Talk:List of tallest buildings by U.S. state and territory

Skyscrapers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

West Virginia is missing

The list leaves out West Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.100.108 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bumping this. Did people forget this was a state? 184.13.124.180 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorect Information

The Palazzo in Las Vegas at 642.01 ft is Clearly not the tallest building in Nevada, since the Stratosphere, also in Las Vegas, is 1149 ft tall (According to Wikipedia). So clearly some of the information on this page is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.226.118 (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stratoshpere is an observation tower and so does not qualify for this list. The criteria for the list and the methodology used for height measurements are in the article. If you have a problem with the criteria for the list feel free to start a discussion here with your thoughts. -- sdgjake (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Stratosphere not included but One World Trade Center is? Neither is fully habitable as the spire is the only reason OWTC reaches 1,776 feet. 63.239.65.11 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by this same metric in Massachusetts the Prudential Building would be the tallest (measured 276 meters to the top of it's antenna) not the John Hancock Tower/200 Clarendon (241 meters to rooftop). One can not straight facedly say the Prudential only counts to the top of it's roof when on this list we are clearly counting One World Trade Center to the top of it's antenna... Otherwise if we are looking at only roof top height then OWTC should be ranked second behind the Willis Tower/Sears Tower... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.92.172.57 (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the WTC spire is a spire, an architectural detail. On the prudential building, it's just an antenna. There's a difference. And, the stratosphere tower does not have habitable space from floor to roof like 1 WTC. Walkyo (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement

Not only is this article mathematically a mess (statistics don't add up)... but it's a direct copy of http://www.allaboutskyscrapers.com/tallest_state.html I'm going to do a bit of an overhaul to try and make that not the case, and update the statistics based upon reliable sources, remove the copyrighted text, and replace it with a few ideas. I went through and derived the building height/floors from referenced links or wiki articles. This is my first significant edit, so I hope you will be kind... and please help as much as you can! JeopardyTempest 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term building includes government building

The term building includes government buildings such as capitols and city halls, religious structures such as churches and cathedrals. However, it doesn't include TV masts and towers such as the Stratosphere Tower in Las Vegas.

I am not so sure about the tallest buildings in the following states: Maine, Vermont and Wyoming (I am just doing the best I can). I also can't find the year of completion of Qwest Tower in South Dakota. If you can find the information with valid sources, please feel free to update it.

I updated Maine based on http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=castreetdralofstreetimmaculateconception-portland-me-usa. Great page! kdogg36 01:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you the state capitol is not the tallest building in Wyoming, nonetheless Cheyenne. There are several buildings around the capitol that are taller. I have heard that the dormitories in Laramie are the tallest, but I can't back that up with any numbers at this time.

this would beg to differ.--Loodog 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that the Capitol is not the tallest per the SkyscraperPage diagram. It is either the dormitories in Laramie, as previously stated, or the First Interstate Bank Building in Casper. Rai-me 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a building?

This page is of little use since it ignores buildings that are taller then those listed. I'm almost tempted to put this to an AfD due to the errors. Someone working on this article really needs to fact check each entry. To not have the tallest building west of the Mississippi included just shows the lack of research used. Vegaswikian 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa. A nicely compiled page like this shouldn't be deleted because of some errors; the errors should be fixed. Could you cite a specific error in the article, which one could then remedy.--Loodog 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Nevada this list has the Wynn Las Vegas which is clearly not the tallest building. That is the Stratosphere Las Vegas. Also for the record, the Wynn is not in Las Vegas, Nevada it is in Paradise, Nevada so it would appear that entry has at least two errors. This article really needs sources to support the tallest moniker. Also the references need to be converted to use one of the cite templates to improve the format of the references section. Vegaswikian 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That did use to say Stratosphere Las Vegas. I don't know when it got changed. As for sources, they are cited whereever used.--Loodog 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we were to go to the references today, there is one like this which does not mention tallest. Then there are the 404 errors and the database errors. So many of the references are not linkable right now. When I looked earlier, many of the references seemed to support the hight but not being the tallest. I'd suggest using the cite templates and the quote option quoting the part that says this is the tallest for easy fact checking. Vegaswikian 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the errors! God I get so sick of people going on the discussion pages and pointing out all the errors and taking some sort of personal offense to them. If you have information (with evidence) that proives otherwise, fix it! But no, that requires work and research, so how about we just AofD the page right? In the amount of time it took you to gripe, you could have fixed everything and the page would have actually benefitted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by V8americanpower (talk • contribs)

The only reason I'm here was because of an error introduced in another article apparently from this list. It is up to the editors who are adding this stuff and have this article on their watch list to take care of these errors. The references here do not support the information presented as facts. Yes, I could clean this up, but I don't have the time. So I tagged the article so other editors will know that there are errors. Vegaswikian 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, entirely missed the discussion because I hadn't set the talk itself to watch. Didn't realize such important talk was ongoing.
I agree the page isn't anywhere near complete/perfected. It's amazing how little information is available on the internet for some of these buildings.
First off, Wynn's wikipedia page lists the structure as being in Las Vegas. Even Wynn's own webpage lists the address as

WYNN LAS VEGAS
3131 Las Vegas Blvd. South
Las Vegas, NV 89109

Additionally, a Yahoo/Google maps search indicates the address is in Las Vegas proper. Now, upon reading up on Paradise on the wiki article, I see why that is. Vegaswikian, I'm guessing you are local to the area. I'm still unsure whether we should use Paradise (and the other "cities") to indicate the location of these buildings, because it just breeds confusion (ie, I'm looking at the same reason why the post office uses Las Vegas for addresses). In addition, since the towns are unincorporated, they technically aren't in any city/town, and I believe they would thus be listed as unincorporated Clark county. However, perhaps a switch to the heading urban area would be better suited and clear up the confusion, and there could be a star indicating the actual locations of the buildings.

INTERRUPTION

Well, I think that we should use Paradise as the location of the buildings in the Las Vegas Area because it even though the Wynn and the Stratosphere is in the Las Vegas Area, it is not officialy in Las Vegas (Las Vegas Proper). If you look at the map of |Las Vegas on wikipedia, you can see that the Las Vegas Strip, where the Wynn, the Stratosphere Tower and all the other tourist attractions, casinos and hotels are, is not within the city limits of "Las Vegas" (Las Vegas proper), but is actually in Paradise. Now the reason why the address of the Wynn states that the municipality is Las Vegas could be because Paradise is an unincorporated municipality and perhaps the USPS (United States Post Office) addresses all unincorporated municipalities as "Las Vegas." But even though that the post office addresses the unincorporated municipalities as "Las Vegas" I think that we should use "Paradise" as opposed to "Las Vegas" because it is officialy "Paradise." That doesn't mean that when you go to Las Vegas (like in the Las Vegas Strip) you should say "I'm going to Paradise" because people won't know what you mean because most people would think of the Las Vegas Strip as "Las Vegas" not "Paradise." And that could be another reason why the USPS uses "Las Vegas" as opposed to "Paradise": because, well, most people have never heard of "Paradise," only "Las Vegas." Still, because it is a formal list, we should use "Paradise."

Oh yeah, and the references are bad, especially the last one. Even though the Wynn and the Stratosphere are famous, some people may not know exactly where they are if you just said "urban area": it's too broad. You might as well just put "Las Vegas." And, like I said earlier, it is a formal list and you can't have sloppy things like that. Also, about the "unincorporated Clark County." First of all, it's not really "unincorporated" Clark County. Even though the municipality is unincorporated, it doesn't mean that it is not in a municipality at all. For example, Texas has many counties, but not all the population lives within a municipality. For example, Loving County, Texas (smallest county in the United states population wise by the way; nothing relevant to this by the way) has 62 people living in of it as of the United States Census, 2000. Mentone, in Loving County, has 16 people living in it [it is the Loving County Seat, largest municipality of Loving County and is the only dot on the map in Loving County (I'm not kidding about this)]. So the other 46 people who don't live in Mentone (Loving County's only dot on the map) live in what's called unincorporated Loving County. But that goes for all counties. If it outside a the boundaries of a "place" (a city, town, village, township, municipality, unincorporated municipalities, CDPs, ect) it is called "unincorporated Loving county," or "unincorporated Clark County." So basically if you say that it is in unincorporated Clark County, you are basically saying that it is in the desert in the middle of nowhere.

So there you go. That is what I have to say.

-
The Stratosphere case caused significant consideration when I was updating this list a couple of months back. I recognize the structure is indeed tallest general building. However, the motivation for this was the Tallest_buildings article. There is significant debate over this issue at other websites. Because it isn't occupied except at the upper levels, I have to lean towards excluding the tower. Yes I recognize that this may similarly call into question the Maine (and SD) church. The problem is there isn't perfectly clear information on most building heights available, whether including habitable area or not. I'm more than happy to discuss which format this page should be in, but we need to reach some sort of standard so we can try and move forward. For now I'm going to change it back and add a footnote.
BTW, see the talk right above this one... the issue had been considered before!!!
-
The references aren't great, but they're something :-)
I still intend to clean this up when I get a bit more time, though anyone else is more than welcome. I'm not terribly familiar with alternate referencing formats. If there is a cleaner way that doesn't require the long list at the bottom, that would be great. Yes, there are still some references with shady information. However, particularly in the case of Qwest in SD, there is almost no info out there (there isn't even info on when it was completed!!!). I didn't want to axe the list because it is definitely useful, but needed to be reworked and majorly referenced to set it apart from the page it had stemmed from. JeopardyTempest 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits done, hopefully that clears some of this up.[br] Gotta leave the disputed tag up, as, indeed some information is still wrong/contested. Because of the clarification of tower vs. building, the Washington Monument needs to be replaced, as well as possibly some other buildings. Need reference for the Wynn, too.[br] Hopefully I'll be able to put together some pages for the final few buildings without them soon as well. Thanks for input!!! JeopardyTempest 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be acceptable references? Can we link to each state's page that exists on skyscraperpage.com? Nevada, West Virginia, etc. 70.62.40.253 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for lack of response, missed this... I would think skyscraper page is fine, though we've gotta be careful to go in and make sure they fit the criteria here. But otherwise, I think that looks good JeopardyTempest 09:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I COPIED ALL THE CONTENTS FROM THE "STURCTURE?" SECTION AND PASTED IT HERE. I THEN DELETED THE "STRUCTURE" SECTION BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED IN THIS SECTION RATHER THAN HAVING ITS OWN STRUCTURE. I DID 'NOT' DELETE OR CHANGE ANY CONTENTS THAT WERE ALREADY IN THE SECTION.

Would "Highest Occupied Structure" work (that does NOT include radio/tv masts free standing or wired?)-Wolfdog1 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

In my opinion, absolutely it would count as a building. If you are talking about observation towers such as the Seattle Space Needle, Reunion Tower, Tower of the Americas, the Sunsphere or Stratosphere Las Vegas then yes I think it would be classified as a building. Even though most of them have a lack of floors and most of them are mainly used as TV towers they can still be occupied. Now, as you said, that would NOT include structures such as chimneys/smokestacks, guyed masts, oil platforms, ect, only the towers that can be occupied. However, I have a very different point of view than other people about what the tallest buildings are. For example, I do include observation towers when most people don't and also I measure up to the tip of the antennae/spire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.29.227 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few pics

I think a few representative pics of the more prominent landmarks might be in order. I.e. the Washington Monument, Empire State Building, and Sears Tower.--Loodog 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Rhvanwinkle (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Monument?

If the Stratosphere Tower is not classified as a building, then this certainly should not be. Per SkyscraperPage, the tallest "building", excluding towers and other structures, would be the Old Post Office Building, not the Washington Monument. Rai-me 19:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this hasn't been answered, but I'm inclined to agree with you. The "methodology" section specifically states that "(n)on-freestanding structures, observational towers, and communication tower are excluded." Then, wouldn't this be hypocritical to include the Washington Monument and exclude The Stratosphere, the KVLY-TV mast (or any other mast in the northern Midwest, for that matter), or any other observation towers that could be taller than their habitable counterparts. I assume the "methodology" is correct, so I'm going to be bold and change that per Raime's suggestion and that section of the article. Please feel free to respond if you feel this is incorrect. Thanks! Eagles Fan In Tampa 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do topped out buildings count as the tallest in a state?

If yes, then the tallest building in Nevada needs to be changed to Trump Tower. If no, then Comcast Center needs to replaced with One Liberty Place for Pennsylvania. Rai-me 19:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

No, topped out buildings would not count as the tallest in a state in my opinion. The reason why is because the building is not even completed. When it is completed though, then you can say it is the tallest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.29.227 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Comcast Center is finished, isn't it? 71.193.162.77 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect entry for Wyoming

Wyoming's tallest building is not the capitol in Cheyenne, but rather a residence hall at the University of Wyoming campus in Laramie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.49.41 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: The White Hall in Laramie is the tallest building in Wyoming.

I had always heard White Hall was the tallest, but don't have a canon source to pull from. The current source for McIntyre being the tallest is completely worthless as of today - there is no information about building height on the Emporis site (other than number of floors and both White and McIntyre have 12). I will check to see if I can find an official source about the tallest building. Bdevoe (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: The Laramie River Station (http://www.basinelectric.com/Electricity/Generation/Laramie_River_Station/) is 225 feet tall. Is it occupiable space? The infrastructure built around the boiler has floors all the way up that people work on, an elevator and stairs, and the roof is accessible. Wouldn't this qualify as occupiable space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared.kail (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check Vermont

How is it that the tallest building in VT is listed as the Montpelier City Hall in Burlington? Sorry, I don't know what the tallest is, but maybe some building lover from Vermont can enlighten us. Thanks.75.164.165.15 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it; the Montpelier City Hall is obviously in Montpelier, not Burlington. But I am fairly sure that there is a taller building in Burlington (the City Hall is only 4 stories) - I will look into it. Cheers, Rai-me 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now the tallest building in Vermont is listed as the Bennington Battle Monument. Does this count as a building? After all, it is an obelisk. 71.193.162.77 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can count this as a building then you should have the Washington Monument for DC.

The tallest building in Vermont that's actually a building is probably either North Barre Manor (http://www.barrehousingauthority.com/NorthBarreManor.html) in Barre, VT or Decker Towers (http://www.burlingtonhousing.org/article/articleview/1538/1/105/) in Burlington. Both of those are 11 stories tall. In the 80s there was a proposal for a 14-story building in Montpelier, but it never materialized. 209.194.3.56 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this entry to list Decker Towers, since the Bennington monument is not a building according to the page's own terms: "Only continuous occupiable space is included." Unfortunately, there is a dearth of information about Vermont architecture. I have found city council documents that refer to the height of this 11-story building as "100 Feet," though a posting on the House of LeMay (only in Vermont do can you get serious data from a site run by drag queens) seems more credible. It states that it's 124 feet [1]. I cannot find information on North Barre Manor, which is also 11 stories, nor can I find the date the structure was built.

- According to this document from Vermont environmental court: (http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/gtc/Environmental/ENVCRT%20Opinions/ecrt101701domsj.pdf) North Barre Manor got its building permits in 1979/1980 and is listed as 98 feet high, so it is probably correct to say that Decker Towers is the taller of the two. 209.194.3.56 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

The Columbia Center is listed as 937 ft (285 m) here, but 967 ft (295 m) on its own article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.174.167 (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: two different heights are used for different places. "937 ft" is used by Emporis, the List of tallest buildings by U.S. state and the List of tallest buildings in Seattle; and "932 ft" is used by SkyscraperPage and Columbia Center. I think we should go with 937 feet. The main reason for my choice is because Emporis uses it. Does anyone else have an opinion on which height should be used? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "proposed" WMFA Tower, Brattleboro, VT

I saw this interesting building listed on this page while looking up something else regarding buildings. Being from the state, I thought it fairly strange that any 40-story building was being proposed in Vermont, much less in a small city such as Brattleboro. I took it upon myself to look up the regulations in the town and found the following:

Brattleboro Zoning Ordinances, Section 2.348 (d)(i.)(a) - The maximum height of any new structure in this district is sixty (60) feet. [2]

That, along with the fact that a Google search turned up nothing but forums and this article - the slightest whisper of such a project would generate mainstream headlines not just in Vermont but probably throughout New England - leads me to believe that this "proposition" is nothing but.

If someone wants to surf over and review the years of development board proposals etc. to see if such a project was filed, go ahead. I certainly am not about to. Raj Fra 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but in fairness, cities tend to throw height restrictions out the window when they get a proposal.--Loodog (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having dug up many of the proposed buildings over time, it is surprisingly hard to get information usually... there's commonly nothing on Google... JeopardyTempest (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with West Virginia numbers

There's no way that both West Virginia numbers can be mathematically correct; either the feet or meters is wrong (or maybe both). Can someone with knowledge of the situation please correct that height? Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Emporis, the building listed was not even the state's tallest; although the West Virginia State Capitol article states otherwise, Emporis lists the capitol building at 292 feet (89 m) and the Kanawha Valley Building, which was previously listed as the tallest in the state, at 238 feet (73 m). I have changed the numbers accordingly. Cheers, Rai•me 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Alright, that makes more sense now - thanks for clearing that up! matt91486 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LARGEST BUILDING IN TEXAS

MCDERMOTT BUILDING AT USAA SAN ANTONIO TX OVER 4MILLION SQ FT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.104.150 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not rank buildings by area or volume. Only the tallest buildings in each state are included. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota or Denver?

Under South Dakota it lists the tallest building as the Qwest Tower in Sioux Falls. However, the link (above) goes to a building in Denver. How can this be? 71.193.162.77 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that; the link should have pointed to Qwest Tower (Sioux Falls). I just fixed it. Cheers, Rai•me 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rai•me. Too bad that the link doesn't go to a real page though. 71.193.162.77 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Crown Las Vegas?

If the Crown Las Vegas was canceled, it should be removed from "Upcoming/proposed tallest buildings", shouldn't it? 71.193.162.77 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Yes. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed it. 71.193.162.77 (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New tallest building for Nevada

Does anyone know if the Encore Las Vegas has been finished and what the final height of the building was? If taller than Wynn Las Vegas (614ft) and Trump International Hotel and Tower (Las Vegas) (620ft?) it would become the tallest building in Nevada. Rhvanwinkle (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is finished and it is 631 ft tall according to Emporis, which would make it the tallest building in Nevada. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. Emporis says it's the tallest building in Nevada. I have made the necessary changes to the page.Rhvanwinkle (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rhvanwinkle, for changing that. I have an entry on the talk page of Encore Las Vegas that nobody has responded to yet. Could you? 67.171.172.44 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The strastophere is the tallest building in Nevada, it is the tallest building west of the Mississippi River. Fix it Wikipedia. Dustin3334444 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The strastosphere tower isn't a building, it's a structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkyo (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect entry for Utah

The Wells Fargo Center (Salt Lake City) is two feet taller than the LDS Church Office Building. Any objections? [3] [4] Ryan spencer (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. No objections from me. sdgjake (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina is not accurate. A new building is now the tallest. go to this website for information on the building which is 373 feet tall. http://www.prysmianusa.com/archive/highlight/Abbeville_2009.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.228.233 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible incorrect entry for Missouri

There has been a strong argument towards the inclusion of observation towers, such as the Stratosphere, and monuments, such as the Washington Monument. If towers and monuments are to be included in this list, then Missouri's entry is incorrect. The Gateway Arch, at 630 feet, is taller than One Kansas City Place, 623 feet roof height or 628 feet to top of spire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.227.118 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, DC tallest building

First, the tallest building in the District of Columbia can't be the Washington Monument because it's an uninhabited structure (the Bennington Battle Monument isn't on this list as the tallest building in Vermont). Second, I don't know what exactly the tallest building is. I was thinking it should be the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, but that it also uninhabited in the upper levels. The Old Post Office Pavilion is a possible candidate. What do you think is Washington's tallest building? —Reelcheeper (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember going on a tour of Arlington cemetery sometime ago and hearing the guide say that by law no building in DC could be taller than the dome of the capitol. - Marc Averette (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that law must have been broken because the National Shrine, Old Post Office, and Washington National Cathedral are all taller than the Capitol. I just don't know which one is the correct type of building to make it onto this list. —Reelcheeper (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He must have meant that they couldn't construct any buildings taller than the capitol. The ones that are already there are obviously 'grandfathered' in. - Marc Averette (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late to the discussion but no, there is no law that mandates that buildings cannot be any taller than the Capitol Dome. The height act passed by Congress in 1910 uses a formula based on the width of the adjacent street. Some structures, like the Old Post Office were grandfathered in since they were completed before the act took effect. The National Shrine and Cathedral are exempt because they are, as Reelcheeper noted, uninhabited in the upper levels. The Act specifically exempts towers, domes, steeples, and other uninhabited architectural features. My question is, however, why is the Basilica not the highest structure? Though the dome is uninhabited, I have to believe that the dome of the West Virginia capitol building is also uninhabited. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Empire World Towers.jpg

The image File:Empire World Towers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One World Trade Center is now New York's tallest

Someone needs to replace the Empire State Building as it has officially been surpassed. Rhatsa26X (talk) 14:24, 06 June, 2012 (CDT)

South Carolina Has New tallest building since 2009

I changed it and had it correct but couldn't get the photo to take (said I needed to login) and hold so I didn't save the changes. Here is the information for someone to change it.

Abbeville is the location of the tallest building in South Carolina, the Prysmian Copper Wire Tower. Built in 2009, the tower is 373 ft (106 m) tall and has 30 floors

^ Prysmian unveils nation's first extra-high voltage cable plant, state's tallest building in Abbeville. GSA Business. Retrieved 2011-01-02. (WEBSITE IS BELOW)

http://www.gsabusiness.com/news/31305-prysmian-unveils-nation-s-first-extra-high-voltage-cable-plant-state-s-tallest-building-in-abbeville?rss=0

Here is a Photo weblink---- http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54994876

Thanks in advance for the correct information.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.158.208 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D.C.

So Washington D.C. is now absent from the list. Though it is not a state and therefore does not belong here, or what? Also, Puerto Rico entry might be an useful add to the article. List of tallest structures in the United States has them both listed. 85.217.14.230 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change in tallest building in Idaho

US Bank building is no longer the tallest building in Idaho. Zions Bank Idaho is now the tallest building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.2.65 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Building in Mississippi

I could use some help deciphering what is in fact the tallest building in Mississippi. There are 3 possibilities:

The stats listed for the Beau Rivage on both SkyscraperPage and Emporis may be inaccurate. I've stayed at the Beau Rivage and I'm nearly certain it wasn't 32 floors. This inaccuracy was previously suggested on the talk page for the Beau Rivage. Bmhs823 (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found additional note regarding this debate. Moved to this section to consolidate discussion. See below: Bmhs823 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter how many numbered floors are in the building, just how tall the various parts are, tip, roof, etc. I don't see any reason to doubt Emporis on the topic, they seem to have this subject pretty well covered. I'm sure if IP felt they were the tallest, they would have something published to dispute it since it is somewhat of a marketing point. They don't make the claim anywhere on their website that I can find, but Beau Rivage does and has annual rappelling, making the "tallest building in the state" claim.[5] As an aside, The FAA's digital obstruction file lists Beau Rivage as 362' AGL / 370' AMSL and IP Casino as 329' AGL / 341' AMSL. The numbers won't match Emporis, because a building's official height is not measured based on sea level or apparently even on ground level, but if you were in an airplane, at 350 feet above mean sea level, you'd hit Beau Rivage and not IP casino. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dual Freq. Thanks for the input! I'm not sure if a plane flying into the building was the best illustration to use, but your argument is sound. Additionally, I think I was getting thrown off by the double-floor windows bays used in façade of the Beau Rivage. That being said, I think the debate is now settled. I'll update the corresponding talk pages to reflect this determination. Bmhs823 (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missippippi tall building

It's wrong, I heard from a source that a hotel in Tunica County was the tallest. Could anyone please fix this? ~A friendly guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.218.232 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Tallest hotel tower in MS, when it was built in 1994, but not now. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest buildings by U.S. state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb210/is_200608/ai_n18036755
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514100716/http://gravityscript.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/gravityscript.js to http://gravityscript.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/gravityscript.js
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://st2008.trincoll.edu/~jtarzi/IMG_2771.JPG

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... so what is the tallest building in Wyoming?

According to this article, it is White Hall, a dorm at the university. Oddly, the reference brings up data for McIntire Hall, a different building which is nearby.

USA Today (usually a somewhat reliable source I guess) says White Hall is the tallest at 200 feet. Ditto this guy, although that's just a blog. Radio Station KGAB says the same thing.

I don't buy it. In Google Street View, all of these dorms look identical to me. White Hall doesn't look any different, or taller, than McIntire hall or any of the others. (It is possible that by happenstance or design White or one of the other buildings is a few feet taller than the others -- but I haven't seen anybody say that.)

FWIW, this website doesn't give an opinion, but says it is only 146.37 feet tall (and gives the same 146.37 feet for McIntire Hall). I have no idea how reliable Emporis is.

OK, then here we have a site called "24 Wall Street" (whoever they are) that says the tallest building is the Wyoming Financial Center in Cheyenne, at 148 feet and 11 stories high.

But then this radio station website says the Wyoming Financial Center is only 134 feet tall. But the state capitol is 146 feet (that makes it a negligible 4.5 inches shorter than the Emporis value for White Hall).

But then OK, the Casper Star-Tribune has this article] which says

Many have heard it said that McIntyre Hall, which stands 12 stories tall at the University of Wyoming, is the tallest building in Wyoming. Well, many have heard wrong. The tallest building in Wyoming is, at 24 stories, the Jim Bridger Power Plant in Sweetwater County, according to "Wyoming Almanac" by Phillip Roberts, David Roberts and Steven Roberts.

The problem is, are they counting the stacks? Smokestacks don't count. "Wyoming Almanac" sounds official but it may be just a website run by the Roberts boys -- I don't know. The masthead says "History and opinion, by Phil Roberts", so dunno about that.

here's some pictures of the Jim Bridger plant. Even aside from the stacks, those non-stack structures look tall -- but I don't know if they are "buildings" (if they're just full of pipes and stuff and not regularly occupied, they don't count), and "looks tall" isn't really helpful.

And indeed these random insomniacs say that the Jim Bridger plant data does refer to the stacks. Well that's it for me, I might as well ask my Uncle Dwight at this point.

I am surprised the the Internet, which knows many things, is not able to answer the question "what is the tallest building in Wyoming", but it doesn't seem able to. Since it doesn't, and the correct answer may not be known, let's leave it as "unknown" or "disputed" or something or just leave it blank. Hopefully someone reading this has some solid data. Herostratus (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody stuck it back in anyway. It's not worth continually fighting over I guess. It's just one those things that "everybody knows" -- probably incoming freshman are told it by upperclassmen and have been since time long past -- that probably isn't actually true. I would prefer that we not repeat urban legends to our readers as fact, but oh well. Herostratus (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it should be the US Bank Building in Cheyenne, since our official site (http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/compare-data/submit?type%5B%5D=building&status%5B%5D=COM&base_region=0&base_country=163&base_city=0&base_height_range=0&base_company=All&base_min_year=1885&base_max_year=9999&comp_region=0&comp_country=0&comp_city=0&comp_height_range=0&comp_company=All&comp_min_year=0&comp_max_year=2018&skip_comparison=on&output%5B%5D=list&dataSubmit=Show+Results) has it at 148 feet, 11 floors... while it doesn't have a height for White Hall, but Emporis lists it at 146 ft. Definitely another one of these obnoxious messes. JeopardyTempest (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. MSN (here) concurs. It calls this structure the Wisconsin Financial Center, but the photo shows that it is the same building. MSN describes their source as "24/7 Wall St. compiled a list with data from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat." Whether that's the same as the Skyscraper center you cited I'm not sure.

Hmmmm... this article says White Hall is 200 feet tall, but there's no ref. But maybe they got that figure from our University of Wyoming article, which says "At twelve stories and 200 feet, White Hall is the tallest building in the state of Wyoming". But the only ref for that is Runstairs, an (apparently) one person site run by someone who aims to run up the stairs of the tallest building in each state. He gives (here) a list of these buildings, with White Hall given as the tallest at 200. One-person website, not very reliable, although we can assume he's put some effort into researching this stuff.

But wait. On another page on Runstairs, there's a page (here) specifically for just White Hall. And here the guy says it's 134 feet tall. So not only is this source unreliable, it contradicts itself.

However, there is also the KAGB website saying 200 feet. But I mean, a local radio station.

I think "undetermined" might be best. But if we must make a call, it looks to me like:

White Hall is claimed to be 200 tall, but it probably isn't. It's probably 146.37 feet tall. Or maybe just 134.
If White Hall was 200 feet tall, it would be the tallest building in Wyoming. But it isn't, and it's not.
The tallest building is probably a building which may be named the US Bank Building or the Wyoming Financial Center (or maybe both), which is probably 148. I say probably because one source (another radio station) says its's 134 feet. But I think they're wrong.

I mean White Hall is only 1.63 feet shorter than the US Bank building. They could put a hamster cage on the roof and it's be taller. But they haven't. (As far as I'm concerned the Jim Bridger Power Plant is excused from the room (you have to love Wyoming; anywhere else a complex that impressive would be called the James M. Bridger Power Plant)).

It's probably that bank building. But I don't know what its name is: US Bank Building or Wisconsin Financial Center or whatever. Hell, maybe it's called the Jim Bridger Bank Center by now. Once we get that figured out we can change the article. Herostratus (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the building is called both things, Wyoming Financial Center and U.S. Bank building. I have changed the article accordingly. Herostratus (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. With all the complexity to it (and lack of anything official from CTBUH (which is the skyscrapers sight I linked to), I'm thinking the inline disputed tag fit pretty well, and would invite more consensus/conversation before choosing, given we apparently don't get any "official" input. For all the newspaper articles and such, I don't trust them as deriving their info from any more established sources than we have. And I believe I've seen Emporis overruled before, though when first organizing this page a decade ago, used them quite a bit. In the end... CTBUH needs to get to Laramie :-p JeopardyTempest (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of tallest buildings by U.S. state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Tallest Building

It appears that the owner, Andrew Knight, came through and changed his building to the tallest in Maine. He altered our methodology section. However, as far as I can see it, despite his bias, it seems a valid edit, given the rules listed on List_of_tallest_buildings and CTBUH suggest our previous criteria was inconsistent (indeed, we accepted One World Trade, seems we would also accept churches).

Still, given the bias of the editor, I wanted to put it out there for consideration. He definitely went about it the wrong way.

Additionally, his building is not listed on CTBUH, so it gives it additional trouble. However, it appears we had long since included the church as a footnote, so it does have some standing.

Plus, he added owner category, likely to further his name. Yet it seems a useful category.

Not a helpful edit, but not sure what we wish to do with it, given its usefulness.

Any additional thoughts welcome. JeopardyTempest (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the updating, I'm more in favor of removing the owners than ever. It takes up a lot of space that would be better for the previous names and any other info we want to include... I found at least one that was incorrect (but forgot which by the time I went to edit it)... and it will be additional effort to keep track of, yet not interesting to too many people. I'm certainly up for reconsidering if others wish, but as of now feel it's an unnecessary column just to get the guy's name out there.

JeopardyTempest (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you my thoughts. I have attempted, on many occasions, to make edits to Wikipedia. On some topics I had a bias, and on others I didn't. I fully understand the problems associated with bias, but also recognize that often the people with the best information on a particular topic are - surprise! - directly connected to the topic and are therefore biased. As a neophyte with Wikipedia, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make edits, create articles, add images, etc., and often made honest mistakes. What I will say is that a huge number of my contributions have been wiped clean with snotty remarks/comments by condescending editors, both on this and other pages. This is a real problem. Just read the talk or history pages of any interesting article, and you'll find some really rude editors. JeopardyTempest deleted an enormous number of my (valid) edits on this page AND specifically called out my bias. I understand the motivation, but it's alienating to contributors to call it out on the main page... just mention it in the talk page or, better yet, confirm whether the fact is true.

I feel like I need to reiterate... a HUGE amount (and perhaps the vast majority) of information on Wikipedia is provided, and indeed MUST be provided, by people who are directly connected to and biased on the topics on which they write. I have obviously never hidden who I was or what bias I might have in making these edits, but, frankly, the edits by people on this page have made me feel a bit dirty, like I tried to pull a fast one. Nope. I just provided factually correct changes to Wikipedia. If they are wrong, change them (nicely). If they're not, then please move on. Afknight (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove building owners

As mentioned previously, I feel the building owners are of relatively minimal interest... extend the table too far on most screens... and were instigated by the owner of the building in Maine. I intend to remove them unless there is noteworthy support against doing so? Opinions? JeopardyTempest (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Westin Tower, Oct 2012.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Westin Tower, Oct 2012.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The View at Tysons

The information I got for the "Iconic Tower" for The View at Tysons show two different numbers for its height some: [1, 2] show 600 ft While others [3, 4] show 615 ft. Is there a consensus that can be reached from this? FlyDragon792 (Talk) 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

1001-1011 Jefferson Street Sign.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]