Talk:Singer Building

Untitled
Any idea why the building was demolished ? Jay 13:48, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was functionally obsolete. The tower floors were only 65 feet square. Once you subtract elevators and bathrooms, there's not much left. Donald Friedman

I was surprised that the title "Singer Building" describes a building in New York, and there is no mention of the "Singer Building" in Saint Petersburg Russia, which I believe is notable for both its architecture and construction. It was built by the Singer Sewing Machine company, and features a wonderful panelled glass dome and glass globe on the top. I heard somewhere that its construction using steel beams was also a first in Russia.

Unfortunatly, I'm not knowledgeable enough to write an article about it, or I would do so. Perhaps this note here will spur someone else to do so?

24.8.195.84 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Avala tower was not a building, so it wasn't the tallest buidling demolished between the Singer and the WTC. Donald Friedman 1 May 2004


 * Just to clarify my point: Building article says that "A building is usually a human-created object composed of more than a single element, permanently fixed to the ground, that mediates one or more aspects of the environment." while List of building types lists "Tower" as a type of building. I agree that some towers may not be buildings, but that is not the case with this tower.
 * By the way, is "residential building" appropriate term for Singer and WTC or there could be some better term? Nikola 08:45, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Try looking at World's_tallest_structures and you'll see why I don't think Avala belongs here. There is a distinction between buildings (which are created to have habitable space inside, even if they have antennas on top) and towers (which are created to hoist an antenna or observation deck, even if they have some usable space). The usable space in a tower (if any) is usually a few percent of the space in a building of similar height. Another place to look is http://www.lehigh.edu/ctbuh/hrbd_criteria.html. I've got nothing against towers, but they are not "buildings" in the ordinary sense. In addition, specific to this article, there's a big social difference between the demoliiton of a tower that has had thousdands of full-time occupants and demolishing a tower. Donald Friedman 2 May 2004


 * The article mentions CN Tower as one of the tallest structures.
 * I agree with you about the social difference, but there is a technical aspect to this as well. I would have no objections to changing the sentence to something like "It is the tallest building ever voluntarily demolished, and was the tallest occupied building ever demolished until September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center; until the destruction of the Avala TV Tower on April 29, 1999 it was the tallest building ever demolished." to reflect greater importance of social sense. I still think that Avala Tower is a building because it was built, unlike, say, Eiffel Tower which was, of course, assembled and is not permanently fixed to the ground ;) I agree that small percentage of usable space does not qualify it as an occupied building in the sense we are talking about.
 * Believe me that I understand what we are talking about, perhaps even better then you ;) Serbian has two words derived from graditi (to build): gradjevina, which would apply to Avala Tower, Singer, WTC, CN Tower, or even Chinese Wall, and zgrada which would apply to Singer and WTC only. They are both translated into English as "building". While it is important to note which zgrada is the tallest, I think that it is also important to note which gradjevina is the tallest.
 * By the way, I am just uploading a picture of Avala Tower. Nikola 07:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The CN Tower is one of the tallest structures, but it's also not a building. I don't understand your point about the Eiffel Tower. First, it is as permanently fixed to the ground as any other tall structure - if it were not, it would blow over in the wind. Second, I don't get the difference in sense between the way you're using "built" and "assembled." Any steel frame could be described as "assembled."


 * It's fixed, but not permanently. It could be completely disassembled and reassembled somewhere else :) Steel frames are, of course, assembled, but in buildings walls are built on them, no? Nikola

No. What if you have a steel-frame building with panelized curtain walls? It could be disassembled and reassembled.


 * OK, I give up :) Nikola

Also, I'd argue that the Eiffel tower, at over 100 years old, has empirically proved it's as permanent as anything else. Donald Friedman

---

I think the difference you're describing in use between graditi and gradjevina is what I'm getting at when I say that the Avala Tower, Singer, WTC, CN Tower, and the Chinese Wall are structures but only the Singer and WTC are buildings. (Or not...)


 * Not ;) "Structure" translates to Serbian "struktura". In Serbian at least, Warszawa radio mast is a structure but not a building, and CN is a building (and a structure as well). To clear it up a bit:


 * Each of the cathegories is a subgathegory of above... each building is a structure, but each structure is not a building; each habitable building is a building, but not all buildings are habitable buildings.
 * Apparently, lack of clear cathegories is causing so much confusion. In people's minds, there are big differences between these three cathegories, expressed in Serbian, less clear in English. Not to mention that if there are "habitable buildings" there must be "unhabitable buildings", but what are they? (Factories and similar perhaps...). It's important that at least we two understand each other :) Nikola 06:57, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The distinction between struktura and gradjevina isn't clear to me. Why is the wall a "building" but the mast is not?


 * I suppose, because it is built. Because, for a wall, there come some people with bricks and cement and for tower there come some people with welders. I think that most people wouldn't even say that the mast is "built" but that it is "made". But then again I'm quite sure that there could be exceptions which go in both directions (as with the building you mentioned above). Language is imprecise. Nikola 22:36, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's culture as much as language. If you live where a lot of large buildings have glass and metal exteriors, your impression of "building" isn't so tied to masonry. Donald Friedman

________

I'm okay with the edit as is and I think your new suggestion is also okay. I'm a structural engineer and I've heard people fight to death over whether the height of a building is measured by highest occupied floor, highest main structure, or highest point. Donald Friedman 3 May 2004

(Shoudn't that be 65 square feet, not 65 feet square? 65 square feet (~8 feet square) is ~6 square metres and 65 feet square (~4200 square feet) is ~400 square metres.)

The tower was approximately 65 feet in plan dimension in both the east-west and north-south directions. I'm not aware of any occupiable building of any significant height as small in plan as 65 square feet. Donald Friedman Whoops - I just reread the article and it appears you have correctly uncovered a mistake in language cleverly disguised as a mistake in unit conversion. It should read 65 feet square (19.5 metres square) and will shortly. Donald Friedman

Voluntarily vs. legally
I changed the word voluntarily to legally, because the World Trade Center was demolished in a deliberate act (whether or not the collapse was intended by the hijackers). The word legally better reflects the difference. --BOARshevik 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I would use legitimately before either of those. NewYork1956 07:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Two previous tallest
I got to this article from the article on the Park Row Building, which is listed as a tallest building in the world surpassed by the Singer building. Going backwards from the Park Row Building doesn't lead to any cathedrals, but rather leads ultimately back to the Home Insurance building in Chicago, considered the first skyscraper in the world. This line of tallest buildings seems to be based on the data from http://www.emporis.com.

Is a 'cathedral' a building? Seems to be the issue.Ryoung122 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower / Pyramid of Giza claim
The article makes the claim, unrelated to the Singer Building itself, that "It was the first modern building after the Eiffel Tower (which took the title away from the Great Pyramid of Giza when constructed in 1889) to hold the record for world's tallest and also was the first secular building to hold this honor."

This contradicts information found in Washington Monument, which is taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza, shorter than the Eiffel Tower, and completed in 1884.

I'm removing this claim from the article. -- Heath 128.173.42.61 19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the Eiffel Tower is taller than the Singer building ever was, so to claim 'after the Eiffel Tower' is illogical. The only claim that could be made is that the 'Eiffel Tower is not a building' and thus the Singer 'building' would have then been the world's tallest..but succeeding the Ulm Cathedral?Ryoung122 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Torre de la Escollera
http://skyscrapercenter.com/cartagena/torre-de-la-escollera/1561/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_de_la_Escollera

This as an unfinished steel skeleton was taller than the Singer Building when it had to be demolished due to storm damage. So does it count as a "demolished building" or just a demolished steel skeleton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.156.52 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sale of building
It is noted that "In 1921, the Singer Company placed the building for sale at an asking price of $10 million.[141] The building was sold in 1925 to a buyer representing the Utilities Power and Light Corporation, a holding company for several states' power companies. The transaction involved a cash deal of $8.5 million.

Further along in the article, it states: "In 1961, Singer announced that it would sell the building and move to Rockefeller Center."

So which is it? Did Singer buy the building back somewhere in the intervening years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)