Talk:Skyscraper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Building Images
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) ...
[edit] Misc
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? i THINK THAT IS ANSWER IS BOOBY1
---
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This list is almost certainly out of date.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
[edit] term derivation?
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.
[edit] Incorrect drawing
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]
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 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.
[edit] Definition of Skyscraper
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.
[edit] Quote
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)
[edit] "First" Skyscrapers
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)
[edit] Photograph in "Top 15 by pinnacle"
Would anyone be able to provide a photo' of the Sears Tower from a similar angle but without the lean? JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza]] 10:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] definition of skyscraper
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)
[edit] WTC
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)
[edit] Modified placement of the Petronas Towers image
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)
[edit] Buildings over 150m
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=201 New 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)
[edit] edinburgh old town
decent picture showing some historical "highrises" in edinburgh here: http://noah.typepad.com/photolog/DSCN2486.jpg .. anyone want to research copyright and include it?
[edit] Milwaukee City Hall
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)
[edit] Small Suggestion
Would it be better to include the country names for some of these buildings, and not just the cities?
[edit] Should there be a section on skyscrapers which are planned to be built?
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.
[edit] Removing Book Reference
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.
[edit] Safety Section
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)
[edit] Quotes font size
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
