Talk:List of tallest buildings in Chicago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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

Contents

[edit] Trump

The list's name says "2004," yet Trump is scheduled to be complted in 2007. IF we're going to include Trump, then why not in parentheses? Kdammers 07:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drop Down: Chicago Skyscrapers

The drop down list at the end categorizes "supertalls" using floors as a measure. The standard practice is 300 meters, not number of floors (because floors are so arbitrary). Using 300 meters, you can add the next two buildings to that list thus giving Chicago 5 supertalls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkriegls (talk • contribs) 07:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed

I had to move the proposed structures out of the table (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Not only does it impede the utility of the table for current rankings, it's potentially wrong. Many things could happen -- construction accidents, financing collapses, terrorism, a steel shortage. That's not even counting new projects that could come to light in the next four years. So proposed/abuilding stuff should be handled separately (I'm not even sure about the table).--Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metres

I think that the building's height should be listed in metres as well as feet. It would be easy to convert the heights so no need to look each building up

Done. The data comes from Emporis, so it is more accurate than a simple conversion. Here on Wikipedia all heights are rounded to the nearest foot, but if a height is between integers it might round to a different meter than if the rounded number were converted; by recording the data from Emporis (which is more precise than feet or meters) the meter heights will be rounded to the correct integer. Montalto 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goal to have a Page & Pic of each building

I know this sounds obvious, but I think it should be our objective to try and have well written (and brief) descriptions of the 50 tallest, and also quality images for each as well. After that we can move to some of the tallest in the suburbs, and hopefully a few people will have pictures of those.

If anyone is willing to help me, that would be great.

After all of that is completed then I'll probably focus my attention on smaller historic/landmark buildings across the city. --spyguy 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chronology

I recall an apocryphal story from ~1968 that the Prudential Building 130 East Randolph was the HIGHEST building in Chicago from 1955 until the Hancock in 1969. Since it is on a hill, that could be true, or bravado from fancy occupants. [cowtowne] Cowtowne 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

After hearing all the fanfare about this weekend's opening of the LaSalle Bank Theatre and being reminded that it was once Chicago's tallest building, we should develop a chronology of the tallest buildings in Chicago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

I like the idea and will try to help. It would be cool to have some pictures of each building too. --spyguy 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think my list is complete with correct info. Does anyone know a specific address for the Masonic Temple? Anyway, I don't think LaSalle Bank Theatre was ever the tallest in Chicago, but I'll check into it. --spyguy 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It does not seem to be published anywhere, but I would estimate it at around 300 feet. Anyway it's guaranteed that it was never the tallest, because the Montgomery Ward Building (6 North Michigan) was much taller until the tower came down around the 1940s. Montalto 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Job.TonyTheTiger 15:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I was curious about the Masonic address, too. Unofrtunately, it might be necessary to delve into some dusty archives to find out. Also, what is the height of the La Salle building. I haven't been able to find it. 71.102.186.234 01:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R. R. Donnelley Building

77 West Wacker Drive is the official name of this building as of May, 2005. R. R. Donnelley moved their corporate headquarters from the building at that time and lost their naming rights. The signs on the front of the building at sidewalk level do NOT read R. R. Donnelley anymore, but simply the street address of 77 West Wacker Drive. I worked for R. R. Donnelley for a number of years and was there when they moved. TheQuandry 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured List

Those who are more active in editing this page should think about pursuing featured list recognition (IMO). Maybe the page should undergo a peer review first though. TonyTheTiger 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5415 N Sheridan Rd - Park Tower Condominuims - 513' 54 stories

Ref: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=5415northsheridan-chicago-il-usa

Shouldn't this building be in the 50 tallest of Chicago? Although it is not in the downtown ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.146.201.9 (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Ooops, never mind. Only 513 feet, a shorty. But 54 stories, must be short ones... Sorry...

[edit] Contradiction

Either the building was the tallest in Chicago as of 1892 as per Masonic Temple (Chicago) or as of 1895 as per this page. Please correct. TonyTheTiger 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a mistake, but it's explained (partly) by note #2. In 1895 the tower was removed from the Board of Trade, thereby making this (by default) the tallest building in the city. More information can be obtained in the book History of the Development of Building Construction in Chicago by Frank Randall. 209.253.119.2 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
O.K. so it is 1895. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest by Community Area

I just created a Regents Park (Chicago), the tallest building in Kenwood, Chicago page and was wondering if anyone has the resources to augment this page by adding tallest building by community area. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also created 1700 East 56th Street, the tallest in Hyde Park, Chicago TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Board of Trade Building

I am not sure if the Chicago Board of Trade Building and One North LaSalle are the same. See these links: http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/O/OneNorthLasalle.html and http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/B/BoardTrade.html. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.
using Emporis (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1northlasalle-chicago-il-usa vs. http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=chicagoboardoftrade-chicago-il-usa) and Encyclopedia of Chicago. Bd. of Trade is the taller of the two. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical tallest in Chicago

This site says that the Pittsfield Building was the tallest in Chicago at the time of its completion. Is that correct? I don't see the Pittsfield Building anywhere on our "historical tallest" list. Zagalejo 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chicago Temple Building was completed three years earlier, and is 17 feet taller than the Pittsfield. I suppose the Landmarks Commission didn't feel like counting the temple's spire. The Pittsfield Building is exactly 551'-1" tall; blueprints are available at the Chicago Historical Society. The Chicago Temple's height is listed in brochures available in its lobby. Hope this helps... other sources have claimed the Mather Tower was the tallest in the city when it was built, but that too is incorrect.
Ah, thanks! Zagalejo 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tides

the tides is 4 inches shorter than 500' and should be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.172.130 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Community Areas

I think we should add a column for the tables stating the community area for each building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page User:Raime said I don't think a column for community areas is needed. No other U.S. list has such a column, and there has been consensus at WT:SKY to avoid adding another column to any tallest buildings list, whether it be for architects, photo links, or street addresses, due in learge part to "column crunching" and lack of relevance to building height. Such information is best kept for individual building articles, in my opinion. Cheers, Rai•me 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My point is not that they are needed. It is that unlike any other city I have researched, Chicago has a clearly agreed map of all of the neighborhoods of the city with clearly defined borders. Thus, when the Library of Congress describes images in its Chicago Daily News Collection such as Image:Old CBOT.jpg, Image:Radio Tower atop Roanoke Building (old DeSoto Building location).jpg, etc., it describes the community area. I am willing to do it myself, but I just don't want to mess up your work. I look at the list from the top and see Loop, Loop, Near North Side, Loop, Loop, Loop, NNS, NNS, Loop, NNS. That is just the first ten. I thin that is informative information and in fact encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Still, the neighborhoods are not necessary on the lists for each specific building. The proper place would be the articles for those buildings. Just because there are clearly defined areas/neighborhoods of Chicago does not mean that they have to be mentioned. The only areas that need attention are the parts of the city that contain the tallest buildings in Chicago, and the lead is the perfect place for that. The only time that I would agree to mentioning the neighborhood for a specific building is if it is the tallest in that neighborhood. If it is not the tallest in that neighborhood, it is not worth mentioning. The article for that building would be the best place for such simple information. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Leitmanp. The information regarding in which community area a building is located is certainly "informative information and in fact encyclopedic", but it doesn't need to be placed on the main tallest building list when it can be more suitably left in individual building articles. Architect, owner, street address, etc. are also encyclopedic, but again, placement in individual building articles is more appropriate. Cheers, Rai•me 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)