Top 10 Tallest Buildings through time

Austin55 · #1 Posted **Jan 20, 2008, 6:52 AM**

Interesting stuff from the diagram system. Follow the links to see the top ten tallest during that year. (hopefully this is in the right place)

(sorted by official hight)(WTC on there just for comparison)

2012ish
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=39273073

Current
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=39273085

2000
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=39273100

1990
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=39273108

1980
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=39273124

1970
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=39273135

1960
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=39273145

Diagrams Page

If you have any other interesting ones,go ahead and post em.

Canadian Mind · #2 Posted **Jan 20, 2008, 7:58 AM**

Fancy seeing toronto up there for a bit.

I think you got lazy with the 1990's and onwards. first FCP is shorter than AON centre, then it is taller due tot he antenna.

Quite a change the last few years.

nygirl1 · #3 Posted **Jan 20, 2008, 4:02 PM**

There are 2 buildings missing from your 1980-2000 links. You should have marked the box next to buildings tht have been destroyed. 1& 2 World trade center would have left several buildings off your top ten lists during those years.

-Citicorp in Ny and the Renaissance tower in Dallas shouldn't be on the 1980 list
- The AIB in NY and Columbia Center in Seattle shouldn't be on the '85 list
- AT&T Corp in Chi and JP Morgan Chase in Houston wouldn't make the 1990 list
- US Bank in LA and BOA in Atlanta off the '95 list
- In 2000 no Seg Plaza, Shenzen or Emirati Tower in Dubai.

Cool idea though, just a flawed list.
Why is JHC all of a sudeen taller than ESB in 1995 and then in 2000 ESB stays and JHC goes?

gttx · #4 Posted **Jan 20, 2008, 4:25 PM**

There are a few missing from the earliest diagrams - two that immediately come to mind are St. Peter's in Rome (I believe it's about 500 ft to the top) and the tower in Venice's Piazza San Marco.

The Singer Building (which was destroyed) is also missing on the early diagrams.

LivingIn622 · #5 Posted **Jan 20, 2008, 5:51 PM**

You missed some in the earlier years.

jhmo75793 · #6 Posted **Jan 20, 2008, 6:12 PM**

you forgot the wtc.

mhays · #7 Posted **Jan 20, 2008, 7:34 PM**

Hey, let Seattle have its day re: 1985!

I can even gerrymander a good argument: Some people (not me) consider any connected complex, such as WTC, to be one building. As for the American International Building, it's often debated whether a spire counts. Consider all that and the Columbia Center might have been #10 when it opened.

I can dream, can't I?

FrancoRey · #8 Posted **Jan 20, 2008, 8:17 PM**

Yeah, and how about Denver in 1910! 6th tallest tower in the world baby! W00t!!!!

Since then we haven't even come close in towers. In 1985, we had one at #58, I think.

mhays · #9 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 1:28 AM**

Thanks for the reminder! Seattle had #9 in 1920. Subtracting the newer ones listed, it would have been #6 in 1914 when it opened. Not bad for a city of 300,000 or so, barely out of its small town frontier days.

Viktorkrum77 · #10 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 2:00 AM**

Is there a reason the World Trade Center twin towers are omitted from the 2000-1970 diagrams? And also, where are the Renaissance Center (Detroit, main tower) and Peachtree Tower (Atlanta)?

Patrick · #11 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 3:04 AM**

World Trade Center, gone!?

bnk · #12 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 3:30 AM**

In a few short years there will be nine buildings taller than the Sears Tower. Amazing.

But only four of them eclipse the Sears tower without spires.

bnk · #13 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Fancy seeing toronto up there for a bit.

I think you got lazy with the 1990's and onwards. first FCP is shorter than AON centre, then it is taller due tot he antenna.

Quite a change the last few years.

Funny that the antennae are not counted in Chicago ei Hancock, Sears.

I know the rules, so should not the Toronto building be knocked down on that list then?

Buck · #14 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 2:18 PM**

They should be listed by spire height (Official height) instead of pinnacle height (which includes antennas).

MolsonExport · #15 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 2:30 PM**

despite omissions, cool diagrams.

GVNY · #16 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 2:57 PM**

Absent Singer Building as well.

JManc · #17 Posted **Jan 26, 2008, 1:38 AM**

forgot chase tower in houston...was tallest after chrysler when finished in 1981.

that monstrosity in mecca is just ghastly. all those hajj pilgrims have that big bloated big ben thingy smiling down at them.

peanut gallery · #18 Posted **Jan 27, 2008, 6:00 AM**

Not being a fan of sticks on top of buildings, I personally find this to be a much more accurate view of what are truly the tallest buildings: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?34010052 even though it doesn't conform to the standards for determining the official tallest.

Samwill89 · #19 Posted **Jan 27, 2008, 9:37 PM**

agreed

bluemartini · #20 Posted **Jan 27, 2008, 10:16 PM**

Why isn't Philadelphia's City Hall on the earlier lists? It's 167 m to the statute on top.