Talk:Skyscraper/Archive 1

We appreciate your help to the article. I honestly find it's messing up the layout abit and has left a Big, big gap in the center, just below the list of skyscrapers chart. We could possibly re-arrange them, or possibly remove some which are less of a "priorty", if you know what I mean, or maybe an Image Gallery.

Thanks

Someformofhuman 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe somebody should write less sloppy...

Or maybe somebody should have less talk and do more instead instead of making a complete ass of himself shamelessly vandalizing pages.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A image has the following text under it "The JP Morgan Chase Tower in Houston, Texas at 305m is the tallest five sided tower in the world." Is this necessary? Should we start stating the tallest 3, 4 and 6 sided towers in the world? Ednel 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think some of these can actually be removed. Even the rest of the images with their so called "agenda", if you know what I mean. Put it simply, I just find that there are too many unecesarry stuff in the article.

SomeFormOFhuman

09:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How can the article state that the Home Insurance Building is the first skyscraper and the box list the Equitable Life Building? Both were included in the original draft so I'm assuming there's a reason.Ando228 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved those images here because they were messing with the article layout. Already have one image of the Petronas towers. No need for a duplicate. KyuuA4 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)...

Removed: "Another well used definition is a habitable building of 150 metres/495 feet in height."

This information is missing?

1) Who defined this criteria? Who uses it? How widespread it is? Why 150 metres exactly?

2) What is "habitable building"? I.e., is CN Tower, with its observation deck, habitable or not? If it is, what's the difference between "scyscraper" and "tower" then?

---

Removed from the Skyscraper page:

This list is almost certainly out of date. Please correct it!

The CN Tower in Toronto is the world's tallest free-standing structure and is recognized by the Guiness Book of World Records as the tallest building in the world, why is it not listed on this page? it's 447m (1,465ft.) tall measuring to the sky pod, the highest level where people can go inside the building, so it should be #3 on the list even when you discount the antenna. http://www.cntower.ca/

I guess the previous compiler's rules exclude the CN tower completely, as it is an antenna, and they don't count antennae.

FUCK THAT!

But not all of the tower is antenna; I specifically limited the height I listed above to be that of the highest human-habitable floor rather than the top of the antenna. The main page says that this is a list of the tallest buildings, and also that these are all the buildings over 300m, so the CN Tower wouldn't be excluded under that description. I think it should either be included, or the criteria for its exclusion should be made explicit.

What about Centrepoint Tower in Sydney? Its 326m high... And its not an antenna (it has an observation deck and revolving resturaunt at the top, along with communications equipment)... although, I don't know if the 326m is to the roof or the the top of the antenna-like spire (IIRC, its not actually an antenna) on the roof... (Another source I just found says its only 305m high... but thats still above 300m.)

Also, maybe we should mention the Rialto Towers? There only about 250m tall, but they are the tallest office building in the Southern Hemisphere (though not the tallest building...) -- SJK

That's the trick. Those wiley chambers of commerce will add another 10 feet of ornamental mast and call it the tallest! I once read an idiosyncratic distinction between 'skyscrapers', 'towers', and 'radiomasts' - Skyscrapers have to have inhabitable space for at least 80% of their height (big radiomast on top is not a disqualifcation, in other words); towers are nothing but an elevator shaft with a restaurant on top even if they also broadcast (sounds like Centrepoint is one of those; CN and the Space Needle in Seattle certainly are); and radio towers are just that with no other occupants. I like it, but I can't find it on my shelves (I unloaded most of my 20th c. architecture a few moves ago). However, I've never seen another attempt to quantify skyscraper vs. tower. I hate "structure" as a synonym for "building" - the 'structure' is the system which holds the building up. But that's a pedantic distinction. --MichaelTinkler

Well, the bottom so many floors of Centrepoint Tower are 10-20 floors of shopping (and I think offices). And then the floors below end, and its just a thin tower, with lift shafts, fire stairs and services for a big distance, and then you get to the top bit, which is wider and is something like 4 or 5 stories high... and then theres more stuff on top of that (during the Sydney Olympics, they had giant statutes on top, from which they launched fireworks...) But its probably uninhabitable tower for more than half its height... so I suppose, by that definition, its not a skyscraper, just a tower... -- SJK

The table that was previously on this page was pretty much cut and paste in, including explanatory notes, from [1]. This is not only copyrighted (though the information, of course, isn't, the presentation certainly is), it is copyrighted by a potential competitor of Wikipedia--someone who has a financial motivation to try to sue us for violations like this. Please be careful about things like this. --LMS

I guess it's slightly moot considering the original table has been removed, but if and when another "Tallest buildings" table gets added there should be a column indicating the building's classification; eg, "communication antenna" "office building" "tourist attraction" etc. That way all the various towers can be listed together, compared easily, and there will be no more war or strife in the world.

An excellent idea! Moving to the talk:Worlds tallest buildings -- The Anome

Who coined the term skyscraper? When was it first used? Kingturtle 19:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-

I know that the term was first used to describe the buildings being built in New York, because it seemed like they touched the sky.

The "comparison" drawing at the bottom, showing building silhouettes, is an incredibly good idea, but the numbers on it don't match the numbers in the table above, and I am pretty sure the Petronas towers are taller and larger than illustrated when compared to the Sears Tower in the same drawing. Tempshill 17:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Strange one. Why is Petronas Twin Towers the second tallest building in the world then mentioned as disputed in the history of the world's tallest? Seems like US-centricity again.

Conventionally, decorative structures count toward height, but antennas do not, giving the Petronas Towers in Malaysia, built in 1997, at 1,483 feet (452 m) each, the official lead. [2]

Because, in the tradition and lore of tall building, spires count, antennas don't. [3][4]

Shouldn't the building be in? Mandel 11:43, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Petronas only held one of the four main height categories but was shorter in the other three, and as a result the 'official' status for the general worlds tallest title is disputed. Greyengine5 06:19, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

It was only disputed by Americans, mainly. See [5]. "Eventually, in a unanimous vote, it was ruled on April 12, 1996, that Petronas Towers is indeed the world's tallest building." Mandel 12:37, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

It was disputed by many peoples. There is also a dispute about whether the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) (located in Pennslyvania (U.S)) verdicts are correct - and, either way, whether they are popularly accepted or not is another matter. In the case of petr., even using CTBUH guidline results in it taking only 1 of 4 of their defined height categories- something which has lead to mixed popular acceptance of a general title such as 'heighest'. Greyengine5 17:11, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

But people dispute over everything, generally. Are we going to overrule the arbritration of CTBUH just because a general no. of Americans disregard it? It seems the highest possible arbitration body is overruled for no good reason, even though it was consensual amongst the highest body. Mandel 13:13, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Old Town, in Edinburgh, Scotland, is home to several buildings of 10 or more stories, dating from the 15th, 16th & 17th centuries. This would seem to predate the skyscrapers of Chicago by a considerable margin. The city wall in Edinburgh precluded extending buildings laterally, so the burgeoning population had no choice but to build upwards. It makes for a quite unique cityscape.

This is also the case of Lancashire, 12 floor tall woolen mills built with metal frames in the 18th century. Lets not forget the Grand Midland Hotel in London. 9 hotel floors plus lobby and plant floor, it had lifts working (steam powered hydraulics), steel frame and opened in 1872. At the time the tallest secular building around. In terms of the modular design used in Chicago on the first towers there this was a direct copy of the Oriel Chambers in Liverpool which you can read about here, the date is 1864 for that - its not a skyscraper but it is a modern office building in every sense of the word. We can go back even further, there's plenty of more ancient buildings which were over 10 floors tall, some cities had whole streets of them. This article is nothing more than an american-centric view of architecture which is totally utterly wrong, just check out Yemen.

The article is a description of "skyscrapers" which are commonly defined as having a frame rather than masonry bearing walls. The Roman insulae, the Yemen mud-brick houses, and the buildings in Edinburgh (I'm unfamiliar with Lancashire) are constructed with masonry bearing walls and, mostly, wood-joist floors. They are tall buildings, some of them of notable architecture, but if such buildings are skyscrapers, then the term is pretty much meaningless. --Donald Friedman 21:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of skyscraper - this article defines it as "The word skyscraper was originally a nautical term for a tall mast or sail on a sailing ship. Today the word is used exclusively to refer to a tall habitable building, usually higher than 152 metres (500 feet). A skyscraper is also sometimes referred to as a highrise, a term which is generally used to refer to a residential building." Also, the definition in Merriam-Webster is "a very tall building" - in general, when people use this term, are they really concerned with the technicalities of construction or the height of the building? I've always recognised it it refer to the height, not the construction method. In any case, whichever definition you are using still means that the worlds first skyscrapers were not in Chicago.

If you use the definition you quoted from the article, then none of the Edinburgh, Roman, or Yemeni structures count as skyscapers because of height. Personally, I think 150 meters is too high a cut-off, but I think it's important to be consistent. When the word entered use with respect to buildings, it was in reference to 10- and 11- story buildings in NYC and Chicago, most of which had bearing-wall structure. Few people would consider those to be skyscrapers today, which suggests that the word has to be used in a time and geographical context.

If you use the M-W definition, why isn't the Campanile San Marco in Venice a skyscraper?

I'm not arguing for Chicago primacy. I'm saying that "tall" is subjective, "skyscraper" has quite different definitions to architects and engineers on the one side and the public on the other (see the CTBUH discussion above), and that the interest expressed in both popular and professional literature has included technology as well as height. Since I don't believe there's a "first skyscraper," I really don't care what building gets called that. For years the Home Insurance building in Chicago had that title, despite a ten-story height and exterior wall that bore their own weight. The Lancashire mills mentioned above were transitional structures, as was Home Insurance. I have severe doubts that the Grand Midland Hotel (with which I'm unfamiliar) had a steel frame in 1872. That does not accord with known U.K. construction history. I suspect that it had steel beams, which were certainly available at that time, and maybe some interior steel columns, although I'd like to see a source. --Donald Friedman 16:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

im afraid youre wrong donald. not only did it have a full metal frame but it wasnt the first. the victorians were very into their metal framed buildings, an example is the natural history museum. its only 58m tall but look at the pictures on wikipedia of the interior, see the steel structure holding up the ceiling? why doesnt it accord with known uk construction industry the use of prefabricated metal structures were pioneered by the british in the 1851 exhibition, just look at crystal palace.the grand midland hotel had all the following - were steel, reinforced concrete, water pumps, elevators. it also had fire doors, revolving doors. it uses 60 million bricks and 9000 tons of steel in the hotel building. it was also the first building to have those that was over six floors tall being 9 floors, they actually lopped several floors off it to limit the cost, had they not done that itd be over 100m tall.if anyone can find an earlier example of a building that has all the things a skyscraper has then lets hear it.

I think the 500 ft/150 m standard is a bit steep. I used to work in a 27-story building that was about 300 feet (90 m) high, and it felt like a skyscraper to me. Personally, I'd just say that any building with more than 20 or 25 stories is a skyscraper. Funnyhat 05:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

-

Yes, buildings that height can seem tall enough to be a skyscraper. I agree.

-

I disagree. I think a "true" skyscraper is a building of at least 150m.

There was some discussion of the quote on the Village pump here, and, so far as I can see, no real conclusion. I put the quote back, because I think it makes it a better article. It's not POV, it introduces the subject, and is in line with WP:IAR! We should not be afraid to boldly ignore style guides occasionally in the rare places where doing so improves the article. Hope you don't mind! Trollderella 23:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has one major flaw in that it doesn't mention the Ingalls Building in Cincinnati, OH (built 1903). While the late 19th century buildings including the Home Insurance Building in Chicago through the Park Row Building in NYC were major steps forward in building design, it is not entirely accurate to refer to them as "skyscrapers". The more appropriate term would be "proto-skyscraper". The reasoning here is that those buildings constructed between 1885 and 1899 are *not* the same structures we now refer to as skyscrapers. Specifically, one of the key elements of a skyscraper is reinforced concrete -- an item that is missing from the late 19th century structures listed in this article. However, the Ingalls Building did contain this feature in it's design and was the first structure ever to do so. Virtually every high rise building in the world is derived from the Ingalls Building design whereas the same cannot be said for earlier, more "basic" (though very successful) attempts such as Chicago's Home Insurance Building and it's proto-skyscraper brethren. [On a final note, please let me point out that I am not an expert on this topic and that I post this information in hopes that someone who can cite sources will see this and add an appropriate section to this article. Though to be honest, I'm very surprised this hasn't already happened considering these facts show up frequently in high school history classes and are taught in virtually every collegiate architectural and engineering program I've ever heard of.] stereoisomer 16:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC/GMT)

Would anyone be able to provide a photo' of the Sears Tower from a similar angle but without the lean? JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza}]] 10:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

well, on the german wiki-page, there is a similar discussion about the correct definition of skyscraper and its height.

there is also a definition for the skyscrapers with a height of 150m in the article.i guess the author used the same source, but he doesn´t gave any quotes and any reason for this defined height.

the only, correct definition of a skyscraper in germany is, that minimum one habitable level must be over 22m over groundfloor;caused of the fire rescue stairs of the firefighter, that just reached a height of 22m. nowaday they are able to reach up to 35m, but the law isn´t changed.

so i hoped to get some more information, here in english wiki, but here is the same discussion :(

-- Mimar 09:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the use of the word demolished there seem a bit out of place, considering "demolition" has connotations of a controlled, planned destruction - as was the case (I'm assuming) in all the others in that table? I changed it to destroyed (w/interlink), I guess someone changed it back (but at least kept the interlink) for consistency's sake... --Tothebarricades 10:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree. "Destroyed" may be a better term. Given all the 9/11 conspiracy stuff floating around the Internet, "demolished" is a poor choice of word, regardless of whatever replacement might be chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.129.194 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree as well, it is awkward to note that it says "demolished", but unfortunately reliable external source, proof and citation are a must to proof this and would be a more important issue to take note of. As said, we follow sources, and not our own perception of what we think it should be or based on a situation that occurred to it. As stated at the bottom, "sources:emporis.com" we have to follow it. Also, on Emporis and on CTBUH, the statutes are limited and does not have a "Destroyed" category. Hence, the very status that is even close to its meaning is "Demolished".

See the statuses:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1worldtradecenter-newyorkcity-ny-usa

As noted by emporis, Status: Demolished —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someformofhuman (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 June 2008

I also think that we should differentiate between demolished and destroyed. Just because Emporis does not do that, does not mean we cannot. Here on Wikipedia, we are independent and are not held back by the policies on other websites. We should use "demolished" for structures which were imploded, demolished, etc. on purpose. "Destroyed" should be used for structures which were destroyed by accident, natural events, or human acts which were not expected or planned. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the original layout was very ugly in a 800x600 monitor resolution (even with the browser set to full screen), I put the Petronas Towers image into a separately tabled and specially formatted placeholder, so that it wouldn't be able to block text in the table /current look.

The former ugly version can be seen in here.

The current solution has the "Tallest skyscrapers" table lowered a bit from its text above. Additionally, if the image placeholder does overlap into the large table (in case the viewport's width gets reduced, either through activating a sidebar or the user requiring to have windows with reduced widths) , then I set the text background to be very slightly opaque, so that text in the first rows of the large table could still be seen, somewhat... And that it wouldn't be so ugly either.
-Mardus 13:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I updated this to reflect the fact that Hong Kong has more buildings over 150m than New York.Can someone help me put these references in? I can't get it to work properly.Hong Kong - http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101300&bt=9&ht=2&sro=201New York - http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101028&bt=9&ht=2&sro=181

That Hong Kong list appears to have quite a lot of duplicates, whereas the NY list has none or very few. Are we sure these are really separate buildings? What are the criteria? --Nomenclaturist 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai has the most buidings over 150m in the world. I have no reference though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.236.216 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

decent picture showing some historical "highrises" in edinburgh here: http://noah.typepad.com/photolog/DSCN2486.jpg .. anyone want to research copyright and include it?

I'm not sure the 108-meter Milwaukee City Hall belongs in the history of tallest skyscrapers section. Only the lower half of the building has fully occupiable floors; the rest is a bell tower. And there were many bell towers (even some medieval ones) that were higher than 108m. --Opie 05:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better to include the country names for some of these buildings, and not just the cities?

There are so many skyscrapers that are planned to be built we should have a section on it. Yes?No?87.113.24.102 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest adding a "proposed" category for the status section of the chart of the highest 'scrapers. Perhaps the categories for buildings which have not yet been built could include "in construction" or "in development". That way we could show what will be happening in the world of 'scrapers in the future. Comments? Azlib77 07:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, when I first entered into this section, I feel that there should be a section of proposed skyscrapers. I have complied information over the years, and I will be writing a new level 2 headline: "Proposed Skyscrapers". Then there will be a list of proposed skyscrapers and etc... Whatever that you would like to edit is great.

I removed "Weinberg, David. Towering Mirrors, Mirroring Towers. New York: Glitterati Incorporated, 2006. ISBN 0977753123" because I believe it to be linkspam. Please see User_talk:66.108.157.73.

Because of 9-11, there has been a lot of talk about whether skyscrapers are safe. I think a section on this might add to the article. Thoughts? Azlib77 07:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I was wondering the if the font size of the skyscraper quotes to be bigger? Say like medium size.I've also added 4 new quotes, hope you can contribute more.

Thanks.

Stefan

I agree, frankly, I liked it when the article opened with a quote. I know, I know, it was non-standard, but it was only one article, and a little whimsy every now and again wouldn't kill anyone. Trollderella 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every little edit has to be discussed, but well, if you wish. The picture does not add relevant new information, the article is cluttered with way too many pictures (Wikipedia is not a gallery). The picture leads to an unproportional overrepresentation of Frankfurt and the Commerzbank tower. And its size is inappropriate. 600px width is fine for a panoramic image, but this a 4:3 picture. My suggestion stands, let's throw one of the Frankfurt pics out (and possibly other pics as well, again: WP:NOT). If you insist on keeping the new pic at least reduce the thumb to a reasonable size. --Dschwen 13:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can bring a solution to your discussion. I recently visited Frankfurt. In my opinion Frankfurt is very popular with skyline lovers all over the world and the city itself is beautiful, too. I doubt there's any comparable skyline in Europe. Therefore, I added a new picture which is a bit smaller and which does not emphazise the Commerzbank tower but the entire skyline.

I believe that the set cutoff limit for a skyscraper which was raised to 150 meters (approx 500 feet) was way too high regardless of whether it was set with an eye to the new record heights the new generation of far-Asian or middle east towers are expected to break.

Notably, the 150 meter limit leaves out historical buildings or modern urban landmarks like the Pirelli building in Milan (approx 130m), the Centrepoint and the Barbican Towers in London (approx 123m - above 40 floors each) or other significant buildings that were built as skyscrapers, look like skyscrapers and have a significant impact on their respective cities skylines.

Regardless of what extremely tall buildings are under massive construction in some particular locations, for the majority of the cities worldwide, a 150m-tall building is a significant and iconic addition to their skyline. Also, a 100m-tall building corresponds to 30 floors in many cases especially when referring to residential blocks. It is rather weird that 30, 40 story buildings or even taller are excluded from the definition of a skyscraper. The built environment worldwide does not look exclusively like Shanghai, New York or Dubai. Gm2263 12:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some links with this definition? I never read tath the was 100m limit, and I think that the most common and acepted limit is 500 ft. Remember that we can't add original research in Wikipedia. I have done some google searches with this results:

266   Skyscraper height limit "500 ft"785   Skyscraper height limit "500 feet"521   Skyscraper height minimum "500 feet"178   Skyscraper height limit "150 meters" // +10 with "152 meters" +2 with "152.5 meters"8     Skyscraper height limit "333 ft"8     Skyscraper height limit "333 feets"3     Skyscraper height minimum "333 feet"557   Skyscraper height limit "100 meters" // "100 meters" is a very common word and can add false results.

I think that the most common heigth is 500 ft (or 152m aprox.) and this is the limit that was writed in the article one month ago. You only have one edition, and you haven't left references whith this limit.

I think that we must revert the edition, because it can be a original research or a personal opinion (pov).

Sorry if I have been boring, and if my english is dificult to read.--212.183.251.207 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Other wikipedias have a 500 ft limit, I think that 100 m is false.--212.183.251.207 10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be relative to the other buildings around it.

" 1. a relatively tall building of many stories, esp. one for office or commercial use.

2. Architecture. a building of exceptional height completely supported by a framework, as of girders, from which the walls are suspended, as opposed to a building supported by load-bearing walls. "

The World Almanac also lists buildings over 300 ft. as notable. - Marc Averette 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but It list them as "notable", and 300ft is 91.5m not 100m. I think that 100m is a point of view of one user, but isn't a criteria as accepted as 500ft, but I can't change it. If we write a "minimum" height, we must write 500ft, not 100m (or 300ft), because 500ft is a more common criteria than the other two.--212.183.251.207 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How is water pressure maintained at the top of skyscrapers? Edward 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

pumps and storage tanks. Trollderella 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I question the use of the word "self-sufficiency" when efficient would suffice.

Also I'm not sure that this statement is accurate:"Today, however, many of the tallest skyscrapers are built more or less entirely with reinforced concrete."I suggest removing 'however' as the use of reinforced concrete is not contrary to the use of steel as implied, but is simply an alternative. I also seriously doubt that "many of the tallest is correct." If it is then we need to see a source. On the contrary I would suggest "Some shorter skyscrapers are built more or less entirely with reinforced concrete." 202.127.11.190 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed this quote from the quotations section:

"A chair is a very difficult object. A skyscraper is almost easier. That is why Chippendale is famous." —Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Since it's really about chairs, and not at all about skyscrapers. 68.164.34.243 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

re-added back quote. He is comparing Chippendale and a skyscraper together. Please read again and understand his intention of the quote before even removing it.

Someformofhuman 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article's history might benefit from a small mention of Shibam, which has proto-skyscrapers dating from the 16th century. While they probably didn't influence the development of modern skyscrapers, I think they should be mentioned, because people interested in skyscrapers may find those interesting, in that they resemble skyscrapers so much atleast superficially. Brentt 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Show me the reason why "Image:Osaka city view 02.jpg" isn't really a skyline "at all". Your sense is all ? Look at other articles. 219.9.130.23 12:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

First, this isn't a place to ask somebody personal requests like your headline title "To: Someformofhuman".

Secondly, I will not answer your question until you re-phrase your rude sentence. Also, to say I have no sense at all, though I am a kind man, I do not tolerate rude bashful insults here. This isn't the place to rash somebody. Please ask nicely and read the rules. You have been warned.

Someformofhuman 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are too many images in the article that might clog the professional layout of the page. So, I proposed the idea of transferring (it's not really a merger, but a transfer) all the images to the Skyline article. There is a gallery there that the images here might be put to good use. This could help to dissipate page loading time.

However from what I read the Skylines Discussion page, there seem to be a proposal to transfer some images to respective articles and not every image to be cluttered in the Skyline article. I do not know if they allow the images here to be transfered there, as there seem to be so many, but I'm asking your opinions now. Should they be remained where it belongs to, or should we do a transfer to that article? We could probably replace some of the images at Skyline with better ones from here, to be put to good use.

Opinions, anyone?Someformofhuman 11:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be to keep the images in this article. The article gives the pictures a context, and the images help enhance the article. KTo288 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point... Anyone else? It seems to be so hard getting opinions now adays... sigh*

SomeFormOFhuman

00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Transfer. Skylines are a broader topic than skyscrapers (no pun intended), and I personally think that panoramic views of skylines are more suited to the current gallery-style photo-article. I am not convinced that someone looking for skyscrapers would automatically want to read about skylines as well, or vica versa. So I say move the pictures. Gunstar hero 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What would someone looking for city panoramas put in the search box. I contend that skylines is not the first thing they would put into the search box but something more in line with "New York skyscrapers","Hong Kong skyscrapers" etc or maybe cityscapes. Than again I suppose we can make the move and put a disambig at the top of the page. KTo288 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, at first my intention was to place a few panoramic examples of how skyscrapers are powerful tools to transform cities into skylines, hence the theme about skyscrapers was my original intention... It started out just two or three pictures, and all of them were chosen by myself and personally I think that was good enough, and everyone seem to agree with that. But that was years ago... As Kto288 said in his first post, it enhances the article, and I think well, I think it's really enclyopedic to show that skyscrapers are power tools of indentity and representation, but ever since now, people are abusing the system, and turning it into some... well I am at a lost of words. Well I'll be honest, it has been becoming a dumping ground of skylines from all over the World, when just a few good examples would be great enough to show its concept about skyscrapers transforming and defining a city skyline... But now, well it's a little spammerish I would think... Maybe we should just try to reduce some. But well, then again, issues might arise.... Who knows what others might think?

Well again if it was removed some of my works will be gone from the article too, especially I went all out to photograph the picture of the Singapore Skyline... Ain't it good to see it? :-) On second thought, maybe we should handpick some of the best shots and save it here. Because I know at the Skylines article, many were requesting some of the images to be removed. Maybe that could be one of the reasons why people dumped all the images here instead of there, because they have no place to put up their photos I guess...

Well, an openmind to suggestions is a great mind!

SomeFormOFhuman

15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we'll just handpick a few good ones. IMO, some photos are horible. Only a few of them.121.7.0.203 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section.

SomeFormOFhuman

00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no criteria for a "top ten skyline" and images shouldn't be added or subtracted based on that since it is by nature biased with regard to a person's personal and geographic experience. (although I do think skyline images should go to the skyline article but just removing a couple of skylines because a person doesn't think they are in the top ten is very bias editing IMO. UB65 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that IP address mentioning about whether top 10 skylines, which I think it's very POV. I had enough of this going on. I might as well scrap the entire section for good?

Someformofhuman Speak now! —Preceding comment was added at 06:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

what if the section was just expanded text-wise and pointing to skyline and the images removed or just one left. (of course which one to choose will be another nightmare.) Maybe a stub could be made about how skyscrapers affect the transformation of cities. I really think there is something to the idea but it just needs fixing somehow. I wish I could think of something that would work well. UB65 (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, about a new stub idea, or even here there could be a comparison photo of say NYC in the beginning, during the 19th century, in the 20th century and 21st, showing how cities are transformed. (Maybe use NYC because I believe the images needed can be found free in the Public domain easier and it has been around so long with skyscrapers and people around the world usually recognize it because of mass media, ...just a suggestion...). UB65 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

or how about how individual buildings transform city skylines and make skylines recognizable as certain cities, ect.. UB65 (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those ideas are great. However, I hope it does not lead into more POV. If you convert to texts, make sure you cite them with the appropriate sources... And well, the skyline article has been created for a reason, to house all these in. Your ideas about the skyline evolution will work well on the skylines article. The Skyscraper article mainly talks about the evolution of a skyscraper. I doubt your idea might work well on Skyscraper, but seems to work well with Skylines. Someone tagged skyline as a gallery page more than an encyclopedic topic itself. Maybe your ideas might work well there! :)

For me, I still feel that the entire section should be scrapped, as I noticed it's nothing more than a POV edited by all the IP addresses. I have written articles like Chrysler Building and such (Which received a GA status), I feel your great leap of ideas will come under skylines instead on this article.

Good to have you on this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someformofhuman (talk • contribs) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So? What will it be? If nothing is done within the next 24 hours, I assume that the situation is solved and I will remove the entire section completely as there is already an article pertaining the World's Skyline, and it isn't worth mentioning twice and again. I feel that section has violated NPOV policy over the course of the article's history. I can't just sit and watch as some IP address adds another comment about the "10 best defined skylines of the World" and removes all the other images. These has got to have sources and should not be done on assumption or one's claim. I personally feel that the article has suffered enough of unverified and unscrupulous claims of original research and I don't want it to be further oscillated to an unintended quality downfall.

Some day, I will make this article a GA status. :)

Someformofhuman Speak now! 14:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section and added new texts linked to skyline for a better use. It's time that I move this article up one step at a time.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I came to this article looking for details of skyscraper construction, and the mention in passing in the history section could go into a bit more detail. Thanks. KTo288 00:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe we should add more valuable encyclopedic texts into the article instead of pictures after pictures... If you're talking about skyscraper construction, maybe we should gather a few good sources from books and cite em' all here, so at least we get it all prepared.

SomeFormOFhuman

15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

right here's something nice for you. we have the victoria tower in london on the british parliament. it has twelve regular floors of libraries and research areas located above the ceremonial entrance although externally it does not appear to. it is set off a main service core. the structural support of the building comes from wrought iron beams, columns, trusses with stone cladding. it is 98.8 metres tall and was finished in 1858. it even has regular rectangular floorplates! this makes it the world's first skyscraper by ALL definitions used on this web page as it seems we are looking at metal framed buildings over 10 floors tall.

--Gothicform (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are there only two Chicago buildings in the listing? Why is that list missing so many skyscrapers in Chicago like Aon Center, John Hancock, and AT&T Corporate Center but so many are on the list from New York City? These buildings in Chicago are taller than most of those buildings in New York City. This needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk • contribs) 02:25, January 26, 2008

You could make the change yourself, if you can back up your change with reliable sources. It might be worth it for you to create an account — alex.muller (talk • edits) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done alot I can do improve the article with sources and cleaned up tons of unnecessary pictures at the right. I believe how a skyscraper all started is the utmost importance in its historical beginnings. Now things just displeases me... Seeing in its current state, I just simply stopped trying.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:FreedomTower3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A wild thought to check out if someone has time, since the Freedom tower design (along with the competitor designs from the contest) are public domain, would that include the renderings? (Many CGI completed pictures of the Freedom Tower right now are renderings based on the design). I am speaking about renderings such as the one used for the picture here in question, not paintings which would be copyrighted. UB65 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned this section up, adding several relevant towers and removing a reference to the proposed Transbay Tower as it is not globally significant. There are dozens of proposals much taller than this and it is not practical to list all of these.

I also reorganised these examples in order of height and separated 'under construction' and 'approved' skyscrapers.

Domentolen (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff!

Someformofhuman Speak now! 08:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the use building tall buildings? There's a large area in earth undeveloped... izzudin 19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry but these type of questions should be asked somewhere else instead. Maybe Yahoo Answers should help.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Throughout this article, metres are spelt 'meters'- the American spelling. As an international site, should we not be using the international spelling (ie metres)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.252 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 July 2008

I agree. The international spelling is the better option. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The list of tallest skyscrapers is automatically arranged by date of construction. The roof height of the Petronas Towers, as listed here, does not qualify them as tallest roof height when they were constructed. Why are they here? As it stands, the Petronas towers are listed after the Sears Tower in Chicago, yet they were constructed after the Sears Tower, and with a shorter roof height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.8.230 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Built Year of Equitable Life Building, according to the book "skyscrapers-skycities" by Charles Jencks, should be 1868-70. Here is the extract from the book : ‘After much contemplation, I would like to change my earlier position. My vote for the ‘first skyscraper’ goes to the Equitable Life Assurance Company Building raised in New York during 1868-70 by Gilman and Kendall and George B. Post. The reasons: the Equitable was the first business building in which the possibilities of the elevator were realized. It rose to a height of 130 feet, which made it twice as tall as the average five storey commercial building.’ -Winston Wiseman, ‘A New View of Skyscraper History’, in The Rise of an American Architecture, edited by Edgar Kaufmann Jr., New York, 1970, pp.115-160Crispiancheng (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a fair-use rationale. Is this OK now? Astronaut (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Skycrapers are defined in this article as "tall, continuously habitable buildings". As such, the Egyptian Pyramids, which were tombs for the dead pharaos, do not comply to the definition and should thus be removed. They may be very relevant in other articles on high rise building, but not in the history of skycrapers. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't suggest that the pyramids were skyscrapers. However, mention of the pyramids does make a nice preamble to the history of skyscrapers. Astronaut (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is...fuzzy. If pyramids are not skycrapers, why should they be included in this article? They are off-topic, not relevant then. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, calm down. Well... Only one way to find out... Are there any true and reliable external references and sources saying that pyramids are skyscrapers, or at least, mentioning that it's preamble to the history of skyscrapers? Well if there aren't any, then let's not add that line in. I'm on the neutral side in whatever discussion. Remember, whatever content someone adds especially in this article, it has to be backed up by sources. The more, the better.

I'll see what I can do to help you guys. School has has my hands pretty tied up from Wiki work lately. Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Skyscrapers are defined as high-rise structures where:

A. The highest floor is above the reach of a fire fighter hose

and

B. The building is supported by mainly internal, not wall, support.

and

C. At least 2/3 of the building is divided into habitable floors.

Pyramids are structures, but not skyscrapers.Ryoung122 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Pyramids are structures, not skyscrapers. However, skyscrapers are also tall structures, and to fail to even briefly mention structures that were the tallest in the world for over 3500 years, doesn't put the history of skyscrapers into it's proper context. Astronaut (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Ryoung122, Astronaut and Gun Powder Ma agree that pyramids are no skyscrapers, and since noone has put forward the evidence to the contrary requested by Someformofhuman I remove the passage here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't presume consensus. The fact that Pyramids are not skyscrapers is irrelevant. This article is about skyscrapers, but it contains mention of a number of buildings and structres that are not skyscrapers. These non-skyscrapers put the history of the subject in its proper context. Without the important historical context, the history section should start with the ten-storey Home Insurance Building in Chicago from 1885 and all before that should be deleted. As Gun Powder Ma is clearly happy with some history of skyscrapers before 1885, why set the limit arbitarily at Roman Insulae? Mentioning the pyramids in this article gives the history of skyscrapers a proper historical context, and therefore should remain. Astronaut (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as of writing this, I'm in the school's library now under the architecture section. Been borrowing, so far I haven't heard of or read anything about the Great Pyramids of Giza being considered, or defined as 'Skyscrapers', or providing any connection, relation to, and its history. Once again, my discussion is on the neutral aspect, so in the meantime, I will still continue to search. Personally speaking, I know the great pyramids may provide a certain amount of historical meaning of "Tall Structures", but that doesn't mean that they are considered and termed as Skyscrapers, just because of its tallness, height and year it was built. If this logic passes, then I might as well add a phrase about Church Steeples and term them as Skyscrapers as well.

Defining the pyramids as 'skyscrapers' can be quite a misleading from the term 'structure'. Overall I believe we can include them, but we should not term them as Skyscrapers but as Structures instead, and how these structures... sort of, inspired mankind's inspiration, invention, construction and creating the laws, defination and use of a Skyscraper? - personally thinking.

Also, I'm sure you do realize that the article has been plagued by vast numbers of IP edited POV over the years, and are rather sourceless and even to the extent of inappropriateness in some cases, hence some of the structures didn't really met the requirements they had to be removed. Once again, my discussion is the neutral. I take no sides unless if I see written proof or source.

Nevertheless, Astronaut, thank you. I do appreciate your thoughts and input. Thanks to everyone else too. I'll continue to search. I value this discussion.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the template to give Astronaut the opportunity to prove that pyramids etc. are skyscrapers. Since he wants them included in the article, the burden of proof is his. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. =) Haha. Someformofhuman Speak now! 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous suggestion. I have never suggested the pyramids are skyscrapers. I have however suggested that the history section should contain some other examples to provide some context for the reader. This same technique is used in many other places... for example, the history of Punk rock contains a brief mention of Garage rock; the History of the telephone talks about speaking tubes and string telephones; the History of London talks about what was there before the Romans built Londinium. In all these cases the off-subject examples serve to put the article subject into its historical context. The same applies with skyscrapers - mentioning earlier examples of tall structures that are not skyscrapers, helps put the history of skyscrapers into its correct historical context. IMHO, User:Someformofhuman appears to have it right when he says "...how these structures... sort of, inspired mankind's inspiration, invention, construction and creating the laws, defination and use of a Skyscraper..." Astronaut (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Listing pyramids among skyscrapers, although they definitely aren't skyscrapers, simply confuses readers, and it close to being not the thing you want to do in an encyclopedia. By your reasoning, we could also include churches, lighthouses, mosques, donjons and pagodas etc. etc. Since you do not seem to contribute to the article otherwise, your insistence takes away the time from people who are sincerely trying to improve it. Provide evidence for the pyramids being skyscrapers or be so kind and point us to a Wikipedia regulation which justifies your entry. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Since you do not seem to contribute to the article otherwise, your insistence takes away the time from people who are sincerely trying to improve it." Examine my edit history for this article and you will see that your statement is untrue. With your experience, I would heve thought you would know better than to make such accusations.

As I have endlessly pointed out, I know that pyramids are not skyscrapers so I will not be providing evidence that they are; and to insist that I provide evidence that we both know does not exist is ridiculous. To repeat myself yet again, the mentioning of pyramids and other non-skyscraper structures simply adds context to the the history of skyscrapers. It does not confuse the readers. Astronaut (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To help us reach some agreement and maybe get some fresh eyes to look at this, I have opened a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers#Content dispute: Opinions please. Please visit that discussion. Hopefully, I have presented our difference of opinion in a neutral way, but if you feel I have misrepresented Gun Powder Ma's opinion, feel free to correct it. Astronaut (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit added an image of the Rockafeller Center to the article. I have removed the image because:

• The image was inappropriately placed, creating the undesirable situation where article text was squashed between two images - something that is discouraged in the image placement guidelines (see MOS:IMAGES, particularly the third bullet point).
• The image is too large on the page compared to the other images. The size setting is 250px compared to 150px for the others.
• The image just doesn't add much to the subject of the article anyway. It might be better placed on the Rockefeller Center article or the GE Building article, though those articles are currently well illustrated.

Astronaut (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that Kungstornen were the first skyscrapers in Europe? In this case, they should probably be noted in the article. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That claim could be challenged by the Witte Huis in Rotterdam (1898), though I don't think that building actually referred to as a "skyscraper" until later. Astronaut (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, can it be struck from the DEFINITION section? It sounds like a bad movie or a silly childhood claim "I super-duper-double-dog dare you". I'd just delete the line myself but I think you're supposed to ask for a citation or something. 76.94.46.26 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think supertall is a stupid word and it shouldn't appear here or anywhere else. However, it's use in this article is simply to say that buildings over 300m can be referred to as supertall. It is unfortunate that some people seem fond of the word, but if others were to speak out against the term I would be happy to remove it. Astronaut (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've also brought it to the attention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers. Astronaut (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have only ever heard it used as an adjective although a definition can be found here:

The CTBUH defines “supertall” as a building over 300 meters (984 feet) in height. Although great heights are now being achieved with built tall buildings – in excess of 800 meters (2,600 feet) – at the mid-point of 2011 there are only approximately 54 buildings in excess of 300 meters completed and occupied globally.

— http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Longwayround (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I find the following paragraph confusing and uninformative:

Also, the total energy expended towards waste disposal and climate control is relatively lower for a given number of people occupying a skyscraper than that same number of people occupying modern housing.[citation needed] However the city of Paris, France has almost the population density of Manhattan, New York, despite having just a few tall buildings.

What is the "modern housing" that the skyscraper is compared to? Skyscrapers themselves are all "modern" in a broad sense of the word. Does it mean modern lower-rise housing? Why is housing even relevant here, given that skyscrapers typically are used for offices not housing?

Similarly the point about Manhattan and Paris doesn't make much sense to me as I would think population density is more a factor of the distribution of commercial and residential uses. I would presume that Manhattan is mainly commercial and relatively few people actually live there compared with Paris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booshank (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is talking about the advantages of concentrating energy consumption in a smaller area. For example, it is quite possible that cooling 500 low-rise homes would consume a lot more energy, than centrally cooling the same 500 families if they lived in a single large skyscraper. However, it goes on to say that skyscrapers are not the only way to achiev high density living because it appears that Paris achieves similar population density to Manhattan, but using much shorter buildings. Having lived in Paris, I believe that is because many Parisians live in apartments above the stores and offices, rather than separate apartment blocks. Astronaut (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Twice now, the APIIC Tower has been removed from the Future Skyscrapers section. The first time the WSJ was cited as a source; I reverted that because the cited article doesn't mention the APIIC tower. Now the same editor has undone my change, saying "APIIC Tower renamed to Reliance Trade Tower. Read again. Also, here is another source http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=471574 ". Do we have a more reliable source than a forum which says the APIIC tower has been renamed or that the APIIC Tower is on indefinite hold? Astronaut (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I know for certain that "APIIC Tower" = "Reliance Trade Tower". Why? Here is the excerpt from [6]:

"Reliance Trade Tower

Hyderabad

Height: Not available

Specs: A 100storey commercial tower

Cost: Rs8,000 cr for the entire project

Project: Reliance Trade Tower is part of a 77acre business district that will be jointly developed by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (66% stake), Sobha Developers Ltd (23%) and the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corp. Ltd (11%).

Hurdles: The stakeholders have been unable to close financing or find tenants.

Status: Reliance Infra has decided to indefinitely postpone the project."

AND, here is the Emporis page on the APIIC Tower [7], which states:

AND, here is the project description when it was first announced back in 2007, according to [8] and [9]

"A consortium led by Reliance Energy has emerged as the successful bidder for the Rs 6,400 crore business district project proposed in Hyderabad by the state-owned Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation(APIIC). The project will have three modules, including a 100-plus storied tower, and is scheduled to be completed in three years. The project is expected to be completed in five years."

To summarize. This so-called APIIC tower is a part of a Central Business District project that was announced back in 2007, but since then, the entire project has been put on hold, per [10]. The APIIC Tower has been renamed after its biggest sponsor, which is Reliance Corp, but this new name did not catch up, and the building is still known as the APIIC tower by many. The playing loose with the names has caused quite a bit of confusion, but judging from the project parameters listed in the above excerpts, APIIC tower is in fact Reliance Power Tower, or Reliance Energy Tower, or Reliance Trade Tower, or APIIC/Reliance Tower, or APIIC/Reliance Energy Tower, or APIIC/Reliance Power Tower, or APIIC/Reliance Trade Tower, or some other combinations thereof. User your imagination :P

I know it's a mess, but I think I got it right. By78 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds likely, but that's an awful lot of speculation, and I doubt I would be as certain that APIIC tower and Reliance Trade Tower are actually the same project. Then again, just how many 100-story buildings are proposed for Hyderabad? let's leave it removed for the time being and see what develops. Astronaut (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) is sure that any mention of Egyptian pyramids has no place in this article. The subject was discussed at some length in January 2009, both here and at WikiProject Skyscrapers, and I was under the impression that the consensus was to leave the mention of pyramids in this article. By way of compromise, {{examplefarm}} was added to the relevant section of the article, inviting editors to improve things by: "adding more descriptive text and removing less pertinent examples". After 5 months nothing had been done, suggesting to me that there was no problem with the so-called "examplefarm", so I removed the template.

So, let's re-open this discussion. As I have previously stated, I believe that although pyramids are not skyscrapers, mention of the pyramids does make a nice preamble to the history of skyscrapers. What do others out there think? Astronaut (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had a different impression of the consensus, but anyway let us reconsider the arguments again. IMO the inclusion of the pyramids violates Wikipedia:Scope, because pyramids are not skycrapers and they cannnot even considered as distant precursors of skyscrapers as the described ancient and medieval apartment buildings may be. All they have in common with skyscrapers is their extraordinary height. But medieval church towers are also extraordinarily high, even higher (+150m), yet they are rightly still not included.

Skyscrapers are from a constructional view almost the opposite as pyramids. Skyscrapers are modern inhabited buildings constructed in an urban environment from concrete, structural steel and glass. By contrast, pyramids are tombs, constructions built from limestone. Skycrapers are light-weight post-and-lintel constructions, pyramids are massive piles of stone. Nothing in common. If you want to have included the pyramids for their size, I propose we move the section to High-rise buildings where they are much more fitting than here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "continuously habitable" is used in the first sentence as the "definition" then in the "definition" section it is not mentioned. I think at least a sentence (it shouldn't take much more) should be devoted to clarifying it since it's used in the definition and since the casual reader might not immediately call to mind the towers and other structures that this phrasing excludes from "skyscraper" and therefore the reason that it is part of the definition. Thanks -- Jieagles (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Could anyone please tell me what does it mean? WHat does it mean that it is continuiously habitable? That you can live in it all the year? --83.248.223.246 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably not 828m. 81.129.122.211 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) has returned to disrupt this article, by removing the paragraph mentioning Egyptian pyramids. The subject was discussed at some length in January 2009, both here and at WikiProject Skyscrapers, and I was under the impression that the consensus was to leave the mention of pyramids in this article. When the subject was again raised in October 2009, there seemed to be no appetite to support removal of the paragraph.

I am happy to reopen this discussion. As I have previously stated, I believe that although pyramids are not skyscrapers, mention of the pyramids does make a nice preamble to the history of skyscrapers. What do others out there think? Astronaut (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves, wasn´t St. Olaf´s church in Tallinn (Estonia), (at 159 m) the tallest building in the world from 1549-1625? It isn´t even mentioned in the article so I just thought I would mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.171.40 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While this article does discuss some other very early tall structures, it is principally about skyscrapers. The History/Before the 19th century section quickly moves on to discussing tall residential and office buildings and then skyscrapers as developed in western Europe and North America towards the end of the 19th century. However, St. Olaf's church, Tallinn is listed as previously being a tallest building in the world in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world#History. Astronaut (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Ciliwung Recovery Project skyscraper can be mentioned ? Some other green skyscrapers too could be mentioned such as the skyscrapers of the Gwang Gyo Power Center --> http://www.evolo.us/competition/water-purification-skyscraper-in-jakarta/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.212 (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While Ciliwung Recovery Project looks like an interesting project, it is a long way from a reality. Lets see if it gets anywhere beyond a glossy brochure, before we start writing an encyclopedia articles about them. Astronaut (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It must be wrong. 2010? --88.115.96.145 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The CTBUH has very clear criteria when something is a skyscraper. Burj Khalifa became officially recognised as a skyscraper when it opened on 4 Jan 2010. Before then it was a just a tall structure". Astronaut (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone read what someone has done to the third sentence. 71.252.144.238 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Large cities currently experiencing increased skyscraper construction include Toronto, London, Shanghai, Dubai, and Miami, which now is third in the United States.

I have removed this sentence as its reference is misleading. in the reference its titled "World's Best Skylines" --which even judging from the title, is rated by opinions on best skylines...not increased skyscraper construction. The site shows a table listing cities around the world that have the most skyscrapers in order, no mentioning of cities that are 'currently increased skyscraper construction', and may I mention this site has no sources are just forums as well as many other sites that don't seem to be mentioned, therefore meaning whoever created the site can change information around to whichever way suites them. Whoever added this sentence to the article, or whoever would like this sentence to be included in the article, please get the evidence, which is not just opinions.

the reference that is misleading -- [11]

Anything to discuss, talk to me on my talk page. Thankyou MelbourneStar1 (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This short list was becoming a haven various proposals with rumours that they might have started but no definite information that they were anything other then pie-in-the-sky. Consequentially, I have been WP:BOLD and tightened up the 'rules' for inclusion in the future skyscrapers section. For the time being, I propose a skyscraper can be included in the list if:

1. It is under construction, as noted by a reliable source or in a reliable database such as Emporis or the one maintained by the CTBUH (ie. something better than a rumour on a blog somewhere).
2. It would be notable in some way, such as having a particularly notable design feature or being among the tallest in it's city/country/region etc.

The idea here is to keep the list to a manageable size, definitely under 20 items. Comments?... Astronaut (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The sustainability section contains a lot of statements that may be true in general but are very vague. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that the jury is decided on the sustainability of skyscrapers. While the buildings themselves require a lot of energy to build, the benefits of density may offset this. I would like to see a more detailed (and sourced) examination of skyscraper sustainability. 129.173.198.158 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)hipp5

When that section was first added way back in Feb 2009 (was it really that long ago?) I hoped that someone would come along with some improvements such as sourcing. Obviously this hasn't happened, so if this request and the tag get no response, I'll probably remove or rewrite that section. Astronaut (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky-scraper#Before_the_19th_century section claims the Oriel Chambers building was only 5 stories high because "the elevator had not yet been invented." This is incorrect. Elisha Otis introduced the "safety elevator" in 1852, before the 1864 Oriel Chambers building. Elevator - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator#History. Retrieved 28 July 2011. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.104.46 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Elevator#History does indeed say Elisha Otis invented the safety elevator in 1852, although it also says the first installation wasn't until 1857 in New York City. It could have easily taken until after 1864 for the technology to become familiar in Europe. That said, I'm sure that statement was sourced but of the three sources, two don't mention elevators at all and the other seems to have disappeared behind a pay-wall. Therefore I have removed that statement until it can be verified. Astronaut (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

according to that article the electric elevator was not invented until 1880, so perhaps this article could reflect that fact, or that in 1864, elevators of any sort were still rare and rudimentary, especially in Europe. RodCrosby (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but we shouldn't speculate. While it is quite well known that one of the limits on tall buildings prior to the invention of the elevator was the time and energy required to mount many flights of stairs, it is probably better to wait for a reliable source to be found that states why the Oriel Chambers has "only five floors". That said, I doubt this is really important to the article. It reads fine as it is. Astronaut (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Equitable Life Assurance Building was finished in 1870, not 1873! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Equitable Life Assurance Building was indeed completed in 1870 - corrected table in 'History of tallest skyscrapers' section. Thanks for letting us know. Astronaut (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In the caption for the head image, it states that the Empire State Building is "often considered the most famous". Are there any non-American references that can back this statement up? Mouse Nightshirt | talk 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute between which English spellings should be used in this article. Starting towards the end of January, the spelling of "storey"/"story", "metre"/"meter" and "kilometre"/"kilometer" were repeatedly changed. Taking a look back in the history at a more stable version, there seemed to be no definite consensus - for example in this version from 30 October:

After reverting a few edits where a couple of "storeys" were changed to "stories", on 26 January I finally converted all US spellings of that word to the British spelling on the basis that the spelling should be consistant throughout the article and thee were initially more of the British than US spellings. I also hoped it would discourage fly-by vandals from changing one or two that they happened to notice were different. Unfortunately that seems to have had the opposite effect, with multiple IP editors coming by almost on a daily basis to change British to US spelling. I eventually sought partial page protection and I thought that would be the end of it.

Unfortunately, a seasoned editor is convinced that the article "initially used American spelling and has been predominantly American spelling for years", and has gone through the article again changing British to American spelling (except for "storey"!) Quite why, I have no idea. There has been no consensus for a long time and when I try to be bold and decide on one, I meet opposition at every turn. I am tempted to go through and change it all back again, but lets wait for a while and see what happens. Astronaut (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think it is a big deal to leave storey, because I believe it is fairly common in U.S. spelling as well. As for meter/metre, at the beginning of January 1, 2012‎, January 2, 2011, January 2, 2010, and most important, January 10, 2002‎. I was happy to keep the status quo that has existed for many years, but now that you have decided that it is time to make the spelling consistent throughout the article, it used American spelling from the very beginning and American spellings have been common in it ever since.

According to you, Unfortunately, a seasoned editor is convinced that the article "initially used American spelling and has been predominantly American spelling for years", and has gone through the article again changing British to American spelling (except for "storey"!) Quite why, I have no idea. But prior to this, YOU commented: rv one good faith edit by Stephen G. Brown - we should be trying to keep the WP:ENGVAR spelling consistant throughout the article and you changed all of those instances that had long been American spellings to British spellings. Then when I change them back to the way they were, and make the spellings consistent in accordance with your comment that we should be trying to keep the WP:ENGVAR spelling consistant throughout the article, you conveniently forgot what you did and what you suggested we should do. Also, I turned many of the spellings into abbreviations using the conversion template, which avoids the conflict entirely.

I think the matter might be best resolved by the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. —Stephen (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the assertion that "it used American spelling from the very beginning". As far as I can tell, once the article was a sensible size there was no real consensus and the spelling was mixed. Since we both agree that being consistant throughout the article is a good idea, why change my efforts make it consistantly British spelling throughout? If you wish to take it to the mediation committee then please do so. Astronaut (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

January 10, 2002‎ is the very beginning. Who said we both agree that being consistent throughout the article is a good idea? I didn’t say any such thing. I said that I was happy to keep the status quo that has existed for many years. You said it we should try to make the spelling consistent, and I simply followed through with your suggestion (in spite of the fact that I think it’s nonsense, a waste of everyone’s time, and an unsportsmanlike attitude toward the people who contributed to it for years). You think it’s fine to suddenly turn an article to your variety of English after being started in American spelling and being largely American for a decade, but you think the idea of conforming to the American variety is unreasonable. If you want to turn it to your favorite variety, then it will be necessary to have mediation, because you are being unreasonable and you have been unreasonable ever since your comment of rv one good faith edit by Stephen G. Brown - we should be trying to keep the WP:ENGVAR spelling consistant throughout the article when you first began to turn the article to BrE. —Stephen (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

British editors are hardly a recent thing on Wikipedia and presuming that it was "started in American spelling and being largely American for a decade" is obviously incorrect (see this version from 10 Jan 2002 - the last edit on the day it was first created - where there is one "stories" and one "metre"). It is easy to see that American and British spellings have been mixed freely in this article since the very beginning until I decided to be bold and do something about it in the last couple of weeks. I really didn't expect much of an argument over it. Astronaut (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

JUST PICK ONE - I say we take a vote here and in one week whichever has the most votes, all spelling will be changed to that style and there will be a tag placed on the talk page for its style. I choose American. - Cadiomals (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, Cadiomals (however, for a week or so, an IP-hopping anon has been trying to convert it to BrE...what’s to stop him from voting as many times as he wants?). American. —Stephen (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought we didn't vote here. It is the strength of your arguments that count not the number of times you state them. How is it when I take the bold step to rationalise the spelling after a decade of nothing being done about it at all, suddenly all these other editors, who have shown little prior interest in the article, come out of the woodwork and start fighting over it? Astronaut (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Skyscraper" is an American term and first skyscrapers were all American, so American English should be used. Here's one of many, many cites that could provide background ascertain this fact: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blskyscapers.htm.

This provides an objective basis to choose the language — because the only rationale given not to use American English seems to be simply one editor's personal preference. That's not a valid reason. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia guidelines here, this shouldn't even be under discussion: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." As per the January 10, 2002 link above, that is American English. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What a preposterous rationale, that - Skyscraper is an American term and therefore American English should be used. That hardly qualifies as strong national ties considering that the development of the various technologies that led to skyscrapers occurred on both sides of the Atlantic during the late 19th century. As I said nearly two years ago, there was "... no consensus for a long time and when I try to be bold and decide on one, I meet opposition at every turn"; let's hope your efforts are more successful. Astronaut (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a rationale,which is better than no rationale and an arbitrary personal choice. In any event, the point is moot: As I said, though it appears not to have been read, WP:LANGVAR states that "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." As per the January 10, 2002 link above, that is American English. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to have become a wholly inappropriate tribute to Fazlur Rahman Khan. While he has played an important part in the history of skyscrapers, and some of the writing is pretty good, there is way too much emphasis on his contribution in this article. The new content added in the the last few days should be split off to a new article specifically discussing the bundled tube. Astronaut (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more here. Khan also should by no means be part of the introduction, that's not remotely justified by his relevance. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is still falsely praising Khan like a god. It's utterly embarassing and outright wrong to tolerate this, tbh. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent excesses. Per my edit summary: "rv excessive aggrandisement of Khan. Fazlur Rahman Khan and Bundled tube both have their own articles; and we also have an article on Skyscraper design and construction. There is no need to repeat much of it here as well". If I had more time I would do more. Astronaut (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You have gone utterly, utterly overboard in this campaign, and in your effort to avoid "excess" and "aggrandizement," you have in fact diminished our understanding of who this architect was. You seem to have an axe to grind against Khan, or perhaps to be enjoying your role of "arbiter of relevance" far too much. In particular, I noticed that the reference to Khan thinking of himself as the building during the design process was removed. Why? This is completely true. And by any measure, a fascinating and important insight/observation about an architect. Here is the direct quote:

“When thinking design, I put myself in the place of a whole building, feeling every part. In my mind I visualize the stresses and twisting a building undergoes.”

Which comes from here: http://drfazlurrkhan.com/professional-milestones/en-r-constructions-man-of-the-year-issue-february-10-1972/

(Though the poster you are attacking was also correct in their secondary citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.114.64 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I do also want to add that the use of the word "retarded" as a slur has no place here. You should be ashamed of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.114.64 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that this is an article about the skyscraper, not Dr Khan. Yes he should be mentioned here as well, but not to the extent that he has been recently. Fazlur Rahman Khan is notable enough to have his own article, so there is no need to add many paragraphs here as well. For example, the quote of Khan thinking of himself should be in the Fazlur Rahman Khan article, not here. Astronaut (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Four of the seventeen photos in this article are of the Willis Tower in Chicago? Why? --KFP (contact - edits) 18:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See my question immediately above. I suspect the person who added all the unnecessary info about Fazlur Khan, also added all the images of the Willis Tower. Astronaut (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that in many urban areas around the world the skyscrapers popularity is actually waning and are being deemed inefficient and uneconomical as many corporations and residential firms look for cheaper land outside of metropolises in less congested areas. Although I have no materials on this topic, it is prevalent when discussing future developments on the subject especially in a regional context. This could work into a paragraph about the future of skyscraper adaptability as well as highlighting some of the major faults and weaknesses of the skyscraper design, of which the info is cluttered.Dirt290 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for this? My impression is quite the reverse, with increasing levels of urbanization across the world and the huge number of skyscraper building projects going on - particularly in China, but also Latin America, and some African cities. However, if what you clain is true, wouldn't city centres be increasingly full of empty skyscraper that no one wants to work in or live in? While there is something like that going on in countries affected by the Great Recession, it is largely due to companies closing and the housing market stagnating, rather then a reduction in the popularity of skyscrapers as places to live and/or work. Astronaut (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)