# Talk:One Vanderbilt

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

OneVanderbilt2020.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:One Vanderbilt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


### Review
#### Lead/Infobox
"The 1.6-million-square-foot (150,000 m2) skyscraper's roof is 1,301 feet (397 m) high and its spire is 1,401 feet (427 m)..." This phrasing makes it sound as if the spire alone is 1,401 feet. Maybe specify the top of the spire?
 Done
Infobox claims the top floor is "73", but no mention of a top 73rd floor is in the article body. I assume they skipped some numbers when numbering the floors.
 Fixed Yes, they did. I added a source. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


#### 1 Site
"...were saved by the developer, to be stored until the New York Landmarks Conservancy found a place for them." Odd phrasing here. Would just "...were saved by the developer and stored until..." work?
 Done


#### 2 Design
"One Vanderbilt's roof is 1,301 feet (397 m) high and its spire is 1,401 feet (427 m)" See Lead concern
 Fixed
"83 rock ties" What are "rock ties"? Source doesn't elaborate, and Google doesn't seem to help either. Are these possibly tiebacks?
 Fixed Yes, that is the correct term. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
"On the third floor is an amenity center known as the Vandy Club, which consists of an auditorium, boardroom, and flexible meeting space." The Urbanize NYC and Gensler sources both refer to the place as "the Vandy Club", so I changed the name to that in the article. However, it is still unclear in these sources whether the the "auditorium, boardroom, and flexible meeting space" are part of the Vandy Club, or are just other third floor features. I couldn't read the Crain's source, so I wanted to check with you instead.
Crain's says "the third floor's lounge and meeting space, the Vandy Club", so I had that. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yep, current rewrite looks good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
"The subsequent 58 floors are designated as 1.7 million square feet (160,000 m2) of "Class A" office space." What does "Class A" mean? The best and most modern office spaces? (I also don't agree with replacing it with just "The subsequent 58 floors are used as office space." since it loses out on the designation and square footage details)
"Class A" is a technical term used in real estate circles here. Basically it is the best and most modern, but the space is usually also very close to a transit hub or major street, and everything is kept up to date. "Class B" space may be a little smaller but also has lower rents than Class A. "Class C" spaces are a bit cozy and on a side street, but they're also cheap and your landlord will likely confer with you personally if there's a problem. However, this is a bit technical to explain and isn't really common to see in articles about buildings, so I removed it.
As for the figure of 1.7 million square feet, I believe this is the figure for the entire building, and that's why I removed the figure. According to the WSJ, "The 1.7 million-square-foot tower is expected to be completed in 2020". This is also corroborated by more recent sources. I believe the total amount of office space is closer to 1.5 million square feet, which is the figure given by Hines, one of the partners in the development, and WSJ. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Update with new area figure looks good, and yeah, defining Class A seems to be a bit too technical, so leaving that out should be fine. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Section on The Summit should use future-tense description of features, unless all three parts have been completed construction-wise.
 Done


#### 3 History
"The developer rejected the offer, calling it a "publicity stunt" because it valued the air rights at $600 per square foot, nearly 10 times the $61 per square foot ($660/m2) Penson paid for it when he bought the station in 2006" Ambiguous pronoun usage here: is the offer valuing the air rights at $600/ft2 or the developer? (I assume the former, but I can't access the source)
 Fixed The offer was a publicity stunt. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hm, the math doesn't seem to add up: ($400 million + $210 million) /  (1.3 million ft^2) is not $600/ft^2. Are there other costs that were part of the offer but weren't mentioned? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Basically, I got the facts wrong. Penson suggested paying $400 million to SL Green, not the other way around. Also, not all of the 1.3 million square feet were used. Usually, the construction cost of the building will include the amount paid for the air rights; the rent from tenants is supposed to offset that if the air rights are valuable enough.Penson's chief complaint is that $210 million in transit improvements is a very low price for the value of the air rights, while $610 million is an appropriate price. These transit improvements were basically the price SL Green "paid" for these air rights. Penson's argument is that, by having to "pay" only $210 million, he was losing out on potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. By repurchasing the lot from SL Green, he would be able to enjoy the profits from operating the building, which in turn would pay off the cost of acquiring these air rights. If SL Green rejected the offer, they would receive profits from tenants, while (in Penson's view) enjoying additional profit from getting air rights at such a low price. Epicgenius (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay, glad the issue's fixed now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


#### 4 Tenants
No comments


#### 5 Critical reception
Kind of short, but it's a relatively recent building, and I couldn't find any more *accessible* content besides the reviews you included.


#### References
Some concerns on the reliability of the following sources:

Skyscraper News (ref 9) (writers' credentials listed here not exactly the most reputable)
 Removed and replaced. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
ArchDaily (ref 22) (projects upload/curated by users according to here; not sure what their curation standards - if any - are though)
Field Condition (ref 23) (source is a blog -- possibly self-published)
 Removed and replaced. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Ref 130 should probably cite the original source (web archive doesn't block the page for me)
 Done Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Refs 152 and 153 are doubled
 Fixed Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Most of these sources are backed by more reliable sources in the article, so their omission hopefully won't cause too much trouble.
Other sources look fine, but there seems to be a lot of Curbed NY sources. Curbed NY is ostensibly a blog, but I am not yet able to verify each author's expertise or the publication's fact-checking (if any). Have previous editors in your review experience accepted Curbed NY (or the authors here) as reliable? (I know I implictly did for one Curbed NY article when reviewing the Seagram Building, but I still want to check since it seems to be more critical here) Ditto for New York YIMBY and 6sqft.

In past reviews of similar pages (e.g. One57, Central Park Tower, 111 West 57th Street), these three sources haven't received objections (unlike, say, the New York Post). YIMBY is reliable for tracking construction progress, and the other two websites are focused on real estate and construction. Many of the Curbed sources support information that media like the NYT or WSJ missed, and they were used to fill what would've otherwise been gaps in the coverage. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
All right, in that case, these sources pass. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


### Judgement
Overall, very well-written with minimal outstanding prose issues. Some minor issues regarding some sources + a somewhat important question regarding many sources. Besides that, the article is verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. I will be putting this on hold until August 7. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@GeneralPoxter: Thanks for the review. I have addressed or responded to all of these comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Thanks for the response. I think you may have missed the concern I raised for the ArchDaily source, and I left a follow up to the "publicity stunt" sentence. Besides that, everything else checks out. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Oops. I've replaced that source and replied to the publicity-stunt sentence now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
All raised concerns have been met, so I'll be passing the nomination now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)