Talk:CN Tower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains.
	See also: WikiProject to do list and the Trains Portal
B	Quality: B-Class. (assessment comments)
Low	Importance: low-importance.
DYK	Portal "Did you know" on 2007-03-26.

Contents 1 Restaurant 2 Enviornmentalists 3 TV & radio statios 4 Inspired the Space Needle 5 Is it taller? 6 Speculation 7 tower vs building 8 Hippos? 9 Coordinates 10 The CN Tower and Film 11 Consistency 12 Usage section 13 Level names 14 Glass floor/vertigo 15 Floors? 16 Article Improvement Drive Vote 17 Guiness World records 18 AM-transmissions from CN-Tower? 19 Recent Vandalism 20 2007 Ice Falling section 21 You're never going to believe this

[edit] Restaurant

I added back the semi-POV link and some text on the restaurant. On one hand its removal makes sense, but the info on the restarunt in a less POV version made sense. As for the link, there are a lot of POV links on the wiki and since its about a actual persons experience rather then a opinion I guess its not entirely pov. If anyone has links to actual review, such as on a culinary site, that would be a better choice. Greyengine5 19:12, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

[edit] Enviornmentalists

I added a line on the enviornmentalists who scaled the tower in 2001 to protest Bush's policies. I don't remember what the exact date of their adventure was, but I do remember it was the day after I had visited the tower when taking a vacation in Canada.

JesseG 03:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Failure in broadcasting

I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to suggest that CN was a failure for broadcasting; the only other facility in Toronto, First Canadian Place, is markedly inferior in every respect except rent; there would not be any broadcasters on First Canadian were it not for the fact that CN is absolutely, chock full. (Speaking as someone who has seen the broadcast facilities at CN, about the only tighter squeeze is Empire post-9/11.) 18.26.0.18 04:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TV & radio statios

Should there be a list of TV and radio stations which transmits from CN? - Hinto 01:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inspired the Space Needle

Why is it that the CN Tower inspired the Space Needle, when the needle was built in 1962?

[edit] Is it taller?

The Ostankino Tower is actually taller now, after a renovation raised the height of it by about 100 feet. Made this correction in the article. Zeipher17 2 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I still don't think it's taller. In the article itself states that the CN tower is taller by 13m. Sum1else 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I changed "believed by some to be the world's tallest freestanding structure" to "is the world's tallest freestanding land structure". If Worlds tallest structures is to be believed, the CN Tower's status is only in question due to three factors:

• the existence of taller TV towers (which are not "free-standing")
• the existence of the Baldpate Tower (which is not a "land structure")
• the fact that it isn't a "building" as such (but it's still a "structure").

"is believed by some" strikes me as very wishy-washy. Are there any other serious claimants to the "world's tallest freestanding land structure"? - user:Montrealais

---

I would dispute that the Skypod is "tiny". I've been there with several other people, and I wasn't bothered by claustrophobia at all. But rather than just calling it tiny we should have the actual dimensions, if anyone cares to supply them. -- Lee M 01:48, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Ostankino Tower, Moscow is since 2003 taller!

The CN Tower belongs to the dead. Matthew McVickar 14:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

NOTE. The Ostankino Tower was NOT increased in height in 2003 as some websites suggest. A new antenna was fitted but the spire was not increased in height. The tower may be increased in height in 2007 to 1863ft thus beating CN tower height.

[edit] Speculation

The following is idle speculation. If someone can find a source for it, it can be reincluded but if not, it should remain out of the article. Even if it is sourced, it should be made clear it is just one opinion. I don't for example think of the CN Tower or the Sears Tower or the Empire State Building that 'emotionally' andjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj I definitely don't think of them as in the same league as the Taj Mahal or the Eiffel Tower. Sure I would probably visit them if I went to their cities but they are just IMHO rather boring buildings (although the CN Tower is probably the most interesting of the 3 to me). This is of course a personal opinion but I suspect a lot of people share it.

Regardless when a taller structure is erected, the CN Tower will continue to resonate emotionally in the global community, in much the same way other recognized and beloved structures do (e.g. Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building in New York City, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, Big Ben in London, Taj Mahal in India...)

Nil Einne 18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tower vs building

buildings are also freestanding structures so technically, Taipei 101 is the tallest freestanding structure in the world. Here's my [reference]

A tower differs from a building in that the latter has floors, and is designed for residential, business, or manufacturing use. The structures listed here are principally telecommunications towers, and while they may have observation decks or restaurants, they do not have floors all the way up. Towers and buildings are freestanding structures; this list does not include masts supported by guy wires.

--TheLimbicOne(talk) 04:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that this is might be a "hot button" issue and will offer no resistance to changing it back. However, all of the archetectural sites I viewed prefered the simple terminology "tower" for a structure with no guy wire or support that also floors only at the top. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you know. I have seen the BIULDING, thats right a BIULDING, you know why, because any free standing structure that alows people to at least move, is a biulding. It has a restaurant, thus, it is a BIULDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry to say this, but the word is spelled "B-U-I-L-D-I-N-G". SupaStarGirl 12:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that the CN Tower does not count as a building. Webster’s dictionary definition of a building is “a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use (as for a dwelling).” The CN Tower fulfils this definition. While I can find no definitive definition for “High Rise building” the CN Tower does not fulfill the generally accepted “A building 35 meters (12 stores) or greater divided at regular intervals into occupiable levels.”

• The CN tower has five seperated occupyable levels. I think that helps it fit that description and criteria. --Matt0401 18:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat recognizes Taipai 101 as the world's tallest building. This should at least be noted in the article. If the CN Tower were "a USUALLY roofed and walled structure...", would the title of world's tallest building be so hotly contested? I don't believe it would be. As an authority on the subject, the word of the CoTBUH is being completely ignored here.Yodamite 11:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Canadians call it a building, but, from what I've been reading, the authorities who solve disputes like this don't. SupaStarGirl 12:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How do these authorities define "building"? --Kmsiever 14:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have one of the old CN Tower souvenir books, that date from the late 1970s? IIRC it describes the Skypod (now the bit that has the "Lookout level", NOT what used to be the Space Deck) as a seven-storey building on top of a 1100-foot-tall mast. As the Skypod has 4 occupiable floors, the Space Deck (now the Skypod)2 (or at least it used to have 2 observation levels, one looking up, the other down), and 3 or 4 at the base (trying to remember the original labelling of the lift buttons), that's about ten floors. Seeing as nearby First Canadian Place has seven times that number of floors, it's seven times the height, as far as those who define "building" as number of occupiable floors are concerned. It doesn't matter to them that levels 4 and 5 are separated by 300m. On another note, the proposed mast for the Ostankino tower to raise its height to 577m was never built. --Kain 20:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippos?

The text of the article states that the glass floor could hold the weight of 14 adult hippos. The trivia section says 11 hippos. Cmadler 02:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

>> its actually 14 adult hippos and the article has been changed to reflect that (source: http://www.cntower.ca/portal/SmartDefault.aspx?at=907 ) (Organicaudio 20:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC))

Is that the weight of moving hippos or standing hippos? --TheLimbicOne(talk) 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The following quote is inconsistent:

"The Glass Floor can withstand a weight of 600lbs per sq inch (109 kg per sq cm)"

600lbs/sq.in is equivalent to about 42kg/sq.cm. Which figure is correct? (Does anyone know how much a hippo weighs? :p )

P.S. I think any comments saying the Ostankino Tower is taller are wrong. According to any reliable sources I can find, it was renovated a few years ago but is still very close to it's original height.

i work at the tower, its 600lbs per sq in for the glass floor weight

"and can withstand the weight of 4,137 kPa (600 pounds per square inch) or 14 large hippopotami."

Who cares? I take it this was just taken out of a tour guide's monologue. If it's going to have a ballpark "reckoning" comparison, use something that people can actually reckon, like the weight of a car or something. Otherwise, just leave this out. — Omegatron 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The CN Tower itself is fond of using Hippos for the comparison - that's the origin there. WilyD 14:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

14 large hippopotami, thats cute, I like it, but it's not scientifically correct yet: You have to state an area on which you want to put all that weight. Now, would that mean:

1. 14 hippos in total, spread out around the observation deck?
2. 14 hippos on top of each other, using
   1. the area covered by four hippo feet?
   2. using the area covered by one hippo squashed flat by 13 hippos on top of him?
3. 14 hippos per square inch? (Whoa! Now there's an interesting image...)

--BjKa 11:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I couldn't resist and did the maths. So in case anyone besides me cares about this:

If you take a 6000 lb hippopotamus you have to support his weight on an area larger than 10in² to be on the safe side. (That's a square of about 3.2" a side, or a circle of 3.6" diameter.) Roughly estimating that one hippo foot probably still covers more ground than that, you could safely stack four hippos on top of each other without going over the pressure limit. And of course you can put any number of four-hippo-piles side by side. So my guess is, that you could cram as many hippos as you want into the observation deck, floor to ceiling, wall to wall, without damage. (To the glass, that is!)

On the other hand, if you take the stated "256 sq ft" of Glass Floor, it could support the evenly distributed weight of 3686.4 hippos.

Now let's try and see how they arrived at exactly 14:

With the aforementioned 10in²/hippo, a stack of 14 hippos would need an area of 140in² for support (just under 1ft²). So the number 14 makes sense if you suppose that one hippo foot distributes the hippos weight evenly across an area of 35in². (That's a square of about 5.9" a side, or a circle of 6.7" diameter.) Hmm, I guess that doesn't sound too far fetched...

In conclusion: I guess what they actually mean is: "If you could pile 14 hippos on top of each other, the Glass Floor would still hold, even in the unlikely event that the bottom animal were to remain on its feet."

My apologies for wasting Wikipedia resources. I'll stop right here. Promise. --BjKa 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

I think we should move the coordinates to the top (See Arc de Triomphe for example). 69.195.147.138 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The CN Tower and Film

I thing the trivia section should include the CN Tower's important role in the movie Canadian Bacon, writen, directed and produced by Michael Moore and starring John Candy. After all, this was the focus of Honey's terrorist obsession, the location of the missle controling computer and the site of movie's climax.

[edit] Consistency

This page was not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. CN Tower is the tallest freestanding structure on land according to the Wikipedia page on this subject, not the tallest building. Since someone reverted my change, I have put up a {{disputed}} tag until the inconsistency can be resolved. Uris 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

One other page does not constitute "the rest of Wikipedia". Conversely, one could say the World's tallest structures article is not consistent with this article. Just because one article says it, does not make it so. While the other article does give the impression that their definition of building is official, they do not provide a source for this definition and thus it's classification of "building" cannot be deemed authoritative. --Kmsiever 18:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What are the official sources for "tallest building"? Sources must be found for each, and then this dispute can be resolved. It may be that most official sources do not list the CN Tower as "tallest building", and in that case the article must be changed to reflect this. Uris 19:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

According to SupaStarGirl (see above), there are authorities who decide on what constitutes a building. Hopefully she will respond to my request for a definition, and even better, a source.

I do not think the issue is whether it is a structure or not (after all, every building is a structure). The issue is whether or not it is a building. So, what we do not need is sources that simply list the CN tower as one of the tallest structures. Rather what we need is sources that either state it is a building or that it is not a building. --Kmsiever 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually work at the tower and according to them they list themselves as the tallest building and free-standing structure. The tallest building claim comes from the Guinness book of world records, however that claim is based on the pre-1960's definition of a building. Even those who work at the tower admit that the modern definition of a building is a structure with separate habitable floors covering most of the structure which the tower isn't really, but since they still have that title from Guinness they use it. The Tower should however be listed here accurately as the 'tallest free standing structure on land. see World's tallest structures Duhon 24 June 2006

For the record, I have contacted both the CN Tower and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat for further information. Hopefully, they can also provide more information. --Kmsiever 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I heard back from both. The CN Tower just sent me a form letter with no real information. Here was the first email I received from the CTBUH:

While the CN Tower is currently considered the tallest 'structure' in the world is not included in our 100 tallest list because it does not fall into the Council's definition of a 'building' -- a structure that is designed for residential, business or manufacturing purposes. An essential characteristic of a building being that it has floors.

I asked for further clarification, considering the CN Tower has five floors and has a business purpose. Here was the response:

For a structure of that height, 5 floors would not be adequate to consider it a building.

So, it seems despite the fact that it does fall under the "official" definition of building, the CTBUH is of the opinion that five floors is insufficient for the CN Tower to be considered a building. I guess they have two definitions: one for the CN Tower, and one for everything else. --Kmsiever 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disputed tag because currently the only claim made is the structure one, which is not in dispute, and so the article (currently) contains no disputed statements. If someone starts putting 'building' back in, I'll be happy to put it back --Moszczynski 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage section

I rewrote the Usage section, using the information given here. A couple were updated from their listed callsign/name to their current (such as Cantel → Rogers Wireless, CKMW → CIAO, KISS → CJAQ), as the listed information seems to be a tad out of date. There were a couple that I couldn't find any other information of, so while they're listed (and not linked to anything), I am not sure if these are correct. I ordered the subsections by name as appropriate/if known, then by callsign, alphabetically. -Dvandersluis 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Level names

This article uses different names for the different levels of the tower.

What this article refers to as the SkyPod, the tower official website refers to as the Look Out Level, the Main Pod, and the Tower Sphere and what this article refers to as the Space Deck, the official website refers to as SkyPod.

Anybody else can confirm or disprove this?

Indeed, and this came as a shock to me the last time I visited the CN Tower after many years (ie. when it was still in CN ownership). The original names that CN gave to the various levels were the Skypod, the seven-storey "building" that consisted of (from top to bottom) three floors of AM/FM equipment, the restaurant (Top of Toronto/360), the indoor observation deck, the outdoor observation deck, and at its lowest level the radome. The Space Deck was the smaller observation deck 100m above that. Now, there is no name for the seven-storey "building" (other than the "Look Out Level", not really a name for the whole structure), and the Space Deck is now the Skypod. Confusing? Basically, the article refers to the two observation areas by their original names, as removing the name of the main "pod" makes it impossible to refer to. I was looking at a way to rewrite the article to reconcile the original names used to the ones now used by Trizec. Kain 20:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(See Talk:CN Tower#You're never going to believe this below for further discussion. --Gro-Tsen 12:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Glass floor/vertigo

Anonymous contributer added statement about experiencing vertigo to the Structure section (re: glass floor), but I don't really like the tone of it. However, I'm not really sure how to fix it. Is it even NPOV (I'm not so sure it is)...? Suggestions? –Dvandersluis 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV. IIRC the floor on the outdoor observation deck was reconstructed so all of it was glass floor except the staircase landings. (Can anyone confirm/deny this?) The rest is carpeted-over. Certainly there was a lot less visible glass floor last year than when I visited just after the outdoor deck was reopened (1994?). Kain 20:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floors?

Why is the floor count listed at 147? In what way does the CN Tower have 147 floors? Stair landings don't count.Kcumming 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement Drive Vote

If you don't already know, the Weekly Article Improvement Drive is currently voting on the next article to improve. If you fell this article deserves to be a part of that, and be put on it's way to being a feature article, then go vote for it! JQF 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We need at least two more votes TODAY in-order to not be 'disqualified'; anyone want to help? ;) –Dvandersluis 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put this back up for Article Creation and Improvement Drive in a couple weeks, but if there's no support for it, there would probably be no point. We got just 7 votes last try, which was not even enough to get us through the second round. Would there be a higher demand this time?

[edit] Guiness World records

This is just to set the record straight the Guniess world records lists the CN tower as the world's tallest building not free-standing structure. While it may be in-accurate they appear to equate "free standing structire" and building as one and the same; that is how it is listed in Guiness World records.--Duhon september 17 2006

[edit] AM-transmissions from CN-Tower?

CN-Tower is a concrete tower. Such towers are designed for UHF/VHF-broadcasting (TV, FM-Radio). For AM-broadcasting, a mast radiator, a cage antenna or a long-wire antenna is used. CN-Tower is no mast radiator and does not carry a cage antenna or a long-wire antenna! Which kind of antenna for AM broadcasting does it carry? Or ist it used for AM-broadcasting at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.49.240.56 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Actually the entire top of the tower is a mast antenna. Maury 11:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism

I noticed that this article has been vandalized many times. Can anyone semi-protect it please? Johnny Au 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Ice Falling section

I think that this section should likely be transwikied to Wikinews, but I'm not sure how to do that, or what the proper "tag" for the section would be. In the long run, it is not really relevant to the scope of the article, and likely, the same thing would happen (or has happened) to other buildings in similar conditions. –Dvandersluis 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Imagine what the article would be like if there was a list of every time the elevator shut down, for instance. Major news sure, but a 1-hour event that everyone has already forgotten? Maury 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. It has never happened in the history of the CN Tower (hardly an elevator malfunction) and was not some 1-hour event. It went on for four days before the Gardiner was closed and did quite a lot of damage. And if y'all ever want votes or whatever for this page? Advertise it on Talk:Toronto not here and you'll get a better response. All sub/stub articles about Toronto are of potential interest to anyone who reads the Toronto talk page. Don't make everyone come to every single sub/stub for votes. Point it out on Talk:Toronto and lots more people will have a look, vote, do whatever around sub/stub articles of the Toronto page. —S-Ranger 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I work just up the street, what's this "four day" thing you're talking about? And why would I go to the Toronto page for a vote? What does that have to do with this article? Maury 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What does the CN Tower have to do with the City of Toronto? 1) More people are on the Talk:Toronto page than are here in this sub-article of the Toronto article (for no apparent reason; what would Toronto have to do with the CN Tower). 2) As I stated above, in an open post in general, not specifically to you over one issue: Don't make everyone with interest in the Toronto article, so all of its sub and stub articles come to this or any other sub/stub of the Toronto article to advertise votes needed or, oh, lots of help getting this article into shape, which should be an FA-class article if anything about Toronto is ever going to be.

But it has next to no verifiable sources that meet WP:NPOV or Wikipedia:Attribution and no one here is asking for any help on the Talk:Toronto page over the global icon, the one thing in the world that, if anyone knows anything at all about Toronto, it's "hearing of" the CN Tower. And please drop the attitude problem. It's unbecoming and against policy here. All I have stated are facts from your own (1995 so irrelevant) source and feedback to be taken or left -- not attitude for no apparent reason. —S-Ranger 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're never going to believe this

So I saw that kirk had reverted my changes about the naming of the decks on the tower, with a check in note that said I should look at the official page. I got all upset because I was sure I had it right... he was reading it wrong, that's the only explanation... So I go to the page, and guess what, it does say that the upper one is the Sky Pod.

Then I had a few seconds of dread, "oh no, I got it wrong and put it up there!". But wait, no, there's no way I could get that wrong... so I type "cn tower space deck" into Google and get a bunch of hits, and they all basically confirm what I thought, the Space Deck really is the upper one. Then I got really worried... what if they got all this from the wiki?! Ahhh, but then I saw it... on the second page of hits I found an IEEE paper on it, and for sure, it's the Space Deck. Phew!

And then I realized what this meant. The CN Tower page is wrong. They got they own page wrong! Oh my god! They must have got some 18 year old intern to write their page or something. I can't stop laughing! Maury 03:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but never say never. From the document you cited: "Since it opened 21 years ago," ... and "completed on February 22, 1974," dates the document you cited back to 1995 (1974 + 21). You could Google +Skydome +Toronto and likely turn up lots of documents about it: but it's still called the Rogers Centre now, not the Skydome. It's rather unlikely that their own web page is wrong, but feel free to head there and ask for tickets to the "Space Deck" and see what they have to say, then see what your ticket says, scan it in and post it here for real proof (if the tickets are dated; it was called the Space Deck when I was a kid, the only time we went up it and our separate tickets clearly stated "Space Deck" on them and cost extra) instead of claiming that some 18 year-old intern without a clue has the official CN Tower web page wrong. Phone them, email them; no document from 1995 proves anything at all other than perhaps the <start of contruction>-1996 in the infobox is wrong. —S-Ranger 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are literally dozens of articles that say the same thing. Didn't you try Googling it yourself? And if I'm reading it right, you have direct proof too, right? Maury 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

i guess if anyone cares for the truth one can just drop an email to the cn tower people and hope they reply. Chensiyuan 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are literally dozens, possibly thousands of documents that call the Rogers Centre the Skydome. Your point is ...? Please read what I stated. —S-Ranger 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, how can one claim that the new names on the official site are "wrong"? They (whoever "they" is) are entitled to change the names of the levels of their tower in any way they like, aren't they? Wikipedia can't just let the old names stand without an explanation, nor can it claim to have better authority on a matter of conventions (that would be "original research") than those who lay out the conventions. I suggest as follows:

The CN Tower consists of several substructures. The main portion of the Tower consists of a hollow concrete hexagonal pillar containing the elevators, stairwells and power and plumbing connections. On top of this is the 102 metre (335 ft) metal broadcast antenna, carrying TV and radio signals. There are two main visitor areas: the main seven-story deck level located at 330 metre (1,100 ft), and the higher Sky Pod (formerly known as Space Deck) at 447 metres (1,465 ft), just below the metal antenna. Between the two areas the structure is "bare" and the hexagonal shape can be seen, but below the main deck three large supporting legs give the tower the appearance of a large tripod. Confusingly, the main level used to be known as “SkyPod”, a name which now (since [date needed]) refers to the higher level.

Is this clear enough? --Gro-Tsen 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Incidentally, see http://www.madore.org/~david/.tmp/skypod.jpg for confirmation that the "Sky Pod" (with a space in the name) is now the name of the higher level at 447m, it's not a mistake on the official site. This photo was taken three days ago at the tower. --Gro-Tsen 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well major kudos to Gro-Tsen for tracking all this down. Oddly enough I still can't find any information on when this change took place. It had not taken place in documents as late as 1997, and I don't believe it had changed when I last visited about four years ago. Is this very new? Maury 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Gro-Tsen. Though one wonders how any communications equipment (including land lines for telephones used in the CN Tower, PA systems, etc.) in and on the tower manage to get connected to anything (and possibly other things) with only electrical and plumbing connections so I'd suggest one little change:

“

The CN Tower consists of several substructures. The main portion of the Tower consists of a hollow concrete hexagonal pillar containing the elevators, stairwells and utility connections. On top of this is the 102 metre (335 ft) metal broadcast antenna, carrying TV and radio signals. There are two main visitor areas: the main seven-story deck level located at 330 metre (1,100 ft), and the higher Sky Pod (formerly known as Space Deck) at 447 metres (1,465 ft), just below the metal antenna. Between the two areas the structure is "bare" and the hexagonal shape can be seen, but below the main deck three large supporting legs give the tower the appearance of a large tripod.

”

Last sentence deleted and no bolding on utility in the article; it just covers it all with one word, whatever they all happen to be as opposed to stating specifics that then require verification. And just dump (since [date needed]) because it is not "needed", it is optional extra information. Getting the proper, current (and verifiable) information into the article is more important...and there is nothing confusing about it anymore than it's 'confusing' (change of ownership, CN doesn't own the CN Tower and hasn't for quite some time and the date on which it was sold is probably the date around which the new owners used, probably a different marketing firm than CN, to come up their own labels as they saw fit for their marketing) that the O'Keefe Centre is called the Hummingbird Centre now or that the Skydome is called the Rogers Centre, etc. Change is the only constant we know of in the universe: there is nothing unusual or confusing about changes. —S-Ranger 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)