Talk:Citigroup Center

message: There seem to be some instances where opinion is presented instead of a NPOV. For example (highlighted in bold):
- That same year, Chase Manhattan Bank, First National's chief rival, opened its mammoth new headquarters, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, downtown, forever changing, for the worse, Lower Manhattan's romantic skyline.
- The Chase tower, however, was far better architecturally than 399 Park Avenue because of its great plaza with its sculptural tree by Dubuffet and its sunken rock garden and fountain by Isamu Noguchi and its overall, piered design.
- At first glance, the form and texture of the church appears a bit ungainly and perhaps it might have been more attractive if it had been clad in the same material as the tower, or even better, a chrome-colored surface.
I think the article would be improved if sentences such as these were either removed, or modified to represent a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJS (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I did a Google search on the text of this article, and found that most of it is taken word for word from the following site:
http://www.thecityreview.com/citicorp.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJS (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the stuff that was stolen from http://www.thecityreview.com/citicorp.html, which also had major NPOV problems (since it was written for a totally different purpose). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.43.141 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article text taken word for word from an outside Website 

message: It is too bad that this article has gone down, although not as bad as when the City Review stuff was added. The photos of the ground floor are gone, and the general tone of the article still has a "point of view" in it. Too bad.(Gary Joseph 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article taken turn for worse 

message: I don't think that this building is nicknamed the lipstick building. I believe that someone has confused the facts - the lipstick building, to my knowledge, is the lower, stacked, oval-shaped, red-granite building seen in the foreground of the Citi-corp picture (designed by architect Phillip Johnson)... perhaps someone could verify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.167.51 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lipstick building? 

message: Where is LeMussurier's Name?  The Citicorp tower is almost synonymous with his name because he designed it and blew the whistle on himself  the moment he saw it to be failing.  Disaster is also known about the citicorp tower. No mention in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.183.42 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LeMessurier's name 

message: 'it is a concrete block that slides on a thick layer of oil and converts the kinetic energy of the building into friction' - I think this might be a bit of a misleading description, it is certainly not how I understand a tuned mass damper to work but I have no specific knowledge of this building, can anybody shed light?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.14.96 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damper 

message: The line in the last paragraph discussing the engineering crisis, specifically the part about it being one of the most structurally sound buildings inthe world, can be found in The New Yorker article
The 59 Story Crisis that is linked at the bottom of the page. The quote can be found at the end of the fifth-to-last paragraph of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.146.199 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: The Ramones song references 53rd and 3rd, not 53rd and 4th where this building is situated.  Though, I can imagine that one block may not make much of a difference and "53rd and 3rd" may have been chosen for lyrical reasons (to the extent that the Ramones could be considered "lyrical").63.111.32.66 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramones 

message: In the section about the engineering crisis, I question the comment that New Yorker article criticized LeMessurier. Having read the article many times, it does nothing but praise LeMessurier for his actions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.87.105 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''New Yorker'' article 

message: the address is 153 E 53rd St, btw 3rd Ave and Lex. The address given on the main page would put it in the East Village, which would be overwhelmed by such a tall building ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.208.246 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct address 

message: Is that church still there, underneath the cantilevered part of the building? If not, what's there now? —howcheng  {chat} 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no move. Rough consensus that the request is premature.Cúchullain t/c 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Maps: 601 Lexington, NYC, street address -- This is the CitiCorp building. -- as described by its street address 601 Lexington. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  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.
I was wondering if there was any new input on the proposed title move. I think it should be the new name, 601 Lexington Avenue (Formerly Citigroup Center). I understand the above discussion (I only came here after reading this article that has no mention of the new name: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-s-trains-are-too-wide-6-notorious-engineering-oversights-1.2649413 ) but think the title should reflect the name of the building -perhaps with a redirect from Citigroup Center. ACanadianToker (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The article states "The roof of Citigroup Center slopes at a 45-degree angle because it was originally intended to contain solar panels to provide energy. However, this idea was eventually dropped because the positioning of the angled roof meant that the solar panels would not face the sun directly."
My recollection (and, alas, I've been unable to verify) is that the roof was originally intended to slope in another direction and was just an artistic feature but that the Greenie Weenies convinced Citicorp to reorient it during construction. Hence it now slopes towards the sun (not quite exactly, but about as good as you'd get in a NYC building block).
Also, the original concept wasn't for electricity generation solar cells (which were pretty rare, expensive, and less efficient back then than they are today) but for assistance with air conditioning.
Ah, a 1977 MIT study titled:
 
"SOLAR ENERGY DEHUMIDIFICATION EXPERIMENT on the CITICORP CENTER BUILDING" 
can be found at (watch for line wrap):
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/31243/MIT-EL-77-005-03660453.pdf
I know they were considering adding these more recently but haven't been able to confirm the current status.
Anyway, I'm just wondering if the "slope change", so to speak, jogs anyone's memory. Thanks
wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roof slope 

message: -Sentence doesn't make sense (under heading Sale) "Despite previously Citicorp, acquired several low-and mid-rise buildings in the area, probably just because then Chairman Walter B. Wriston surveyed the view from his windows and told someone to “get rid of those massage parlors”"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.138.43 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence not making sense

message: I've been reading, writing and speaking English for most of my life, but after reading and re-reading the "Sale" section of the article, I can't make anything of it.  It appears to have been written by someone with barely any English skills, or may have been machine translated from another language.  It needs severe work, or a complete re-write.  However, since I can't comprehend what's written, at present I feel unable to fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrargyrum (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see much of an issue in that section. Can you elaborate? ACanadianToker (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sale" section is gibberish 

message: It seems to me the article ought to be moved now to 601 Lexington Avenue; see http://rew-online.com/2016/07/28/boston-properties-to-rename-rebrand-601-lexington-avenue/, http://newyorkyimby.com/2016/05/landmarks-calendars-seven-midtown-east-buildings-for-designation.html, and more. Also, Citigroup is no longer at 399 Park Avenue and that article needs to reflect that; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City#399 Park Avenue and others. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2016‎
:PS: 399 Park Avenue has since been changed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move (2)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Citigroup Center. 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/20120615204426/http://skyscrapercenter.com:80/new-york-city/citigroup-center to http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/citigroup-center/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615204426/http://skyscrapercenter.com:80/new-york-city/citigroup-center to http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/citigroup-center/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Citigroup Center. 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 http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/citigroup-center/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810194615/http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/mort-rename-citigroup-center-much-more-boring-601-lexington-ave to http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/mort-rename-citigroup-center-much-more-boring-601-lexington-ave
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019232658/http://bostonproperties.com/site/properties/showproperty.aspx?sid=19&pid=43 to http://www.bostonproperties.com/site/properties/showproperty.aspx?sid=19&pid=43
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/citigroup-center
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "...the load from a 70 miles per hour (110 km/h) hurricane force quartering wind would exceed the strength of the bolted-joint chevrons. The bolts could shear and the building could collapse. Wind tunnel tests with models of Citigroup Center revealed that the wind speed required to bring down the building would occur every 16 years on average."
"... the building has a tuned mass damper, which also negates much of the wind load. The damper is electrically activated, so if power failed, for example during a hurricane, the damper might not turn on,[15] and a much lower-speed wind would suffice; wind of this speed occurs on average once in 16 years."
As written, these seem to be describing two different situations: the frequency of a wind load that would sheer the bolts in general and the frequency of a load that would sheer the bolts if the damper failed. But both are given as 16 years. Either one of the figures is wrong or the section should be rewritten to make clear that the two paragraphs are actually talking about the same thing. 82.6.51.57 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't vetted the text in question yet, but the answer is in The New Yorker article cited (May 29, 1995):  With the TMD operating, destructive wind speeds occur every 55 years on average.  The 16 year figure is for the TMD not operating.  BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I see that the fix has already been incorporated.  BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  16 years 

message: The cited article in The New Yorker (May 29, 1995) mentions a 30-page technical document by LeMessurier on the design problems, entitled "Project SERENE", the latter being an acronym for Special Engineering Review of Events Nobody Envisioned.
It was made public in 1995 (it was the source for the article in TNYer).  Does anyone know of an online copy?  It would make an excellent reverence.  BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done a bit of searching, and I have failed to find a copy in Google searches, Baidu searches, Jstor, Worldcat, the Wikipedia Library, the Imperial College London library, WikiBooks, and WikiSource. I suspect the physical document may exist in archives somewhere, perhaps with LeMessurier Consultants, but I'm not sure if they would be willing to upload a public copy. Liu1126 (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Project SERENE" paper available?