Empire State Building question

[Bullitt]

@Telemark

Here you go

It has height categories but not definitions for building vs structure.

[Corry_El]

@Wendell_Wagner

The Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building are the only buildings in New York which were ever the tallest buildings in the world:

List of tallest buildings and structures - Wikipedia

Besides the fact you said ‘building’, that wiki article’s convention of mixing in stuff like the Eiffel Tower and CN Tower is really not standard anyway. When people say tallest building they generally mean building.

The other debate in the early days of skyscrapers was whether tall cathedrals’ spires counted as taller.

But the among NY buildings the Park Row Building (1898-1909), Singer (1908-09, only one which no longer exists), Met Life (1909-1913), Woolworth (1913-1930), 40 Wall Street (a few months in 1930), Chrysler (1930-31), Empire State (1931-71) and original WTC were tallest in the world.

In case of the Park Row Building that would be excluding the spire on the rotunda of the Mole Antonelliana museum in Turin, besides definite non-buildings like the Eiffel Tower.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Define “building”.

[Chronos]

I think the idea is that in a “building”, most of the vertical height is taken up by human-occupiable floors. The CN Tower, by contrast, has nothing but spire and elevators for most of its height before the pod near the top, and the Eiffel Tower has only three floors.

I do wonder, if a Space Elevator ever gets built… It’d certainly be “tallest”, but would it be counted as “free-standing”?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Wendell_Wagner

Define “building”.

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat already has that covered.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Actually, that entry defines “height” but not “building”. This entry defines “building” as at least 50% of its height is habitable floors. It says that anything else is a tower:

List of tallest buildings and structures

[Exapno_Mapcase]

I didn’t mean to suggest that the Wikipedia entry was the be-all and end-all. I was pointing to the existence of an organization dedicated to the question and acknowledged to be the arbiter of arguments, and therefore had long ago grappled with the problem and proffered workable solutions to it.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@CalMeacham

Your “list of tallest buildings” has the Eiffel Tower holding the record at that time, and at 986 feet it exceeded the height of the Woolworth at 792 feet, but there’s that whole argument about “building” vs. “structure”. Myself, I’d class the Eiffel tower along with things like giant antennae as a “structure” and call the Woolworth a “Building”.

No, the Eiffel Tower includes an apartment near the top, so it would count as being occupied.

But since most of the height is unoccupied floors, it is counted as a tower (like in its name) rather than a building.

[ftg]

@Chronos

IThe CN Tower, by contrast, has nothing but spire and elevators for most of its height before the pod near the top, …

Just to make clear to others, the “pod” mentioned here isn’t the easily seen observation deck that’s about 60% up the building. The “SkyPod” is just below the metal antenna much further up and doesn’t bulge out so much like the observation deck.

I presume there’s still an extra charge to go from the observation deck to the pod.

(And for some strange reason there’s a “CN Tower” in Edmonton that’s just an office building.)

[ftg]

@Chronos

IThe CN Tower, by contrast, has nothing but spire and elevators for most of its height before the pod near the top, …

Just to make clear to others, the “pod” mentioned here isn’t the easily seen observation deck that’s about 60% up the building. The “SkyPod” is just below the metal antenna much further up and doesn’t bulge out so much like the observation deck.

I presume there’s still an extra charge to go from the observation deck to the pod.

(And for some strange reason there’s a “CN Tower” in Edmonton that’s just an office building.)

[Lord_Feldon]

@ftg

And for some strange reason there’s a “CN Tower” in Edmonton that’s just an office building.

They have the same name for the same reason. CN developed both buildings on railway land.

[ftg]

So, server problems lead to double posts if you’re not paying attention.

Let’s be careful out there.

[Chronos]

Actually, ftg, I didn’t know that, and was referring to the big, easily-visible bulge.

It’s still mostly just spire and elevators, though.

[Voyager]

@Lucas_Jackson

This photo claims to be taken in 1941. Has it been altered or doctored in any way? I don’t necessarily think it has been but it seems strange that it’s almost one lone tall building with no other skyscrapers around.

I guess I just always assumed there was a natural progression of taller and taller buildings til someone said, fuck it, I’m building the tallest one.

Link-o-Rama: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelryerson/43204634412

ETA: I had not read the comments when I posted this. Still I’ll ask…

I suspect it was taken from New Jersey, since Long Island City was probably more built up back then, and if it was taken from Queens you’d see the Chrysler building on the right. Taken from NJ it could be cropped (in camera) to keep the Chrysler building out of the picture.

[Voyager]

@CalMeacham

When I was a kid I took the bus into New York via the Lincoln Tunnel. Your actual view of the city is blocked by big rocky cliffs until just before you spiral down into the Tunnel, but on your approach the rock suddenly drops away and you are treated to an unobstructed close-up view of Manhattan on the other side of the Hudson, and it’s breathtaking. You could see all the tall buildings down at the Battery, near Wall Street, then a long drought of tall buildings as you moved north through Manhattan, and then suddenly the Empire State Building, the Chrysler, and the other buildings of Midtown. There are more buildings there today than when I was a kid, and the ESB is no longer as much of a standout as it was then, but it still stands tallest among the buildings in Midtown Manhattan.

If you want a real blast, take a cruise ship down the Hudson. We took the QE2 in 1980, and you are high enough to see right across the island.
Supposedly Fritz Lang got the inspiration from Metropolis from doing this, and I believe it.

[joema]

@Lucas_Jackson

This photo claims to be taken in 1941. Has it been altered or doctored in any way? I don’t necessarily think it has been but it seems strange that it’s almost one lone tall building with no other skyscrapers around…

This is likely a result of telephoto compression coupled with a narrow viewing angle and a precisely selected location. Other photos like this exist: https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Swann/42/141042/H0132-L00197829.jpg

This is the same technique that makes a photo of the moon look large relative to foreground objects: http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2011/20mar11/Paco-Bellido1.jpg

Discussion (“An Introduction to Telephoto Compression”): Slot365: Daftar Link Situs Judi Slot Gacor Mudah Menang Jackpot Maxwin Terbaru Terpercaya di Indonesia 2024

[Dana_Scully]

the photo looks fake to me.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@Dana_Scully

the photo looks fake to me.

Well that’s a convincing argument.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Hey, wasn’t Dana Scully the skeptical one? Supposedly.

[Mr_Downtown]

@Colibri

It’s interesting how the geography of tall buildings in Manhattan reveals the underlying geology of the island. The bedrock in Lower Manhattan and Midtown is closer to the surface and thus more suitable for skyscraper construction. That gap represents an area where the bedrock is deeper.

An urban myth.