Talk:List of tallest buildings in Chicago/Archive 1

Sears Tower

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

• It is, but it is called Willis Tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.182 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (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)

Drop Down: Chicago Skyscrapers

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)

Featured List

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, the 1,050-foot (320 m) Trump International Hotel & Tower, and the 1,047-foot (319 m) Waterview Tower. 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. The tower would also stand as the second tallest all-residential building in the world,surpassing Q1 in Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. 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. As of June 2008, there are 160 high-rise buildings under construction, approved for construction, and proposed for construction in Chicago.

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 --Torsodog^Talk 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? --Torsodog^Talk 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)