Talk:CN Tower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.


Contents

[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] CN Tower VS Burj Dubai

The CN Tower is the world's tallest freestanding structure on land. How could Burj Dubai replace it if Burj Dubai itself isn't a tower or freestanding structure on land? Burj Dubai is a building, not a tower. Therefore I believe that the CN Tower should still be considered the tallest freestanding structure on land.--74.113.149.254 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, what? Burj Dubai is a structure. Burj Dubai is freestanding. Burj Dubai is on land. That means the Burj Dubai is the tallest freestanding structure on land. Any other interpretation is hand-waving at best. And I say this as someone who's looking at the CN Tower out the window. Maury 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I live near Toronto, and i don't want put a bad name on the CN Tower, but a tower is a building, so, Techically, Burj Dubai is the tallest now. But CN Tower is for actul, tourisum, which makes it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.183.250 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2008 (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)

[edit] 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?

Hmmmm, maybe the editor meant "inspired by the Space Needle"? A simple typo can really change the context of a sentence. 142.162.56.157 12:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[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)

The horizontal line underlining the title runs through the coordinates. At Arc de Triomphe it´s placed just a little bit lower. Huisma55 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2008 (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)

Should the list of radio stations be reorganized in ascending order of frequency used instead of alphabetically by callsign? Listing by frequency has the added benefit of sorting the list into AM and FM. -Braedley 2007/04/29 17:53 (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

Why is this assertation flagged as 'citation needed' in the main article? The very sentence - 'Guinness World Records has listed...' clearly cites the source! Perhaps someone thinks anybody reading the paragraph wouldn't have the nouse to go and look it up in the Guinness World Records 1976, 1977, ...2005, 2006 if they wanted to? Petecollier 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[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)

There is no AM-Broadcasting from CN Tower, look at http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?state=&call=&arn=&city=&freq=530&fre2=1700&type=0&facid=&class=&list=1&dist=20&dlat2=43&mlat2=38&slat2=30.67&NS=N&dlon2=79&mlon2=23&slon2=14.27&EW=W&tis=1&size=9

[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)

On a slightly less related note, if this section is here to stay, anyone want to include the parts about CN Tower management hiring people to rappel down in the middle of the night to pick away at the ice? -- Seraphchoir 13:27, 16 April 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)


[edit] Piano?

In 1979, Norman Alexander and Joe Squire hauled a 200 kg (440 lb) piano up the stairs in 7.5 hours.

Does anyone know why they hauled a piano up the stairs? Was it for fun? A random concert? What? 09:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the tower w/new LEDs lit up at night

Someone needs to get a picture of the CN tower similar to this for use in this article ASAP. This LED lighting totally changes the appearance of the tower at night and should be in the article for everyone to see. I'd do it myself, but I live on the other side of the lake in St. Catharines and I doubt my poor little camera could do it justice. Snickerdo 03:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hi everyone,

I've removed a whole lot of external links from the article, keeping WP:EL in mind. Nothing there was incredibly useful for readers. I also thought to add this CN Tower site, but decided to post it here first to see if anyone thought it was a bad idea or had any other thoughts on the links. Cheers, Mrtea (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dollars

"The construction costs of approximately $75 million ($330 million in 2005)" Are these US or CAN $s? Dom316 12:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

CAD. I'll link it. Check that, it already is. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unit conversions in Structures section

Per MOS:NUM, I have turned off the abbreviation setting in the {{convert}} templates in this section, since unit names should be spelled out in non-parenthetic text. I have removed the template in a couple of places to make a range possible (for the distance viewable). Finally, I removed the conversion for the second and third instance when describing the thickness of the glass, since they were redundant; people should be able to figure out that 13 mm is roughly a half inch since the conversion showing 25 mm is 1 inch is in the same sentence. These changes should be non-controversial. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I feel the trivia section is outlandishly long, do we reeally need things about going up on a pogo stick or hauling a piano, yet we don't mention the charity climbs. It doesn't need to be that long. Brandonha 00:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the trivia section contents here for easier reference. Feel free to use these factoids to build better content on the main page. Make sure that all additions are properly referenced. Atrian 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 1,537 workers toiled for five days a week, 24 hours a day for almost 3 years to build the tower.
  • It is rated to withstand an 8.5 earthquake on the Richter scale (making it one of the most earthquake proof structures in the world.)
  • One person died as a result of the construction of the CN Tower.
  • The CN Tower has a wind tolerance level of 420 km/h (117 m/s, 260 mph).
  • The elevators ascend and descend at over 22 km/h (6 m/s, 15 mph), taking 58 seconds to reach the Look Out level (indoor observation deck) and 61 seconds to reach the 360 restaurant levels.
  • In winds of 200 km/h (120 mph) the tower sways 1.05 m (3½ ft) from centre at the Antenna, 0.45 m (1½ ft) from centre at the Sky Pod, and 0.25 m (9 in) from centre at the main level.
  • The CN Tower is designed to withstand an earthquake of 8.5 on the Richter Scale.
  • In 1979, Norman Alexander and Joe Squire hauled a 200 kg (440 lb) piano up the stairs in 7.5 hours.
  • On July 23, 1999, Ashrita Furman became the fastest person to go up the CN Tower using a pogo stick.
  • In 2001, a group of environmentalists illegally scaled the outside of the Tower, in order to place a banner protesting the policies of United States President George W. Bush.
  • The tower is the only landmark from Canada that appears in the city-building/simulation computer games SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4.
  • The tower is occasionally mistaken by some for the Seattle Space Needle, due to their similar appearances, however the CN Tower is exactly three times taller than the Space Needle. While filming in Toronto, American talk show host Conan O'Brien staged a mock fight on his show between two men costumed as the respective towers.
  • The CN Tower can be accidentally seen numerous times during scenes in the Police Academy series.
  • The vertical warning marker lights of the CN Tower can be accidentally seen in the movie Bulletproof Monk during scenes shot at night.
  • The tower was featured in the 1995 film Canadian Bacon.
  • The CN tower has been featured numerous times on the Canadian Television series Kenny vs Spenny.
  • A segment of "Weird Al" Yankovic's live concerts contained a short video mockumentary about why it is inadvisable to throw bananas from the top of the CN Tower.
  • The song "The CN Tower Belongs to the Dead" by Owen Pallett makes obvious reference to the Tower.
  • The song "I Don't Want to Go to Toronto" by Radio Free Vestibule complains that "there's a tower in Toronto that controls people's minds," an obvious reference to the CN Tower.
  • The CN Tower was featured on the front cover of the 1996 Guinness Book of World Records[1].
  • The CN Tower is featured in the music video of Another Postcard, a song on the 2003 Everything to Everyone album by the Barenaked Ladies.
  • The CN tower (along with the rest of the Toronto skyline) can be seen easily on a clear day from the shore of Lake Ontario and the brim of the Niagara Escarpment in the Niagara Peninsula.
  • Tour of the Universe was a space ride located in the base from 1986 to 1987
  • The movie Highpoint (1982) includes the highest stunt fall in motion pictures. Dar Robinson falls from the tower, a height of 1,170 ft, before opening his parachute 90 m (300 ft) above the ground. His pay was $150,000 for the stunt.
  • The original walkway from Front Street to the tower was removed and now used by Weber's Restaurant on Highway 11 near Orillia, Ontario.
  • Displayed inside the Tower, the Latitude and Longitude is stated as 43 degrees 28 minutes 36 seconds north, 79 degrees 23 minutes 15 seconds west. [citation needed] This would place it about ten miles into Lake Ontario. A more accurate positioning would be 43 38 34 north 79 23 13 west.
  • At one stage of the tower's construction, the radio broadcasting system that tops the tower was laid out at the base of the structure, awaiting placement on top. During this period, several construction workers helping build the tower wrote their names on it. These names remained on the broadcasting section when it was placed atop the tower, although they have most likely faded from exposure to the sun by now.

[edit] CN Tower - tallest from 1975 or 1976?

Now that the Burj Dubai has surpassed the CN Tower in height, time to clear up a discrepancy. The intro says the CN Tower was tallest from 1976 to 2007. But the CN Tower actually surpassed the previous record-holder in 1975.

I know that the building arbitrators mark a building's title from the day of opening which, presumably, means the CN Tower was tallest from June 1976, but by that criterion, then, obviously, the CN Tower is still the tallest until the Burj Dubai opens in 2009 or whenever!

And let's not forget that these "rules" weren't recognized until decades after the CN Tower was open.

How about we note that the CN Tower became the tallest in April 1975, opened in June 1976 and was surpassed by the Burj Dubai Sept 2007, scheduled to open in 2009?

This issue is, literally, close to home. Well, work. As I write, I am perched across the street at the CBC... prone to being munched by said structure if it should decided to topple over... Canada Jack 15:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, change it to reflect current practices, in light of Burj.--Abebenjoe 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"From its completion in 1976 until 2007, it was the world's tallest free-standing structure on land. On September 12, 2007, the Burj Dubai became the world's tallest free-standing structure even though it has not yet been completed."

This still sounds stilted - how about "From 1975 until 2007, it was the world's tallest free-standing structure on land. It has held the official title since its opening in 1976, and will lose it to the Burj Dubai, which surpassed the CN Tower's height on 12 September 2007, when the latter building opens, likely in 2009." Canada Jack 16:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since 1976, it has been the world's tallest free-standing structure on land, though it will most likely lose this title to the Burj Dubai, which surpassed the CN Tower's height on September 12, 2007, when the latter building opens, likely in 2009.
This still sounds a bit weird. I mean, the CN Tower was tallest tower period, building arbitrators or not, from 1975. It will likely lose the official title once the Burj Dubai, which surpassed the CN Tower's height Sept 12, opens, likely in 2009. But we need no arbitrators to determine if it is indeed that tall! How about "Since 1976 it has held the official title of world's tallest..." I think that gets it a bit more accurate (though if we want to be super picky, in 1975, Guinness Records were on hand to confirm that, yes, the CN Tower was tallest, when the helicopter put the mast up in April of that year. And Guinness were, in effect, the arbitrators of what constituted a tall building back then. There was no mention of any height becoming "official" upon opening day. The building arbitrators did not exist as a body until much later so though THEY say the CN Tower had the title from June 1976, Guinness said it had it from April 1975).
And one final thing... just a bit of a style thing, "likely" is used twice in the paragraph above. Might be better to lose the second "likely" and replace with "probably," so it reads "...when the latter building opens, probably in 2009." Reads a bit better that way, I think.Canada Jack 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
What official title is there? None. CTBUH does not measure structures, only buildings. Buildings can only become the official tallest in the world upon completion, but no such rule exists for free-standing structures. The CN Tower no longer holds the title of "freestanding structure". The Burj Dubai does, and I guess you could say it holds the "official" title as well, although one does not really exist. The lead and the image caption should be reworded to state that the title was lost in 2007. And we should also use 1975 instead of 1976; if this "non-completed rule" is used with Burj Dubai, then it obviously should be used for the CN Tower.
Something like this: "From 1975 until 2007, it was the world's tallest free-standing structure on land. On September 12, 2007, the Burj Dubai surpassed the CN Tower in height, becoming the world's tallest free-standing structure. However, it is not scheduled to be completed until 2009." Rai-me 14:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This sounds generally fine to me. How about this:
  • From 1975 until 2007, it was the world's tallest free-standing structure on land. On September 12, 2007, the Burj Dubai surpassed the CN Tower in height; upon its completion in 2009, the Burj Dubai will (most/likely) become the world's tallest building and tower by any measure.
Or, to assuage naysayers:
  • Since its completion in 1975(6?), it has been the world's tallest free-standing structure on land. On September 12, 2007, the Burj Dubai surpassed the CN Tower in height; upon its completion in 2009, the Burj Dubai will (most/likely) become the world's tallest building and tower by any measure.
Thoughts? Quizimodo 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I am still unsure, becuase both of those versions make it sound like the Burj Dubai is taller, but that it will not become the "official" tallest until it is completed. Stll, they are much better than the current sentences being used in the article. How about:
  • From 1975, when the tower surpassed the Ostankino Tower, until September 12, 2007, when the still under construction Burj Dubai surpassed it in height, the CN Tower stood as the tallest free-standing structure on land in the world.
This is probably too jumbled to actually use in the article, but something like this gets the point across. Rai-me 16:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've lately changed this comment "since 1976 it has been",etc. into this: "The CN Tower in Toronto, Ontario was the world's tallest freestanding structure on land from 1976 until the Burj Dubai surpassed it in 2007". This second comment is the same as stands on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_structures

First of all I apologise for having changed it without a discussion, it was certainly not action of vandalism. The problem is that according to Wikipedia, the world now has 2 tallest free standing structures. The CN Tower according to it's page and the Burj Dubai according to the Burj Dubai page and the link here about the tallest free standig structure. Since they are not both equal in height, they cannot both be the tallest free standing structure on land. I do agree with some arguments on this page that the Burj Dubai should count now: finished or not, it is a structure: the full height measured is a man-made construction. It also is freestanding and taller. It should not matter that it is not open or unfinished. "Opening" the structure does not change the structure. That it until opening has no special purpose is not a matter too: you can still discuss the purpose of the great pyramid, but that does not change that it was the the tallest freestanding structure for thousands of years. The Washington monument held this title too and this is an object what even is not accessable or open for services. It is indeed unfinished, but it still remains a structure until it is completed. In the meantime it will not be lowered to be completed. That is different with the status of a building. It is not used as a building, it cannot be used as a building until it's allowed or open. So you can argue that in the meantime it should not count as a building, although you can see now that it will be a building. Coyote76 18:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above comment. CTBUH has never made any ruling that the CN Tower will remain the "official" tallest free-standing structure until the Burj Dubai is completed in 2009. This ruling only applies to the Burj Dubai being counted as a "building", which is a debatable topic. "Free-standing structure" is not really at all debatable. Completed or not, the Burj is a taller structure, and therefore gets the title.
Per this discussion, I've changed three sections in the article. If anyone can improve them in any way, please do:
  • Caption: The CN Tower has been the world's tallest completed free-standing structure on land since its opening in 1976 → The CN Tower was the world's tallest free-standing structure on land from 1975 until 2007
  • Lead: Since 1976, it has been the world's tallest free-standing structure on land, though it will most likely lose this title to the still under construction Burj Dubai, which surpassed the CN Tower's height on September 12, 2007 → The CN Tower became the tallest free-standing structure in the world in 1975, when it surpassed the height of the Ostankino Tower in Moscow, Russia while still under construction. It held this title for 31 years. On September 12, 2007, the tower was surpassed in height by the still under construction Burj Dubai, losing the title of tallest free-standing structure
  • Controversy Section: The CN Tower has held the record for over 30 years; however, it will not be official until the Burj Dubai is complete and certified by the CTBUH as "world's tallest," therefore leaving the CN Tower as the current record holder until that time → It held the record for over 30 years. The tower now stands as the 2nd-tallest free-standing structure on land in the world, and as the tallest completed structure
Rai-me 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, given the discussion, these changes retain the murkiness...

If the CN Tower is not a building and therefore was not subject to any of the rules specifying opening dates, then why are we applying it when we say "Since 1976..."? Further, when noted that the CN Tower became the tallest in 1975, it says it held this title for "31 years." Surely that should be 32 years.

Finally, in the Controversy section, we have what seems to be a conflation of rules. The Burj Dubai won't be considered "official" until its opening in '09 or whenever, but this applies to its status as a BUILDING. So it won't have be considered to be the tallest BUILDING, and the holder of those various categories until then. However, the title of "world's tallest self-supporting structure on land" is not subject to that criterion, and therefore it is the tallest in that category NOW.

Unless we are applying the CTBUH rules - and I believe to do so would be to deem ourselves arbitrators and therefore engaging in original research - we should simply note that the CN Tower was tallest from 1975 to 2007, the Burj surpassed that height in 2007 and is scheduled for completion in '09 at which time it will be considered the tallest building by the CTBUH, though it is unclear if that means the CN Tower was also considered tallest from its opening date in 1976 as those rules didn't apply to the category the CN Tower was in.

Oh yeah, that's clearer... Canada Jack 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about 31 yrs is now incorrect, changed to 32. Coyote76 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything stated above by Canada Jack; the point that it is not a building and therefore that there is no "official" ruling by CTBUH of which is a taller free-standing structure on land was what I was trying to make in the above discussion. However, I really don't think any mention of the Burj Dubai being the tallest building in 2009 is necessary. The CN Tower has not been put in any category by the CTBUH; it was simply decided that it was not a building. It became the tallest structure at the exact moment it surpassed the Ostankino Tower, not when it was completed (sorry, I might just be misunderstanding what you meant in the second to last paragraph :) ). Rai-me 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too. The 2009 information should belong to the Burj Dubai page and has, in my opinion, very little to do with the CN Tower. It could create more confusion rather than it adds information. Readers always can go to the Burj Dubai page to see it's progress/status. Coyote76 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An uberfirehose?

a fire hose at the base of the structure capable of sending 600 imperial gallons a minute to any location in the tower,

Does this make sense to anyone? How does a single fire hose at the base of the structure shoot water up halfway? Tempshill 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signal Range?

Could someone verify and maybe add to the article just exactly what the known signal and frequency ranges are for the CN Tower, particularly how far the signal from such a big antenna can travel? I think it's worth noting that I was in Westchester County, NY, which is to the immediate NE of New York City, once in 2004 and I picked up a broadcast that no doubt came from there. The signal was very weak and didn't last that long, but it was a Toronto sports broadcast which seemingly had to come from there. A phenomenon maybe, but regardless, it's useful to list the known signal range of the Tower. Also, whoever was trying to input metric comparisons in the "controversies" section apparently inputted some odd and invalid template. If anyone can make sense of that it'd also be appreciated.

Thanks, Alan 69.116.186.229 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height Comparison

Just wondering if someone could change the height comparison photo so that the title reads "CN Tower comparison" rather than "Burj Dubai comparison".—Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferHeartsU (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 March, 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the title is really that big of a deal. It is a comparison to the Burj Dubai, so the title as is is still appropriate. It is also probably more appropriate than "CN Tower height comparison", as the image is showing the date the Burj Dubai surpassed the height of the CN Tower, and thus the Burj Dubai is the image's main subject. Anyway, I restored the image, as it adds to the article, regardless of its title. Cheers, Rai-me 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalsim

I don't get why you said I vandalized the CN Tower Article. All I did is correct the height of the Burj Dubai to 818 meters. If you type in Burj Dubai on Wikipedia it will say 818 meters. How am I supplying incorrect information. Please let me know. The Burj Dubai is planned to rise atleast 818 meters, and it even says so on Wikipedia. I am confused why you call this vandalism, for correcting a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 00:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to famous structures

Although the TV tower and Oil platform are very tall structures, neither of them are remotely famous, or even freestanding, to include them as a comparison would be redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferHeartsU (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

They should be included because they are some of the tallest man-made structures in the world. Whether they are freestanding or not does not mean anything. It is the hight that they reach that makes them notable. They should be kept in the article to show the height difference between the CN Tower and these other structures. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Leitmanp. "Famous" was a poor word choice, it has since been changed to "notable". I am adding the entries back in. Rai-me 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charity Climb Events and Times

I've just added references to two climb events (United Way and WWF-Canada), but I don't know what the third is? The United Way reference also covers the record time and average time statements, but not the record women's time. papageno (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] cleanup needed in comparisons section

"There are currently six proposals for towers whose final heights are to exceed the CN Tower's,[15] four of which are currently under construction. At the forefront is the Burj Dubai which surpassed the CN Tower in height in September 2007. The developers of Burj Dubai have kept the final planned height and number of stories a secret, but they have announced that it would stop somewhere above 2,684 feet (818.1 m). In North America, the Chicago Spire's height is currently planned to exceed CN Tower's height, currently planned at 2,000 feet (609.6 m).[16] The Freedom Tower, which is under construction in New York City is expected to be 12 m (39 ft) shorter in order to make the tower 1776 ft tall (1776 was the year the United States declared independence)."

the last sentence obviously doesn't fit in this paragraph (or in the one after it, which mentions two planned towers which are also to exceed the CN tower's height. i suggest removing the freedom tower sentence here altogether. 99.233.147.148 (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lock?

I think this article should be locked so that only wikipedians can edit it. it has been vandalized multple times.    Juthani1    02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had tried to contact administrators to semi-protect this article numerous times in the request for page protection page. This article has been semi-protected a few times, but most of the attempts to semi-protect the article had been unsuccessful. In fact, anyone who edits Wikipedia is a Wikipedian. You have probably meant autoconfirmed users and higher, since IP users and newly registered users cannot edit semi-protected pages. Johnny Au (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is semi-protected for two weeks until May 23. Johnny Au (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the lock proved effective when we used used it, but now vandalism is back up. SHould a permanant lock be considered. Poen to wikipedans who have been members for 5 days at least    Juthani1   tcs 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try again. Johnny Au (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Unsuccessful. Let us wait for more vandals before locking it. Johnny Au (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It has been vandalized about 4 times this week. Hasn't it    Juthani1   tcs 23:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Four times in a week is not enough to justify. Often it requires at least one instance of vandalism per day. Johnny Au (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is now semi-protected for another two weeks. Johnny Au (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)