the number of noteworthy buildings within it. A smaller skyline may have less than twenty buildings whose tallest is noteworthy, however a very large may have more than 100. Regional lists may be even larger. Now we could periodically raise the number through discussion, but then we are right back where we started in needing to discuss raising things every few years. The other issue is that readers expect some consistency in presentation between similar articles and currently all of our city list articles use height rather than number cutoffs, I'm not saying that couldn't be changed but that would need to be done through a centralized RFC at WT:SKY not by going through one article at a time and having a lengthy back-and-forth. The more straightforward solution is to take a good-hard look at the lists for each city every 5-10 years and build a consensus around raising height limits where appropriate.

@Robynthehode: I would also oppose an FLRC for at this time. CTBUH does track pinnacle height, they just call it height to tip see for example [1] where the tip height is listed at 1792, it's possible you're confusing that with roof height which they did stop tracking because it was becoming increasingly hard to find a definition that was consistent in application and matched the average persons intuition over what constituted a roof. The issue with vision entries having crept into the proposed can be solved by just boldly removing them, citing the source in your edit summary. Deeply bureaucratic processes like FLRC should really be reserved for things that can't be fixed in a reasonable time by normal editing.

However if someone wants to start an RFC on this page with the suggestion of raising the limit to 650ft that would be a logical next step. 119.59.121.170 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on moving or repurposing this list

Wouldn't it be obvious to anyone that the ones in the lower part aren't tall by NYC standards? Could it be top 200 or 600ft+ and renamed to list of buildings in New York City by height to not insinuate that the list is tall? Though that would be trivia to non-skyscraper fans and to be honest even I only really cared about learning the 700-750+ range of NYC (my hometown) for many years till only a few years ago and a lot of the ones under that bore me with their combination of genericness and shortness. That would be a compromise between "only heights with visual prominence like "if there was a rectangular prism on the north edge of City Hall Park (or the central block (E Cedar & Bway?)) how high would it have to be for over half the roof to be seen from the average point on North Staten Island's edge that is unobstructed by land, but only sightlines that cross State Street are considered"" and "down to the height of the shortest "important" building" (Tavern on the Green?) which would be hypertrivia and unfinishable. True, showing all the medium boys is impossible but 5-600 feet puts a nice sample of them into height context with the big boys which is informative to students of "heightology". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: I don't think moving this list is a good idea, if you really think readers would be served by compiling that information I think a better route would be to start a user space draft, maybe List of locally prominent New York City buildings, or List of New York City buildings historically notable for height or something along those lines depending on what you are going for, and seeing if you could source it enough to be a standalone or navigation aid. 119.59.121.170 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

List of locally prominent New York City buildings is a fuzzy inclusion criteria, might get deleted. And besides most people who'd be interested in that probably already know about Emporis' free "buildings in subneighborhood X by height" which have literally almost 1 million NYC buildings, which is all of them (or close enough). List of New York City buildings historically notable for height could be the more well-definedly titled "list of New York City buildings which have been in the top 10 by height" or something like that but would not include notable skyscrapers that have not been top 10 (i.e. the current tallest in 4 of 5 boroughs (which IS here), the tallest unaligned building in the Manhattan grid (34th and Park?) or the new skyscraper aligned to a T-intersection of a major avenue end which is rare). I suppose a list could be made called list of skyscrapers in New York City with mutual hatnotes which would remove drag on support to keep the rifraff out of this list. What do you think? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking List of notable skyscrapers in New York City would be the better title to prevent people from stuffing it with everything, but honestly I'm not the most knowledgeable about that sort of thing so you may want to drop by the talkpages of some people who do a lot of AFC work to get an idea of what is and is not likely to survive AFD. IIRC some lists have been kept purely as navigation aids even when available sourcing was meh, so there should be some room for experimentation. The other thing is you might find that kind of list becoming too long once you start it in your user sandbox, so it may end being you need for example List of notable gothic New York City buildings and List of tallest mid-block New York City buildings etc. I'm just speculating here, I think you'll have a better idea of how to structure everything once you start drafting. 119.59.121.172 (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There are only about 300 NYC buildings over 500 feet which is the most common definition of skyscraper in non-metric countries (150 meter ≈ 492.1 feet in metric countries) so it wouldn't have to pick what it notable it could just list all of them (CTBUH lists are exhaustive till 150 or 100 meters worldwide, I forgot which. But they're paywalled now). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case I think your good to start a draft copy, and then you can reach out to some of the AFC folks as you get close to completion, pages can always be moved anyway so even if the title you pick isn't the best it's not set in stone or anything. 119.59.121.172 (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC about list inclusion criteria

Should the inclusion criteria for this page be narrowed so only buildings over 650 ft (198 m) are listed in the Tallest buildings and Tallest under construction or proposed sections? 119.59.121.172 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support As proposer 119.59.121.172 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Originally this proposal was a bit less focused and titled Raise this list to 650 or 700, create a 500 foot list, add unobtrusive link to it above the section and article. I've narrowed the question to remove the portion about creating a new page as being more appropriate for a differrent venue, and restructured to a more specific question with a formal RFC tag to make it easier to find a clearer consensus. 119.59.121.172 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)