Talk:List of tallest buildings in the United States/Archive 1

Errors
I don't have time to renumber the list, but there are errors in it. For instance the Park Tower in Chicago is 844 ft and is the 10th tallest building in Chicago, but fails to appear on your list. There are other examples too. Someone with time needs to re-examine and re-do this list, it's wrong 4.142.96.197 18:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Marcia


 * Or how about that of the nine soon-to-be-tallest buildings in the US being in New York or Chicago, there are eleven buildings listed? 71.102.134.129 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

One error is that Dan Gilbert is planning on building a 912 foot high skyscraper in Detroit, Michigan. It is currently unmentioned in this list. Hudson Tower will be finished in 2022.

Everything after 8 Spruce Street at 26th place is now wrongly numbered. The three buildings right after it, that are equal in heighth, are listed as tied for 26th place, but that would now be 27th place (three-way tie), as 8 Spruce Street (opening on February 10, 2011) is two meters taller than these three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.239.184 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like 200 West Street (#88) and Goldman Sachs World Headquarters are the same building (#77). I don't know which is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.188.96 (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I just adjusted the Willis Tower height to 1450'. It had previously read 1730', which is the height counting the antennae on top. These are not part of the official height however. Somebody might want to add a column for pinnacle height to accommodate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.155.42 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Height
I feel the need to clarify a variety of things people seem to be saying in this article and discussion which are simply fundamentally wrong. There are rules for defining building height. First off, building height is measured in four ways:


 * From the ground at the base of the tower to the top of the spire (an antenna is not a spire in most cases)
 * From the ground at the base to the top of the highest occupable floor.
 * From the ground to the roof.
 * From the ground to the top of the antenna.


 * That being said. What is a spire. Below I see someone has said that a spire cannot be over 30% the total height of the building. I have never seen anyone use that before. Plenty of churches use their spires for their heights as buildings, and they are very often over 30% of the total height of the building. A spire is simply an architectural finial at the top of the building that is integral to the structure of the building. Hence why antennas are different, they are rarely architectural and hardly ever integral to the structure. There are some notable exceptions, for instance the spire of the proposed Freedom Tower or Fordham Spire.


 * Secondly, when we discuss buildings, we have to define the difference between building and structure. This always hurts someone's feelings (mostly people from Toronto and Paris). A building must be occupiable for the entire height of the building. There must be periodic floors during the span of the building. This gets people from Paris angry because this means they never had the World's tallest building, though they somtimes try to claim that the Eiffel Tower was at one point the world's tallest building. And people in Toronto get upset because they claim the CN Tower is the World's Tallest Building. However these are not buildings. These consitute structures.


 * Now for problems with the list. The Stratosphere tower is not a building. What is alternate height? Official (read "Owner's Lie") Height. Attenna? Spire, Roof? This needs clarified. I suggest this page be reviewed and edited using either Emporis.com heights or Skyscraperpage.com heights.

The Conde Nast Building (4 Times Square) is now the second-tallest building in New York City, having added 300 feet to its antenna structure in the fall of 2003. 18.24.0.120 17:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please see above.


 * Perhaps some mention can be made of how "official height" is calculated? I suspect antenna height is not counted on this, but I don't know. &mdash;Mulad 06:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Generally antenna height is not impressive or considered important when naming the tallest building.


 * In response, I created this article based on an "official height" that includes the main structure and its spire. Antennas do not count, seeing as how they are so easy to add.  From now on, change this page only according to these guidelines. --MattSal 00:29, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Stratosphere Casino in Las Vegas states: "At 1,149 feet, the Stratosphere Tower is the tallest freestanding observation tower in the United States and the tallest building west of the Mississippi River." (http://www.stratospherehotel.com/las_vegas_attractions/) There may be an antenna on top, so perhaps they're not entitled to every meter of the 350 they're claiming, but the observation deck and revolving restaurant should certainly count.  Do these "official" guidelines exclude the Stratosphere for some reason?  I agree with MattSal that it would be useful to mention (and/or link to) the rules being applied.  JamesMLane 07:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This building is only shown in a picture as far as I can see. It is confusing to the reading, since the only explanation seems to be here, where a normal user is not expected to look.  What's need is at least an indication of where it is and something better than "alt." - What ? altitutde or alternative?


 * Here are some rules. 1. The spire cannot be over 30% of the building's structural height. 2. Observation towers would not count because the main part of the building does not even touch the ground. 3. Antennae, lightning rods, or transmitters of any sort do not count towards a building's height. MattSal 23:25, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

The intruction to this article is very New York-centric, while New York really hasn't been known for pushing height limits since the Empire State Building. Since the 70's, Chicago's been the record breaker. Also, the article includes the list of tallest proposed buildings and initially cites New York and Chicago, only including Nashville's Signature Tower as an afterthought and ignores Las Vegas's tower which if completed will be the second tallest in the US. Both of these buildings are significant taller than others in the list. It also doesn't make reference to the fact that several of New York and Chicago's tallest structures are so because of their spire. It is arguable as to whether New York's Bank of America Tower is even as tall as Philadelphia's Comcast Center considering were it not for the spire, BofA would be just over half the height of Comcast. Dealing with such measurable material, this article could be a lot more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.240.78 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tallest 50 buildings in the US
What about the Carew Tower in Cincinnati,Ohio? - don't have the specs but local folk lore there said that at one time it was the second tallest in the USA with a height of 52 floors.

Local lore is a bit off. Carew was completed in 1930 and is 534' high. In 1930, just before the completion of the Empire State, New York had the Chrysler at over 1000', 40 Wall Street at 927', the Chanin at 649', Met Life at 700', the Woolworth at 792', and so on and so on. Carew's a nice building, but was built 30 years too late for its height to have been any kind of a record. Donald Friedman

This lore probably comes from the fact that the same company that designed the Empire State Building designed Carew Tower, basically the Empire State building is simply a larger version of Carew Tower, this may have led to some confusion and the subsequently wrong fact you were presented with.

Standard vs. Alternate?
Can someone document (on the page) the difference between these two lists? Thanks! --SFoskett 16:04, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm really curious about that too...   &mdash;User:Mulad (talk) 06:07, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * So am I. --Ajdz 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I added explanations from the world List of skyscrapers. Aaronwinborn 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Much too metric!!
Who is to blame for the indefensibly exclusive use of metric measurements on this page?The World Almanac gives heights only in feet,and there are certainly buildings with heights different by a foot or two but not to the nearest meter.I'd rather see feet used primarily with metrics as secondary but even the reverse would be better than the way it is now.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%, and I've added feet measurements. Funnyhat 05:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not agree at all. 95% of the world's population use metres as first measurement. We are sick of having to figure out the antiquated imperial system. Dankru 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a page about U.S. buildings. It should use U.S. measurements. Jwolfe 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Use both.  --Kalmia 05:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the proposed building?
The bottom illustration has a building with a name but no location. Kdammers 7 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

U.S. or New York?
Why are only pictures of buildings in New York being shown when other cities, like Chicago, have some of the tallest buildings in the U.S.

"Year Completed" vs "Built"?
I know its minor and maybe trivial, but since most skyscrapers generaly take more than a year to build, would it be more accurate to use "Year completed" or "completed" rather than the "Built" heading in the table, which implies the building was literally "Built" in the single year given?

Or else give the span of years during which construction actually took place? Hillsboro 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Destroyed
I don't know how many there are... but the WTC made me think that maybe we should create a table for buildings that would be taller than 225 South Sixth (the 50th tallest) but have been destroyed. I suppose it may not be worthwhile because typically very view buildings of that height are demolished by some means. Does anyone know if any tower besides teh WTC fits this description? gren グレン 08:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on the Singer Building (612 ft) says that it was "the tallest occupied building ever destoyed until 9/11." Unless a taller building has been torn down since then, it still holds second (er, third) place.  And it wouldn't qualify for this list, which means that the two WTC towers are unique.  -- Plutor talk 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

50 tallest buildings in the U.S
When this is done, I'll be happy to turn it into a table, if that's deemed a good idea. Leave me a message on my talk page, if you like. Evercat 23:24, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Which would look something like this:

Alternate???
This is still confusing, even with the description, as height to pinnacle and roof are not the same thing. Height to pinnacle would include all antennae, while height to roof would exclue all antennae and spires. This lsit doesn't seem to do that, as it doesn't include antennae, does include spires (so it is not the measurements to roof OR pinnacle), and it includes the Stratosphere Tower, which is not a building and shouldn't be on the list according to the description given. For example, if measuring to pinnacle (including antennae), the Sears would have a height of 1730 feet, and if measuring to roof (without spires), the Chrysler would have a height 925 feet. The list seems to be exactly the same as the first, except with the addition of the Stratosphere Tower. Could someone please clarify this? Raime 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Images?
Why were all of the images removed? Shouldn't there be at least some images of the more prominent buildings?


 * I've re-added images to the entire article. Rai - me  18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Renzo Piano Towers
I do not think these should be on the list; one Wikipedia article is not enough to justify the towers as being "proposed". Looking at Skyscraperpage.com,both towers are listed as "visons", meaning that while they may be proposed in some form, they are not yet probable and/or feasible for construction. Emporis does not even list the buildings in any form. I will remove the buildings form the "Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed" list; If anyone feels they should remain on the list, the issue can be debated here. Once there is a reliable source saying the buildings are proposed and feasible, they can be re-added. Raime 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out the San Francisco Chronicle article, that's where it states that the towers are proposed. Hydrogen Iodide 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll add them to thelist. If officioal proposals have been filed, then that warrants aspot for the list. I guess Emporis and SkyscraperPage just need to update their information. Raime 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute of heights...

 * There is an argument going on regarding the U.S. Bank Tower article. The article states it is the largest building in the United States east of Chicago. Anonymous IP edits state that the JPMorgan Chase Tower (Houston) is actually taller, and have included a link to http://www.chasetower.com/buildinghistory.htm to show that the stats in Wikipedia are wrong. Can we get some assistance in determining the actual heights of these buildings? Figgie123 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bloomberg Tower
The Bloomberg Tower is listed in the "by pinnacle height" list but not in the "standard height" list, even though (according to the Bloomberg Tower page) it's 806 ft. Mirka 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're correct; I'll add it. The height it is listed under for pinnacle height is even incorrect; it excludes the antenna height. Never mind, it was correct in that section. Rai - me  18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

References?
The few references provided do not seem to provide effective references for the heights of practically any of these buildings. What is the source for all of this? It should be explicit in the article.

I'm asking largely because I came here looking for a citable source for the ranking of the Columbia Center to use in the Seattle, Washington article and found nothing I could cite. - Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have downgraded the article from A- to B-class, as is still in need of significant work. I will try to add references for each entry, but it could take weeks. Until then, you may want to try individual city lists, such as List of tallest buildings and structures in Seattle, which are for the most part much more fully referenced. Cheers, Rai - me  23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition to list: Stratosphere tower in Las Vegas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere_Las_Vegas

More information on it.

It is 1,149ft (350m) tall making it place 4th on the current list. (Renoan) January 11, 2008 3:26 p.m. PST


 * The Stratosphere is a not considered to be a "building", as it is not fully habitable. It is therefore only a "tower" structure, and is excluded from the list. Cheers, Rai - me  01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

update
The Comcast Center in Philadelphia is done, but I'd rather not go in potentially screwing up the format and the methodology of ranking so...--Loodog (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:United States buildings
I have brought up an issue about the caption on United States buildings. Please see my comments at Template talk:United States buildings. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
I have added a timeline to the list. To get the information, I used the SkyscraperPage Diagrams. I have a strong feeling that it is incorrect, but I do not know of any other way to get the information. The main reason for my skepticism is that I thought Chicago had more buildings that stood as the tallest in the United States; but I am sure other things are wrong, too. I would appreciate it if someone can go over the timeline and correct any inaccuracies. Thank you so much. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
Where is the Philadelphia City Hall, it was the tallest in the world. Houstontowers (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added it. Thank you for catching that. Cheers, Rai • me  03:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Redesign
This page needs to be redone. It takes over 15 minutes to download the images in dial-up. This is not acceptable. We really don't need pictures of all the buildings. Just put a clickable link next to the list and let the viewer decide if he wants to look at a photo of the buidling. It's disgraceful that a page in the wikipedia can tie your computer up. 4.143.237.171 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)eric

New Addition
I have added Trump Tower in Chicago to the tallest buildings list because it officially topped out a few weeks ago. Acsmith3 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Old CBOT.jpg
The image Image:Old CBOT.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Top 20 map
I just did the math, and if all the projects above 1000 ft come to fruition, the only cities that would be listed on the map would be Chicago, NYC, Philly, and Atlanta. Since they'd all be on the East Coast, would the map be useful anymore? It's getting hard to read the Chicago/NYC buildings as is. I think it was a great idea at one time, but maybe something a little more user-friendly could go in its place, like either a link to that city's "buildings page" (ex. List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia, List of tallest buildings in Chicago, etc.) and include all cities on the top 50-tallest list that have a page (it's not much different than now, but includes some like Miami, Dallas, etc) and we can use their 3-letter abbreviation instead of the name. I'll come up with something and show you what I mean, but thoughts nonetheless in the meantime? EaglesFanInTampa 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it can now be viewed here in my sandbox; I didn't need to abbreviate city names after all. This would be less likely to change over the long run, and it makes it much easier to read. Tell me what you think! EaglesFanInTampa 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me! It's a lot less crowded than the current map. The only problem is that the text below goes so far right. If you wanted, you could fit the cities with the top 100 by only adding four cities (three once one building more is completed). Reywas92 Talk  01:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Actually, just updated it to "Cities with 700'+ buildings" since it doesn't change from the "Top 100" list, and it doesn't eliminate cities (like Denver) right off the bat.  If there's no objections, I'll go ahead and put it up later today. EaglesFanInTampa 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

spires are suspect!!
how tall w/o the sprire?! only non-spire height impresses me. basically- I want to know, would the height rankings change much of sprie height was excluded? and if so, I want to see those rankings. anyone know where we could track that down? again to reiterate: spires are junk when it comes to height contests! thank you. Headlikeawhole (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response on Talk:One Liberty Place EaglesFanInTampa 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Add Encore Las Vegas?
The Encore Las Vegas is listed on Emporis as 631 ft. tall. That DEFINITELY makes it tall enough to put it on the list. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The shortest building on the list right now is 700 ft. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Size
As I am sure the people editing this page are aware, this page is massive. Most other pages I can load within seconds, but this pages nearly stops my computer (it takes somewhere around a minute to load). I am using wikiEd, which probably doesn't help, but I think a split might be in order. Thoughts? – túrian  patois  11:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too. I just added the argument that it should be broken up. It makes my Internet crash; it's the ONLY page that does it; longer pages don't; it's prolly because of all the pictures that are in it, too. I might break it up. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Script issue
Not sure where the problem with the coding is, but this article keeps giving me an "Unresponsive Script" error with the following link apparently being the culprit: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Wikiminiatlas.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&smaxage=21600&maxage=86400:179 I'm running Mozilla Firefox 3.5.6 on Mac OS X 10.5.8. Thoughts or can anyone else replicate? Eagles PhilliesFanInTampa 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This page NEEDS to be broken up
It is the ONLE page that crashes my Internet Explorer. I can't click while it's loading; like two minutes; and I think my Internet is pretty good, too. I never have to wait for Youtube videos. It's DSL. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a major contributor to the page, I agree that the load time is getting too long. However, I'm not sure how we would go about breaking it up. Removing the image column entirely might be an option; awhile back, only about 10 building images were depicted to the right of the table, and the load time was far shorter. Cheers, Rai • me  05:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving the timeline and future building tables sections to their own pages is a great idea; hopefully this will lessen the load time without disrupting the aesthetics of the page. (When I said the above, I was thinking only about how we would go about splitting up the main "Tallest buildings" list... I forgot how much other information the page also contained :-) ) Cheers, Rai • me  05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All right I did it but can you please help me with the references on a couple of them? Because the references are done right with ref names and not just numbers I got A LOT of invalid warnings on my pages. Help! Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem. Cheers, Rai • me  05:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Another idea to shorten the article
I know you guys won't go for this, but we could cut it off at 750 feet instead of 700.

Since the trend is for more and more skyscrapers getting taller and taller, then so should lists of the tallest.

That idea would cut it down to like 70 instead of over 100 making the list. I don't think on such a grandiose list that buildings any shorter than 750 have any merit of ranking, anyway. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only objection I could conceive to my own idea is that that would cut off the historic Metroplotan Life Insurance Tower which ranks right smack at the end of the list. BUt come on, to my defense against my own objection, should a building from the 10's still rank on the tallest buildings in the whole country list when the trend is to get taller with time? Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, built in 1909 it is officially over 100 years old and still ranking; maybe it's time to up the list a little. It still takes over a real minute to load. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose increasing the cutoff. If it needs to be shorter (my load time is fine now on both Firefox and IE), pictures should be cut before buildings, as removing buildings would only make the list less comprehensive. Cheers, Rai • me  05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at List of tallest buildings in the world - 200 buildings in the main "Tallest buildings" list, plus several other tables, but it has a much shorter load time and not nearly as many images. The reason this page is taking longer to load is the 115 images, not the 115 building entries. The images certainly add aesthetic value to the page, but if load time is still a serious problem for many users, then I think we should resort to the former "align 10 images of the tallest buildings to the right of the table" method. Cheers, Rai • me  05:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Certainly, why did we not do that long ago? Then the images are bigger, too. The only thing that that hinders is if someone is looking for a building and in such a huge list they would only know it by the image or something. Because many are recognizable that way. Hell, take number one, the "willis tower", someone might read over that looking for the Sears Tower say if it didn't have an image; and wasn't at the top LOL but you get my point. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the willis tower, I think it should be willis building; it's just more smooothe linguisticly; sounds better in a qualitative way. Sears tower or willis building. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets do the image thing the load time is still drastically slow for me. It might have improved from literally over 1 minute of no clicking the mouse or it would say stopped responding to about 30 seconds of can't-clickness. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is fine with me, but if we remove the images, I think we should merge at least one or two of the recently broken-off lists back into the article. I'll get started. And I like the sound of "Willis Building", but I doubt Chicago can handle another name change for that building... ;) Cheers, Rai • me  05:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay start by removing the images. Hell, I can't even go to the page. To get here I google "talk list of tallest united states". LOL Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merging all the others back in..... I don't know; you know it's not all about load time; as soon as you hit 100 kilobytes, it's suggests splitting to avoid clutter or an overwhelming article. It's just too long loading or no loading. Look how tiny the scroll bar is. I can't even control it it's so sensitive. Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, the images are gone - any remaining delays in load time will be from the tiny images coordinates column, which really can't be removed. As for merging the other lists back in, we don;t have to merge each section back in (certainly not List of tallest under construction, approved, and proposed buildings in the United States or List of tallest buildings in the United States by pinnacle height), but I think that perhaps the timeline and/or Tallest destroyed might work - these are very short to be stand-alone lists, and now that this list is trimmed down adding those shouldn't be much of a problem. Cheers, Rai • me  06:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah the load time was still really slow; does it have anything to do with that interesting template at the top which is quite unlike any other template I've ever seen? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The template is really just an image map, which are used in many tallest building lists (see List of tallest buildings in Atlanta and List of tallest buildings in Jersey City). It is a little strange that the image was placed on a template and then transcluded onto this article - I will try placing the image map directly on this page. Although, like I said above, I think any remaining problems will come down to the coordinates. I tried viewing this page on three computers to check out load times - on one one load time is longer than the average article, but not by much, and with the other two it is just slightly longer. Is it still a significant problem for you? The article is, after all, down to 77 kilobytes, which is shorter than many articles and even some other tallest building lists. Cheers, Rai • me  04:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

42
The article lists both the U.S. Bank Tower and the AT&T Corporate Center as 42nd tallest building in the world despite the U.S. Bank Tower being 3 meters taller than the AT&T Corporate Center. Shsilver (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider shortening row width
Hi, the rows in the tables of the article seem to be very wide, which is due to the addition of coordinates for every building below its location. It's quite a waste of space, and serves only to lengthen the article. Perhaps the coordinates can be shifted to the side, or given a column of its own. If you would like further commments for me, you might want to contact me at my talkpage, as I'm unlikely to view this talkpage in the near future. Thanks. AngChenrui (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone keeps on changing the list by putting the empire state building as the second tallest when in reality it is the third tallest. The only article on wikipedia that says otherwise is this one. it even says that the trump tower and hotel in chicago is taller in the height column.Informed Person (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Informed Person

As of this writing, the Empire State Building is listed as 443 meters or 1250 feet in height. This is clearly erroneous, since 443 meters works out to be 1453 feet. I don't know offhand which figure to believe, but this discrepancy would change the sort order by height, depending on whether one uses the given meter or feet figures. Somebody, please straighten this out. --Reify-tech (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was the split undone?
I noticed that the US tallest buildings lists links to several topical lists that have since been merged into this gigantic list. I see the discussion above about why the split was done, but where was the discussion about undoing it? Unless there are objections, I'll restore the split as discussed above. —Mrwojo (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Transbay Tower
the Transbay Tower needs to be added, at either 920 or 1070 feet, will be the seventh tallest in the US. i dont want to try to edit this page, i tend to break them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Anasazi
At over 6 floors tall the Anasazi people had the tallest buildings in North America for over five hundred years until 1754 when Christ Church was built in Philadelphia. Should they be included in the list? -- Esemono (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added it -- Esemono (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Duke Energy Center
Duke Energy Center is officially 786 ft. (240m), making it the 53rd tallest building in the U.S., not the 64th. -- happeninger (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

200 West Street
200 West Street appears twice in the list (once as Goladman Sachs headquarters), with different heights. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Trade Center/Sears Tower height issue
This says that the "official" height designation will not be until later this year. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC) See also,  and  re current issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Basis for ranking One World Trade Center?
There are some very glaring discrepancies that certainly need to be rectified in this article.


 * First of all, according to the CTBUH skyscraper database, Sears Tower was not "completed" until 1974 (http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building.php?building_id=169), yet Wikipedia's page for Sears Tower claims that it was completed in 1973. That is a contradiction.


 * Second of all, the rankings on this page claim that One World Trade Center was completed in 2013. Yet the CTBUH skyscraper database shows the status of One World Trade Center as currently "topped out" (http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/one-world-trade-center/98/). That is a contradiction.
 * Third of all, this page claims that Sears Tower was not awarded the title of tallest building until 1974, when it was completed. However, One World Trade Center's completion is not expected until 2014 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/10/182832901/spire-intact-world-trade-center-stretches-to-1-776-feet), and Wikipedia is already listing it as the nation's tallest building. That is a contradiction.
 * Fourth of all, the CTBUH skyscraper database ranks Sears Tower as number one in height for the nation. Yet Wikipedia is listing Sears Tower as number two. That is a contradiction.

If the topping out date is the basis for the height record, then that should be reflected in the rankings, not the date of completion. If it is the reverse, then One World Trade Center should not even be in this listing, since it is not yet completed according to the CTBUH. Please sort out these inconsistencies. --RKrause (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorting bug?
In the "Tallest completed buildings" table, if one clicks twice on the sorting arrow in the first column (Rank), the numbers sort as [1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 98, 98, 102, 103, 103, ...] (repeated numbers are ties in rank). The ranking numbers appear to be padding on the right with significant zeroes, resulting in this odd sort order. This appears to be a classic sort order bug. Can somebody sort this out? --Reify-tech (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe this happens because the sorting is done alphabetically. It seems it can be fixed by changing "1" to " 1 ", "2" to " 2 ", and so on. I'm not sure if there's an easier way. I spent quite a long time trying to do this for all rows only to be blocked by an automated filter. Perhaps I'll try again later. Dpc47 (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Found the easier way: add data-sort-type="number" to the column heading. Should be fixed now. Dpc47 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Article/list is out of date
I've tagged this list as being out of date as the bulk of the citations pre-date 2010, and many unsourced changes have been made to the stats. More current verifiable, reliable sources are needed. While the premise may meet general notability, the content needs to be brought up to scratch in order to make it relevant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2015 (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 13:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Stratosphere Tower
Is there any reason the Stratosphere Tower isn't on this list? Also, the Fountainblue (or however it's spelled) isn't in Paradise, NV, but is in Winchester, NV. 70.180.188.238 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The logic is that it is a freestanding structure, not a building. However, there are plenty of towers on this list that include uninhabitable spires in their height measurements. Velostodon (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect text for either Wilshire Grand Center or U.S. Bank Tower
The text for Wilshire Grand Center says "Tallest building in Los Angeles and California and tallest building west of the Mississippi River."

The text for U.S. Bank Tower says "Tallest building in Los Angeles; tallest building in California; tallest building west of the Mississippi River and on the West Coast;".

Obviously, only one of these can be correct. The might both be wrong, but they can't both be right. At least one must be wrong. 47.139.46.115 (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been corrected in the article. The Wilshire Grand Center is a new building. The US Bank Tower used to hold those particular superlatives, but is being displaced in them by the new Wilshire Grand Center. —Lowellian (reply) 10:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of tallest buildings in the United States. 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/20071211224647/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=32 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=32
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216103556/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=132 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=132
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224555/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=161 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=161
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224754/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=44 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=44
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224800/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=45 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=45
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224739/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=40619 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=40619
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621200000/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1954 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1954
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224612/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=211 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=211
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224617/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=212 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=212
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130153331/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6375 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6375
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224713/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=35956 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=35956
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224622/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=213 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=213
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211224555/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=161 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=161
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721215426/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=71940 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=71940
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721204520/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=71941 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=71941
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030023528/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012120442/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1031 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1031
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124070339/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1002 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1002
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529213757/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=34203 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=34203
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124070559/http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=3927 to http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=3927

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Topped Off Dates in Notes of Main List
Is it necessary to have the topped off dates listed in the notes section? I feel that it adds clutter to the notes. Older buildings do not have this listed, and it would be extra work to update/remove them once a building was completed (for consistency's sake). The list description does state that the buildings on the list are completed or topped off, and if a citation was necessary for proof of the move from the under construction list, it could be linked to one of the building database sites without having to list the date itself. addesso (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. The real issue here is that people feel it necessary to move buildings from the "under construction" table to the main table after the building has been topped off instead of when the building is complete and opens. Because of this a disclaimer of it not being a finished building has to be added which never gets removed once the building is complete.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest buildings in the United States. 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/20081221032032/http://www.nyc-tower.com/stats/ to http://www.nyc-tower.com/stats/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204214735/http://432parkavenue.com/press/2014/10/13/new-manhattan-tower-is-now-the-tallest/ to http://432parkavenue.com/press/2014/10/13/new-manhattan-tower-is-now-the-tallest

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Numerous confusing or contradictory issues
I've read this numerous times and I reconciled several confusing things by inference (I shouldn't have had to do that, wouldn't you'd agree :) ) yet I can't reconcile others. For references below, this is written in June 2017.

Sorry, there's a lot here. Maybe the task of repair (or rejection of my issues) is eased by the enumeration below.

1. The top diagram suggests a ranking by height including everything including antennas. ESB is 3rd, 432 is 4th. I believe it is mislabeled (at very least, ambiguously labeled) and misplaced on the page. (The same diagram reappears later on the page, properly labeled and positioned.)

2. The first listing says "includes spires and architectural details, as well as antenna masts." The second listing "pinnacle" also says "includes antenna masts." What is different then? Is it that pinnacle means including antenna? Then shouldn't it say so? Moreover is that the only difference, that "pinnacle" just means "including antennas"?

3. On the top list, #8 John Hancock is green which means it was world's tallest building upon completion (and the notes also say so). What, bigger than ESB? So #8 was larger than #5? I don't think they increased the height of #5 ESB decades after completion, subsequent to completion of #8, retaking the "lead" of ESB over Hancock.

On reflection I'm starting to think that the green and the notes for John Hancock are inapplicable to the first list, but would be correct for the second (pinnacle) list. Having John Hancock green on the first list is just an error, right? Also note that Hancock is not on the timeline near the article bottom.

4. The ESB wiki page says it's 1250 on the 102nd observatory (roof). So shouldn't the first listing (which states 1250) NOT say it includes antenna masts? ESB's masts are above the 102nd platform, right?

5. "However, using the more common criterion for the height of a building (the roof, not antenna) the observation deck elevation and highest occupied floor of the One World Trade Center are surpassed by Chicago's Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower).[3] and 432 Park Ave." This one bewilders me the most. How can WTC be #1 on both lists then? That sentence suggests that it should be 3rd on the top list. In fact, the diagram seems to support that its roof is in 3rd place.

6. Comcast Innovation and Technology Center notes: "When completed, it will be the tallest building outside New York City and Chicago." It shows 1,121 yet Stratosphere (Las Vegas) has a building showing measurements of 1,149 and 1,149. I think the 1,149 includes the antenna, making the Stratosphere entry partially incorrect while the Comcast entry is okay. Oddly, the Stratosphere is not shown on the top list, which would imply that its "official tallest" height is below 700 feet. That's odd, that under two-thirds of the total would qualify for "tallest" height (i.e. the top list in the article).

I think a better job of describing/delineating each of the two lists would greatly reduce the confusion, but that alone would not fix everything mentioned above. I strongly believe ambiguity would be reduced by explicitly explaining that pinnacle height is NOT the measure used in the article's listing of tallest buildings; perhaps follow that with "however that data is also shown afterwards because it is also of interest."

Sorry, I'm too inexperienced to make any of these corrections, so I'm just bringing it up. Besides, in my opinion inexperienced commenters should not be allowed to edit something so "encyclopedic" or "almanac-ish" as this. I would hope that publicly undisputed facts like this and sports stats would not be modifiable except by committee review/approval. Otherwise, if I cited Babe Ruth's home run total, and said "I got it from wikipedia" then the ever-predictable rolling eyes really WOULD have merit. Cut and dried data like this should be safe from destructive edits - IMO!24.27.72.99 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Good work, here...Stratosphere definitely needs to be removed given that it's an observation tower. That's probably the easiest fix.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. At any rate the building height and pinnacle height are shown to be identical in the second list, which I'd like to say is clearly false - but the definition/distinction of "pinnacle" is so poorly done in the article, that it is difficult to do any intelligent analysis.

At any rate I have indicated several specific errors, if some capable editors would consider them.24.27.72.99 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Apparently someone eventually fixed every issue that I reported, sometime between my reporting and this edit. Every one. Well done, whoever rose to action.76.185.10.9 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Note B?
Why there's a "B" in the Notes section, when there is no B note in the article? Is that referring to the Stratosphere Tower (which, according to above conversation, has been on the list)? 91.154.188.185 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "B" note was not being used anymore. Also removed the repetitive "A" notes after changing all to a simpler † instead. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And how is a repetitive "†" better than repetitive "A"? 91.154.188.185 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Height issue still unresolved
I expect that the errors I noted above will be rectified. A recent edit contains further fallacious information. If necessary, I will make the edits myself to conform to the official sources, and that will entail removing all of the fallacious information and revising this article with the corrected data. --RKrause (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

One World Trade Center's roof height is given as 417m, the spire adds a further 124m. The original 1 World Trade Center measured 417m to the roof, and then had a 110 metre-tall spire added to it. Are they both the same height then? Why does it say in the intro that the original would have been the 2nd tallest, but the new one is now the tallest? Aren't they the same height? --Danniel33 (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 40 Wall Street Manhattan New York City.jpg

Height discrepancies
Today, I started to correct this page, but then I realized that there are many definitions of height for buildings and structures. I was looking at List of tallest buildings in the United States, which lists U.S. buildings at least 700 ft tall, and List of tallest buildings in Chicago, which has 22 buildings above 700 included. I noticed NEMA (Chicago) is not on the US list. So I started looking more closely. Here are the discrepancies that I found:


 * 1) Olympia Centre (725 on Chicago list/731 on US list)
 * 2) 150 North Riverside (747/725)
 * 3) Grant Thornton Tower (755/756)
 * 4) 300 North LaSalle (784/795)
 * 5) Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower (796/743)
 * 6) The Legacy at Millennium Park (822/818)
 * 7) One Bennett Park (843/844)
 * 8) Chase Tower (Chicago) (850/868)
 * 9) Aqua (skyscraper) (860/859)
 * 10) Water Tower Place (860/859)
 * 11) 900 North Michigan (871/869)
 * 12) NEMA (Chicago) (896 completed/892 under construction)
 * 13) Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) (1388/1389)

Can someone who has expertise in this area explain these discrepant heights?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * there’s not really an authoritative source for heights and they can differ. And everyone has their favorite source. Someone will go to Emporis and translate meters to feet and you get a discrepancy. Every now and then, some little helper will go to the Skyscraper center and use heights from that and renumber the whole page. Here’s 300 N lasalle at one and the other
 * Who’s right? Beats me. I’m fine if you want to use Skyscraper Center on these. The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat seems as reliable as anything else. I suppose my preference would be using meters, because then you can dispense with some of the 1-foot variances that tend to come up. But that’s a big spicy meatball and Its a lot of headache over nothing.  TastyPoutine  talk (if you dare) 12:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever source we use, it should not be emporis.com since it is not reliable, that source needs to be edited out of the page. Reliable sources/Noticeboard--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bank of America Charlotte Top.jpg
 * TwoLiberty.jpg

Height Graphic
The chart showing the heights of the buildings is incorrect. It shows the Empire State Building being both taller than the 432 Park Avenue building and Trump Tower Chicago, and at 450m. In reality, the ESB is shorter than both of these buildings, and it doesn't even surpass the 400m mark, much less the 450m. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That is because the ESB's official height is 381 meters, but it has an antenna that stretches to almost 450 meters, which isn't considered part of the building itself. Kestreltail (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * CentralParkTower2020.jpg

"Tallest in the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect into the issueTallest in the United States. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Pueblo Bonito
I just wanted to let you know that I returned Pueblo Bonito to the article despite its construction being pre-1776. As the main article, United States, does briefly cover the ancestral pueblans in the pre-columbian history section, I think it can go here as well. However if you disagree I am willing to hear you out, and I'm open to changing my mind, thank you.

 &#119980; &#120084;  01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC) P.S. Please allow a few days for replies, I can usually respond within the week.
 * , Thanks for readding the automatic row numbering. I'm hesitant to include Pueblo Bonito. Neither the source provided nor its article claims it to be the tallest structure until 1754; that seems to be inferred from the claim of being 6 stories, but we also know it collapsed at some point: this is original research. Its article even says "In parts of the village, the tiered structure was four and five stories high." It also says "The wall stood 97 feet (30 m) high." but without an in-line source. I don't know much else about this place, but the wall apparently built for defence does not necessarily fit the definition of a building. We need better referencing. Reywas92Talk 02:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I re-added it because it was there until last time I checked, and the reason for removal given was that it was not part of the US until 1848, since the article on the united states itself covered the regions pre-columbian history, my initial thought was to add it back pending discussion. I hadn't actually read through the sources in detail, but now having done so, I think you're correct, the reference to the wall height does not verify the height of the tallest building in the complex, so it should be removed unless and until we can find better sourcing, good catch. Seeing as no one else has objected thus far I've been bold and removed it in it's entirety. It's still archived to page history so it won't be difficult to return to the table if better sources are found, I'm a bit short on time now, so I'll respond to your other stuff in a day or two, have a good one, and happy editing.


 *  &#119980; &#120084;  03:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Philadelphia has Independence Hall as 134 ft from 1748 to 1754 (though Independence Hall doesn't mention what happened in 1748 since the clock (not sure about the clock tower) didn't go in until 1753). List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City says the Collegiate Reformed Protestant Dutch Church had an unknown height from 1643. List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Boston has two buildings pre-dating Christ Church (post-dating Pueblo Bonito's collapse), so this was kind of a failure to put Pueblo Bonito in as it was. And would Cahokia count? It's 30m (100 ft) too, so again we need better sources. Not opposed to it for not having been part of the US yet though. Reywas92Talk 02:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Look just wanted to let you know, that I don't have time to do the research to extend the history list further back or dig into this articles references just yet as I'm focusing my limited time on other things at the moment. I did notice that it includes Phoenix Shot Tower which is a structure and not a building as it is not habitable and this list includes only tallest buildings not tallest buildings and structures, but I'm leaving it in for now so as to not leave a gap in the list. This is on my to do list for article fixes, so I will be back to overhaul this at some point. However, if you need any quick fixes or help with templates or tables, feel free to ping me, and I'll try and help the next time I log in. As a side note I don't think will be responding anytime soon given the lack of any recent edits, but you never know.
 *  &#119980; &#120084;  23:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Quantocius, I just happened to stumble upon this list, because I was trying to figure out why there was a discrepancy between the "tallest in U.S." dates on the Park Street Church article on Wikipedia and those on the building's own website. It seems that the other article was edited to mirror the date span found in the list in this article, notwithstanding your (correct, I believe) intent to edit the list to remove the Baltimore Phoenix Shot Tower on the basis of it being an uninhabitable structure rather than a functional building. Your last comment was mere days before pandemic lockdowns began, so I am not surprised you never returned to this agenda item. Anyway, I thought it worth mentioning that other sources do claim Park Street Church as the tallest building-proper in the U.S. all the way through to 1846, and state Trinity Church (when topped off in 1846) as the replacement. This means that removing the Shot Tower from the chronological list should be rather easy, as there appears to be no other interim title-holder to add between Park Street and Trinity. Hopefully you will see this and agree, so that the other Wikipedia page can also be corrected to remove its confusing, conflicting, artificially-shortened (based on a definitionally-inaccurate premise) "tallest building" date span.2601:182:CE00:B650:CCD3:7400:3E8E:B163 (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @2601:182:CE00:B650::/64 Thanks for bringing this back up. You are correct my time commitments changed a bit in early March, and I don't think I logged in again until the end of May so this kind of slipped through the cracks. My time for this is still fairly limited, and I have a few other things I'm working atm, but I'll go ahead in a bit here and comment that entry out as a sort of soft-removal until I have time to research this further. I do still plan to get back here and work on the referencing but the timeline for that is probably more on the order of months rather than weeks. That said if you have a spare hour or two and want to take a crack at it yourself feel free to do so. As for me I'm usually around for a bit at least once every week or two in recent months so if it's just a few small fixes you need help with go ahead and hit me with a ping and I'll see what I can do.   &#119980;  &#120084;  15:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Ugh, wtf ? This has been in the article for over 7 years now with absolutely nothing verifying what it said. Reywas92Talk 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Tables cannot be displayed in the Android app because of automatic counting
I like the idea of automatic counting in the table for the rank. However, the Template:Row numbers breaks content for mobile apps of Wikipedia (according to Pageview 2.5% of views for this page). This problem is known for over a year. Is anybody working on this problem? Are there alternatives to removing the template in this article? --Kallichore (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This issue is being worked on see task at .   &#119980;  &#120084;  20:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of such a task does not mean that this problem will be solved in the near future, and the problem is over 2 years old. The author of the template calls it a "hack"/"stop-gap" (see here). What is your opinion on removing automatic counting from this article? --Kallichore (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would consider myself more or less, neutral on that question. I'm familiar with Module:Row numbers having fixed a bug there myself and I am well aware of it's limitations. To me it seems like a lot of work on the front-side and then for every addition thereafter, however I can understand the desire to better serve all readers who may not be aware they can't use the app on these articles. The other consideration is that historically the numbers have gotten increasingly off when numbering was manual as people did not desire to put in the extra work so 100% of readers are ill-served by the manual method. The real solution is to come up with a better row numbering method or to code a bot to do it, and if I ever get the free-time maybe I will, however just at the moment I doubt I'll be able to start the css project here I've already committed myself to for a few weeks. In any event, if you change it I won't revert you but someone else might.  &#119980; &#120084;  21:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)P.S. be bold

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * NEMA-Chicago-Nathaniel-P-Lindsey-1577919270562.jpg

Stratosphere not included?
why aren't the stratosphere in Las Vegas or the Space needle in Seattle included on this list? 98.41.149.73 (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The Strat and Space Needle are classified as towers, as opposed to buildings. See Tower for an explanation of the distinction. Regardless, the Space Needle would not be included as it is under the 800-foot minimum to be included in this article. P 1 (talk / contributions) 14:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)