Talk:Chicago Board of Trade Building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Architecture (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chicago (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Illinois (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skyscrapers (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Featured article Chicago Board of Trade Building is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2008.

Untitled[edit]

This article may becoming close to a good article candidate, according to the guidelines regarding good articles. Current needs include:

  • A review against the standards in Wikipedia Manual of style.
  • A review of whether the cited sources are essential and properly placed. Some sources are cited early in the article for a fact and then not cited later.
  • A review of whether the focus is on the main topic without non-notable trivia. I believe the article to be well structured, with sufficient details to support notability of the topic and significant events and people related to the topic.
  • A review against the neutral point of view policy. I believe neutrality is strong. Currently, the article does not advocate any financial or market system, architecture style, politicla figure, or position within the trading industry.
  • Additional graphics depicting statues or art-deco features.
  • Additional details of interior design or function for any of the buildings or locations, e.g. quantitative facts of floor space, offices, technology upgrades, employees served, etc.
    • Added facts for floor space and pic of trading floor ChicagoPimp 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Added facts for early locations. ChicagoPimp 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Literary or journalistic references and citations

Chicago Pedway[edit]

I removed the following: The building is connected to surrounding properties via the Chicago Pedway, a system of pedestrian passageways. The supposed parts of the Pedway that the city shows on its map ([1]) do not connect to any other portions of the Pedway and are 1) an open-air sidewalk and 2) an overhead bridge that has been off-limits since soon after 9/11. Kevin Forsyth 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA[edit]

Very enjoyable read and verifiable. Alientraveller 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One North LaSalle[edit]

I am not sure if the Chicago Board of Trade Building and One North LaSalle are the same. See these links: http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/O/OneNorthLasalle.html and http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/B/BoardTrade.html. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved
using Emporis (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1northlasalle-chicago-il-usa vs. http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=chicagoboardoftrade-chicago-il-usa) and Encyclopedia of Chicago. Bd. of Trade is the taller of the two. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tallest Art Deco building outside of Manhattan contention[edit]

removed from mainspace until we can find a source:-

  • It remains the tallest art-deco building outside Manhattan.

--Joopercoopers 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture removed[edit]

I've removed Image:CBOTmailbox.jpg ([[Image:CBOTmailbox.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Lobby mailbox at the Chicago Board of Trade. (photo: 2007-02-27)]]) from the article, because the statue pics were in the wrong section and had to go in the section where the mailbox photo was. I tried to put it somewhere else, but the picture layout is difficult to handle with so many short sections. Can anyone think of a way to get the mailbox picture back in? Carcharoth 14:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note here what I said in more details at the FAC: there are two pairs of objects named Agriculture and Industry - the 35ft high relief sculptures (on the 1930 building) and the 12ft high statues (from the 1885 building and now in the plaza). Carcharoth 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebert/Batman[edit]

The article gets a whole sentence out of the fact that Ebert praised the use of the building for Batman 17 or whatever it was called. Here's what Ebert wrote, in its entirety:

The movie was shot on location in Chicago, making good use of the murky depths of lower Wacker Drive and the Board of Trade building (now the Wayne Corp.).

Oh. This strikes me as uninformative, unremarkable and uninteresting. I think reference to it is deletable. Too harsh? -- Hoary 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A tad harsh. The building itself does play a prominent role in Batman Begins; for most readers that will be their only exposure to the structure. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's the only time I've ever seen it. Carcharoth 10:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

After markup-stripping, the article now says:

Film critic Roger Ebert complimented the use of the location in the 2005 film Batman Begins,[47] in which film the building was depicted as the headquarters of the fictional Wayne Enterprises.

I've no objection to pointing out that the movie was used as the location for this film. What I object to is the way this suggests that Ebert says something sufficiently interesting about the use for it to be worth clicking on the link and reading. But you click on the link, you get various cookies and advertising junk (unless you've got your browser to zap this), and you read nothing of interest. So I suggest something like:

The building is a major location in the 2005 film Batman Begins,[47] in which it is the headquarters of the fictional Wayne Enterprises.

--Hoary 10:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds much better. Carcharoth 10:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Hoary 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Rogers and his lasso[edit]

It's good to integrate miscellanea into the article. The vignette of Will Rogers and his lasso was previously in a trivia section, and I'm all in favor of having it moved elsewhere. Somebody moved it amid the (mostly) architectural history, whereupon it was more conspicuously out of place and trivial; I therefore commented it out. -- Hoary 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I moved it from a section talking about the 1930 building (or a section that implied it was talking about the 1930 building), to the section about the 1885 building (the 'lasso' event took place in 1905). I thought it was rather a nice vignette about how a tour that was promoting Tulsa came to that building in Chicago - says something about the role of the 1885 building in the Chicago of 1905. I imagine newspaper headlines long the lines of "Rogers is star attraction at Chicago Building of Trade show, as Tulsa tries to lure Chicagoeans west", but that is just speculation. Carcharoth 11:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. Perish the thought of adding any speculation, but I wonder if this could be altered a bit so that it fits in better. But do feel free to uncomment it. -- Hoary 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Load time[edit]

I don't know if it is that ridiculous skyline picture (in violation of MOS suggestions) that is causing it but this page takes forever to load on my high-speed connection, can this be addressed considering this article is featured, that picture is probably the reason. IvoShandor 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So let's take a look then.
  • "Ridiculous skyline picture": 142,768 bytes
  • All other jpegs, totaled: 96 kB or so
  • Image:Cbot-close-night.gif: 32,296 bytes (about double what it would be as a jpeg)
  • The text of the article: 140kB or so.
  • Other odds and sods (much of which would already be in your cache): 95 kB
IvoShandor phrases it robustly, but I think he has a point. -- Hoary 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure of the exact numbers but the picture itself is quite garish and not very aesthetically pleasing, I have argued this point before, but it really doesn't add much to the article. I am not even sure if its position in the skyline is encyclopedic content for inclusion as much as it is local trivia. "Ridiculous" may be a bit harsh but it gets very frustrating when the Chicago project (of which I am a member) disregards all previous objections to certain content and continues to insist upon its inclusion, I cannot see where such a large photograph of such a trivial aspect to this (or any other) building can ever add much to any article. The MOS suggestions are generally good, I am oft left wondering why it is this project summarily ignores so many of them on content that is otherwise of the highest quality. IvoShandor 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could link to the previous discussion of this image, and summarize what was said about it. As I look at the list of what links to it, the likeliest candidate is this, but it's a brief and amicable discussion. Searching through the current WP Chicago talk page for "skyline" brings up nothing.

I don't agree with you on MoS; but my disagreement apart, it's hard to know what you're citing. Which part of MoS is being violated here? (I can guess, and can chase up my guesses; but it seems that you already know.) -- Hoary 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)IMO it is violation of the images section of the MOS, all about not specifying size. It could be construed that this photo is special and subject to the exceptions but given its unencyclopedic nature I don't think that argument should be used. I think the previous image discussion was on the Blackstone Hotel page. The load times for a photo like that are long on my connection, they must be absolutely unbearable for anyone connecting to Wikipedia from, say Kenya. So even if you argue that its ratio and whatnot don't violate the MOS (which is just a guideline anyway) the argument from the other side (against inclusion of the photo) is still a formidable one. Also, I don't think many of my discussions about stuff I disagree with have been anything but amiable, at least I try to be nice anyway, I really respect alot of the other Chicago editors and their work but I don't always agree with some of the decisions made. IvoShandor 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
As you may know, I often disagree with many users (including myself) myself.
So, I see:
Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: / On images with extreme aspect ratios
"Not recommended" is very gentle, and the extreme aspect ratio of this image is its immediate and obvious escape clause.
That said, I'm no particular fan of the image. How about suggesting in the WP Chicago talk page or some other suitable place (rather than here) the creation of a Chicago skyline page, starring this image or a better version thereof, as a link destination of the articles on individual buildings, etc. that are now burdened with the image? -- Hoary 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a battle I would just rather not deal with, to be honest I am usually much happier when my edits are in the article namespace. If we can reach consensus to remove it from this page I will be content with that, since this one is featured and should represent our best work not our creative whims. IvoShandor 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous building (1885)[edit]

Found a nice website here with pics of the 1885 building, which appears to have acquired a clock tower at some point. Carcharoth 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Architectural details[edit]

See the picture here. That shows the Ceres statue, the hooded figures on the corners, adn I think, the relief sculptures between the corners are the 35 ft Industry and Agriculture ones. Carcharoth 02:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Early history[edit]

The article states that "...the Chicago Board of Trade opened for business at 101 S. Water Street." Two problems:

  1. There isn't a 101 S. Water Street (anymore). Water Street now runs only east-west, and is only east of State Street, so that all the addresses on it are East. (There used to be a S. Water Street, but it got replaced by Wacker Drive.)
  2. Chicago's street numbers changed in 1916(?), and maybe other times. Is the 101 S. Water Street an 'old' address, or a current one? (I think it's old.) Rick lightburn (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely an old address. Given that the referenced date in the same sentence is 1848, I don't see it as a problem, although it might be helpful if someone could correlate that old address with an approximate modern location. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

a new picture[edit]

I have a very high res piture from the top floor with a view down the La Salle street. Picture is from last summer. If you would like me to add it, please let me know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbychu (talkcontribs) 03:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You can upload it with the "Upload file" link in the box at the left here (in toolbox). It will need a proper license (usually GFDL) too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More than one "Chicago Board of Trade Building" in this article[edit]

I find it confusing that there are two buildings referred to in his article that had the same name -- an 1885-1929 building and and 1930-present building (even a few other buildings are mentioned in passing in the 'early locations paragraph'). Most articles on buildings are for a specific instance of that building and not all buildings that had the same purpose. Is there a way that this fact can be spelled out more explicitly? I know that if readers read the article thoroughly from start to finish that they would understand that there was more than one "Chicago Board of Trade Building", but I still find it confusing that the dates in the nav-box at the bottom don't mesh with the build date in the first paragraph or the infobox. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Better picture[edit]

I just uploaded a photo to Commons here as public domain which I feel is better quality than the current main article picture from a clarity and composition perspective. It is at a slight angle, however (taken about a block away from the sidewalk). Just thought interested editors would like to know -- thought it might be a tad taboo to be bold where the Featured Article of the Day was concerned, or I would change it myself. Thanks! pinotgris 22:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture of the building is dated December 14, 2006. However, the photo is clearly older than that. Take a look at the cars. Much older models than would be seen on LaSalle Street in 2006. And the CTA bus is an older style bus which were decommissioned in the early 1990's. Any idea when the picture really was taken? 1986 would be an educated guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.173.23.21 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New photo for infobox[edit]

I propose to change the image in infobox to File:Chicago Board Of Trade Building.jpg. The newer image is of much higher resolution. It has has correct exposure particularly at the top of the building which is over-exposed in the current image. The statue on top of the building is also clear. --Jovian Eye talk 03:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think any big consensus is required for the image to be changed to the proposed one. --Jovian Eye talk 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Number Of Stories Or Floors[edit]

Nowhere does this article state how tall the building is in terms of the number of floors it has; if I'm wrong, please correct me.

Satchmo Sings (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Faceless statue[edit]

Ceres is faceless because its sculptor, John Storrs, believed that the forty-five story building would be sufficiently taller than any other nearby structure and as a result that no one would be able to see the sculpture's face anyway.

Can we mention a brief reference to the statue having no face because the sculptor thought nobody was gonna able to see it as the building was so tall that it was never gonna be surpassed? Reference though it's hard to find. Doblecaña (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)