# Talk:MetLife Building

Shouldn't this article be moved to Metlife Building if that's its proper name now?  Pan Am Building would then redirect.  Postdlf 23:17, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I took this out, since many buildings that are hated are in the grid plan, and many beloved buildings are NOT in the grid plan. 
"Contributing to its unpopularity may be the fact that it is one of the few major buildings in New York which does not conform to the city's orderly grid plan.  Its footprint, along with Grand Central Terminal, is directly in the path of Park Avenue, causing it to interrupt both views and continous travel down the length of that thoroughfare."
Grand Central Terminal breaks the grid plan, in front of the building. I think it's hated because it is seen as so ugly.
Donbas 12:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

finds this claim to be questionable.  " the Pan Am Building is an example of a Brutalist or International style skyscraper"  I am trying to break the wikipedia habit, but just can't walk away from this sort of statement. Carptrash 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

International style sure, but I don't see it as a strong example of Brutalism - I'm removing that Kinou (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd heard that the escalator scenes in Koyaanisqaatsi  were shot in the Pan Am Building, but I cannot corroborate.LorenzoB 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with calling this building the Met Life Building.  Major buildings should be called by their original name. If Wal-Mart buys the Chrysler building and slaps their logo on it, are we going to start calling it the Wal-Mart building?  The re-direct should be from Met Life to Pan Am.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.227.254 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 

The building isn't called the Pan Am Building. Why would the article use the original name? Yes, if the Chrysler Building was renamed after Wal-Mart, the article would most likely follow suit. Kinou (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be Pan Am Building because Met Life should be punished for being assholes for going as far as to file a lawsuit in their quest to persecute a youtuber for daring to include the Met Life Building in his world record (DMCAed by Met Life) biggest Minecraft city.
In conclusion it should be called the Pan Am Building because Met Life is evil.
Fuck Met Life! 96.227.230.168 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This is rediculous! Why would I ever call the Chrysler Building the Wal-Mart Building, even if they did decide to re-name it. Why would I call the Sears Tower the "Willis Tower"? No one would know which building I was referring to. The same principles can be applied with this building. Most know this building as the PanAm Building, not the MetLife Building, so this article should follow suit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.213.229 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 

"Most know this building as the PanAm Building"?  On what do you base that assertion?  Regardless, which should be the guiding principle here of the two you've asserted?  Should the article be titled by how most people refer to it at present, or by their original names?  If the latter, we should move GE Building to RCA Building, and Istanbul would be Constantinople...even old New York was once New Amsterdam.  postdlf (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Why they changed it I can't say. 173.52.75.219 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me add my voice to the party who votes for using original names. I guess it has something to do with age. If you always used to call the thing PanAm then it's hard to see that changed. I guess there are reasonable arguments for both sides. I just wonder how many people would feel one way and how many would feel the other way. Of course the owners would probably like to get the public reception switched ... I wonder if one could count Wikipedia access - how many come here through PanAm and how many through the Met. JB. --92.195.122.115 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read that the MetLife Building was originally to be built atop Grand Central Station, however due to the public outcry over the demolition of the station, the building was constructed next door or over the road. Perhaps something about this could be in the article. CybergothiChé (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"The world's largest commercial office space by square footage at its opening, it remains one of the hundred tallest buildings in the United States."
This sentence in the first paragraph of the article doesn't sound right. I would maybe say:
"It was the world's largest commercial office space by square footage at its opening and it remains one of the hundred tallest buildings in the United States."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.224.230 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MetLife 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023757/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR77-09.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR77-09.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023757/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR77-09.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR77-09.pdf
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) 23:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"Developer Erwin S. Wolfson proposed a 65-story tower called Grand Central City to replace the six-story baggage structure (which had by then become an office building) north of the terminal."
Whatever a "baggage structure" is—but is that referring to the same building as in the later sentence "In order to make way for Grand Central City, a six-story baggage handling building was demolished in mid-1960"? If so, we don't need both sentences—certainly not in the form they currently take. Harfarhs (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick nitpick—International Style has some inconsistent capitalization, where sometimes it's fully capitalized and sometimes it's written as "International style". Based on the style's article, I think fully capitalizing it might be best. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The article says the refrigeration plant has "three steam-powered units each weighing 3,333 short tons (2,976 long tons; 3,024 t)". This seems like a misunderstanding of the article quoted in citation 84, which likely refers to "tons of refrigeration", not literal weight. A ton of refrigeration refers to the equivalent of freezing or melting 1 ton of ice per day. This would be consistent with the statement 2 sentences later that "the plant could melt up to 20 million pounds (9.1 kt) of ice each day". 153.209.247.195 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)