This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
111 West 57th Street has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 12, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a Steinway piano showroom at 111 West 57th Street (pictured) in New York City was expanded by 2,850 percent to become one of the tallest buildings in the United States? |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
We could use [1] to illustrate more this part, without becoming a real state article. Doblecaña (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC).
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)
"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)