Talk:List of tallest buildings in Vancouver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured listList of tallest buildings in Vancouver is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
December 30, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted
December 16, 2013Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list


There was an anonymous edit to add add "+" to several floor counts which I have reverted. (eg. Living Shangri-La went from "60" to "60+") If the "+" was actually a fact, please cite the source and possibly add it to the External links section. I could be wrong, but I can't find a source that lists more than 60 floors, for Shangri-La for example. The developer's own site ( lists it as a "60 storey" building, as does the link in the External links section. --Ds13 19:50, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

According the final development permit proposal the height of Bentall 5 will be 460.8 ft (140.5 m). Usgnus 04:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The emporis site lists the height as 152 m, which would mean the "cap" would be about 11 m or about 36 ft. That seems like a lot. Usgnus 23:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also[edit]

Unless someone objects, I am going to remove the links to NYC and Paris buildings. I don't see the relevance. --Usgnus 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed -- Usgnus 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad Table![edit]

Under noteables: note the Fairmont hotel and Vancouver hotel are the same buiding with 2 different heights & floors.

No they are not! Read the comments section. The one called "Hotel Vancouver" in the historical table is the Second Hotel Vancouver which was demolished in 1949, the one called "Fairmont Hotel Vancouver" is the third Hotel Vancouver and the one that is still standing. -- Webgeer 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ja! But they the same picture! <imbb> —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The second Hotel Vancouver is not pictured at all. In the Hotel Vancouver article, there is only one picture and it's of the current (third) incarnation. --Ds13 07:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hotel Vancouver (1916) has a picture, though that article doesn't have height/floors - or an infobox yet.Skookum1 (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some future buildings have Errors[edit]

  • Hotel Georgia [1] will not be built
  • The Fairmont Pacific Rim [2] will be is 140m

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinsizon (talkcontribs) 20:43, 8 July 2006.

The first link is not the Hotel Georgia. --Usgnus 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated Fairmont Pacific Rim. BTW, we try to go by official sources, not a single site. --Usgnus 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the link you meant to post: [3] --Usgnus 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated. Thanks! --Usgnus 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empire Landmark Hotel[edit]

I don't have data on it's height, but it advertises itself as the tallest hotel in Vancouver, so surely it must be on the list somewhere. Could someone please locate this data and update?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezaco (talkcontribs)

Hi Mezaco. You are the one who created the Empire Landmark Hotel page today with the claim that it is "the tallest hotel in Vancouver". If you're going to write that in the article, you need to provide a means to verify the claim. (Their own advertisements may not be the best way.) Anyways, I'm sure you'll find the height in metres when you find find a source for your article. --Ds13 18:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you've already changed the claim to "bills itself as the tallest hotel" and found the height. Nice work! Cheers. --Ds13 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, it doesn't break the top ten. :-( --Usgnus 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sorry, yeah still getting the hang of this. I found some more data which I think clarifies the situation. Thanks for your advice --Mezaco 10:06, 21 July 2006[edit]

This is an ad-oriented site, and also promotes property companies; IMO it's spam and all cites from it should be removed.Skookum1 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skyscraper Center is now the global database for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH).

Missing buildings[edit]

The historical myopia of this page is somewhat staggering, though I did add in the first skyscrapers in the section where it was (falsely) claimed that the 3rd Hotel Vancouver was the first. There are several notable buildings missing - the Georgia Medical-Dental Building (which was where Cathedral Place is now), and the Vancouver Block, and there are arguments available that the Standard Building ahd the Rogers Building were skyscrapers in the context of their times. Among more modern buildings missing, which remain landmarks in the West End, are the Denman Place Hotel, the Blue Horizon and its neighbour the Pacific Palisades, the Georgian Towers Hotel (now an apartment), the Columbia Apartments (above the Super-Valu on Davie) and the old BC Tel building and accompanying radio towers at Seymour & Robson....and while the MacMillan Bloedel building may already be on the list I'm not sure what its modern name is. Also "the Ritz" was the name of an older, very large (though not so tall) hotel north/west of the Hotel Vancouver (come to think of it the Burrard Building should be on this list, also the Sheraton Plaza 500.Skookum1 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've taken the liberty of adding a new column, listing the addresses of all the buildings on the list. I've only filled in the ones I know off the top of my head (I'm a bicycle messenger, so I know quite a few of them,) so if anyone wants to do the legwork to fill in the ones I've left blank, that would be cool. I'll probably do a little bit of that myself over the next few days, if no one else does. EznorbYar (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sun Tower 1946.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Sun Tower 1946.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is "tallest" defined?[edit]


The description claims that the One Wall Centre is the second tallest, but the table lists it as third in terms of height (Harbour Centre is second), and second in terms of stories. Is the needle disqualifying the Harbour Centre? Is "tallest" based on stories?

In any case, this should be clarified in the text. InverseHypercube (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tallest building in the British Empire[edit]

The article states, "The Dominion Building, Sun Tower, and Marine Building were, in succession, the tallest building in the British Empire at the time." This is well cited (two good sources, and a third one at the point where it is restated) but incorrect. The Marine Building, at 98 metres (322 ft)* was completed in 1939. Salisbury Cathedral, at 123 metres (404 ft)* was completed in more than 600 years earlier; since the list of Vancouver buildings explicitly "includes spires", this is a fair comparison. Even if one were to discount Salisbury Cathedral for not having any habitable spaces much above ground level, then the Midland Grand Hotel in London is taller than the Dominion Building and was finished 51 years earlier, and the Royal Liver Building in Liverpool is taller than the Sun Building and was finished a year earlier. Even if the intended meaning is "The British Empire except for the UK" (which is not stated), then the General Post Office in Sydney, at 73 metres (240 ft)* and completed in 1891, trumps the Dominion Building, and Sydney was the first city I checked so there may well be others. Dricherby (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I looked at St Paul's Cathedral, London (1675, 111 metres (364 ft)*) and Victoria Tower, London (1860, 98.5 metres (323 ft)*). I will remove the claims. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of tallest buildings in Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Tallest vancouver" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest vancouver. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest vancouver until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just want to note that the butterfly doesn't seem to be on this list. Cheers. 2001:569:5632:AE00:995:493:E7D2:33C9 (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]