Talk:List of tallest buildings in New York City/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Crystal ball?

Would someone like to speak to why buildings that do not yet exist are on the list? It's just not true that the Freedom Tower is the tallest building, although it may someday be. See for instance List of tallest buildings in Chicago, Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago, and List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States.

Still A Student 20:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point. Besides, since the Chicago list is very similar to this one it would be good for the two pages to have a standard format. I separated the buildings under construction from the existing buildings in a new list, and added Freedom Tower in the introductory text. I'm sure someone will insist on adding Freedom Tower to the list prematurely, and I am not going to get into a war over it, but according to the reports I have heard there is no foundation work underway yet so no actual part of the structure has been built. (Recognized authorities on building standards like Emporis and the CTBUH accept the date of initial foundation work as the benchmark for commencement of construction.) I also removed the footnote indicating that Freedom Tower would be the tallest building in the world, since it has almost no chance of being taller than Burj Dubai at any stage of its construction. Thank you for your suggestion. Montalto 07:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this issue: foundation work HAS started for Freedom Tower. Blasting work as well as excavation is being performed right as we speak. And the media has explicitly stated that work has started - I quote the NYTimes (June 13th article): "work is under way on the foundation of the Freedom Tower" EDIT: I guess I can quote Emporis on this too: "Ground for actual construction (different from the cornerstone placing) was broken on April 27, 2006."--Darkhunger 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But Emporis still lists Freedom Tower as "approved" as opposed to "under construction". I spoke with one of their New York editors who told me that not only is foundation work not underway, but they have removed the cornerstone and work has come to a halt. I can't verify this myself right now, so I won't change your edits but I'd encourage everyone to follow a consistent standard with regard to the start of construction. Excavation and site preparation/demolition should not count as construction, since no part of the building structure is being put into place. Foundation work means construction of caissons, piles, or the foundation mat (depending on the type of foundation used) - anything else may qualify as activity but it is not construction of the building because no actual part of the building is there. I realize a lot of people are eager for construction to start, and therefore would like to believe it's underway; but the construction list is more meaningful if we avoid jumping the gun. Montalto 05:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, work is moving on just fine, as you can see here [1]. Yes, its site preparation, but I think of construction in a different context than you (and Emporis/CTBUH), I guess. While I understand you reasons for wanting to use their definition of construction, I don't see the necessity for it in this article.--Darkhunger 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

189 buildings

If there are 189 buildings taller than 500 ft. in NYC, why does the list only have 77 buildings? Where are the other 112? I realize that not all of the buildings are landmarks warranting their own WP article, but the list should try to be comprehensive. Wl219 09:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The list only has 600 feet+ buildings, apparently.--132.236.94.195 23:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikisistency

Height/Number of floors in the building:

GE Building

List of tallest buildings in New York City

Rockefeller Center

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anerbenartzi (talk • contribs) 15:34, 5 November 2006‎ (UTC) Signature added during archiving for historical reference. This information would not have been visible to any users involved in these discussions at the time they were ongoing.

Remove not-completed buildings from list

The future buildings should be removed from the list. I wanted to change that but it's a pain to renumber all the buildings in the list - is there an automatic way to do this? Maybe someone smarter at wikiformatting can make the edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.50.108 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Why more lenient standards for proposed buildings?

The height standard for proposed buildings seems to be considerably more lenient for proposed buildings than for actual buildings. The list for actual buildings only goes down to 184 meters, but the list for proposed buildings goes down to 156 meters. That doesn't make any sense at all.--Pharos 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

500 ft / 150 m is a generally accepted height standard for measuring skyscrapers. Rather than removing buildings from the proposed list, I think we should add to the list of completed buildings so that it is more thorough and includes all buildings over 500 ft / 150 m Raime 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Can someone please explain how the first two sentences (reference below) make sense?

"New York City has the most individual, free-standing skyscrapers in the world over 500 ft. (152 m) with 184 buildings taller than 500 ft. For comparison, Hong Kong has 186 skyscrapers taller than 500 ft."

They made no sense to me, so I removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.50.108 (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Signature added during archiving for historical reference. This information would not have been visible to any users involved in these discussions at the time they were ongoing.

It means that there were 184 skyscrapers in NYC and 186 in Hong Kong, if you call anything over 500 feet a skyscraper. (Then we have to go into how we count that 500 feet) Considering the intricacies of the situation it's hard to really say which city has more. Sagittarian Milky Way 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Empire State Building heights

Either some person, with different IP's and usernames, or several editors keep raising the Empire State Building in the structural-height-only table (1,250 feet/381 meters) to the height of its antenna (1,472 ft, I think), only to be repeatedly reverted. (The first table explicitly says it's for structural height only, while another table shows the pinnacle height, including antennas and radio masts.) The explanations in the edit summaries don't seem to suffice. What further should we do? Send nasty messages, put a read-only notice in the editing code, ask for semi-protection? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite frustrating. I find myself changing it back every time I check this page, and since I'm not here all that often, I have to sort through the changes to see if they've also felt like adding 1WTC's antenna in (which people like to do as well). Glad to see someone else is trying to battle it too. Drumz0rz (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's happening again. While of course I hope that I'm completely wrong, User:Empire1472 seems to have been set up as a single-purpose account to change the heights back up to 1472 feet. See this article's edit history and User talk:Empire1472. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And not only that, the Empire State Building's antenna hasn't been 1472 feet since the 1980s. It's 1454. A check of the FAA's obstruction website shows this. NGC 2009 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a good source, perhaps you could make the necessary adjustments on the Pinnacle-height table (the second one down) and at Architecture of New York City. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In 1984, the original antenna was replaced by a different, 8% shorter one. Why the 1472ft height has been perpetuated through many sources for a quarter century is beyond me. So.. done, at least for this article. The Empire State Building article needs fixing, too. The iPhone doesn't have cut and paste capability so if anyone cares, they can change the order in the intro back to (implied) Structural-Pinnacle, cause I sure ain't doing it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It also is listed as both the 10th tallest and 15th tallest building in the world - on this page as 10, and on the tallest buildings in the US as the 15th.

24.193.125.217 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

NEW PICSand BEEKMAN

Can someone put a new panorma poicture and a new pic for 1 world trade center, also Beekman has topped out ans should be added to the list number 7 i believe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westmc9th (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 December 2009‎‎ (UTC) Signature added during archiving for historical reference. This information would not have been visible to any users involved in these discussions at the time they were ongoing.

Second Sentence

The second sentence sounds a bit awkward. I'm not sure what it is trying to convey but it doesn't do it very well. The city's 102-story Empire State Building, in midtown Manhattan, the basic structure of which, completed in 1931, rises 1,250 feet (381 meters), increased to 1,454 feet (443 m) by its superstructures. Any suggestions on how to fix it? 24.249.118.14 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding Latting Observatory to Timeline of tallest buildings

The Latting Observatory, which stood from 1853 to 1856, was 315 feet high, surpassing Trinity Church as the tallest in New York City. Any objection to its inclusion in the Timeline of tallest buildings? Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to add it, although it was only the tallest until the top 75 feet were removed, so approx. 2 years. To add it, you'll need to also duplicate Trinity Church just as the ESB is duplicated on the list before and after the WTC. (Drumz0rz (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

The Statue of Liberty was the tallest building in New York until 1890 when the World Building was built. This needs to be added to the Timeline of Tallest Buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.66.1 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Under Construction vs. Approved

WTC 2, 3, and 4 are not under construction; they are only approved. Shouldn't a separate list be made for those buildings that are only approved or proposed? This list could include the 3 WTC towers, 80 South Street, the Con-Ed Redevelopment Buildings, 610 Lexington Avenue, etc. Raime 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Great errors about the number of floor of new Wtc ( to see the WTC site ) 151.75.15.219 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Great errors about the number of floor of new Wtc ( to see the WTC site ). Is it so hard to correct the number of floors of these buidings ( 88 floors instead of 79 for World Trade Center 2, 80 and not 71 for Wtc 3 and 72 instead 64 for Wtc 4 ) ? Thank you !! 151.75.38.106 (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC). To correct these errors, please and to add to the proposed buildings also the 440 Park Avenue Tower ( 433 m ) !!!!!! 151.75.8.116 (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dating the panoramas

The skyline is constantly changing. It seems worthwhile to include at least the year in each panorama caption. Any objections? Will Beback talk 12:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

all images need dates for context.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Interactive

It'd be cool if the panorama could be interactive... just an idea... 41.242.148.186 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead/Intro Paragraphs

Today I merged three of the sections at the beginning of the article (Overview, Concentration and Construction) into the list's lead section. Per WP:LIST and WP:FLCR, "a list [should have] an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." The three sections I just mentioned - especially the "Overview" section - seem to match this definition perfectly, so I just combined them all into the lead.

The History section, IMO, should be kept separate - obviously, New York City has a great deal of history with the skyscraper, and this list seems like the best Wikipedia article to elaborate on that topic. Any thoughts/objections/comments on this? Cheers, Rai•me 04:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WTC vs Empire State

See List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. The inconsistency relates to whether or not we include the antenna. When built, the ESB was 1,250 feet tall. Later, when the antenna was added, it elevated the height of the building to 1,453' 8 9/16". When defining "tallest" as being equal to the "architectural top", then at 1,368 and 1,362, WTC 1 and 2, surpassed the ESB's 1,250. As you'll see in the link, defining "tallest" as it relates to buildings, can be difficult.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ButtonwoodTree (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 May 2007‎ (UTC) Signature added during archiving for historical reference. This information would not have been visible to any users involved in these discussions at the time they were ongoing.

The tallest building in New York City is currently the Empire State Building. World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 (at 1,368 feet (417 m) and 1,362 feet (415 m) respectively) were the first and second tallest buildings in New York City before they were destroyed on September 11th, 2001.

1 Empire State Building 1 1,472 / 449 102 1931

I'm not really up to date on my New York architecture but am I missing something or does it seem weird that WTC 1 at 1,368 feet and WTC at 1,362 feet where in first and second before they fell and Empire State is currently listed as #1 at 1,472 ?

If the antenna is being taken into consideration for the empire state building should it not be for the WTC ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.31.98.210 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Signature added during archiving for historical reference. This information would not have been visible to any users involved in these discussions at the time they were ongoing.

The height of the Empire State Building is 1,250ft / 381m. Antenna are not included in the height, which is why there is a separate list which includes pinnacle height. Please stop editing this article to include the antenna. (Drumz0rz (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

1 WTC

Similarly, why is 1WTC being included as the tallest under construction when the 1776 ft includes a non-architectural spire, the antenna. The original design called for an architectural spire to surround the purely-functional antenna. But that design has been scrapped. The 1776 ft number should refer only to pinnacle height, not "height" for the purposes of measuring buildings. Thus, 1WTC should measure 1368 ft under the future construction tab, and should be ranked 2nd to 438 Park Ave, which has a planned height of 1398 ft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.241.68 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The developer of 1 WTC is still using 1,776 feet as the official height, and CTBUH has announced it will not "decide" whether the antenna complex qualifies as an architectural spire until after the building has finished comstruction. At this point, since the developer and all sources (Emporis, CTBUH database, SkyscraperPage, etc.) all still use 1,776 ft as the official height, this list does as well. There is only speculation that the modified antenna/spire design won't qualify as an architectural element; nothing has been confirmed. Cheers, Rai•me 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One World Trade Center

1 WTC should not be included in the "Tallest buildings" section until after it has been topped out - that is, after it has reached a height of 1,776 ft (541 m). Because the CTBUH won't decide on whether the spire/antenna will be included in the building's height until after its completion, we need to continue to use the 1,776 ft (541 m) figure given by the developer as the building's official height. Thus, the building won't be officially topped out until the spire has been added, and it shouldn't be added to the "Tallest buildings" (which includes completed and topped out buildings ONLY) section until then. Cheers, Rai•me 01:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, by definition, One WTC topped out on August 30, 2012.[2] While the spire has yet to be completed, the roof height of the structure does surpasses that of Empire State Building. So even if the CTBUH decide against including the spire in the official measurement, One WTC will still be the tallest in the city. For this reason, I feel the tower qualifies to make the list, and the absence of such would at this point be inaccurate. I would use the currently accepted figure of 1,776 ft (541 m) until otherwise corrected by the CTBUH, and perhaps denote it as ^(disputed). Just a thought :) — MusikAnimal (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A building is topped out when it reaches its highest point - since 1 WTC still hasn't reached the spire height of 1,776 feet (which is still being used as the official height by the building's developers and all reliable sources), it isn't technically topped out yet according to the standards used by this list. Its absence isn't inaccurate for the same reason that it wasn't inaccurate to rank the building as #1 from the day its steel beams surpassed the height of the Empire State Building - the list only ranks completed and topped out skyscrapers. At this point, I don't see the harm in waiting a few more weeks until the spire is completed and the CTBUH officially labels the building as "topped out" on its list of New York skyscrapers. The final height of the building may not matter much for this list's rankings, but it does matter for List of tallest buildings in the United States, and for consistency we should follow the same rules/logic for each. Cheers, Rai•me 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, no harm in waiting. However I must argue that "topping out" refers to when the last steel beam is in place, which occurred on August 30th, as stated in the One World Trade Center page with the aforementioned citation. If this is in any way incorrect we are contradicting ourselves in these two articles. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The building's topping out hasn't occurred yet according to the CTBUH, which only lists a building as "topped out" when its final official height has been reached, and that hasn't occurred yet in this case. Clearly, various news outlets have different meanings for topping out, and the controversy over 1 WTC's official height only makes the issue of whether or not the building is "topped out" more confusing. The One World Trade Center should probably be a little clearer in stating that it is the building's steel skeleton, and not necessarily the building itself, that is topped out. Likewise, this list should more explicitly state that 1 WTC has reached its final roof height; I will add that to its entry in the under construction list. Cheers, Rai•me 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs Tower (Jersey City)

I think that the Goldman Sachs Tower should be included on the list. I've noticed someone decided to remove it, probably because it isn't technically in New York City, but I think that since this page is supposed to be a reference for people trying to learn about the prominent buildings of the NYC skyline, it should at least be mentioned since it is an iconic feature of the NYC skyline. Take a look at this picture if you don't believe me: [3] If you have any feelings one way or another, please share them before deleting it from the list. 138.16.131.221 (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for move

Should the page be moved to List of skyscrapers in New York City? That seems like a better title. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 15:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, Skyscraper is often defined as 100m or taller. This would promote a list so long as to be less informative. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, consider meters instead of feet

I would recommend everyone to write the heights in meters, instead of feet (US system) because it is the metric system and it is vastly adopted in architecture and in science. Feet can be used, but in brackets. m (ft). Not only in this section, but in everyone in wikipedia, any language. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Most people viewing this are American and feet, inches and miles should still be predominantly used. That and these are all American buildings. New York City is American. People have to stop trying to force metric system on us for measurements of length. If this was tallest buildings in London or some other European city than metric system should be used but not for an American city. Metric system is widely adopted except for the United States so it's irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.20.98 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Signature added during archiving for historical reference. This information would not have been visible to any users involved in these discussions at the time they were ongoing.

no fair use justification for this image

What does "no fair use justification for this image" mean? For 225 West 57th Street there was a 3d rendered image last few days and now its gone so checked the history and person who removed it gave this as the reason. Is it a rule of the page only pictures that are of actual building no 3d images? I am not familiar with Wikipedia editing lingo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.20.98 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The image, File:217West57thStreet.png, is a non-free image. Non-free images are very limited where they can go. According to policy every non-free image must have a non-free use rationale. The image does have a non-free use rationale for the article 225 West 57th Street but it does not have one for this article. I do not believe that any non-free rationale would be valid for this article because it would fail #8 of the policy. GB fan 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks for reply. Now I now how that works. Figure it was removed for soem kind of image rule but not know the complex Wikipedia rules and different lingo so figured i would ask it here. Makes sense with free use or copyright photo and now I have learned something new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.20.98 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Full skyline panorama image

Is there a better pic that the one right below the lead? The current one has poor photo stitching and so some parts of the Hudson river appear to be slanted and others horizontal. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other two panorama images in the article are of a higher quality (particularly the Midtown panorama, which is a featured picture), but the image you mentioned is the only one that portrays the entire skyline, so I believe it should be placed first. Also note that the Midtown panorama is from the same vantage point as the lead image, so placing these two similar images so close together would probably not be a good idea. Cheers, Rai•me 00:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also (sorry if I am in the wrong), aren't those the twin towers in the Midtown and Upper Manhattan Skyline picture? I may be completely wrong, I haven't been to NYC in a while, but If those are the twin towers in the picture then we need to update this picture. ProBroBroccoli (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Midtown West

Is this superscraper proposal real? There is no source, no link for wikipedia article and no description. Cant wait for New York City to leave the under 100 floor count behind and start building on skyscrapers in the hundreds of stories. Tried searching Google excited to read about it but nothing yet.68.198.20.98 (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Requests for uncreated articles

Tallest buildings in Brooklyn. Please create a page that links the NYC tallest buildings page to Brooklyn's tallest buildings. There are enough new skyscrapers going up now in Brooklyn that it deserves its own page to cover them all. The NYC tallest page can still contain information on Brooklyn, but the new page will be more expansive and focus on just Brooklyn. (History of Brooklyn skyscrapers, completed, under construction and proposed)

Seems this article already exists, but not linked or easily searchable. Can we make it an actual Wikipedia article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Caponer/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Brooklyn

Tallest buildings in Queens. Please create a page that links the NYC tallest buildings page to Queen's tallest buildings. There are enough new skyscrapers going up now in Queens (mainly Long Island City) that it deserves its own page to cover them all. The NYC tallest page can still contain information on Queens, but the new page will be more expansive and focus on just Queens. (History of Queens skyscrapers, completed, under construction and proposed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.40.1 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

new image

Here's a new image from Flickr.

B137 (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

11 Times Square, 100th tallest

I know there is sort of a convention that when a building is on a "list of tallest" list (and so many of these have been conformed to meet a standardized "featured" format that includes all buildings having an article) to name where it ranks on the list in its individual article, just like how some of the tallest in a city list will mention their national or world ranking. However, these tend to be inaccurate as they are so often out of date. Before I fixed the spam, the 11 Times Square aritcle still said it was the 88th-tallest in the city, when it now is apparently the 100th; at what point does this ranking become trite? B137 (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:11 Times Square, but I think it can be removed when the ranking goes above 100. Speaking of which, it may be 99 now (see below)... Epic Genius (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sky (building)

This is listed twice: in the "completed" section and in the "under construction" section. I suppose the "completed" listing is wrong, since this building is under construction. However, if I delete the "completed" listing for Sky, then the list would be cut to just 99 entries, rather than the preferred 100. Epic Genius (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no preference for 100, its just a coincidence. B137 (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

World Trade Center Height Discrepancy?

This list states the height of the World Trade Center at 1,268 feet, with the "antenna" bringing the height to 1,776 ft. However the page for the World Trade Center lists the architectural height at 1,776 ft, with an antenna height of 1,792 ft. In addition, the description of the height for the World Trade Center in this list is written rather informally, leading me to suspect that someone with a personal dispute about whether or not the top structure of the building is to be counted has edited the article. In any event, there should be no question that the ranking of the World Trade Center and its height should be the same as what is on the page for the building itself. While I am not unsympathetic to the perspective that the entire "spire" on this building is nothing more than support for the antenna, the article should reflect consensus view, which in this case appears to be that the architectural height is 1,776 ft.

158.121.83.116 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Justin

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of tallest buildings in New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070214105953/http://www.emporis.com:80/en/wm/bu/?id=5005avenuenue-newyorkcity-ny-usa to http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=5005avenuenue-newyorkcity-ny-usa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence

New York City, the most populous city in the United States, is home to 6,125 completed high-rises, 109 of which are 600 feet (183 m) or taller.

Whenever you go to the reference source link: "About New York City". Emporis.com. Retrieved 2013-05-12. the actual number stated is 6,049 high-rises, but:

the list includes all Status such as under construction, vision or planned. Hence, the word completed is false.
The sentence "109 of which are 600 ft taller" is not true, since Emporis defines High-rise as a "multi-story structure between 35-100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12-39 floors." Thus, those buildings are considered skyscrapers, above 100 meter tall. According to Emporis [4], there are 884 of them.
This number will be changing around time. I guess this is not a problem as long as someone is updating it.

In short, I think it should be reprashed and stated maybe more vaguely, i.e. "is home to more than 6000 high-rises and more than 800 skyscrapers, 109 of which are..."

Doblecaña (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

2 and 3 WTC

Last I heard, construction was halted on both of these buildings, however they should both be included in the 'under construction' section of this list, as they have been approved, and both have been constructed to ground level or beyond. When / Why were they removed from this list? Here's the latest update on the site; http://www.wtc.com/news/wtc-construction-update-june-2012 Drumz0rz (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm keeping myself busy tonight. It seems that while there is no official word from the developer yet, the president of Owen Steel has gone on record saying that construction on tower 3 (175 Greenwich St) will go ahead and that they will provide the steel for it. I'll leave the article as-is until there is official word from the site developer. http://www.thestate.com/2012/06/26/2330563/business-notebook.html Drumz0rz (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why the buildings were removed, but I re-added them today. CTBUH still lists them as "under construction", and if/when their construction is suspended they should still remain in the table regardless. Cheers, Rai•me 03:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Great errors about the number of floor of new Wtc ( to see the WTC site ). Is it so hard to correct the number of floors of these buidings ( 88 floors instead of 79 for World Trade Center 2, 80 and not 71 for Wtc 3 and 72 instead 64 for Wtc 4 ) ? Thank you !! 151.75.90.235 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved one down, it seems that WTC comments should be here and not under 432 Park Ave. Alexis Wilke (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

432 Park Avenue

http://residential.worldconstructionindustrynetwork.com/news/cim_group_to_develop_1_billion_residential_tower_in_new_york_111024/ http://theelectricwebnetwork.blogspot.com/2011/10/its-official-1billion-tower-to-rise-on.html

It may be of importance that a new 1300-1420 foot tower is being built in the city. Fan Railer (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You have two references of 432 Park Avenue each with a different number of floors (89 and 96). According to the page for that specific tower, there would be 88 floors up, 3 down. So I could understand 88 and/or 91, but not 89 and 96... Alexis Wilke (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hudson Spire?

I'm really not sure why the Hudson Spire edit keeps being removed from the article. That's twice already. It's a perfectly good edit and has a source that backs up its information. So it's a perfectly good edit, I don't know why it's being deleted. 100.2.216.239 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Hudson Spire is no longer a planned development. It is not included in the newest renders or planning documents of the Hudson Yards development.[5]--Found5dollar (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Hudson Spire was nothing but a vision from the very beginning. There is nothing from this project besides two articles from 2014 and nothing since then. Its status is a vision here: http://skyscrapercenter.com/building/hudson-spire/16180 and we don't list visions on this page. 2604:2000:614A:2B00:D0F9:50:101E:226F (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings in New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212204055/http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/new-york-times-tower/ to http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/new-york-times-tower/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of tallest buildings in New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings in New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031080319/http://www.newyork.com/articles/attractions/secrets-of-the-empire-state-building-66354/ to http://www.newyork.com/articles/attractions/secrets-of-the-empire-state-building-66354/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

53W53 not topped out (yet)

53W53 has not been topped out so it should not be included on the list (yet). Triplecaña (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Triplecaña (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Main list

Is there no means of automatically numbering the main list of topped out/completed buildings? How does one add a new building to that list without having to then manually change the rank of each building below? Am I missing something?--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@MainlyTwelve: I know, it is a pain in the ass. I've just went throguh that ordeal myself in the last edit. Some weeks ago I checked and I thought I have found a way but doesn't look great. If we could play with wikidata and create Lists automatically... Triplecaña (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

200 Amsterdam will NOT be the tallest building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan

50 West 66th Street will now be the tallest building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan upon completion. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/27/16705386/extell-snohetta-uws-tallest-building

user:mnw2000 16:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

3 World Trade Center

Number 6 - 3 World Trade Center is described as the “Third tallest building in the World Trade Center complex.[29]“ What is the second tallest building in the WTC complex and why isn’t it listed? 67.83.73.94 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SNCI Tower vision

SNCI Tower appears to be a visionary development proposed by a small architectural firm. There is no developer attached, no permits have been filed, and no updates have occurred since the building was first unveiled 8 years ago back in 2011. Similar to The Big Bend, there is no reason this should be in the proposals section of this page unless someone has additional info that this is a serious proposal with an actual chance of being built. Wontonalertbulb (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. - Mainly 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Steinway Tower is not topped out.

This article says multiple times that it is topped out. While it’s close, it’s definitely not there yet. Source:https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/new-york-111-west-57th-st-1-428-ft-91-floors/261/1319 Walkyo (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Opening Rewrite

The opening had become quite disorganized, so I overhauled it to improve style and flow. Sentences and paragraphs were significantly rearranged. Formerly details about the World Trade Center were spread in little packets everywhere, history was intermixed with other data, and there was a non-trivial amount of unnecessary duplication.

The organization has been revised so that the article first approaches the top five buildings, then discusses the detail on the Empire State Building and World Trade Center, before moving on to geographic distribution and finally the historical overview.

In most cases sentences were left intact, although some have been revised for clarity or merged. Previously in bounding a building's dates as highest the article alternated between using the successor’s date of passing its height while under construction, and date of completion. The former is now uniformly used as it was more common in the article. Data about high-rises under construction was eliminated because the source only gave the total number of structures under-construction and not the number that were purely highrises (the information was also of limited relevance). Some other data was revised to accord with the provided references, additional review of these will be forthcoming if time allows.

In addition 3 notes were added to clarify some data that might otherwise be confusing.

Please feel free to respond with any questions or requests for improvement, thanks.

𝒬 𝔔 01:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Data Discrepancies

While working to find new sources to replace Emporis a few discrepancies arose in the data; while some were easily fixed (e.g. shifting the second table's Chrysler Building date from 1931 to 1930) in other cases the truth was more difficult to ascertain. Where there was broad agreement the most common number was used. That said in certain cases like 50 West Street there was little agreement on height with various sources (skyscraper page, 6sqft, nyyimby, the building's own page etc.) indicating values from 778 ft to 783 ft; vagaries such as 'just under 780' or alternatively 'more than 780'. In those circumstances the CTBUH value was used both because in other cases of disagreement they were uniformly in the majority, and because they are the closest thing to an official organization tasked with adjudicating such values. That said, all these discrepancies were minor, and likely arise from slight differences in how measurement was conducted, or disagreements over what counted as a floor (e.g. atriums, lobbies and the like). It may also be that final construction diverged slightly from the originally filed plans in which case it might just be a failure of the sources to update in a uniformly rapid manner. Either way these numbers can always be further revised as new information comes to light. 𝒬 𝔔 21:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Differences in completion date and height will be super common given that completion date can be measured by completion of external work, getting a certificate of opening, or tenants actually moving into the building. The height discrepancies are even more common depending on if the source is measuring to the building's top floor, roof, bulkhead, the curtain wall promontory, or the tip of whatever antennas or mechanical masts are present at the top of the building. Using the City of New York's permit search can be helpful for newer building which are required to file public permits and zoning diagrams which can be found through the search portal here. For your example of 50 West Street, the Department of Buildings lists it at 778 feet to the tip of the curtain wall. The slightly higher figures likely count the small portions of the mechanical bulkheads that extend above the upper edge of the curtain wall. Another note to be careful with about height is that permit heights are often listed as "absolute heights" or elevations, that is the official height of the building measured from sea level. Although the majority of Manhattan lies at or near sea level, certain buildings can appear significantly taller based on this measurement. For example, Central Park Tower's permits show an absolute height of 1,630 feet but a building height of 1,550 feet due to the fact that the area south of Central Park is roughly 80 feet above sea level. Wontonalertbulb (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative and thoughtful response; the links were helpful as well.

Given these differences is there any current wikipedia policy or accepted practice (local or otherwise) on deciding which kind of measurement or source to ultimately prefer? (e.g. Should the date of certificate of occupancy issuance be preferred to date of external work completion or the date of the first tenant's occupation etc.)

On a semi-related note does the DoB (or any other NYC Gov entity) make a database of aggregated height information available? (There's an Emporis reference on the number of highrises that needs to be replaced)

Appreciate the assistance. 𝒬 𝔔 00:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source

This article relies heavily on Emporis.com which is not a reliable source. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Emporis.com--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Usage of Emporis is now de minimis, and the claims it currently supports do not require a high degree of precision. Given the apparent consensus that it is a marginally reliable source, this seems appropriate. When the completed high-rise number is updated it will be emended to a round number to avoid implying a high degree of precision and that should do it, at which point the tag will be deleted as well. Please feel free to respond if there are any concerns. 𝒬 𝔔 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving 2WTC

Unfortunately, 2 World Trade Center doesn't belong in the "under construction" section of this page. There's been no progress on the structure for years, no rumors of a tenant since the demise of the 21st Century Fox deal in 2015, and even the building's design is up in the air. If nobody can provide a good reason for the tower to remain in the "under construction" section, I'll move it back to "proposed" in a few days. Wontonalertbulb (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No objection from me, CTBUH describes it as proposed too. I was wondering though if we should leave it's description in the lead as a "partly-constructed on-hold building" given that the foundation/base is finished or just change it to proposed to be consistent. I think it works either way, so you can go and make the change if you feel it is better, thanks. 𝒬 𝔔 22:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Automatic Renumbering

I'm pretty confident I can change the table to implement automatic renumbering when a new building is added, perhaps tomorrow or perhaps some time next week when I have a lot of time, however it will add some degree of complexity to the table, are there any objections? 𝒬 𝔔 21:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I just effected the conversion, my schedule is always a little weird, but if you have any questions just place them below, and I'll try to get back to you next time I edit. I know this added some complexity which will make it a bit harder for new users to add entries, I think the hidden note is sufficiently lucid that the inconvenience will be only slight when compared to the massive inconvenience of renumbering the entire table every time a new entry is added, but it is possible for a reasonable person to disagree. And of course the hidden note may need to be improved upon, thanks for any feedback. 𝒬 𝔔 20:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent Update

In addition to some copyediting, some hidden notes were added, e.g. why 5WTC is currently omitted despite recent media reports, why some numbers may seem inconsistent etc. I also added some additional footnotes to clarify information that might otherwise be confusing, and expanded the history a small bit.

ESB world ranking has been updated to 38th, I removed one57s worldwide ranking because anything below 100th is both not particularly notable, and a real hassle to constantly update.

Please feel free to respond below if there are any concerns, thanks. 𝒬 𝔔 19:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead Link

@User:Epicgenius I saw you recently linked the city in the lead. MOS:OL strongly discourages this, which is too say New York City is given as a specific example to avoid linking. Such discouragement is not dispositive, and there may be a good reason to do this anyway in line with IAR assuming it really does improve the article (e.g. the MoS also discourages bolding links, and yet many featured articles do it example). But if we are going to go that route I think we need to at least have a discussion for the record so future editors understand the thought process behind the decision.

I'm kind of an 'every once in a while' editor, so once I log off you may not hear back from me for a few days, but since this is a decidedly non-urgent issue, I think it's not a big deal if it takes a week or two to finish this discussion assuming your OK with that.

As of right now my initial thought is the link should not be added, but I may well change my mind, thanks 𝒬 𝔔 23:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Quantocius Quantotius: Thanks for the comment. MOS:OL states that NYC or some other common term should not be linked generally, unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article (my emphasis). Since this is a topical article about NYC, specifically the tallest buildings in the city, I think that the main NYC article should be linked. If it were some other article, such as a biography about someone whose only connection to the city is being born in NYC, then I'd agree that the NYC article should's be linked. epicgenius (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, I should add that none of the other articles about tallest buildings (e.g. List of tallest buildings in Chicago, List of tallest buildings in Detroit) lack a link to the main article about the city. epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:, thank you for your thoughtful and cogent response (and thanks also for the immense amount of time and energy you've put into the project); this will teach me to take some time to review all the advice to editors rather than relying on my memory from past speedreads prior to linking it. Having said that I only had the time to peruse a fraction of the archived discussions if I was going to respond today, but here goes.

I must've either missed it or forgotten but you are right there is an exception for "particularly relevant" links. Perhaps unsurprisingly the meaning of this in the NYC context has been hotly debated on many occasions.

While there is no clear and obvious answer to be had, as I was going through the archived discussions I noticed the following point regarding that exception:

Links have purpose simply as a navigation aid. The fact that ExampleA is well-known is irrelevant when it reminds me that I wanted to look up some other fact about ExampleA when reading an article about ExampleB.

Nearly a direct quotation but with WP:Example substituted.

Given that purpose, and with the rise of mobile browsing making this an ever more relevant concern, linking on balance does seem to make the article better.

Further as you pointed out this is a very widespread practice reflecting the judgement of many writers over a long period of time in this context which should be strongly respected. Indeed the few exceptions are in such poor shape they more validate than detract from the point.

Bottom line, no current objection from me on adding/retaining the link.

I do note there is some variance in other lists as to where the link is placed, but putting it elsewhere in the first paragraph would require some rewording so the easy way is best unless there's some good reason otherwise that I'm missing.

I'm glad we had this discussion though both for the information it leaves for future editors, and because I noticed some interesting things when going through all those lists and comparing them that I now plan to address in the future.

Have a good one,

𝒬 𝔔 00:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S On a mostly unrelated note I plan to be bold shortly and change "Development of the skyscraper" to just "History" both to be consistent with List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn, and because it seems to better describe the content of the section; feel free to change it back and/or discuss if you disagree.

My sincerest apologies to @MainlyTwelve I just ctrl f'd through the last 500 in the page history for 'link' and noticed that the article previously had the link and you removed it; this was before I was actively editing. If I'd known about that, I would definitely have pinged you in the initial post so you could discuss your thoughts, please feel free to add your assessment to the discussion if it still differs, it was not my intent to freeze you out and my mind is not closed on the issue.

𝒬 𝔔 00:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all, QQ. Thank you for pinging me. I don't remember removing the link and I have no strong feelings about its presence or absence. — Mainly 01:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks for being so understanding, I think we can safely consider this thread to be,

Resolved

𝒬 𝔔 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

New Pictures Please

The first two pictures are years old can someone add newer ones from the same spots for 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.72.51 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

71.245.72.51 Well if you have or know of any suitably licensed pictures feel free to add them yourself over at commons so they can be used here. Otherwise, just understand that our selection of images is limited, I know it can be frustrating to wait but eventually some wikimedians in the NYC area will get around to taking new pictures and then the page will be updated.

𝒬 𝔔 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unviewable in Wikipedia app

This article cannot be viewed properly in the Wikipedia iOS app. All the lists are displayed as pages of text and tags. Richferrara (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Richferrara: I know this is stale-ish, if I remember correctly their were some issues a few weeks past with css not loading properly in the mobile apps that have since been resolved, however if you are still experiencing issues the best place to raise them would probably be VPT.

𝒬 𝔔 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Tallest new york" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest new york. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest new york until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@SONIC678: I'm not going to be commenting on that discussion as I don't really have anything to add to what's already been said. However, I think it would make it easier for other people to participate in the future if you provided the correct link both here and at the redirect itself, should've been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 24#Tallest redirects. I'm not trying to sharpshoot you or call you out in public or anything, and I doubt there'd be any difference to the current discussion, just a little friendly suggestion.

𝒬 𝔔 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I must've missed that. Thanks for catching that. I just forgot to change the link. Regards, SONIC678 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Tallest new york city" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest new york city. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 1#Tallest new york city until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 23:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Table in wrong section

The table listing the tallest building in each borough is in the wrong section. It currently is located in the "Tallest under construction or proposed" section. I don't know how to fix this. Bunkyray5 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bunkyray5, I managed to fix it. The page was broken because someone accidentally put only one = around "Tallest under construction or proposed" instead of two. There's a bunch of tutorials at Help:Introduction that you may find useful, tho the testing sandbox at the end of the first one is broken, but I am working with someone to fix it. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Add 270 Park Avenue into the 'Tallest Destroyed' section?

It's currently being dismantled by JPM. Does it only get added when the building is completely demolished? Or can it be added now? 74.64.122.27 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 14 September 2020

Not sure, but that's a good question. I'm going to look at other cities / lists where buildings have been demolished and see how to proceed. — Mainly 00:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I switched the header to "Tallest destroyed or demolished" so when the current building is demolished I think it will be fair to add it. — Mainly 00:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree, since the Singer Building was already in the section it's kind of surprising that no one had caught this before actually.

𝒬 𝔔 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit the page myself, but 270 Park has been torn down and its replacement is officially under construction. Should the old one be moved from "Tallest" to "Tallest Demolished", and the new one moved from "Tallest Proposed" to "Tallest Under Construction?"74.64.122.27 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello 74.64.122.27, I think I fixed it. I agree this page is hard to edit and tables are confusing. But if you go to Help:Introduction there are some tutorials that make it easier. I also recommend copying and pasting most of the complicated stuff from one section to the other and using the preview button or visual edit window to see that it looks right. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be sure to try it out next time I spot a table in need of changing :) 74.64.122.27 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Add 5 World Trade Center to the Lead?

Hello everyone, I noticed that there is an old note in the lead that says "5WTC is not yet included despite the media reported RFP because concrete details have yet to emerge." However new details just came out a few weeks ago^[1]^[2] so I was thinking it should now be added to that section. What does everyone else think? 119.59.121.170 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

To make my proposal clearer, I was thinking change from the 743-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center and one partly-constructed, by adding 5WTC in the middle so it reads the 743-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center, the proposed 900-foot (274 m) 5 World Trade Center, and one partly-constructed, and then remove the hidden note. I just don't want to add it to have someone revert me immediately because the sources aren't good enough. Anyway, Sonic678, MainlyTwelve, Wikihelp7586, and 74.64.122.27 since all of you have edited here and are recently active I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts. 119.59.121.162 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

references subsection

Is there a reason the minimum isn't 500 feet?

Since 500 is more important than 600 in "tall buildingology". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Probably because 500 ft isn't noteworthy enough in terms of height for buildings in the NYC context, and would also double the length of this already probably too extensive article. If you look at the "tallest buildings in" articles in general, I think you will see the cutoff varies a lot depending on what was deemed noteworthy in the local context when the article was first written. In fact I would actually be in favor of raising the limit to 650ft given the growth of the NYC skyline in the decade and a half since this article was started, but I doubt I would find consensus for that. 119.59.121.162 (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@119.59.121.162: Well Wikipedia's world list was top 300 till it was cut. Though unless there's a way to never download images under 600 feet without opting-in by clicking something or something it'd probably be best to not have pictures from 500 to 599 feet. Or possibly show File:Example.jpg links with a note that files have been converted to links for length and download time reasons. While the buildings are getting very tall now some beautiful and avant-garde architectural ideas 600-649 feet are hidden underneath that skyline, like the Gothic sprouting radiations building. Others are prominent in famous historical photographs like the Channin Building, or even on the skyline today from being tall for their area or close to the water (like one of the tallest ones between WTC and the Hudson or the one that looks like furniture). Other 600-649 foot buildings are prominent for other reasons like overshadowing everything in photos of the cathedral (Olympic Tower), New York Life commercials, being the tower Madison Avenue points to cause it ends there, being one of the two halfpipe top of death-looking buildings, being the pointy thing that crowns one end of Times Square, or being the Waldorf~Astoria. Alas, the UN building and the one at the important tip of Manhattan are too short for 600 feet, only 500-something. Thus the minimum should not be above 600 feet for as long as possible, long before it looks like Coruscant but not soon. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a list of the tallest buildings in the city, not the most important or most beautiful. Based on the scope of the article I tend to agree with the IP user above that as it stands 600 is probably too low of a number based on the building spree the city has been on recently to keep the list at a manageable length.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree 100% with Found5dollar said.

So to just to expand and avoid confusion my concern isn't over length per se, and indeed on mobile view which most people use all sections are collapsed by default anyway. My concern is that past a certain point we are listing buildings that aren't really noteworthy for their height when considered among other NYC skyscrapers. Now don't get me wrong I too like the American Radiator Building, it is a stunning architectural achievement, and both definitely notable in it's own right, as well as noteworthy in many related articles like about architecture for example. But is it noteworthy in an article where the focus is on height? I have to so no. Even with the Equitable Building, which again is not only notable in its own right but is also definitely noteworthy in many other articles, I mean you literally cannot explain the history of NYC zoning without making reference to it, but for all it's noteworthiness in other contexts in NYC it is no longer noteworthy for its height, and the focus of this list is on buildings that are noteworthy for their height.

So getting back to your mention about 300 being an OK number for a list to have, I don't entirely disagree, but it all depends on context. For a city with a small skyline probably only the top 10-20 buildings will be noteworthy for height and everything afte that will be trivia, for a mid-sized the number may be more like 40-50, and for a large like NYC, Dubai, Hong Kong, it may be over 100, but even for the largest skylines past a certain point it is still trivia. Consider even most national or continental lists which need to touch on all buildings noteworthy for height in a large area don't reach 300 entries, go ahead and check List of tallest buildings in the United States and List of tallest buildings in North America.

Now I'm not saying there's always an easy answer and people often disagree and even edit war over what is trivia and what is worthy of inclusion in any given article, but NYC's skyline has grown a lot since this article was started, however the height cutoff has not. Consider this, the skyline of Brooklyn by itself is now comparable to that of all of Detroit, but the cutoff for List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn is still 295ft, same as when that article was written when there were far less skyscrapers there, while the cutoff for List of tallest buildings in Detroit is 400 ft. I would argue that the last half of listings for Brooklyn, while at one time noteworthy for their sheer height among other Brooklyn buildings are no longer are so, and the cutoff there should be raised to match Detroit's. Consider as well List of tallest buildings in Queens uses 300ft as its cutoff, and Queens has a smaller, albeit momentarily higher, skyline than Brooklyn does, and IMO the limit for Queens should probably be 330ft or even 350ft. Again the issue is people decided a cutoff based on the skyline at the time the article was written, and then it gets set in stone because discussions to raise it invariably end in no consensus. Now this isn't a problem for cities like Detroit or Pittsburgh, because few new skyscrapers are being built there. But for NYC even 600ft is now too low, and it should be raised. 119.59.121.170 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@119.59.121.162: Would the best path forward be to change it from a "height" cut off to a "number of entries" cut off? Either the top 100 tallest building or 125 or something? that way this discussion doesn't come up every few years and every time we add a building to the list we also remove the one lowest down one?--Found5dollar (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

At another article some years ago I proposed a cut-off for number of buildings in a list not the height cut-off but consenus went against me. I think number of buildings is a far better way to manage the list article size. 100 would seem about right unless there are good reasons and a consensus to extend it beyond 100. Also this article needs other work. The table of pinnacle height should really be removed or at least a discussion started as CTBUH doesn't use this to measure building height anymore (although it seems Emporis does). And the table of proposed buildings is populated by buildings that are 'vision' according to CTBUH and not 'proposed' (they have specific definitions for these terms) and some entries should also be removed because the proposal stalled and were never built. Robynthehode (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@119.59.121.162 and Robynthehode: If these issues are persistent and we truly don't think a consensus could be reached I'd suggest moving the article through the Featured List removal process. it may be worth trying to find consensus here first and making a few bold edits to get the article back inline with what is expected from a featured list, but if we can't the removal process gets more eyes the article and often leads to issues being corrected. I was planning on reaching out to the editor that originally got this to be a FL, but they haven't made an edit on Wikipedia since 2014.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose the use of a fixed number. This is mainly because as a skyline grows so too will the number of noteworthy buildings within it. A smaller skyline may have less than twenty buildings whose tallest is noteworthy, however a very large may have more than 100. Regional lists may be even larger. Now we could periodically raise the number through discussion, but then we are right back where we started in needing to discuss raising things every few years. The other issue is that readers expect some consistency in presentation between similar articles and currently all of our city list articles use height rather than number cutoffs, I'm not saying that couldn't be changed but that would need to be done through a centralized RFC at WT:SKY not by going through one article at a time and having a lengthy back-and-forth. The more straightforward solution is to take a good-hard look at the lists for each city every 5-10 years and build a consensus around raising height limits where appropriate.

@Robynthehode: I would also oppose an FLRC for at this time. CTBUH does track pinnacle height, they just call it height to tip see for example [6] where the tip height is listed at 1792, it's possible you're confusing that with roof height which they did stop tracking because it was becoming increasingly hard to find a definition that was consistent in application and matched the average persons intuition over what constituted a roof. The issue with vision entries having crept into the proposed can be solved by just boldly removing them, citing the source in your edit summary. Deeply bureaucratic processes like FLRC should really be reserved for things that can't be fixed in a reasonable time by normal editing.

However if someone wants to start an RFC on this page with the suggestion of raising the limit to 650ft that would be a logical next step. 119.59.121.170 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on moving or repurposing this list

Wouldn't it be obvious to anyone that the ones in the lower part aren't tall by NYC standards? Could it be top 200 or 600ft+ and renamed to list of buildings in New York City by height to not insinuate that the list is tall? Though that would be trivia to non-skyscraper fans and to be honest even I only really cared about learning the 700-750+ range of NYC (my hometown) for many years till only a few years ago and a lot of the ones under that bore me with their combination of genericness and shortness. That would be a compromise between "only heights with visual prominence like "if there was a rectangular prism on the north edge of City Hall Park (or the central block (E Cedar & Bway?)) how high would it have to be for over half the roof to be seen from the average point on North Staten Island's edge that is unobstructed by land, but only sightlines that cross State Street are considered"" and "down to the height of the shortest "important" building" (Tavern on the Green?) which would be hypertrivia and unfinishable. True, showing all the medium boys is impossible but 5-600 feet puts a nice sample of them into height context with the big boys which is informative to students of "heightology". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: I don't think moving this list is a good idea, if you really think readers would be served by compiling that information I think a better route would be to start a user space draft, maybe List of locally prominent New York City buildings, or List of New York City buildings historically notable for height or something along those lines depending on what you are going for, and seeing if you could source it enough to be a standalone or navigation aid. 119.59.121.170 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

List of locally prominent New York City buildings is a fuzzy inclusion criteria, might get deleted. And besides most people who'd be interested in that probably already know about Emporis' free "buildings in subneighborhood X by height" which have literally almost 1 million NYC buildings, which is all of them (or close enough). List of New York City buildings historically notable for height could be the more well-definedly titled "list of New York City buildings which have been in the top 10 by height" or something like that but would not include notable skyscrapers that have not been top 10 (i.e. the current tallest in 4 of 5 boroughs (which IS here), the tallest unaligned building in the Manhattan grid (34th and Park?) or the new skyscraper aligned to a T-intersection of a major avenue end which is rare). I suppose a list could be made called list of skyscrapers in New York City with mutual hatnotes which would remove drag on support to keep the rifraff out of this list. What do you think? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking List of notable skyscrapers in New York City would be the better title to prevent people from stuffing it with everything, but honestly I'm not the most knowledgeable about that sort of thing so you may want to drop by the talkpages of some people who do a lot of AFC work to get an idea of what is and is not likely to survive AFD. IIRC some lists have been kept purely as navigation aids even when available sourcing was meh, so there should be some room for experimentation. The other thing is you might find that kind of list becoming too long once you start it in your user sandbox, so it may end being you need for example List of notable gothic New York City buildings and List of tallest mid-block New York City buildings etc. I'm just speculating here, I think you'll have a better idea of how to structure everything once you start drafting. 119.59.121.172 (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There are only about 300 NYC buildings over 500 feet which is the most common definition of skyscraper in non-metric countries (150 meter ≈ 492.1 feet in metric countries) so it wouldn't have to pick what it notable it could just list all of them (CTBUH lists are exhaustive till 150 or 100 meters worldwide, I forgot which. But they're paywalled now). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case I think your good to start a draft copy, and then you can reach out to some of the AFC folks as you get close to completion, pages can always be moved anyway so even if the title you pick isn't the best it's not set in stone or anything. 119.59.121.172 (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Might wanna check this page for vandalism

The IP who changed some numbers on this page this weekend is very prolific. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sagittarian Milky Way I checked and it had to be changed back, thanks for the note. And be on the lookout for cite errors, there were two that I had to fix. 71.62.176.24 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The 70.80.161.217 IP who messed up Sutton 58 is banned till March 24 for persistent addition of unsourced content and this diff (100.37.104.252) is suspicious but I don't have time to check. Maybe Sutton should be added back to the construction section though, or the text saying topped off included removed (along with the tower near the Hudson) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, Sagittarian Milky Way, I had a look, 30 Hudson Yards is 1270, see [7], obviously 111W57th has been pushed to 2021 [8], 50 Hudson Yards and The Spiral are topped out [9] [10]. However 1066 ft for 9 DeKalb is wrong, but that's already fixed, actually should be 1099 instead of 1100 but it would be silly to revert war over that since we won't know the exact value until the building tops-out and CTBUH sends an on-site inspection team, I mean so long as it's +/- 5 ft I wouldn't bother [11] 6 is easy to confuse with 9 so it was probably just an innocent mistake. 59 is the correct floor count for 1 Vanderbilt [12] using the ultra-technical skyscrapercenter definition, but if all the print sources begin using a different number for example one that includes mezzanines and certain mechanical floors it may eventually have to change since per the FAQ we're supposed to use the most widely reported number, but it's a really new building so it will be a year or two before there are enough print reference books to bother going through them, and hopefully libraries will reopen by then too to make it easier. Sutton 58 is in fact topped-out, [13]. 71.62.176.24 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Then could be good faith but see [14] and month banned Special:Contributions/190.89.72.0/22 (long term abuse) for some that aren't. 69 edits with the 'reverted' tag in the last 290 and fixation on tall buildings. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC about list inclusion criteria

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Should the inclusion criteria for this page be narrowed so only buildings over 650 ft (198 m) are listed in the Tallest buildings and Tallest under construction or proposed sections? 119.59.121.172 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support As proposer 119.59.121.172 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Support if Wikipedia finally gets an actual list of skyscrapers in New York City somewhere to complement this page. Which will have a longer version of the main 600-list down to 500', possibly with few or no images under 600 for brevity/kilobytage. List of cities with the most skyscrapers uses 150 meters (492.126'), with source, NOT this weird-ass 600. Treating 600 feet like some kind of important magic number in engineering while completely ignoring 500 is WP:UNDUE. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Support 144 rows of main table and 241 kb article size is well over a reasonable threshold. Raise to 650 ft (198 m) or 700 ft (213 m) is appropriate.Jklamo (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Support as it stands the article is too large and since it is about the tallest buildings in the city we should only focus on the top of the list regardless of importance or beauty. Please see my comments in the previous discussion. I believe that for a city the size of NYC about 100 buildings in this list makes sense so I agree that a cut off at 650 would work, but I could be convinced to cut it even shorter to 700, the nearest multiple of 100. With the pace buildings are going up in the city that would fill out to 100 listings pretty fast. --Found5dollar (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Support article is nearly two and half times the size where articles should be considered to be split. Agree with others that cut off should be minimum 650 but better at 700. This article is about the tallest buildings. Other criteria are irrelevant to this article. I would also support a change to heights being stated in metres first to be consistent with the vast majority of other building articles but maybe that's another issue. Robynthehode (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you please understand, I do not want any other criteria, I just want a simple list of every skyscraper (500+ ft) to exist somewhere which will (by coincidence) have a side effect of having "enough" of the ones notable for reasons besides height. But that is better put at a list of skyscrapers in New York City than here. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support. The list is simply too long at this point. 650 should be the minimum, but I would suggest going to 700 or maybe even 800. Going to 700 would cut the list down to 76 at the moment and 800 would cut it to 39. -- Calidum 18:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is "how tall would a building at the geographic center of the tall part of Midtown or Downtown have to be for you to be able to see it with 20/20 vision?" (from a street with a good view of the part of the skyline in question and several miles into an outer borough (cause minimum height is artificially high if you're close, try seeing the skyline from a Manhattan pier or the Circle Line)) I don't have a good sense of this value as of 2021 but in the early 21st century you could generally see the top of them west side 745 to 757 foot buildings from the east, and the prongs of that 745 foot west Times Square tower were prominent with most of Midtown's core in front of it. This is without help from being aligned enough with a Manhattan street that there is a visible street valley at the azimuth in question which seems like cheating). It'd take a lot of new skyscrapers to block even half of 20 blocks so buildings under 800 feet like Woolworth and Worldwide Plaza are probably still on the skyline of streets and low floors of many city neighborhoods which should be enough for inclusion in my opinion. Also if it's 701+ you lose the oldest world's tallest building in New York, maybe wait till that's ranked 100th to 150th to raise to 750+ as the coloration will be unexhaustive as soon as it's over 700. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support The article is too bulky.Sea Ane (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Support This proposal seems good to me. — Mainly 23:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I worry the information will be lost for good if the lesser entries are deleted. Why not maintain the current form until a "List of Skyscrapers in New York City" page can be completed. The buildings below the cutoff can be removed once the information is retained in an alternative location 99.98.247.146 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@99.98.247.146: and anonymous commenter above this: The information you are worried about loosing is still out there in the world on websites cited here and elsewhere. SkyscraperPage.com and CTBUH have all of the tall buildings in NYC and more listed and ranked and minutely detailed. This page is not for that. This page is for the "tallest buildings in New York City." Some of the ones currently on this page just are not tall compared to the rest of the city as the heights of the tallest keep getting taller. This information you are worried about loosing does not disappear into the ether, it is just stored somewhere more appropriate than this list, namely other websites.Found5dollar (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the information will not be lost. It will still be found in the edit dif when it is removed. Anyone looking to create a page with the removed info can go back, find it, copy it, and move it over with proper attribution. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Meh I mean sure this should probably go to 650, but unlike with other cities there are so many skyscrapers that you can already not find them all with this list like you can for other cities. Maybe make another list just for navigation purposes or create a mega-navbox with them sorted into height-brackets. I mean categories are nice but not every building has it's own article, and they always sort alphabetically, sometimes it's more useful to arrange by height or date. 71.62.176.24 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Originally this proposal was a bit less focused and titled Raise this list to 650 or 700, create a 500 foot list, add unobtrusive link to it above the section and article. I've narrowed the question to remove the portion about creating a new page as being more appropriate for a differrent venue, and restructured to a more specific question with a formal RFC tag to make it easier to find a clearer consensus. 119.59.121.172 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Towards Closure

It has been over a week since the last comment on the RFC. I move to close the discussion as passed per WP:RFCEND #2 since it seems there is almost unanimous consensus that moving to 650 or even 700 is appropriate. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Found5dollar: Is there a pressing need to close this early? I just saw this while scanning the alerts at WP:NY. TBH I probably won't participate since I don't think I'll have the time to dig into all the guidelines as this is not really an area I'm familiar with (I do note that the claim about WP:SIZESPLIT is somewhat off-base since it's readable prose that matters not total page size which here is due primarily too the ridiculous number of references). However it seems at least conceivable that one of our WP:WPLISTS experts could be coming off of a wikibreak in the next few days, and even if the odds are tiny they are still non-zero. By way of comparison, WP:AFD discussions are only closed early in the snowiest of cases, and the downside of crappy pages staying up is far more significant than a list that's a little too long. In addition it looks like at least one !vote (Sagittarian Milky Way's) is contingent on an event that has yet to occur. So look I don't want to stand in the way of anything if you feel strongly, but I guess I would suggest waiting until Legobot removes the tag and then if it gets closed 1 minute later at the very least there will be no room for anyone to complain about being left out. Cheers, 83.136.106.119 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@83.136.106.119: It appears my suggestion is moot now as Legobot removed the tag yesterday. Unless someone gets to it first I will remove the buildings over 650 per the consensus above probably tomorrow.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note on lead

I just changed the date from 1971 back to 1970. I think this has happened a few times now. The height did surpass that of the ESB in 1970, but the building was not completed until 1971, hence the confusion. The next paragraph provides multiple dates for clarity in discussing the new 1WTC, but doing that everywhere will add length for questionable benefit, though perhaps it could be kept short. Leaving this here as an explanatory note. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

200 Amsterdam Avenue

200 Amsterdam topped out in 2019, and in March 2021, the court order to remove the top 20 floors was overruled on appeal. As such, should it be moved from "Under Construction" to "Completed"? Externally, the building looks complete. 74.64.122.27 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't judge completion/topping-out by external appearance, instead entries are modified once we have sources that describe the change. In NYC there's almost always local press coverage when that happens (tho definitions of complete may vary slightly) so entries are usually updated fairly promptly. If you see something in the news about a building topping-out and it hasn't been updated you are of course welcome to update the entry yourself. Anyway, the entry has since been moved, and the permits have been upheld on appeal so this specific issue is now moot. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone screwed up this page

Someone edited this table and the whole page is messed up now. Will try to see what happened later tonight on desktop Chris.alex.gomez (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi!! Do you know what have happened???? The article looks horrible!!! MikaelEmanuelsson (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Page is borked, The List Table, specifically 24.80.105.251 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved now no mobile problems so far this year. 198.145.153.198 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

2WTC

Currently it's in the under-construction section. Should it be there? Only the base has been completed, and no other work is likely to occur for years, perhaps it would be best placed in the proposed section unless someone objects. Glacial Mist (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Latting Observatory a Building?

It looks like a tower. Namerocco (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://newyorkyimby.com/2021/02/five-world-trade-centers-900-foot-tall-redesign-by-kohn-pedersen-fox-revealed-in-manhattans-financial-district.html

[2] ttps://www.6sqft.com/plan-for-900-foot-tower-with-1325-rentals-at-5-world-trade-center-moves-forward/

[1]

[2]