Jump to content

Talk:List of tallest buildings in Chicago/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sears Tower

Why isnt the Sears Tower listed? POlsen 17:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Trump

The list's name says "2004," yet Trump is scheduled to be complted in 2007. IF we're going to include Trump, then why not in parentheses? Kdammers 07:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The drop down list at the end categorizes "supertalls" using floors as a measure. The standard practice is 300 meters, not number of floors (because floors are so arbitrary). Using 300 meters, you can add the next two buildings to that list thus giving Chicago 5 supertalls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkriegls (talk • contribs) 07:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed

I had to move the proposed structures out of the table (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Not only does it impede the utility of the table for current rankings, it's potentially wrong. Many things could happen -- construction accidents, financing collapses, terrorism, a steel shortage. That's not even counting new projects that could come to light in the next four years. So proposed/abuilding stuff should be handled separately (I'm not even sure about the table).--Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Metres

I think that the building's height should be listed in metres as well as feet. It would be easy to convert the heights so no need to look each building up

Done. The data comes from Emporis, so it is more accurate than a simple conversion. Here on Wikipedia all heights are rounded to the nearest foot, but if a height is between integers it might round to a different meter than if the rounded number were converted; by recording the data from Emporis (which is more precise than feet or meters) the meter heights will be rounded to the correct integer. Montalto 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Goal to have a Page & Pic of each building

I know this sounds obvious, but I think it should be our objective to try and have well written (and brief) descriptions of the 50 tallest, and also quality images for each as well. After that we can move to some of the tallest in the suburbs, and hopefully a few people will have pictures of those.

If anyone is willing to help me, that would be great.

After all of that is completed then I'll probably focus my attention on smaller historic/landmark buildings across the city. --spyguy 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Chronology

I recall an apocryphal story from ~1968 that the Prudential Building 130 East Randolph was the HIGHEST building in Chicago from 1955 until the Hancock in 1969. Since it is on a hill, that could be true, or bravado from fancy occupants. [cowtowne] Cowtowne 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

After hearing all the fanfare about this weekend's opening of the LaSalle Bank Theatre and being reminded that it was once Chicago's tallest building, we should develop a chronology of the tallest buildings in Chicago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

I like the idea and will try to help. It would be cool to have some pictures of each building too. --spyguy 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think my list is complete with correct info. Does anyone know a specific address for the Masonic Temple? Anyway, I don't think LaSalle Bank Theatre was ever the tallest in Chicago, but I'll check into it. --spyguy 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It does not seem to be published anywhere, but I would estimate it at around 300 feet. Anyway it's guaranteed that it was never the tallest, because the Montgomery Ward Building (6 North Michigan) was much taller until the tower came down around the 1940s. Montalto 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Job.TonyTheTiger 15:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I was curious about the Masonic address, too. Unofrtunately, it might be necessary to delve into some dusty archives to find out. Also, what is the height of the La Salle building. I haven't been able to find it. 71.102.186.234 01:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Those who are more active in editing this page should think about pursuing featured list recognition (IMO). Maybe the page should undergo a peer review first though. TonyTheTiger 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

5415 N Sheridan Rd - Park Tower Condominuims - 513' 54 stories

Ref: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=5415northsheridan-chicago-il-usa

Shouldn't this building be in the 50 tallest of Chicago? Although it is not in the downtown ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.146.201.9 (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Ooops, never mind. Only 513 feet, a shorty. But 54 stories, must be short ones... Sorry...

Contradiction

Either the building was the tallest in Chicago as of 1892 as per Masonic Temple (Chicago) or as of 1895 as per this page. Please correct. TonyTheTiger 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a mistake, but it's explained (partly) by note #2. In 1895 the tower was removed from the Board of Trade, thereby making this (by default) the tallest building in the city. More information can be obtained in the book History of the Development of Building Construction in Chicago by Frank Randall. 209.253.119.2 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
O.K. so it is 1895. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tallest by Community Area

I just created a Regents Park (Chicago), the tallest building in Kenwood, Chicago page and was wondering if anyone has the resources to augment this page by adding tallest building by community area. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also created 1700 East 56th Street, the tallest in Hyde Park, Chicago TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Board of Trade Building

I am not sure if the Chicago Board of Trade Building and One North LaSalle are the same. See these links: http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/O/OneNorthLasalle.html and http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/B/BoardTrade.html. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved
using Emporis (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1northlasalle-chicago-il-usa vs. http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=chicagoboardoftrade-chicago-il-usa) and Encyclopedia of Chicago. Bd. of Trade is the taller of the two. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical tallest in Chicago

This site says that the Pittsfield Building was the tallest in Chicago at the time of its completion. Is that correct? I don't see the Pittsfield Building anywhere on our "historical tallest" list. Zagalejo 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chicago Temple Building was completed three years earlier, and is 17 feet taller than the Pittsfield. I suppose the Landmarks Commission didn't feel like counting the temple's spire. The Pittsfield Building is exactly 551'-1" tall; blueprints are available at the Chicago Historical Society. The Chicago Temple's height is listed in brochures available in its lobby. Hope this helps... other sources have claimed the Mather Tower was the tallest in the city when it was built, but that too is incorrect.
Ah, thanks! Zagalejo 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

tides

the tides is 4 inches shorter than 500' and should be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.172.130 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Community Areas

I think we should add a column for the tables stating the community area for each building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page User:Raime said I don't think a column for community areas is needed. No other U.S. list has such a column, and there has been consensus at WT:SKY to avoid adding another column to any tallest buildings list, whether it be for architects, photo links, or street addresses, due in learge part to "column crunching" and lack of relevance to building height. Such information is best kept for individual building articles, in my opinion. Cheers, Rai•me 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My point is not that they are needed. It is that unlike any other city I have researched, Chicago has a clearly agreed map of all of the neighborhoods of the city with clearly defined borders. Thus, when the Library of Congress describes images in its Chicago Daily News Collection such as Image:Old CBOT.jpg, Image:Radio Tower atop Roanoke Building (old DeSoto Building location).jpg, etc., it describes the community area. I am willing to do it myself, but I just don't want to mess up your work. I look at the list from the top and see Loop, Loop, Near North Side, Loop, Loop, Loop, NNS, NNS, Loop, NNS. That is just the first ten. I thin that is informative information and in fact encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Still, the neighborhoods are not necessary on the lists for each specific building. The proper place would be the articles for those buildings. Just because there are clearly defined areas/neighborhoods of Chicago does not mean that they have to be mentioned. The only areas that need attention are the parts of the city that contain the tallest buildings in Chicago, and the lead is the perfect place for that. The only time that I would agree to mentioning the neighborhood for a specific building is if it is the tallest in that neighborhood. If it is not the tallest in that neighborhood, it is not worth mentioning. The article for that building would be the best place for such simple information. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Leitmanp. The information regarding in which community area a building is located is certainly "informative information and in fact encyclopedic", but it doesn't need to be placed on the main tallest building list when it can be more suitably left in individual building articles. Architect, owner, street address, etc. are also encyclopedic, but again, placement in individual building articles is more appropriate. Cheers, Rai•me 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen List of Registered Historic Places in Chicago and List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Conversely, one could point to List of Chicago landmarks, Parks of Chicago, and any other tallest building list for any other U.S. city as examples of where neighborhoods are not listed. While including neighborhoods may be the norm for lists of Registered Historic Places in cities, the same is not true for tallest buildings lists, and I don't see why we need to make this list an exception, especially since adding an additional column to the main table would not be optimal. Cheers, Rai•me 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to get the guys who have made the RHP lists to redo the List of Chicago Landmarks. I personally like their format better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I still do not believe that the list needs it. Like I said, the only places that should include the information are the articles about the buildings and the lead of the list if there is an area of the city that is home to most of the tallest buildings. The issue of including many different things (including architects, uses and native names) has already been discussed multiple times. It is usually not included for three reasons: (1) it has nothing to do with the height, (2) the tables become crowded, and (3) the buildings’ articles are more suitable for such specific information. Tony, believe me when I say that it would be a great piece of information to include. But, it is just too much to include in the list. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Home Insurance Building

It says that the Home Insurance Building was considered to be 'first steel-framed skyscraper in the world.' I don't believe that it was steel framed, but rather iron framed. Many of the early Chicago skyscrapers were iron framed (a combination of cast- and wrought-iron.) Rick lightburn (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon further research... While steel was used in the Home Insurance Building frame, I believe that iron was also used. I don't think this combination was enough to qualify it as the first steel framed building. Rick lightburn (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Up-dated photo of loop

An updated photo from the Hancock tower is sorely needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfaulken (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated photo of skyline

The skyline picture, which is hugely useful, is also badly out-of-date and doesn't look a lot like the current skyline. Sepreece (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Messes-up formatting

Chicago has three buildings under construction that are planned to exceed 1,000 feet (304.8 m) in height: the 2,000-foot (610 m) Chicago Spire,[1] the 1,050-foot (320 m) Trump International Hotel & Tower,[2] and the 1,047-foot (319 m) Waterview Tower.[3] The 150-story Chicago Spire, upon its completion in 2012, would become the tallest building in the United States and the tenth tallest building in the world.[1] The tower would also stand as the second tallest all-residential building in the world,surpassing Q1 in Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.[4] There are also several buildings proposed for construction in the city, the largest being the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and Residence Tower, which would rise 1,265 feet (386 m) and 107 floors upon its completion in 2012.[5] As of June 2008, there are 160 high-rise buildings under construction, approved for construction, and proposed for construction in Chicago.[6]

This looks horrible, and I don't know how to fix it to get rid off all the operand errors or whatever they are. 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Never mind. 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Old Board of Trade image

Can someone provide another image of the old Board of Trade (1885) building? The one accompanying the timeline table shows it after the clock tower was removed, so it's a bit anachronistic for this placement. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to format

I've recently changed a few things in this list. First of all, I changed the height requirement from 500ft to 550ft. I think the list was far too long and unwieldy. Plus it is supposed to be a list of the tallest skyscrapers in the city, not just skyscrapers in the city. Cutting down the list puts more emphasis on the tallest buildings.

Second, I integrated images into the list. I did this before with List of tallest structures in Tokyo, and I think the overall outcome is better than picking a select few to be featured on the right side. I also plan on taking pictures of the buildings we currently don't have images for so we can fill out the list better.

Lastly, I also think that it would be a good idea to add a community area column and a coordinates column, as I did in the Tokyo list. Having the coordinates would also allow us to use the {{GeoGroupTemplate}}. I believe that helping the reader see the distribution of tallest buildings throughout the city is important, and these extra columns allow this.

Let me all know what you think of the new changes and proposals. Thanks --TorsodogTalk 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tallest buildings by pinnacle height section

Incorrectly ordered? 131.111.184.95 (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

looks ok to me? --TorsodogTalk 04:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Template

Someone should be keeping {{Chicago Skyscrapers}} current.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

spires and antennas

It's funny how the AT&T Corporate Centers spires count as part of it's height but not the Willis Tower's. Even though maybe the spires are architectural those giant self supporting on the Willis Tower should count because they are much more substantial than the average building antenna. Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Some statements which may be (or are) out of date

Below, I've listed a few statements which may be (or are) out of date:

  • It [Willis Tower] also stands as the tallest building in the United States, and the fifth-tallest building in the world. In addition, the Willis Tower has the second most floors of any completed building in the world, and stands as the world's second tallest completed skyscraper when measuring to pinnacle height,[3] rising 1,730 feet (527 m) with the addition of its western antenna.
  • As of June 2008, the John Hancock Center, with 49 floors of condominiums,[5] holds the world record for the highest residence.[6] In addition, Chicago has the distinction of being the only city in the world with more than one completed building containing at least 100 floors.
  • As of June 2008, there are 160 high-rise buildings under construction, approved for construction, and proposed for construction in Chicago.
  • Overall, the skyline of Chicago is ranked (based on existing and under-construction buildings over 492 feet (150 m) tall) first in the Midwestern United States and second in the United States, after New York City. Zagalejo^^^ 22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Many of the notes in the table may be out of date, too. Zagalejo^^^ 23:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are some conflicting statements found in the article: (also posted in the article's nomination for Today's featured list)
— MT (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed a few things until the facts can be sorted out. Zagalejo^^^ 18:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to be completely up-to-date as of July 2012 - I have completely updated the lead paragraphs, and also went through the proposed/under construction section to add new projects and remove any ones that were canceled. Because the list seems completely up-to-date, I have removed the {{Out of date}} template. Obviously, if anyone has concerns that outdated information may still be present in the article, please feel free to bring them up here.
On another note, I definitely agree with Zagalejo's call on removing most of the "xth-tallest in the world" and "yth-tallest in the United States" statements from the Notes columns - they were almost never updated, and really didn't add much to the list. Cheers, Rai•me 05:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of stories

According to their official websites, Willis Tower is 110 stories, and Trump Tower is 92 stories. So, I'm changing the article back to say that. But of course if that's not correct, please fix the article and post here explaining the source of the correct information. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 08:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it's quite understandable and usually good policy to trust the official website. However in this case both are certainly wrong, which I know from having looked at blueprints of both (I even own a copy of Trump's elevation diagram). However to avoid Wikipedia's ban on "original research" I can cite 4 authoritative sources:
1. The CTBUH, which is still the most often cited authority for building heights (WT & TT);
2. Phorio, the largest & most up-to-date building database website (WT & TT);
3. The 2013 World Almanac & Book of Facts; and
4. Skyscraperpage.com.
Now among these sources there's still a minor disagreement about Trump. Phorio gives 96, and the others give 98. The latter figure includes the 2 mechanical floors on top. By convention, mechanical floors at the top of a building which are set back from the perimeter are not counted - but if Wikipedians feel the need to change it from 96 to 98 I don't particularly care.
From what I've been told by engineers at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill the 110 floor count for the Sears Tower came about because the elevator penthouse *and its roof!* were both counted, contrary to all conventions of floor counting. And not to cast doubts on The Donald, but I hope people aren't using his websites as a source for Obama's birthplace (cough cough). Umbugbene (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks! — Mudwater (Talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Panorama caption

The panorama caption says "...Showing completed One Museum Park, Legacy Tower, Trump Tower Chicago, Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower, and 340 on the Park". Why does it not mention the more prominent Willis Tower, Aon Center; and possibly the John Hancock Center though this last is quite hard to see in the image? Astronaut (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the caption can be improved by including more buildings. Feel free to add them, or maybe I or someone else will. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the suggestion. If I added too much, just be sure to leave the tallest or most prominent buildings. I didn't link to hidden buildings like 111 South Wacker Drive or short ones like Shedd Aquarium and Navy Pier, but if it's appropriate to include them be my guest. It would be nice to get an updated photo with sunshine and more vibrant colors. Roosevelt University's Wabash Campus Building has been added to the skyline since this was taken. Umbugbene (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding and linking every building shown in that picture is incredibly silly and not useful at all. I am going to remove it. The buildings are pictured and linked in the list itself. There's no need for it to all be duplicated in the caption of this image. --TorsodogTalk
I think it's the opposite of incredibly silly. Naming the buildings in the caption is very informative, and helpful to readers of the article. By placing the building in the context of the skyline, it helps them understand how the buildings fit into the architectural landscape of downtown Chicago, and helps them identify those buildings. Yes, the same buildings are shown, with photos and links, in the main list, which shows once again a key principal of writing a good encyclopedia article -- what's important is not just what information is presented, but how it's presented. (A summary of this discussion so far -- In favor of an expanded caption: Astronaut, Mudwater, Umbugbene. In favor of a reduced caption: Torsodog.) — Mudwater (Talk) 11:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't informative or helpful. How is listing half of the buildings on this list in the caption helping anyone to place or identify anything in that photo? There is no context for any of these building names. Obviously the tallest buildings in a city are going to be visible in that city's skyline. We can recruit other people for opinions concerning this topic if you'd like, but I'm not going to keep a list of 23 linked buildings in a caption. That is not the point of a caption. Especially in a featured list. --TorsodogTalk 19:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of the links (but I am a habitual Overlinker). I think the links should be added back unless there is consensus to remove them as opposed to having to get consensus to add what has been included for a long time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But, to be clear, the expanded caption, listing more than just a few buildings, hasn't been there for a long time, it was added pretty recently. As far as Wikipedia procedure, there are several editors in favor of the longer caption and only one, Torsodog, opposed. But, setting all that aside for the moment, what do you think about the longer caption itself? Might it be helpful to the reader, as I explained above? Or does the longer caption somehow make the article worse -- and if so, how? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I definitely agree with Torsodog - linking so many buildings isn't helpful to readers, as it isn't clear which names apply to which buildings. The best option, in my opinion, would be to convert the image into an image map - is anyone familiar with creating these? A few tallest buildings lists, including List of tallest buildings in Jersey City and List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, already use this. Cheers, Rai•me 00:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I added an image map but had to replace the photo to do so; the original file was too big to load in any image map editor. In my opinion the new shot is much better anyway... hope you all agree. Umbugbene (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The image map is great. Thanks a lot for setting that up, it's definitely a big improvement. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes to lead section

I'm not making the changes or adding anything; sorry, not enough of a Wikipedian for that. But where are the buildings outside of downtown and the Near North Side? Why is Park Place Tower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Place_Tower) 530.5 feet/161.7m not included? Or Park Tower in Edgewater? Or Regent's Park in Hyde Park (and I'm just using my decades-old native map of the city)?

This is indicative of Wikipedia - that if the idiot savants who contribute don't know about a subject or have some basement-boy reason for not including it, it doesn't exist. And those of us who don't have time don't contribute. Yes, I know this is a mean and unnecessary rant, but at least I'm putting it in talk and not on the main page.

I'll be happy to remove the above if someone can please add these obvious omissions and any others that belong there. In the meantime, I shudder to think of the number of people taking this as a valid source.

-robinbirk (probably putting this in the wrong place, but again, I'm not a wikipedian)


I just made a few changes to the lead paragraphs, but the text still seems jumpy with lots of facts of mixed relevance. I would like to streamline it following this basic outline:

  • Paragraph 1: highlights of the skyline, international comparisons
  • Paragraph 2: contributions to skyscraper engineering, height records through history
  • Paragraph 3: recent & current developments

In Paragraph 2 I propose removing the exact heights of the Home Insurance Building, which are far less relevant than its engineering, and mentioning other early advances like the Monadnock Building and Reliance Building. There should also be a sentence about mid-century developments like tube construction. The two sentences about building booms can be deleted - all they say is that there's been continuous construction except during and after the Great Depression. That's normal for a big city. (In fact there was another major slowdown in the mid-90s.) The geographic concentration of tall buildings can be moved to the first paragraph, which can also be streamlined.

Paragraph 3 can also use re-writing. I am open to leaving the sentence about the Chicago Spire, although it's only one of several failed proposals. The last sentence should focus on construction as there's no way to give exact numbers of planned buildings - many proposals are stale or unpublicized, and nobody announces it when they die out.

As much as possible I've been trying to improve the source references throughout the article. The only publishers doing active research in this area (for Chicago at least) are Phorio and the CTBUH. Skyscraperpage.com is generally good, but I had to change the number of 500-foot buildings because they still publish a few old and inaccurate height figures. Umbugbene (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the improvements. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
In paragraph 1, the first sentence states that of the 1264 completed high rises, "107 of which stand taller than 500 feet (152 m)," and then in the second to last sentence of the paragraph the same statistic is stated but with a different number, "the entire city has 105 buildings at least 500 feet (152 m) tall," of which the latter is sourced. I think the repetition of this fact is redundant and only the sourced fact should stay in the article. Chezdan (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of date and / or ambiguous

"tallest building completed in the United States in the 2000s" does this mean in the first decade of the 21st c. or in the millennium? If the later, it is out of date; if the former, it should be re-written, no? Kdammers (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Trump and Big John

The silhouette views of Trump and Hancock show the latter as taller (by a little bit), but the numbers given indicate the reverse. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Self-contradictory?

" 107 of which stand taller than 500 feet (152 m). The tallest building in the city is the 110–story Willis Tower(formerly the Sears Tower), which rises 1,451 feet (442 m) in the Chicago Loop and was completed in 1974.[2][3] Sears Tower was the tallest building in the world from its completion until 1998, when it was overtaken by the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; it remained the tallest building in the United States until May 10, 2013 when it was overtaken by One World Trade Center in New York City.[4] The second-, third- and fourth-tallest buildings in Chicago are the Trump International Hotel & Tower, the Aon Center and the John Hancock Center, respectively. Of the ten tallest buildings in the United States, four are located in Chicago.[5] As of February 2013, the entire city has 105 buildings at least 500 feet (152 m) tall.[6] " Are two of them exactly 500 feet tall?Kdammers (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of tallest buildings in Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Legit question

Do you include topped-out buildings in the main list? Many listed u/c are structurally or architecturally topped-out. In NYC list they include them in the main list with a aclaratory foot note. Triplecaña (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

10 South LaSalle

Although 10 South LaSalle no longer meets the cutoff for this list, I thought I would mention that when Chicago Title & Trust moved from 161 North Clark to 10 South LaSalle they bought the naming rights for the new building according to a word of mouth source. However, I can not find an WP:RS documenting this. Please comment at Talk:10_South_LaSalle#Naming_rights.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of tallest buildings in Chicago. 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) 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest buildings in Chicago. 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) 05:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Community areas in Chicago

It would be interesting to have a table of tallest buildings by Community areas in Chicago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

height discrepancies

I posted a comment at Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States#Height_discrepancies about discrepancies between this list and that list. 13 of the 22 buildings on both lists have discrepant heights. Please comment there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

height discrepancies

I posted a comment at Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States#Height_discrepancies about discrepancies between this list and that list. 13 of the 22 buildings on both lists have discrepant heights. Please comment there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Rank discrepancies

Big John is given as " 8th-tallest building in the United States;" - but at the building's Wikipedia own site, it is given as 9th tallest. Which is it? Kdammers (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1
  1. ^ a b "Chicago Spire". Emporis.com. Retrieved 2007-12-21.
  2. ^ "Trump International Hotel & Tower". Emporis.com. Retrieved 2007-12-21.
  3. ^ "Waterview Tower". Emporis.com. Retrieved 2007-12-21.
  4. ^ "The Chicago Spire Officially Launched". Shelbourne Development Group. 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
  5. ^ "Waldorf=Astoria". Emporis.com. Retrieved 2007-12-21.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference high-rise was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago/Archive_1&oldid=1230643439"