Talk:8 Spruce Street

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See Talk:Beekman Tower#Merge suggestion for a proposal to merge this article. DVD 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

Could someone please uplaod a new image of the tower? Jerchel (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

This article was at "8 Spruce Street" until an editor moved it in early December 2010 to "Beekman Tower (New York City)" without prior discussion. I objected at the time, but didn't move it back. Now, pursuant to this comment on WikiProject NYC, I've moved it back, taking the "R" step of the WP:BRD cycle ("Bold, Revert, Discuss"). The next step is "D", so if anyone objects to the move back, I suggest that a request move conversation be opened.

My own take is that "Beekman Tower" is a name no longer used by the bulding's owners, "New York by Frank Gehry" seems much too promotional, and is likely to be have a short life in the real world, but the bulding will always be "8 Spruce Street", at least until the city renamesor renumbers the street. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"8 Spruce Street" appears to be increasingly the standard name for the building.

• At 867 feet, 8 Spruce Street (which for a time was known as Beekman Tower) is the tallest residential building in the city, surpassing the Trump World Tower.
  • A Gehry Sculpture for Rent; Fred A. Bernstein. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 10, 2010. pg. RE.1

Plus it avoids confusion with the other Beekman building in NYC.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• On March 5, 1854, this address was the start of a large fire, destroying about 5 buildings.78.147.40.26 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• There were many fires in New York City at around that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: consensus to move to 8 Spruce Street. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Finished moving it, but some editing of the article is still needed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Beekman Tower (New York) → 8 Spruce Street — "Beekman Tower" was the name used for this building while under construction, but it is no longer in use. The developers call it "New York by Gehry", which seems much too promotional (and a nonce name) to use as an article title. The article was at "8 Spruce Street" until moved in early December by User:Jerchel. I moved it back recently (see the discussion above), with the suggestion that if anyone objected, a Request Move should be opened. Today, User:Jerchel moved it back again to "Beekman Tower" without prior discussion. I would like this issue to be settled by a consensus discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have placed neutral pointers to this discussion on the talk pages of the three WikiProjects listed above: Architecture, New York City and Skyscrapers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support move as nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• What do reliable sources call it? Powers ^T 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. In an article in the Real Estate section on January 16, 2011, the New York Times calls it 8 Spruce Steet. In this article in October, they refer to it as "8 Spruce Street (which for a time was known as Beekman Tower)". In December, the New York Observer headlined their article about the building "Will Gehry's 8 Spruce Street Become the Priciest Pad in Town?" and in this article refers to it again as "Frank Gehry's 8 Spruce Street". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources which call it "Beekman Tower" too

• Architecture: Beekman Tower. From my apartment in NYC, I've watched this building by Frank Gehry being built.
  • Observer Review: Agenda: ON MY RADAR Albert Watson's cultural highlights: Jessica Holland. The Observer. London (UK): Nov 28, 2010. pg. 3
• WHY HE SHINES: His IAC is a presence on the West Side, Arak said. Bell sees Beekman Tower as a bookend to Henry Cobb's 200 West Street. Beekman isn't just an innovative residential Gehry sculpture, it also relates well to surrounding towers, Bell added.
  • 'Starchitects' have shining moment Rolando Pujol. AM New York. New York, N.Y.: Oct 15-Oct 17, 2010. pg. 10, 2 pgs
• The gleaming new Beekman tower designed by architect Frank Gehry won't be open for renters until early next year.
  • Gehry talks up his new tower Peter Grant. Wall Street Journal. Oct 6, 2010. pg. 21
• Downtown, the transformation is already happening, with the warped, metallic skin of Frank Gehry's Beekman Tower looming over the neighborhood around City Hall and, at Ground Zero, 1 World Trade Center already rising to 36 stories.'
  • Commercial Property: On the Horizon, a New Manhattan Skyline Anton Troianovski. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Aug 30, 2010. pg. A.20
• At the very least, Beekman Tower, Gehry's stainless-steel-clad 76-story building, is hard to miss.
  • Soaring letdown Rolando Pujol. AM New York. New York, N.Y.: Jul 19, 2010. pg. 4, 1 pgs
• At the end of last year, Frank Gehry, whose 76-floor Beekman Tower is soon to be inaugurated in Manhattan, told The Independent that Italy had turned its nose up at avant-garde architecture, with his proposals for buildings in Modena, Rome and Venice coming to nothing.
  • Rome divided over building of 120m-high 'eco-monster' Anonymous. The Independent. London (UK): Jun 11, 2010. pg. 38

So there's no obvious preference. However the use of "8 Spruce" does seem to be growing. It may take another year or two for one name to become the predominant choice.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no dispute that the going name for the building when it was under construction was "Beekman Tower", and that this was the name that the building was expected to have when completed -- but (for whatever reasons) it was rejected, and no one is using that name now, except in explanation for which building they're referring to. The lastest cite above is from November, and it's really after that the "Beekman" name was struck. I'd be very interested if anyone can come up with a citation of a RS referring to the building as "Beekman Tower" (not in retrospect) now, say in 2011. The developers certinly don't use it: their preferred name is "New York by Gehry". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Will that it will take some time for a name to settle in, it's just that "Beekman Tower" is no longer one of those in the running. As this Bloomberg article says, "The building was previously called Beekman Tower." but it isn't any more. We need to decide between "8 Spruce Street" and "New York by Gehry". I prefer the former, but think a case can be made for the latter if anyone cares to do so. I don't believe, however, that it's any longer possible to make a reasonable case for the building at this time being called "Beekman Tower". (Especially with the disambiguator "New York", since the other Beekman Tower is also in New York. The disambiguator used to be "Gehry".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This blog poll from November shows a preference among readers for Beekman Tower.[1] While it's not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, it does show that that name was still a popular choice three months ago. It is confusing to have more than one "Beekman Tower" in a city, but it's not up to us to solve that confusion on behalf of the city. If we need to use a disambiguator then that's what we'll do.

So far we've looked at newspapers. What about more specialize architectural sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that Curbed poll, but in its latest entry on the building, Curbed (which, incidentally, I regard as a reliable source for New York real estate information) ignores the poll and has apparently settled on calling it "New York by Gehry". They write: "Frank Gehry's Beekman Tower 8 Spruce Street New York by Gehry" (I've reproduced their typography verbatim).

I'll see what I can find in architectural sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the last time that the New York Times referred to the building as "Beekman Tower" was back in October. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, City Realty calls it "8 Spruce Street", New York Architecture Info calls it "Eight Spruce Street, Formerly: The Beekman Tower", The Real Deal uses "8 Spruce Street", another article in the New York Observer (not cited above), refers to it as "Frank Gehry's 8 Spruce Street, née the Beekman Tower"... These are still all real estate sources, not architectural -- I think it may be a while before we see a real profile of the building in one of the monthlies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Quibble: that CityRealty page is sort of a report on a New York Times article, so it's not really a fully independent source.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the strongest argument for "8 Spruce" is the one you made before: that, while the predominant name remains unsettled, the address is at least a permanent name.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I don't think the most popular name is clear, but the official name is probably not it. Pending the day when it does become clear, the address is at least a popular name which won't change in the next few months or years.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Aside from the fact that Beekman Tower appears to be no longer correct, 8 Spruce Street is unquestionably one name used by reliable sources, and when there is a natural alternative title, that title should be preferred to a name with an artificial parenthetical qualifier (WP:NCDAB), especially where, as in this case, there is an article about another Beekman Tower also in New York. New York by Gehry should remain a redirect. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you've marked the article with a histmerge tag, due to a cut-and-paste move made in October. It's not at all clear to me what happened - can you clarify, 'cause I'm confused. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly (although it doesn't affect this move request). It appears that a now-blocked user (Jcon9) copied the entire article at Beekman Tower (Gehry) and pasted it at the newly-created name Beekman Tower (New York) on 7 Oct 2010 in order to change the name. This is discouraged as a way of moving a page because it does not meet GFDL license requirements (see WP:CWW). Because many other edits have occurred since October, the only way to correct this now is for an admin to merge the history of the two articles. Station1 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Contra against any moving to 8 Spruce Street: The name of this tower is still Beekman Tower and not 8 Spruce Street. Buildings are not named by their address (otherwiese the Empire State Building should be moved to 350 Fifth Avneue)! It's still called Beekman Tower by the public: [2], [3]. Jerchel (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support 8 Spruce: Better to have a unique name not requiring disambiguation, and the owners agreeing makes it even better. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The address is not the name of the building! If it is the new rule to keep buildings under their address, the Empire State Building has to be moved to 340 Fifth Avenue! There is regular source that confirms, that the building is called 8 Spruce Street. this link proves that 8 Spruce Street is only the address and not the buildings official name. Jerchel (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "new rule", but articles have to be put under some name or another, and "Beekman Tower" is no longer the name used for this building. Please see the links above, many of which refer to the building itself as "8 Spruce Street". I suggest that many buildings in Manhattan are known by their address, and have no other name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do not move: Some buildings are known under their adress, but that one is still called the Beekman Tower or New York by Gehry. The press often names buildings by their address althogh it is not the "official name". --85.216.30.63 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• The above is the first and only edit made by this IP. Editors with accounts are reminded that logging out to !vote again as an IP in order to create an illusion of consensus is WP:sockpuppetry, and that one can be blocked from editing for doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Ouroussoff, Nicolai (February 10, 2011), Downtown Skyscraper for the Digital Age, The New York Times, retrieved February 10, 2011 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) ("The Spruce Street project (formerly called Beekman Tower)..."). The browser title for that article is "8 Spruce Street by the Architect Frank Gehry." postdlf (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thus giving it yet another name. Across the world there are likely many Spruce Streets which are long enough to have an address 8. How notable is this building likely to be among New York's many skyscrapers? I have never been to America. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As a creation of a world-famous architect (Frank Gehry), it is already quite notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I support a move to the new name given by the developers on the website of New York by Gehry at Eight Spruce Street--Cygnusloop99 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lasers?

I feel this should be on the wiki. Could it be a late April Fool's prank tho? http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=105610_0_24_0_M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.41.9 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it could be, and it is -- and not late either, it's dated the 1st. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's real: http://inhabitat.com/nyc/new-york-by-gehrys-insanely-shiny-facade-sets-fire-to-local-buildings/ and http://www.feelguide.com/2011/04/03/frank-gehrys-new-highly-reflective-nyc-residential-tower-is-setting-neighboring-rooftops-on-fire/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.200.252 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Find a citation from a reliable source and not a blog. The Gehry-designed Disney Concert Hall in LA did indeed have reflection problems, where the sunlight bouncing off the curved panels of the roof caused problems for residents of neighborhing buildings. The roof had to be treated to reduce the amount of glare. These "reports" seem to me to be playing off of that, so I don't believe that should be given credence until there's a RS citation to support them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an april fool's joke. See inhabitat.com's comment by the author of the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.41.9 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It was an April Fools joke?? Really??? --Cygnusloop99 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot & hierarchical subsections

An editor mae some changes to the article, breaking up the "Details" section into small subsections, and aing a "Linkrot" template to the references section. I have deleted the one bad link in the refs, and I converted the subsections into non-hierarchical ones, because it's unlikely that they're going to be expanded any time soon (it's all basic information), so there's no real need for them to be listed in the TOC. The editor, without explanation restored back to an old version with the linkrotted ref that he tagged about, and, of course, the hierarchical subsections.

Whether the subsections should be in the TOC hierarchy or not is a content dispute which should be discussed here, and I'm happy to do so, but there's absolutely no reason for there to be a linkrot template in the reference section when all the links now work, an there's no excuse for reverting back to an earlier version which includes the bad link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want edit explanations, provide better ones than you did. (I would also help if you spell-checked your talk page comments. And respect the notices on my talk page. But some editors are not careful about details.) Now that you asked:

Linkrot

You need to read the link rot guidelines, both those linked from the box, and linked from those guidelines to see both the first level deficiencies, and the long-term archive-needed deficiencies. Read them, follow them, and I won't add the box back. The box and guidelines need more work, but it will be awhile until I can devote the effort to build consensus there. There should also be a tool, that archives critical citations, while building the Wiki markup. Lentower (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hierarchical subsections

This is not a content dispute. It's a dispute, about how to use formatting to best present the information that is already there. (I note that I did expand the third 'header' to better describe it's content, which appears to have been accepted.)

The sub-sections headers, make the article more readable, by letting the reader understand the building quicker. And expands the ToC into an outline of the article's main points. Helping the reader is what WP is about. Lentower (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Rhetorical Practices from the Ancient World to Enlightenment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2024 and 30 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bbowiee (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bbowiee (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)