Talk:2 Columbus Circle

2 Columbus Circle has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 19, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from 2 Columbus Circle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the "awkward, cramped galleries" at 2 Columbus Circle later housed New York City government offices?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2 Columbus Circle.

Wikipedia

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photo request

It would be greatly appreciated if anyone who has a more recent picture of the building would upload it. Some of us not in NYC would very much like to see a photo documentation of this tragedy.

J. Crocker 00:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too pro-building

Does anyone else think this article is a little too friendly towards this building? I know some people like this thing, but I always feel slightly sick when I walk by it. Let's see:

It has an outstanding diagonal view of central park but has ALMOST NO WINDOWS and looks like a giant ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER. It doesn't mesh with the surrounding cityscape at all.

I know I must not be the only person who feels this way. I'm tempted to put a few more critical cites up here. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

WhitePlains12345

--I live nearby and I loved the original building. I've watched the new facade go up and it looks ghastly to me. In my opinion it is not an improvement, it's a tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.87.192 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the people who wanted to landmark the building, or at least have a hearing on landmarking, but WP is supposed to have a neutral point of view, and this article does not, really. It reads kind of like an indictment. Nareek (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no judgements

Are there any updated views of the "new" building available? Reconstruction has to be nearing the end.

J. Crocker 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This article has gotten really ridiculous! I figured I'd come back and check on it to see what happened to it. According to the article, the people who committed this atrocity should be hunted down and shot. Do the people who wrote this article really believe that it's "non-biased"? I frankly don't see how any reasonable person could hold that view. Kind of makes me sad... oh well!

WhitePlains12345 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhitePlains12345 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

==>

Thanks for the updated photo. OUCH!

J. Crocker (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View - Restructuring

Based on the chronology of this pages construction, it appears to have been specifically and thoroughly constructed to discredit efforts at its renovation / reconstruction. Given its significance to discussions of the development of New York City, architectural history, contemporary architectural practice and historic preservation, the article should more closely follow Wikipedia guidelines.

In an attempt to present a more neutral position, I would propose the following overall structure:

1. General description - location, development of the parcel and surrounding street grid, w/ top level links to Columbus Circle, Museum of Arts and Design, New York City, etc. 2. Timeline - Chronology of buildings and events related to 2 Columbus Circle (relocated from present position at end of article) 3. Summary of Specific Works - Pabst Grand Circle (and other prior structures if available), Gallery of Modern Art, Museum of Arts and Design - include exterior and interior photos, key data, events of note 4. Preservation Controversy - a legitimate, if not primary, point of the article, which at present is the majority of article space. Alternately, a separate article could be created which contains all the detailed redevelopment and preservation efforts and opposing points of view.

Any other suggestions? Hoping to work on this in the weeks ahead. Altamontstreet (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pabst Grand Circle Hotel…

…was on the northwest corner of Columbus Circle and 58th Street. It was supplanted by the New York Coliseum, and now the Time Warner Center occupies the site. According to Gray, the hotel by architect Cauvet at what is now 2 Columbus Circle was originally called the Grand Circle Hotel (no affiliation with Pabst).

Gray, Christopher. The New York Times (2005-11-27). "Audubon's Home, and Columbus Circle's Past" (Item #2)
Gray, Christopher. The New York Times (1996-12-01). "A Small Hotel, A Mock Battleship and the Titanic"
Pabst Grand Circle Hotel: The Museum of the City of New York
Grand Circle Hotel: Boulevard Hotel, Museum of the City of New York. At the end of its life, it was evidently called the Boulevard Hotel. Before that, it had been known at various times as the Oriental and the Victoria, respectively. Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Vzeebjtf (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actual height?

A past revision of the article said the height of the building is 420 feet (130 m), which seemed wrong to me, as that would mean there's about 35 feet (11 m) between each floor. After a short bit of searching, I couldn't find any sources for this figure (except Wikipedia!) so thought it was best to remove it for now.

Looking at the building in context in Google maps, it's definitely not as tall as the article claimed. The black building to the right is the Trump International Hotel and Tower, which Wikipedia (and various other sources) put at 583 feet (178 m). Based on this (and the heights of other surrounding structures) I'd estimate it much closer to 200 feet (61 m), a far cry from the original figure in the article.

Theta4 (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2 Columbus Circle. 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:

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) 13:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2 Columbus Circle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig finds no issues.

I can't tell what the original source for File:2 Columbus Circle.jpg is. It says it was uploaded by Seano1 who is inactive, and was not taken by them, so I don't think we can say we have a verified license for it.
- That is a little bit of a problem. I'm trying to find a replacement for this image, which shows the building in its original state. Theoretically, NFCC will not allow me to upload a non-free image of the original design unless this image is deleted and a free equivalent can't be found. Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
archinect.com (FN 32) appears to be a blog.
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it does fill an entire city block, but I think for those of us familiar with NYC buildings that's a surprising way to say it. Could we make this something like "a small city block" or some other phrasing that doesn't imply it's the size of a hospital?
- Done. I also fixed it so it doesn't say "filled an entire...", which was pretty redundant when I wrote it. Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to the small size of the building, there were originally several mezzanine levels, though these were removed in the 2000s." This is explained in the body but is opaque in the lead. I think cutting the first phrase would be the simplest answer.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Grand Circle Hotel predecessor building worth a redlink?
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Nonetheless, the project remained stalled through the end of the 1990s." I would cut "Nonetheless"; we've just said there's disagreement so there's no need to signal surprise.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" the cost had risen to $50 million by mid-2004" but then "increased the project's budget to $40 million" (2005). Or is the capital fund of $65M the true budget estimate at that point?
- The capital fund of $65 million included not only funding for 2 Columbus Circle's renovation (costing $40-50 million) but also funds for the museum's future operation. Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

FN 196 cites "Conversely, when 2 Columbus Circle opened, Thomas V. Ennis of the Times wrote that the building was a "bright spot" on the midtown section of Eighth Avenue." Verified.
FN 142 cites "many supporters of 2 Columbus Circle's preservation had coalesced behind Dahesh's bid". Verified.
FN 77 cites "The museum also hosted short recitals by contemporary musicians." Verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review. I have fixed most of these issues now. (I'm still working on replacing the image of the original design; it's a shame that the original design doesn't exist anymore, though.) Epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; just the image issue left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to look for a freely licensed image. Sadly, it doesn't seem like there are freely available images on Flickr (I did find an image of the original building on Flickr that was CC-BY licensed, but I suspect that the image itself is a copyright violation). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pity. For now the best answer is probably to remove it, and then I can promote the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have done that now. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

2 Columbus Circle

... that the construction of an art gallery at 2 Columbus Circle was delayed because of a shoe store? Source: "Store Delays Start on New Art Museum". The New York Times. December 15, 1959
- ALT1: ... that the "awkward, cramped galleries" at 2 Columbus Circle later housed New York City government offices? Source: Goldberger, Paul (September 22, 1991). "Architecture View; A Post-Modern Museum for Television, Sans Irony". The New York Times.
- ALT2: ... that the word "HI" was added to 2 Columbus Circle's facade against the wishes of its renovation architect, who described the original facade as "frightening"? Source: Bernstein, Fred A. (February 19, 2009). "Museum of Arts and Design (Jerome and Simona Chazen Building) by Allied Works". Architectural Record.
- ALT3: ... that when several lawsuits were filed against 2 Columbus Circle, its tenant got $5 million of free advertising? Source: Kreinin Souccar, Miriam (February 6, 2006). "Crafting a museum". Crain's New York Business. Vol. 22, no. 6. p. 2.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cleonike Damianakes
- Comment: QPQ pending, more hooks later

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 16:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. Article was nominated within seven days of passing GAR. Only pings on Earwigs are for long proper titles and attributed quotes. Image is properly licensed, used in article, and reproduces well at a small size. Hooks are interesting, cited, and short enough for DYK; AGF on offline source in ALT3. I think ALT2 is the most interesting. Ping me when you've completed you QPQ and I'll pass this. Morgan695 (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morgan695: Thanks for the review. I have now done a QPQ. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Morgan695 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius and Morgan695: possible alternate hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT4: ... that the word "HI" displayed on the façade of 2 Columbus Circle was implemented by accident?
  - That sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Morgan695: Would you approve ALT4 also? –LordPeterII (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]