Except you can actually go inside the CN Tower. There are floors inside, and there is also a restaurant inside the building. Radio towers don't have an inside, and they certainly have no tourist appeal. CN Tower has both and certainly meets the qualification to be called a building rather than a structure. The Eiffel Tower you could call a structure, but not the CN Tower. Should be there.
I don't make the distinction. There is actually an international body that does that. I'd have to have a pretty good reason for using different criteria.
Well if that was the case, many of these buildings would be excluded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Eton Place Dalian Tower 1 is not a hotspot for tourism.
Not at the top. There are restaurants on the first and second platforms, both less than halfway up. There's just a little kiosk selling champagne at the top. Not a lot of space up there.
A "building" in this sense is defined as having at least 50% of it's height having habitable floor space. Neither the CN tower nor the Tokyo skytree meet this requirement.
There's shops and stuff in the Eiffel tower as well. And you can go inside. So how does that make it a structure as opposed to the CN Tower? I am happy with both being structures - Brickster provides a good definition.
50% means half it's height is used for habitable floor space, the Eiffel Tower would only be eligible if you count the stairway as habitable space. The CN Tower also has small % of its height as habitable.
Burj Rafal? Must have built that in the last two years... last time I was in Riyadh the tallest thing by far was Kingdom Tower (Burj Mamlekah) and that is only 300 m I think.
Unfortunate if it detracted from the natural beauty of the city. In my opinion and in all my travels I found St Petersburg to be the most beautiful city in Europe.
Thankfully, the authorities didn't let them build it near the historic center, so they build it on the other side of the gulf. It's barely visible from most of the city.
Incheon is much closer to Seoul than any of those aside from New York and Newark, basically part of the same city, and the only reason I think that Newark isn't thought of as having been absorbed into New York is that you have to cross a state boundary to get there. On the large majority of quizzes on the site that consider metro or urban areas, Newark is indeed considered part of New York City.
Japan's tallest building is in Osaka and is 300 meters tall. But as ^ said, as long as the building is properly designed, it isn't a big issue, for example San Francisco and Los Angeles both have buildings over 1000 feet tall.
coincidentally suzhou, another city in china, also has a building at 1483ft recently topped out with the name of the city followed by IFS. tried guessing that above but it wouldn't work. suzhou is close to shanghai so maybe is not counted, but actually a separate city and in a different province. it could be added in.
As any Chicagoan (and most suburbanites) will tell you, it's the Sears Tower, not the Willis Tower. Regardless of what it actually says on the building. XD
I'd argue that as long as people are using both names, then both names should be considered acceptable. If the US government suddenly decided that New York was to be officially renamed Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte Bandar Seri Begawan Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious City, I'd be wiilling to bet that the majority of people around the world would still call it New York, and at the end of the day, the words that people actually use are what matter.
It's crazy how many of these have been built in my lifetime. I remember reading about tall buildings when i was a kid and most of those aren't on this list anymore.
Shanghai World Financial Center Shanghai China 492 m 1,614 ft built 2008
23 Marina Dubai UAE 395 m 1,296 ft 89 2012
several others as well
Ow forgot JK
https://baike.baidu.hk/item/%E5%8D%97%E5%AF%A7%E8%8F%AF%E6%BD%A4%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83/4419630
https://new.qq.com/omn/20210912/20210912A0AAM600.html