Talk:111 West 57th Street

Sources for the $100 million condos

We could use [1] to illustrate more this part, without becoming a real state article. Doblecaña (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Name issue

The building is not named "The Steinway Tower" in any of the developer literature or website. Its official website only refers to the building by its address. The name comes from its location on the site of the former Steinway showroom, not its actual structure or tenants. Suggest getting some consensus on this to stop trolling and online bickering--which has already started. 75.142.191.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Terrible Photo

I will probably end up changing the photo regardless but I wanted to post here first. Any photo of a skyscraper from ground level does not do it justice and this is a particularly interesting building. The following photos on the article are alright but a profile of this building from half way up does a lot more to show the interesting facade than a iPhone photo from the ground level.

I also agree that there is a naming issue but that is less Wiki's fault and more of the fact that this building is still not entirely done being constructed(?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NedTown5000 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't fault anyone for the quality of the photos. The images are provided entirely by volunteers, and the tower is basically only visible from ground level, private property, or observation decks that are several blocks away. However, I do agree with the fact that we need a better photo, like the image at 432 Park Avenue. As for the "Steinway Tower" name, the anonymous user is incorrect, there are sources which mention this name. Epicgenius (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

111 West 57th Street

• ... that 111 West 57th Street, one of the tallest buildings in the United States, was legally classified as an "alteration" to the existing 16-story Steinway Hall? Source: (1) Sun, Kevin (May 16, 2018). "Building in the shadows: 3.2M sf of new construction being built with this permit". The Real Deal New York. (2) "Steinway Hall" (PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. November 13, 2001.
  • ALT1:... that the supertall 111 West 57th Street skyscraper in New York City was legally classified as an "alteration" to the existing 16-story Steinway Hall? Source: Same as ALT0
  • ALT2:... that a Steinway piano showroom at 111 West 57th Street in New York City was expanded 2,850 percent to become one of the tallest buildings in the United States? Source: Sun, Kevin (May 16, 2018). "Building in the shadows: 3.2M sf of new construction being built with this permit". The Real Deal New York.
  • ALT3:... that a Steinway piano showroom at 111 West 57th Street in New York City was expanded 2,850 percent into a supertall tower? Source: Same as ALT2
  • ALT4:... that the 111 West 57th Street tower was nicknamed "Stairway to Heaven" because of the shape of its pinnacle? Source: Mazzara, Benjamin (October 29, 2016). "Inside The Supertalls: 111 West 57th Street". Bisnow
  • ALT5:... that the developers of 111 West 57th Street intended for it to become New York City's tallest building constructed with non-union labor? Source: Geiger, Daniel (January 13, 2015). "Nonunion West 57th St. spire aims to shatter record". Crain's New York.

• Reviewed: Los Campitos Reservoir
• Comment: more hooks later

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC).

• Epicgenius, Recently listed GA, decent sourcing, and everything else looks good. All of the proposed hooks would work and are sourced in the article, but ALT2 is the best imo. Fine by you? ~ HAL333 23:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• @HAL333: Thanks for the review. ALT2 works for me if you like that the most. Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2 it is. :) ~ HAL333 04:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Order of paragraphs in the lead

Regarding this good-faith edit by an anonymous user (reordering the paragraphs of the lead chronologically), I undid the edit only because the paragraphs in the lead correspond (in sequence) to the sections of the body. Namely, the "design" section is placed before the "history" section, both for consistency with similar articles and because the design attributes are probably the most pertinent characteristics of the building. However, I welcome opinions on whether the lead could indeed be described in a different order than the body. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Floor loading.

"The tower's floors consist of concrete slabs that could withstand loads of up to 14,000 pounds per square inch (97,000 kPa)"

The source cited gives that as the compressive strength of the concrete. But the article gives the impression that it's the allowed floor loading. Allowed floor loadings are far smaller, usually below 1 pound per square inch in residential. Heavy industrial, around 2 PSI.[2]. --John Nagle (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I came here to say that: makes no sense the way it is written. I have no doubt that for such a high building, high compression concrete is required. But that is not the same as loading. Cross Reference (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nagle @Cross Reference, thanks for bringing these issues up. I'm not sure when this was added, but this source clearly says the concrete is of 14000 psi compressive strength, not that the slabs have a 14000 psi loading capacity (which would be unheard of, anyway). 14000 psi compressive strength, though, would be about right. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)