Talk:Empire State Building/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Height Reduction not mentioned ?

There is no mention of the 1985 height reduction which dropped the ESB from 1,472 to 1,454 feet — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


A few notes:

  • The antenna structure has been modified repeatedly over the last fifty years, most recently since 2001 to accommodate television. The current Antenna Structure Registration shows the height as 443.0 m (AGL), but I doubt that this is unchanged from the 1940s.
  • There are 104 "floors", not 102, but the "floors" between 86 and 102 do not really exist; the elevator between 85 and 102 is marked in feet and has only four stops between those two floors.
  • The 102nd floor observation deck (former airship terminal) has been closed to the public for some years, but still retains its original design.
  • The metal dome over the 104th floor is signed by many of the broadcast engineers who have worked in the building.
  • Floors 85, 82, and 81 are dedicated exclusively to broadcasting; 79 and 80 include both broadcast and office space. Originally, each of the stations/networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, DuMont, WOR, WPIX) had (needed!) an entire floor; now most have rooms of no more than a few hundred square feet. I've never been on 83 or 84 so I can't say definitively what's there (I know one of them is mostly mechanicals).
  • No passenger elevator from the ground floor runs above 80; visitors to the upper floors must change elevators at 80 to continue their journey. Those going to 102 must do so twice; the elevator to 102 is still manually-operated. 04:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who are the actual owners of the building? Empire State Building LLC is the name, but from what country? I cannot find this information anywhere on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Erroneous listing of station "WSTO" and the related so-called information ("(*) WSTO's studios are located in the Empire State Building on the 95th floor with offices on the 100th floor. (#) WSTO will be moving to the Freedom Tower in 2013.) deleted. No such station in New York. Floor references are impossible! Complete fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Small fix

I took it upon myself to delete that little bit about the Empire State Building becoming the tallest building in New York again after "the US government destroyed the World Trade Center". Hope nobody minds. Abalu 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Abalu

Good for you!--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


I was trying to close up some empty spcace, but I accidentally screwed it up! I apologize, and I ask that it be fixed, and this be deleted. Thank you for understanding this. Bajavato (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

$40 million price tag

Whether that is the correct number or not, it should be mentioned that it's in 1931/1932 dollars. Roughly equivalent to $400m-$600m or so today (possibly more). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a citation for the cost, but it did not say what year the dollars were in. Most people will probably assume that the price is not in current dollars, though. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A question about the total cost of the building -- in the DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION portion of the article it states, "Due to reduced costs during the Depression, the final costs totaled only $24.7 million (372.8 million 2012 dollars) instead of the estimated $43 million." There is no reference to this figure, yet in the information box the cost is listed as $40,948,900 and includes reference. Should the line referencing $24.7 million be deleted? For what it's worth, the Empire State Building's official website ( states, "Final cost of property and construction was $41 million." Metropxp (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The main photo

The photo looks pretty terrible and shows an unusual light pattern on the building. Maybe we should replace this one with a better picture that isn't blurry, that isn't from a terrible angle, and that isn't showing an unusual, ugly lighting pattern. Alexandrewb 17:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you have a good picture that is free of copyright restrictions, please do. --Claygate 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll see if I can take one this week. --Alexandrewb 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

ummm it says it was the tallest from 2007-2006?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Vandalism, fixed now. AxG ҈ talk 10:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Empire State Building as Airship station

It was planned, that airships can anchor at the Empire State Building. Who knows more about these plans?

--That's an excellent point. I'll go in and write a mention of this.--Jleon 15:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

According to the Goldman book, the airship station and mast were at the top of the Art Deco "salt shaker" that caps the building. During a couple of test runs, dirigibles tied to the mast experienced violent updrafts (caused by the building being "in the way" of the wind) which came close to wrecking the airships and dumping their passengers. That put a quick end to that idea. The station was converted to a second (102nd floor) observation deck for awhile. Wahkeenah 00:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good thing???

Please note that I did not intend to imply that the Empire State Building regaining its tallest-in-New-York title due to 9/11/01 was in any way a good thing. To label the terrorist attacks "tragic" seemed a bit obvious and redundant. Technically that wording is Point of View, but that would be splitting hairs. Wahkeenah 00:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

R. J. Reynolds Building

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco building in Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

I spent part of my childhood in Winston-Salem, NC, where it was repeatedly taught in grade school that the R. J. Reynolds skyscraper was built as a model for the Empire State Building. Anyone know about this? It could deserve mention. --Mm35173 20:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Category: "Former buildings and structures of the United States"?

Really? For the airship port?

  • Well, I removed this little tidbit, but perhaps I should stroll by Midtown tomorrow just to be sure...--Pharos 07:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


The story of the construction of the building is very encyclopedic, and is not mentioned at all. The article goes from mentioning that it was built on the site of the old Waldorf-Astoria and then fast-forwards 14 years to the B-25 crash. I may start to add it if I can find some good sources, but if anyone else can, please be bold. --rogerd 00:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the ESB survived the 1945 plane crash

Can it be added why the ESB was able to survive a B-25 Mitchell bomber colliding with it, while the WTC collapsed from a passenger airliner? It seems to be relevant as the events similar. To venture a guess I would assume the B-25 was a rather small aircraft moving at a slow speed with little fuel. This is in contrast with the passenger airliners which were larger planes, moving at 300+ mph, with mostly full tanks of fuel.

  • The Empire State Building has a closed-floor plan with many concrete columns. The WTC used mostly steel, and was particularly vulnerable to the attack due to the open floor plan.

I personally think that would be very interesting. But don't forget this difference : construction material. The Trade Towers consisted of a lot more metal (steel) than the Empire State Building and that bends under high temperatures (which were caused by the burning planes). I'm no expert on the subject but while difference in plane type is important, this would be my guess as main cause. Evilbu 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What brought the WTC down was not the impacts of the planes (both towers survived these impacts remarkably well) but rather the susequent fires. Having only recently taken off, both planes' fuel tanks were largely full. Almost all of the jet fuel they contained burned inside the towers so intensely that structural supports near the impact sites partially melted, weakening them enough that they buckled under weight of the floors above. (This is why the south tower, which was hit later but at a lower level, collapsed first. There was more weight above the impact site, so the structural supports gave way before they had weakened as much as those in the north tower eventually did.) The force of the upper floors falling was more than enough to crush all the floors below.
The B-25 contained a small fraction of the amount of fuel each WTC jet carried. Had a B-25 hit the WTC at the same speed and with the same amount of fuel as the one that hit the Empire State Building, the WTC would surely have survived. I'll leave it to others to assess how the ESB would have fared had it been subjected to a 9/11-type attack.
It is widely believed that the 9/11 hijackings were planned specifically to ensure the planes had as much fuel in them as possible at the time of impact. This is why the hijackings all involved large planes and why they were directed at targets near their points of origin rather than their destinations. The planes also hit the towers at an angle to ensure that fires would burn on as many floors as possible. Osama bin Laden and other top al Quaeda personnel have engineering backgrounds and reportedly knew that the towers would survive the impacts of jumbo jets but recognized that they would be vulnerable to sustained, intense heat. Supposedly bin Laden only expected the floors above the impact sites to collapse and was surprised that the towers were completely destroyed. (I base these statements on my memory of news reports but I have not searched the web for citations.) 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have read that the pilot of the B-25 saw he was about to hit the building just before impact and pulled the nose of the aircraft up, which would have the plane hitting the building ventrally with its tail downward, rather than a straight-in nose impact. This, if true, would have reduced the area of the impact, distributing the mass of the aircraft over a wider area, reducing the damage per square unit of measurment. -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)



basically I think many good articles miss exact coordinates. These are nice for google earth purposes, but they also attribute to the general completeness of a good wikipedia article.

I now put coordinates with a link to kvaleberg in it , right above. The link can disappear for me, it can be pushed down a lot, but I would really like it if you kept the coordinates on there somewhere.

If received positively, being a skyscraper fan, I would like to do this on many other building articles.

Excuse me for tampering with your fine article.

Evilbu 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So upon seeing the German wikipedia has a really neat place for the coordinates of the Triumph Palace in Moscow [1] I asked their advice and they told me how to put the coordinates like that. I hope you don't mind it... Evilbu 14:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

These accuracy of these coordinates locate the building to within ~5mm. That seems unreasonable given tectonic drift means NYC is moving westwards at a few mm/yr. Really 5 deimal places on econds of arc - that's just ridiculous!Fizzackerly (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

With another decimal place gone, the rounding amounts to < 1 inch N-S, < 3 inches E-W. That should suffice for all but professional surveyors, who presumably will want to access the NGS database anyway. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does the official website claim 1224 feet and Wikipedia claim 1250 feet?

Why does the official website claim 1224 feet and Wikipedia claim 1250 feet? See:

bobblewik 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


As of Dec 13 2006 the opening section states: "Long term forecasting of the life cycle of the structure was implemented at the design phase to ensure that the buildings future intended uses were not restricted by the requirements of future generations. This is particularly evident in the over design of the buildings electrical system."

I gather the designers were trying to anticipate the needs of future occupants of the Empire State Building, but the phrasing leaves much to be desired. Can anybody cite specific or innovative provisions in the design for unanticipated future use of the building? What provisions were made in the electrical system that call for special attention?

Provision of extra, initially unused, wiring and ventilation chases are common in large buildings, even at that period, since much of the building is put up as "generic office space" with no specific clients in mind. Was something else more noteworthy in future use attempted in this structure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Which article has the mistake?

Empire State Building:

"The building was the first of two skyscrapers in Manhattan that have been accidentally impacted by airplanes, the other being the Belaire Apartments in the Upper East Side in 2006 (The twin towers of the World Trade Center, although also were hit by airplanes, were brought down by an act of deliberate destruction and not accidents)."

40 Wall Street:

"It was hit by a United States Coast Guard airplane in 1946 during fog. The crash killed five people." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frost770 (talkcontribs) 05:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

The building time

There was mentioned that the empire state building would be one of the modern wonders of the world. I have beside that it still one of the tallest buildings in the world, a big awe for the completion of such a structure in this time window. On this site I would like to know more about it. Because it`s `quite` fast making 102 levels within 1,5 year including the finishing and the foundation for that time. Would be nice if there is a picture of the building phase. With regards, TA Hartwig Holland (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The 102nd floor observatory

Since the second observatory costs $14 more to visit, it'd be nice to read more about it before visiting. Xiner (talk, email) 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now $17 over the $23 to get to the 86th. (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


I am at odds with the wording in a caption, "a series of setbacks." This implies that something hampered the construction thus causing the building to narrow with height. Aren't those terraced as opposed to setbacks? IvoShandor 07:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the "In pop culture" section is absolutely ghastly. IvoShandor 07:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No, setback is also an architectural term referring to a wall whose face recedes in a series of steps, each known as a setback. The caption is wikilinked to an article on the subject (maybe that was added since you asked your question here - I don't know). Barnabypage 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, thanks for the response, I actually found that out on my own in the meantime. : ) As for that In pop culture section . . . IvoShandor 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


The figure "2,500 feet of wire" seems implausibly low - anyone got a source? Barnabypage 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed, I was just about to report the same. At that number, the wire could hardly go from the ground floor to the top and back. I think this should be removed until someone finds something that can be backed up. Jrmski 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Done Jrmski 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


The picture of the worker welding bolts on to the girder is obstructing the text. I would go fix it myself but since i don't know how wiki works it i would probably make a mess of it, can someone fix it?

I moved it down further in that section. I think it's due to how the browsers render it when the text is compressed by the info box on narrow widths (I could reproduce your problem in Firefox). Let me know if that didn't fix it for you. --Claygate 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fine now thanks.

Comparison Image

Click image for list of items included

Greetings, I created the comparison image to the left, and I originally added it to this page in Feb 2007, only to have it removed because apparently it is "ridiculous".. Can I please have some opinions/comments? Apparently including arguably the most well known sci-fi spaceship makes the entire thing "ridiculous"? - Fosnez 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New version uploaded - opinions? Fosnez 12:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

love it! Cramyourspam (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Trivia Section

It seems about half of the Trivia section is media related information. Someone should make a new section called References in Media or something similar to start removing the Trivia Section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio comment

Z100 is located on the top of the empire state Building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


can someone change the main picture cos its pretty poor. its blurry and only contains a section of the building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Empire still.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Empire still.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What are the floors between 85 and 102 used for?

I've heard several stories from different people about what the floors in the metal tower are used for presently and in the past. Everything from private offices, to penthouse apartments to transmission equipment storage. One man, who is from NYC, says he's actually seen into one of the upper floors and it was decorated like a luxury apartment. He was on his way to 102 when someone got off on that level.

If anyone has accurate information on this topic I'd love to hear it. Even better if you know what the upper floors were originally intended to be used for back in 1931. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask this same question. Come on, somebody answer! Fletcher (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Haven't you read the late Philip Jose' Farmer's book Doc Savage: His Apocalyptic Life? That luxury apartment is where Doc Savage lives! (Excuse me while I go have my tongue pulled back from my cheek.) -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


I started a list of notable companies that have offices in the building. Surely there are more than Garuda Indonesia. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Info boxes?

I noticed there are now two info boxes and they recently got swapped so that the main one was moved down to architecture section. Currently it looks non-standard as the bulk of the information is in the bottom box. Should they be merged or reverted back to a previous state? --Claygate (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

classic facade?

I don't agree with the text that says the empire state has a classic facade? it doesn't at all, it has an art deco inspired facade (i.e. a form of decorative modernism). the more contemporary skyscrapers that serve as the counterpoint for this assertion are 'modernist' in appearance (or even 'post modernist'...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that as well and have updated it to say art deco. Fletcher (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no US visa and have no premission to enter Empire State Building, NYC. This is like commenting to Empire State Land Assocation, its real owner

The New York Daily newspaper played a game that "stealing" entire Empire State Building in 90 minutes, hand over to "Nelots Properties LTD." with false document to make register on authority of New York City estate. It has back to real owner within 24 hours. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustbeBPMF (talkcontribs) 17:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

9th or 12th tallest

The opening paragraph is confusing. It says it is the 9th tallest building in the world, then it says it is also the 12th tallest building in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these are right. The Empire State Building is actually the 17th tallest building in the world. The Kingkey Finance Tower is the 9th tallest, and The Jin Mao Tower is the 12th tallest.--Souvalou (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The other lift fall?

There were two other potentially disastrous incidents, not mentioned in the article. In 1995, there was a fire near the top. And not long after that, one of the lift-cables suddenly sheared, sending the lift plummeting almost the whole depth of the building. One safety system after another failed, and only the final backup managed to stop the car 200 feet from the ground. That would have been a bigger story, but there were no tourists on board, only two members of staff. ( (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

There was a lift plunge in the year 2000, that involved two of the tenants. It was scary for them, but they were OK. Not sure if it's worthy of inclusion in the article. Empire State Building elevator plunges 400 feet --claygate (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Second-largest office building?

According to this article, the Empire State Building is the second largest office building in the United States:

"As of 2007, approximately 21,000 employees work in the building each day, making the Empire State Building the second-largest single office complex in America, after the Pentagon."

But was this determination made based on average occupancy or based on rentable square footage? If we are speaking of the latter (which is far more customary as the term "largest" would suggest), then that title correctly goes to 233 South Wacker Drive in Chicago. If it is rather the former, then "most-populous" would be a far less misleading attribution in this context. --RKrause (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement is almost certainly untrue. By square footage, the Willis Tower, the MetLife Building, and the Time Warner Center are all significantly larger and would presumably hold many more employees. If no one can provide a reference to it, then we should probably cut it. --Jleon (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Article organization

Amazing that you can read three paragraphs into the article and not learn just how tall, objectively, the Empire State Building is. We learn about its rankings against other buildings, but not its objective height. Once upon a time, the height of a thing known for being tall would have been included in the first sentence - it's not hard to work in. If I knew it, I'd edit - but I came here specifically to find that information.

I suppose it's in some sidebar or something somewhere. The number of stories in the building is in the first sentence - so somebody once knew something about its height. One can then estimate its height - but that seems ridiculous.

Anyone know how tall the thing is? Okay - I'm through being facetious, I'll go find the information elsewhere, but I'm not going to read more than a screen here, to find the info.~~-- (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)LeValley

This criticism is to be taken seriously. Much of the most essential information is in an infobox (kind of a sidebar) way down the page (Architecture section). It belongs much closer to the top. Let's see what can be done about that. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. It should be much better now. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Worlds most known building

Of all the buildings in the world, you can easily say that the Empire State Building is the most known. At one time it was the tallest and most popular skyscraper on Earth. Fortunately it is still very popular and it is one of the reasons why The greatest city in the world gets thousands or maybe even millions of tourists a year. Don't ever think of the Empire State Building as a boring building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the structural engineer

Under the "Design and Construction" section, there is no mention of the structural engineer Homer "H.G." Balcom. This can be referenced both through his obituary [1] and through this article [2].

It would also be nice to have his company "H.G. Balcom and Associates" listed under "companies involved" in the info box. Thanks Mskidz (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What's stopping you from doing it? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The page is semi-protected, and I have not edited other pages so I can't :( Mskidz (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I just click on my reference links, but they did not seem to work. Reference 1 is his obituary:,454601 Reference 2 is an article in Structure Magazine:

As I am locked from editing, I would appreciate it if someone could add him into the article. Thanks. Mskidz (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename the paragraph on the Opening -- to -- Empty State Building

The Empty State Building would be a more catching and still correct title for the paragraph ...

This especially true as currently the new tower in Dubai is being derided as a folly ..

Didn't the Empire State Building quickly go into bankruptcy ??

posted April 26, 2010 ??

No it did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


In June 2010 the Empire State Building was involved in a controversy concerning lighting the building in honor of Mother Theresa’s 100 birthday which is to be celebrated in August 2010. The owner of the building Anthony Malkin said that as a privately owned building they are the sole deciders of who the building will be lit for. This refusal was taken by many to be an anti Catholic action as it appears to be inconsistent with previous lightings.Maithcraic (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to CNN article on the issue - — MrDolomite • Talk 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mattmillr, 26 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the Fim heading, change:

  • In the film Knowing ... the Empire State Building can be seen crumbling into oblivion by the wall of flames.


  • In the film Knowing ... the Empire State Building can be seen crumbling as it is engulfed by the wall of flames.

In the original version, "into oblivion" is unnecessary, and it doesn't make sense to "crumble by" something.


Mattmillr (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, see the diff twilsonb (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Link fix

Link 18 in the article has 404'd & needs replacement, but I don't know where to find an equivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Link updated. Can be further updated to go directly to thumbnail images, but there is a link to them on the existing web page that might suffice. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


I think that this article is missing a little. it fails to mention that Jacob Rastob wanted to build a tower as tall is they could build it! he hired Lamb to design it.

it needs to be elaborated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talkcontribs) 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this really important for the introduction?

"9/11 Commission reported that the original plan for the September 11 attacks called for the hijacking of ten planes, one of which was to be crashed into the Empire State Building." It seems relevant enough for the article, that's for sure, but looking at the big picture of the history and importance of the building, it just doesn't seem like introduction material. -- (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


The colour red-yellow-red on The Empire is not the spanish flag during the 2010 FIFA World Coup when Spain won it? -- (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What does it cost to become a 'lighting partner'?

Really curious about this. I downloaded the application and it makes no mention of a fee. Would just calling and asking them be considered 'original research'?

One post I found on some blog said that there is a $1 fee, which might make sense for your average non-profit (the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, etc), but there is listed also "filming" (which I assume is when a filmaker wants particular colors for their movie), and also "private lighting" (which sounds to me like daddy's little girl wants her wedding colors immortalized), but who really knows? And so do we then assume that the ESB management does this out of the kindness of their heart?

Anyway, I think these are interesting questions, and when a brief googling didn't turn up the answers, I came here. Are these really such closely-held secrets that nothing's ever been published about them? (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Are wheelchairs allowed on the 86th floor observatory? What about the 102nd floor observatory? -- (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

the 86th floor is wheelchair accessible with ramps. you might also be able to get a chair up the elevator to the 102nd, but you wont be able to see much out the windows while sitting down. (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

List in "Floodlights" section is highly unneccessary and has been removed

This added too much unnecessary information. It is important for the reader to know that the floodlights do change colors on different occasions, but to add a long list is going overboard, so I removed it. If you have a problem with this please feel free to reply so we can work something out. I definitely do not think it should be left as is. Cadiomals (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why leave Microsoft, with a paragraph of its own? Doesn't that only encourage fresh accumulation? Hertz1888 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll remove anything that is specific. Thanks for letting me know. Cadiomals (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


In the section referring to the suicides of the Empire State building, when talking about Evelyn Hale, the section calls her a nut. "The chick was a nut," to be exact. I am going to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Moscow University

The Moscow University Building mentioned in this text is usually cited as being based on William Kendall's Municipal Building, not the ESB. Unless anyone objects/has more specific info., I'll delete that phrase. JN (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Elvita Adams? This sounds made-up. Remove? NO. It's referenced.

The reference for this "fact" is a dubious website, to say the least. Google searches for "Elvita Adams" yielded virtually nothing except this page being reproduced on other websites (sadly, quite a few). Other repeated google searches brought up nothing as well. There is virtually no credible source on this matter, and quite frankly it sounds physically very unlikely. I VOTE TO REMOVE THIS, and if anyone else agrees, then feel free to delete it.

Not that it's necessary, but for anyone interested:

Thanks for reading, and let's try to get some integrity to this article!-- 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)M.

Some other accounts say she was blown back onto the 85th-floor ledge, which is more believable, since the ledge is further out than the observation deck [3]. Also this source seems to concur that two survived: [4]. Perhaps it should at least be edited to mention the more believable ledge angle. It's one of those trivia facts anyway so agree that it would be OK to remove it or move to a "trivia" section. --Claygate 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That's right. The 86th floor is the observation deck, and all she may have done is falling down onto the protuding 85th floor. Not worth mentioning, is it?

Link to NY Times December 3, 1979. The name of the woman is not shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I VOTE TO KEEP IT Ashley Lloyd Smith of Comfortism - a theatre company Derby, UK

The article I read of this link gives her name and address (the apartment she was being kicked out of) You need to pay for the whole article, about $3 I think.

There is also an article on her with a photograph in Jet, a Black News Review yearly magazine I think.

A quick Google is not research! This is little better but I think it confirms the story. Go to the website on my show about her for more details.

(but thanks for this anyway as it gets into my show when Elvita denies the possibility of there being another jumper who survived. "Thomas Helm? Sounds made up to me. Don't believe all the s*** you read on Wikipedia. I've certainly voted to have it removed!") —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference for it: The Empire State Building Book, Jonathan Goldman, St. Martin's Press, 1980, p.63. And as someone stated above, she landed on a ledge on the 85th floor and fractured her hip. A guard heard her moaning and pulled her to safety. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the December 1977 Empire State Building Suicide attempt. The man's name was John Helms not Thomas Helms as stated above. Here's a link to an AP article written by Malcolm Carter that appeared in the Dec. 24th St. Petersburg Times,72901 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrawn67 (talkcontribs) 07:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

103 floors

I’m not just changing it because the profile of this article makes me think there must be more to it. But why does the intro and info box say 102 floors instead of 103 floors? The article mentions the 103rd floor further down, as do the following sources:

MJBurrage(TC) 12:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. That so-called "103rd floor" appears to be merely a platform for the salt-shaker thingy atop the building. Lots of buildings have roof access, which is what this essentially is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The section about broadcast stations mentions a 103rd floor observation deck, but I don't think that is accurate. There may be access to the roof of the 102nd floor observation deck, but I would not call that an observation deck as well. (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Officially, the Empire State Building does have a 103rd floor which is a private observation deck for celebrities and special guests. It should be labeled as such on the page.Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs more information on what the building is actually used for, besides tourism

From reading the article, you could get the impression that this is a big tall building that has a lot of history, gets a lot of visitors, and occasionally people jump off it. Almost at the end there's a "list of notable tenants", which is the only clue that it's also used for everyday building-like purposes.

How many tenants are there? What general categories of function do they perform? What do they pay in rent? Do any of them have whole floors, or several, to themselves? I'm not asking these questions saying someone has to answer them point by point; they're just suggestions of general categories of information that it might be nice to add to the article, if anyone has the information. --Trovatore (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is, is that it is all borderline trivia. -- MisterShiney 19:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 July 2013

Note number 67 "Ten Things Not To Do In New York City" should be removed as it is a very outdated review that is not relevant anymore. There are items cited in the article it links to that no longer exist. Scaasi3 (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: If you can find an alternative source that supports the relevant passage, that source can be replaced. In the meantime, it's needed to provide a reference for the text as written. Rivertorch (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do I need to provide a new note to replace that one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaasi3 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you just link the new source here, I or someone else will be happy to swap it in. Btw, please sign your talk page posts by typing four consecutive tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit window. Rivertorch (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please use this instead: Thanks so much for your help! Scaasi3 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The page you linked is not a reliable source and does not support the content (about lines) that the current reference supports. Rivertorch (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2013

I had previously asked if note # 67 on the Empire State Building Wikipedia page could be removed as the information is outdated. I received a response that I didn't fully understand and I am unable to find the chain. Do I need to replace the note with something else or can it simply be removed? Thank you. Scaasi3 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Scaasi3 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if my response was unclear. It may be that I misunderstood your question. I don't know what you mean when you say you can't find "the chain" (what chain?) and I'm not sure which note you're asking about—the footnote (i.e., reference or citation) in the article or the "note" (i.e., edit request) you left on this talk page. If the former, the short answer is no: the reference should remain until it is replaced by another, more up-to-date reference. If the latter, the answer is also no: edit requests generally should not be removed once someone has responded to them. (If I'm still not being clear, change the template parameter back to "yes" at the top of this section and we'll let someone else have a go.) Rivertorch (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Empire State Building in pop culture

There needs to be a page on Wikipedia about the Empire State Building appearing in movies,tv shows,video games,and comic books called The Empire State Building in Pop Culture. (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)by Jacob Chesley24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Build cost

Hi. Under the Design and construction section is states it cost $24.7 million to build. Under the Architecture section is says it cost $40,948,900 to build. Which is correct please? --JetBlast (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why remove my contribution?

I put it in "In popular culture" section and someone removed it. I think it's okay to put it there.

The reason given for its removal, in an edit summary on 29 June, was "Removal of incorrect building identification: writer meant the Chrysler building, not the Empire State Building." Hertz1888 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you're gonna be a nitpicker... EEng (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Empire State Building floor count include the 103rd floor?

Should the floor count of the Empire State Building include its 103rd floor?

Comment: It is going to be difficult for those not familiar with previous discussions to provide a sensible answer here. Can someone please provide a link to sources supporting the position that (a) the building has 103 floors, and (b) the building doesn't have 103 floors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No. WP editors are not allowed to present original research. Reliable sources galore, including two of the most authoritative (CTBUH and Structurae), give the standard floor count as 102. Lots of buildings have additional levels (penthouses, mechanical rooms, etc.) that do not figure into the standard floor count. (The CTBUH source is currently ref. #6, the Structurae source is found in the External links.) Hertz1888 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Of course what you are saying is correct, but technically there is a 103rd floor. Just because it is not a legitimate floor accessible by the public doesn't mean it's not a real floor. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
No one is denying its existence or reality. However, there is an accepted system in place for specifying and comparing the heights of tall buildings, by which ESB is a 102-story building. That is well-sourced, and that is what must continue to govern this article. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"there is an accepted system in place for specifying and comparing the heights of tall buildings, by which ESB is a 102-story building. That is well-sourced, and that is what must continue to govern this article". Um, no. Unless you can cite a source that applies this 'system' to the ESB specifically, it would constitute WP:OR to use it to arrive at a result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to be taking into account the concept of a standard as an accepted way. The real OR would be in stating the number of stories for ESB based on other considerations, and contrary to the preponderance of reliable sources. That would invite doing the same for all other buildings with pages on WP. The short answer to the original question is still "no". Hertz1888 (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Um, no. Regardless of whether standards are 'accepted' or not (by whom?) we don't apply them - we let the sources we cite do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
We can label it as 102 in the beginning of the article, along with the floor count, and make a section "Above 102nd floor." You could find a lot of information on it based off the celebrities that have been up there. Also, we could say that the 103rd floor was originally a blimp landing. Leoesb1032 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Go for it—with proper sourcing (RS) for everything in that new section, of course. And please consider closing, very soon, this discussion that you opened. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment, "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days". The whole point of an RfC is to get input from people who have not previously been involved in discussions. So far, I seem to be the only 'outsider' to comment: closure at this stage would be inappropriate. And what's the hurry anyway? The ESB isn't going anywhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"The default duration of an RfC is 30 days ... editors may choose to end them earlier". An acceptable compromise has already been reached, it's perfectly fine for the OP to close this discussion if he wishes. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No. To me, a floor/storey implies something with a roof. This "103rd floor" is really just a platform. This, presumably, is the prevailing logic of all the reliable sources which give the official floor count as 102. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Leoesb1032 has informed me that I was mistaken about this point; the 103rd floor does have an indoor area, with a platform around it. Even so, the preponderance of reliable sources say that the building has 102 floors, so I stand by my !vote. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

YES Floors: 102 (103 including the former airship arrival level.)
Additionally-1,250 feet high, topped with a 102nd floor observatory and 103rd floor airship embarkation floor. source- Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 01:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes Hello. I have been invited by RfC bot and after taking a look at the website, in particular here it clearly says that there is 103 floors. As what would appear the official site says, that is what should be stated. Regardless of what editors feel is the definition of a "floor" when the website clearly states 103. Hope that clears up any misunderstanding. -- MisterShiney 19:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes per MisterShiney; -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC) (also a bot invitee)
  • Closure Well, I think we have reached a consensus through editing and discussion. The RfC should be closed now. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to restart the discussion, but I thought this might be of interest to those who participated in the RfC. Here's a nicely detailed account (with plenty of photos) of a tour, personally guided by the director of the Empire State Building Observatory. The tour includes a visit to the 103d floor (again, with plenty of photos) and a glimpse at what the writer calls "the capsule," reachable via stairs going *up* from 103. The writer indicates that "the capsule" is the very top of the original ESB (presumably the conical apex of the original tower, before the antenna mast was added). He doesn't specifically say so, but I got the impression that it's pretty cramped up there, and he doesn't refer to it as the 104th floor. One photo shows what does appear to be a rooftop metal hatch, accessible from inside "the capsule." Alas, the writer wasn't allowed up there for more photos.  :)

The skyscrapery goodness and interesting photos are quite near the beginning of the piece. (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Plane crash in mid-1960s

The 1945 crash seems to get all the attention, but wasn't there another one in c. 1965? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware. There is no listing for one, though I have seen 1965 erroneously used on a couple of things such as this photo on ebay. The chances of 2 B-25s crashing into the same building on the same month and date twenty years apart is unlikely.
I did search the FAA and newspapers 1960-1969 and I could not find a strike or incident of any kind during the 1960s involving an aircraft and the Empire State. There were several "20th Anniversary" articles in 1965, as well as another plane that hit the Manhattan Bank building in 1945, a month or so after the B-25 crash. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I also searched, in vain, before I posted my question. But I have a very distinct memory of seeing newspaper reports of just such a crash. I wasn't even alive in 1945, but I was alive in the early-mid 1960s and more than old enough to be reading papers by then. I swear I read this, and my parents were talking about it as well. Now, maybe I've muddled some details. Maybe it wasn't the ESB as such, but maybe it crashed into buildings not too far away, and the news reports mentioned the 1945 crash in their typical litany of similar disasters. It could have been anywhere between 1960 and 1967, but most likely between 1962 and 1965, I think. I won't rest till I track this down now. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
There were some events around the area and that time. There was a plane that made an emergency landing near it, I will research and get the details to you on your talk page. I too get OCD on issues like that :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake in my edit summary

I meant to say I changed "buildings" to "building's". Instead I said I changed "buildings" to "buildings". I apologize for that. Jesant13 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Length and width under Architecture

The Architecture contains lots of info about height and even wiring, but not the length and width? I've been searching for this. This site "Emporis" says that it's 424ft by 187ft, but I've never heard of that website. Quick websearch doesn't help. Original research based on photographs tells me that it's 346 feet wide. So I can't find reliable, agreeing sources, but I think this is important information. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosineP (talkcontribs) 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Emporis is a very authoritative and trustworthy site and organization. For what it's worth, my personal research using Google Earth matches their figures (that you quoted) within a few feet. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Added Emporis length and width figures to infobox. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Structure gets rather short shrift

The following statements are found about a far less structurally-significant building The buildings have a reinforced concrete structure with an exposed exterior aggregate and an integral finish of local gray granite exposed by sand blasting.

  • The tower has spandrel beams supporting ribbed slabs at each floor level.
  • The foundations of the two buildings in the complex are 3.5m in diameter and extend 20m down to the bedrock, 30m below street level.
  • The tower has a slip formed reinforced concrete core and perimeter columns tapering from three square meters at street level to one square meter at the top floors.

Were main construction joints between steel members welded, hot riveted or bolted in 1930? How was the steel frame originally protected against corrosion, and what is done to periodically verify the continuing integrity of the structure and its foundations? Has the building been analysed in recent decades for response to 100-year seismic events at Manhattan? Could the author add a figure for the extent of lateral sway at the uppermost floor during extreme winds?

I agree that relatively too much space is already allocated to incidents and references in pop culture. Resist pressure to expand these. The ESB's most extraordinary legacy is its actual construction - surely the new records its builders set were unbeaten for many decades? It could be mentioned that the rate of erection was 4 1/2 floors per week - an almost unbelievable statistic. Questor74 (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to your questions:
  • Were main construction joints between steel members welded, hot riveted or bolted in 1930? They were welded, just like in any other skyscrapers.
  • How was the steel frame originally protected against corrosion, and what is done to periodically verify the continuing integrity of the structure and its foundations? The stainless steel used in the building is inherently designed not to corrode.
  • Has the building been analysed in recent decades for response to 100-year seismic events at Manhattan? After the August 23, 2011 Virginia earthquake, yes...
  • Could the author add a figure for the extent of lateral sway at the uppermost floor during extreme winds? N/A (still have to find out)
There you go... Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Epicgenius's immediate answers to my enquiries about structural details and the construction process are not credible. Firstly, not all skyscraper structures are welded there was definitely a time when fusion welding was but a dream. I can point to may subsequent skyscrapers where HSFG bolting was relied upon for critical joints.
Stainless steel (300 series, austenitic) is not, and never was, a material used for the load-bearing members of building frames. Apart from its huge expense then as now, its low yield strength renders it fundamentally unsuitable. Questor74 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 4/27/14

The section that has the Empire State Building in Pop Culture needs more infomation put into it. For this, it probably should become its own page because of all the infomation. There are many more tv shows, movies, video games, ect that the Empire State Building has appeared in. I'll make a list below. -- (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

In Film
  • The building appears in the begining of The Muppets Take Manhattan. Later on in the movie, Kermit the Frog is on top of the building and yells that he's not giving up on his dream about "Manhattan Melodies".
  • The Empire State Building appears in The Day After Tommorow. It survives the massive storm surge that hits New York City. Later on in the film, the building freezes over after the temature drops and all its windows break.
  • On the movie poster for Deep Impact, the building appears. However, it dosen't appear in the movie at all.
In TV Shows
  • The Empire State Building has appeared many times on Futurama. Unlike most of Old New Yorks other buildings, it survived the alien invasions in 2308 and the later on in the Second Midevil Period. However, it's now poking out of the ground instead of being at street level.
I'll expand the list later! -- (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley
Responses and discussion

The practice here, emerging from past discussions and general WP policy regarding trivia, has been to exclude items that are not especially significant. There is no need to include every casual appearance and mention of the building. It suffices to give a few good, strong examples, and we already have more than enough of those. I oppose any expansion or separate page. Sorry. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty, the World Trade Center, and the Golden Gate Bridge all have their own pop culture pages, and there's a lot of infomation on those pages. So why can't the Empire State Building have its own pop culture page as well and these ones do? I mean seriously! The only thing that's needed is to cite sources of what films, books, video games, and tv shows the Empire State Building appeared in. :( -- (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley