Talk:Willis Tower/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents

Miscellaneous comments

Chicago Spire!

Why make a comment about the Chicago Spire being the tallest in the world? 1. It won't as the Burj Dubai will be completed before it and this has an estimated height of 2,684 ft. 2. This is not an artical about the Chicago Spire, maybe just make a reference to how the Sears Tower is going to be surpassed in 2010 by the Spire as tallest building in Chicago. 3. This section also reads poorly. i.e. "By either of these measures, the Sears Tower was only surpassed by the Taipei 101 in 2004,[citation needed] and around 2010 the Chicago Spire will be the tallest tower in the world surpassing the Taipei 101 and Sears Tower because it has a height of 2000 feet. The Chicago Spire will be in Chicago."

When measuring the height of a building, the only measurements that are official use to be the actual main structure...not any added spires or antennas. Based on that fact several building would be much shorter then they are depicted in the picture bellow.

110 or 108 Stories Tall???

  • By all accounts, the tower stands 110 stories tall from the ground level. Including the mechanical floors @ the top. Excluding those makes no sense because then why not exclude the mechanical floors below as well (since there are a few between floors 1 & 110).

What is the point of comparing the antenna height to the WTC? Why not then compare it to the CN Tower as well or any other tower ... This is an article about the Sears Tower, not the WTC or the events that transpired on 9/11.

Answer: The difference between the antennas on Sears Tower vs WTC...is the ones on WTC were added to the building. The antennas on top of the Sears Tower are actually part of the main columns that run down the center of the building to the foundation. This fact is spoken of during the tour. The height of building to the rooftop is 1,359FT...However, 150FT of the height of the antennas is part of the structure of the build....with the rest being mounted - ADDED TechieXP

Also, by definition of the word 'tower', The Canadian National is a true tower, the Sears Tower is not. Sears Tower is just a title or in this case used as a proper name. The CN Tower is an actual tower.

Who owns the building?

  • As of Feb 2007, New York based Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian, and Skokie-based American Landmark Properties Ltd [1]


Comparing the cost of building the CN Tower to the Sears Tower is fairly pointless, the CN Tower is basically a hollow concrete pillar and the Sears Tower is an office building. - SINFUL OCTOPUS 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I have no idea if I'm going to mess this page up or not (first time posting anything here....) But 3.8 million square feet != 418,064 square meters I don't know which is correct but the math is clearly wrong.


The number of stories appears to differ between this page (110) and others. 50 Tallest buildings in the U.S. and Worlds tallest structures say 108. —Mulad 03:26, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is 110 stories per http://www.thesearstower.com/.

Just fyi, some sources count basement levels, while others only count levels above ground. This is why you see a variation. Most do not count parking levels, however (although I'm sure some do). --Quasipalm 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally someone got it right regarding the ludicrousness of assigning "world's tallest" title to the other buildings.

Since we have a picture of the Hancock Building from the Sears Tower, would there be a problem if I posted a personal PD picture of the Sears Tower from the Hancock Building? Just to get a visual reference between the two? BrianL03 08:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yours would be even better probably. --Golbez 15:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dude, your desire to contribute to Wikipedia is not a "problem". It's why Wikipedia exists! ---Isaac R 03:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article lists the height at 520 m, yet the Taipai as surpassing it, even though that is only 508/509 m high. Explain? - Guest - Trauma

The height to the tip of the taller antenna is 527 m, but the antennae are not considered an integral part of the building. The height is only taken to the rooftop, which is 442.14 meters. The correct height of Taipei 101 is 509 meters, by the way... 508 is an error resulting from mismeasurement. There are a couple of reasons antennae do not count in the official height -- one is that they change all the time and including them would make height rankings unstable (they're considered more like furniture than structure); another is that most tall buildings have some form of antenna or lightning rod, and since these are not shown on blueprints it would be almost impossible to get height listings beyond the very tallest buildings. Montalto 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The 12-foot diameter cylindrical communication tower bases are not "antennae" (as they do not transmit anything), they were part of the initial construction (as evidenced by photos prior to completion), they required reinforcement of the remainder of the superstructure (and thus are integral to the building), and they have never changed -- at least to my knowledge -- in the 36 year history of the tower (and thus cannot be considered an ephemeral design element). Hence, I see no compelling evidence that the cylindrical communication tower bases are not "an integral part of the building". --RKrause (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding height, the 'highest restrooms' bit in figures and statistics has no mention of source and I can personally vouch for having used restrooms in the Shanghai WFC above 423m. So I have removed this line.

I was the one that entered the statistic about the restrooms, that was over a year ago before the opening of the Shanghai WFC, I have since edited it to include this fact based on your firsthand information about the higher restrooms. I still think its interesting to point out that the Sears has the highest in the western hemisphere and the second highest in the world, this is to distinguish itself from the CN Tower which has a higher observation deck but without a restroom. To me a floor is more of an "occupied floor" if it has a restroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago103 (talkcontribs) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Petronas Towers

Please, stop changing the building that surpasses the Sears Tower as the world's tallest as the Petronas Towers. If you read the infobox, it clearly states that it is talking about highest habitable structure by roof-top, by which account the sears tower is clearly taller. --Quasipalm 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that is not the standard for deciding the world's tallest building. The official standard set by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat states that the official manner of declaring the world's tallest building is to the architectural top not the roof-top. Under this the Petronas Towers are taller and should be listed. If you need backup you can look at the page about the tallest building in the world or I will gladly give you multiple sources that back up my opinion including a book written by the CTBUH. Aausterm 21:55, February 20, 2007 (CT)

...But it says the Sears Tower's top is 527m, and the Petronas Towers' is 452...?

"The actual LEGAL height of the Sears Tower is 1,450FT that is from ground to the top....including 100FT of the antennas which are actually part of the main support columns. The rest of the antennas height is added. The building height itself is 1350FT to the roof-top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechieXP (talkcontribs) 18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too and am now thoroughly confused. Every instance of the statistics being given clearly states that the Sears Tower is 527m/442m and the Petronas Towers are 452m/379m. The Sears Tower is obviously taller. If some criterium other than height determines the world's tallest building (which would make absolutely NO sense) this definitely needs clarification. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have replied at Talk:Petronas Twin Towers#Statistical inconsistancies re: Sears Tower. --timsdad (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How can it be shorter than Taipei 101 with more floors?

Tapei is taller but has 9 less stories, more head space? Are there stories you can't stand up in?
The floors are larger on the 101, plus it has a spire. Judge for yourself. Skyscrapercompare.svg Soakologist 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the skyscraper height rankings are noting but a joke. The graphic illustrates it nicely. What's the point of the spire/antenna distinction anyways? But, hey, we're just writing about it, not making up new rules. --Dschwen 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the "logic" is that spires are permanent and an architectural element even though they are in many cases less structurally integral to the building as a whole than a communications tower which must support tens of thousands of pounds antenna equipment while resisting intense wind loads at such a high altitude. Consider the Trump International Hotel and Tower, the spire of which was added months after the "topping out" ceremony (thanks to weather-induced delays). Does that give the impression of it being a significant design element -- the fact that it can be added (and obviously removed or extended) at any time? But evidently rules are rules for a reason. --RKrause (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Top three tallest buildings (Taipei 101, Petronas twins, Sears Tower)

Hola,

ok so like this is the way i think about it. why on everything else((like the buildings)) they count the antennas, but on the sears tower they dont count it at all? that is not only retarded but ridiculous! i think that the sears tower like any other tower, should have its antennas counted. why is it this way??? please give me some feed-back! -71.36.49.42 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page isn't supposed to feature talk about the building itself, but the article. Wikipedia is only informing about this, so why don't you e-mail the big guys who decided this in the first place? - Aki 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
They were talking about the article, since both in the infobox, the main body, and the side-by-side illustration all make it perfectly clear that the Sears Tower is taller than the building that succeeded it as the "world's tallest building". I see no reason for wikipedia to unquestioningly side with these "big guys" of whom you speak. In fact, it's ridiculous to call something the world's tallest building when you're actually talking about it being the tallest "fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to highest structural or architectural top" structure. Also, so how about that Sears Tower? Anyone ever been to the top? I bet the view's awesome! Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Communication towers are not antennae

Why do people keep erroneously refering to the "antennae" on Sears Tower in height calculations? They are self-supporting triangular communication towers integral to the building's superstructure -- they are not antennae. An antenna is an electromagnetic conductor of radio and televison waves.

The original cylindrical bases that rise directly out of the building's frame required significant reinforcement of the entire upper one-third of the building during construction -- years before Sears Tower even became a primary transmitter location in downtown. Therefore, it should go without debate that both the triangular support towers and the cylindrical bases do not broadcast or receive anything (although they are struck by lighting). So thus by definition the oft-cited "antennae" on Sears Tower are only so in part. With the exception of the new HDTV antennae at the four corners of the roof, the major antenna pylons are located at the pinnacles of the existing communication towers.

I find it rather disconcerting that even after almost 15 years (since the Petronas Towers debate first emerged), people still refuse to actually learn the truth about what is and is not an antenna simply because the engineering ignorance and incompetence of the CTBUH continues to brainwash the general public into readily accepting "misfacts" even to the point of publishing it in Wikipedia. Please understand, the CTBUH may be an established technical body, but that doesn't make the organization completely infallible. --RKrause (talk)

Ace Combat

How can the Sears Tower be in a game that doesn't occur on Earth, or at least not our Earth? The game has a completely different geography and political layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.139.161.72 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Move

Discussion archived to /Move#Move 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of nickname?

Assuming it becomes official and sourced, would the new nickname be properly spelled "Big Willy" or "Big Willie"? An quick search of Google finds

"a man's willy"  – 527
"a man's willie" –  36

but of course per WP:GOOGLE that's only a popularity test and wouldn't be citable as proof of a "correct" spelling. --CliffC (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If it became official and sourced, then they would pick the spelling. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Big Willie" is an official nickname

Actually, the nickname Big Willie is official. Both Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and, more importantly, Willis Group Holdings' Chairman and CEO, Joseph Plumeri, have publicly stated in interviews their acceptance of Big Willie as a household reference for the building.

  • Joseph Plumeri: "They can call it whatever they want, even 'The Big Willie.'" (June 7, 2009)
  • Joseph Plumeri: "People have asked me, "What do you think they'll call it? Willis, Sears?" I've said, "You can call it the Big Willie, and that would be fine with me." And I mean that. I don't mean that in a comedic way." (July 15, 2009)
  • Richard Daley: "'Big Willie', Willis Tower, yeah. You know why [I would call it that]? Because they stepped up to the plate." (July 16, 2009)
  • Joseph Plumeri: "You can call it anything you want. I said on TV yesterday, you can call it the 'Big Willie' for all I care. As a matter of fact, I wish you would." (July 16, 2009)

I realize it seems ludicrous -- numerous marketing experts have argued that this was a branding faux pas. But it is nonethless a public affirmation of the nickname and is readily verifiable via numerous online news sources, providing further evidence that the nickname is officially sanctioned by two very reputable people involved. Therefore, I believe Big Willie should be cited in the article. --RKrause (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey RKrause that is a great point, you should put those quotes in the article with sources. I know you don't always like when things go off topic because of the formally/formerly topic, but I think Groundskeeper Willie demonstrates the proper spelling as well. By the way, the worries about people laughing at the name Big Willie as a British euphemism for "dick" should not be addressed in the article. Sswonk (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Brits reportedly got a lot of chuckles in the 1970s about the "Watergate buggers", also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears v. Willis

It strikes me that when referring to historical periods, the name Sears should still be used. Examples include mention that the building (then known as Sears) was tallest from 1974-1998, or the note that "In an episode of the television series, Monk, Adrian Monk tries to conquer his fear of heights by imagining that he is on top of Willis Tower." since it was called the Sears Tower at the time the episode was films and within the episode. Shsilver (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree, just like the rename of a city, we use the name of the city at the time of an incident. It'll have to be done carefully so as to be consistent, though, and right now with all the editing, it might be difficult to make those edits stick. This is the tallest building ever renamed, so we have a more complex list of changes to make. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree. We also need to take into account that while Sears Tower is no longer the official name, it remains the most common name; readers unfamiliar with the name change are likely to be confused if any and all mentions of "Sears Tower" are switched to "Willis Tower." Cheers, Raime 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, it would make a hash of history to retcon Willis onto historical references to the Sears Tower. Ships change names all the time for example, but nobody would alter references to the CSS Stonewall during the American Civil War into Japanese ironclad Kōtetsu. We call the Byzantine Empire's imperial capital Constantinople, not its present name Istanbul. 69.106.74.227 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The building is best known as the Sears Tower; the page should have been left under that name with the other redirecting to it. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah really. It's the Sears Tower. Changing it to Willis is just a disgrace to Chicago culture. Just keep it as Sears Tower on here. --24.13.44.207 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guideline needed I have just started a discussion at the Manual of Style regarding a similar situation. I would appreciate input there on my particular query, and I think that if it doesn't already exist a guideline for project-wide re-namings of buildings, towns, etc. should be created, although I am not sure exactly where within the project namespace it should go. Sswonk (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Common name is lovely, when it's not inaccurate. Calling this "Sears Tower" is inaccurate. --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

An official name is not the only measure of what is accurate. Cheers, Raime 20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. For example, both "Samuel Clemens" and "Mark Twain" are accurate monikers for a particular author. If he had changed his name, however - and not simply used a pseudonym - it would be inaccurate to call him by the previous name, even if that's the "common name". My name is Andrew; many people know me by that. That doesn't make it right then, if I were to change my name to Mike, while Andrew might be my 'popularly known as', it is incorrect. It's not like this is an exonym granted by decades of linguistic evolution, like English names for foreign cities which, while inaccurate in the local tongues, are perfectly fine in English. This was a name chosen by the owners, and now it has been changed. --Golbez (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If the majority of people know the building what was formerly named the "Sears Tower" as the "Sears Tower", then it is still an accurate name, whether the building owners regard it as incorrect or not. Burma is officially the "Union of Myanmar", but the name "Burma" is neither an inaccurate nor an incorrect name in English so long as the majority of English-speaking people still refer to the country as "Burma". Cheers, Raime 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I strongly opposed the move of Myanmar to Burma. --Golbez (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You're not going to find appropriate sources still calling it "Sears Tower". And why should Sears get any free benefit, anyway? They abandoned it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It isn't about Sears "getting credit" - it is about using the name that people will will be most familiar with. And note that even the Skydeck website and Emporis still call it the "Sears Tower." I'm not advocating for a move back to "Sears Tower", but I do think this move was carried out too quickly and without discussion. Cheers, Raime 01:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are advertising websites that haven't gotten around to posting the new name. Advertising sites are questionable encyclopedic sources. Legitimate news sources are most likely to use the new name. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It is very likely that legitimate news sources would use both names - the official one and the one that readers would be more familiar with. But, I guess we won't know until news sources about the tower unrelated to the name change are released. Cheers, Raime 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If you don't advocate a move back then when should it have been moved? How exactly would you be able to tell when Willis surpassed Sears as the common name, if ever? Also, generally, for a single move, discussion isn't required. --Golbez (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This move was clearly controversial given the number of editors expressing disagreement here, so a requested move would have been appropriate. If the end result was consensus to rename the article, then the page should have been moved then. Cheers, Raime 14:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Consistency of historic references I'm inclined to agree. All historic references should refer to the building as it was named during that time period; e.g. "The Sears Tower itself was not the draw Sears hoped it would be" naturally makes a great deal more sense than "The Willis Tower itself was not the draw Sears hoped it would be." --RKrause (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Skydeck

The page is locked, so I can't correct:

In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies" extending approximately four feet over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.

Bad sentence structure. Sounds like the balconies are four feet over the street. Make sure modifying words are modifying the correct words. Should read this:

In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies", approximately four feet in width, extending over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.

-- 97.113.116.173 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the pictures from the skydeck are from CNN and Chicago Tibune and have no source info on the photo files. They are apparently copyrighted, and should be replaced by free images. I'm in Seattle, or I would go up and do it myself. -- 97.113.116.173 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I just nominated the images for speedy deletion. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Raime 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


I have a UNIQUE media showing the Glass Balcony in an interactive panorama, where the viewer will see it as he would be there himself, he can move the view around in any direction bz dragging with the mouse on the pic.. As this is not a still picture nor a movie, the only way is to bring it in is as an external link. Unfortunately the site reviewer are removing the link faster than they can understand what it is...

here again the link http://www.360cities.net/image/sears-tower-skydeck-window-chicago it is most probably the first panorama done on the Glass Balcony photo taken by Jeffrey Martin processing of images and transforming to an interactive panorama by me wkaemena Wkaemena (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the copyright status of that item? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
the only way is to bring it in is as an external link. That is not quite true. Upload the original image in spherical projection to commons and put the Pano360 template on the image page. --Dschwen 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And darn it, if there hadn't been a 2h wait last sunday I promise you your thing wouldn't be that unique anymore. Now I probably won't get back to Chicago until late August :-(. --Dschwen 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Skydeck Chicago

The official name of the renovated observation deck at 233 S Wacker Dr is "Skydeck Chicago" as can be verified on the official site and in various publicity materials. --RKrause (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be moved back to Sears Tower

Discussion archived to /Move#This needs to be moved back to Sears Tower 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was leave at Willis Tower. This discussion is contentious with fairly valid arguments made on both sides - there is a good point that a fair proportion of media sources do still seem to call this the Sears Tower. That said, there's also strong argument that usage of Willis Tower is widespread and increasing, and that it's clearly the "correct" name officially - the argument therefore comes down to an entirely subjective interpretation of what the "common name" is. Given that a clear majority here seem to think that Willis Tower is sufficiently widespread to constitute a common name, and that that usage is only likely to increase with time, I am confident that the article's current placement is most appropriate given the consensus present in this discussion. ~ mazca talk 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Discussion content archived to Talk:Willis Tower/Move#Requested move 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Move-protected

I've move protected this article indefinitely to suppress further move-warring. Once consensus is formed, please ask an admin to unprotect it if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Formally" known as Sears Tower

Naming Controversy

I feel it should be at least noted the controversial nature of the up coming name change. It has become a pretty big issue in Chicago with many people feeling that it is sort of like attacking a land mark. Ive heard comparisons drawn that it is like if some one renamed the Statue of Liberty the Loyd's of London Statue. There has been a lot of media coverage of local out rage over this change. If no one disagrees with me I plan on making the addition some time in the near future. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much feel there should be a section on this. In general almost every Chicagoan is laughing at this concept, and it seems as if NO one will actually call it the willis tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.244.181 (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sears abandoned it. Why should they still get the free advertising? And if Lloyd's of London were to buy the Statue of Liberty, why shouldn't they call it the Lloyd's of London Statue? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Because things have names, and those names matter to people. It will NEVER be the Willis Tower to those who love Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.69.167 (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Its name is Willis Tower now and the page should reflect that. A section on the controversy would fit in fine. Either way ignoring the new name is a stupid idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.8.214 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This page should be "Sears Tower", you can make a new page for "Willis Tower" for the building from 2009 - on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theige (talkcontribs) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not about Sears adverts. The World Series is named for the New York World even though it no longer exists. Common language calls it the sears tower. Would you change the name of the great pyramids if somebody bought the naming rights from the local government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.198.194 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the page should be Willis Tower, as it is, with redirection fom Sears Tower. I don't like the new name either, but it is a private building and landmark or not, they can change the name - that's just part of capitalism. And Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should use official names of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.152.195 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, its name is the Sears Tower. The page should be the Sears Tower page, and there should be a small note that the current owners call it the "Willis Tower". Things not so important can have their name changed, but something so iconic as the Sears Tower cannot - it was named when it was built, and it will be the Sears Tower until the majority of the population of Chicago and the US start calling it something else. Money can't change that. I'm tempted to make the change to the page right now, but I'll wait on a bit of discussion here.XeroxKleenex (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
What does your crystal ball predict about this year's World Series and Super Bowl? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Lakers over the Maple Leafs in 7. --Smashvilletalk 13:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Top of the page. Box with an i in a blue circle. Read it! --Dschwen 13:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, that box looks a little like the Sears Willis Big Willie Tower. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I boldly fixed your comment. --Smashvilletalk 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Defacing of signage

I was just wondering if a photo or simply a blurb about the ongoing defacing of the Willis Tower signage should be mentioned in the article. It seems it is of a noteworthy nature particularly given the publicity surrounding the name change. --RKrause (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

This section now archived along with the sections above at Talk:Willis_Tower/Move#Archive.3F. The requested move has been agreed, closed, and finalised; and continuing debate about the minutae of how its archived isn't getting anyone anywhere. I've removed it to improve the readability of the talk page and perhaps encourage actual discussion of the article rather than circular arguments about a concluded process. ~ mazca talk 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead problem

The Sears Tower is a supertall skyscraper in Chicago, Illinois, and the tallest building in the United States since 1973, surpassing the World Trade Center. By all other measures (official height, roof height, and highest occupied floor) the Sears Tower was always taller than the World Trade Center.

All measures other than what? TheHYPO

Sears Tower

"Sears Tower was the world's tallest building from 1974 to 1998.[I]"

I do not understand why the article says this??? If it was offically the Sears Tower until this year why did some dumb person change this to the Willis Tower?? The Willis tower did not exist in 1974 to 1998. Please unlock and fix this error. All Chicagoans still call it the Sears Tower anyways. Really the title of the article should be "Sears Tower (officially Willis Tower)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.88.173 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed] 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The caption you are speaking of is automatically filled in by the {{Infobox Skyscraper}} template based on what is typed in the |building_name parameter. While "Sears Tower" may be more correct in this historical context, the caption can't be changed unless the template syntax is altered. Cheers, Raime 04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to edit the template, it is correct as stands see below. Sswonk (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't saying the template should be edited, only that in order for the "Sears" name to appear the syntax would have to be changed. Raime 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And I was just trying to avoid the possibility that someone would respond to you with "Well, then the template should be changed." If they read our comments, they should see that it is correct as it stands, so we should be all set now. Sswonk (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article is using the {{Infobox skyscraper}}. When a building was formerly the world's tallest, the text you are questioning is automatically generated by the Infobox coding and uses the article title in the automatic text. It is correct as it stands because it is using the past tense in the context of the infobox which shows the current name and information. This is different from historical references in the article text, where it is written using "Sears Tower" to describe events at the time they occurred. Sswonk (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes across other articles could call this building "Willis Tower (Sears Tower)" if that is helpful, no? I agree that the article title should reflect the current name (this sort of thing happens frequently with large commercial buildings), but I can only hope to remember that references to "Willis Tower" in places other than this article mean "Sears Tower" as reflected in historical references. The automated process really ought to be able to handle such a cross-reference, but if not, perhaps the individual infoboxes can be edited as appropriate? Steveozone (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries change definitions based on how people use the words. Most people still call this building the Sears Tower. Its legal name is Willis Tower, but that should not change how it is labeled in Wikipedia. At least, when a person searches for Sears Tower, they should be directed to a page about the Sears Tower and not re-directed to the Willis Tower page. The Sears Tower deserves its own page seperate from the Willis Tower. Wikipedia is a website for and by the people. The foreign corporation that bought the legal naming rights should not dictate how Americans refer to their buildings. This site should begin by stating that the "Willis Tower used to legally be called the Sears Tower. However it is still known as the Sears Tower." The name Willis should not be used again in the rest of the article. Architect8 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we've been over this. The people chose to rename. Also, separate page? For the same building? No. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I was working on a research project on Sub-Saharan Africa when I was reading an article on the Carlton Centre, and was confused by a comparison that the "Carlton Tower was half the height of the "Willis Tower". Clicking on "Willis Tower" revealed that it was in fact referring to the Sears Tower, its most widely known and upheld name. I agree that the article's title should have Willis Tower in it, even though "Willis Tower (Sears Tower)" would be much more accurate and therefore what Wikipedia strives to achieve; however, having it referred as "Willis Tower" (and just that) in other articles is confusing and inaccurate. Hopefully, although not likely, the mention in the Carlton Centre article was a rare case. The status quo is not acceptable, and please, "we've been over this" is never an acceptable response to an argument, especially on Wikipedia. Your say, and that of others, is never the final say. The article should be renamed in order to reflect its popularly known name, the Sears Tower, as well as its official name "The Willis Tower". It should also be made clear that in other articles the "Willis Tower" should also be reffered to as the "Sears Tower" concurrently with its official name. Please reassure me that Wikipedia has not been overcome by pedagogues. -- AJ24 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the Carlton Centre lead along those lines. Opinions? - Pointillist (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We're all good here. We have already had this debate and there is absolutely no reason for us to scrap both consensus and Wikipedia naming conventions because people are pissed off that the name of the building changed. --Smashvilletalk 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, hold your horses.... Sure, back in the long hot summer of July 22 some of us wranglers !opposed reverting the (then) recent name change from Sears to Willis Tower. However, both the Carlton Centre and Willis Tower were designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, and each was completed in 1973, so it was reasonable to compare them. It therefore makes sense to fix the Carlton Centre lead so that Sears Tower is mentioned somehow, because that was what the building was called when the Carlton Centre was first compared to it. - Pointillist (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I was actually referring to the one above you, who wants to change it to Willis Tower (Sears Tower). --Smashvilletalk 15:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Smashville. AJ24, you'll find the lengthy discussion about renaming in archive 2. In the end we were overcome by pragmatism rather than pedagog-ism. Similar changes happened in the "good old days" of Wikipedia, too (e.g. Columbia Center). - Pointillist (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Request automatic archiving

Protocol suggests making a request to other editors before setting up automatic archiving of an article talk page, so that't what this is. With stray comments being added to older topics here from time to time, especially about the name of the building, I think it would be wise to set up automatic archiving to move threads that are seven days old or older into the archives, starting with a new "Archive 3" page. The bot will start a new archive page whenever the current one reaches 150K in size. Here is the code:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Willis Tower/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 3
|maxarchivesize = 150K
}}

The archive box at the top of the page will have to be adjusted slightly to keep up with this, and helped along by moving the "Move" archive to "Archive 2" so the archives will have names the bots and templates can understand. Regular editors, please briefly comment below. Unless there is substantial debate, objection, etc. then I will set this up tomorrow morning to begin then. Sswonk (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done The automatic archiving is now configured as shown. The "/Move" links redirect to "/Archive 2" so nothing else needs to be changed. Sswonk (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The /Move archive should stay where it is, and shouldn't get mixed up with general archiving. It's useful to retain it as a separate record, and is something that's done elsewhere. It's not helpful to have random topics archived onto the bottom of it. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a separate record, /Archive 2, and the /Move title was redirected to it to ensure that links would continue to work. New archiving begins with Archive 3. Your further efforts, without discussion, to disrupt this page have been reported to WP:AN/I. Sswonk (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this really worth AN/I drama? I can't see any great difference between these two systems - in both cases there's a separate page for the move, and in both cases new discussions after the move will be on a new page. It's a very minor and very cosmetic difference that is not worth arguing over, as far as I can see. ~ mazca talk 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, you tell me. I need to avoid dealing with this editor directly beyond this point. User:SarekOfVulcan has fixed the issues thanks to my notification of admins, but continued unilateral behavior of this sort, placement of db-move tags etc. needs to be addressed as a disruptive incident. My proposal of automatic archiving was done properly, no one objected, and then after the operations to set up automatic archiving were completed, 81.110.104.91 abused the db tag and made multiple edits to disrupt the process. Combined with other actions and statements from the past, seems like an incident to me. Sswonk (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I will agree that {{db-move}} without discussion was a bad idea; and would suggest 81.xxx tries to get consensus in future... I'm just not seeing the evidence of major disruption you seem to be seeing. We now have auto-archive set up in a reasonable way, so I would basically suggest the solution to this is for both of you to stop doing anything to do with archiving this talk page! It should be a fairly trivial janitorial task, and if it's causing anyone stress then they should probably focus their efforts elsewhere. :) ~ mazca talk 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Mazca, why should I have stop having anything to do with it when I set it up to begin? If 81.110.104.91 keeps hands off, then nothing will need to be done. But I have direct knowledge of how it was proposed and configured. Via your direction, the only way I will be able to correct further edits that unilaterally change things without discussion is to notify an admin and wait. I am not interested in doing anything other than keeping the discussions clear and current. Your direction suggests that I did something wrong. Sswonk (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It was intended to do no such thing. In my view, both you and 81.xxx are taking all aspects of the archiving of this talk page entirely too seriously and too personally; and my suggestion was intended to defuse conflict without confrontation, and save you both some stress. If you genuinely think that you, personally, must be involved with the archiving of this talk page for it to be successful then I don't intend to force you to stop - but I'd encourage you to think about how important the specifics of one talk page's archiving really are. It's really up to you - I don't think anyone's behaviour, let alone yours, has got bad enough here to warrant actually restricting anyone. ~ mazca talk 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. If there's no other talk being archived to it, and there's at least a prominent link at the top, then that seems fine. I find it funny that yet again "incorrect" and "unilateral" are being used as euphemisms for "stuff I don't agree with" and "without asking me". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? You folks are arguing over archiving? --Golbez (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, User:Sswonk kicked up a stink because they weren't happy with the way things were. Note the gigantic and needlessly personal whines above. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, just 7 days leaves insufficient time for discussions to take place. 30 or 60 would be much better. Astronaut (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not 7 days from the start of a discussion, it's 7 days since the last comment was made. If a discussion is idle for a week, it's over. --Golbez (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
... but some people who might wish to comment are just not that active on Wikipedia. There really is no rush to whisk discussions away into an archive so quickly. Astronaut (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

United Airlines Operations center

I see no mention of United renting out a significant portion of the tower for their Operations Control Center. Surely it should be mentioned seeing as how they'll be the largest tenant in the tower. Yes, beating out Willis. Maybe it should be renamed the United Tower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.161.102 (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The naming rights are paid for. We didn't arbitrarily decide on Wikipedia to call it the Willis Tower. --Smashvilletalk 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Willis Group Holdings did not pay anything for the naming rights. But that is neither here nor there. I think it would be worthwhile staying on topic or taking the naming debate to another forum. --RKrause (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If we could arbitrary name buildings, why not shoot for the moon and go "Wikipedia Tower"? :) Shereth 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Or quite literally shoot for the moon. Neil Armstrong was the first man to land on the WikiMoon. --Smashvilletalk 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The name thing was a joke, but I still think that United should be mentioned in the article. Every article regarding it has said they will lease 3 times as much space as Willis does, making United Airlines the largest tenant. It should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.161.102 (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If you can dig me up a source, I'll put it in. --Smashvilletalk 19:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tallest steel-framed building

From an engineering perspective, I think it is noteworthy that the building currently maintains the title of the tallest freestanding steel structure (i.e. the tallest steel-framed skyscraper) in the world. It is also likely to hold this title for the foreseeable future as fewer and fewer supertalls are being designed and constructed of a steel skeleton -- reinforced concrete is both a more economical and more practical alternative.

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Tallest/CTBUH_TallestSteel.pdf

As shown above, CTBUH publishes a ranking of the tallest steel structure buildings. Perhaps this fact should be mentioned in the article. --RKrause (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating External Links

I was perusing the external links, and I think some revisions might be in order:

Willis Tower in the Structurae Database The database entry is actually titled "Sears Tower", so perhaps the link should reflect that. Then again, what is the reasoning for linking to the Structurae Database? There's nothing significantly noteworthy about the information it provides compared to other more comprehensive and up-to-date resources like Emporis.

SkyscraperPage diagram of Willis Tower This page produces an error message: "We're sorry, this section of SkyscraperPage.com is currently unavailable." In fact, the database has been offline persistently for four weeks. I would recommend simply removing the link until such time as the Webmaster has restored the service.

Of course, these are just suggestions. But in attempting to consistently improve this article, I think that all external resources should be reliable, functional, and of high quality --RKrause (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

John Hancock Center vs Sears Tower?

"Until 2000, the Sears Tower did not hold the record for the tallest building by pinnacle height. From 1969-1978, this record was held by the John Hancock Center, whose antenna reached a height of 1,500 ft (457.2 m), or 49 ft (14.8 m) taller than the Sears Tower's original height of 1,451 ft (442 m)."

How can this statement be true? Sears Tower was completed in 1974 with two 85 foot tall antenna bases, for a pinnacle height of 1518 feet. You can even see this in the construction photos. John Hancock Center was never taller than Sears Tower following its completion. These types of claims should always have citations. If nobody objects, I will remove this statement. --RKrause (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it; such statements require citation. --Golbez (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I object. No current source backs up your claim that antenna bases were part of the original construction. The antennas were added in 1982. Trdaisuke (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tower terrorist plot

There was nothing in the article about the plot to blow up the tower. It seems to me that a terrorist plot would be a notable event in any building's history, especially if the plot was as serious as this one. I've added a small section which I believe doesn't give undue weight to the event. Let me know if it's a problem. --NellieBly (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of floors is wrong

{{editsemiprotected}} Listed as 108, official site lists 110. Source: http://www.willistower.com/

They can list whatever they want, but it has 108 floors. The official counting of 110 includes the roof and the mechanical penthouse, which no other counting method uses. This is explained in a footnote. --Golbez (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


I have to agree with the person above. The Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) has 110 floors. This article is incorrect. Now, I don't believe anyone was counting the roof when they stated 110 floors, that wouldn't make sense. But mechanical penthouses or whatever, are still floors in the building. It doesn't matter the reason for the mechanical penthouses existence, the floors are still there that they occupy. Checking dozens of other resources, they all state 110 floors are in the building. And if the official website states 110 floors, well, come on, you can't get much more official than that. In addition, the article should go beyond stating this is the "tallest building in the United States". Although true, it's also the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, which would include both North America and South America, most of the United Kingdom, and northwestern Africa. When relaying information on the building's height, the largest geographical region should always be given at least once in the article. In this case, that would be the Western Hemisphere, or at the very least, state it is the largest in the American Hemisphere, which would include just North and South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Only responding to a single point: If their website said it had 250 floors, that wouldn't change fact. # of floors isn't something you are "official" about; either it is or it isn't a floor. Oh, and I agree partly about the hemisphere bit, though the precedence should be with the USA. "The tallest building in the United States and the western hemisphere". --Golbez (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That terminology works well too: The tallest building in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw this on Modern Marvel, the Sears Tower. It stated that the Sears Tower has 110 floors, more that 25,000 people walk in every day. It has 104 elevators, and some are double deckers. Something coming out of the History Channel should be official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickylain (talkcontribs) 16:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Silver for energy efficiency?

The link for that portion of the article is out of date and I'm wondering if there is any credible source explaining why reflecting light and heat rather than absorbing it in a cold environment would actually save energy. Seems back a**kwards to me. -Eaglescout1984 19:14, 4 January 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 (talkcontribs)

Skyboxes

Under the photo of the Skydeck's protruding glass boxes (shot from street level), the caption states that they are on the "east facade." Will someone with editing capabilities please correct this to read "west facade." 67.168.135.45 (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Family Feud

On Family Feud, the episode that aired on January 12, 2010, at noon on Syracuse channel Fox-68 WSYT the question was "Name something that Chicago is known for" and wind was number one with 49/100 points; the Willis Tower was number three but it was still called the Sears Tower on the show. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So? A lot of people still know it by that. It might have even been recorded long before the name change occurred. --Golbez (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Family Feud is not a reliable source. --Smashvilletalk 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say I wanted to put it in the article; and "reliable source?" You must think I want to change it's name back or something? Like I'm trying to say "look it's still the Sears Tower!" Not at all. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The FAA

Can you belive this thing might have been significantly higher but the FAA shot em down? Then, then they go and stick two Huge Permanant antennas on it that hinder air traffic as much as building would. It could have been 132 floors and no higher than it is now to the antennas. And Sears might have pushed it that far, too. Who knows. They had no financial issue then that's for sure. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but this isn't really a place to talk about the building, it's to talk about the article. That said, it would have been neat, though I like how it is, large but not stupidly out of place (like the Chicago Spire would have been, IMO) --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
But why does the FAA do that? Is it near an airport anyway? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
According to KVLY-TV mast, which is 2063 feet tall: "Some time after its completion, the FCC and FAA imposed a policy that states, "Although there is no absolute height limit for antenna towers, both agencies have established a rebuttable presumption against structures over 2,000 feet above ground level." The FCC and FAA may approve a taller structure in "exceptional cases."" I assume this is done to preserve airspace, even in the middle of nowhere. As for Chicago, yeah, there are two, and were three, airports right by there. --Golbez (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, lol I can't believe you brought up the KVLY mast thing, I was gonna mention that! Do you know of any other things/articles on structures where the FCC/FAA is brought up for similiar reasons? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at a list of the tallest structures in the US you will see many one of them are 1999 or 2000 feet tall, precisely due to this rule. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sears Tower in Category 6

On the page it says the building is "destroyed" in the film. But actually it is only damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabZach (talkcontribs) 04:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of this article

Why is this article at "Willis Tower" rather than "Sears Tower"? I'll admit that I'm really too familiar with how things are done here, but according to this "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article" and the common English-language name of that building remains the Sears Tower.

In the last month 52 news stories mentioned the Sears Tower, while only 42 news stories mentioned the Willis Tower. When major publications refer to the tower, Sears Tower generally takes precedence in the naming:

From [[The New Yorker]: "Kuala Lumpur’s Petronas Towers (one thousand four hundred and eighty-two feet) are thirty-two feet taller than Chicago’s Sears Tower (or Willis Tower, as it is now called)" - clearly Sears Tower is the real name, Willis Tower is a mere parenthetical [11]

Many other sources don't even mention the Willis Name, for example The Economic Times - "Christened as World One, the tower will be higher than some of the iconic global landmarks including Sears Tower in Chicago" [12], the New York Times -" including the plan to bomb the Herald Square subway station, the plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago " [13], Wired - "There are several models including Fallingwater, the Guggenheim Museum, the Empire State Building, Seattle’s Space Needle, the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Building." [14] and many, many more.

Reliable sources also confirm that the tower is better known as the Sears Tower. "An ambitious planned renovation of Willis Tower (formerly and better known as the Sears Tower)" [15], for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagolander (talkcontribs) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't engage in too lengthy an argument at the moment, but I want to point out that Wired is clearly (I can tell without clicking) talking about the Lego Architecture series, which has curiously not had the Sears Tower available for sale since around the time of the rename; my assumption was to change the name. And as for your "real name" comment, that's a little snarky; an object's real name is that given to it by its owners, not by the people at large. The Statue of Liberty's real name is "Liberty Enlightening the World", the Bean's real name is "Cloud Gate", and the Sears Tower's real name is "Willis Tower". No amount of public disagreement can change the fact that its owners have named it that. The question becomes, when does common usage trump the actual name. I believe I argued that it's about whether the name came from the popular consciousness, or from the owners. The people have nicknamed that particular statue the Statue of Liberty, or that particular structure the Bean... but they did not confer upon the Sears Tower its name. And especially with private constructions (Aon Center, FedExField, Sun Life Stadium, Burj Khalifa, Verizon Center, Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre Charlotte, Charlotte Motor Speedway (nee Lowe's Motor Speedway nee Charlotte Motor Speedway)), we should respect the desires of the owners. We can't simply say, "you don't get to name this because many people already like a name." The people didn't give Sears Tower its name, its owners did, and the owners have the right to change it regardless of the people, and I personally think we should respect their decision. Common name should not trump fact when it is demonstrably wrong. (now, if anyone ever tried to rename the Empire State Building, there'd be hell to pay, but fortunately that's a bridge we can cross should we ever arrive at it, and I don't think any company is conceited enough to try) --Golbez (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the Sears Tower falls into the same category as most corporate-named structures, since it has adopted a popular iconic value that transcends the limited circumstances of its name origin. A similar example would be Wrigley Field, which strictly speaking, is corporate named, but I strongly doubt many people would call it anything but Wrigley Field if the naming rights were transferred. It's a situation similar to where long familiar use of a trademark makes it a common term. We're not quite at that point with these examples, but I think we have crossed the threshold where the name does not belong only to the owners, since these structures have broader historical importance and the traditional names have acquired a general currency.
I agree with the person above. The only really iconic building on that list is Burj Khalifa in Dubai and that is not the same situation as is new and was known as Burj Dubai only during the construction faze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.248.2 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
However the article is named, there is no justification for "presentism" that rewrites the past in terms of present nomenclature. It is ahistorical to say that the "Willis Tower" was ever the world's tallest building. Proper method for historical narratives requires that you use the name that was in use at the time you are describing. At the very least, restore the name Sears Tower when describing anything before mid-2009. Otherwise it reads like corporate revisionism. JoeFink (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The building known as the Willis Tower was indeed the world's tallest building, just as we could say that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been the third-largest country in area in Africa since independence, notwithstanding that it used to be named Zaire. So far as I can tell, care has been taken to minimize anachronisms; can you point one out? Example, "Taipei 101 surpassed the Petronas Twin Towers in spire height and the Sears Tower in roof height". It was known as Sears Tower then, and the proper name is used. The only supposed anachronism I can find is indeed in the infobox, but that is accurate: The building that is Willis Tower was the tallest in the world, but under a different name, which is a distinction better handled in prose. It's not like it became a different building when renamed. A list of "buildings which have been the tallest in the world" would rightly call it the "Sears Tower (now Willis Tower)", since it had that name while being the tallest... but in this case, I think what's there is fine. --Golbez (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia's article on the Statue of Liberty is called, quite properly, Statue of Liberty. The Wikipedia naming convention is based not on the rather metaphysical concept of the "real name," it's based on the name that the subject is best known by. The evidence suggests that the building is still best known as the Sears Tower, so according to Wikipedia rules, the name should be changed back. Nareek (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It reads like corporate revisionism because it is corporate revisionism. This is just another reason wikipedia is full of crap. Happens all the time. Get used to it. 72.247.151.10 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Corporate revisionism... of a corporate name? So, er... I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's not like "Sears Tower" was a name bequeathed upon it by a loving populace since it embodied the nature of Sears & Roebuck for them. That was its old name; it has a new name. Kind of like "Cote d'Ivoire". Isn't that corporate revisionism, just of a different kind of corporation? --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that common naming conventions would seem to indicate that the article should still (at least for the time being, unless and until common usage changes) be called "Sears Tower". The relevant distinction is between "official name" and "common name" (let us set aside any possible red herrings re "real name"). This debate has been had all over, in many organizations, and it seems sensible that wikipedia should follow common usage---compare the issue as discussed re Macedonia (official name "Republic of Macedonia", still called commonly in some parts of the world "The Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia", but generally agreed here to follow the English language usage conventions, which calls it simply "Macedonia"). Wikipedia policy is, and should be, to follow English speakers' usage: we are *not* bound by official bodies' pronouncements (be they the U.N. or a corporate naming contract). Mundart (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Macedonia's a poor example, since the common name and the formal name are virtually equivalent. A much better example is Myanmar, which in its [incorrect, IMO] wisdom, Wikipedia has chosen to place at Burma. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this should be at Sears Tower per WP:COMMONNAME. 99.146.122.70 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The opening sentence reads "The Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as the Sears Tower)", and it itself states that the common name is the Sears Tower. Why then, is WP:COMMONNAME being disregarded? Lynch7 17:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Rather the point I was trying to make is that the opening sentence should not mention "still commonly referred to". Any person with basic WP knowledge will immediately dispute that. Lynch7 12:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Not really; you're assuming an object cannot have more than one common name. The country I am in is commonly referred to as either the United States or America. Several countries are commonly referred to with multiple names (England/UK, Holland/Netherlands, Russia/USSR), and while some of those names are factually incorrect, that doesn't change that they are commonly used. So, saying that one name is still commonly used does not mean it's the only name commonly used. --Golbez (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at a Google News search for the last month, there are 200 results for "Sears tower" and 103 for "Willis Tower". So 2x more for Sears, but let's consider that most of those, based on my reading, are about reactions to 9/11, when the building was called the Sears Tower, so that introduces a certain anachronism to these numbers; furthermore, many articles use both names. But I'm seeing articles from the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the AP all saying "Willis Tower". I'm going to have to challenge this notion that 'Sears' is still the preferred name, at least in the press. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
A year after the fact, I would likewise challenge that it's still "commonly" known by its prior name. Renaming this article to the tower's former name would make wikipedia look stupid. Let's try to avoid that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, true that ^ (all the likelihood of getting a couple of weird negative press reports). Anyway, where I come from, its still commonly referred to as Sears Tower, but if Chicagoans themselves call it Willis Tower, then I shouldn't have any reservations. Good day guys. Lynch7 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Corporate rebranding nonsense - this should be Sears tower. That's ok, when the rights change again, we will just change the name again, ignoring COMMONNAME. What a load of nonsense, wikipedia is a corporate cesspool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.162.10 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Corporate rebranding of a corporate name, why is this considered so inviolate? --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the IP could buy the naming rights himself. Then he could call it the Sears Tower, the 96.30.162.10 Tower, the Corporate Cesspool Tower, or whatever he wants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we have reached a consensus that this should be called Sears Tower. Can someone go ahead and rename the article? Stargate70 (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because some reliable news sources haven't caught up with the name change, does not mean Wikipedia should follow suit. If the name has changed - owners have changed their buildings' name - then off course, we should do the same. It's the Willis Tower, not Sears. I think we should all try and start living in the present, and not the past. I would think that CommonName goes out the window, if it's possible to count multiple articles that don't follow the guidline. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 01:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
We have? A handful of comments that ended with two people agreeing that Chicagoans call it the Willis Tower from a month ago without any formal RM request is consensus? --Golbez (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Golbez, we will need such a change to pass a formal RM before this article should be moved. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There's an interesting article here ("Talkin' About Willis"). It says, "During the second half of 2009, the Sears Tower name accounted for 56% of the media references to the tower, according to a survey of newspapers and magazines by HighBeam Research. Thus far this year, Willis Tower has surpassed Sears, accounting for about 54%." Zagalejo^^^ 19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the actual name, the name in common usage is the Sears Tower. People actually in Chicago will probably not ever refer to the building as the Willis Tower. Do you see people rushing off to rename one of Frank Lloyd Wrights buildings? No. The Pentagon isn't getting a new name. Neither is the White House. The Sears Tower is named for the company that built it and it should remain that way for all time. If some corporation buys up the rights to the name of the Golden Gate Bridge, would still refer to it as the Golden Gate? This is really an issue of history and not really about how cool the name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.5.126 (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Construction

Are there really no pictures of the construction of the Sears Tower? It must have been fairly widely covered in the media. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Also I can't believe there are no pictures from the skydeck here. There are tons of freely licensed pictures on flickr. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm gonna upload a couple. One thing I don't get is that some are under a CC license but still say request to license via Getty Images. I changed a photo to CC to see what happened and the Getty Images thing disappeared. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Seanm775, 11 May 2011

Please change "At the time of its completion in 1973, it was the tallest building in the world, surpassing the World Trade Center towers in New York, and it held this rank for nearly 25 years." to "At the time of completion in 1973, it was the tallest building in the world, surpassing the World Trade Centre towers 1 and 2 in New York, until the completion of the CN Tower in Toronto 3 Years later."

Seanm775 (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The CN Tower is a free-standing structure, not a building. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
To put it a way that has worked for me: When you remove the usable, inhabitable, areas from the CN Tower, or, say, the KVLY-TV mast, you still have a tremendously tall tower. When you remove the usable, inhabitable, areas from the Sears Tower, you're left with an empty lot. That's the difference between a building and a tower. Both, however, are structures. Incidentally, the Sears Tower was never the tallest structure in the world, having been built after said KVLY-TV mast. It was, however, the tallest free-standing structure. Distinctions are fun! --Golbez (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Transformers Dark of the Moon

The tower was used in Transformers Dark of the Moon. It is used by the military. They use it to sneak into Chicago. The tower is later destroyed in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, i have seen the movie and it is destroyed and used to sneak into Chicago. I will add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvalou (talkcontribs) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fifth Tallest Structure?

The article lists the Willis Tower as the fifth tallest freestanding structure in the world. Included in that description is a link to the article listing the tallest freestanding structures in the world, which clearly places the Willis tower as seventh. 24.252.249.102 (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Unfortunately, these skyscraper articles are a complete mess, with all kinds of contradictory and out-of-date information. I decided to completely remove the "height to roof" ranking, since it doesn't seem like the corresponding article on that list has been updated lately. Zagalejo^^^ 03:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


Building Lean

The figure about the building leaning 4 inches to the West is undocumented and false. According to the new owners of the "Sears Tower" name, the building was designed to lean 6 inches to counteract for the rotation of the Earth -- a fact that engineers later discovered was unnecessary. Documented at http://www.searstower.org/home.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.182.118 (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Height

It says that the Petronas Towers are taller. The Willis Tower is 527 m (1,729 ft ) at the top of the antenna, and 442.1 m (1,450 ft) at the roof, while the Petronas Towers are 451.9 m (1,483 ft) at the antenna, 378.6 m (1,242 ft) at the roof, and 375 m (1,230 ft) at the top floor. 75.27.38.167 (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I know this is two years old but everything deserves a response. By the standards created by CTBUH and generally acknowledged, Petronas are taller because the spire is considered an architectural, structural element, whereas Willis's antenna is not. You can remove an antenna with no problem, but removing a spire requires a more drastic change. So while Willis is taller in two of the three categories (height to highest inhabitable floor, height to tip), Petronas wins in the one that CTBUH considers most important, height to structural top. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Willis tower is no longer the tallest tower in the United States after May 10, 2013 when the Spire was placed atop the Freedom Tower in New York making it the tallest building in the western hemisphere. -Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.97.18 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

How many spaces does the parking garage have

How many spaces does the parking garage have and is it used solely for building occupants and guests? 14:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

There is an error in the caption under the photo of the skyboxes next to the Skydeck section. It says they are on the east facade when, in fact, they are on the west facade. I was able to edit this in the source from Wikimedia Commons, but the change does not appear (yet) on the main Willis Tower page. FYI - I work in the Willis Tower.

Mseabloom (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out and welcome to Wikipedia! jonkerz 01:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources on United's move to the Willis Tower

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Something important but unmentioned

The Sears Tower is built from nine narrow, square, vertical modules—arranged in a three-by-three grid—and only two of which rise to the building's full height. This deserves mention insofar as it is an altogether unique construction paradigm. It also partially explains why the multiple setbacks at floor 66 are always littered with bat carcasses. 98.249.207.46 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this mentioned in the very first paragraph of the History section? --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Willis Tower and Tallest Buildings in the US

Willis Tower is the largest building in the United States, not the second largest. From the ground to the top floor the Sears Tower stand taller than the New World Trade Center. The New World Trade Center is the second largest building in the United States with the largest antenna attached to the top of it. If we're talking about the tallest buildings here then the antenna is not something that is included in that measurement. Can a tourist go stand at the top of the antenna? No, so that is not counted into the height of the building. 98.227.30.125 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Except 1WTC has a spire, not an antenna, and in the realm of building heights, these are treated differently. That is why Petronas Towers were considered taller than Sears, because their spires were above Sears' roof, even though Sears had an antenna. Spires are considered architectural, antennas are not. But yes, Willis still has the highest roof in the country, but that is only one category; the most common category is "to architectural top". --Golbez (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend that you cite your sources. According to my research, the "spire" of the One World Trade Center is most certainly an antenna:
"There has been significant controversy surrounding the antenna, which was originally supposed to be a spire. The distinction is trivial but matters for the building’s official height, as measured by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. A spire is an architectural element, an antenna is not. Thus, given the loss of the radome which covered the antenna and formerly distinguished One World Trade Center’s roof element as a spire, the building’s official height will likely be under 1,400 feet." (http://newyorkyimby.com/2012/12/installation-of-one-world-trade-centers-antenna-begins.html)
The original One World Trade Center plans called for antenna segments encased in radome. Yet, Sears Tower's antennae are encased in radome, and they have always been discounted from the official height measurement. Therefore, the only distinction to qualify as a "spire" seems to be that the architect for One World Trade Center asked the CTBUH for permission.
Such a willful contradiction defies all logic and clearly indicates that the criteria being used by the CTBUH is arbitrary and not applied with any rigor nor consistency. How can the CTBUH be trusted as a technical authority if their standards do not even account for reality? That is a signature of incompetence not expertise, and I would argue it wholly invalidates their credibility as an organization. --RKrause (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Didn't know all this. But, I only go by what the pages tell me, which is that 1WTC's 1776 feet was considered structural. Maybe the final decision for that will come from CTBUH when it opens? I mean, they had the guts to declare Petronas taller than Sears, so they should have the guts to stand by their rules and say an antenna is not structural. What Wikipedia shouldn't be is internally inconsistent; we can't say 1WTC is 1776' on one page but <1400' on another, so this should be brought up with that article's talk page. --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I concur with internal consistency. Therefore, I have compiled a list of discrepancies on the following talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States
I expect these issues will be rectified, otherwise such glaring errors do not lend much credibility to Wikipedia. --RKrause (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Elimination of reference by the name of Sears Tower

Though it may be popular in culture, Sears Tower has been renamed to Willis Tower and should no longer be referenced by the Sears Tower name. However, it is unclear to me whether to refer to the tower by its former name when talking about historical moments. Example: The Sears Tower observation deck, called the Skydeck, opened on June 22, 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas hashmi (talkcontribs) 13:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The article at a glance appears to do an adequate job of referring to the tower as Willis, except in historical contexts, when it is of course better to use the name as it was at the time. Perhaps you can point to specific parts of the article which you think don't do this? --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


On the contrary, given the historical and cultural importance of the Sears company, it should be referred to as the Sears tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:AFC0:2:2160:F200:DE65:E9FD (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Number two

The article currently (May 2013) still says the Sears Tower is the tallest building in the U.S., but the link to Wikipedia's article on tallest buildings in the U.S. says it is now number two, befitting the city's nickname.Kdammers (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the CTBUH skyscraper database lists Sears Tower as the tallest building officially in the United States -- befitting Wikipedia's unreliability as an encyclopedia. --RKrause (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"belt truss"

The link does not go to a page that explains this term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.223 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC) 

Sky Deck Closing May 2014

In regards to the sky deck cracking and being closed, shouldn't that be changed to the protective coating that protects the glass cracked? The glass itself is structurally fine and the protective coating that protects from scratches was doing it's job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.65.204 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Tallest in the world from 1973-2010 with antenna spire pinnacle height

I called "Sears Tower" instead of Willis Tower, because that's what people called that for in Chicago. The height of this building is considered to be 1,730 feet and 527 meters tall with the antenna spire exist adds up a pinnacle height on worldwide. --Allen Talk 06:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer this to be the tallest skyscraper in the world from 1973 until 2010 with the antenna spire pinnacle height exist and it's surpassed by Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. However PETRONAS Towers and Taipei 101 are not the tallest buildings in the world succeeded by Sears Tower spire height, but the roof height does with 1998 until 2010. --Allen Talk 16:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Sears tower is taller than the one world trade center. it has the highest occupiable floor space in usa. http://skyscrapercenter.com/chicago/willis-tower/ --58.97.142.89 (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
One World Trade Center, can be either taller than the Sears Tower with the pinnacle height is 1,776 feet of new 1 WTC design in New York City. --Allen Talk 07:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Article Semi-protected, I have an addition to the cultural depictions section

In the pen and paper role playing game "Shadowrun", and in the novel based on the same "Burning Bright", the Willis Tower (called the Sears Tower) is mentioned a few different times. Terrorists, using a combination of magic and heavy explosives, weakened the foundation of the building until it collapsed to the pavement. The resulting damage leveled about 10 blocks in every direction. Because of the haunted nature of the ruins, cleanup was never enacted. The location becomes known as the "Shattergraves", and is home to many varieties of spirit and undead.

Since Shadowrun's on its 5th edition, and has been the subject of video games for SNES, Sega Genesis, Xbox 360, and PC? I figure it's of enough importance to toss this factoid in there. Anyone with editing powers wanna do me the honor? 184.167.51.54 (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the page

Actually, this article must be named to "Sears Tower" (formerly rather calling the Willis Tower). --Allen talk 15:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@AllenHAcNguyen: See WP:COMMONNAME. Willis Tower has a lot more results on Google. --NeilN talk to me 16:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: Actually they're calling the Sears Tower only, but Willis is different. --Allen talk 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
And your sources for that? --NeilN talk to me 12:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Television reception

Much is made in the lawsuits section about fears that the Sears Tower would negatively impact TV reception in Chicago, but the article never says whether it actually did. Were the concerns justified or did the tower end up having no impact after all? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The building has been sold again

This article needs to be updated to include the recent agreement to sell the building to the Blackstone Group for 1.3 billion. <ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-willis-tower-being-sold-biz-20150315-story.html<ref> —MelbourneStartalk 07:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yooperann (talkcontribs) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Willis Tower. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —MelbourneStartalk 07:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)