Jump to content

Talk:Citigroup Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCitigroup Center 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2021Good article nomineeListed
February 9, 2024Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 3, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that an inquiry from an engineering student led to the repair of a structural flaw at New York City's Citicorp Center?
Current status: Featured article

Comments

[edit]

There seem to be some instances where opinion is presented instead of a NPOV. For example (highlighted in bold):

- That same year, Chase Manhattan Bank, First National's chief rival, opened its mammoth new headquarters, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, downtown, forever changing, for the worse, Lower Manhattan's romantic skyline.

- The Chase tower, however, was far better architecturally than 399 Park Avenue because of its great plaza with its sculptural tree by Dubuffet and its sunken rock garden and fountain by Isamu Noguchi and its overall, piered design.

- At first glance, the form and texture of the church appears a bit ungainly and perhaps it might have been more attractive if it had been clad in the same material as the tower, or even better, a chrome-colored surface.

I think the article would be improved if sentences such as these were either removed, or modified to represent a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJS (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article text taken word for word from an outside Website

[edit]

I did a Google search on the text of this article, and found that most of it is taken word for word from the following site:

http://www.thecityreview.com/citicorp.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJS (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the stuff that was stolen from http://www.thecityreview.com/citicorp.html, which also had major NPOV problems (since it was written for a totally different purpose). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.43.141 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article taken turn for worse

[edit]

It is too bad that this article has gone down, although not as bad as when the City Review stuff was added. The photos of the ground floor are gone, and the general tone of the article still has a "point of view" in it. Too bad.(Gary Joseph 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Dinosnake 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Added details of chevron functionality, clarified failure mode of building and specified construction changes were cause of problem, not LeMessurier's original design - Dinosnake, 7 May 2006[reply]

Lipstick building?

[edit]

I don't think that this building is nicknamed the lipstick building. I believe that someone has confused the facts - the lipstick building, to my knowledge, is the lower, stacked, oval-shaped, red-granite building seen in the foreground of the Citi-corp picture (designed by architect Phillip Johnson)... perhaps someone could verify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.167.51 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

LeMessurier's name

[edit]

Where is LeMussurier's Name? The Citicorp tower is almost synonymous with his name because he designed it and blew the whistle on himself the moment he saw it to be failing. Disaster is also known about the citicorp tower. No mention in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.183.42 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damper

[edit]

'it is a concrete block that slides on a thick layer of oil and converts the kinetic energy of the building into friction' - I think this might be a bit of a misleading description, it is certainly not how I understand a tuned mass damper to work but I have no specific knowledge of this building, can anybody shed light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.14.96 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

[edit]

The line in the last paragraph discussing the engineering crisis, specifically the part about it being one of the most structurally sound buildings inthe world, can be found in The New Yorker article The 59 Story Crisis that is linked at the bottom of the page. The quote can be found at the end of the fifth-to-last paragraph of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.146.199 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramones

[edit]

The Ramones song references 53rd and 3rd, not 53rd and 4th where this building is situated. Though, I can imagine that one block may not make much of a difference and "53rd and 3rd" may have been chosen for lyrical reasons (to the extent that the Ramones could be considered "lyrical").63.111.32.66 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that being mentioned in a song really qualifies as a "notable feature" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.50.89 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker article

[edit]

In the section about the engineering crisis, I question the comment that New Yorker article criticized LeMessurier. Having read the article many times, it does nothing but praise LeMessurier for his actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.87.105 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct address

[edit]

the address is 153 E 53rd St, btw 3rd Ave and Lex. The address given on the main page would put it in the East Village, which would be overwhelmed by such a tall building ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.208.246 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church

[edit]

Is that church still there, underneath the cantilevered part of the building? If not, what's there now? —howcheng {chat} 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Rough consensus that the request is premature.Cúchullain t/c 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citigroup Center → 601 Lexington Ave. – Because the official name of the building is now 601 Lexington, it is a good idea to rename the article to the suggested name above as per WP:COMMONNAME. Boston Properties as even changed the URL to 601lexington.com. If you have any questions, feel free to buzz me at my talk page. Thank you! relisting Andrewa (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps: 601 Lexington, NYC, street address -- This is the CitiCorp building. -- as described by its street address 601 Lexington. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Sears Tower seems a significantly different case, this is not quite so prominent a building. But no case has been made above for or against the move IMO, and there seem a number of unresolved issues. Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Premature at least. The owners are negotiating naming rights, and this interim name, which isn't even the street address, is unlikely to ever gain much currency. No evidence it has. Revisit a reasonable period after the building is renamed again, if and when that happens, or in say twelve months if it doesn't (which is unlikely). Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I was wondering if there was any new input on the proposed title move. I think it should be the new name, 601 Lexington Avenue (Formerly Citigroup Center). I understand the above discussion (I only came here after reading this article that has no mention of the new name: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-s-trains-are-too-wide-6-notorious-engineering-oversights-1.2649413 ) but think the title should reflect the name of the building -perhaps with a redirect from Citigroup Center. ACanadianToker (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roof slope

[edit]

The article states "The roof of Citigroup Center slopes at a 45-degree angle because it was originally intended to contain solar panels to provide energy. However, this idea was eventually dropped because the positioning of the angled roof meant that the solar panels would not face the sun directly."

My recollection (and, alas, I've been unable to verify) is that the roof was originally intended to slope in another direction and was just an artistic feature but that the Greenie Weenies convinced Citicorp to reorient it during construction. Hence it now slopes towards the sun (not quite exactly, but about as good as you'd get in a NYC building block).

Also, the original concept wasn't for electricity generation solar cells (which were pretty rare, expensive, and less efficient back then than they are today) but for assistance with air conditioning.

Ah, a 1977 MIT study titled:

"SOLAR ENERGY DEHUMIDIFICATION EXPERIMENT on the CITICORP CENTER BUILDING"

can be found at (watch for line wrap):

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/31243/MIT-EL-77-005-03660453.pdf

I know they were considering adding these more recently but haven't been able to confirm the current status.

Anyway, I'm just wondering if the "slope change", so to speak, jogs anyone's memory. Thanks wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence not making sense

[edit]

-Sentence doesn't make sense (under heading Sale) "Despite previously Citicorp, acquired several low-and mid-rise buildings in the area, probably just because then Chairman Walter B. Wriston surveyed the view from his windows and told someone to “get rid of those massage parlors”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.138.43 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sale" section is gibberish

[edit]

I've been reading, writing and speaking English for most of my life, but after reading and re-reading the "Sale" section of the article, I can't make anything of it. It appears to have been written by someone with barely any English skills, or may have been machine translated from another language. It needs severe work, or a complete re-write. However, since I can't comprehend what's written, at present I feel unable to fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrargyrum (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of an issue in that section. Can you elaborate? ACanadianToker (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move (2)

[edit]

It seems to me the article ought to be moved now to 601 Lexington Avenue; see http://rew-online.com/2016/07/28/boston-properties-to-rename-rebrand-601-lexington-avenue/, http://newyorkyimby.com/2016/05/landmarks-calendars-seven-midtown-east-buildings-for-designation.html, and more. Also, Citigroup is no longer at 399 Park Avenue and that article needs to reflect that; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City#399 Park Avenue and others. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2016‎

PS: 399 Park Avenue has since been changed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Citigroup Center. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Citigroup Center. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Hartley

[edit]

There should be a Wiki page about this woman: Diane Hartley. It was she who had discovered the design loads design fatality, and communicated it to the design firm (who had no choice but to act since she was capable of escalation awareness of the problem that she found. 99.42.89.21 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added her name to the article body as the student whose inquiry averted a potential massive disaster. The previous version of the article claimed that "The identity of the student has been debated." However no source is provided for any current debate on the matter. A long footnote pointed out that The New Yorker in first breaking the story identified the student as male, but the author based this on LeMessurier recounting and, as the footnote points out, he later admitted he never talked to the student. Failing to acknowledge Ms. Hartley's role, which is attested to by her contemporaneous 1978 thesis and several more recent reliable sources (including the AIA Trust), without strong reliable source that there is active debate, is a violation of WP:BLP. I have also reorganized the footnote to make her role and the nature of The New Yorker's gender claim clear.--agr (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold: I should clarify the situation, as the person who added the sentence "The identity of the student has been debated." LeMessurier originally referred to the student as a male, and Hartley didn't come out as the student until later. In that intervening time, there was debate, which is what the footnote was referring to.
I do not think it's a violation of BLP to not mention Hartley's name in the prose. Usually it's the other way around - people try to add names in violation of BLP - but Hartley was also mentioned in the footnote, rather than being ignored completely. As recently as two weeks ago, someone was adding information to dispute Hartley's role in the crisis. In either case, Hartley's involvement is relatively minor in the greater context of Citigroup Center's history (despite being a major event in the engineering crisis), which was why I found it better to explain that as a footnote. Epicgenius (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for giving your reasons of the previous state of the article, but I have to disagree with your interpretation. By all accounts Hartley submitted her thesis in 1978 and it contains her calculations of higher than specified stresses in the quartering wind situation and describes her informing LeMessurier's firm and their response. She had no way of knowing the significance of her actions until many years later when the story became public. The situation in most of the the interim can hardly be called a debate; the story was a closely guarded secret until 1995 and even The New Yorker article that appeared then contained no debate, only relaying LeMessurier's statement that the student was a young man and saying that his "name has been lost in the swirl of subsequent events." The footnote discuss that and LeMessurier's later denying he actually spoke to the student. Reliable sources now credit Hartley as the student. Implying that that credit is currently in doubt without a strong reliable source is a BLP issue. I also have to take exception to the notion that her role is minor in the history of the building. Her work averted what could have been one of the worse disasters in history. Estimates at the time say a collapse of the building could have caused up to 200,0000 deaths. This is compatible to the death toll in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Her story, including her treatment, is significant well beyond the history of this one building, and I hope to add more to the article itself.--agr (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold: I understand your viewpoint. From this discussion, I think we should consider splitting the Citicorp Center engineering crisis to its own article. The reason why I mentioned Hartley's role was minor in the building's history was because, paradoxically, nothing happened as a result of her work. Her role was certainly important, especially in regard to the entire engineering crisis, which itself was a major event in the building's history. However, this page is also already pretty long, at 40K prose characters (of which 40% each is devoted to design and history at the moment), and I'm working to keep the page relatively balanced per the good article criteria. I'm thinking the crisis itself merits its own article, as there is a lot of detail that may be important for the crisis, yet excessive for this article. Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: That's an excellent suggestion. I still think her name should be mentioned here, but the crisis warrants a separate article and that would be the place to include her story. I'd be happy to help.--agr (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold: I've started a draft at Draft:Citicorp Center engineering crisis. Feel free to add on - I just took what was already in this page and added some minor details. Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks, looks good so far. I'll direct any future comments to the talk page there.--agr (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16 years

[edit]

"...the load from a 70 miles per hour (110 km/h) hurricane force quartering wind would exceed the strength of the bolted-joint chevrons. The bolts could shear and the building could collapse. Wind tunnel tests with models of Citigroup Center revealed that the wind speed required to bring down the building would occur every 16 years on average." "... the building has a tuned mass damper, which also negates much of the wind load. The damper is electrically activated, so if power failed, for example during a hurricane, the damper might not turn on,[15] and a much lower-speed wind would suffice; wind of this speed occurs on average once in 16 years."

As written, these seem to be describing two different situations: the frequency of a wind load that would sheer the bolts in general and the frequency of a load that would sheer the bolts if the damper failed. But both are given as 16 years. Either one of the figures is wrong or the section should be rewritten to make clear that the two paragraphs are actually talking about the same thing. 82.6.51.57 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't vetted the text in question yet, but the answer is in The New Yorker article cited (May 29, 1995): With the TMD operating, destructive wind speeds occur every 55 years on average. The 16 year figure is for the TMD not operating. BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the fix has already been incorporated. BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Project SERENE" paper available?

[edit]

The cited article in The New Yorker (May 29, 1995) mentions a 30-page technical document by LeMessurier on the design problems, entitled "Project SERENE", the latter being an acronym for Special Engineering Review of Events Nobody Envisioned. It was made public in 1995 (it was the source for the article in TNYer). Does anyone know of an online copy? It would make an excellent reverence. BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit of searching, and I have failed to find a copy in Google searches, Baidu searches, Jstor, Worldcat, the Wikipedia Library, the Imperial College London library, WikiBooks, and WikiSource. I suspect the physical document may exist in archives somewhere, perhaps with LeMessurier Consultants, but I'm not sure if they would be willing to upload a public copy. Liu1126 (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citigroup_Center&oldid=1206702295"