**What do you mean by a “Traditional Building”? **
This style of building is characterized by two main criteria: it is intended primarily for human habitation, and the great majority of its height is divided into occupiable levels – floors. The term “World’s Tallest Building” has always been associated with buildings of this type.
Therefore the CN Tower is just that, a tower, because it doesn’t have floors over the “great majority of it’s height”
it is not a "Traditional Building"
Sorry to rain on your parade, by the way, it’s not the Americans that make the rules on this, it’s an international group, or the Petronas Towers would never have been given tallest building honors.
** Why doesn’t CN Tower appear anywhere on the website?* *
(All E-mail inquiries on this subject are referred to this text without comment.)
**We are asked this question frequently and we’re answering it straight up: **
Our project is dedicated to “traditional buildings”. ** CN Tower,** the Las Vegas Stratosphere, the Oriental Pearl (Shanghai) and other structures of this type occupy a different category. This is the predominant view of the world architectural/engineering community; it is backed by more than a century of history and precedent. Some people take offense at this editorial position, and that’s their choice; none is offered.
.
Since its construction, CN Tower (1815 feet – 553 meters) has been called the “World’s Tallest Freestanding Structure”. In recent years, and with the help of the Guinness Book of Records (not a recognized architectural authority), CN Tower has begun to market itself as the World’s Tallest Building.
***It is not now, nor has it ever been recognized as such by the international architectural/engineering community.
. ** *
There is ample precedent for this situation. The Eiffel Tower (1889 – 986 feet / 300 meters), one of the world’s most famous landmarks, was completed only four years after the first “skyscraper”, Chicago’s Home Insurance Building (1885 – 180 feet / 55 meters). Structurally, the two were very similar: both were built with a skeleton of steel. But, for all its fame, The Eiffel Tower was always considered the World’s Tallest Structure, never the World’s Tallest Building.
.
As noted above a “Traditional Building” must meet two criteria: it is intended primarily for human habitation, and the great majority of its height is divided into occupiable levels – floors. CN Tower and structures like it serve primarily as platforms for broadcast transmission equipment. The great minority of their height is concerned with occupiable floors. Take away the habitable space, and you are essentially left with the same structure.
.
There are, indeed, many kinds of “buildings”. But constructing a building that (in the case of Sears Tower) has 110 floors, 4.5 million square feet of floor space & a working population of 12-thousand that can occupy it at any one time is a much different achievement than building a CN Tower-type structure. These two creations rightfully occupy two different categories. This is an internationally-recognized standard.
Skyscrapers are an American creation, with traditions more than a century old. WTB defends this tradition without apology or debate. By this tradition, the World’s Tallest Building title presently belongs to Malaysia.
This is the full explanation. It is all we have to say on the subject.
Inquiries and aspiring debaters are referred here without comment. Period.
This is a bit afield from the drift of the thread so far, but has anyone heard what’s up with the new skyscraper in Chicago? I heard a rumor about a year ago that plans were in the works for a skyscraper that would be the new world’s tallest building (even taller than the Petronas Towers), but I haven’t heard much since.
According to the Chicago Tribune the developer, after financial problems, has said that he has secured a $500 million loan to get the project to happen. But you can read it for yourself at:
Korzdan, thank you for settling this for us! I didn’t try looking at the “world’s tallest buildings” web site, which I should have. I notice that the arguments they mention for not considering the CN Tower a “building” are the same ones that have already been advanced in this thread by other posters. So the common-sense answer is for once the correct one.
all i have been saying this entire time, is that the cn tower fits into the 4th category as described by cecil.
i was waiting for someone to show me a reason why it shouldn’t be.
people can give their opinions until goats speak english, but i wanted to hear from cecil or this authority why the cn tower isn’t considered a building, because up until then all evidence suggested it was.
The 4th category is the height to the top of the building’s antenna. But the CN tower isn’t a building (by the definition of the people who made up the four categories) so it doesn’t qualify.
It’s clearly the world’s tallest free standing structure, but it’s not a building.
I guess I had assumed that everyone read the link in the online column that covered the CN Tower and had a link to the worldstallest page. It definately goes into the definition of what a building was vs a tower, and the CN Tower in particular.
“This is the predominant view of the world architectural/engineering community; it is backed by more than a century of history and precedent.”
So basically what you’re saying is that an opinion expressed by the ‘architectural/engineering community’ (with no reference to a specific organization/membership/date of ratification of the resolution defining a building/etc) is ‘evidence’, but those of us with personal opinions on the subject can take a flying leap off of the World’s Tallest Whatever. Did I get that right?
Now that you’ve dealt with whether or not the CN Tower is a building, an antenna, or a whatsit, I really cannot believe that Cecil, living in Chicago and writing for its alternative paper, failed to pick up on 7 South Dearborn. (And I’m glad somebody did here, although it surprises me it took until page 2 of the thread to get to it.)
I worked with the CN Tower folks a couple of years ago, helping them write their first website. In fact, some of my copy was posted earlier, listing a few records that the Tower holds.
For all interested: the Tower has always described themselves as the world’s tallest “free-standing structure”. It’s a marketing thing. Everyone in Toronto knows that it’s not an office tower. It’s just a real cool tower to ascend and look for your house.
The Tower does not have cables holding it up. Hence, free-standing. So for all you folks arguing about TV antennas being taller: try again.
Petronas, Sears, Chrysler, Empire – these are all really nice “buildings”, and I’m sure that the engineers and owners are really proud of them. But here in l’il old Tranna, we own a rather visible and pretty magnificent structure on our waterfront that will always be a source of pride for us insecure Canadians. And in its category, it’s the tallest.
And until someone ever comes up with the definitive list of “seven wonders”, we’ll be happy to take whatever recognition we can get.
By the way, the CN Tower is even on a list of seven wonders. How’s that for the seeds of a new thread …
Actually, the problem was that the CN Tower describes itself as “the World’s Tallest Building and Free Standing Structure”. As we’ve said the “Tallest Building” part of that claim is like me claiming to be “World’s Sexiest Grandpa”: I can claim it all I want, but that don’t make it true.
It’s not posted online yet, but part of this week’s column is a response to The_Marquis “pathetic” attempt to have the CN Tower declared a building. Paraphrasing The Master’s response, functionally he sees the CN Tower as being little more than a giant pair of Rabbit Ears.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Alphagene *
"slapping a restaurant on top of an antenna doesn’t make it a “a structure that is designed for business purposes.”
Slapping an antenna on top of "“a structure that is designed for business purposes” does not make the structure taller. QED
This style of building is characterized by two main criteria: it is intended primarily for human habitation, and the great majority of its height is divided into occupiable levels – floors. The term “World’s Tallest Building” has always been associated with buildings of this type.
habitation - noun FORMAL
the act of living in a building
This thread will sure look silly when someone goes and builds an even bigger “free standing structure” somewhere in the world!
Two tongue-in-cheek points:
It appears that a number of folks are willing to give the title to a hotel in North Korea(!) that bastion of modernity and free speech and democracy – NOT!!!
When the ironworkers attached the final segment at the tip of the CN Tower, and the deed was done, they indulged in the traditional ceremony of unzipping and doing onto Toronto what the rest of Canada sometimes feels like doing.
I myself know what I would do to the Reds if I was at the top of the building in Pyongyang!
Cheers Mike30
“You screw up just this much, and you’ll find yourself flying a cargo plane full of rubber dogshit outta Hong Kong!”
