Talk:U.S. Bank Tower (Los Angeles)

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It's not true that it was "the tallest building in the world with a roof-top helipad until Taipei 101 opened"

I keep on seeing this "fact" being quoted elsewhere because of its inclusion in this article, but it is clearly untrue. Taipei 101 does not now and never had a roof-top helipad; a look at the design clearly shows that it could never have had one either. The correct building that overtook the US Bank Tower for the "tallest building in the world with a roof-top helipad" is the China World Trade Center Tower III which was completed in 2010 and whose roof-top helipad is 330 m (1,083 feet) high. The current tallest building in the world with a roof-top helipad is the Guangzhou International Finance Center, which also was completed in 2010 and whose roof-top helipad is 439 m (1,439 feet) high. I have corrected the article and added the necessary citations. -- Jalabi99 (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

A questions that I have, is that the roof is considered the 74th floor. I recently climbed the stairs to the top of US Bank Tower and I would say that in each of the stairwells, it is labeled to the 1-74th floor.

Not taller than the Houston tower

Did some research, and that anon IP who did the edit saying the JPMorganChase tower in Houston is taller than the US Bank Tower is correct. The US Bank Tower is 1,018 feet, while the JPMorgan Chase tower in Houston is 1,049 feet. Reference: http://www.chasetower.com/buildinghistory.htm (unsigned comment by 24.219.162.45)

Yes, but if you look at 50_Tallest_buildings_in_the_U.S., you will see that USBank Tower is ahead of JPMorgan Chase tower. Therefore, I believe we should continue to state that USBank Tower is taller. Otherwise, we will have to change all links in Wikipedia discussing largest buildings where USBank Tower is ahead of JPMorganChase Tower. Figgie123 13:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing facts in the name of accuracy, no matter how daunting, is always the right thing to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.214.145.6 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the US Bank Tower is taller is correct. The US Bank Tower is taller than the JP Mprgan Chase Tower by 5 meters, per relaible sources such as Emporis and SkyscraperPage. See these links: [1], [2] on SkyscraperPage and [3], [4] on Emporis. Both of these sites are regarded as very relaible references for skyscrapers, and the fact that they both give the same information means that the articles should remain as is. The source given above is probably just confusingly worded to make the building appear taller than it is (i.e. "height from ground level" can be ambiguous, and developers sometimes refer to the basement as "ground level", which is not what building height is measured from). Rai-me 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

One of the images in the gallery section will be used in tagalog wikipedia by a user DragosteaDinTei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.166.113 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live two blocks south of this tower, at 6th and Flower, and I work across the street from it (in the Arco Paza, the Paul Hastings tower). In all the time I have lived here, I have NEVER heard anyone call this building the Library Tower. (I never even knew that name existed for it until I read this page.) It is invariably referred to by residents and workers as the USBank Tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.224.158 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

A question that I have, is that the roof is considered the 74th floor. I recently climbed the stairs to the top of US Bank Tower and I would say that in each of the stairwells, it is labeled to the 1-74th floor.

How come only 2,000 people work there. Is most of it not used or is it a small building?

The building has enough room for more then 6,000 workers. So therefore the building is not even half used. Is this due to fear of terror attacks?

Cool building...went there today. Probably in response to 9-11, very tight security and little chance to enjoy the view from way up top.

The security, including the cardreader turnstiles by the elevators, is indeed in response to 9/11. The building, being the tallest in LA, is considered a "target building" and apparently blueprints or some other type of plans were discovered in Afghanistan. But yeah, the view is pretty good :) -EDM 03:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section about the building being able to withstand a jet flying into it due to it being built "earthquake-proof". The WTC fell not because of the initial impact, but because of the intense heat from all the jet fuel burning.

This building can be earthquake proof all it wants, but that's not going to make it any more heat-resistant. Making a building earthquake-proof entails damping vibrations and making the building strong. It doesn't entail building it out of temperature-resistant materials. Steel still melts at 2700 degrees...

The flagship picture, on the top right, isn't working on my browser, im just getting that little red x thingy that indicates that there is a picture there, but for whatever reason I can't look at it. Might want to use anohter file format or something.

Terror target

Is it proper to refer to President Bush as "Bush" when discussing his speech? -syberghost 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The first reference gives his full name and title, then subsequent mentions just give his last name. That's standaard writing. -Will Beback 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe AP Style is full name and title on first, title and last name on second, last name on subsequent, but I don't have it in front of me and the fluid nature of Wikipedia should probably leave out the 2nd anyway, so I'll agree with you.-Syberghost 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job adding the new information in there right away, plus it looks complete. -Amit, Feb. 9

Except the television news reported tonight that the LA Times has previously revealed the outline of the plot although not the details given by Bush today. --Blainster 01:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitles edit snafu

The current placement of the photos lined along the right margin has caused the edit links for the first three subsections to "stack" together. I don't wish to debate the esthetics, but this makes it difficult to select a subsection to edit. --Blainster 01:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asthetic Compliment

I find that because the building is roughly in the center of Downtown LA, it lends to an organic look to the neighborhood, as if Library Tower and the rest of downtown just sprouted up out of Bunker Hill. --TheRealZajac 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can be seen from the Valley

I dunno if anyone cares - but I noted once that on a [very] clear day, the tower's crown can be seen OVER the Santa Monica Mountains, from the north end of Reseda Blvd., nearly 30 mi away. It might be neat to get a picture of that, if possible, for the gallery. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll try to get the picture next time I'm in the country. (Either way, the view up there on Reseda, north of the 118, is spectacular, and I recommend checking it out.) - Eric 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the tallest building with a helipad" - in which category?

In the opening paragraph, it says "...and the tallest building with a helipad on the roof". Does this refer to tallest North American building with helipad? Or tallest building in the world with helipad? Can we address this in the article? enderminh 06:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'The major San Andreas Fault cannot produce a 8.0 or greater

"The building can withstand a 8.3 richter scale earthquake. The major San Andreas Fault cannot produce a 8.0 or greater earthquake. However, there are many unknown and newly discovered faults in the area, including one that runs right through Downtown."

I'd like to see support for this statement. The major San Andreas Fault cannot produce a 8.0 or greater —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.108.66 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this information needs a reference. I'll add a fact tag. Rai-me 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this fact is in fact false. In this article from SCRIPPS, it specifically states that the San Andreas near Los Angeles can produce a magnitude 8 or higher earthquake. [[5]] While the San Andreas is at risk for an earthquake of magnitude eight or higher, the San Jacinto Fault has an even greater risk for a slightly smaller earthquake of magnitude seven... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.108.66 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely a reliable source, and I have removed the statement in question from the article. Thanks for your work on this, 65.216.108.66. You sound like you have a lot to contribute; have you considered getting a Wikipedia account? Rai-me 00:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to write that Ari Gold's old office was placed in this building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.83.171 (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratosphere tower in Las Vegas?

which is taller the U.S. Bank Tower or the Stratosphere tower in Las Vegas. User:Mcanmoocanu 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stratosphere Tower is, but it is not a completely habitable "building", so therefore the U.S. Bank Tower gets the title of tallest building west of Chicago. The Stratosphere Tower would is the tallest freestanding structure west of Chicago. Rai-me 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes previous comment is footnote from List of tallest buildings by U.S. state. Fettlemap (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Taller than Towers in Hong Kong, Shanghai or Taipei

I just changed a little fact at the end, claiming it was the tallest tower east of Hong Kong. Its not, neither is it the only Tower in a siesmically active zone. Once again Taipei 101 trumps it there. Woodchippings (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

An editors added a new "In Popular Culture" section to the article. It's my understanding these kinds of sections have been discouraged increasingly. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. The threshold for inclusion is now usually that the creative work should be about the subject, or the subject should be prominently included. In this case, just having it as part of a skyline would not qualify. For example the film entries look like they might qualify (only barely), but it appears that the video games just include it as a background visual. Will Beback talk 06:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberty Tower"?

from the article: "George W. Bush asserted that American counterterrorism officials had foiled a plot to slam planes into the building, which he identified by its former name as the “Liberty Tower”."

The article does not indicate that the building has ever been called "Liberty Tower". If Bush misspoke, the article should make that clear. 70.182.195.99 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has now been done: [6] Will Beback talk 22:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S. Bank" vs "US Bank"

The building does not use periods to abbreviate U.S. in its official name, it styles itself the "US Bank Tower". All official sites for the building - website, Twitter, Facebook - spell it this way. The name used to be U.S. Bank Tower, but the new owners have no connection to the U.S. Bank company, which used to be in the building.

I requested a move to "US Bank Tower" about two years ago, but someone recently moved the page back, giving the reason that "U.S." is the properly punctuated abbreviation for United States. That's true, but the official name of the building is whatever stylized way the owners decide to spell it.

jamesluckard (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]