Talk:St. Regis Chicago

Photos
There are several renderings available online, but I am not certain about the whether or not they can be used. Several are available here: http://architizer.com/blog/wanda-vista-tower-can-jeanne-gang-avoid-a-sophomore-slump-in-chicago/--Geracudd (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wanda Vista → Vista Tower – It is the official name. Check and http://skyscrapercenter.com/building/vista-tower/17137 Triplecaña (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is uncontroversial. Whatever name it eventually uses at any time should be reflected in the wikipedia page name. As the name changes during planning, during construction or after completion, WP should follow.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Please read WP:official names and the policies and guidelines on which it is based and to which it links, and most especially WP:AT, and note that they all represent a great deal of previous discussion. Now this can change but disregarding and/or changing these policies etc is not to be taken lightly. Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd like to see more evidence that WP:COMMONNAME is satisfied. Plenty of sources use "Wanda Vista" or "Wanda Vista Tower". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

100 floors or more
There are only about 18 buldings in the world with an uncontested actual 100 floors or more. Many fall just short such as the Central Park Tower with only 98 depsite an over 1,500 ft roof height. Other pages in Wikipedia cite this 1,100 ft tower as also having 98 consecutive floors. Almost all buildings over 300 (1000 ft) or even 200 meters (650 ft) for that matter not only have high ceiling heights or more mechanical space per floor as with office buildings, but also have either spires, dome roofs, or other large mechanical areas such as dampers, blow though floors, or even a tall observatory. The Ryugyong Hotel is perhaps the only exception, and in a few years several supertall buildngs about to go up in Miami may have 80 to 100 floors in only 1,040 ft (320 meters), all with flat roofs, due to strict FAA height limits there. Miami's 2017 Panorama Tower already conforms to an exceptionally tall 10 ft per floor building storeys with over 80 actual floors in an 830 ft top height (868 is the radio tower).


 * Is this building another rare exception or is the 101 floor count the result of it being three staggered towers with some split levels counted as two consecutive floors? B137 (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Ryugyong Hotel is not an exception. Construction photos show it has well under 100 floors. The glass facade has about two panels per floor, which look like more levels. List of tallest buildings is the only professionally done article that gives the true, actual, lower, floors counts for its buildings, including this tower, the Wanda Vista Tower, St. Regis Chicago, which has 98 floors. B137 (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The shortest building to actually have 100 floors is the Austrailia 108 (was going to be 108 floors). B137 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)