Talk:List of tallest buildings in Chicago

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of tallest buildings in Chicago is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted

Some statements which may be (or are) out of date[edit]

Below, I've listed a few statements which may be (or are) out of date:

  • It [Willis Tower] also stands as the tallest building in the United States, and the fifth-tallest building in the world. In addition, the Willis Tower has the second most floors of any completed building in the world, and stands as the world's second tallest completed skyscraper when measuring to pinnacle height,[3] rising 1,730 feet (527 m) with the addition of its western antenna.
  • As of June 2008, the John Hancock Center, with 49 floors of condominiums,[5] holds the world record for the highest residence.[6] In addition, Chicago has the distinction of being the only city in the world with more than one completed building containing at least 100 floors.
  • As of June 2008, there are 160 high-rise buildings under construction, approved for construction, and proposed for construction in Chicago.
  • Overall, the skyline of Chicago is ranked (based on existing and under-construction buildings over 492 feet (150 m) tall) first in the Midwestern United States and second in the United States, after New York City. Zagalejo^^^ 22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the notes in the table may be out of date, too. Zagalejo^^^ 23:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some conflicting statements found in the article: (also posted in the article's nomination for Today's featured list)
— MT (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a few things until the facts can be sorted out. Zagalejo^^^ 18:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be completely up-to-date as of July 2012 - I have completely updated the lead paragraphs, and also went through the proposed/under construction section to add new projects and remove any ones that were canceled. Because the list seems completely up-to-date, I have removed the {{Out of date}} template. Obviously, if anyone has concerns that outdated information may still be present in the article, please feel free to bring them up here.
On another note, I definitely agree with Zagalejo's call on removing most of the "xth-tallest in the world" and "yth-tallest in the United States" statements from the Notes columns - they were almost never updated, and really didn't add much to the list. Cheers, Rai•me 05:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of stories[edit]

According to their official websites, Willis Tower is 110 stories, and Trump Tower is 92 stories. So, I'm changing the article back to say that. But of course if that's not correct, please fix the article and post here explaining the source of the correct information. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 08:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's quite understandable and usually good policy to trust the official website. However in this case both are certainly wrong, which I know from having looked at blueprints of both (I even own a copy of Trump's elevation diagram). However to avoid Wikipedia's ban on "original research" I can cite 4 authoritative sources:
1. The CTBUH, which is still the most often cited authority for building heights (WT & TT);
2. Phorio, the largest & most up-to-date building database website (WT & TT);
3. The 2013 World Almanac & Book of Facts; and
4. Skyscraperpage.com.
Now among these sources there's still a minor disagreement about Trump. Phorio gives 96, and the others give 98. The latter figure includes the 2 mechanical floors on top. By convention, mechanical floors at the top of a building which are set back from the perimeter are not counted - but if Wikipedians feel the need to change it from 96 to 98 I don't particularly care.
From what I've been told by engineers at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill the 110 floor count for the Sears Tower came about because the elevator penthouse *and its roof!* were both counted, contrary to all conventions of floor counting. And not to cast doubts on The Donald, but I hope people aren't using his websites as a source for Obama's birthplace (cough cough). Umbugbene (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks! — Mudwater (Talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama caption[edit]

The panorama caption says "...Showing completed One Museum Park, Legacy Tower, Trump Tower Chicago, Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower, and 340 on the Park". Why does it not mention the more prominent Willis Tower, Aon Center; and possibly the John Hancock Center though this last is quite hard to see in the image? Astronaut (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the caption can be improved by including more buildings. Feel free to add them, or maybe I or someone else will. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the suggestion. If I added too much, just be sure to leave the tallest or most prominent buildings. I didn't link to hidden buildings like 111 South Wacker Drive or short ones like Shedd Aquarium and Navy Pier, but if it's appropriate to include them be my guest. It would be nice to get an updated photo with sunshine and more vibrant colors. Roosevelt University's Wabash Campus Building has been added to the skyline since this was taken. Umbugbene (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding and linking every building shown in that picture is incredibly silly and not useful at all. I am going to remove it. The buildings are pictured and linked in the list itself. There's no need for it to all be duplicated in the caption of this image. --TorsodogTalk
I think it's the opposite of incredibly silly. Naming the buildings in the caption is very informative, and helpful to readers of the article. By placing the building in the context of the skyline, it helps them understand how the buildings fit into the architectural landscape of downtown Chicago, and helps them identify those buildings. Yes, the same buildings are shown, with photos and links, in the main list, which shows once again a key principal of writing a good encyclopedia article -- what's important is not just what information is presented, but how it's presented. (A summary of this discussion so far -- In favor of an expanded caption: Astronaut, Mudwater, Umbugbene. In favor of a reduced caption: Torsodog.) — Mudwater (Talk) 11:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't informative or helpful. How is listing half of the buildings on this list in the caption helping anyone to place or identify anything in that photo? There is no context for any of these building names. Obviously the tallest buildings in a city are going to be visible in that city's skyline. We can recruit other people for opinions concerning this topic if you'd like, but I'm not going to keep a list of 23 linked buildings in a caption. That is not the point of a caption. Especially in a featured list. --TorsodogTalk 19:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion of the links (but I am a habitual Overlinker). I think the links should be added back unless there is consensus to remove them as opposed to having to get consensus to add what has been included for a long time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But, to be clear, the expanded caption, listing more than just a few buildings, hasn't been there for a long time, it was added pretty recently. As far as Wikipedia procedure, there are several editors in favor of the longer caption and only one, Torsodog, opposed. But, setting all that aside for the moment, what do you think about the longer caption itself? Might it be helpful to the reader, as I explained above? Or does the longer caption somehow make the article worse -- and if so, how? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with Torsodog - linking so many buildings isn't helpful to readers, as it isn't clear which names apply to which buildings. The best option, in my opinion, would be to convert the image into an image map - is anyone familiar with creating these? A few tallest buildings lists, including List of tallest buildings in Jersey City and List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, already use this. Cheers, Rai•me 00:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added an image map but had to replace the photo to do so; the original file was too big to load in any image map editor. In my opinion the new shot is much better anyway... hope you all agree. Umbugbene (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image map is great. Thanks a lot for setting that up, it's definitely a big improvement. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to lead section[edit]

I'm not making the changes or adding anything; sorry, not enough of a Wikipedian for that. But where are the buildings outside of downtown and the Near North Side? Why is Park Place Tower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Place_Tower) 530.5 feet/161.7m not included? Or Park Tower in Edgewater? Or Regent's Park in Hyde Park (and I'm just using my decades-old native map of the city)?

This is indicative of Wikipedia - that if the idiot savants who contribute don't know about a subject or have some basement-boy reason for not including it, it doesn't exist. And those of us who don't have time don't contribute. Yes, I know this is a mean and unnecessary rant, but at least I'm putting it in talk and not on the main page.

I'll be happy to remove the above if someone can please add these obvious omissions and any others that belong there. In the meantime, I shudder to think of the number of people taking this as a valid source.

-robinbirk (probably putting this in the wrong place, but again, I'm not a wikipedian)


I just made a few changes to the lead paragraphs, but the text still seems jumpy with lots of facts of mixed relevance. I would like to streamline it following this basic outline:

  • Paragraph 1: highlights of the skyline, international comparisons
  • Paragraph 2: contributions to skyscraper engineering, height records through history
  • Paragraph 3: recent & current developments

In Paragraph 2 I propose removing the exact heights of the Home Insurance Building, which are far less relevant than its engineering, and mentioning other early advances like the Monadnock Building and Reliance Building. There should also be a sentence about mid-century developments like tube construction. The two sentences about building booms can be deleted - all they say is that there's been continuous construction except during and after the Great Depression. That's normal for a big city. (In fact there was another major slowdown in the mid-90s.) The geographic concentration of tall buildings can be moved to the first paragraph, which can also be streamlined.

Paragraph 3 can also use re-writing. I am open to leaving the sentence about the Chicago Spire, although it's only one of several failed proposals. The last sentence should focus on construction as there's no way to give exact numbers of planned buildings - many proposals are stale or unpublicized, and nobody announces it when they die out.

As much as possible I've been trying to improve the source references throughout the article. The only publishers doing active research in this area (for Chicago at least) are Phorio and the CTBUH. Skyscraperpage.com is generally good, but I had to change the number of 500-foot buildings because they still publish a few old and inaccurate height figures. Umbugbene (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for the improvements. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In paragraph 1, the first sentence states that of the 1264 completed high rises, "107 of which stand taller than 500 feet (152 m)," and then in the second to last sentence of the paragraph the same statistic is stated but with a different number, "the entire city has 105 buildings at least 500 feet (152 m) tall," of which the latter is sourced. I think the repetition of this fact is redundant and only the sourced fact should stay in the article. Chezdan (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date and / or ambiguous[edit]

"tallest building completed in the United States in the 2000s" does this mean in the first decade of the 21st c. or in the millennium? If the later, it is out of date; if the former, it should be re-written, no? Kdammers (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and Big John[edit]

The silhouette views of Trump and Hancock show the latter as taller (by a little bit), but the numbers given indicate the reverse. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory?[edit]

" 107 of which stand taller than 500 feet (152 m). The tallest building in the city is the 110–story Willis Tower(formerly the Sears Tower), which rises 1,451 feet (442 m) in the Chicago Loop and was completed in 1974.[2][3] Sears Tower was the tallest building in the world from its completion until 1998, when it was overtaken by the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; it remained the tallest building in the United States until May 10, 2013 when it was overtaken by One World Trade Center in New York City.[4] The second-, third- and fourth-tallest buildings in Chicago are the Trump International Hotel & Tower, the Aon Center and the John Hancock Center, respectively. Of the ten tallest buildings in the United States, four are located in Chicago.[5] As of February 2013, the entire city has 105 buildings at least 500 feet (152 m) tall.[6] " Are two of them exactly 500 feet tall?Kdammers (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of tallest buildings in Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is mention of buildings outside of downtown?[edit]

I'm not making the changes or adding anything; sorry, not enough of a Wikipedian for that. But where are the buildings outside of downtown and the Near North Side? Why is Park Place Tower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Place_Tower) 530.5 feet/161.7m not included? Or Park Tower in Edgewater? Or Regent's Park in Hyde Park?

I think I understand someone has given this section a minimum height, but the result leaves the impression that there are no tall buildings outside of the greater Loop and Near North Side, which is misleading. The most encompassing and iconic view of Chicago's skyline is from the lake with all the buildings marching up from South Shore to Edgewater. This article as presented cuts off either end. Robinbirk (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added an Honorable mentions section. --Pascal666 00:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legit question[edit]

Do you include topped-out buildings in the main list? Many listed u/c are structurally or architecturally topped-out. In NYC list they include them in the main list with a aclaratory foot note. Triplecaña (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 South LaSalle[edit]

Although 10 South LaSalle no longer meets the cutoff for this list, I thought I would mention that when Chicago Title & Trust moved from 161 North Clark to 10 South LaSalle they bought the naming rights for the new building according to a word of mouth source. However, I can not find an WP:RS documenting this. Please comment at Talk:10_South_LaSalle#Naming_rights.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of tallest buildings in Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest buildings in Chicago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community areas in Chicago[edit]

It would be interesting to have a table of tallest buildings by Community areas in Chicago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

height discrepancies[edit]

I posted a comment at Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States#Height_discrepancies about discrepancies between this list and that list. 13 of the 22 buildings on both lists have discrepant heights. Please comment there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

height discrepancies[edit]

I posted a comment at Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States#Height_discrepancies about discrepancies between this list and that list. 13 of the 22 buildings on both lists have discrepant heights. Please comment there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rank discrepancies[edit]

Big John is given as " 8th-tallest building in the United States;" - but at the building's Wikipedia own site, it is given as 9th tallest. Which is it? Kdammers (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section on non-buidlings?[edit]

There is a very odd section in this page on buildings that do not exist. The title, and thus the scope, of this list is and should be the tallest buildings in Chicago, not the tallest imaginary structures that at one point were thought to have maybe been built. Mattximus (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't include The Illinois.Kdammers (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Increased height cutoff for Under Construction/Proposed sections?[edit]

Considering the cutoff for the main list is 550 feet, I think it makes little sense for the cutoff for the Under Construction and Proposed sections to be considerably shorter (300 feet). I am inclined to increase the cutoff for these sections to 400 feet in order to decrease the amount of non-notable buildings that will ultimately be deleted off this wiki page when they are completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chieditor14 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference:skyscrapercenter.com[edit]

I made some changes using this list. There are now 83 entries on the list of buildings with at least 550 ft. height. This agrees with the reference. However, there are some discrepancies. The Chase Tower (Chicago) is on place 10 in the reference with 265 m height, but other references give 259 m. I did not change entries with such discrepancies. --Kallichore (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rank discrepancies[edit]

Franklin Center 1,007 (307) 21st-tallest building in the United States; tallest building constructed in Chicago in the 1980s.

Two Prudential Plaza 995 (303); 16th tallest. Kdammers (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This self-contradiction is still here over a year after first reported.Kdammers (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tallest chicago" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest chicago. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest chicago until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer under construction?[edit]

Hello everybody. Vista Tower, now named St. Regis Chicago, was moved from the "under construction" section to the main section of the article with this edit on October 26. But, the building hasn't opened yet. Shouldn't it be left in the "under construction" section until it's open for occupancy? Or until there's some other milestone to mark the completion of construction? That'll be soon, apparently, but I think we're not there yet. (Pinging @Bignerd06: who made this change.) — Mudwater (Talk) 12:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it because it’s already architecturally topped out, and people are moving into the condos within this year. If you feel differently, you can change it, but that just means we’ll have to do it over again in a few months. Bignerd06 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be better to put it back in the "under construction" secton until it's somehow declared to be completed or occupants start moving in. They're saying that that'll be soon, but by WP:FUTURE the article shouldn't predict that or say that it's already happened. On the other hand, it is architecturally topped out, as you say, so it might depend on the definition of "under construction". — Mudwater (Talk) 15:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but with the first residents planned on arriving in less than a month, and the fact that the only construction occurring is on the interior, it seems fruitless to remove it from the main list for such a short period of time. Bignerd06 (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buyers have started moving in to the St. Regis Chicago, according to this story from Crain's Chicago Business. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

skyline[edit]

Recently, a comment about Chicago having the best skyline in the country was removed as being an opinion. https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/best-skylines-in-america-seattle-chicago-and-las-vegas-top-our-list ranks Chicago's skyline as number 2 after Seattle. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/12-cities-with-the-most-beautiful-skylines-in-the-united-states.html ranks it 12th. Stacker placed it second behind NYC (reported in http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagonow-staff-blog/2018/04/best-skylines-united-states/#image/35). A Pittsburgh native (https://scenicstates.com/best-skylines-in-the-us/), puts it second behind his Iron City. https://theluxurytravelexpert.com/2018/08/20/top-10-best-skylines-world/ places it 8th in the world, well behind the other American city on the list, New York, at number 2. A poll ( city data, a black-listed link) landed it third behind America's largest city and the home of Coke. Kdammers (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vista=St Regis[edit]

The graphic showing the tallest buildings has Vista, yet Vista does not appear in the list. A look at a footnote indicates that Vista must be same as St Regis. The reader should be helped by making this clear without having to dig through footnotes. Kdammers (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago&oldid=1208323340"