Talk:Construction of Rockefeller Center

Requested move 22 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Construction of the Rockefeller Center → Construction of Rockefeller Center – The title is grammatically incorrect. There's no "the" with Rockefeller Center. oknazevad (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. As page creator, I don't see anything wrong with just boldly moving the page right now. epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I tried, but you edited the redirect to point to this article thereby making it impossible to move without admin assistance. oknazevad (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I guess you can ask a page mover to do it for you. I can do it if you close this requested move discussion. epicgenius (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
      • As the proposer, I don't think I can as I'm an involved editor. oknazevad (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support nom and closing the nomination and asking for the page to be moved over the redirect. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Construction of Rockefeller Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 04:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking this one on. —Ed!^(talk) 04:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Lead

   • Occurs to me the lead graph might need the date range of when the actual construction was taking place, to better frame what comes next.
     • Done.

   Two figures I'd also look for in the lead: overall square footage that was constructed and the development costs.

   • • Done.

   Site

   • John Tonnele, any word on his expertise? Was he a realtor? Or was he just brought on as a university employee?
     • He was a Columbia employee. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

   Early plans

   • "Heydt purchased land just north of the proposed opera site..." is there a purchase price?
     • I don't think so. The writer didn't include it, as far as I can tell. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "Rockefeller retained Todd, Robertson and Todd as the developers..." further up seems to imply these were design consultants, like structural engineers or architects. If not, should add on the first (redlinked) reference that they are a development company.
     • I added that they were an engineering corporation. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Any idea what the commissions were for the design firms hired on the site?
     • Nope, no idea. They purposely mingled with each other under the title of "Associated Architects", like how a blender mixes different fruits so you can't tell the fruits from each other at the end. Similar to that, no one knew what each firm was tasked with doing, but at least there is info about which architects participated the most. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "By October 1929, Todd announced a new proposal..." what was the overall square footage on that new plan?
     • It doesn't say. Realistically, the square footage was not finalized until the end. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

   New plans

   • In the garden and retail plans, any details on the square footage of the space these new tenants signed for? Anchor tenants, at least, could be good to include.
     • As above, the square footage was not finalized until the end. The only thing that was definite was that Chase National Bank was supposed to occupy an oval shaped building. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • "only two of the theaters were approved under plan H-1..." by who? The city or the developers?
     • They were approved by the city. The city would have had the final say, while the developers were the people who decided on 4 theaters. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

   Later construction

   • "Hugh Robertson, the original complex's sole remaining architect," - I assume you mean sole surviving architect?
     • Not quite. Wallace Harrison lived until 1981, long after the complex was completed, but he formed his own firm. He even designed the complex's newest towers in the 1970s.

   "The Exxon Building, the northernmost of the three towers, was the first building to be completed, in 1971. This was followed by the McGraw-Hill Building, the central tower, in 1973. The Celanese Building, the southernmost tower, was the last to open, in circa 1974.[463]" -- Cost and square footage of theses?

   • • I could get you one of these: the square footage. I also added the floor count. This was one of the most tedious things to find epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Getting a Harv error on Refs #222 and #224 which means the templates might not be consistent.

   • • Fixed.
   • ISBN numbers need consistent presentation with respect to the number of dashes in them.
     • Done.
   • ISBNs needed in further reading references, as well.
     • Done.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Not seeing anything big enough to worry about in GA.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   • Plenty of good images of the building itself. Any chance of sketches of the previous proposals? They're well explained in the prose but illustration beyond the final building could help.
     • There are various plans for the various buildings. Unfortunately, they are copyrighted because they appear in the books I am citing. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

7. Other:

   • Dab links and copyvio checks are good. One dead link to check out from WGBH.
     • Fixed.
   • Consistency: I note money numbers and square footage aren't consistent with each other — $1.1 million versus 4,000,000 square feet. I suspect this is because of the {{convert}} template, though the template has some parameters that can fix.
     • Fixed. I just discovered the e6 function in {{convert}}, which is pretty cool. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Just a suggestion — it might be good to indicate some of the key dollar values in today's figures. If it goes to FAC, and I certainly would say that it's deserving, I think they might ask for it. Not needed at GA level though.
     • I added it, but the excessive use of inflation templates may come up at FAC. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Something else I'd suggest: at FAC they will sometimes ask for references to be in order. Spotting a few like .[180][181][174][182] that might be good to fix.
     • I will get on to that soon, but it will be hard because of VisualEditor. I have seen some FA's with out of order references, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
   • Grammar consistency, especially in regard to abbreviations: Be mindful that all "Sr." "Jr." "Inc." "Corp." and "Co." have periods. A comma after the period is grammatically correct. Have fixed a few but there appear to be more.
     • Fixed.

On Hold A really excellent article. Just a few things to take care of before it's passed. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 23:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

​Thanks for the review. I have fixed most of the issues that you have outlined above. epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good! I think the remainder is more than sufficient for GA. Fantastic work on this one! This article is outstanding in its thoroughness and research. Hope to see it up at FAC. —Ed!^(talk) 02:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Genesis of the Sidewalk Superintendents' Club

The article states:

Merle Crowell set up a viewing platform on the east side of Rockefeller Center and founded the facetious "Sidewalk Superintendents' Club" so the public could view construction.

The book The Last Rivet, pages 42–45, has interesting but somewhat conflicting information on the reason for the Club(s) existence. Speaking at the last-rivet ceremony of November 1, 1939, Nelson Rockefeller tells of his father's being somewhat curtly told to move as he stood watching the construction; and that that was the genesis of the clubs (the book says that there were two, the first opening on November 10, 1938), "where people could watch construction work at the Center in comfort and without being chased away." One could become a member, and 75,600 did. Furthermore, there were eleven branch chapters in various U.S. cities (indicating the considerable interest throughout the country in this particular construction). Dhtwiki (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, thanks for the comment. Sorry for the late response, as I am just seeing this now. I will drop by the library to check out what The Last Rivet and Okrent (p. 377) say. I've changed the wording for now. epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I know you've been busy, and you've done a magnificent job with this article. That was the only bit I could find that seemed worthwhile to mention that hasn't been well covered by a wealth of secondary sources. I might have made an edit myself, but this is a primary source that could stand some vetting by scholarship. You've already found a Times source for some of it, although their rendition of the quote isn't as colorful as what I remember ("Move along buddy; you can't stand loafing here.") Rockefeller was watching a "steam shovel" at work (actually powered by steam, as opposed to diesel or other internal combustion?; that would be interesting to know). Was he in the way and unrecognized as a person of consequence even in what was probably splendid clothing (the sheen on the some exposed socks in pictures in the book tell me that at least some of these gentlemen enjoyed the feel of fine silk next to their skin)? Those are probably questions that can't be resolved. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, thanks, I appreciate it. I am not sure that these questions can be answered without going off topic or including unencyclopedic material. My clarification was in a footnote, because it's not too important to mention who founded the Superintendents' Club, and there isn't much info on this obscure detail anyway. All I could find (well, at least in the books I did research) is that it existed and that more than 10,000 people joined - maybe as many as 75,600 from 11 separate chapters, as you say. epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Motivation

The first sentence ends with the claim "... to help revitalize Midtown Manhattan". Am I too cynical if I presume that the true motivation was just to make money ? I mean all kinds of people and companies claim that they do what they do in order to (for example) build the best automobiles in the world - while actually just running a business and building what sells best. So if there is no actual proof to what motivated Mr. Rockefeller I would rather not see such idealising glory draped over a mere building project. JB. --92.195.95.36 (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not blindly revert (delete) my comment since it is correctly intended to improve the quality of the page. I discuss the statement currently on the page, ask for a relevant source and challenge its correctness. Imho that is actually the sense of the talk page, right ? Afaik it is highly unusual and considered unkind to just delete talk which somebody does not like. I have absolutely no problem with people having a different opinion and am always ready to discuss any topic in a reasonable way. Please let's not jump into crazzy Wikipedia battles here, I'm a reasonable person. JB. --92.193.255.107 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)