Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Glasgow

Glasgow Tower
Is there any particular reason why this list excludes the Glasgow Tower. At 128.5m, it's the highest occupiable structure in Scotland, and far taller than the Tait Tower, for example. GullibleKit (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wind turbine
I think the wind turbine at Cathkin Braes should be on this list. Apparently it is 80m hub height, plus 90m diameter blades. So a total height of 125m ground to blade tip. It is within the City of Glasgow council area. --Vclaw (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

University Tower
Some sources claim that the University Tower at Glasgow University is 85m high, eg, not sure if that is actually correct. It is listed on List of tallest buildings and structures in the United Kingdom by usage as the tallest university building. --Vclaw (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gallowgate towers are being demolished
The twin public housing tower blocks in Camlachie – the Bluevale and Whitevale Towers are currently being demolished. At present the Bluevale tower has gone and the Whitevale tower has less than 20 storeys remaining and so is about 2/3 of its original height. The tower crane being used for their demolition may be the second highest structure in Glasgow, but this is only temporary. I am now sure how this should be handled here - remove the entry or leave as a historic entry? AlasdairW (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed
There are a number of contradictions within the article, making it factually inaccurate.
 * In the prose of the article, it says the tallest city centre building is the Premier Inn, however in the listing Glasgow City Chambers is taller.
 * Agreed, that may be an oversight due to the uncertainty over the City Chambers below; not sure when that statement was added. I would have thought the Premier Inn was the taller of them.


 * Looking at archived elevations (e.g. here ) estimates that Glasgow City Chambers is around 50 metres tall.
 * Yeah, the problem with that (the elevations) is they don't explicitly state say what the height is, just has that scale on the drawing, which is always on the length rather than height in the series of drawings. You can make a measurement off that but that's going towards OR, really we need something stating the height in numbers. At present we have the Emporis ref but to be frank I think that's bollocks. Although the People Make Glasgow Building (~40m) is on an incline making it look taller, you can still get an idea of a ballpark figure for the Chambers and it would be much closer to your 50m than the quoted 70+. But we need a source that says that.


 * Several of the listings reference a Scotsman newspaper article, which is not longer active (and not archived as far as I can see)
 * Yeah unfortunately the article itself is still live but it seems to use some kind of display widget to contain almost all the information that's not cooperating. I don't understand why they can't just use text and images for a mundane piece like this. Only found two archive versions, both recent and with the same issue.

Together, these are combining to not give a factually accurate depiction.

It is also not clear, if there is a standard on Wikipedia for how buildings should be measured. For example, is it the original building structure height only? What about items, for example telecommunications equipment, that has been added since. How are buildings (such as the Glasgow Hilton) which meet the ground at different height levels treated? 2A02:C7F:8ECF:9900:2152:6C53:9091:2538 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You'd have to check what the sources say. All of the heights should be referenced from somewhere.
 * To add to the above, it's also not clear why the listing of current building combines some buildings of the same height together (at position 20) when it doesn't do so in higher positions. 2A02:C7F:8ECF:9900:2152:6C53:9091:2538 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * that was the work of another editor on the same day as you asked this. They carelessly added the lower table of 'interesting stuff' to the upper table of 'the actual tallest buildings'. You're correct, were the display to be consistent, it would have to list every tower block individually. That's why it stopped at the 20. Besides the cluster at the same height which have now been restored to the bottom of the list for now - it's not set in stone, of course, but would need to be added to properly and accurately - several other tower blocks would have to be included into a combined table along with things like the cathedral to show all of them accurately. That could be done of course, the only reason for stopping where it did was to keep it a manageable size. But it would take quite a bit more work to add more, whether going for a quantity, e.g 50 buildings, or a height, e.g 50m, as there are lots which would be applicable that aren't on there yet. Crowsus (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I to take it from your response, that there isn't a standard Wikipedia for this definition? If so which should it be for this list; the official ground floor level of a building, or; the greatest distance between where a building meets the ground and the top of the building? 2A02:C7F:8ECF:9900:8CCF:6B7:A359:9B22 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, no universal standard as different articles from different countries have different sources, and those will have different rules. Saying that, Emporis is pretty much worldwide and comprehensive (though as I said I think they've got the City Chambers wrong) and SkyscraperNews is good as well. I would guess the measurement is normally from the lowest ground floor point of the building to the top of a permanent fixture, so something like a lightning conductor would be included but not something temporary. The definition should be fairly easy to on those websites since height is an important parameter to them. Is there a specific Glasgow building that's giving you concern in this respect? You mentioned the Hilton, again I'm just guessing at present but I'd have thought they'd just go by the elevations. Crowsus (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The City Chambers has a basement, and I wonder if the 73m height is from the base of the foundations. The council guide to the building doesn't give a height, but does say "The concrete foundations are in excess of a metre thick and the sand subsoil reaches to a depth of more than 12 metres.", which would make quite a difference if the measurement was from the bottom of the hole in the ground when the building was built.
 * For an informal look at this, there are a set of photos that I took from the roof of the "People Make Glasgow Building" in commons:Category:Glasgow College of Building and Printing. In particular File:DSCN3205 Glasgow City Chambers from roof of Glasgow College of Building and Printing.jpg shows that the roof of the tower is about level, with only part of the spike being higher.
 * If the City Chambers are 73m, then it, not Anniesland Court is the tallest listed building in Scotland, and the Anniesland Court entry should be updated. AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A huge basement might account for it. Its difficult to be certain cos you're never truly under the tower but I just don't buy it being 70m from ground level. I've been to Springburn and Wyndford, those things are taaaall, and I just don't feel that looking at the Chambers. I made an extremely unscientific look at the Canmore drawings Mr/s IP added above using my finger and thumb, and the 100ft mark comes to about the bottom of the 3 narrow spaced windows, so the total height would be ~160ft (49m), possibly even being slightly generous. That seems more likely to me. It's tall but not mega. As your photos show, about level with the GCBP = which is about 40m high if I remember correctly, and has a head start on that hill that probably amounts to 10m elevation, and oh look its 50m. But then even a mental 12m underground section still leaves about the same height unaccounted for off the 73m that's been claimed. This has interested/concerned me slightly for a few years now - I remember there was some kind of 'ask the city Chambers staff' thing on Facebook, not sure what info they wanted to give (how many films made there blah blah) but the prepared answers didn't include my question which was how tall it was, I think I got some sort of nervous jokey reply and then no answer other than a link to the GCC factfile which didnt even include the alleged 70+ height. Kinda annoying. Definitely still on the hunt for something credible for a far lower height. Crowsus (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * interesting link here from Greenock Municipal Buildings: "Raising above the buildings is the 75 meter high Victoria Tower, which exceeds the tower of the Glasgow City Chambers building, allegedly in bid of one-upmanship over the city". So that kinda supports the idea that the Glasgow Chambers would be just below the height of those in Greenock. Crowsus (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)