Talk:Height of Buildings Act of 1910

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Criticalthinker in topic 160 or 180?

Heights of Buildings Act of Height of Buildings Act?

edit

I'm seeing federal government sources using both titles, and this page's primary-source link is broken. Is it the Heights of Building Act or Height of Buildings Act? IFCAR (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Height of Buildings Act of 1910. 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) 02:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

160 or 180?

edit

The "Background" first paragraph seems to imply that the tallest a building can be anywhere in the city is 160 feet. Yet in the "Section 5" subsection, a particular area of the city reads:

"...height not to exceed 180 feet (55 m)..."

So which is it? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Article is a mess. The primary source seems not to have been in operation for years. I have found some additional sources and will be paring down and rearranging this article for the better, namely that the main article will feature the basics and not multi-paragraph excerpts, and that it will be made clear the handful or so times the act has been amended since 1910 to make exceptions for certain structures. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply