Talk:Claremont Hotel & Spa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Claremont Resort)
Jump to: navigation, search

Odd Omissions at "Official" Website[edit]

The Claremont's website strangely omits mention that Frank Havens was associated with the Key System, and they seem to say, erroneously (grossly erroneously) that Key trains never ran to the hotel. There are many photos showing this, and mention of it in Demoro's volumes on the Key System. Tmangray 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

Having the lone picture for this article be a picture of stricking workers is not NPOV. A basic picture of the hotel should be located at posted at the top. The strikers pictures can remain below near the paragraph on the strike. --67.101.145.13 17:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This article could indeed use a picture of the Hotel. Are you in a position to take one? --Andy M. 21:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Both Berkeley and Oakland?[edit]

Is it really i both? i think its in berkeley. we dont add categories to subject to increase traffic. Unless someone can show its located in both cities, the category and mention of its location in oakland should be removed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In 1982, D. Christopher Davis, the Executive Director of Oakland Convention & Visitors Bureau, said "The Claremont is not located in Berkeley, but is entirely within the city limits of Oakland, a fact we are extremely proud of." I don't think we should be relying on a primary source—Berkeley zoning maps—for this critical definition. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time coming up with a source more reliable on this question than a city zoning map, or less reliable than the head of Oakland's Convention and Visitor's Bureau. 173.228.119.218 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The cited source of Berkeley city maps does not actually say anything about Claremont Resort. It is only a page showing links to various city maps. The cited source, under Wikipedia's guidelines, is insufficient to prove Claremont being in Berkeley. What's needed is some expert or reliable source stating that Claremont is partly in Berkeley. Not a WP:Primary source, please. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, the Berkeley Tennis Club reference says nothing at all about Claremont being partly in Berkeley city limits. So... both primary reference do not help the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This is absurd. Virtually ANY map, but especially the official city maps, plus the Claremont's own address, plus every history of the area, plus the information about the tennis club CLEARLY show that the property is in both cities. Is it necessary for us to find the property tax records to prove this to some Oakland boosters? Or maybe a reference to the bankruptcy court filings? It's an indisputable point. The article must be restored to show this. Tmangray (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection between the city limits, the parking lot, and the address of the hotel. As far as I can tell, everything within a half mile of the hotel in any direction has a Berkeley address, including virtually all of the Claremont, Panoramic Hill, and Claremont Hills neighborhoods. The postal boundary does not follow the city limits in this area. Loumerrimac (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The city boundary of Oakland is shaped strangely in this area. There is a 1909 annexation salient extending northward from where Ashby Avenue, Tunnel Road and Claremont Avenue meet. This salient stops at the border to Tilden Park; it includes Panoramic Hill, nearly all of Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve, the whole of UC Berkeley's Botanic Garden, and the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute just up the hill from Lawrence Hall of Science, which is at the Berkeley/Oakland edge. Regarding the Tunnel Road neighborhoods, there's an important feeder street (Alvarado Road) which starts in Berkeley, makes a turn in Oakland, makes another turn in Berkeley, then continues in Oakland. (See this Oakland planning map—you will have to zoom in pretty far to see the street names.) More confusion comes from the zip code 94705 containing both Berkeley and Oakland addresses, which is not unusual but people are surprised anyway. That means you can mail a letter to someone in Oakland and write Berkeley on the envelope. As long as the zip code is correct, the Post Office doesn't care what city. Ms Dinkelspiel touches upon this in an article in Berkeleyside. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
So is it correct to say "However, a portion of the property...is used as the resort's mailing address...."? To me, that implies that the hotel would be unable to use a Berkeley address were it not for a toehold in the city of Berkeley. If nobody objects, I'd like to rewrite that sentence to be two separate main clauses. Also, the link at footnote [4] (for the address) is broken. Should that go to the home page of the hotel's website? Loumerrimac (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. The implication is not correct. The hotel/resort could choose to call themselves Berkeley and still be wholly within Oakland. However, the little fact is correct, that some of the property nearest to Tunnel Road is in Berkeley. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Free Drinks for Life[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the 'Free Drinks for Life' story other than the hotel's website? This looks to me like a local legend, and I wonder whether it should be mentioned as a story rather than as a historical fact. Also, I found some newspaper articles from 1913 that have people pointing out that the walking distance was over a mile, so I'm not sure what it is that this student was supposed to have discovered in 1936.--Loumerrimac (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The only source for that is the hotel itself. It certainly could be just local legend or even fabricated hotel lore, but I have not found a source debunking the story. The best I could do was to find out about the state bills promoted by the hotel's investors. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The law was amnended in 1937 to use driving distance rather than 'airline distance', and in a newspaper ad 26 Dec 1937, the Claremont told people to 'Bring Your Own Liquor' to their new year party (by that time beer and wine had been exempted). Unfortunately, I can't give you links to these newspaper articles and ads because I'm getting them from a subscription site (Ancestry.com). Is there a way I can send you screenshots? Also, these facts don't really debunk the version of the story that's on the hotel's website. They do show that the hotel didn't immediately begin serving liquor in 1936, however. The main reason I think the story is untrue is that the Claremont people were maintaining in 1913 that it was okay to let them serve liquor becasue students wouldn't go to a fancy hotel to drink anyway, so I can't imagine that they would use giving alcohol to a student (especially a female student in those days) as a publicity stunt while they were still trying to presuade the legislature to relax the law. Another thing: None of the versions I've heard of the story give a name for this student or explain how the hotel could award someone free drinks for life without her identity being made public. I have some other edits for this paragraph as soon as I have the time to make sure I do it right (it would be my first time doing this), and I'd like to preface this sentence with something like 'According to a story on the hotel's website...' or something like that and take out the part that's not in the hotel's version. If you'd rather make the edits, I can give you the other changes that I'd suggest, and I can give you the details on the newspaper ariticles.--Loumerrimac (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to roll up your sleeves and dig in. I like your idea of adding something like "according to the hotel's website". Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops--I forgot to enter an Edit summary. I changed some of the terminology about the law, mostly to clarify that it restricts only the sale of alcoholic beverages. Also, I removed the part about the revision to the Ferguson bill because none of the versions passed in 1913. That's why the Claremont was still burdened by the law when Prohibition was repealed. There were at least two attempts, though, so maybe something belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loumerrimac (talkcontribs) 20:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename Article?[edit]

Since the Resort is now Hotel and Spa, the article should be renamed. However, given the recent change in ownership pursuant to the Chapter 11 proceeding, perhaps we might wait just a bit to see if the new owners have settled on a more or less permanent name. Tmangray (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claremont Hotel & Spa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)