Talk:List of tallest buildings in New York City

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drumz0rz (talk | contribs) at 07:36, 28 June 2012 (2 and 3 WTC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured listList of tallest buildings in New York City is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted

Interactive

It'd be cool if the panorama could be interactive... just an idea... 41.242.148.186 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEW PICSand BEEKMAN

Can someone put a new panorma poicture and a new pic for 1 world trade center, also Beekman has topped out ans should be added to the list number 7 i believe

WTC vs Empire State

See List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. The inconsistency relates to whether or not we include the antenna. When built, the ESB was 1,250 feet tall. Later, when the antenna was added, it elevated the height of the building to 1,453' 8 9/16". When defining "tallest" as being equal to the "architectural top", then at 1,368 and 1,362, WTC 1 and 2, surpassed the ESB's 1,250. As you'll see in the link, defining "tallest" as it relates to buildings, can be difficult.


The tallest building in New York City is currently the Empire State Building. World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 (at 1,368 feet (417 m) and 1,362 feet (415 m) respectively) were the first and second tallest buildings in New York City before they were destroyed on September 11th, 2001.


1 Empire State Building 1 1,472 / 449 102 1931

I'm not really up to date on my New York architecture but am I missing something or does it seem weird that WTC 1 at 1,368 feet and WTC at 1,362 feet where in first and second before they fell and Empire State is currently listed as #1 at 1,472 ?

If the antenna is being taken into consideration for the empire state building should it not be for the WTC ?

The height of the Empire State Building is 1,250ft / 381m. Antenna are not included in the height, which is why there is a separate list which includes pinnacle height. Please stop editing this article to include the antenna. (Drumz0rz (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hong Kong

Can someone please explain how the first two sentences (reference below) make sense?

"New York City has the most individual, free-standing skyscrapers in the world over 500 ft. (152 m) with 184 buildings taller than 500 ft. For comparison, Hong Kong has 186 skyscrapers taller than 500 ft."

They made no sense to me, so I removed them.
It means that there were 184 skyscrapers in NYC and 186 in Hong Kong, if you call anything over 500 feet a skyscraper. (Then we have to go into how we count that 500 feet) Considering the intricacies of the situation it's hard to really say which city has more. Sagittarian Milky Way 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball?

Would someone like to speak to why buildings that do not yet exist are on the list? It's just not true that the Freedom Tower is the tallest building, although it may someday be. See for instance List of tallest buildings in Chicago, Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago, and List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States.

Still A Student 20:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. Besides, since the Chicago list is very similar to this one it would be good for the two pages to have a standard format. I separated the buildings under construction from the existing buildings in a new list, and added Freedom Tower in the introductory text. I'm sure someone will insist on adding Freedom Tower to the list prematurely, and I am not going to get into a war over it, but according to the reports I have heard there is no foundation work underway yet so no actual part of the structure has been built. (Recognized authorities on building standards like Emporis and the CTBUH accept the date of initial foundation work as the benchmark for commencement of construction.) I also removed the footnote indicating that Freedom Tower would be the tallest building in the world, since it has almost no chance of being taller than Burj Dubai at any stage of its construction. Thank you for your suggestion. Montalto 07:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this issue: foundation work HAS started for Freedom Tower. Blasting work as well as excavation is being performed right as we speak. And the media has explicitly stated that work has started - I quote the NYTimes (June 13th article): "work is under way on the foundation of the Freedom Tower" EDIT: I guess I can quote Emporis on this too: "Ground for actual construction (different from the cornerstone placing) was broken on April 27, 2006."--Darkhunger 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Emporis still lists Freedom Tower as "approved" as opposed to "under construction". I spoke with one of their New York editors who told me that not only is foundation work not underway, but they have removed the cornerstone and work has come to a halt. I can't verify this myself right now, so I won't change your edits but I'd encourage everyone to follow a consistent standard with regard to the start of construction. Excavation and site preparation/demolition should not count as construction, since no part of the building structure is being put into place. Foundation work means construction of caissons, piles, or the foundation mat (depending on the type of foundation used) - anything else may qualify as activity but it is not construction of the building because no actual part of the building is there. I realize a lot of people are eager for construction to start, and therefore would like to believe it's underway; but the construction list is more meaningful if we avoid jumping the gun. Montalto 05:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, work is moving on just fine, as you can see here [1]. Yes, its site preparation, but I think of construction in a different context than you (and Emporis/CTBUH), I guess. While I understand you reasons for wanting to use their definition of construction, I don't see the necessity for it in this article.--Darkhunger 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

189 buildings

If there are 189 buildings taller than 500 ft. in NYC, why does the list only have 77 buildings? Where are the other 112? I realize that not all of the buildings are landmarks warranting their own WP article, but the list should try to be comprehensive. Wl219 09:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list only has 600 feet+ buildings, apparently.--132.236.94.195 23:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisistency

Height/Number of floors in the building:

GE Building

List of tallest buildings in New York City

Rockefeller Center

Remove not-completed buildings from list

The future buildings should be removed from the list. I wanted to change that but it's a pain to renumber all the buildings in the list - is there an automatic way to do this? Maybe someone smarter at wikiformatting can make the edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.50.108 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Under Construction vs. Approved

WTC 2, 3, and 4 are not under construction; they are only approved. Shouldn't a separate list be made for those buildings that are only approved or proposed? This list could include the 3 WTC towers, 80 South Street, the Con-Ed Redevelopment Buildings, 610 Lexington Avenue, etc. Raime 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great errors about the number of floor of new Wtc ( to see the WTC site ) 151.75.15.219 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great errors about the number of floor of new Wtc ( to see the WTC site ). Is it so hard to correct the number of floors of these buidings ( 88 floors instead of 79 for World Trade Center 2, 80 and not 71 for Wtc 3 and 72 instead 64 for Wtc 4 ) ? Thank you !! 151.75.38.106 (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC). To correct these errors, please and to add to the proposed buildings also the 440 Park Avenue Tower ( 433 m ) !!!!!! 151.75.8.116 (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why more lenient standards for proposed buildings?

The height standard for proposed buildings seems to be considerably more lenient for proposed buildings than for actual buildings. The list for actual buildings only goes down to 184 meters, but the list for proposed buildings goes down to 156 meters. That doesn't make any sense at all.--Pharos 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 500 ft / 150 m is a generally accepted height standard for measuring skyscrapers. Rather than removing buildings from the proposed list, I think we should add to the list of completed buildings so that it is more thorough and includes all buildings over 500 ft / 150 m Raime 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full skyline panorama image

Is there a better pic that the one right below the lead? The current one has poor photo stitching and so some parts of the Hudson river appear to be slanted and others horizontal. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other two panorama images in the article are of a higher quality (particularly the Midtown panorama, which is a featured picture), but the image you mentioned is the only one that portrays the entire skyline, so I believe it should be placed first. Also note that the Midtown panorama is from the same vantage point as the lead image, so placing these two similar images so close together would probably not be a good idea. Cheers, Raime 00:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empire State Building heights

Either some person, with different IP's and usernames, or several editors keep raising the Empire State Building in the structural-height-only table (1,250 feet/381 meters) to the height of its antenna (1,472 ft, I think), only to be repeatedly reverted. (The first table explicitly says it's for structural height only, while another table shows the pinnacle height, including antennas and radio masts.) The explanations in the edit summaries don't seem to suffice. What further should we do? Send nasty messages, put a read-only notice in the editing code, ask for semi-protection? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite frustrating. I find myself changing it back every time I check this page, and since I'm not here all that often, I have to sort through the changes to see if they've also felt like adding 1WTC's antenna in (which people like to do as well). Glad to see someone else is trying to battle it too. Drumz0rz (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's happening again. While of course I hope that I'm completely wrong, User:Empire1472 seems to have been set up as a single-purpose account to change the heights back up to 1472 feet. See this article's edit history and User talk:Empire1472. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And not only that, the Empire State Building's antenna hasn't been 1472 feet since the 1980s. It's 1454. A check of the FAA's obstruction website shows this. NGC 2009 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a good source, perhaps you could make the necessary adjustments on the Pinnacle-height table (the second one down) and at Architecture of New York City. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1984, the original antenna was replaced by a different, 8% shorter one. Why the 1472ft height has been perpetuated through many sources for a quarter century is beyond me. So.. done, at least for this article. The Empire State Building article needs fixing, too. The iPhone doesn't have cut and paste capability so if anyone cares, they can change the order in the intro back to (implied) Structural-Pinnacle, cause I sure ain't doing it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also is listed as both the 10th tallest and 15th tallest building in the world - on this page as 10, and on the tallest buildings in the US as the 15th.

24.193.125.217 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evans

Evans is a very inportant person to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.94.250 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Latting Observatory to Timeline of tallest buildings

The Latting Observatory, which stood from 1853 to 1856, was 315 feet high, surpassing Trinity Church as the tallest in New York City. Any objection to its inclusion in the Timeline of tallest buildings? Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to add it, although it was only the tallest until the top 75 feet were removed, so approx. 2 years. To add it, you'll need to also duplicate Trinity Church just as the ESB is duplicated on the list before and after the WTC. (Drumz0rz (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Statue of Liberty was the tallest building in New York until 1890 when the World Building was built. This needs to be added to the Timeline of Tallest Buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.66.1 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Depression

A lot of the tall buildings were constructed during the Great Depression. How exactly were such expensive projects possible? 97.118.63.76 (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone went broke during the depression. Some managed to say quite rich. (Drumz0rz (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Second Sentence

The second sentence sounds a bit awkward. I'm not sure what it is trying to convey but it doesn't do it very well. The city's 102-story Empire State Building, in midtown Manhattan, the basic structure of which, completed in 1931, rises 1,250 feet (381 meters), increased to 1,454 feet (443 m) by its superstructures. Any suggestions on how to fix it? 24.249.118.14 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dating the panoramas

The skyline is constantly changing. It seems worthwhile to include at least the year in each panorama caption. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  12:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all images need dates for context.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

432 Park Place

http://residential.worldconstructionindustrynetwork.com/news/cim_group_to_develop_1_billion_residential_tower_in_new_york_111024/ http://theelectricwebnetwork.blogspot.com/2011/10/its-official-1billion-tower-to-rise-on.html

It may be of importance that a new 1300-1420 foot tower is being built in the city. Fan Railer (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great errors about the number of floor of new Wtc ( to see the WTC site ). Is it so hard to correct the number of floors of these buidings ( 88 floors instead of 79 for World Trade Center 2, 80 and not 71 for Wtc 3 and 72 instead 64 for Wtc 4 ) ? Thank you !! 151.75.90.235 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 and 3 WTC

Last I heard, construction was halted on both of these buildings, however they should both be included in the 'under construction' section of this list, as they have been approved, and both have been constructed to ground level or beyond. When / Why were they removed from this list? Drumz0rz (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]