Talk:Inland Steel Building

Stainless?

From the article: "The use of brushed stainless steel cladding reflects the corporation that commissioned the building." I don't believe Inland Steel Company actually produced stainless; this seems more like irony (pun intended) than an actual reflection of the firm.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First Skyscraper since the Great Depression

This accurately states that the Inland Steel Building is the first skyscraper built in the Loop since the Great Depression. However, many people do not understand that the Loop is a relatively small section of Chicago's downtown. Should it mention that the first skyscraper in Chicago's downtown was the Prudential Building to avoid confusion among those who do not grasp the local jargon? IrishGarth (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 09:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Inland Steel Building

• ... that, when the Inland Steel Building was developed, the company's president said that the company wanted a building "that spelled steel"? Source: "Art: How to Spell Steel". Time. February 10, 1958.
  • ALT1: ... that, despite charging higher rent than neighboring structures in Chicago, the Inland Steel Building was nearly fully occupied before its completion? Source: "Inland Unit 98 1/2% Filled". Chicago Daily Tribune. October 10, 1957. p. F8; Leslie, Thomas (2023). Chicago Skyscrapers, 1934–1986: How Technology, Politics, Finance, and Race Reshaped the City. University of Illinois Press. p. F7.
  • ALT2: ... that real-estate brokers grew tired of trying to lease out space at Chicago's Inland Steel Building because the building was almost always fully occupied? Source: Allen, J Linn (April 3, 1991). "It's Stainless: Inland Steel Building Proves Durable, Aesthetically and Economically". Chicago Tribune. p. G12.
  • ALT3: ... that, when a syndicate offered to buy Chicago's Inland Steel Building, the owner refused to sell it until learning that architect Frank Gehry was involved? Source: Kamin, Blair (August 20, 2005). "Gehry likes it, helps buy it". Chicago Tribune. p. 2.1.
  • ALT4: ... that two longtime rivals designed Chicago's Inland Steel Building? Source: Kamin, Blair (March 9, 2010). "Bruce Graham dies at 84; architect of iconic Chicago skyscrapers". Los Angeles Times
  • ALT5: ... that a window-washing railroad track ran atop Chicago's Inland Steel Building? Source: "Oddly Enough, It's a Window Washing Aid". Chicago Daily Tribune. December 21, 1957. p. 25.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jacques Presburg
  • Comment: Thanks to LEvalyn for some of the hooks.

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 741 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC).

• Grammar fixes; tighter phrasing. — LlywelynII 10:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these. I'm just going to mark this nomination as needing a review to expedite the process. Epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
    • What a nice looking building. Article looks good, Earwig's is clear (just quotes came up). ALT0 is interesting (although it took me a while to understand what it meant). ALT0 matches the source and article. I found ALT5 quite interesting too (more than ALT0) so I've verified that it matches the article and source. QPQ done. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Inland Steel Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. Since I reviewed Inland Steel Company, I might as well review their Building (or at least one of them) too. -- Reconrabbit 17:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I just have one link question, then finished. -- Reconrabbit 18:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit, thanks for the review. I've fixed the link; the correct link was at https://www.usmodernist.org/AR/AR-2000-09-RI.pdf, not https://www.usmodernist.org/AR/AR-2000-09.pdf. I have no idea how the URL got messed up. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Great. I could be pedantic about it being "work" rather than "works" in the quote but the latter makes more sense to me in the context of this wikipedia article than work (abstract) -- Reconrabbit 19:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Prose

• There was also a dining suite on the 13th floor and an executive suite on the 19th floor: what happened to them?
  • To be honest, I couldn't really find much information on that. This brochure from January 2025 shows some space available for lease. However, it's no longer used by Inland Steel. - EG
• Leigh Block, president of Inland Steel, said: "We wanted a building we'd be proud of, one that spelled steel. Presumably "said in 1958"? Or is the date not relevant to this statement here (since it was post-construction)
  • The date isn't really relevant; it's just explaining Block's motivations. - EG
    • Understood -RR
• Mies is linked under History and Architecture but no where else.
  • I added a link in "Impact" for consistency; per MOS:OL, he is linked only once per major section. - EG
• each piling was drilled into the ground ... until it were embedded into the soil. Is the 'was' and 'were' in conflict here
  • Whoops. Fixed. - EG
• Is it "JP Interests" or "JPS Interests"?
  • JPS Interests, I fixed it. - EG
• Nathaniel A. Owings, one of SOM's cofounders, said the design allowed the building to occupy only 57% of its land lot.[32] while the historian Carl W. Condit said the design split the building into "served" and "servant" spaces, much like Louis Kahn's Richards Medical Research Laboratories. Did these sentences get split accidentally
  • These are supposed to be separate. Fixed this too. - EG
• It's awkward that the 'mechanical tower' section only describes its design, location, and shape, but not what's in it until the middle of the third paragraph in the next subsection
  • This section is talking only about the exterior (i.e. facade, location, shape); the interior is discussed in the appropriate subsection. I described the interiors under "Structural and mechanical features" because it ties into a larger discussion about mechanical systems. - EG
    • Makes sense. -RR
• The windows had vertical aluminum shutters,[146] as well as fabric louvers that could be tilted 130 degrees suddenly in the past tense, which works for the previous paragraph, regarding dividers that were removed, not so much for this one describing the windows
  • Good point. I changed this to "have" since they still exist. - EG
• Once in the body of the article, it's implied but never stated that the executive and dining suites disappeared after Inland Steel/Ispat vacated a lot of space in the 1990s/2000s
  • This ties into my response above - I couldn't really find much information on these. I phrased it under the assumption that the executive and dining suites might no longer serve their original function, because we do know that their original tenant is no longer there. - EG Epicgenius (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Understood -RR

• Copyright:I see only quotations, but have to check close paraphrasing later on. [169] was superficially close in construction (regarding the description of the second floor) but appears distinct enough
  • Sadly, there aren't that many sources describing the second floor specifically. There are only so many ways the sentences can be phrased without either failing verification or going into WP:CLOP territory. - EG

References

• Layout: No problems Y

Spot checking

Reviewing 15% of sources (32) 15 sources. Numbering is based on this revision. Sadly I don't have Chicago Tribune access on ProQuest thru my proxy/TWL so will avoid those #s.

• [22] Y
• [67] Y
• [96] Y
• [132] specifically refers to the "stainless steel cladding" as a reference to Inland Steel, not just the steel structure as a whole... seems pedantic but might read better than "the steel was a reference to Inland Steel"
  • Done. - EG
• [169] Y assuming acoustical panels is equivalent to 'dropped ceiling'
  • Yes, that is what was meant. I changed to "acoustic-paneled ceiling". - EG
• [45] Y
• [54] Y
• [130] Y
• [168] Y
• [178] The board room was the only room with draperies, not without
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• [190] Y
• [195] Y
• [134] Y
• [2] Y
• [218] Link doesn't work but I can see the quote on the ProQuest preview - confirmed text integrity, but please find a working link (archive.org didn't work) or remove it Y

Scope

• Broad: History, design, amenities and influence are covered - aspects anticipated for a building of its age
• Narrow: Where there are usable sources, details are provided, and noted omissions were also omitted from contemporary sources, so I can't deduct points there

Stability

• Neutrality: An unbiased account of Inland Steel's building, with statements attributed
• Edit warring: Haven't seen any

Images

• Free/Fair use: Licenses are GFDL, CC BY-SA, CC BY, "attribution only" (weird but ok).
• Relevance: When there is a section that can be illustrated by a specific view of the building (excluding the parts under copyright due to lack of freedom of panorama) the images used are appropriate.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.