Strictly speaking, the CN Tower makes no claims to being the tallest building in the world, only the tallest free-standing structure. Yes, it’s an antenna (or more properly, an antenna mast) but The Guru’s response about 3000 feet of copper wire and a balloon doesn’t qualify as a rival, since it’s not free-standing, i.e. not supported by guy wires. This also eliminates the Tokyo Tower, which is a guyed antenna structure that surpasses the height of the CN tower.
You want to back up either claim about Tokyo Tower?
According to http://www.tokyotower.co.jp/e-index.html the tower is 333 metres tall. 13m taller than the Eiffel Tower (Which it resembles a candy-striped version of), but 220m shorter than the CN tower.
It also makes no mention of guy-wires.
That’s not true. They do claim to be the tallest building in the world.
From the CN Tower FAQ:
All over their website they make reference to it being The World’s Tallest Building and Free-Standing Structure. Yes, it’s all in caps like that too.
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Cecil’s column can be found on-line at this link:
… Plus: Is the CN Tower the tallest building? (29-Sep-2000)
a follow-up to this column:
Is the world’s tallest building in North Korea? (21-Jul-2000)
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
It is an antenna not a building? I know of many antennae that have revolving restaurants and high speed elevator access. Give me a break. Sure, it is not an “office” building, but that doesn’t mean its not a “building”.
bernse, are you calling Cecil a liar? Them are fighting words.
Sigh. We’ve done this before, but the CN Tower is internationally recognized as a non-building, much like the Eiffel Tower, Las Vegas Stratosphere, and the Oriental Pearl in Shanghai. We confirmed this due to some clutch research by Korzdan.
The real issue is that according to the international architectural community, a building is a structure where “the great majority of its height is divided into occupiable levels” (floors). Along the CN tower’s height there are very few floors.
Read all about it here
Here is the original thread discussing this issue.
OK, now I’ve got to know… What about the Vehicle Assembly Building at Cape Canaveral, FL? It’s been described as the tallest one-story building in the world, at 363 feet (111 m). Basically, you’ve got an open space big enough to hold an upright Saturn V, and a bunch of scaffolding. Is it a building?
Hmmm… I remember seeing that thing. An impressive little shack.
Tons of neat info on the VAB can be found here.
My guess would be that it is a building. The overwhelming majority of the structure’s height (525 feet, actually) has volume that is used for a specific purpose.
The structure has a high usable volume to height ratio and thus is a building.
[Edited by Alphagene on 10-04-2000 at 11:56 PM]
Well, I see that through all this that no one has decided to provide the definition directly regarding “building” from any source other than the “architectural” community.
For instance, a bug to a computer community is different than that to someone in biology community. So why don’ we include that definition of building as provided by Merriam-Webster Online - Dictionary - Thesaurus web site.
Main Entry: build·ing
Pronunciation: 'bil-di[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use (as for a dwelling)
2 : the art or business of assembling materials into a structure
and the Thesaurus has the following listed:
Entry Word: building
Function: noun
Text: a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use <a building with four apartments>
Synonyms fabric, structure; EDIFICE, HUT
Some will argue that it is a building as it is an enclosed structure for permanent use (albeit not as a dwelling). This is true to say as it meets this criteria.
Others will say it isn’t as it isn’t a dwelling of sorts. But to take this point would also mean that “any office building” is not really a building either as it is not a dwelling.
I say let’s not nit-pick this if it is officially recognized by the people at Guinness, then let it be as such. And Yes, I am Canadian (and proud of it). This does not make me biased. Using the above statements, I believe that the CN Tower is a “building” as defined in general terms and not by those of one “community”.
Ah… a truly wonderful thread.
Guys, the CN Tower publicity says it is the world’s tallest building and free-standing structure.
The operant word here is “and.”
While it is the world’s tallest free standing structure, the building part is pretty small. It is not the world’s tallest building. CN Tower doesn’t even say it is.
It is also not the tallest building or free standing structure, unless you are very mathematical and point out that is,in fact, taller than any building and it is taller than any other free-standing structure, which it is.
But, as I have said before, it is truly magnificent, serves its community well and few man made structures in the west can compare.
Does it really matter? If I had a question about a “building” I’d get the best answer from an “architect”, no?
Fiddlesticks. Guiness has blown many calls in their history. They have been succesfully contested on everything from their entries on the longest words in the English language to whether Danni Ashe is the most downloaded woman on the internet. This is just one more thing Guiness is wrong about.
It’s funny but I have yet to hear a non-Canadian assert that the CN is a building.
If I want to know what a gene is, I’d trust a geneticist to give a more complete definiton than Miriam-Webster. If I wanted to know makes a painting Cubist, I’d be better served asking an artist than OED. Can you see where I’m going with this?
[Edited by Alphagene on 10-07-2000 at 01:34 PM]
Correct. So that means in order for the statement “The CN Tower is the world’s tallest building and free stantding structure” to be TRUE, then both parts of the argument need to be true.
But the first part of the argument “The CN tower is the world’s tallest building” = False. So even a tautological argument for the CN tower fails.
Now if the CN Tower’s PR department said “The CN Tower is the World’s Tallest building or Free Standing Structure”, then they’d be correct. Because it is the Tallest Free Standing Structure in the world. Why can’t you Canadians be happy with that?
Cecil is lucky to have such great instigators, er, ah, sorry, moderators.
Under Alphagene’s reasoning (how’s that for an oxymoron) I guess if I have the most beautiful white and black coat, I must mean it is more beautiful than any white coat and it is more beautiful than any black coat. 'Course, I don’t, I am comparing it against similarly colored coats of white and black.
The CN Tower is a building and it is a free standing structure. If someone erects a free-standing structure that is not a building at all (I guess no restaurant and no ticket booth at the base) and it is taller than the CN Tower, the CN Tower will be able to keep its distinction, since it is not comparing itself against erections that are merely free-standing structures, but against erections that incorporate both a building and a free-standing structure. Like they say.
I guess logic was another Pass/Fail course.
Yuck, is it possible for you to respond to an opinion that differs from your own without resorting to insults? Or do you just have a penchant for “Alphagene is a dummy” comments? You have been spanked before for your unprovoked vitriol in this forum. And you backed down quite nicely.
If you want to hurl insults, take a trip to the Pit. If you want to discuss the CN Tower, then put your moderately forked tongue away.
No it is not. The whole point of Cecil’s column and this thread is that the CN Tower is not a building. Since the CN Tower is not a building, any statement that claims that it is a building is false. Thus it follows that the statement “The CN Tower is the World’s Tallest Building and Free Standing Structure” is false.
Think of it this way. The statement “Alphagene is the World’s Sexiest Grandpa and Moderator” is false. I’m not a grandfather. Thus I can not honestly hold the title of “World’s Sexiest Grandpa and Moderator”.
Well, aside from the other reasons you can’t claim that title, of course 
Yeah, I’m not the world’s sexiest moderator either.
Damn you, Gaudere…
Alphagene,
Your reasoning is sorely lacking in quality and you put yourself on a pedestal made of sand. When a wave comes in, washes your pedestal away, you build a new one and pretend it never happened.
Look at the posts, both this thread and the previous ones you posted to. You, yourself, have agreed that the CN Tower incorporates the concept of “building.” Just that, as you have painfully repeated, the building part is a minor part of the entire erection (BTW, I avoided the obvious Tennessee joke here!). The CN Tower is certainly not the tallest building. It is the tallest free-standing structure, but there are no other free-standing structures that incorporate a building that are taller, so they (the CN Tower folk) have limited the comparison. The CN Tower is tops in both categories (free-standing structures and free-standing structures that incorporate a building).
As far as knocking you off your high horse goes, start reading your own posts and try making sense of them. You seem to think that you have the final intelligence on all matters you post on. Yes, since our relationship got off to a bad start with your pontificating on another subject, I am particularly offended by your off-the-cuff inaccuracies.
People smarter than me and even you thought thru the problem of how to include the word “building” in the CN Tower description. I suspect they did it to be confusing. I suspect they enjoy the publicity it generates.
However, going back to a definition you established, but then went back on, the CN Tower is quite a short building with quite a tall antenna with a restaurant built into it.
The CN Tower fails the “Tallest Building” test, but succeeds on the “Tallest Building and Free Standing Structure” test. It is also the tallest free-standing structure, but, like you mentioned about yourself, it’s just not sexy.
I love your wonderful beach metaphor. Very rich.
**
You know Yuck, you would have a lot more credibility if you refered to actual quotes.
Here’s what I said:
In other words, I felt that the CNT has some aspects of a traditional building. It’s free standing, it has walls, people can go inside it. But that doesn’t make it a building. A building is a structure where “the great majority of its height is divided into occupiable levels”. That’s where the CN Tower fails, bub. I’m sorry if that led you to believe that I thought the CN Tower was a ful-fledged building. I don’t. I think my other posts make that clear.
Regardless, it’s not up to me to decide what is an isn’t a building. If the international archicture community decides it’s not a building than neither your opinion or mine really matter.
Both Cecil and I and many posters here are convinced that the CNT ain’t no building. And your entire argument is based on the fact that it is a building. Convince Cecil, me and the internationa architectural community that the CN Tower should be a building and then we’ll discuss your tautological “and/or” argument.
I’m sorry, I’m am at a loss to understand your obsession with this state. Are you under the impression that I am from Tennessee?
My advice to you is that you shelve the flowery beach metaphors that refer to my apparent lack of logic and stick to debating the topic at hand. I’d hate to see you have to apologize for your comments in this forum a third time.
I’m a Canadian, and I think it would be nuts to claim that the CN Tower was the world’s tallest building. It’s a big antenna. Erecting something like the World Trade Center is clearly a feat of a different magnitude than building the CN tower. Therefore, it seems to be to be valuable to draw a distinction between things like the World Trade Center and structures like the CN Tower, The Space Needle, etc.
So if we’re going to draw a distinction, it seems to me that the best one would be that a building is divided into occupiable levels. Makes sense. And since that definition has been officially accepted by the people who actually BUILD these things, that seals it.