Tallest Buildings

We here in Toronto are very proud to have our CN Tower because it is one of the tallest ‘buildings’ (I use the term in reference to something that is ‘built’) in the world, but it is not classified as a building and is, therefour, not the tallest.

Now what it is, and correct me if I am wrong, is the “Worlds Tallest Free-Standing Structure”. (Meaning something that does not have any support assistance.) There is an antena in Russia that is taller, but it is supported by cables.

So, even though many Canadians think that Americans are pretty dim, it’s pretty obvious that the Canadian who started this post shows that we have our fair share too. =)

I’ll second Doubleclick’s remarks.

I’m another Torontonian, and I watched the Tower being built daily from my high school. In those days, we all knew that the CN Tower would be the world’s tallest free-standing structure: “free-standing” because the Ostankino Tower in the USSR was taller but used guy wires while the CN Tower didn’t, and “structure” because it couldn’t be called a building–it certainly wasn’t like the Sears Tower or the Empire State Building, both of which consisted of series of floors from ground level to the top and that primarily rented out office space. The CN Tower was, and remains, a structure of only a few floors (the public observation pod and restaurant) and whose primary purpose is communications.

The restaurants and shops are there because all tall structures seems to have such things, but to classify it as a building is incorrect. The CN Tower does not rent office space like the Sears Tower or the Empire State, nor does the CN Tower mix living space with office space, as the John Hancock Building does. Tourism, and the workers needed for that industry, plays a major part in the life of the CN Tower, but to classify it a building, and the same kind of structure as the Sears Tower is stretching the truth about what it really is, and what Torontonians have always known it to be.

My guess would be that some overenthusiastic PR flack on the Tower’s staff decided, without justification, to call it a “building” and nobody reined them in.

I must also admit that I am a bit shocked by Cecil’s remarks about les habitants and “Sorry, Pierre.” They are inaccurate for most Canadians, and I am surprised that Cecil would even think of saying them.

Sorry to nitpick but I must clarify these remarks. I breezed over the original post to quickly to have noticed, but now that it has been brought to my attention, it does seem that our fearless leader and enemy of ignorance has inadvertently (hopefully) perpetuated a myth and stereotype about Canadians. As we all know myths and stereo types can plant the seed ignorance where once it didn’t grow.

To refer to Canadians as les habitants and the remark “Sorry, Pierre.” lead one to the conclusion that perhaps Canadians are French and French speaking. While Canada is, indeed, a bilingual country, both English and French, it does not follow that all Canadians are French or speak French. On a national level, 59% of Canadians are English speaking, 23% are French and the remaining 16% consist of other non-officials languages.
http://www.ccu-cuc.ca/en/library/language.html

As for the city of Toronto itself, the differences are much different, Toronto being considered the most ethnically diverse city in the world. 76% are English speaking, while a scant 1/2% of the population are French speaking. In fact, French comes in a distant 14th in percantage of population, behind such languages as Chinese (6.0%), Italian (2.4%) and Portuguese (1.7%).
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Population/demo29f.htm

I hope this clears up a few misconceptions. Again, sorry to nitpick, but nitpicking is our first line of defence against the spread of ignorance.

TinCanMan is right. Cecil SHOULD have said, “It is not a building, eh.”

HAHAHAHAHA!

No, it isn’t, but I’m sure they sell dough-nuts up there to lumberjacks and curlers. =)


Doubleclick
“Can’t so squat on the PC without it.”

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TinCanMan *
**

You’re right. Nobody ever said otherwise. What’s your point? That’s why the Empire State building isn’t as tall as either tower of the World Trade Center, and why the WTC isn’t taller than the Sears Tower (which recently increased its antenna by 20 feet, making its antenna even higher than the World Trade Center’s).

Antenna height has never been officially considered in building height. My complaint is that purely aesthetic features that look like antennas but don’t function… cough Petronas Towers cough… DO count. Those are called “architectural features”, and even though you can’t rent space in them and they don’t do anything, they add an additional 240 feet to the towers’ official height. Since the Sears Tower’s antenna actually does something, it doesn’t count. Kind of a rip-off, since the highest point you can actually GO TO on the Sears Tower is 1454 feet high, and the equivalent place on Petronas is only 1242 feet.

Controversy, controversy, controversy.

The Empire State and Chrysler Buildings still LOOK cooler though.