Talk:One Canada Square/Archive 1

Crash59

A user with this name appears to be repeatedly making defensive claims about One Canada Square as the tallest building in the UK. Whilst what he says is factually correct, it is presented in a very unencyclopaedic manner. For example, sentences such as "In fact, all tallest buildings around the world are awarded their titles after completion date, and there have never been awards given during construction height of a building. Therefore, Shard London Bridge cannot claim the title of tallest building in the United Kingdom until their completion date." at the end of the first paragraph or "Currently under construction with an expected completion date of May 2012 when the succession title will be officially awarded (just like how all tall building awards are given around the world)" in a succession box are not exactly good Wikipedia policy, no? Xtremerandomness (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

ASL - Above Sea Level

Why can we not have ASL stated in this article? Summerclause (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course the building's height above sea level can be mentioned if it is thought to be useful information. What cannot be claimed is that "It is the tallest building in the United Kingdom at 244 metres (800 ft) above sea level", because by the measure of height above sea level it is far from Britain's tallest building. It would be beaten to this by every building in Buxton and many other upland villages, the Tan Hill Inn, and the record holder would probably be a bothy in the Cairngorms. Kevin McE (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point Summerclause (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Observation floor

"Despite its status as the United Kingdom's tallest building, there is no public observation floor; the view from the upper windows is the sole preserve of the building's tenants."

I seem to recall that there used to be a viewing gallery which was open to the public, but a couple of men (possibly IRA) visited one day and left a bag there. When challenged, one man produced a hand gun and told the security man that there was a bomb in the bag before making their escape. The viewing gallery was closed and never reopened after that... 87.74.2.97 23:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above statement about the attempted bombing is false and should be deleted. On 15 November 1992, the IRA drove a van near to the tower which contained a bomb (see Terrorism section in main article). They most certainly did not leave a bag. I will be very impressed if a credible source could be found to backup the above statement. Chikong (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he's thinking of the BT Tower bombing, which was successful and resulted in the closure of the BT Tower's Cafe/Observation deck. 79.78.54.3 (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Article title

The title is wrong - this should be "One Canada Square" not "1 Canada Square". Darthspin 00:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The building's own web site calls it 1 Canada Square: http://www.1canadasquare.co.uk/home.htm

193.113.57.161 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not the building owner website Atom3857 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

www.canarywharf.com is official Livestones (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Roof

I seem to recall that there is some kind of shed at the top of Emley Moor mast, but that you wouldn't want to spend much time in it. -- The Anome 07:23 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nice article. I used to work on the 50th (top) floor, and we did have something we used to refer to as a 'viewing gallery', but in truth it was only a small area next to one side of the building, between the lifts and the restricted areas. Tremendous views of London on a fine day. jamesgibbon 23:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have actually been out on the roof area around the bottom of the pyramid on top. It's not a publicly accessible area, but a group of us were taken on a tour of certain parts of the building including the roof (and the server room, too). I did take some pictures while I was there, but this was several years ago and I didn't have a digital camera back then. If I can find them, I'll get them scanned in and the community as a whole can decide if any are appropriate for this page.

We had to use a service lift and walk through some sort of plant room to get there, so it's unlikely that the viewing gallery - or the location the existing image was taken from - is the same place.

The view was lovely, though! J-Deeks 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Other taller buildings

Opening paragraph says: "It is currently London's tallest building, and there seems to be no likelihood that a larger one will be approved any time soon." This is no longer true, there are at least 2 taller buildings which have been approved - London Bridge Tower (306m) and Columbus Tower (237m). A third building, the 307m Bishopsgate Tower, was recently proposed, and is awaiting approval. Wjfox2005 22:55 06 Sep 2005

The para above is correct however of these only the Bishopsgate Tower is anywhere close to construction. Darthspin 00:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Freight and firemen's lifts

The article says:

There are several floors below ground and an equipment floor above the 50th, so no passenger lift in the building vertically traverses the entire height of the structure. However, there are two freight lifts and two firemen's lifts that travel to all floors.

However, the link given as a reference [1] just confirms the lifts exist. Nowhere does it say they can call at the other floors (and indeed it seems unlikely as the machine floors will contain the lift gear etc.) JRawle (Talk) 17:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The maintenance lifts do go right up to the level just below the base of the crown, as I recall - that's how we got out onto the roof there. I cannot remember if it was the same lift we took to get into the server room underground beneath the building. J-Deeks 02:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thirteenth floor?

Over in the Thirteenth floor entry, it is stated that "For instance, the thirteenth floor of One Canada Square houses the air conditioning equipment and no rentable offices, though the owners insist that this is merely an architectural coincidence." Anyone here able to source that? Offer first hand accounts here in the talk page?

Why is it on Wikipedia that if one believes that a 13th floor exist, that this cannot be expressed on Wikipedia. E14ds7 (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be sources for any of that commentary at the end of the section. I would strongly support cutting these references if no sources can be found, and I suspect they cannot. I've already done quite a bit of pruning to this section and would support more. However, I see that you have been reverted and warned for blanking sections of the article by Cluebot. I'm assuming good faith on your part, however. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some buildings in London really don't have a floor numbered 13. I am personally dismayed when I see lift columns going up carrying numbers for their floors and 13 is missed out. However, I used to work in this building - on the floor numbered 24 - and I seem to recall there is a 13th floor in this tower. Given the lack of references in the existing paragraph, should we just delete it?Benet Allen (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Atom3857 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Canary Wharf

Should this article be merged with Canary Wharf?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per the building's website. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

One Canada Square → 1 Canada Square — Website usually calls the building "1 Canada Square", as does one of the maps on the site. However, the other map on the site refers to the building as "One Canada Square", and the man who "works for Canary Wharf Group" uses this name (see here). Other buildings in Wikipedia use a variety of numerals and letters, so there appears to be no precedent. anskas 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada Tower

The building used to be called Canada Tower - can anyone shed any light on this change? I've added a mention to the article. Ben Finn 12:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Based on the wording of the move request above, I don't understand what the argument is to move the page. It seems both names are in use - is one clearly more common? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I get it now. I'm going to go ahead and complete the move. It seems uncontroversial enough. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Block quote

Flag icons

I think we should have the flag icons because it is a trend in other skyscraper articles. Personally, I am not keen on them.

87.112.36.191 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary. Take them out. Atom3857 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Closed to the public in 1993?

I know it's Original Research, but I'm sure someone could help me find a source on why/when they closed the top floor(s) to the general public. I went up to one of the floors in '93 for a visit and a walkabout, but the following year it wasn't allowed anymore. I'm pretty certain I heard the reason for it being that of the Bishopsgate bombing, but for this to be verifiable I need help on locating at least one source to keep it on the page.Mac dreamstate (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The 50th floor of the tower was opened to the public during 12 September 1992 - 15 November 1992, as bankruptcy administrators for Olympia & York Canary Wharf Limited wanted to maintain interest in Canary Wharf. The scheme was stopped on 15 November 1992 when the IRA attempted to bomb the tower. I've modified the article to include this.

Chikong (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe

Guys, maybe is being used in the wrong context here.

• "maybe" is indeed a word, and means "perhaps" or "possibly"
• "may be" means "could be"

The above two are different in meaning. Transposing the above two into the phrase in question

"One Canada Square may be overtaken as the tallest building..."

yields either:

"One Canada Square possibly overtaken as the tallest building..."

or

"One Canada Square could be overtaken as the tallest building..."

The second is clearly correct, not the first, so the correct wordage for the article is "may be" not "maybe". The same applies to the other phrase in contention "both of which may be noticed by the riders"

Chillysnow (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a further clarification to the above, by using maybe instead of may be, you're joining two separate parts of speech together that should not be joined. You're joining the auxiliary verb "may", meaning "could" to one half of the past tense of the verb "notice" i.e. "be noticed" and changing it into the adverb "maybe". These are two separate constructs and cannot be joined without fundamentally altering the meaning of the text. Chillysnow (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

In my opinion, it is more appropriate to use a picture which shows the building at eye-level rather than from ground-level at Canada Square. At eye-level, you can see the pyramid roof. At ground level, there is a perspective issue. Rachel Marks (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, I do think the image should be scaled down a little. I think it is a bit overpowering. Any thoughts? RaseaC (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the biggest picture I've seen on any Wikipedia article! Leebo89 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Observation distances - how far can the Canary Wharf Tower be seen from?

Can anyone provide any evidence that the Canary Wharf Tower can be seen from:

• Gore Hill, Amersham, around 28 miles (45 km) away
• ZSL Whipsnade Zoo in Bedfordshire is over 32 miles (51 km) away
• Guildford, around 31 miles (50 km) away

How? Atom3857 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tenants

Can I safely remove Bear Stearns as a notable tenant? Their cheques aren't any goodTheinterior (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because a company is in financial difficulty doesn't mean that their name shouldn't be on a tenants list. For example, when Canary Wharf Limited started up, they were in financial difficulty, but if we do not include their name in the tenants list then it just doesn’t seem to fit because they are an important company at Canary Wharf. On the other hand, having a long tenants list consisting of lots of tenant's names is overkill though... Leebo89 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical Details

I removed a lot of rubbish from this section. For instance, a reference to what the building 'may' be referred to and referencing a hotel review which doesn't even make that claim. Furthermore, information about the sprinkler system and contents of storage areas is not noteworthy and is unencyclopedic. Also, a lot of the information seemed to come straight off the One Canada Square corporate site, which is provided in the EL section and so does not need to be repeated. Other than that I did a bit of re-formatting, got rid of a shit picture which was essentially a closeup of the one next to it and removed repetition. RaseaC (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a shit picture Atom3857 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You stripped it clean, you fool! Towerbaby (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed. I think that the reference to the 13th floor is noteworthy, it is a design feature that I assume is not widely practiced in the UK and therefore to an extent differentiates it from other buildings. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way, and I'll pretend you didn't compare us to Britannica. RaseaC (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why has this article been reduced to a stub?

I noticed that the One Canada Square article has been reduced to a stub. Earlier this year, it had close to 14,000 bytes and now it has only 3,000 bytes. Why was all that useful content removed. Articles on the other buildings on Canary Wharf haven't been treated in this way. This is supposed to be a B-Class article and a stub like this shouldn't be considered B-Class at all. Should the content be restored or does this article need a complete rewrite? This stub makes the article look like it's on the Simple English Wikipedia. Jim856796 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See discussion above called 'Technical Details'. Towerbaby (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than restore content, which will take us around in circles, a rewrite might be more appropriate Towerbaby (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the removed content. The vast majority of it (I was looking at around June 2008) is perfectly acceptable. optimal, but there is no reason for it to have been removed. I suggest if you rewrite it, you restore all the old content first and then remove the bits that actually do warrant removal - rewriting the remaining information.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

206.255.186.65 restored a lot of the previous content today. Whilst this makes the article look better, did this person think about how much false information was restored? You should have waited for the rewrite to be published, but now the article is full of false information. Rest96 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Challenged Claim

The lead of the article claims:

"One of the predominant features of the building is the pyramid roof which contains a flashing aircraft warning light, a rare feature for buildings in the United Kingdom."

This is not correct. It is a common feature for any tall structure located anywhere near an airport as this tower is. It is just 2 1/2 miles from London City Airport. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Do they contain 'flashing' warning lights in a pyramid roof? Curvemagic49 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the words a rare feature for buildings in the United Kingdom is justified. Carrytow4 (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What the...

WHY HAS THIS ARTICLE BECOME VERY SHORT?! Whoever has done this needs to undo it and put it right!!

Willrocks10 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I think you are raising a very good point, I am more concerned with the amount of false information in the article previously. In many parts of the article, a lot of false information was present. Have you tried to verify any of the information in the article prevously? If not, could I ask you to verify some of the paragraphs that was previously published. Rather than concentrating on the size of the article, I think verifiable information is more important. Citedtoldoney (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was restored the article to how it was previously. It think this is a great mistake. Citedtoldoney (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)