# CN Tower vs Ostankino Tower vs Stratosphere Tower



## Dreamlıneя

Stratosphere :yes:


----------



## Jaye101




----------



## alex-style

Ostankino Tower

He get a new antenna 2007 and becomes 577meters.
Sorry for my english.


----------



## SilverChair

CN tower rules!!


----------



## MDguy

I think either CN or stratosphere. Ive been in both, but I'm not sure which one I like more. I can't remember my vote. probly CN- it's more iconic and has better views imo, but both are wonderful


----------



## intervention

The CN Tower really has an air of grace about it ... Ostankino really lacks that, it looks lumpy and like its about to get launched into space.


----------



## ToRoNto g-town

well i thinks Ostankino is the ugliest thing i've ever seen but cn and stratosphere r both nice towers there unique characteristics to them, but i like the cn better for its AMAZING views!


----------



## neilio

Dancer said:


> ha ha :applause: I like that :righton:
> I guess the Space Needle isnt on here because there is no comarison :blahblah: Half the size but soooo much better :cheers1: Its the original
> http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=346618


actually you could fit exactly 3 space needles into the Cn tower height wise.


----------



## Waterloo_Guy

the space needle is nice, but doesn't belong in this group; it is more comparable to the Calgary tower or Skylon tower. Stratosphere doesn't belong here either as it is more in the league with Space needle or Skylon. 

I vote CN over the Russian one, although that one is very cool.


----------



## Cidade_Branca

CN










I like. It's a very nice tower.

Ostankino










It's like MIR... very technologic... don't have beauty.

Stratosphere










I Like.

Macau










Barcelona


----------



## spotila

alex-style said:


> Ostankino Tower
> 
> He get a new antenna 2007 and becomes 577meters.
> Sorry for my english.



really? That'd make it taller than the CN Tower. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## erbse

I'd go for the *Berlin TV tower* (Fernsehturm)




































































































Dirty Berlin - so juicy 













































The 'Revenge of the Pope'
































































I'm lovin' it :carrot: The simple shape makes it unique and appearing classy. Timeless beauty imo.


----------



## Peloso

Ostankino. While it is (perhaps) true that CN is more aesthetically valuable, the view from Ostankino is over Moscow, a city that's way more interesting than Toronto. And for this same reason I'd put Berliner Fernsehturm on second place, ahead of CN as well.


----------



## canadalover

CN tower because of it's height, revolving restaurent (The best food I never ate), it's new leed, and the highest observation deck in the world ( for now )

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-06/CN-tower-toronto.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/images/070705cn1.jpg

http://www.bayst-search-engine-optimization.com/images/cn-tower.jpg

What a beautiful tower!


----------



## Taller Better

Sorry to be rude, but in my humble opinion Ostankino is aesthetically unpleasant.


----------



## Peloso

Taller said:


> Sorry to be rude, but in my humble opinion Ostankino is aesthetically unpleasant.


You're not being rude. Just... partial.


----------



## isaidso

The CN Tower is a marvel, but the one in Berlin is my favourite. Ostankino isn't pretty, but it's certainly not boring either. I doubt I'd go up it though. Soviet era technology doesn't instill confidence.


----------



## Peloso

isaidso said:


> The CN Tower is a marvel, but the one in Berlin is my favourite. Ostankino isn't pretty, but it's certainly not boring either. I doubt I'd go up it though. Soviet era technology doesn't instill confidence.


I'd say Soviet era tech is the most rugged of all. Soviet era missiles (still functioning today) are the most reliable and the most used by parties who need space services. Weapons designed in the 70-es and 80-es are still in service in many countries, and often on par with updated western items. Same goes for dams and bridges - with no important failures, whereas, I recall, USAn bridge from the same period suffered at least two catastrophic collapses.
Oh well, the same fact of Ostankino having resisted a big fire and still standing up after 40 years without needing a major renovation, tells it all.


----------



## ZZ-II

CN Tower


----------



## ZZ-II

spotila said:


> really? That'd make it taller than the CN Tower. Can anyone confirm this?


i know that they are planning that but nothing has happend until now and i don't think it will in the near future....money is the problem .


----------



## skyscraper100

for me this is the most beautiful observation tower

THE ORIENTAL PEARL


----------



## isaidso

Peloso said:


> I'd say Soviet era tech is the most rugged of all. Soviet era missiles (still functioning today) are the most reliable and the most used by parties who need space services. Weapons designed in the 70-es and 80-es are still in service in many countries, and often on par with updated western items. Same goes for dams and bridges - with no important failures, whereas, I recall, USAn bridge from the same period suffered at least two catastrophic collapses.
> Oh well, the same fact of Ostankino having resisted a big fire and still standing up after 40 years without needing a major renovation, tells it all.



I made comments regarding a Russian, Canadian, and German tower. What does US construction technology have to do with this? Why not start talking about Egyptian construction, while you're at it. Some Soviet technology is durable, but we are talking about construction/engineering technology. I'd take German or Canadian over Soviet, any day.


----------



## ale26

ya seriously...


----------



## Peloso

isaidso said:


> I made comments regarding a Russian, Canadian, and German tower. What does US construction technology have to do with this? Why not start talking about Egyptian construction, while you're at it. Some Soviet technology is durable, but we are talking about construction/engineering technology. I'd take German or Canadian over Soviet, any day.


Excuse me, but your comment was not just about towers, you said "Soviet era technology doesn't instill you confidence". Now, "era" means "period of time", so "Soviet era" specimens should be put in parallel with their contemporaries. Of course US technology has to do with this (maybe egyptian too), since at that time a race was on in the tech field as well. While you'd take German or Canadian over Soviet, your fellow Canadian techies think differently, in fact your communications are probably provided by a Soviet (-derived)-launched satellite. Major US and Canadian comm firms prefer Russian rockets:
http://www.globalstar.ca/en/about/newsevents/press_display.php?pressId=41
http://www.space-travel.com/reports...an_Satellite_To_Be_Launched_April_10_999.html


----------



## Jonesy55

London Telecom Tower, not the biggest in the world but hey.


----------



## MasonicStage™

Collserola Tower in Barcelona :applause:
something amazing! especially in live! :yes:


----------



## Marcanadian

The CN Tower has one of the best lighting systems in the World.

From Flickr











By mkrsic


----------



## caltrane74

I can't believe this thread is still alive.


----------



## ancov

Ostankino !!!


----------



## Patrick

I like the Alex in Berlin and Oriental Pearl in Shanghai!

























and from the 3 here in the poll I like the CN Tower the most.



Dancer said:


> ha ha :applause: I like that :righton:
> I guess the Space Needle isnt on here because there is no comarison :blahblah: Half the size but soooo much better :cheers1: Its the original
> http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=346618


the original? 

The 217m tall Fernsehturm of Stuttgart is older (completed in 1955), and the entrepreneur who built Space Needle got the idea to put a restaurant in it during a visit in Stuttgart


----------



## Skybean




----------



## isaidso

Peloso said:


> Excuse me, but your comment was not just about towers, you said "Soviet era technology doesn't instill you confidence". Now, "era" means "period of time", so "Soviet era" specimens should be put in parallel with their contemporaries. Of course US technology has to do with this (maybe egyptian too), since at that time a race was on in the tech field as well. While you'd take German or Canadian over Soviet, your fellow Canadian techies think differently, in fact your communications are probably provided by a Soviet (-derived)-launched satellite. Major US and Canadian comm firms prefer Russian rockets:


Um...no! You may choose to ignore the flow of people's arguments if you wish, but my comments were very much about construction and civil engineering, not missiles and space exploration. I really don't see how Soviet missile and space exploration has much bearing in my confidence level regarding going up the Ostankino Tower. Just because a nation has abilities in one area, that does NOT mean they have abilities in all areas simply because of a 'period of time' or era. In 1980, I would have bought a Soviet missile, but I certainly wouldn't have bought a Soviet nuclear reactor. You are comparing apples and oranges. The link you are making is foolish. 

You seem to be have 2 nation tunnel vision regarding tech. It's either Soviet or it's American. Other countries are leaders technologically in many areas and don't simply rely on the technology of these 2 countries, as your post insinuates. 

If you insist on going off on a tangent and talk about space technologies and science in general, do some research before you make assumptions. Canada was the 3rd nation in space. The first to have a domestic communication satellite in orbit, and the 3rd nation to develop nuclear capabilites...we are just one of the few who chose not to make bombs. If some launch tech comes from Soviet technology, so what? We probably sell them alot of tech. I'd be shocked if we weren't in surplus with Russia in this capacity. 

Btw, I am not a US or Canadian communication firm. What tech they choose is their own business. What tech I feel comfortable with is mine. People are capable of reaching their own conclusions and are entitled to that. I'm supposed to go up this tower because some communication firm likes Soviet era launch technology? Please!

I stand by my assertion. Even though I like the Ostankino Tower, I would not feel comfortable going up it. Soviet era technology does not inspire confidence in me. FOLLOW THE flow of paragraphs! That is what paragraphs are for: to convey a thought. When you move to another thought, you start a new paragraph. Even the thread question relates to civil engineering. 

If you want to discuss Soviet space tech, I'd suggest going to the Skybar and starting a thread there.


----------



## Quall

I had no idea the Space Needle was that old. It looks new! Was it renovated?


----------



## mbuildings

i can't decide


----------



## gladisimo

CN hands down, even including the Pearl Tower thing.


----------



## Rizzato

Jonesy55 said:


>


:shifty:


----------



## erbse

^ Probably you rather mean "uke:"


----------



## Peloso

isaidso said:


> Um...no! You may choose to ignore the flow of people's arguments if you wish, but my comments were very much about construction and civil engineering, not missiles and space exploration. I really don't see how Soviet missile and space exploration has much bearing in my confidence level regarding going up the Ostankino Tower. Just because a nation has abilities in one area, that does NOT mean they have abilities in all areas simply because of a 'period of time' or era. In 1980, I would have bought a Soviet missile, but I certainly wouldn't have bought a Soviet nuclear reactor. You are comparing apples and oranges. The link you are making is foolish.
> 
> You seem to be have 2 nation tunnel vision regarding tech. It's either Soviet or it's American. Other countries are leaders technologically in many areas and don't simply rely on the technology of these 2 countries, as your post insinuates.
> 
> If you insist on going off on a tangent and talk about space technologies and science in general, do some research before you make assumptions. Canada was the 3rd nation in space. The first to have a domestic communication satellite in orbit, and the 3rd nation to develop nuclear capabilites...we are just one of the few who chose not to make bombs. If some launch tech comes from Soviet technology, so what? We probably sell them alot of tech. I'd be shocked if we weren't in surplus with Russia in this capacity.
> 
> Btw, I am not a US or Canadian communication firm. What tech they choose is their own business. What tech I feel comfortable with is mine. People are capable of reaching their own conclusions and are entitled to that. I'm supposed to go up this tower because some communication firm likes Soviet era launch technology? Please!
> 
> I stand by my assertion. Even though I like the Ostankino Tower, I would not feel comfortable going up it. Soviet era technology does not inspire confidence in me. FOLLOW THE flow of paragraphs! That is what paragraphs are for: to convey a thought. When you move to another thought, you start a new paragraph. Even the thread question relates to civil engineering.
> 
> If you want to discuss Soviet space tech, I'd suggest going to the Skybar and starting a thread there.


Really I did not want to discuss it, just made a remark. It's you who expanded 50 lines or so. I'll be brief: Canada was "third in space" with an USAn missile ("Thor Agena") launched from an US base (Vanderberg). It just built the satellite, the device to be launched, essentially a ball with sensors. That's not exactly the same... had Italy had NASA launch my a** in space then Italy would have been "third in space" instead (I say this because of my pesky "2 nation tunnel vision"). Soviet nuclear plants were more reliable than US ones and had less accidents, and if you are hinting to Chernobyl, just read about it, its cause was human error. Today's tech sales to Russia by Canada are off the point, because they're not made in the "Soviet era", whereas today's Soyuz is originally Soviet-made.
Sorry to be a pest, but if you really care for me to stay on topic and avoid tangents, please just write "Soviet era *towers * [not "technology"] don't instill confidence" possibly adding the magic words "*to me*" at the end - what you didn't do in the original post.


----------



## julesstoop

Berlin all the way!


----------



## fozzy

I have been up the cn tower,stratosphere tower & the skytower in Auckland. And for design i think the Skytower in Auckland looks best.


----------



## Skybean




----------



## noob(but not really)

CN Tower for sure. kay:

Ostankino is a glorified antennae that kind of looks like Bender from Futurama. uke:

And of course, Stratosphere is a wannabe space needle.


----------



## Lawcheehung

CN Tower! For Ostankino I don't like how there is wire framing, and dishes sticking out of the tower, it looks like a stick with a bunch of different communications attachments stuck to it..


----------



## ParisianStyle

Space Needle (Seattle)









TV Tower (Berlin)










(Please one in Paris !!)


----------



## Taurus702B

Closeups of the Stratosphere Tower


----------



## Peloso

I think this poll expresses quite well the different wide band penetration levels of Canada vs. Russia. :lol:


----------



## 1+2=3

Oriental Pearl Tower, Shanghai! From the 3 other options in the poll: CN tower.


----------



## Taller Better

Wow, whoever Photoshopped in a bigger moon in that Stratosphere picture exaggerated somewhat. Note to whoever did it.. the moon is never _that_ big unless you are on one of the space shuttles! hehe


----------



## VelesHomais

CN Tower. I loved it since I first saw it on a picture in a book about world wonders when I was 8 years old.


----------



## filcan

Stratosphere tower is the best looking of the three, but the CN Tower is the all around favourite for me...the Ostankino Tower is just a no no...


----------



## flesh_is_weak

Oriental Pearl...but for this thread, Tour CN...

cant wait for Manila Tower though kay:


----------

