![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Chicago Spire!
Why make a comment about the Chicago Spire being the tallest in the world? 1. It won't as the Burj Dubai will be completed before it and this has an estimated height of 2,684 ft. 2. This is not an artical about the Chicago Spire, maybe just make a reference to how the Sears Tower is going to be surpassed in 2010 by the Spire as tallest building in Chicago. 3. This section also reads poorly. i.e. "By either of these measures, the Sears Tower was only surpassed by the Taipei 101 in 2004,[citation needed] and around 2010 the Chicago Spire will be the tallest tower in the world surpassing the Taipei 101 and Sears Tower because it has a height of 2000 feet. The Chicago Spire will be in Chicago."
When measuring the height of a building, the only measurements that are official use to be the actual main structure...not any added spires or antennas. Based on that fact several building would be much shorter then they are depicted in the picture bellow.
110 or 108 Stories Tall???
What is the point of comparing the antenna height to the WTC? Why not then compare it to the CN Tower as well or any other tower ... This is an article about the Sears Tower, not the WTC or the events that transpired on 9/11.
Answer: The difference between the antennas on Sears Tower vs WTC...is the ones on WTC were added to the building. The antennas on top of the Sears Tower are actually part of the main columns that run down the center of the building to the foundation. This fact is spoken of during the tour. The height of building to the rooftop is 1,359FT...However, 150FT of the height of the antennas is part of the structure of the build....with the rest being mounted - ADDED TechieXP
Also, by definition of the word 'tower', The Canadian National is a true tower, the Sears Tower is not. Sears Tower is just a title or in this case used as a proper name. The CN Tower is an actual tower.
Who owns the building?
Comparing the cost of building the CN Tower to the Sears Tower is fairly pointless, the CN Tower is basically a hollow concrete pillar and the Sears Tower is an office building. -
SINFUL OCTOPUS
04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea if I'm going to mess this page up or not (first time posting anything here....)
But 3.8 million square feet != 418,064 square meters
I don't know which is correct but the math is clearly wrong.
The number of stories appears to differ between this page (110) and others.
50 Tallest buildings in the U.S. and
Worlds tallest structures say 108. —
Mulad 03:26, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is 110 stories per http://www.thesearstower.com/.
Finally someone got it right regarding the ludicrousness of assigning "world's tallest" title to the other buildings.
Since we have a picture of the Hancock Building from the Sears Tower, would there be a problem if I posted a personal PD picture of the Sears Tower from the Hancock Building? Just to get a visual reference between the two? BrianL03 08:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article lists the height at 520 m, yet the Taipai as surpassing it, even though that is only 508/509 m high. Explain? - Guest - Trauma
Regarding height, the 'highest restrooms' bit in figures and statistics has no mention of source and I can personally vouch for having used restrooms in the Shanghai WFC above 423m. So I have removed this line.
I was the one that entered the statistic about the restrooms, that was over a year ago before the opening of the Shanghai WFC, I have since edited it to include this fact based on your firsthand information about the higher restrooms. I still think its interesting to point out that the Sears has the highest in the western hemisphere and the second highest in the world, this is to distinguish itself from the CN Tower which has a higher observation deck but without a restroom. To me a floor is more of an "occupied floor" if it has a restroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago103 ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, stop changing the building that surpasses the Sears Tower as the world's tallest as the Petronas Towers. If you read the infobox, it clearly states that it is talking about highest habitable structure by roof-top, by which account the sears tower is clearly taller. -- Quasipalm 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The only problem is that is not the standard for deciding the world's tallest building. The official standard set by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat states that the official manner of declaring the world's tallest building is to the architectural top not the roof-top. Under this the Petronas Towers are taller and should be listed. If you need backup you can look at the page about the tallest building in the world or I will gladly give you multiple sources that back up my opinion including a book written by the CTBUH. Aausterm 21:55, February 20, 2007 (CT)
...But it says the Sears Tower's top is 527m, and the Petronas Towers' is 452...?
"The actual LEGAL height of the Sears Tower is 1,450FT that is from ground to the top....including 100FT of the antennas which are actually part of the main support columns. The rest of the antennas height is added. The building height itself is 1350FT to the roof-top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechieXP ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Tapei is taller but has 9 less stories, more head space? Are there stories you can't stand up in?
The floors are larger on the 101, plus it has a spire. Judge for yourself.
Soakologist
22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hola,
ok so like this is the way i think about it. why on everything else((like the buildings)) they count the antennas, but on the sears tower they dont count it at all? that is not only retarded but ridiculous! i think that the sears tower like any other tower, should have its antennas counted. why is it this way??? please give me some feed-back! - 71.36.49.42 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do people keep erroneously refering to the "antennae" on Sears Tower in height calculations? They are self-supporting triangular communication towers integral to the building's superstructure -- they are not antennae. An antenna is an electromagnetic conductor of radio and televison waves.
The original cylindrical bases that rise directly out of the building's frame required significant reinforcement of the entire upper one-third of the building during construction -- years before Sears Tower even became a primary transmitter location in downtown. Therefore, it should go without debate that both the triangular support towers and the cylindrical bases do not broadcast or receive anything (although they are struck by lighting). So thus by definition the oft-cited "antennae" on Sears Tower are only so in part. With the exception of the new HDTV antennae at the four corners of the roof, the major antenna pylons are located at the pinnacles of the existing communication towers.
I find it rather disconcerting that even after almost 15 years (since the Petronas Towers debate first emerged), people still refuse to actually learn the truth about what is and is not an antenna simply because the engineering ignorance and incompetence of the CTBUH continues to brainwash the general public into readily accepting "misfacts" even to the point of publishing it in Wikipedia. Please understand, the CTBUH may be an established technical body, but that doesn't make the organization completely infallible. -- RKrause ( talk)
How can the Sears Tower be in a game that doesn't occur on Earth, or at least not our Earth? The game has a completely different geography and political layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.139.161.72 ( talk) 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Assuming it becomes official and sourced, would the new nickname be properly spelled "Big Willy" or "Big Willie"? An quick search of Google finds
"a man's willy" – 527 "a man's willie" – 36
but of course per WP:GOOGLE that's only a popularity test and wouldn't be citable as proof of a "correct" spelling. -- CliffC ( talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the nickname Big Willie is official. Both Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and, more importantly, Willis Group Holdings' Chairman and CEO, Joseph Plumeri, have publicly stated in interviews their acceptance of Big Willie as a household reference for the building.
I realize it seems ludicrous -- numerous marketing experts have argued that this was a branding faux pas. But it is nonethless a public affirmation of the nickname and is readily verifiable via numerous online news sources, providing further evidence that the nickname is officially sanctioned by two very reputable people involved. Therefore, I believe Big Willie should be cited in the article. -- RKrause ( talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It strikes me that when referring to historical periods, the name Sears should still be used. Examples include mention that the building (then known as Sears) was tallest from 1974-1998, or the note that "In an episode of the television series, Monk, Adrian Monk tries to conquer his fear of heights by imagining that he is on top of Willis Tower." since it was called the Sears Tower at the time the episode was films and within the episode. Shsilver ( talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah really. It's the Sears Tower. Changing it to Willis is just a disgrace to Chicago culture. Just keep it as Sears Tower on here. -- 24.13.44.207 ( talk) 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Guideline needed I have just started a discussion at the Manual of Style regarding a similar situation. I would appreciate input there on my particular query, and I think that if it doesn't already exist a guideline for project-wide re-namings of buildings, towns, etc. should be created, although I am not sure exactly where within the project namespace it should go. Sswonk ( talk) 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Common name is lovely, when it's not inaccurate. Calling this "Sears Tower" is inaccurate. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Consistency of historic references I'm inclined to agree. All historic references should refer to the building as it was named during that time period; e.g. "The Sears Tower itself was not the draw Sears hoped it would be" naturally makes a great deal more sense than "The Willis Tower itself was not the draw Sears hoped it would be." -- RKrause ( talk) 01:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The page is locked, so I can't correct:
In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies" extending approximately four feet over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.
Bad sentence structure. Sounds like the balconies are four feet over the street. Make sure modifying words are modifying the correct words. Should read this:
In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies", approximately four feet in width, extending over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.
-- 97.113.116.173 ( talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a UNIQUE media showing the Glass Balcony in an interactive panorama, where the viewer will see it as he would be there himself, he can move the view around in any direction bz dragging with the mouse on the pic.. As this is not a still picture nor a movie, the only way is to bring it in is as an external link. Unfortunately the site reviewer are removing the link faster than they can understand what it is...
here again the link http://www.360cities.net/image/sears-tower-skydeck-window-chicago it is most probably the first panorama done on the Glass Balcony photo taken by Jeffrey Martin processing of images and transforming to an interactive panorama by me wkaemena Wkaemena ( talk) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The official name of the renovated observation deck at 233 S Wacker Dr is "Skydeck Chicago" as can be verified on the official site and in various publicity materials. -- RKrause ( talk) 01:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was leave at Willis Tower. This discussion is contentious with fairly valid arguments made on both sides - there is a good point that a fair proportion of media sources do still seem to call this the Sears Tower. That said, there's also strong argument that usage of Willis Tower is widespread and increasing, and that it's clearly the "correct" name officially - the argument therefore comes down to an entirely subjective interpretation of what the "common name" is. Given that a clear majority here seem to think that Willis Tower is sufficiently widespread to constitute a common name, and that that usage is only likely to increase with time, I am confident that the article's current placement is most appropriate given the consensus present in this discussion. ~ mazca talk 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've move protected this article indefinitely to suppress further move-warring. Once consensus is formed, please ask an admin to unprotect it if necessary. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel it should be at least noted the controversial nature of the up coming name change. It has become a pretty big issue in Chicago with many people feeling that it is sort of like attacking a land mark. Ive heard comparisons drawn that it is like if some one renamed the Statue of Liberty the Loyd's of London Statue. There has been a lot of media coverage of local out rage over this change. If no one disagrees with me I plan on making the addition some time in the near future. 131.230.146.135 ( talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This page should be "Sears Tower", you can make a new page for "Willis Tower" for the building from 2009 - on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theige ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not about Sears adverts. The World Series is named for the New York World even though it no longer exists. Common language calls it the sears tower. Would you change the name of the great pyramids if somebody bought the naming rights from the local government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.198.194 ( talk) 05:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the page should be Willis Tower, as it is, with redirection fom Sears Tower. I don't like the new name either, but it is a private building and landmark or not, they can change the name - that's just part of capitalism. And Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should use official names of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.152.195 ( talk) 20:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering if a photo or simply a blurb about the ongoing defacing of the Willis Tower signage should be mentioned in the article. It seems it is of a noteworthy nature particularly given the publicity surrounding the name change. -- RKrause ( talk) 01:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The Sears Tower is a supertall skyscraper in Chicago, Illinois, and the tallest building in the United States since 1973, surpassing the World Trade Center. By all other measures (official height, roof height, and highest occupied floor) the Sears Tower was always taller than the World Trade Center.
All measures other than what? TheHYPO
"Sears Tower was the world's tallest building from 1974 to 1998.[I]"
I do not understand why the article says this??? If it was offically the Sears Tower until this year why did some dumb person change this to the Willis Tower?? The Willis tower did not exist in 1974 to 1998. Please unlock and fix this error. All Chicagoans still call it the Sears Tower anyways. Really the title of the article should be "Sears Tower (officially Willis Tower)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.88.173 ( talk) 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
|building_name
parameter. While "Sears Tower" may be more correct in this historical context, the caption can't be changed unless the template syntax is altered. Cheers,
Rai•
me
04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Dictionaries change definitions based on how people use the words. Most people still call this building the Sears Tower. Its legal name is Willis Tower, but that should not change how it is labeled in Wikipedia. At least, when a person searches for Sears Tower, they should be directed to a page about the Sears Tower and not re-directed to the Willis Tower page. The Sears Tower deserves its own page seperate from the Willis Tower. Wikipedia is a website for and by the people. The foreign corporation that bought the legal naming rights should not dictate how Americans refer to their buildings. This site should begin by stating that the "Willis Tower used to legally be called the Sears Tower. However it is still known as the Sears Tower." The name Willis should not be used again in the rest of the article. Architect8 ( talk) 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Protocol suggests making a request to other editors before setting up automatic archiving of an article talk page, so that't what this is. With stray comments being added to older topics here from time to time, especially about the name of the building, I think it would be wise to set up automatic archiving to move threads that are seven days old or older into the archives, starting with a new "Archive 3" page. The bot will start a new archive page whenever the current one reaches 150K in size. Here is the code:
{{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(7d) |archive = Talk:Willis Tower/Archive %(counter)d |counter = 3 |maxarchivesize = 150K }}
The archive box at the top of the page will have to be adjusted slightly to keep up with this, and helped along by moving the "Move" archive to "Archive 2" so the archives will have names the bots and templates can understand. Regular editors, please briefly comment below. Unless there is substantial debate, objection, etc. then I will set this up tomorrow morning to begin then. Sswonk ( talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Done The automatic archiving is now configured as shown. The "
/Move" links redirect to "
/Archive 2" so nothing else needs to be changed.
Sswonk (
talk)
13:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? You folks are arguing over archiving? -- Golbez ( talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no mention of United renting out a significant portion of the tower for their Operations Control Center. Surely it should be mentioned seeing as how they'll be the largest tenant in the tower. Yes, beating out Willis. Maybe it should be renamed the United Tower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.161.102 ( talk) 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
From an engineering perspective, I think it is noteworthy that the building currently maintains the title of the tallest freestanding steel structure (i.e. the tallest steel-framed skyscraper) in the world. It is also likely to hold this title for the foreseeable future as fewer and fewer supertalls are being designed and constructed of a steel skeleton -- reinforced concrete is both a more economical and more practical alternative.
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Tallest/CTBUH_TallestSteel.pdf
As shown above, CTBUH publishes a ranking of the tallest steel structure buildings. Perhaps this fact should be mentioned in the article. -- RKrause ( talk) 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I was perusing the external links, and I think some revisions might be in order:
Willis Tower in the Structurae Database The database entry is actually titled "Sears Tower", so perhaps the link should reflect that. Then again, what is the reasoning for linking to the Structurae Database? There's nothing significantly noteworthy about the information it provides compared to other more comprehensive and up-to-date resources like Emporis.
SkyscraperPage diagram of Willis Tower This page produces an error message: "We're sorry, this section of SkyscraperPage.com is currently unavailable." In fact, the database has been offline persistently for four weeks. I would recommend simply removing the link until such time as the Webmaster has restored the service.
Of course, these are just suggestions. But in attempting to consistently improve this article, I think that all external resources should be reliable, functional, and of high quality -- RKrause ( talk) 17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"Until 2000, the Sears Tower did not hold the record for the tallest building by pinnacle height. From 1969-1978, this record was held by the John Hancock Center, whose antenna reached a height of 1,500 ft (457.2 m), or 49 ft (14.8 m) taller than the Sears Tower's original height of 1,451 ft (442 m)."
How can this statement be true? Sears Tower was completed in 1974 with two 85 foot tall antenna bases, for a pinnacle height of 1518 feet. You can even see this in the construction photos. John Hancock Center was never taller than Sears Tower following its completion. These types of claims should always have citations. If nobody objects, I will remove this statement. -- RKrause ( talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There was nothing in the article about the plot to blow up the tower. It seems to me that a terrorist plot would be a notable event in any building's history, especially if the plot was as serious as this one. I've added a small section which I believe doesn't give undue weight to the event. Let me know if it's a problem. -- NellieBly ( talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Listed as 108, official site lists 110. Source: http://www.willistower.com/
I have to agree with the person above. The Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) has 110 floors. This article is incorrect. Now, I don't believe anyone was counting the roof when they stated 110 floors, that wouldn't make sense. But mechanical penthouses or whatever, are still floors in the building. It doesn't matter the reason for the mechanical penthouses existence, the floors are still there that they occupy. Checking dozens of other resources, they all state 110 floors are in the building. And if the official website states 110 floors, well, come on, you can't get much more official than that. In addition, the article should go beyond stating this is the "tallest building in the United States". Although true, it's also the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, which would include both North America and South America, most of the United Kingdom, and northwestern Africa. When relaying information on the building's height, the largest geographical region should always be given at least once in the article. In this case, that would be the Western Hemisphere, or at the very least, state it is the largest in the American Hemisphere, which would include just North and South America. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.192.176.30 (
talk)
01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That terminology works well too: The tallest building in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 ( talk) 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw this on Modern Marvel, the Sears Tower. It stated that the Sears Tower has 110 floors, more that 25,000 people walk in every day. It has 104 elevators, and some are double deckers. Something coming out of the History Channel should be official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickylain ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The link for that portion of the article is out of date and I'm wondering if there is any credible source explaining why reflecting light and heat rather than absorbing it in a cold environment would actually save energy. Seems back a**kwards to me. -Eaglescout1984 19:14, 4 January 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 ( talk • contribs)
Under the photo of the Skydeck's protruding glass boxes (shot from street level), the caption states that they are on the "east facade." Will someone with editing capabilities please correct this to read "west facade." 67.168.135.45 ( talk) 09:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
On Family Feud, the episode that aired on January 12, 2010, at noon on Syracuse channel Fox-68 WSYT the question was "Name something that Chicago is known for" and wind was number one with 49/100 points; the Willis Tower was number three but it was still called the Sears Tower on the show. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you belive this thing might have been significantly higher but the FAA shot em down? Then, then they go and stick two Huge Permanant antennas on it that hinder air traffic as much as building would. It could have been 132 floors and no higher than it is now to the antennas. And Sears might have pushed it that far, too. Who knows. They had no financial issue then that's for sure. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, lol I can't believe you brought up the KVLY mast thing, I was gonna mention that! Do you know of any other things/articles on structures where the FCC/FAA is brought up for similiar reasons? Daniel Christensen ( talk) 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
On the page it says the building is "destroyed" in the film. But actually it is only damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabZach ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this article at "Willis Tower" rather than "Sears Tower"? I'll admit that I'm really too familiar with how things are done here, but according to this "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article" and the common English-language name of that building remains the Sears Tower.
In the last month 52 news stories mentioned the Sears Tower, while only 42 news stories mentioned the Willis Tower. When major publications refer to the tower, Sears Tower generally takes precedence in the naming:
From [[The New Yorker]: "Kuala Lumpur’s Petronas Towers (one thousand four hundred and eighty-two feet) are thirty-two feet taller than Chicago’s Sears Tower (or Willis Tower, as it is now called)" - clearly Sears Tower is the real name, Willis Tower is a mere parenthetical [11]
Many other sources don't even mention the Willis Name, for example The Economic Times - "Christened as World One, the tower will be higher than some of the iconic global landmarks including Sears Tower in Chicago" [12], the New York Times -" including the plan to bomb the Herald Square subway station, the plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago " [13], Wired - "There are several models including Fallingwater, the Guggenheim Museum, the Empire State Building, Seattle’s Space Needle, the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Building." [14] and many, many more.
Reliable sources also confirm that the tower is better known as the Sears Tower. "An ambitious planned renovation of Willis Tower (formerly and better known as the Sears Tower)" [15], for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagolander ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Corporate rebranding nonsense - this should be Sears tower. That's ok, when the rights change again, we will just change the name again, ignoring COMMONNAME. What a load of nonsense, wikipedia is a corporate cesspool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.162.10 ( talk) 13:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that we have reached a consensus that this should be called Sears Tower. Can someone go ahead and rename the article? Stargate70 ( talk) 01:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the actual name, the name in common usage is the Sears Tower. People actually in Chicago will probably not ever refer to the building as the Willis Tower. Do you see people rushing off to rename one of Frank Lloyd Wrights buildings? No. The Pentagon isn't getting a new name. Neither is the White House. The Sears Tower is named for the company that built it and it should remain that way for all time. If some corporation buys up the rights to the name of the Golden Gate Bridge, would still refer to it as the Golden Gate? This is really an issue of history and not really about how cool the name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.5.126 ( talk) 11:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Are there really no pictures of the construction of the Sears Tower? It must have been fairly widely covered in the media. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Also I can't believe there are no pictures from the skydeck here. There are tons of freely licensed pictures on flickr. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm gonna upload a couple. One thing I don't get is that some are under a CC license but still say request to license via Getty Images. I changed a photo to CC to see what happened and the Getty Images thing disappeared. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 21:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "At the time of its completion in 1973, it was the tallest building in the world, surpassing the World Trade Center towers in New York, and it held this rank for nearly 25 years." to "At the time of completion in 1973, it was the tallest building in the world, surpassing the World Trade Centre towers 1 and 2 in New York, until the completion of the CN Tower in Toronto 3 Years later."
Seanm775 ( talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The tower was used in Transformers Dark of the Moon. It is used by the military. They use it to sneak into Chicago. The tower is later destroyed in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 ( talk) 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You are right, i have seen the movie and it is destroyed and used to sneak into Chicago. I will add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvalou ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The article lists the Willis Tower as the fifth tallest freestanding structure in the world. Included in that description is a link to the article listing the tallest freestanding structures in the world, which clearly places the Willis tower as seventh. 24.252.249.102 ( talk) 06:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The figure about the building leaning 4 inches to the West is undocumented and false. According to the new owners of the "Sears Tower" name, the building was designed to lean 6 inches to counteract for the rotation of the Earth -- a fact that engineers later discovered was unnecessary. Documented at http://www.searstower.org/home.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.182.118 ( talk) 03:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It says that the Petronas Towers are taller. The Willis Tower is 527 m (1,729 ft ) at the top of the antenna, and 442.1 m (1,450 ft) at the roof, while the Petronas Towers are 451.9 m (1,483 ft) at the antenna, 378.6 m (1,242 ft) at the roof, and 375 m (1,230 ft) at the top floor. 75.27.38.167 ( talk) 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The Willis tower is no longer the tallest tower in the United States after May 10, 2013 when the Spire was placed atop the Freedom Tower in New York making it the tallest building in the western hemisphere. -Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.97.18 ( talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
How many spaces does the parking garage have and is it used solely for building occupants and guests? 14:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an error in the caption under the photo of the skyboxes next to the Skydeck section. It says they are on the east facade when, in fact, they are on the west facade. I was able to edit this in the source from Wikimedia Commons, but the change does not appear (yet) on the main Willis Tower page. FYI - I work in the Willis Tower.
Mseabloom ( talk) 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The Sears Tower is built from nine narrow, square, vertical modules—arranged in a three-by-three grid—and only two of which rise to the building's full height. This deserves mention insofar as it is an altogether unique construction paradigm. It also partially explains why the multiple setbacks at floor 66 are always littered with bat carcasses. 98.249.207.46 ( talk) 19:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Willis Tower is the largest building in the United States, not the second largest. From the ground to the top floor the Sears Tower stand taller than the New World Trade Center. The New World Trade Center is the second largest building in the United States with the largest antenna attached to the top of it. If we're talking about the tallest buildings here then the antenna is not something that is included in that measurement. Can a tourist go stand at the top of the antenna? No, so that is not counted into the height of the building. 98.227.30.125 ( talk) 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Though it may be popular in culture, Sears Tower has been renamed to Willis Tower and should no longer be referenced by the Sears Tower name. However, it is unclear to me whether to refer to the tower by its former name when talking about historical moments. Example: The Sears Tower observation deck, called the Skydeck, opened on June 22, 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas hashmi ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, given the historical and cultural importance of the Sears company, it should be referred to as the Sears tower. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:A000:AFC0:2:2160:F200:DE65:E9FD (
talk)
16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The article currently (May 2013) still says the Sears Tower is the tallest building in the U.S., but the link to Wikipedia's article on tallest buildings in the U.S. says it is now number two, befitting the city's nickname. Kdammers ( talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The link does not go to a page that explains this term. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.136.29.223 (
talk)
04:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
In regards to the sky deck cracking and being closed, shouldn't that be changed to the protective coating that protects the glass cracked? The glass itself is structurally fine and the protective coating that protects from scratches was doing it's job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.65.204 ( talk) 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I called "Sears Tower" instead of Willis Tower, because that's what people called that for in Chicago. The height of this building is considered to be 1,730 feet and 527 meters tall with the antenna spire exist adds up a pinnacle height on worldwide. -- Allen Talk 06:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In the pen and paper role playing game "Shadowrun", and in the novel based on the same "Burning Bright", the Willis Tower (called the Sears Tower) is mentioned a few different times. Terrorists, using a combination of magic and heavy explosives, weakened the foundation of the building until it collapsed to the pavement. The resulting damage leveled about 10 blocks in every direction. Because of the haunted nature of the ruins, cleanup was never enacted. The location becomes known as the "Shattergraves", and is home to many varieties of spirit and undead.
Since Shadowrun's on its 5th edition, and has been the subject of video games for SNES, Sega Genesis, Xbox 360, and PC? I figure it's of enough importance to toss this factoid in there. Anyone with editing powers wanna do me the honor? 184.167.51.54 ( talk) 01:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, this article must be named to "Sears Tower" (formerly rather calling the Willis Tower). -- Allen talk 15:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Much is made in the lawsuits section about fears that the Sears Tower would negatively impact TV reception in Chicago, but the article never says whether it actually did. Were the concerns justified or did the tower end up having no impact after all? 68.146.52.234 ( talk) 13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to be updated to include the recent agreement to sell the building to the Blackstone Group for 1.3 billion. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Whbjr (
talk)
20:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
References
I don't believe that. 139.138.6.121 ( talk) 08:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Willis Tower → Sears Tower – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Despite the tower having been renamed over a decade ago, ngrams still shows "Sears Tower" as being the common name, as does a Google Scholar search, which shows 154 results for "Sears Tower" since 2021, compared to 106 for "Willis Tower". JSTOR shows a similar result, with 15 results for "Sears Tower" since 2021, compared to 11 for "Willis Tower". Recent news results do prefer "Willis Tower", but the preference doesn't appear to be strong enough, particularly given the commercial demands, to outweigh ngrams or the scholarly results. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Martinmadison.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't know why this page didn't make it's due diligence and find out that Willis Group existed and that Willis Group Holdings plc was a mayor insurance company. It wasn't an Ltd, but rather a plc.
Currently Willis merged with Towers Watson and the created the Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company. So the naming rights were reassigned to that company. Willis Towers Watson
-- 187.161.146.78 ( talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Willis Tower has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger provided structural engineering services for the design of the entrances. 38.122.189.102 ( talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello all!
This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
Thank you! Remagoxer (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Some sources say that "...the building boasts its own zip code (60606)." This is factually incorrect: other buildings also reside in zip code 60606. , for example 100 S Canal st, Chicago IL (see https://tools.usps.com/zip-code-lookup.htm?byaddress). -- Wesha ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The second sentence says it was completed in 1974, and under “General Information” it also says 1974. However “Record Height” and “History” (“Topping-out and completion”) both say 1973. The building’s own website ( https://www.willistower.com/) says 1973. Rb624 ( talk) 21:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to not move ( non-admin closure) Reading Beans ( talk) 02:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Willis Tower →
Sears Tower – This was discussed 14 years ago, and I think it is worth revisiting after 14 years, because:
1) The decision (to move to Willis Tower) was pretty poor I think, and was apparently based bigly on bad-faith shenanigans on the part of the Willis Tower folks.
2) On the merits, forgetting the doleful previous close, it is hard to tell which is currently the more common name, for me anyway, at this time, but I'm for sticking with Sears
The first point (corrupted previous discussion) isn't really germane, I bring it up mainly to quash any "it's been decided" nonsense. It is the second point -- the merits -- that matters. So let's talk about that.
Herostratus (
talk)
04:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
(FWIW -- and its not worth much of anything -- the 2009 discussions and RM are in the first three threads of Talk:Willis Tower/Archive 2.) Herostratus ( talk)
Don't move it. that isnt its name anymore, and we all have to accept that. Otherwise you are just perpetuating the problem ThatCheeseGuy ( talk) 14:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Chicago Spire!
Why make a comment about the Chicago Spire being the tallest in the world? 1. It won't as the Burj Dubai will be completed before it and this has an estimated height of 2,684 ft. 2. This is not an artical about the Chicago Spire, maybe just make a reference to how the Sears Tower is going to be surpassed in 2010 by the Spire as tallest building in Chicago. 3. This section also reads poorly. i.e. "By either of these measures, the Sears Tower was only surpassed by the Taipei 101 in 2004,[citation needed] and around 2010 the Chicago Spire will be the tallest tower in the world surpassing the Taipei 101 and Sears Tower because it has a height of 2000 feet. The Chicago Spire will be in Chicago."
When measuring the height of a building, the only measurements that are official use to be the actual main structure...not any added spires or antennas. Based on that fact several building would be much shorter then they are depicted in the picture bellow.
110 or 108 Stories Tall???
What is the point of comparing the antenna height to the WTC? Why not then compare it to the CN Tower as well or any other tower ... This is an article about the Sears Tower, not the WTC or the events that transpired on 9/11.
Answer: The difference between the antennas on Sears Tower vs WTC...is the ones on WTC were added to the building. The antennas on top of the Sears Tower are actually part of the main columns that run down the center of the building to the foundation. This fact is spoken of during the tour. The height of building to the rooftop is 1,359FT...However, 150FT of the height of the antennas is part of the structure of the build....with the rest being mounted - ADDED TechieXP
Also, by definition of the word 'tower', The Canadian National is a true tower, the Sears Tower is not. Sears Tower is just a title or in this case used as a proper name. The CN Tower is an actual tower.
Who owns the building?
Comparing the cost of building the CN Tower to the Sears Tower is fairly pointless, the CN Tower is basically a hollow concrete pillar and the Sears Tower is an office building. -
SINFUL OCTOPUS
04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea if I'm going to mess this page up or not (first time posting anything here....)
But 3.8 million square feet != 418,064 square meters
I don't know which is correct but the math is clearly wrong.
The number of stories appears to differ between this page (110) and others.
50 Tallest buildings in the U.S. and
Worlds tallest structures say 108. —
Mulad 03:26, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is 110 stories per http://www.thesearstower.com/.
Finally someone got it right regarding the ludicrousness of assigning "world's tallest" title to the other buildings.
Since we have a picture of the Hancock Building from the Sears Tower, would there be a problem if I posted a personal PD picture of the Sears Tower from the Hancock Building? Just to get a visual reference between the two? BrianL03 08:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article lists the height at 520 m, yet the Taipai as surpassing it, even though that is only 508/509 m high. Explain? - Guest - Trauma
Regarding height, the 'highest restrooms' bit in figures and statistics has no mention of source and I can personally vouch for having used restrooms in the Shanghai WFC above 423m. So I have removed this line.
I was the one that entered the statistic about the restrooms, that was over a year ago before the opening of the Shanghai WFC, I have since edited it to include this fact based on your firsthand information about the higher restrooms. I still think its interesting to point out that the Sears has the highest in the western hemisphere and the second highest in the world, this is to distinguish itself from the CN Tower which has a higher observation deck but without a restroom. To me a floor is more of an "occupied floor" if it has a restroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago103 ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, stop changing the building that surpasses the Sears Tower as the world's tallest as the Petronas Towers. If you read the infobox, it clearly states that it is talking about highest habitable structure by roof-top, by which account the sears tower is clearly taller. -- Quasipalm 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The only problem is that is not the standard for deciding the world's tallest building. The official standard set by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat states that the official manner of declaring the world's tallest building is to the architectural top not the roof-top. Under this the Petronas Towers are taller and should be listed. If you need backup you can look at the page about the tallest building in the world or I will gladly give you multiple sources that back up my opinion including a book written by the CTBUH. Aausterm 21:55, February 20, 2007 (CT)
...But it says the Sears Tower's top is 527m, and the Petronas Towers' is 452...?
"The actual LEGAL height of the Sears Tower is 1,450FT that is from ground to the top....including 100FT of the antennas which are actually part of the main support columns. The rest of the antennas height is added. The building height itself is 1350FT to the roof-top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechieXP ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Tapei is taller but has 9 less stories, more head space? Are there stories you can't stand up in?
The floors are larger on the 101, plus it has a spire. Judge for yourself.
Soakologist
22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hola,
ok so like this is the way i think about it. why on everything else((like the buildings)) they count the antennas, but on the sears tower they dont count it at all? that is not only retarded but ridiculous! i think that the sears tower like any other tower, should have its antennas counted. why is it this way??? please give me some feed-back! - 71.36.49.42 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do people keep erroneously refering to the "antennae" on Sears Tower in height calculations? They are self-supporting triangular communication towers integral to the building's superstructure -- they are not antennae. An antenna is an electromagnetic conductor of radio and televison waves.
The original cylindrical bases that rise directly out of the building's frame required significant reinforcement of the entire upper one-third of the building during construction -- years before Sears Tower even became a primary transmitter location in downtown. Therefore, it should go without debate that both the triangular support towers and the cylindrical bases do not broadcast or receive anything (although they are struck by lighting). So thus by definition the oft-cited "antennae" on Sears Tower are only so in part. With the exception of the new HDTV antennae at the four corners of the roof, the major antenna pylons are located at the pinnacles of the existing communication towers.
I find it rather disconcerting that even after almost 15 years (since the Petronas Towers debate first emerged), people still refuse to actually learn the truth about what is and is not an antenna simply because the engineering ignorance and incompetence of the CTBUH continues to brainwash the general public into readily accepting "misfacts" even to the point of publishing it in Wikipedia. Please understand, the CTBUH may be an established technical body, but that doesn't make the organization completely infallible. -- RKrause ( talk)
How can the Sears Tower be in a game that doesn't occur on Earth, or at least not our Earth? The game has a completely different geography and political layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.139.161.72 ( talk) 21:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Assuming it becomes official and sourced, would the new nickname be properly spelled "Big Willy" or "Big Willie"? An quick search of Google finds
"a man's willy" – 527 "a man's willie" – 36
but of course per WP:GOOGLE that's only a popularity test and wouldn't be citable as proof of a "correct" spelling. -- CliffC ( talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the nickname Big Willie is official. Both Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and, more importantly, Willis Group Holdings' Chairman and CEO, Joseph Plumeri, have publicly stated in interviews their acceptance of Big Willie as a household reference for the building.
I realize it seems ludicrous -- numerous marketing experts have argued that this was a branding faux pas. But it is nonethless a public affirmation of the nickname and is readily verifiable via numerous online news sources, providing further evidence that the nickname is officially sanctioned by two very reputable people involved. Therefore, I believe Big Willie should be cited in the article. -- RKrause ( talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It strikes me that when referring to historical periods, the name Sears should still be used. Examples include mention that the building (then known as Sears) was tallest from 1974-1998, or the note that "In an episode of the television series, Monk, Adrian Monk tries to conquer his fear of heights by imagining that he is on top of Willis Tower." since it was called the Sears Tower at the time the episode was films and within the episode. Shsilver ( talk) 15:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah really. It's the Sears Tower. Changing it to Willis is just a disgrace to Chicago culture. Just keep it as Sears Tower on here. -- 24.13.44.207 ( talk) 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Guideline needed I have just started a discussion at the Manual of Style regarding a similar situation. I would appreciate input there on my particular query, and I think that if it doesn't already exist a guideline for project-wide re-namings of buildings, towns, etc. should be created, although I am not sure exactly where within the project namespace it should go. Sswonk ( talk) 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Common name is lovely, when it's not inaccurate. Calling this "Sears Tower" is inaccurate. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Consistency of historic references I'm inclined to agree. All historic references should refer to the building as it was named during that time period; e.g. "The Sears Tower itself was not the draw Sears hoped it would be" naturally makes a great deal more sense than "The Willis Tower itself was not the draw Sears hoped it would be." -- RKrause ( talk) 01:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The page is locked, so I can't correct:
In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies" extending approximately four feet over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.
Bad sentence structure. Sounds like the balconies are four feet over the street. Make sure modifying words are modifying the correct words. Should read this:
In January 2009, the Skydeck began a major renovation including the installation of "glass balconies", approximately four feet in width, extending over Wacker Drive from the 103rd floor.
-- 97.113.116.173 ( talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a UNIQUE media showing the Glass Balcony in an interactive panorama, where the viewer will see it as he would be there himself, he can move the view around in any direction bz dragging with the mouse on the pic.. As this is not a still picture nor a movie, the only way is to bring it in is as an external link. Unfortunately the site reviewer are removing the link faster than they can understand what it is...
here again the link http://www.360cities.net/image/sears-tower-skydeck-window-chicago it is most probably the first panorama done on the Glass Balcony photo taken by Jeffrey Martin processing of images and transforming to an interactive panorama by me wkaemena Wkaemena ( talk) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The official name of the renovated observation deck at 233 S Wacker Dr is "Skydeck Chicago" as can be verified on the official site and in various publicity materials. -- RKrause ( talk) 01:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was leave at Willis Tower. This discussion is contentious with fairly valid arguments made on both sides - there is a good point that a fair proportion of media sources do still seem to call this the Sears Tower. That said, there's also strong argument that usage of Willis Tower is widespread and increasing, and that it's clearly the "correct" name officially - the argument therefore comes down to an entirely subjective interpretation of what the "common name" is. Given that a clear majority here seem to think that Willis Tower is sufficiently widespread to constitute a common name, and that that usage is only likely to increase with time, I am confident that the article's current placement is most appropriate given the consensus present in this discussion. ~ mazca talk 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've move protected this article indefinitely to suppress further move-warring. Once consensus is formed, please ask an admin to unprotect it if necessary. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel it should be at least noted the controversial nature of the up coming name change. It has become a pretty big issue in Chicago with many people feeling that it is sort of like attacking a land mark. Ive heard comparisons drawn that it is like if some one renamed the Statue of Liberty the Loyd's of London Statue. There has been a lot of media coverage of local out rage over this change. If no one disagrees with me I plan on making the addition some time in the near future. 131.230.146.135 ( talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This page should be "Sears Tower", you can make a new page for "Willis Tower" for the building from 2009 - on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theige ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not about Sears adverts. The World Series is named for the New York World even though it no longer exists. Common language calls it the sears tower. Would you change the name of the great pyramids if somebody bought the naming rights from the local government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.198.194 ( talk) 05:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the page should be Willis Tower, as it is, with redirection fom Sears Tower. I don't like the new name either, but it is a private building and landmark or not, they can change the name - that's just part of capitalism. And Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should use official names of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.152.195 ( talk) 20:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering if a photo or simply a blurb about the ongoing defacing of the Willis Tower signage should be mentioned in the article. It seems it is of a noteworthy nature particularly given the publicity surrounding the name change. -- RKrause ( talk) 01:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The Sears Tower is a supertall skyscraper in Chicago, Illinois, and the tallest building in the United States since 1973, surpassing the World Trade Center. By all other measures (official height, roof height, and highest occupied floor) the Sears Tower was always taller than the World Trade Center.
All measures other than what? TheHYPO
"Sears Tower was the world's tallest building from 1974 to 1998.[I]"
I do not understand why the article says this??? If it was offically the Sears Tower until this year why did some dumb person change this to the Willis Tower?? The Willis tower did not exist in 1974 to 1998. Please unlock and fix this error. All Chicagoans still call it the Sears Tower anyways. Really the title of the article should be "Sears Tower (officially Willis Tower)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.88.173 ( talk) 01:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
|building_name
parameter. While "Sears Tower" may be more correct in this historical context, the caption can't be changed unless the template syntax is altered. Cheers,
Rai•
me
04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Dictionaries change definitions based on how people use the words. Most people still call this building the Sears Tower. Its legal name is Willis Tower, but that should not change how it is labeled in Wikipedia. At least, when a person searches for Sears Tower, they should be directed to a page about the Sears Tower and not re-directed to the Willis Tower page. The Sears Tower deserves its own page seperate from the Willis Tower. Wikipedia is a website for and by the people. The foreign corporation that bought the legal naming rights should not dictate how Americans refer to their buildings. This site should begin by stating that the "Willis Tower used to legally be called the Sears Tower. However it is still known as the Sears Tower." The name Willis should not be used again in the rest of the article. Architect8 ( talk) 06:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Protocol suggests making a request to other editors before setting up automatic archiving of an article talk page, so that't what this is. With stray comments being added to older topics here from time to time, especially about the name of the building, I think it would be wise to set up automatic archiving to move threads that are seven days old or older into the archives, starting with a new "Archive 3" page. The bot will start a new archive page whenever the current one reaches 150K in size. Here is the code:
{{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(7d) |archive = Talk:Willis Tower/Archive %(counter)d |counter = 3 |maxarchivesize = 150K }}
The archive box at the top of the page will have to be adjusted slightly to keep up with this, and helped along by moving the "Move" archive to "Archive 2" so the archives will have names the bots and templates can understand. Regular editors, please briefly comment below. Unless there is substantial debate, objection, etc. then I will set this up tomorrow morning to begin then. Sswonk ( talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Done The automatic archiving is now configured as shown. The "
/Move" links redirect to "
/Archive 2" so nothing else needs to be changed.
Sswonk (
talk)
13:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? You folks are arguing over archiving? -- Golbez ( talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no mention of United renting out a significant portion of the tower for their Operations Control Center. Surely it should be mentioned seeing as how they'll be the largest tenant in the tower. Yes, beating out Willis. Maybe it should be renamed the United Tower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.161.102 ( talk) 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
From an engineering perspective, I think it is noteworthy that the building currently maintains the title of the tallest freestanding steel structure (i.e. the tallest steel-framed skyscraper) in the world. It is also likely to hold this title for the foreseeable future as fewer and fewer supertalls are being designed and constructed of a steel skeleton -- reinforced concrete is both a more economical and more practical alternative.
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/Tallest/CTBUH_TallestSteel.pdf
As shown above, CTBUH publishes a ranking of the tallest steel structure buildings. Perhaps this fact should be mentioned in the article. -- RKrause ( talk) 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I was perusing the external links, and I think some revisions might be in order:
Willis Tower in the Structurae Database The database entry is actually titled "Sears Tower", so perhaps the link should reflect that. Then again, what is the reasoning for linking to the Structurae Database? There's nothing significantly noteworthy about the information it provides compared to other more comprehensive and up-to-date resources like Emporis.
SkyscraperPage diagram of Willis Tower This page produces an error message: "We're sorry, this section of SkyscraperPage.com is currently unavailable." In fact, the database has been offline persistently for four weeks. I would recommend simply removing the link until such time as the Webmaster has restored the service.
Of course, these are just suggestions. But in attempting to consistently improve this article, I think that all external resources should be reliable, functional, and of high quality -- RKrause ( talk) 17:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"Until 2000, the Sears Tower did not hold the record for the tallest building by pinnacle height. From 1969-1978, this record was held by the John Hancock Center, whose antenna reached a height of 1,500 ft (457.2 m), or 49 ft (14.8 m) taller than the Sears Tower's original height of 1,451 ft (442 m)."
How can this statement be true? Sears Tower was completed in 1974 with two 85 foot tall antenna bases, for a pinnacle height of 1518 feet. You can even see this in the construction photos. John Hancock Center was never taller than Sears Tower following its completion. These types of claims should always have citations. If nobody objects, I will remove this statement. -- RKrause ( talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There was nothing in the article about the plot to blow up the tower. It seems to me that a terrorist plot would be a notable event in any building's history, especially if the plot was as serious as this one. I've added a small section which I believe doesn't give undue weight to the event. Let me know if it's a problem. -- NellieBly ( talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Listed as 108, official site lists 110. Source: http://www.willistower.com/
I have to agree with the person above. The Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) has 110 floors. This article is incorrect. Now, I don't believe anyone was counting the roof when they stated 110 floors, that wouldn't make sense. But mechanical penthouses or whatever, are still floors in the building. It doesn't matter the reason for the mechanical penthouses existence, the floors are still there that they occupy. Checking dozens of other resources, they all state 110 floors are in the building. And if the official website states 110 floors, well, come on, you can't get much more official than that. In addition, the article should go beyond stating this is the "tallest building in the United States". Although true, it's also the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, which would include both North America and South America, most of the United Kingdom, and northwestern Africa. When relaying information on the building's height, the largest geographical region should always be given at least once in the article. In this case, that would be the Western Hemisphere, or at the very least, state it is the largest in the American Hemisphere, which would include just North and South America. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.192.176.30 (
talk)
01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That terminology works well too: The tallest building in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 ( talk) 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw this on Modern Marvel, the Sears Tower. It stated that the Sears Tower has 110 floors, more that 25,000 people walk in every day. It has 104 elevators, and some are double deckers. Something coming out of the History Channel should be official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickylain ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The link for that portion of the article is out of date and I'm wondering if there is any credible source explaining why reflecting light and heat rather than absorbing it in a cold environment would actually save energy. Seems back a**kwards to me. -Eaglescout1984 19:14, 4 January 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 ( talk • contribs)
Under the photo of the Skydeck's protruding glass boxes (shot from street level), the caption states that they are on the "east facade." Will someone with editing capabilities please correct this to read "west facade." 67.168.135.45 ( talk) 09:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
On Family Feud, the episode that aired on January 12, 2010, at noon on Syracuse channel Fox-68 WSYT the question was "Name something that Chicago is known for" and wind was number one with 49/100 points; the Willis Tower was number three but it was still called the Sears Tower on the show. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you belive this thing might have been significantly higher but the FAA shot em down? Then, then they go and stick two Huge Permanant antennas on it that hinder air traffic as much as building would. It could have been 132 floors and no higher than it is now to the antennas. And Sears might have pushed it that far, too. Who knows. They had no financial issue then that's for sure. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, lol I can't believe you brought up the KVLY mast thing, I was gonna mention that! Do you know of any other things/articles on structures where the FCC/FAA is brought up for similiar reasons? Daniel Christensen ( talk) 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
On the page it says the building is "destroyed" in the film. But actually it is only damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabZach ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this article at "Willis Tower" rather than "Sears Tower"? I'll admit that I'm really too familiar with how things are done here, but according to this "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article" and the common English-language name of that building remains the Sears Tower.
In the last month 52 news stories mentioned the Sears Tower, while only 42 news stories mentioned the Willis Tower. When major publications refer to the tower, Sears Tower generally takes precedence in the naming:
From [[The New Yorker]: "Kuala Lumpur’s Petronas Towers (one thousand four hundred and eighty-two feet) are thirty-two feet taller than Chicago’s Sears Tower (or Willis Tower, as it is now called)" - clearly Sears Tower is the real name, Willis Tower is a mere parenthetical [11]
Many other sources don't even mention the Willis Name, for example The Economic Times - "Christened as World One, the tower will be higher than some of the iconic global landmarks including Sears Tower in Chicago" [12], the New York Times -" including the plan to bomb the Herald Square subway station, the plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago " [13], Wired - "There are several models including Fallingwater, the Guggenheim Museum, the Empire State Building, Seattle’s Space Needle, the Sears Tower and the John Hancock Building." [14] and many, many more.
Reliable sources also confirm that the tower is better known as the Sears Tower. "An ambitious planned renovation of Willis Tower (formerly and better known as the Sears Tower)" [15], for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagolander ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Corporate rebranding nonsense - this should be Sears tower. That's ok, when the rights change again, we will just change the name again, ignoring COMMONNAME. What a load of nonsense, wikipedia is a corporate cesspool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.162.10 ( talk) 13:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that we have reached a consensus that this should be called Sears Tower. Can someone go ahead and rename the article? Stargate70 ( talk) 01:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the actual name, the name in common usage is the Sears Tower. People actually in Chicago will probably not ever refer to the building as the Willis Tower. Do you see people rushing off to rename one of Frank Lloyd Wrights buildings? No. The Pentagon isn't getting a new name. Neither is the White House. The Sears Tower is named for the company that built it and it should remain that way for all time. If some corporation buys up the rights to the name of the Golden Gate Bridge, would still refer to it as the Golden Gate? This is really an issue of history and not really about how cool the name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.5.126 ( talk) 11:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Are there really no pictures of the construction of the Sears Tower? It must have been fairly widely covered in the media. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Also I can't believe there are no pictures from the skydeck here. There are tons of freely licensed pictures on flickr. Maybe I'm missing something but I'm gonna upload a couple. One thing I don't get is that some are under a CC license but still say request to license via Getty Images. I changed a photo to CC to see what happened and the Getty Images thing disappeared. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 21:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "At the time of its completion in 1973, it was the tallest building in the world, surpassing the World Trade Center towers in New York, and it held this rank for nearly 25 years." to "At the time of completion in 1973, it was the tallest building in the world, surpassing the World Trade Centre towers 1 and 2 in New York, until the completion of the CN Tower in Toronto 3 Years later."
Seanm775 ( talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The tower was used in Transformers Dark of the Moon. It is used by the military. They use it to sneak into Chicago. The tower is later destroyed in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 ( talk) 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You are right, i have seen the movie and it is destroyed and used to sneak into Chicago. I will add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvalou ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The article lists the Willis Tower as the fifth tallest freestanding structure in the world. Included in that description is a link to the article listing the tallest freestanding structures in the world, which clearly places the Willis tower as seventh. 24.252.249.102 ( talk) 06:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The figure about the building leaning 4 inches to the West is undocumented and false. According to the new owners of the "Sears Tower" name, the building was designed to lean 6 inches to counteract for the rotation of the Earth -- a fact that engineers later discovered was unnecessary. Documented at http://www.searstower.org/home.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.182.118 ( talk) 03:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It says that the Petronas Towers are taller. The Willis Tower is 527 m (1,729 ft ) at the top of the antenna, and 442.1 m (1,450 ft) at the roof, while the Petronas Towers are 451.9 m (1,483 ft) at the antenna, 378.6 m (1,242 ft) at the roof, and 375 m (1,230 ft) at the top floor. 75.27.38.167 ( talk) 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The Willis tower is no longer the tallest tower in the United States after May 10, 2013 when the Spire was placed atop the Freedom Tower in New York making it the tallest building in the western hemisphere. -Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.97.18 ( talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
How many spaces does the parking garage have and is it used solely for building occupants and guests? 14:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an error in the caption under the photo of the skyboxes next to the Skydeck section. It says they are on the east facade when, in fact, they are on the west facade. I was able to edit this in the source from Wikimedia Commons, but the change does not appear (yet) on the main Willis Tower page. FYI - I work in the Willis Tower.
Mseabloom ( talk) 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The Sears Tower is built from nine narrow, square, vertical modules—arranged in a three-by-three grid—and only two of which rise to the building's full height. This deserves mention insofar as it is an altogether unique construction paradigm. It also partially explains why the multiple setbacks at floor 66 are always littered with bat carcasses. 98.249.207.46 ( talk) 19:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Willis Tower is the largest building in the United States, not the second largest. From the ground to the top floor the Sears Tower stand taller than the New World Trade Center. The New World Trade Center is the second largest building in the United States with the largest antenna attached to the top of it. If we're talking about the tallest buildings here then the antenna is not something that is included in that measurement. Can a tourist go stand at the top of the antenna? No, so that is not counted into the height of the building. 98.227.30.125 ( talk) 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Though it may be popular in culture, Sears Tower has been renamed to Willis Tower and should no longer be referenced by the Sears Tower name. However, it is unclear to me whether to refer to the tower by its former name when talking about historical moments. Example: The Sears Tower observation deck, called the Skydeck, opened on June 22, 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas hashmi ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, given the historical and cultural importance of the Sears company, it should be referred to as the Sears tower. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2605:A000:AFC0:2:2160:F200:DE65:E9FD (
talk)
16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The article currently (May 2013) still says the Sears Tower is the tallest building in the U.S., but the link to Wikipedia's article on tallest buildings in the U.S. says it is now number two, befitting the city's nickname. Kdammers ( talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The link does not go to a page that explains this term. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.136.29.223 (
talk)
04:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
In regards to the sky deck cracking and being closed, shouldn't that be changed to the protective coating that protects the glass cracked? The glass itself is structurally fine and the protective coating that protects from scratches was doing it's job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.65.204 ( talk) 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I called "Sears Tower" instead of Willis Tower, because that's what people called that for in Chicago. The height of this building is considered to be 1,730 feet and 527 meters tall with the antenna spire exist adds up a pinnacle height on worldwide. -- Allen Talk 06:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In the pen and paper role playing game "Shadowrun", and in the novel based on the same "Burning Bright", the Willis Tower (called the Sears Tower) is mentioned a few different times. Terrorists, using a combination of magic and heavy explosives, weakened the foundation of the building until it collapsed to the pavement. The resulting damage leveled about 10 blocks in every direction. Because of the haunted nature of the ruins, cleanup was never enacted. The location becomes known as the "Shattergraves", and is home to many varieties of spirit and undead.
Since Shadowrun's on its 5th edition, and has been the subject of video games for SNES, Sega Genesis, Xbox 360, and PC? I figure it's of enough importance to toss this factoid in there. Anyone with editing powers wanna do me the honor? 184.167.51.54 ( talk) 01:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, this article must be named to "Sears Tower" (formerly rather calling the Willis Tower). -- Allen talk 15:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Much is made in the lawsuits section about fears that the Sears Tower would negatively impact TV reception in Chicago, but the article never says whether it actually did. Were the concerns justified or did the tower end up having no impact after all? 68.146.52.234 ( talk) 13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to be updated to include the recent agreement to sell the building to the Blackstone Group for 1.3 billion. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Whbjr (
talk)
20:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
References
I don't believe that. 139.138.6.121 ( talk) 08:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Willis Tower → Sears Tower – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Despite the tower having been renamed over a decade ago, ngrams still shows "Sears Tower" as being the common name, as does a Google Scholar search, which shows 154 results for "Sears Tower" since 2021, compared to 106 for "Willis Tower". JSTOR shows a similar result, with 15 results for "Sears Tower" since 2021, compared to 11 for "Willis Tower". Recent news results do prefer "Willis Tower", but the preference doesn't appear to be strong enough, particularly given the commercial demands, to outweigh ngrams or the scholarly results. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Martinmadison.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't know why this page didn't make it's due diligence and find out that Willis Group existed and that Willis Group Holdings plc was a mayor insurance company. It wasn't an Ltd, but rather a plc.
Currently Willis merged with Towers Watson and the created the Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company. So the naming rights were reassigned to that company. Willis Towers Watson
-- 187.161.146.78 ( talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Willis Tower has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger provided structural engineering services for the design of the entrances. 38.122.189.102 ( talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello all!
This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
Thank you! Remagoxer (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Some sources say that "...the building boasts its own zip code (60606)." This is factually incorrect: other buildings also reside in zip code 60606. , for example 100 S Canal st, Chicago IL (see https://tools.usps.com/zip-code-lookup.htm?byaddress). -- Wesha ( talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The second sentence says it was completed in 1974, and under “General Information” it also says 1974. However “Record Height” and “History” (“Topping-out and completion”) both say 1973. The building’s own website ( https://www.willistower.com/) says 1973. Rb624 ( talk) 21:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to not move ( non-admin closure) Reading Beans ( talk) 02:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Willis Tower →
Sears Tower – This was discussed 14 years ago, and I think it is worth revisiting after 14 years, because:
1) The decision (to move to Willis Tower) was pretty poor I think, and was apparently based bigly on bad-faith shenanigans on the part of the Willis Tower folks.
2) On the merits, forgetting the doleful previous close, it is hard to tell which is currently the more common name, for me anyway, at this time, but I'm for sticking with Sears
The first point (corrupted previous discussion) isn't really germane, I bring it up mainly to quash any "it's been decided" nonsense. It is the second point -- the merits -- that matters. So let's talk about that.
Herostratus (
talk)
04:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
(FWIW -- and its not worth much of anything -- the 2009 discussions and RM are in the first three threads of Talk:Willis Tower/Archive 2.) Herostratus ( talk)
Don't move it. that isnt its name anymore, and we all have to accept that. Otherwise you are just perpetuating the problem ThatCheeseGuy ( talk) 14:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)