# Talk:Rookery Building

I heard off-hand once that there is no building (excluding monuments and towers) that is both taller and older than the Rookery but I've been unable to source this. Does anyone know if this is true and where I might be able to verify this with a source? Ronnotel 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Haven't heard this myself, I will consult some of my sources and get back to ya. IvoShandor 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that it has a claim to this, but what exactly is being measured, etc. would make it a fuzzy claim.  See the Auditorium Building, Chicago for a bit of perspective, built almost at the same time, a few blocks aways, similar height, bigger building.  Smallbones 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The tallest building built at the same time, but completed slightly later in 1891, is the Monadnock Building at a of height 215 feet (66 m), 16 stories (17 counting the attic). It is located two blocks east and one block south of the 12-story, 181-foot (55 m) Rookery Building.  matt 18:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is fairly close to GA status in my opinion, but some things are preventing me from passing it. First, the Light Court and Other Architectural Details are a bit overly infested with not so neutral prose. There are words like: commended, evolutionary, and majestic and, then, those quotes of praise interspersed with concrete details that make the sections look extremely jilted. Perhaps it would be better to get pictures of these features in the article or, failing that, to at least link to external pictures of the light court or of some of these features so the reader can "see for himself" the majesty of the light court. 
Second, in the renovations section, there could be slightly better coverage of Wright's remodel than via "then contemporary tastes." For example, the next remodel mentions the Art Deco style,etc. So, I'd like to see an improvement in the sections about the light court and the architectural details of the building that make it notable in Chicago's architectural history.--Meowist 09:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added two paragraphs to the Light Court section about the Wright work as well as a source for that information. Hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes. I also removed the first POV sentence and the word "majestic." IvoShandor 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I also added the architect from the 1931 work, and both Wright and Drummond to the infobox, if anyone knows the architect for the late 80s early 90s restoration, add them to the infobox and article, that's why the et. al. is in the box, by the way. IvoShandor 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that the picture thing shouldn't keep it from GA, it does have photos of the building. I intend to make it there to shoot the interior but haven't had the chance. Anyway, I don't believe images are strictly required by GA, if they are there they should be properly tagged and such but other than that photos aren't necessary or anything. I have attempted to address the other comments so this might be up to muster. IvoShandor 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree/know it doesn't need pictures for the light court to get GA. The alterations to the Light Court are satisfying and really improved the flow and coverage of that most public portion of the building's interior. I'll GA pass it now. Ideas for improvement are, admittedly, not coming to me at the moment. Improve red-links...perhaps grow the Tenants section if someone or something notable resided therein. Also, perhaps something interested took place within or with respect to this building during its history unrelated to architectural changes. That's about all --Meowist 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rookery Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I have done the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.  I have found the article to be basically good.  It is a very simple and short article.  The topic is fairly covered the links check out and there are good sources.  Images are good, it is a stable article w/ no POV issues.  I will therefore keep it as GA.  H1nkles (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rookery as in Rookery (slum) sounds like a very inappropriate name for a nice tower. Or, perhaps, this meaning was absent from contemporary American English? The article on Rookery (slum) says it did, in fact, exist in American English but the link to 1934 Time article is unconvincing. East of Borschov (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of the slum sense of the word used in conjunction with the building. I have heard unflattering references to bribery (i.e. gettting "rooked") due to the previous existence of a government building on the location. I'm guessing that sense didn't exist in American English in the 1880's when the name was coined. Ronnotel (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it's what I thought, too. East of Borschov (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I work in the Rookery Building. Here are the alleged sources of its namesake: 1) A "rook" is a crow-like bird. Since birds used to nest on the temporary water tank, the site was referred to as a "Rookery"; 2) The slang term of rook or rooking, refers to swindling, thereby applying to the political climate and politicians at the City Hall at the time (and, sadly, contemporary times); 3) A rook is also the term for a chess piece, or "castle" as it is sometimes referred to. The Rookery resembles a castle to some extent with its turrets, marble and gold edifices, light court, oriel staircase and arched entrances, in fact, Root liked the name Rookery, and therefore employed the various uses of the term into his design for the building, (there are rooks carved into the front arched entrance).  matt 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the vivid red color exterior it would be nice to have a color exterior shot.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rookery 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/20070925131518/http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/R/RookeryBuilding.html to http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/R/RookeryBuilding.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605225900/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=919&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=919&ResourceType=Building
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126100329/http://www.explorechicago.org/city/en/things_see_do/attractions/tourism/the_rookery_building.html to http://www.explorechicago.org/city/en/things_see_do/attractions/tourism/the_rookery_building.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701124104/http://patsabin.com/illinois/rookery.htm to http://www.patsabin.com/illinois/rookery.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925131518/http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/R/RookeryBuilding.html to http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/R/RookeryBuilding.html
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) 00:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)