Which of the following is currently the tallest traditional building in the world?

A "traditional building" is intended primarily for human habitation, and the great majority of its height must be divided into occupiable levels, or "floors".

"Tallest" as in the "height to [the] structural or architectural top". Spires count and antennas don't, according to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH).

Currently means "in the year 2000".

NOTE: The CN Tower in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, is not a traditional building, though it is the tallest free-standing structure in the world. It is not counted for the purposes of this survey.

Total Votes	% of Voters	Female Votes	Male Votes	Unspecified Votes	% of Female Votes	% of Male Votes	% of Unspecified Votes	Average Age	Answer
3	5.1%	2	1	..	10.0%	3.4%	..	37.0	Bank of China (Hong Kong)
..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	Central Plaza (Hong Kong)
..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	The Centre (Hong Kong)
..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	Emirates Tower #1 (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)
3	5.1%	1	2	..	5.0%	6.9%	..	42.8	Empire State Building (New York City)
..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	Jin Mao Building (Shanghai)
..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	One World Trade Center (New York City)
19	32.2%	4	15	..	20.0%	51.7%	..	38.2	Petronas Tower (Kuala Lampur, Malaysia)
6	10.2%	2	4	..	10.0%	13.8%	..	39.0	Sears Tower (Chicago)
..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	T&C Tower (Kaohsiung, Taiwan)
1	1.7%	..	1	..	..	3.4%	..	..	Two World Trade Center (New York City)
17	28.8%	11	6	..	55.0%	20.7%	..	37.5	I don't know

Rating Total Female Male Unspecified Average Age
Good 7 1 6 0 40.8
Bad 6 5 1 0 36.5
No Opinion 39 16 23 0 39.0

Rating	Total	Female	Male	Average Age
Good	7	1	6	40.8
Bad	6	5	1	36.5
No Opinion	39	16	23	39.0

Type Number
Abstainers 10
Male 29
Female 20
Unspecified 0

Type	Number
Abstainers	10
Male	29
Female	20
Unspecified	0

Qualifiers:
User Vote Comment
daver reasonable
posted 30-Jun-2000 5:34pm

msgman reasonable
posted 30-Jun-2000 10:21am
I'm marking this as reasonable. The CN tower is a functional construction (not a tourist attraction), but it's primary use is to carry comms equipment, not people, and the majority of it's height is the tower bit, which isn't "habitable" (other than the elevator) in any meaningful sense. The CTBUH definition is reasonable, as far as this survey goes.
cody N/A
posted 30-Jun-2000 3:36am
It is a tourist attraction.... Nothing more. Sure, it ALSO works good as a telecom tower, but satellites work better.
Strider reasonable
posted 29-Jun-2000 11:26pm
It is not just a tourist attraction it is, and was bult as a telecomunications tower.
Richard reasonable
posted 29-Jun-2000 6:42pm

cody old
posted 29-Jun-2000 8:00am
I am just going to cite the same sources SC does. I will also state, that A building, is intended for actual inhabitation and use, CN tower, is a tourist attraction.
nihon N/A
posted 29-Jun-2000 6:47am
Strider - No, I do not have anything against Canada. Why should I? Does it say "Candians suck!" anywhere in this survey? Did I include a link to the South Parkk song "Blame Canada!"? If you are Canadian, you're giving the rest of them a bad rep by jumping to unfounded conclusions like this...

Guinness is NOT a recognized architectural authority. According the the CTBUH (a recognized architectural authority), the CN Tower is not a traditional building. I've given their definition above, and it doesn't matter if you like their definition or not. Maybe you should take it up with them.

Grow up a little.

Someone please override Strider so this doesn't have to languish for yet another 24 hours.
Strider old
posted 29-Jun-2000 2:23am
why are you excluding the CN Tower (by the way I think your explination sucks) do you have something against Toronto, or even Canada, or are you trying to avoid the fact that the CN Tower is the tallest building in the world. (Which it is, it is not the tallest TOWER because of some radio tower in Russia (which is held up by cables)) Check gunness if you don't belive me.
Richard old
posted 28-Jun-2000 11:18pm

Strider old
posted 28-Jun-2000 3:46pm
There is a resturant on the cn tower and according to the definition you uesed for a building it makes sence to include it as people do work in the cn tower just as people work in the sears tower in Chicago.
Strider old
posted 28-Jun-2000 3:45pm
There is a resturant on the cn tower and according to the definition you uesed for a building it makes sence to include it as people do work in the cn tower just as people work in the sears tower in chigogo.
Andyroo reasonable
posted 28-Jun-2000 2:21pm
I know it was in the thing before, but it didn't say, "though it is the tallest free-standing structure in the world". That's what won me over.
nihon old
posted 28-Jun-2000 12:53pm
I had it in the explanation before, but apparently you didn't notice that. If I was ever in Toronto for any other reason, I would probably visit it. I wouldn't visit Toronoto just too see it, though.

Of course, there aren't too many buildings which I would travel to see.
Andyroo old
posted 28-Jun-2000 11:41am
Alright. Well thank you for at least recognizing it's importance. Much appreciated.
nihon old
posted 28-Jun-2000 8:59am
Habitation refers to people working there as well. I'm not adding the CN Tower.

Besides, I did mention it in the explanation text.
Andyroo old
posted 28-Jun-2000 3:36am
It is the tallest building so I think it should at least be mentioned on the list instead of going unrecognized. Even if no one picks it...it still deserves to be there because in reality, it beats them all.
Andyroo old
posted 28-Jun-2000 3:33am
People live in the Sears tower? and the empire state building?? More like work there...people work in the CN tower too. There is a fancy restaurant and a glass that you walk on that looks down on the city from hundreds of feet high...it's not just a tower like the eiffel tower of something...there is human habitation just as much as the ones mentioned.
Richard old
posted 28-Jun-2000 1:02am

Last	Type	Created	Category	Creator	Sort	Votes	Hides	Rating
Last	single	28-Jun-2000	quiz	nihon	by votes	59	15	51.0%

User	Vote	Comment
daver	reasonable	posted 30-Jun-2000 5:34pm
msgman	reasonable	posted 30-Jun-2000 10:21am I'm marking this as reasonable. The CN tower is a functional construction (not a tourist attraction), but it's primary use is to carry comms equipment, not people, and the majority of it's height is the tower bit, which isn't "habitable" (other than the elevator) in any meaningful sense. The CTBUH definition is reasonable, as far as this survey goes.
cody	N/A	posted 30-Jun-2000 3:36am It is a tourist attraction.... Nothing more. Sure, it ALSO works good as a telecom tower, but satellites work better.
Strider	reasonable	posted 29-Jun-2000 11:26pm It is not just a tourist attraction it is, and was bult as a telecomunications tower.
Richard	reasonable	posted 29-Jun-2000 6:42pm
cody	old	posted 29-Jun-2000 8:00am I am just going to cite the same sources SC does. I will also state, that A building, is intended for actual inhabitation and use, CN tower, is a tourist attraction.
nihon	N/A	posted 29-Jun-2000 6:47am Strider - No, I do not have anything against Canada. Why should I? Does it say "Candians suck!" anywhere in this survey? Did I include a link to the South Parkk song "Blame Canada!"? If you are Canadian, you're giving the rest of them a bad rep by jumping to unfounded conclusions like this... Guinness is NOT a recognized architectural authority. According the the CTBUH (a recognized architectural authority), the CN Tower is not a traditional building. I've given their definition above, and it doesn't matter if you like their definition or not. Maybe you should take it up with them. Grow up a little. Someone please override Strider so this doesn't have to languish for yet another 24 hours.
Strider	old	posted 29-Jun-2000 2:23am why are you excluding the CN Tower (by the way I think your explination sucks) do you have something against Toronto, or even Canada, or are you trying to avoid the fact that the CN Tower is the tallest building in the world. (Which it is, it is not the tallest TOWER because of some radio tower in Russia (which is held up by cables)) Check gunness if you don't belive me.
Richard	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 11:18pm
Strider	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 3:46pm There is a resturant on the cn tower and according to the definition you uesed for a building it makes sence to include it as people do work in the cn tower just as people work in the sears tower in Chicago.
Strider	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 3:45pm There is a resturant on the cn tower and according to the definition you uesed for a building it makes sence to include it as people do work in the cn tower just as people work in the sears tower in chigogo.
Andyroo	reasonable	posted 28-Jun-2000 2:21pm I know it was in the thing before, but it didn't say, "though it is the tallest free-standing structure in the world". That's what won me over.
nihon	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 12:53pm I had it in the explanation before, but apparently you didn't notice that. If I was ever in Toronto for any other reason, I would probably visit it. I wouldn't visit Toronoto just too see it, though. Of course, there aren't too many buildings which I would travel to see.
Andyroo	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 11:41am Alright. Well thank you for at least recognizing it's importance. Much appreciated.
nihon	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 8:59am Habitation refers to people working there as well. I'm not adding the CN Tower. Besides, I did mention it in the explanation text.
Andyroo	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 3:36am It is the tallest building so I think it should at least be mentioned on the list instead of going unrecognized. Even if no one picks it...it still deserves to be there because in reality, it beats them all.
Andyroo	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 3:33am People live in the Sears tower? and the empire state building?? More like work there...people work in the CN tower too. There is a fancy restaurant and a glass that you walk on that looks down on the city from hundreds of feet high...it's not just a tower like the eiffel tower of something...there is human habitation just as much as the ones mentioned.
Richard	old	posted 28-Jun-2000 1:02am