Talk:Empire State Building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

	NYC Portal This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Empire State Building as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

---

A few notes:

• The antenna structure has been modified repeatedly over the last fifty years, most recently since 2001 to accomodate television. The current Antenna Structure Registration shows the height as 443.0 m (AGL), but I doubt that this is unchanged from the 1940s.
• There are 104 "floors", not 102, but the "floors" between 86 and 102 do not really exist; the elevator between 85 and 102 is marked in feet and has only four stops between those two floors.
• The 102nd floor observation deck (former airship terminal) has been closed to the public for some years, but still retains its original design.
• The metal dome over the 104th floor is signed by many of the broadcast engineers who have worked in the building.
• Floors 85, 82, and 81 are dedicated exclusively to broadcasting; 79 and 80 include both broadcast and office space. Originally, each of the stations/networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, DuMont, WOR, WPIX) had (needed!) an entire floor; now most have rooms of no more than a few hundred square feet. I've never been on 83 or 84 so I can't say definitively what's there (I know one of them is mostly mechanicals).
• No passenger elevator from the ground floor runs above 80; visitors to the upper floors must change elevators at 80 to continue their journey. Those going to 102 must do so twice; the elevator to 102 is still manually-operated.

18.26.0.18 04:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 The main photo 2 Empire State Building as Airship station 3 Good thing??? 4 R. J. Reynolds Building 5 Category: "Former buildings and structures of the United States"? 6 Construction 7 Why the ESB survived the 1945 plane crash 8 coordinates 9 Moscow University 10 Why does the official website claim 1224 feet and Wikipedia claim 1250 feet? 11 Clarification 12 Which article has the mistake? 13 The building time 14 The 102nd floor observatory 15 Elvita Adams? This sounds made-up. VOTE to REMOVE 16 Wording

[edit] The main photo

The photo looks pretty terrible and shows an unusual light pattern on the building. Maybe we should replace this one with a better picture that isn't blurry, that isn't from a terrible angle, and that isn't showing an unusual, ugly lighting pattern. Alexandrewb 17:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you have a good picture that is free of copyright restrictions, please do. --Claygate 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see if I can take one this week. --Alexandrewb 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire State Building as Airship station

It was planned, that airships can anchor at the Empire State Building. Who knows more about these plans?

--That's an excellent point. I'll go in and write a mention of this.--Jleon 15:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

According to the Goldman book, the airship station and mast were at the top of the Art Deco "salt shaker" that caps the building. During a couple of test runs, dirigibles tied to the mast experienced violent updrafts (caused by the building being "in the way" of the wind) which came close to wrecking the airships and dumping their passengers. That put a quick end to that idea. The station was converted to a second (102nd floor) observation deck for awhile. Wahkeenah 00:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good thing???

Please note that I did not intend to imply that the Empire State Building regaining its tallest-in-New-York title due to 9/11/01 was in any way a good thing. To label the terrorist attacks "tragic" seemed a bit obvious and redundant. Technically that wording is Point of View, but that would be splitting hairs. Wahkeenah 00:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] R. J. Reynolds Building

I spent part of my childhood in Winston-Salem, NC, where it was repeatedly taught in grade school that the R. J. Reynolds skyscraper was built as a model for the Empire State Building. Anyone know about this? It could deserve mention. --Mm35173 20:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category: "Former buildings and structures of the United States"?

Really? For the airship port?

• Well, I removed this little tidbit, but perhaps I should stroll by Midtown tomorrow just to be sure...--Pharos 07:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Construction

The story of the construction of the building is very encyclopedic, and is not mentioned at all. The article goes from mentioning that it was built on the site of the old Waldorf-Astoria and then fast-forwards 14 years to the B-25 crash. I may start to add it if I can find some good sources, but if anyone else can, please be bold. --rogerd 00:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the ESB survived the 1945 plane crash

Can it be added why the ESB was able to survive a B-25 Mitchell bomber colliding with it, while the WTC collapsed from a passenger airliner? It seems to be relevant as the events similar. To venture a guess I would assume the B-25 was a rather small aircraft moving at a slow speed with little fuel. This is in contrast with the passenger airliners which were larger planes, moving at 300+ mph, with mostly full tanks of fuel.

• The Empire State Building has a closed-floor plan with many concrete columns. The WTC used mostly steel, and was particularly vulnerable to the attack due to the open floor plan.

I personally think that would be very interesting. But don't forget this difference : construction material. The Trade Towers consisted of a lot more metal (steel) than the Empire State Building and that bends under high temperatures (which were caused by the burning planes). I'm no expert on the subject but while difference in plane type is important, this would be my guess as main cause. Evilbu 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What brought the WTC down was not the impacts of the planes (both towers survived these impacts remarkably well) but rather the susequent fires. Having only recently taken off, both planes' fuel tanks were largely full. Almost all of the jet fuel they contained burned inside the towers so intensely that structural supports near the impact sites partially melted, weakening them enough that they buckled under weight of the floors above. (This is why the south tower, which was hit later but at a lower level, collapsed first. There was more weight above the impact site, so the structural supports gave way before they had weakened as much as those in the north tower eventually did.) The force of the upper floors falling was more than enough to crush all the floors below.

The B-25 contained a small fraction of the amount of fuel each WTC jet carried. Had a B-25 hit the WTC at the same speed and with the same amount of fuel as the one that hit the Empire State Building, the WTC would surely have survived. I'll leave it to others to assess how the ESB would have fared had it been subjected to a 9/11-type attack.

It is widely believed that the 9/11 hijackings were planned specifically to ensure the planes had as much fuel in them as possible at the time of impact. This is why the hijackings all involved large planes and why they were directed at targets near their points of origin rather than their destinations. The planes also hit the towers at an angle to ensure that fires would burn on as many floors as possible. Osama bin Laden and other top al Quaeda personnel have engineering backgrounds and reportedly knew that the towers would survive the impacts of jumbo jets but recognized that they would be vulnerable to sustained, intense heat. Supposedly bin Laden only expected the floors above the impact sites to collapse and was surprised that the towers were completely destroyed. (I base these statements on my memory of news reports but I have not searched the web for citations.) 4.232.225.123 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] coordinates

Hi,

basically I think many good articles miss exact coordinates. These are nice for google earth purposes, but they also attribute to the general completeness of a good wikipedia article.

I now put coordinates with a link to kvaleberg in it , right above. The link can disappear for me, it can be pushed down a lot, but I would really like it if you kept the coordinates on there somewhere.

If received positively, being a skyscraper fan, I would like to do this on many other building articles.

Excuse me for tampering with your fine article.

Evilbu 18:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So upon seeing the German wikipedia has a really neat place for the coordinates of the Triumph Palace in Moscow [1] I asked their advice and they told me how to put the coordinates like that. I hope you don't mind it... Evilbu 14:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow University

The Moscow University Building mentioned in this text is usually cited as being based on William Kendall's Municipal Building, not the ESB. Unless anyone objects/has more specific info., I'll delete that phrase. JN

[edit] Why does the official website claim 1224 feet and Wikipedia claim 1250 feet?

Why does the official website claim 1224 feet and Wikipedia claim 1250 feet? See: http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_facts.cfm?CFID=16597280&CFTOKEN=75216207

bobblewik 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

As of Dec 13 2006 the opening section states: "Long term forecasting of the life cycle of the structure was implemented at the design phase to ensure that the buildings future intended uses were not restricted by the requirements of future generations. This is particularly evident in the over design of the buildings electrical system."

I gather the designers were trying to anticipate the needs of future occupants of the Empire State Building, but the phrasing leaves much to be desired. Can anybody cite specific or innovative provisions in the design for unanticipated future use of the building? What provisions were made in the electrical system that call for special attention?

Provision of extra, initially unused, wiring and ventilation chases are common in large buildings, even at that period, since much of the building is put up as "generic office space" with no specific clients in mind. Was something else more noteworthy in future use attempted in this structure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.237.62 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Which article has the mistake?

Empire State Building:

"The building was the first of two skyscrapers in Manhattan that have been accidentally impacted by airplanes, the other being the Belaire Apartments in the Upper East Side in 2006 (The twin towers of the World Trade Center, although also were hit by airplanes, were brought down by an act of deliberate destruction and not accidents)."

40 Wall Street:

"It was hit by a United States Coast Guard airplane in 1946 during fog. The crash killed five people." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frost770 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The building time

There was mentioned that the empire state building would be one of the modern wonders of the world. I have beside that it still one of the tallest buildings in the world, a big awe for the completion of such a structure in this time window. On this site I would like to know more about it. Because it`s `quite` fast making 102 levels within 1,5 year including the finishing and the foundation for that time. Would be nice if there is a picture of the building phase. With regards, TA Hartwig Holland

[edit] The 102nd floor observatory

Since the second observatory costs $14 more to visit, it'd be nice to read more about it before visiting. Xiner (talk, email) 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvita Adams? This sounds made-up. VOTE to REMOVE

The reference for this "fact" is a dubious website, to say the least. Google searches for "Elvita Adams" yielded virtually nothing except this page being reproduced on other websites (sadly, quite a few). Other repeated google searches brought up nothing as well. There is virtually no credible source on this matter, and quite frankly it sounds physically very unlikely. I VOTE TO REMOVE THIS, and if anyone else agrees, then feel free to delete it.

Not that it's necessary, but for anyone interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability

Thanks for reading, and let's try to get some integrity to this article!--24.148.46.204 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)M.

Some other accounts say she was blown back onto the 85th-floor ledge, which is more believable, since the ledge is further out than the observation deck [2]. Also this source seems to concur that two survived: [3]. Perhaps it should at least be edited to mention the more believable ledge angle. It's one of those trivia facts anyway so agree that it would be OK to remove it or move to a "trivia" section. --Claygate 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

I am at odds with the wording in a caption, "a series of setbacks." This implies that something hampered the construction thus causing the building to narrow with height. Aren't those terraced as opposed to setbacks? IvoShandor 07:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the "In pop culture" section is absolutely ghastly. IvoShandor 07:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)