Talk:List of tallest buildings in the United States

Errors

I don't have time to renumber the list, but there are errors in it. For instance the Park Tower in Chicago is 844 ft and is the 10th tallest building in Chicago, but fails to appear on your list. There are other examples too. Someone with time needs to re-examine and re-do this list, it's wrong 4.142.96.197 18:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Marcia

Or how about that of the nine soon-to-be-tallest buildings in the US being in New York or Chicago, there are eleven buildings listed? 71.102.134.129 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Height

I feel the need to clarify a variety of things people seem to be saying in this article and discussion which are simply fundamentally wrong. There are rules for defining building height. First off, building height is measured in four ways:

• From the ground at the base of the tower to the top of the spire (an antenna is not a spire in most cases)
• From the ground at the base to the top of the highest occupable floor.
• From the ground to the roof.
• From the ground to the top of the antenna.

• That being said. What is a spire. Below I see someone has said that a spire cannot be over 30% the total height of the building. I have never seen anyone use that before. Plenty of churches use their spires for their heights as buildings, and they are very often over 30% of the total height of the building. A spire is simply an architectural finial at the top of the building that is integral to the structure of the building. Hence why antennas are different, they are rarely architectural and hardly ever integral to the structure. There are some notable exceptions, for instance the spire of the proposed Freedom Tower or Fordham Spire.

• Secondly, when we discuss buildings, we have to define the difference between building and structure. This always hurts someone's feelings (mostly people from Toronto and Paris). A building must be occupiable for the entire height of the building. There must be periodic floors during the span of the building. This gets people from Paris angry because this means they never had the World's tallest building, though they somtimes try to claim that the Eiffel Tower was at one point the world's tallest building. And people in Toronto get upset because they claim the CN Tower is the World's Tallest Building. However these are not buildings. These consitute structures.

• Now for problems with the list. The Stratosphere tower is not a building. What is alternate height? Official (read "Owner's Lie") Height. Attenna? Spire, Roof? This needs clarified. I suggest this page be reviewed and edited using either Emporis.com heights or Skyscraperpage.com heights.

The Conde Nast Building (4 Times Square) is now the second-tallest building in New York City, having added 300 feet to its antenna structure in the fall of 2003. 18.24.0.120 17:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please see above.

Perhaps some mention can be made of how "official height" is calculated? I suspect antenna height is not counted on this, but I don't know. —Mulad 06:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Generally antenna height is not impressive or considered important when naming the tallest building.

In response, I created this article based on an "official height" that includes the main structure and its spire. Antennas do not count, seeing as how they are so easy to add. From now on, change this page only according to these guidelines. --MattSal 00:29, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

The Stratosphere Casino in Las Vegas states: "At 1,149 feet, the Stratosphere Tower is the tallest freestanding observation tower in the United States and the tallest building west of the Mississippi River." (http://www.stratospherehotel.com/las_vegas_attractions/) There may be an antenna on top, so perhaps they're not entitled to every meter of the 350 they're claiming, but the observation deck and revolving restaurant should certainly count. Do these "official" guidelines exclude the Stratosphere for some reason? I agree with MattSal that it would be useful to mention (and/or link to) the rules being applied. JamesMLane 07:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This building is only shown in a picture as far as I can see. It is confusing to the reading, since the only explanation seems to be here, where a normal user is not expected to look. What's need is at least an indication of where it is and something better than "alt." - What ? altitutde or alternative?

Here are some rules. 1. The spire cannot be over 30% of the building's structural height. 2. Observation towers would not count because the main part of the building does not even touch the ground. 3. Antennae, lightning rods, or transmitters of any sort do not count towards a building's height. MattSal 23:25, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

The intruction to this article is very New York-centric, while New York really hasn't been known for pushing height limits since the Empire State Building. Since the 70's, Chicago's been the record breaker. Also, the article includes the list of tallest proposed buildings and initially cites New York and Chicago, only including Nashville's Signature Tower as an afterthought and ignores Las Vegas's tower which if completed will be the second tallest in the US. Both of these buildings are significant taller than others in the list. It also doesn't make reference to the fact that several of New York and Chicago's tallest structures are so because of their spire. It is arguable as to whether New York's Bank of America Tower is even as tall as Philadelphia's Comcast Center considering were it not for the spire, BofA would be just over half the height of Comcast. Dealing with such measurable material, this article could be a lot more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.240.78 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tallest 50 buildings in the US

What about the Carew Tower in Cincinnati,Ohio? - don't have the specs but local folk lore there said that at one time it was the second tallest in the USA with a height of 52 floors.

Local lore is a bit off. Carew was completed in 1930 and is 534' high. In 1930, just before the completion of the Empire State, New York had the Chrysler at over 1000', 40 Wall Street at 927', the Chanin at 649', Met Life at 700', the Woolworth at 792', and so on and so on. Carew's a nice building, but was built 30 years too late for its height to have been any kind of a record. Donald Friedman

This lore probably comes from the fact that the same company that designed the Empire State Building designed Carew Tower, basically the Empire State building is simply a larger version of Carew Tower, this may have led to some confusion and the subsequently wrong fact you were presented with.

Standard vs. Alternate?

Can someone document (on the page) the difference between these two lists? Thanks! --SFoskett 16:04, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm really curious about that too... —User:Mulad (talk) 06:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

So am I. --Ajdz 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I added explanations from the world List of skyscrapers. Aaronwinborn 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Much too metric!!

Who is to blame for the indefensibly exclusive use of metric measurements on this page?The World Almanac gives heights only in feet,and there are certainly buildings with heights different by a foot or two but not to the nearest meter.I'd rather see feet used primarily with metrics as secondary but even the reverse would be better than the way it is now.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree 100%, and I've added feet measurements. Funnyhat 05:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not agree at all. 95% of the world's population use metres as first measurement. We are sick of having to figure out the antiquated imperial system. Dankru 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a page about U.S. buildings. It should use U.S. measurements. Jwolfe 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Use both. --Kalmia 05:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

==Where is the proposed building?== The bottom illustration has a building with a name but no location. Kdammers 7 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

==U.S. or New York?== Why are only pictures of buildings in New York being shown when other cities, like Chicago, have some of the tallest buildings in the U.S.

"Year Completed" vs "Built"?

I know its minor and maybe trivial, but since most skyscrapers generaly take more than a year to build, would it be more accurate to use "Year completed" or "completed" rather than the "Built" heading in the table, which implies the building was literally "Built" in the single year given?

Or else give the span of years during which construction actually took place? Hillsboro 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Destroyed

I don't know how many there are... but the WTC made me think that maybe we should create a table for buildings that would be taller than 225 South Sixth (the 50th tallest) but have been destroyed. I suppose it may not be worthwhile because typically very view buildings of that height are demolished by some means. Does anyone know if any tower besides teh WTC fits this description? gren グレン 08:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Singer Building (612 ft) says that it was "the tallest occupied building ever destoyed until 9/11." Unless a taller building has been torn down since then, it still holds second (er, third) place. And it wouldn't qualify for this list, which means that the two WTC towers are unique. -- Plutor ^talk 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

50 tallest buildings in the U.S

When this is done, I'll be happy to turn it into a table, if that's deemed a good idea. Leave me a message on my talk page, if you like. Evercat 23:24, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Which would look something like this:

	Name	City	Height	Stories	Year Finished
1	Sears Tower	Chicago	442m	108	1974
2	Empire State Building	New York City	381m	102	1931
3	Aon Center	Chicago	346m	83	1973
4	John Hancock Center	Chicago	344m	100	1969
5	Chrysler Building	New York City	319m	77	1930
6	Bank of America Plaza	Atlanta	312m	55	1992
7	Bank One Tower	Los Angeles	310m	73	1990
8	AT&T Corporate Center	Chicago	307m	60	1989
9	JPMorgan Chase Tower	Houston	305m	75	1982
10	Two Prudential Plaza	Chicago	303m	64	1990
11	Wells Fargo Plaza	Houston	296m	71	1983
12	Bank of America Tower	Seattle	295m	76	1985
13	311 South Wacker Drive	Chicago	293m	65	1990
14	American International	New York City	290m	66	1932
15	Key Tower	Cleveland	289m	57	1991
16	One Liberty Place	Philadelphia	288m	61	1987
17	Trump Building	New York City	283m	71	1930
18	Bank of America Plaza	Dallas	281m	72	1985
19	Citigroup Center	New York City	279m	59	1977
20	Williams Tower	Houston	275m	64	1983
21	Renaissance Tower	Dallas	270m	56	1974
22	900 North Michigan	Chicago	265m	66	1989
23	Bank of America Corp. Ctr.	Charlotte	265m	60	1992
24	SunTrust Plaza	Atlanta	265m	60	1992
25	Trump World Tower	New York City	262m	72	2001
26	Water Tower Place	Chicago	262m	74	1976
27	Aon Center	Los Angeles	262m	62	1974
28	Transamerica Pyramid	San Francisco	260m	48	1972
29	Chase Tower	Chicago	259m	60	1969
30	GE Building	New York City	259m	69	1933
31	Two Liberty Place	Philadelphia	258m	58	1990
32	Park Tower	Chicago	257m	67	2000
33	U.S. Steel Tower	Pittsburgh	256m	64	1970
34	One Atlantic Center	Atlanta	250m	50	1987
35	Cityspire	New York City	248m	75	1989
36	One Chase Manhattan Plaza	New York City	248m	60	1960
37	Bank One Tower	Indianapolis	247m	49	1990
38	Conde Nast Building	New York City	247m	48	1999
39	MetLife Building	New York City	246m	60	1963
40	Four Seasons Hotel & Tower	Miami	242m	64	2003
41	Mellon Bank Center	Philadelphia	241m	54	1990
42	Woolworth Building	New York City	241m	57	1913
43	John Hancock Tower	Boston	241m	60	1976
44	Bank One Center	Dallas	240m	60	1987
45	30 Hudson Street	Jersey City	238m	42	2003
46	Bank of America Center	Houston	238m	56	1983
47	Bank of America Center	San Francisco	237m	52	1969
48	One Worldwide Plaza	New York City	237m	50	1989
49	225 South Sixth	Minneapolis	237m	56	1992
50	IDS Tower	Minneapolis	236m	57	1973

Alternate???

This is still confusing, even with the description, as height to pinnacle and roof are not the same thing. Height to pinnacle would include all antennae, while height to roof would exclue all antennae and spires. This lsit doesn't seem to do that, as it doesn't include antennae, does include spires (so it is not the measurements to roof OR pinnacle), and it includes the Stratosphere Tower, which is not a building and shouldn't be on the list according to the description given. For example, if measuring to pinnacle (including antennae), the Sears would have a height of 1730 feet, and if measuring to roof (without spires), the Chrysler would have a height 925 feet. The list seems to be exactly the same as the first, except with the addition of the Stratosphere Tower. Could someone please clarify this? Raime 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Images?

Why were all of the images removed? Shouldn't there be at least some images of the more prominent buildings?

I've re-added images to the entire article. Rai-me 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Renzo Piano Towers

I do not think these should be on the list; one Wikipedia article is not enough to justify the towers as being "proposed". Looking at Skyscraperpage.com,both towers are listed as "visons", meaning that while they may be proposed in some form, they are not yet probable and/or feasible for construction. Emporis does not even list the buildings in any form. I will remove the buildings form the "Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed" list; If anyone feels they should remain on the list, the issue can be debated here. Once there is a reliable source saying the buildings are proposed and feasible, they can be re-added. Raime 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out the San Francisco Chronicle article, that's where it states that the towers are proposed. Hydrogen Iodide 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add them to thelist. If officioal proposals have been filed, then that warrants aspot for the list. I guess Emporis and SkyscraperPage just need to update their information. Raime 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute of heights...

• There is an argument going on regarding the U.S. Bank Tower article. The article states it is the largest building in the United States east of Chicago. Anonymous IP edits state that the JPMorgan Chase Tower (Houston) is actually taller, and have included a link to http://www.chasetower.com/buildinghistory.htm to show that the stats in Wikipedia are wrong. Can we get some assistance in determining the actual heights of these buildings? Figgie123 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bloomberg Tower

The Bloomberg Tower is listed in the "by pinnacle height" list but not in the "standard height" list, even though (according to the Bloomberg Tower page) it's 806 ft. Mirka 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're correct; I'll add it. The height it is listed under for pinnacle height is even incorrect; it excludes the antenna height. Never mind, it was correct in that section. Rai-me 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

References?

The few references provided do not seem to provide effective references for the heights of practically any of these buildings. What is the source for all of this? It should be explicit in the article.

I'm asking largely because I came here looking for a citable source for the ranking of the Columbia Center to use in the Seattle, Washington article and found nothing I could cite. - Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have downgraded the article from A- to B-class, as is still in need of significant work. I will try to add references for each entry, but it could take weeks. Until then, you may want to try individual city lists, such as List of tallest buildings and structures in Seattle, which are for the most part much more fully referenced. Cheers, Rai-me 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition to list: Stratosphere tower in Las Vegas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere_Las_Vegas

More information on it.

It is 1,149ft (350m) tall making it place 4th on the current list. (Renoan) January 11, 2008 3:26 p.m. PST

The Stratosphere is a not considered to be a "building", as it is not fully habitable. It is therefore only a "tower" structure, and is excluded from the list. Cheers, Rai-me 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

update

The Comcast Center in Philadelphia is done, but I'd rather not go in potentially screwing up the format and the methodology of ranking so...--Loodog (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:United States buildings

I have brought up an issue about the caption on {{United States buildings}}. Please see my comments at Template talk:United States buildings. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I have added a timeline to the list. To get the information, I used the SkyscraperPage Diagrams. I have a strong feeling that it is incorrect, but I do not know of any other way to get the information. The main reason for my skepticism is that I thought Chicago had more buildings that stood as the tallest in the United States; but I am sure other things are wrong, too. I would appreciate it if someone can go over the timeline and correct any inaccuracies. Thank you so much. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Where is the Philadelphia City Hall, it was the tallest in the world. Houstontowers (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have added it. Thank you for catching that. Cheers, Rai•me 03:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

This page needs to be redone. It takes over 15 minutes to download the images in dial-up. This is not acceptable. We really don't need pictures of all the buildings. Just put a clickable link next to the list and let the viewer decide if he wants to look at a photo of the buidling. It's disgraceful that a page in the wikipedia can tie your computer up. 4.143.237.171 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)eric

New Addition

I have added Trump Tower in Chicago to the tallest buildings list because it officially topped out a few weeks ago. Acsmith3 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)