The Most Iconic Skyscraper/Tower in the World today

[Roadcruiser1]

I am going to add these two.

Petronas Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.



Willis (Sears) Tower in Chicago

[THE BIG APPLE]

Obviously the freakin Empire State Building. No one knows the Chrysler Building. No one knows the Woolworth Building. You think I'm joking. Ask a random New Yorker and say the last 2, and the response will be a simple "huh". Everyone knows the ESB, and the Eiffel is a close second. As I said a random NYer, so ask anyone who doesn't live in NYC: Good luck. Two buildings in the world are the only two icons in terms of skyscrapers, unless you count the Pyramids.

[JManc]

i suspect everyone is more familiar with the name, "empire state building", than the building itself. i can't tell you how many people ask me if my models of the sears tower and chrysler building are the empire state building.

i also suspect that as time goes on and the empire state building falls further down the list of tallest buildings (both around the world and in NY), its profile will diminish somewhat as pretty much every region around the world now has their own iconic skyscraper.

[Rico Rommheim]

People know the words "Sears Tower". Maybe some will associate it with Chicago. Although people I know think its in New York. Almost everyone I know have no idea how it looks like.

Everyone I know have heard of the Empire State Building, but upon my most recent trip there, my travelling partners weren't able to identify it, not even when we could all clearly see it from 10 blocks away.

[pico44]

If the question were skyscrapers-only, then it would be the ESB by a factor of 100. The only skyscrapers that ever came close were the Twin Towers, and only for a a couple hours. But if you include "towers", then no doubt it is The Eiffel Tower.

All structures and I think The Statue of Liberty might very well take it.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

People know the words "Sears Tower". Maybe some will associate it with Chicago. Although people I know think its in New York. Almost everyone I know have no idea how it looks like.

I lived in downstate Illinois for part of my childhood and I would say most people there knew what the Sears Tower looked like, they might confuse it with the Hancock both being tall black buildings with two antennas and visa versa many knew of the Hancock but might confuse it with Sears but since most would be approaching Chicago from the south would have no problem correctly identifying Sears and most in the 1990's knew it was the tallest in the world. I would say the Saint Louis Arch and the Sears Tower/Chicago skyline in general are well known by sight to most in Illinois. The St. Louis Arch probably tops by sight for people in the southern half of Illinois simply because it's closer to them and also as I said Sears and Hancock look similar to some but the Arch has such a distinctive look it literally can't be mistaken for anything else.

I also know people as far as the upper peninsula of Michigan who at least know the Sears Tower in Chicago was once the tallest in the world (or even thought it still was), the Hancock even was known to older people up there. I think Chicago's towering presence (figurative and literal) over the rest of the Midwest makes it's most famous landmarks at least reasonably well known. Now I think if you leave the midwest it is much more hit and miss, I don't think the average person in California or the northeast could recognize the Sears Tower and since time has passed since it's true WTB status I think an increasing number of people under 25 outside the midwest might not have even heard of it. Regionalism makes us think well know landmarks in our area are more globally famous than what they really are. For instance even though I was a skyscraper fan since I was a small child I had not even heard of the CN Tower and knew next to nothing of of Toronto until I was like 11 or 12, probably because it is not a skyscraper and thus it wasn't in books I read on the topic and in the early 1990's Canada was pretty far off the radar for a Chicago-centric midwestern boy. That may be shocking for Canadians but it demonstrates how we see things through the regional lens we grow up in, the upside is in the past 20 years Canada's and Toronto's stature has risen dramatically and I know many more ordinary people who at least know of the CN Tower now.

As far as skyscrapers I would say pre 9/11 the Empire State Building was the most famous and recognizable skyscraper in the world but since 9/11 the old World Trade Center towers are probably the most recognizable by sight skyscrapers that have ever existed. They are really the only skyscrapers where a major event in world history happened. As far as tall structures of any kind I would say the Eiffel Tower and the Great Pyramids are the most recognizable by sight.

[JManc]

even before 9/11, the world trade center were probably more recognizable than the empire state building considering that there were no other sets of twin skycsrapers of that size anywhere until petronas were built in 1998 while it's easy to muddle the empire state building when there are about a half dozen other tall art deco buildings around manhattan alone. plus if people didn't acknowledge the WTC as the WTC, they knew them as the "twin towers".

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by JManc

even before 9/11, the world trade center were probably more recognizable than the empire state building considering that there were no other sets of twin skycsrapers of that size anywhere until petronas were built in 1998 while it's easy to muddle the empire state building when there are about a half dozen other tall art deco buildings around manhattan alone. plus if people didn't acknowledge the WTC as the WTC, they knew them as the "twin towers".

You are right by the virtue that the ESB can be mistaken for the Chrysler or a few others but the WTC really were unique in their look. Also the WTC was seen in many movies set in NYC before 9/11. I guess it goes back to the argument if something quite famous by name but can easily be confused by sight is it less famous than something more unique looking? It goes back to the famous by name vs. famous by sight. In that sense pre-9/11 the ESB was more famous by name but by sight the WTC might have been more famous by sight even then.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Actually I change my mind, the WTC I was probably more iconic in it's day than ESB for exactly those reasons.

Let's just put it this way; there was a reason they chose to attack the WTC towers and not the ESB... Now their fame has only been increased by infamy. Kinda like the Burning of Rome or Great Chicago Fire.

[Roadcruiser1]

Since people are talking about it. I will introduce the John Hancock Center in Chicago to the game.



Another one would be the UN Building in New York City.

[Roadcruiser1]

Oh yeah the Twin Towers were famous before 9/11. Philippe Petit is the most famous example. His tightrope walk between the Twin Towers made them famous like King Kong to the Empire State Building.

[mhays]

^^ I doubt most people know that one.

Again, people are wildly overestimating how much the general public knows about office towers. Being in some movies and news stories isn't enough. Keep in mind that a movie can gross $100m and still be unseen by most. Plus we're talking about the world, not just people in the US.

[MolsonExport]

Freddie Mercury.



Building: ESB. No question.
Tower: Eiffel. No question.

[THE BIG APPLE]

^ EXACTLY I said the same thing a few posts back.

[Roadcruiser1]

Originally Posted by mhays

^^ I doubt most people know that one.

Again, people are wildly overestimating how much the general public knows about office towers. Being in some movies and news stories isn't enough. Keep in mind that a movie can gross $100m and still be unseen by most. Plus we're talking about the world, not just people in the US.

There is a movie on it called Man On Wire. It's available worldwide.

[THE BIG APPLE]

^ The movie Man on Wire came out in 2008. It debuted at the Sun Dance Film Festival in Salt Lake City. Many few people in the U.S even know about that film.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Actually I change my mind, the WTC I was probably more iconic in it's day than ESB for exactly those reasons.

Let's just put it this way; there was a reason they chose to attack the WTC towers and not the ESB... Now their fame has only been increased by infamy. Kinda like the Burning of Rome or Great Chicago Fire.

i don't think it had anything to do with their recognition or notoriety as skyscrapers but rather that were symbols of American economic power much as the Pentagon represents military power and the plane downed in PA was suspected to have been targeting either the capitol or white house (obvious symbols of US political power)

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by JManc

even before 9/11, the world trade center were probably more recognizable than the empire state building considering that there were no other sets of twin skycsrapers of that size anywhere until petronas were built in 1998 while it's easy to muddle the empire state building when there are about a half dozen other tall art deco buildings around manhattan alone. plus if people didn't acknowledge the WTC as the WTC, they knew them as the "twin towers".

I agree. When I was young,I knew the WTC as the Twin Towers. 9/11 happened when I was a kid and before that,when looking at countless pictures of the classic view of Manhattan with the Statue of Liberty,I remembered two tall buildings being a part of that whole fabric. It's that iconic view and others like it that makes the old WTC a very recognizable structure.

[jsr]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

You are right by the virtue that the ESB can be mistaken for the Chrysler or a few others but the WTC really were unique in their look. Also the WTC was seen in many movies set in NYC before 9/11. I guess it goes back to the argument if something quite famous by name but can easily be confused by sight is it less famous than something more unique looking? It goes back to the famous by name vs. famous by sight. In that sense pre-9/11 the ESB was more famous by name but by sight the WTC might have been more famous by sight even then.

I think you have a pretty strong point here.

Another interesting thought is the WTC was heavily featured in print advertising and TV/film establishing shots, but was rarely itself the central focus of those scenes. Other icons such as the Brooklyn Bridge or the Statue of Liberty were typically front and center, with the towers providing a familiar background. I think this is inline with the idea that the towers were universally recognizable (and hence iconic) by their sheer size, simple shape, and twin nature, but not because of architectural beauty.

[RCDC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument