Talk:383 Madison Avenue/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 16:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately tagged.

• What makes skyscraperpage.com a reliable source?
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Suggest changing the caption of third image in the body to avoid "the present" and give the year of the image.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Is the Knapp Building worth a redlink?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Not necessary for GA, but any chance of a picture of the Knapp Building?
  • Unfortunately, it does not seem like a freely licensed picture is available on Commons. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• "The elevator pits could not descend below the first story due to the presence of the tracks. Thus, the structural engineers placed the elevators and the core of the lower stories on the western portion of the site": Suggest linking "core" (or at first use, earlier in the article) and make it "presence of the tracks under the eastern part of the site".
  • I've reworded this sentence. I was going to say that there's no article about structural cores, but apparently that page does exist at Core (architecture), which is strange since this isn't strictly an architectural element. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• "This created large floor plates": what is a floor plate?
  • I've clarified this as well. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• "the city had to make a decision on certification within 30 days": what does certification refer to? Approval of and/or permitting for Scheme III?
  • Basically, Travelstead first had to apply for a special permit to transfer the air rights, then the city would decide whether to approve the permit. As part of this, Travelstead had to write an environmental impact statement, which is basically a report about how the planned building would impact the immediate neighborhood. City officials never even looked at the application, which precluded them from deciding whether to approve the permit. I have clarified that the 30-day deadline was to look at the application. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• "where Travelstead had to finalize his purchase of the air rights within a year of his lawsuit being decided": I don't follow this. We're talking about a suggested zoning subdistrict, not a lawsuit. And does this refer to a requirement in the zoning ordinance that Travelstead must do this? It seems not. I assume the reference is to the suit Travelstead brought that's mentioned in the previous paragraph, but it's not clear.
  • This was in reference to the previous year's lawsuit over the air-rights transfer ("Travelstead then sued the city in the State Supreme Court"). It's a very complicated story, but I've tried to clarify this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• "The next month, the al-Babtain family announced it would be buying First Boston's stake, taking full control of the site for $55 million. This included a right of first refusal if First Boston attempted to sell the property. Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne then decided to buy $10 million of the site's air rights, to which the al-Babtains' lawyers objected. Cayne then sold the air rights to the al-Babtains for a nominal fee, and the family stopped communicating with him". I don't follow this sequence. If the al-Babtains had "full control", why would they need a right of first refusal -- First Boston would be out of the picture? And I assume this deal did not go through. And why did Cayne drop the fee from $10M to something nominal? And why did the family stop speaking to him? And why did they want the air rights? If they want to develop the site, the air rights to that site by themselves do them no good, do they? I could see them buying air rights from adjacent properties, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening here.
  • I've removed the bit about the right of first refusal. Also, the air-rights dispute was very complex, but basically the al-Babtain family wanted to build a large structure on the site. In order to do that, they needed to accumulate as many square feet of air rights as possible, so these air rights are actually pretty valuable to them. Bear Stearns bought an option on the air rights for $10 million, which would have prevented the al-Babtain family from building such a large structure. According to the Cohan source, the family was mad at Cayne because of this, even after Cayne sold the option back to the family for $1. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Why did mouldy wood lead to a fight about Cayne's bonus?
  • It was a bonus based on the quality of the work. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixes look good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

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.