| Revision as of 05:23, 26 February 2007 editTonyTheTiger (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers401,305 edits Contradiction← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:08, 17 March 2007 edit undo209.253.119.2 (talk) →ContradictionNext edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| Either the building was the tallest in Chicago as of 1892 as per ] or as of 1895 as per this page. Please correct. ] 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | Either the building was the tallest in Chicago as of 1892 as per ] or as of 1895 as per this page. Please correct. ] 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::It looks like a mistake, but it's explained (partly) by note #2. In 1895 the tower was removed from the Board of Trade, thereby making this (by default) the tallest building in the city. ] 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:08, 17 March 2007
 | Architecture Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Why isnt the Sears Tower listed? POlsen 17:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Trump
The list's name says "2004," yet Trump is scheduled to be complted in 2007. IF we're going to include Trump, then why not in parentheses? Kdammers 07:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Proposed
I had to move the proposed structures out of the table (Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball). Not only does it impede the utility of the table for current rankings, it's potentially wrong. Many things could happen -- construction accidents, financing collapses, terrorism, a steel shortage. That's not even counting new projects that could come to light in the next four years. So proposed/abuilding stuff should be handled separately (I'm not even sure about the table).--Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Metres
I think that the building's height should be listed in metres as well as feet. It would be easy to convert the heights so no need to look each building up
- Done. The data comes from Emporis, so it is more accurate than a simple conversion. Here on Misplaced Pages all heights are rounded to the nearest foot, but if a height is between integers it might round to a different meter than if the rounded number were converted; by recording the data from Emporis (which is more precise than feet or meters) the meter heights will be rounded to the correct integer. Montalto 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Goal to have a Page & Pic of each building
I know this sounds obvious, but I think it should be our objective to try and have well written (and brief) descriptions of the 50 tallest, and also quality images for each as well. After that we can move to some of the tallest in the suburbs, and hopefully a few people will have pictures of those.
If anyone is willing to help me, that would be great.
After all of that is completed then I'll probably focus my attention on smaller historic/landmark buildings across the city. --spyguy 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Chronology
After hearing all the fanfare about this weekend's opening of the LaSalle Bank Theatre and being reminded that it was once Chicago's tallest building, we should develop a chronology of the tallest buildings in Chicago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC).
- I like the idea and will try to help. It would be cool to have some pictures of each building too. --spyguy 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think my list is complete with correct info. Does anyone know a specific address for the Masonic Temple? Anyway, I don't think LaSalle Bank Theatre was ever the tallest in Chicago, but I'll check into it. --spyguy 02:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- It does not seem to be published anywhere, but I would estimate it at around 300 feet. Anyway it's guaranteed that it was never the tallest, because the Montgomery Ward Building (6 North Michigan) was much taller until the tower came down around the 1940s. Montalto 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Great Job.TonyTheTiger 15:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was curious about the Masonic address, too. Unofrtunately, it might be necessary to delve into some dusty archives to find out. Also, what is the height of the La Salle building. I haven't been able to find it. 71.102.186.234 01:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
R. R. Donnelley Building
77 West Wacker Drive is the official name of this building as of May, 2005. R. R. Donnelley moved their corporate headquarters from the building at that time and lost their naming rights. The signs on the front of the building at sidewalk level do NOT read R. R. Donnelley anymore, but simply the street address of 77 West Wacker Drive. I worked for R. R. Donnelley for a number of years and was there when they moved. TheQuandry 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Featured List
Those who are more active in editing this page should think about pursuing featured list recognition (IMO). Maybe the page should undergo a peer review first though. TonyTheTiger 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
5415 N Sheridan Rd - Park Tower Condominuims - 513' 54 stories
Ref: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=5415northsheridan-chicago-il-usa
Shouldn't this building be in the 50 tallest of Chicago? Although it is not in the downtown ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.146.201.9 (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Ooops, never mind. Only 513 feet, a shorty. But 54 stories, must be short ones... Sorry...
Contradiction
Either the building was the tallest in Chicago as of 1892 as per Masonic Temple (Chicago) or as of 1895 as per this page. Please correct. TonyTheTiger 05:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like a mistake, but it's explained (partly) by note #2. In 1895 the tower was removed from the Board of Trade, thereby making this (by default) the tallest building in the city. 209.253.119.2 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)