This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
The entry currently says "seventh-tallest building in New York City, the ninth-tallest completed skyscraper in the United States, the 54th-tallest in the world, and the sixth-tallest freestanding structure in the Americas."
There is no way this can be the 6th-tallest freestanding structure in all the Americas if it also only the 7th-tallest in just NY and the ninth-tallest in the US. All skyscrapers are freestanding structures SFAIK.
I think this just means that the freestanding structure list has quite a lot of new skyscrapers missing from it.
Maybe the best thing to do is just remove that mention, although of course one could spend a lot of time updating and merging the lists so that they actually make sense, then update the entry with the correct ranking.
Wookey (
talk) 23:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I was wondering about this too, but apparently it seems to be correct. The spire is the 6th-tallest in the Americas at 1,454 feet, which would beat even NYC's third-tallest building,
111 West 57th Street. But the roof, which is only 1,250 feet high, is shorter than six other structures in NYC.I do doubt the methodology that's being used here, though, because 1 WTC's spire is being counted in the
List of tallest buildings in New York City, but the Empire State Building's spire isn't. As a result, the comparison might be a bit flawed, and I agree that we should probably remove the mention of freestanding structures. –
Epicgenius (
talk) 23:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
User:Epicgenius you are confusing pinnacle with architectural height. The architectural height of the ESB is 1,250 ft, and for 1WTC is 1,776 ft. The pinnacle height for the ESB is 1,454 ft, and for 1WTC is 1,792 ft at present. Pinnacle height includes things like antennas that can be swapped out. In fact the ESB's antenna has been swapped out as prior to 1985 it was 1,472 ft to its pinnacle, a value still sometimes erroneously reported in sources. Whereas architectural height includes permanent elements of the skyscraper only. Roof-height was previously often used as a standard in lieu of architectural height to avoid this confusion, however it poses many dilemmas when dealing with structures that do not have flat roofs such as the Burj Khalifa (where do floors end and spires begin?), and so has largely fallen by the wayside as a standard.
71.62.176.24 (
talk) 22:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I see. In this case, please disregard my previous comment. –
Epicgenius (
talk) 23:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: not a significant event over the building's long-term history.
ɱ(talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Really? It seemed to have received a substantial media blowup, and it seems appropriate. (I’d add it to the NFL playoff article expect they don’t seem to have an “aftermath” section. --
98.113.8.17 (
talk) 20:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Nope. This is so stupid. Who cares? A one-night color change in support of the wrong team in a sports game. So?
ɱ(talk) 21:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The competing claims in the intro that the empire state building is the 6th-tallest freestanding structure in the western hemisphere, but also the 7th-tallest building in new york city is logically inconsistent. The other buildings in New York City alone are themselves also freestanding structures in the western hemisphere, right?
68.197.183.151 (
talk) 02:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It depends on whether architectural or pinnacle height is used. For skyscrapers usually architectural height is used since antennas can be and sometimes are swapped out, so pinnacle height is not fixed. For example at one time the pinnacle of the ESB was 1,472 ft, however following in antenna swap it is now 1,454 ft. But when dealing with the larger category of "all freestanding structures" it is common to use pinnacle height instead despite its impermanence since sometimes the entire structure in question is not intended to be permanent. I think a footnote here would be helpful to avoid confusion though.
71.62.176.24 (
talk) 20:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually it looks like
User:Furius has removed it already and trying to explain what the different criteria are for different categories and why in order to provide appropriate context and avoid confusion might just be too much intricate detail for the lead section come to think of it.
71.62.176.24 (
talk) 20:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Design time
I've already changed the statement that "the drawings were done in two weeks" to something more realistic. Nobody, least of all in 1928, designs and engineers a house in two weeks, much less a 103-story building. I think an initial concept came out in two weeks, and from what I see from an unciteable-but-probably-correct blog, the seventeenth variation was taken for development in October 1928. Shreve, Lab & Harmon were contracted on September 9. There is no doubt that it was fast-tracked, but we need to stay away from confident assertions that design was completed on two weeks - that would result in unbuildable drawings, or just plain disaster. Construction didn't start until March 1930, and the site wasn't even fully assembled until November 1929. Design took about a year. I'm looking for definite sources that don't repeat what WP says. Acroterion(talk) 04:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the