Talk:1 Ilica Street

High-rise, not skyscraper

The appropriate term for this 16 storeys tall building (height not specified in the article, but probably around 60m) is high-rise, not skyscraper. Elekhh (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Although unreferenced, the article on skyscrapers offers the following statement: "Most cities define the term empirically; even a building of 80 meters (262 feet) may be considered a skyscraper if it protrudes above its built environment and changes the overall skyline" (which is certainly the case with 1 Ilica Street). Merriam-Webster defines "skyscraper" as a "very tall building" and Britannica defines it as a "very tall multistoried building. The term originally applied to buildings of 10–20 stories, but now generally describes high-rises of more than 40–50 stories". This implies that "skyscrapers" are a subset of "high-rises" which is defined purely in relation to their surroundings. Emporis does draw the line at 150 meters of height and calls everything under that high-rises for the purpose of their database - but it doesn't seem that anyone else accepted the definition. For example, Wikipedia itself has categories called Skyscrapers between 100 and 149 meters (with 751 buildings) and Skyscrapers between 50 and 99 meters (with 36 buildings). As for the exact height of the building, I've had an unusually hard time trying to find the exact number, but different sources put it as low as 60 meters and as high as 75 meters. That's the reason why the article doesn't specify it - at least until a reliable source is found. Timbouctou (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So according to the current definitions above (Britannica, Emporis), with a height of only 16 storeys this building is well short of being a skyscraper in present day terms. It might well be that historically, and locally, was or still is referred to as a "skyscraper", but for the present day international reader this is confusing if not explained. I think at least it should be explained in the article that the term "skyscraper" reflects local and/or historic use. Also the statement that "it was the tallest building in Yugoslavia at the time of its completion" is imprecise, as Zagreb Cathedral was 108 meters in 1899. Elekhh (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Although calling it an "office high-rise building" or an "office high-rise tower" certainly wouldn't be a mistake, "skyscraper" is still warranted for historic reasons, as generally evidenced in articles on other similar 1950s buildings (some examples: Skatteskrapan, Simms Building, Eskom Centre, 55 Public Square). As for Zagreb Cathedral, it is arguably not a "building", if the same is defined as a "structure with floors throughout" or a "structure that is suitable for continuous human occupancy". However, this distinction could still be noted in the article without going into exact definitions. GregorB (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)