Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2024 [1].

270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a former skyscraper in New York City, known for its main tenants: the chemical company Union Carbide, and the financial firm Manufacturers Hanover (now JPMorgan Chase). It was never the tallest or most famous, but it became the tallest building to be demolished by its owners in 2019. Aside from that, it was once the world's tallest building that was mainly designed by a woman. The tower may not have looked unusual, but it was built above the tracks leading into Grand Central Terminal, requiring some interesting modifications to its structure.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by Mike Christie, for which I am very grateful. I now think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down here to comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

All these done
  • No gripes through the lead and Site sections
Architecture to Form & facade
  • 2nd paragraph: I wish I knew the formal term for this, but it's written in a way that feels a bit like it starts at the end. First we learn that observers attributed the design to de Blois, then we learn that this is relevant because actually Bunshaft (side note, great name, I keep picturing bunnies in a mine shaft) took the credit. I might revise to start with Bunshaft presenting himself as the main designer, then give us the reveal about de Blois being the real brains
    • That mental picture is hilarious. But yeah, I've moved the second paragraph up to the first paragraph. I also moved the sentence about "Bunshaft claiming credit" to just after the first sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, I'm not sure we need to attribute this to "several publications", as it appears to be fairly accepted
  • It might be nice to have another photo of the building in the Form and facade section, if there are any unused in the commons cat (or maybe move the one up from Structural features? It feels weirdly placed there)
  • "It was also one of the last skyscrapers" not sure "also" is needed here
  • "There were 6,824 spandrels and glass panels on the facade" it's possible that I'm just writing this at 330 am but this reads ambiguously as to whether it's 6,824 spandrels and a corresponding 6,824 glass panels, or 6,824 items total, in some unknown combination.
Arbitrary break at Plazas
History to Sale
  • Threatening is such a fun word here! Why did they threaten this, and why did they change their minds?
    • The company wanted to provide additional space for its staff, and they felt a suburban headquarters was the best way to do this; at the time, many companies were moving their HQs outside NYC. I'm not exactly sure why this plan was abandoned, though, as the sources don't say. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you later mentioned in the article that this was part of a trend, maybe you could include that in this sentence to contextualize? Support not contingent on this, just a thought. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might flip the order of "Train service was..." and the following sentence.
  • "Union Carbide had initially planned" and then later in the sentence you have "planned" again
  • "moved from the building" maybe "moved out of" or "left the building"?
  • "into the former magazine offices" I might go with "the magazine's former offices", right now "magazine" sounds like it's an adjective modifying offices, which made me briefly wonder "what is a magazine office" before I realized
  • Any idea why the Puerto Rican nationalists bombed this building specifically?
    • They wanted the US government to free political prisoners and recognize PR as an independent country. FALN was responsible for dozens of bombings in NYC around that time; they sought to attract attention to their cause by bombing banks and large corporations' headquarters. This was one of five buildings they targeted on that date. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah okay so not really specific. Maybe mention it was one of five targeted? Right now it kind of implies they picked on 270 Park specifically for some reason
  • "quality-of-life concerns" relating to the building specifically or NYC in general?
Manufacturers Hanover & Demolition
  • Not mandatory, but as 383 Madison was first linked way up under "Site", I think you could squeeze in a duplicate link here
  • "SL Green Realty proposed that JPMorgan Chase swap" why?
    • The source doesn't say, but I suspect it might have something to do with SL Green wanting the air rights, as that company has previously proposed the same thing with other buildings. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had denied a request" should just be "denied a request" I think
  • "declined to consider protecting" this reads like there's two stages to this process. 1) accepting buildings for consideration and 2) actually considering and either protecting or not. Is that correct?
    • Yes, that's correct. The LPC has to first agree to host a public hearing on whether a building should be designated; the process of scheduling a hearing is called "calendaring". After the public hearing, the LPC can vote on whether to designate the building as a landmark. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha
  • "An LPC spokesperson said that several buildings by SOM were already landmarks" is it fairly typical for them to decline for this reason?
    • No. Generally, the LPC doesn't refuse to designate landmarks just because the same architect designed another city landmark. However, this building is part of the Midtown East rezoning district. If I recall correctly, the LPC had previously indicated that it would not designate any more buildings in this district after 2016, as the city wanted to encourage new development in the area. I think the architect explanation was merely an excuse for the LPC's refusal to designate any more buildings in Midtown East. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curbed described..." when
Impact

No concerns with sources skimmed for the above points. That's the end of me here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your above points now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC.

[edit]
Site
  • a six-building complex": per WP:NUMBERS this should be "6-building", given the use of digits in other references nearby
    • I've changed it, though I'm not quite satisfied with the wording. The guideline says that "integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", and that might apply here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also says that you shouldn't mix numerals and written out numbers - that's the bit I'm trying to get right. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Form and facade
  • "Measuring 707 ft (215 m) tall,[22][23][24]": Do we need three references for this one figure?
Construction
  • "it was the highest heavy object to be hoisted": I think the grammar has gone a little awry here – and if we could find away to avoid the alliteration, that would also be better
    • It took me ten minutes to come up with a suitable wording for this one. This particular heavy object was lifted 707 feet, and no other similarly heavy object had been lifted to a higher altitude above ground. I went with "no other heavy object had been hoisted to a higher altitude". Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completion

Ippantekina

[edit]

To review soon. Ippantekina (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry but I cannot commit unfortunately; real life schedules hit hard... I think it's best to strike this to avoid mismanagement of expectations. I wish you all the best with this FAC nonetheless! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the heads up. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is Intelligencer the same as The Intelligencer (Doylestown, Pennsylvania)? Don't think that newspapers usually get an ISSN? Is "Broadcasting, Telecasting" a reliable source? archpaper isn't a website, but a magazine, so it should mention the magazine's name. Who is the publisher of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I'll get to these on Thursday, but the Intelligencer is Intelligencer (website), published by New York magazine. Broadcasting, Telecasting is actually the former name of Broadcasting & Cable magazine, a trade magazine. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the other issues now:
  • I added the publisher of the SOM book.
  • I removed the ISSNs, as all three of these newspapers are well known.
  • I changed the The Architect's Newspaper cite.
– Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to add, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I see asbestos was used in the construction; is there any mention of how that was handled in the demolition?
  • You have both "black matte finish" and "black-matte finish".
  • "Between the building and the lot line was a plaza": I think this must be the east side of the lot, facing Park Avenue, but it would help if we made that clear.
  • "The site of the plaza was supposed to be part of a northward extension of Vanderbilt Avenue to 49th Street": perhaps "had originally been intended to be", since presumably this was no longer the case by 1960.

More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments, Mike. I've done these. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • You mention there were air conditioning units on the roof and in the basement, but then say each office's air conditioning was supplied by a unit beneath each window.
    • My understanding is that both are correct. There were AC units both on the roof and in the basement for the interior offices. However, the offices at the perimeter were served directly by ACs below the windows. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filing cabinets and clustered workstations were also designed around the 5-foot-square module": can you just confirm this is accurate? It would have been quite unusual to take workstation design into account in 1960. This would have had to refer to dumb terminals, which were rare until the 1960s.
    • The source does mention that it was highly unusual: "The typical office floors of Union Carbide accommodated an unprecedented degree of modular design in the ceiling grid, furniture, filing and storage systems, and introduced clustered workstations with low dividers." I have reworded this slightly. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction was complicated by the fact that there were only six platforms on the upper level that extended to 47th Street." I don't understand this. Is the issue that materials delivery had to come to these platforms?
  • "critics regarded Union Carbide to be much more bulky": suggest either "critics regarded Union Carbide as much more bulky" or "critics considered Union Carbide to be much more bulky". And perhaps the more straightforward "bulkier"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support . Fixes look good; no other issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/270_Park_Avenue_(1960–2021)/archive1&oldid=1220309016"