CN Tower

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

What Alphagene is trying to say, I think, (and I agree with him, not because he claims to be the world’s sexiest grandpa and is a fellow moderator, but because in this case he’s right), is that the statement
“The CN tower is the world’s tallest building and free-standing structure” is ambiguous at best and incorrect at worst.

The statement should be, if one agrees with your argument, “The CN tower is the world’s largest free-standing structure” or “The CN tower is the world’s largest free-standing structure, and it also incorporates some features of a building.”

And of course, I expect everyone to remain polite in this forum. Is that so hard?

Example:
PosterX, your statement is incorrect. => acceptable
PosterX, your statement is logically deficient. => acceptable
PosterX, you are logically deficient. =>unacceptable
Arnold Winkelried, you are the best moderator and the world’s sexiest grandpa. => acceptable and recommended

22

Alphagene is correct in his definition of an “AND” statement. To be true both or all parts of an AND statement must be correct.

I am in Chicago AND Illinois. This is true. I am in CHICAGO AND Indiana. This is false. I cannot be in Chicago and Indiana when Chicago doesn’t lie in Indiana.

If it is a building AND a free standing structure to be true both sides of the equation must be true.

23

So, let me get this straight, dope,…

The several storey structure with stores and offices and access and egress to the subway and encompassing several hundred thousand square feet with walls and a roof that makes up the integrated base of the structure known as “the CN Tower” is not, independently, a building.

In addition, the several storey structure housing the restaurant built into the structure itself which also has walls and a roof is not, independently, a building.

So, the fact that, if you cut the CN tower off at the top of the lower structure, what would be left is a building of its own right, does not permit it to be a building until someone actually gets around to cutting it off.

Obviously the concept that somehow the structure known as “the CN Tower,” which includes a huge-ass antenna with two building-like structures incorporated, could possibly be a tower and a building simultaneously is beyond the power of imagination, so we will agree it is just an ordinary tower and the buildings that are an integral part of it just don’t count.

We should probably start a letter-writing campaign to get those guys to say that the CN Tower is the tallest free standing structure with two building-like structures incorporated which obviously are not buildings and are only mentioned in order to get greater publicity. That way the ignorant of the world won’t be bamboozled when they buy their ticket to ride the elevator up.

But, then it’s a long walk from Tennessee to Toronto.

Gosh, I feel better already.

24

Yuck, it doesn’t really matter that the CN tower would be much the lesser without its building-like features; the engineering and architectural communities have determined that those features don’t cumulatively elevate (beg pardon) CNT to the status of a building. Your comparison to a white and black coat is inapt: black and white are not mutually exclusive terms, at least in the sense that both can appear in the same end product. In contrast, under the definition that the experts have used, a structure cannot both be a building and a non-building. It’s a threshold concept: once a structure accumulates “enough” building-like features, it’s a building, and the only way to make it not a building anymore is to eliminate the building-like features. That’s difficult without pyrotechnics.

Think of marriage: you can’t be both single and married at the same time. You might live together with someone, exchange rings, commingle assets, etc., but you aren’t legally married until a certificate is executed. Conversely, once you’re married it’s difficult to become unmarried.

Of course the concepts are entirely artificial, and if you don’t like them that’s fine, but the definitions are settled in consequential terms…

25

Well this is interesting, except that I see a flaw in your logic the way it is laid out here.

Are you saying that “building” and “free-standing structure” are mutually exclusive terms? And why would they need to be mutually-exclusive in making a comparison? Can a building as defined by the architects not be a free-standing structure? Cannot a structure be a building and vise versa?

26

First of all, when we define a tallest building the criteria always was(up to a few years ago, and I think it got reversed again) the highest occupiable floor. Threfore The CN tower cannot compare itself in any fashion, yes it has Occupiable floors, but those floors are very few and low compared to the size of the structure. Basically, what is the tower’s predominant use? It is an antenna and a tourist attraction, at what level are its highest occupiable floors? (not sure) It is much easier to make a tall antenna than a tall building. Also, I am of the opinion that spires shouldn’t count in the height of a building either, thus eliminating the Petrona towers in Kuala Lumpur from the taking the title as the tallest building. THe sears tower still,(for a short while still anyway) holds the distinction as the world’s tallest building. If we qualify Tallest BUILDINGS by their highest point then we can just attach enourmous garish antenas atop our buildings and say they are technically taller. Bull. The CN tower is not a building in that sense and cannot compete for the running. It is a structure, do you recognize the Eiffel tower as a building? NO, The Needle,? NO, Lets not get carried away and include teh CN tower in a category it was never meant to be in please and just be happy that its a big antenna.

27

Well, I think the question of “buildingness” has been done, but I must say Cecil seems a little off base about antennae.

Firstly, if Cecil sits in his pup tent with 3,000’ of wire hanging from a baloon to his cellphone, I think he’ll find himself being asked some difficult questions about his aircraft. Part of the definition of “building” is going to be the fact it supports itself against gravity.

Secondly, the CN Tower, in common with the other contenders, isn’t an antenna at all. It’s just a big pole for hanging antennae from. Lots of antennae. Mostly VHF & UHF, which has little baby antennae (at least when compared to the size of the tower), and microwave which tend to have a really tiny antenna inside a big parabolic dish.

Thirdly, A 3,000’ antenna is pretty useless really; even if we’re charitable and say it’s a big 5/8th antenna (rather than the more normal 1/4 wave), the antenna would only be good foor bout 190 kHz or so. This is down near the LF or VLF band, used for talking to submarines (not, IIRC, done via a vertical antenna) and so-on, and of very little use hundreds of miles inland.

As such, Cecil’s cellphone won’t get any benefit from 3000’ of wire. Cellphones tend to work in the 800 MHz band or higher, with wavelengths of a foot or so. A quarter wave is therefore (very roughly) about 3 inches, not really helped by extending it by a factor of 12,000.

Back to the CN Tower, I recall publicity from around 1975 being very careful to call it “the world’s tallest free-standing structure”, and not “building”. Even at that time, the Warsaw radio mast was about 50% taller (but held in place with guy lines, and therefore not “free-standing”).

Perhaps the advertising people have worn them down over the last quarter century…