Talk:List of tallest voluntarily demolished buildings

Does Windsor Tower count?

One of the buildings on the list is Windsor Tower (Madrid). This building experienced significant damage after a fire in 2005. Several of the upper floors collapsed and were effectively destroyed, leaving only the concrete core of the building. Some floors below it that did not collapse were gutted and effectively destroyed, and possibly may have been structurally compromised as well.

Should this building be considered "voluntarily demolished"? It might have been hypothetically possible to salvage the remains of the building (concrete core and lower floors) and rebuild the destroyed portion. I am not intimately familiar with the damage to the building, but I would suppose that it may not have been economically feasible to repair the building given the extent of the damage. As it was an electrical fire, it was most likely not intentionally set.

thoughts? Pineybranch (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent reason why the term "voluntarily" is counterproductive in the title of this list. (see below) 84.179.12.16 (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with other lists where there is a debate as to whether or not an item completely meets the standards of inclusion but there is ample reason to do so anyway, I changed this item to italics, with reference in the reasons column to the reason why it doesn't fully meet the list inclusion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.12.16 (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does Old_St_Paul's_Cathedral count?

It was slated for possible redevelopment and was being upgraded as the great fire of london took place. There was talk of rebuilding it. Astonishingly for a building that was demolished in 1666 it would be at number 8! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewsheffield (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this list

What is the reason for having a list of "voluntarily" demolished buildings? This is an extremely unusual title for a Wikipedia page - usually it would be a list of Tallest Buildings Ever Demolished.

I would like to propose striking "voluntarily" from the page title as it provides no useful (and in particular, no scientifically verifiable) criterion for list inclusion.

2003:4B:2E1D:FB57:C911:A084:B050:EAEE (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, it can hardly be considered "voluntary" to demolish a building that is structurally unsound, as many on this list were. 159.53.46.141 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... If a building is condemned by a government authority and demolished against the owner's wishes, that's hardly more "voluntary" then a building destroyed by terrorist attack. In both cases it's intentional (i.e. not an accident), and in neither case is it voluntary. The distinguishing factor seems to be whether it's a demolition, not whether it's "voluntary." .froth. (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under 100m

Why is there still a ranking under 100m bc they are way more destroyed buildings above 30m. Especially in NYC, Singapore and Sydney Bonnatia (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title and scope

As long as there isnt a list for tallest involuntarily demolished buildings this list should be renamed and expanded. There is no reason to not include the WTC and Deutsch Bank Building for example, this list already has a "Reason" field to explain the circumstances, buildings that collapsed could even be color-coded. Also an additional list for Tallest Structures would make sense, TV towers and radio antennas or industrial chimneys et cetera. jonas (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested threshold

I have been looking at this list, and as has been pointed out above, there are *a lot* of demolished buildings between 50 and 100m still to be added. I have half-prepared the full list from Glasgow (see table here for the quantity involved, bizarrely 3 of the Sighthill blocks are already listed here in the current 160s - but there were 10 blocks of equal height, all of which are now gone). Anyway, that's for one city, adding the ones for Manchester, Dundee, London and Birmingham where I am aware of plenty of demolitions would bloat the list still further, and that's only in Britain! It would soon become unmanageable if any decent attempt were made to expand it across the world. So rather than adding all of those, I suggest limiting the lower threshold to 75m or 80m, or to maybe limit it to the tallest 100 buildings. Crowsus (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and the other user to propose to limit the list to the buildings above 100 metres. There are too many entries, so it's better to trim the list thomasmazzotta 20:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTC Brussels

The earliest two of the three towers were demolished in 2020/21 (102m) Bonnatia (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove voluntarily from it

It's a unusual title for a Wikipedia page, It should be List of tallest demolished buildings 65.24.225.32 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Bank Building

Deutsche bank building was demolished due to 9/11 damage? How is that considered voluntary, considering other buildings demolished due to 9/11 damage are not. 174.103.211.175 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]