Talk:111 West 57th Street

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

111 West 57th Street

• ... that 111 West 57th Street, one of the tallest buildings in the United States, was legally classified as an "alteration" to the existing 16-story Steinway Hall? Source: (1) Sun, Kevin (May 16, 2018). "Building in the shadows: 3.2M sf of new construction being built with this permit". The Real Deal New York. (2) "Steinway Hall" (PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. November 13, 2001.
  • ALT1:... that the supertall 111 West 57th Street skyscraper in New York City was legally classified as an "alteration" to the existing 16-story Steinway Hall? Source: Same as ALT0
  • ALT2:... that a Steinway piano showroom at 111 West 57th Street in New York City was expanded 2,850 percent to become one of the tallest buildings in the United States? Source: Sun, Kevin (May 16, 2018). "Building in the shadows: 3.2M sf of new construction being built with this permit". The Real Deal New York.
  • ALT3:... that a Steinway piano showroom at 111 West 57th Street in New York City was expanded 2,850 percent into a supertall tower? Source: Same as ALT2
  • ALT4:... that the 111 West 57th Street tower was nicknamed "Stairway to Heaven" because of the shape of its pinnacle? Source: Mazzara, Benjamin (October 29, 2016). "Inside The Supertalls: 111 West 57th Street". Bisnow
  • ALT5:... that the developers of 111 West 57th Street intended for it to become New York City's tallest building constructed with non-union labor? Source: Geiger, Daniel (January 13, 2015). "Nonunion West 57th St. spire aims to shatter record". Crain's New York.

• Reviewed: Los Campitos Reservoir
• Comment: more hooks later

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC).

• Epicgenius, Recently listed GA, decent sourcing, and everything else looks good. All of the proposed hooks would work and are sourced in the article, but ALT2 is the best imo. Fine by you? ~ HAL333 23:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• @HAL333: Thanks for the review. ALT2 works for me if you like that the most. Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2 it is. :) ~ HAL333 04:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Floor loading.

"The tower's floors consist of concrete slabs that could withstand loads of up to 14,000 pounds per square inch (97,000 kPa)"

The source cited gives that as the compressive strength of the concrete. But the article gives the impression that it's the allowed floor loading. Allowed floor loadings are far smaller, usually below 1 pound per square inch in residential. Heavy industrial, around 2 PSI.. --John Nagle (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I came here to say that: makes no sense the way it is written. I have no doubt that for such a high building, high compression concrete is required. But that is not the same as loading. Cross Reference (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nagle @Cross Reference, thanks for bringing these issues up. I'm not sure when this was added, but this source clearly says the concrete is of 14000 psi compressive strength, not that the slabs have a 14000 psi loading capacity (which would be unheard of, anyway). 14000 psi compressive strength, though, would be about right. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITEBUNDLE

@Zenswashbuckler, I acknowledge your line of thinking here, but these two citations are actually combined because of WP:CITEBUNDLE. The text already has four sources within three different ref tags, so unbundling these references may make it more visually cluttered.

If you still think these need to be unbundled for some reason, my preference would be to get rid of one of these sources (probably the Commercial Observer source as we already have the book, NYT, and NBC sources). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for the fix. I hadn't seen that policy(?) before, but yes, I agree it should apply here. I don't have a horse in this race, no need to clip anything. Thanks! ZenSwashbuckler 20:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This article is way too confusing

This article covers two separate buildings: Steinway Tower, and Steinway Hall NYC. But the opening sentence says there is only one building. The only place in which it is a single building is in the pretend imaginary universe of the developers. They are in fact two separate buildings. They have separate foundations, they were built a century apart, one is ten times taller than the other. Wikipedia does not exist in a pretend imaginary universe, it exists in the real world. The developers aren't deluded, they are just conforming to NYC building and zoning laws that require them to pretend that there is only one building. But Wikipedia should describe what actually exists in the real world, not what the developers imagine exists in their pretend world. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The article clarifies things further on. For one thing, the hall and tower are actually classified as one building. Even if they weren't, Steinway Hall is an integral part of the 111 West 57th Street development even in the real world. One-fourth of the units are located in Steinway Hall, the hall has the tower's amenities, and the entire thing is marketed as a single development. It would be even more confusing to have one article for the portion containing 45 of the building's residential units, and another article about the portion containing the other 14 units. Per WP:NOPAGE, having them all here is the best option, since Wikipedia is describing Steinway Hall and the residential tower as they actually exist, not pretending that these are two separate developments. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

However, I do think it may be worth holding a split discussion to see if people want Steinway Hall (57th Street)'s previous history and architecture to be split out, and if so, summarizing these details here. This would be similar to the situation with Coty Building and 712 Fifth Avenue. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)