Talk:List of tallest buildings by U.S. state and territory

Skyscrapers List‑class Mid‑importance

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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture List‑class Low‑importance

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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not only is this article mathematically a mess (statistics don't add up)... but it's a direct copy of http://www.allaboutskyscrapers.com/tallest_state.html I'm going to do a bit of an overhaul to try and make that not the case, and update the statistics based upon reliable sources, remove the copyrighted text, and replace it with a few ideas. I went through and derived the building height/floors from referenced links or wiki articles. This is my first significant edit, so I hope you will be kind... and please help as much as you can! JeopardyTempest 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term building includes government buildings such as capitols and city halls, religious structures such as churches and cathedrals. However, it doesn't include TV masts and towers such as the Stratosphere Tower in Las Vegas.

I am not so sure about the tallest buildings in the following states: Maine, Vermont and Wyoming (I am just doing the best I can). I also can't find the year of completion of Qwest Tower in South Dakota. If you can find the information with valid sources, please feel free to update it.

I updated Maine based on http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=castreetdralofstreetimmaculateconception-portland-me-usa. Great page! kdogg36 01:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you the state capitol is not the tallest building in Wyoming, nonetheless Cheyenne. There are several buildings around the capitol that are taller. I have heard that the dormitories in Laramie are the tallest, but I can't back that up with any numbers at this time.

this would beg to differ.--Loodog 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that the Capitol is not the tallest per the SkyscraperPage diagram. It is either the dormitories in Laramie, as previously stated, or the First Interstate Bank Building in Casper. Rai-me 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is of little use since it ignores buildings that are taller then those listed. I'm almost tempted to put this to an AfD due to the errors. Someone working on this article really needs to fact check each entry. To not have the tallest building west of the Mississippi included just shows the lack of research used. Vegaswikian 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa. A nicely compiled page like this shouldn't be deleted because of some errors; the errors should be fixed. Could you cite a specific error in the article, which one could then remedy.--Loodog 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Nevada this list has the Wynn Las Vegas which is clearly not the tallest building. That is the Stratosphere Las Vegas. Also for the record, the Wynn is not in Las Vegas, Nevada it is in Paradise, Nevada so it would appear that entry has at least two errors. This article really needs sources to support the tallest moniker. Also the references need to be converted to use one of the cite templates to improve the format of the references section. Vegaswikian 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That did use to say Stratosphere Las Vegas. I don't know when it got changed. As for sources, they are cited whereever used.--Loodog 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we were to go to the references today, there is one like this which does not mention tallest. Then there are the 404 errors and the database errors. So many of the references are not linkable right now. When I looked earlier, many of the references seemed to support the hight but not being the tallest. I'd suggest using the cite templates and the quote option quoting the part that says this is the tallest for easy fact checking. Vegaswikian 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the errors! God I get so sick of people going on the discussion pages and pointing out all the errors and taking some sort of personal offense to them. If you have information (with evidence) that proives otherwise, fix it! But no, that requires work and research, so how about we just AofD the page right? In the amount of time it took you to gripe, you could have fixed everything and the page would have actually benefitted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by V8americanpower (talk • contribs)

The only reason I'm here was because of an error introduced in another article apparently from this list. It is up to the editors who are adding this stuff and have this article on their watch list to take care of these errors. The references here do not support the information presented as facts. Yes, I could clean this up, but I don't have the time. So I tagged the article so other editors will know that there are errors. Vegaswikian 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, entirely missed the discussion because I hadn't set the talk itself to watch. Didn't realize such important talk was ongoing.
I agree the page isn't anywhere near complete/perfected. It's amazing how little information is available on the internet for some of these buildings.
First off, Wynn's wikipedia page lists the structure as being in Las Vegas. Even Wynn's own webpage lists the address as

WYNN LAS VEGAS
3131 Las Vegas Blvd. South
Las Vegas, NV 89109

Additionally, a Yahoo/Google maps search indicates the address is in Las Vegas proper. Now, upon reading up on Paradise on the wiki article, I see why that is. Vegaswikian, I'm guessing you are local to the area. I'm still unsure whether we should use Paradise (and the other "cities") to indicate the location of these buildings, because it just breeds confusion (ie, I'm looking at the same reason why the post office uses Las Vegas for addresses). In addition, since the towns are unincorporated, they technically aren't in any city/town, and I believe they would thus be listed as unincorporated Clark county. However, perhaps a switch to the heading urban area would be better suited and clear up the confusion, and there could be a star indicating the actual locations of the buildings.

INTERRUPTION

Well, I think that we should use Paradise as the location of the buildings in the Las Vegas Area because it even though the Wynn and the Stratosphere is in the Las Vegas Area, it is not officialy in Las Vegas (Las Vegas Proper). If you look at the map of Las Vegas on wikipedia, you can see that the Las Vegas Strip, where the Wynn, the Stratosphere Tower and all the other tourist attractions, casinos and hotels are, is not within the city limits of "Las Vegas" (Las Vegas proper), but is actually in Paradise. Now the reason why the address of the Wynn states that the municipality is Las Vegas could be because Paradise is an unincorporated municipality and perhaps the USPS (United States Post Office) addresses all unincorporated municipalities as "Las Vegas." But even though that the post office addresses the unincorporated municipalities as "Las Vegas" I think that we should use "Paradise" as opposed to "Las Vegas" because it is officialy "Paradise." That doesn't mean that when you go to Las Vegas (like in the Las Vegas Strip) you should say "I'm going to Paradise" because people won't know what you mean because most people would think of the Las Vegas Strip as "Las Vegas" not "Paradise." And that could be another reason why the USPS uses "Las Vegas" as opposed to "Paradise": because, well, most people have never heard of "Paradise," only "Las Vegas." Still, because it is a formal list, we should use "Paradise."

Oh yeah, and the references are bad, especially the last one. Even though the Wynn and the Stratosphere are famous, some people may not know exactly where they are if you just said "urban area": it's too broad. You might as well just put "Las Vegas." And, like I said earlier, it is a formal list and you can't have sloppy things like that. Also, about the "unincorporated Clark County." First of all, it's not really "unincorporated" Clark County. Even though the municipality is unincorporated, it doesn't mean that it is not in a municipality at all. For example, Texas has many counties, but not all the population lives within a municipality. For example, Loving County, Texas (smallest county in the United states population wise by the way; nothing relevant to this by the way) has 62 people living in of it as of the United States Census, 2000. Mentone, in Loving County, has 16 people living in it [it is the Loving County Seat, largest municipality of Loving County and is the only dot on the map in Loving County (I'm not kidding about this)]. So the other 46 people who don't live in Mentone (Loving County's only dot on the map) live in what's called unincorporated Loving County. But that goes for all counties. If it outside a the boundaries of a "place" (a city, town, village, township, municipality, unincorporated municipalities, CDPs, ect) it is called "unincorporated Loving county," or "unincorporated Clark County." So basically if you say that it is in unincorporated Clark County, you are basically saying that it is in the desert in the middle of nowhere.

So there you go. That is what I have to say.

-
The Stratosphere case caused significant consideration when I was updating this list a couple of months back. I recognize the structure is indeed tallest general building. However, the motivation for this was the Tallest_buildings article. There is significant debate over this issue at other websites. Because it isn't occupied except at the upper levels, I have to lean towards excluding the tower. Yes I recognize that this may similarly call into question the Maine (and SD) church. The problem is there isn't perfectly clear information on most building heights available, whether including habitable area or not. I'm more than happy to discuss which format this page should be in, but we need to reach some sort of standard so we can try and move forward. For now I'm going to change it back and add a footnote.
BTW, see the talk right above this one... the issue had been considered before!!!
-
The references aren't great, but they're something :-)
I still intend to clean this up when I get a bit more time, though anyone else is more than welcome. I'm not terribly familiar with alternate referencing formats. If there is a cleaner way that doesn't require the long list at the bottom, that would be great. Yes, there are still some references with shady information. However, particularly in the case of Qwest in SD, there is almost no info out there (there isn't even info on when it was completed!!!). I didn't want to axe the list because it is definitely useful, but needed to be reworked and majorly referenced to set it apart from the page it had stemmed from. JeopardyTempest 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits done, hopefully that clears some of this up.[br] Gotta leave the disputed tag up, as, indeed some information is still wrong/contested. Because of the clarification of tower vs. building, the Washington Monument needs to be replaced, as well as possibly some other buildings. Need reference for the Wynn, too.[br] Hopefully I'll be able to put together some pages for the final few buildings without them soon as well. Thanks for input!!! JeopardyTempest 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be acceptable references? Can we link to each state's page that exists on skyscraperpage.com? Nevada, West Virginia, etc. 70.62.40.253 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for lack of response, missed this... I would think skyscraper page is fine, though we've gotta be careful to go in and make sure they fit the criteria here. But otherwise, I think that looks good JeopardyTempest 09:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I COPIED ALL THE CONTENTS FROM THE "STURCTURE?" SECTION AND PASTED IT HERE. I THEN DELETED THE "STRUCTURE" SECTION BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED IN THIS SECTION RATHER THAN HAVING ITS OWN STRUCTURE. I DID 'NOT' DELETE OR CHANGE ANY CONTENTS THAT WERE ALREADY IN THE SECTION.

Would "Highest Occupied Structure" work (that does NOT include radio/tv masts free standing or wired?)-Wolfdog1 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

In my opinion, absolutely it would count as a building. If you are talking about observation towers such as the Seattle Space Needle, Reunion Tower, Tower of the Americas, the Sunsphere or Stratosphere Las Vegas then yes I think it would be classified as a building. Even though most of them have a lack of floors and most of them are mainly used as TV towers they can still be occupied. Now, as you said, that would NOT include structures such as chimneys/smokestacks, guyed masts, oil platforms, ect, only the towers that can be occupied. However, I have a very different point of view than other people about what the tallest buildings are. For example, I do include observation towers when most people don't and also I measure up to the tip of the antennae/spire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.29.227 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a few representative pics of the more prominent landmarks might be in order. I.e. the Washington Monument, Empire State Building, and Sears Tower.--Loodog 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Stratosphere Tower is not classified as a building, then this certainly should not be. Per SkyscraperPage, the tallest "building", excluding towers and other structures, would be the Old Post Office Building, not the Washington Monument. Rai-me 19:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this hasn't been answered, but I'm inclined to agree with you. The "methodology" section specifically states that "(n)on-freestanding structures, observational towers, and communication tower are excluded." Then, wouldn't this be hypocritical to include the Washington Monument and exclude The Stratosphere, the KVLY-TV mast (or any other mast in the northern Midwest, for that matter), or any other observation towers that could be taller than their habitable counterparts. I assume the "methodology" is correct, so I'm going to be bold and change that per Raime's suggestion and that section of the article. Please feel free to respond if you feel this is incorrect. Thanks! EaglesFanInTampa 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If yes, then the tallest building in Nevada needs to be changed to Trump Tower. If no, then Comcast Center needs to replaced with One Liberty Place for Pennsylvania. Rai-me 19:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

No, topped out buildings would not count as the tallest in a state in my opinion. The reason why is because the building is not even completed. When it is completed though, then you can say it is the tallest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.29.227 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Comcast Center is finished, isn't it? 71.193.162.77 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming's tallest building is not the capitol in Cheyenne, but rather a residence hall at the University of Wyoming campus in Laramie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.49.41 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: The White Hall in Laramie is the tallest building in Wyoming.

How is it that the tallest building in VT is listed as the Montpelier City Hall in Burlington? Sorry, I don't know what the tallest is, but maybe some building lover from Vermont can enlighten us. Thanks.75.164.165.15 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fixed it; the Montpelier City Hall is obviously in Montpelier, not Burlington. But I am fairly sure that there is a taller building in Burlington (the City Hall is only 4 stories) - I will look into it. Cheers, Rai-me 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now the tallest building in Vermont is listed as the Bennington Battle Monument. Does this count as a building? After all, it is an obelisk. 71.193.162.77 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbia Center is listed as 937 ft (285 m) here, but 967 ft (295 m) on its own article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.174.167 (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: two different heights are used for different places. "937 ft" is used by Emporis, the List of tallest buildings by U.S. state and the List of tallest buildings in Seattle; and "932 ft" is used by SkyscraperPage and Columbia Center. I think we should go with 937 feet. The main reason for my choice is because Emporis uses it. Does anyone else have an opinion on which height should be used? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this interesting building listed on this page while looking up something else regarding buildings. Being from the state, I thought it fairly strange that any 40-story building was being proposed in Vermont, much less in a small city such as Brattleboro. I took it upon myself to look up the regulations in the town and found the following:

Brattleboro Zoning Ordinances, Section 2.348 (d)(i.)(a) - The maximum height of any new structure in this district is sixty (60) feet. [1]

That, along with the fact that a Google search turned up nothing but forums and this article - the slightest whisper of such a project would generate mainstream headlines not just in Vermont but probably throughout New England - leads me to believe that this "proposition" is nothing but.

If someone wants to surf over and review the years of development board proposals etc. to see if such a project was filed, go ahead. I certainly am not about to. Raj Fra 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but in fairness, cities tend to throw height restrictions out the window when they get a proposal.--Loodog (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having dug up many of the proposed buildings over time, it is surprisingly hard to get information usually... there's commonly nothing on Google... JeopardyTempest (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way that both West Virginia numbers can be mathematically correct; either the feet or meters is wrong (or maybe both). Can someone with knowledge of the situation please correct that height? Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Emporis, the building listed was not even the state's tallest; although the West Virginia State Capitol article states otherwise, Emporis lists the capitol building at 292 feet (89 m) and the Kanawha Valley Building, which was previously listed as the tallest in the state, at 238 feet (73 m). I have changed the numbers accordingly. Cheers, Rai•me 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Alright, that makes more sense now - thanks for clearing that up! matt91486 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCDERMOTT BUILDING AT USAA SAN ANTONIO TX OVER 4MILLION SQ FT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.104.150 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not rank buildings by area or volume. Only the tallest buildings in each state are included. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under South Dakota it lists the tallest building as the Qwest Tower in Sioux Falls. However, the link (above) goes to a building in Denver. How can this be? 71.193.162.77 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that; the link should have pointed to Qwest Tower (Sioux Falls). I just fixed it. Cheers, Rai•me 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]