# Talk:American Bank Note Company Building

None of the cited sources mention anything about this building being damaged in the WTC attacks. It is roughly half a mile from the WTC site, making this claim facially dubious.  In fact, it was inspected and found not to be affected by the attacks. [1][2] What is the source for the claim to the contrary? Fladrif (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's true there was no structural damage, (good research) but I had read somewhere, some time ago that dust from the twin towers falling had infiltrated the building and damaged the interior. A half mile is not far for such a cloud of dust and debris to travel. Also this source says "Status: Inspected but not affected.*" but then goes on to qualify that statement by saying "Status of this building was obtained by matching Building Structural Status map and Transportation and Public Access map from OEM. Status may not be accurate, if you know the status of this building, please e-mail webmaster@preserve.org and let us know." So its entirely possible there was minor damage such as concrete dust. You'll also notice that this source says "The building required extensive renovations". So I'll look for that missing source about the dust damage and we can add some info per that source, later on. Thanks for your vigilance.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I know that the NYT said that the TM Org said that the building "required" extensive renovation, but it says nothing about why and certainly says nothing about damage from WTC. I presume that it "required" extensive renovation to be converted from a restaurant to a residence/office and to conform to Maharishi Vastu, and so the unsourced addition that this was because of 9-11 stuck out like a sore thumb. Also, it says "renovation" not "repair".  I found  another study [3](see pp 7-8) in which it would appear that this building was on the margin between Zone 3 and Zone 4. In those Zones, some buildings had some damage from dust and debris, but there is nothing specific about this building, so we can't conclude that it was actually damaged or that there were any repair costs attributable to WTC. But, if you can find a reliable source (I couldn't) more power to you. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, current sources are inconclusive. Let's see if something else turns up. This is not a pivotal point for the article and I'm good with it either way. Glad you've taken an interest in this article. If you come across any sources we can use to expand it that would be great. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk •  19:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This entire article has barely more than a paragraph of text. The mother article American Bank Note Company is also a rather brief article and would benefit from the additional material here IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I could go either way, except that my experience has been that those editors who shepherd architecture articles on buildings listed on the Historic Register strongly prefer that the buildings have separate articles, particularly where the building has subsequently been sold and redeveloped/repurposed. I'll post a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places to solicit other opinions.  Fladrif (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Good idea to post at the Wiki project. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  00:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The response has been overwhelming. The initial torrent of comments will likely dwindle to a trickle after a week or two. Fladrif (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't see any reason to merge.  The company has a long history before the building, and after they sold the building about 25 years ago.  Just add info to both articles.  Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am amused by Fladrif's dry comments. :) Being one of the editors of boring articles about boring historic buildings listed on the NRHP, and finding my way here, yep, I agree with fellow NRHP editor Smallbones.  Separate is often good, for company vs. building, though it needs to be considered case by case.  There certainly are many cases where just one article makes sense, especially when there is little about the company besides during its use of a given building.  Here, it would be bad/inappropriate to cover the later history of the building, in the American Bank Note Company article, after it was sold.  Here, no reason to merge, and separate is just better, I think.  Sorry if this falls into a predictable pattern, oh well.  Cheers, --doncram 05:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your input. I'm OK keeping them separate but...... the reason this came up was I found several sources discussing the Amer Bank Note Building in Brooklyn (or maybe the Bronx) and I didn't know where to put that info.  Any thoughts on how things should be organized? -- — Keithbob • Talk •  17:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah.  Well, I must assume you don't think this Brooklyn/Bronx building is Wikipedia-notable for a separate article.  I would think the Bronx/Brooklyn building could be discussed in the American Bank Note Company article, though not as a redlink if you don't think the building itself is notable.  I am just guessing but I imagine the Manhattan building is more important in the company's history and that a Bronx/Brooklyn building would more have handled back-office, though necessary, functions.  So I would think there should be equal or a bit more mention of the Manhattan building in the company article.  Maybe one or two sentences for each?  Hope this helps. --doncr<fontcolor="maroon">am 01:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is the building they moved into after the left the Manhattan building.

Real Estate weekly: Built in 1909, The BankNote is an office and retail complex that was formerly the home of The American Bank Note Company. The architecturally distinct landmark building has become a hub for creative companies, non-profits, community organizations and schools by providing a combination of professional and affordable space in the South Bronx community. The class-A building, the only one if its kind the neighborhood, is being redeveloped through the combined efforts of Taconic Investment Partners and Denham Wolf Real Estate Services, and features flexible, customizable space ranging from 5,000 to 150,000 contiguous square feet. Other notable tenants include: Sustainable South Bronx & Fab Lab, Fedcap, Arthur Aviles Typical Theatre, The Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance (BAAD!), The Lightbox-NY, The Hunts Point Alliance for Children, Sunshine Suites Small Business Incubator, The John V. Lindsay Academy Culinary Program, The office of Congressman Jose E. Serrano.
Daily News Record:  The 425,000-square foot building in which the center is housed was originally built by the American Bank Note Company in 1909-1911. American Bank Note will continue to occupy 34,000 square feet in the building.
NY Daily News: Highlighting Hunts Point's revival, developers scoop up the neighborhood's treasured, 405,000-square-foot American Bank Note Company Building. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am unaware of a Brooklyn building connected with this company. Far as I know the office was in Downtown Manhattan, the print plant in Hunts Point. Lovely grand brick factory building; I noticed it on my way home from Pelham one afternoon when the Sun had already moved too far west to illuminate properly the facade. At home on the computer I found that despite being a NYC Landmark it has no article. This is a case where my pleasure would be to see three separate articles, one for each living landmark building and one for the long dead company, as was done for Williamsburgh Savings Bank, but in these matters I'm mostly just the photographer. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Drat; why do I keep writing things first and then finding out whether they are true? The bank has only two articles, one for the dead bank and its smaller building and one for its big one. That's also what our print company currently has, except that the little building is the one with the separate article because that's the more famous one. If someone were to assemble enough good material, I would like to see the Bronx Banknote building have its own article, but that's for an editor more industrious than me. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I added to the confusion. As far as I know there is no ABNC building in Brooklyn. However there is a building that they occupied in the Bronx and is often referred to as the ABNC building just like the one in Manhattan. Also I failed to note prior to this that the three sources I've cited above are all discussing the building in the Bronx (which would be obvious if you say the entire articles) Yes, I guess three would be ideal but not sure there is more than a paragraphs worth of material on the Bronx building. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk •  23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on American Bank Note Company Building. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aEv16urU3344
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019015521/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5908 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5908
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019015550/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5907 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5907
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5rjvD0RjX?url=http://www.dnainfo.com/20100702/financial-district-battery-park-city/historical-financial-district-landmark-on-sale-for-25-million to http://www.dnainfo.com/20100702/financial-district-battery-park-city/historical-financial-district-landmark-on-sale-for-25-million
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) 06:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Bank Note Company Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 19:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


#### Comment
I would prefer the history section above other sections. --18:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Can't find any more issues. Congratulations. ❯❯❯   S A H A 10:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)