Talk:Seagram Building/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: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 16:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I might be biting off more than I can chew since this is my second review, but expect one in about a week. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

Lead/infobox

• Philip Johnson is not mentioned until the second lead paragraph, which suggests that he was mainly responsible for designing the restaurants. From the article body, though, Johnson is listed as co-architect, so first mention should probably be moved to the first paragraph alongside Mies, Kahn, and Jacobs.
  • Done.
• The lead states that the Seagram Building has "a large elevator lobby", but dimensions of the lobby are never given in the article body to support this claim.
  • I added a ceiling height, which is what this claim was based on. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Hm seems kind of out-of-place to include lobby height in the lead. I guess I can slide with a compromise by saying "tall elevator lobby", since it's less ambiguous than large. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
      • That works. I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

1 Site

• An aerial graphic depicting the site and building layout would be a helpful complement, but this is optional.
  • If there's something I am bad at, it is creating diagrams of buildings. Maybe I will tackle this later, along with the other building articles I've written. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Completely understandable. You probably don't have to create it yourself, though, since I'm pretty sure there should be pre-existing copies around that can be added under fair use. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

2 Design

• "The Seagram Building only occupies half the site, with the mass of the building set behind a plaza to the west." This should be moved to the Site section, since it has more to do with the building's location/layout than it has with the building's design/form.
  • I included it in this section because the layout of the building is covered in this section specifically. It also relates to the next sentence with which I have combined this sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • All right, no change. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "It is recessed 90 feet (27 m)." Wording of "recessed" is a bit awkward here and vague. Potential rephrasing: "It is 90 feet from Park Avenue."
  • I combined it with the previous sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Furthermore, forty pieces of green marble are used in the plaza area." Where/how exactly is the green marble used in the plaza? The placement of the sentence also seems a bit awkward as it has almost nothing to do with the sentence before or after it.
  • I moved it to the previous paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "At the building's completion, the plaza's surface required daily vacuuming with a sweeper." The source for this is dated 1961. Does the plaza still require daily vacuuming? If not, this should be clarified.
  • They still are vacuumed regularly, but I don't know the frequency. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • It could be helpful to include the source that mentions the regular vacuuming, to give a sense of continuity, but if not, that's fine. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "The northern, southern, and western ends of the slab slightly overhang the plaza ..." Is it possible to specify how much overhang? A lot of other features of the plaza/building have rather precise measurements, and here, the word "slightly" is quite ambiguous, as the overhang appears to cover a distinct and walkable arcade.
  • I am not sure of the precise measurement. I think it's about 25 to 30 feet, but I haven't found a source to confirm this. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • All right, not a deal-breaker when it comes to GA. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "The outer walls were glass curtain walls, containing metal curtains that rippled from air released by hidden ventilating ducts" Are the outer walls still glass curtain walls?
  • Yes, I fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Since 2017, the Lobster Club has contained a design by Peter Marino." Wording of "has contained a design" is a bit awkward.
  • Reworded.
• "... 150 drip-painted concrete floor tiles by Laura Bergman ..." Who is Laura Bergman? There is no article on her, but I assume she is some sort of artist.
  • Clarified.
• "The remainders of the office stories used 4.625-foot (1.4 m) modules designed by Hauserman." Who/what is Hauserman? Company or person? Also, given only one dimension of the modules, I assume they are square, but this should be clarified in the article.
  • This is a company. I've clarified it. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "The interiors were also decorated with numerous artworks, including the Seagram murals by Mark Rothko, which were intended to sicken the patrons of the Four Seasons Restaurant." Mention of the Seagram murals shouldn't be in the Office stories section since the murals were intended for the Four Seasons restaurant. Either this fact should be mentioned somewhere in the History section (recommended), or this should be entirely omitted from the article.
  • I have moved this up to the "Features" section where the restaurant interiors have previously been mentioned. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• "The Seagram offices had a reception room ... " Do we know on which floors the offices were located?
  • Strangely, I didn't see anything about where the offices were physically located. I will check later. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I see that you added how many floors the offices occupy, but not which floors yet. Once again, it would be nice to clarify, but it's definitely not a deal-breaker. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I will take some time to look for it. It's noteworthy, though, that I didn't come across the exact floor numbers when I was originally expanding the article. Perhaps this was never mentioned by any of the contemporary media. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Behind each window, Mies sought to avoid irregularity when window blinds are drawn, since people using different windows would draw blinds to different heights." The last part seems like unnecessary explanation.
  • I removed this. It was already in the article when I started expanding it, so I suppose that last part is now redundant. Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• "There are also two 5-story wings east of the main slab, facing 52nd and 53rd Streets, as well as a 10- or 11-story "bustle" between the two 5-story wings." Both cited sources say 10-story, so just wanted to make sure that the story height of the bustle is not ambiguous?
  • I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

3 History

• "According to Philip Johnson, the construction of Lever House during that time had set an example for the construction of what became the Seagram Building." Could this just be simplified to "According to Philip Johnson, Lever House had set an example for what became the Seagram Building."?
  • Yep. I simplified it but in a different way. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "The design would have provided for an auditorium, film screen room, display rooms, and executive offices around an interior court." By interior court, do we mean like an open-air court? I can't check the sources themselves since it seems Wikipedia Library ProQuest access does not cover the newspaper articles in question.
  • I clarified the sentence to state that it would've been an interior garden court, or a courtyard with a garden surrounded by the rest of the tower. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "According to the August 1954 edition of Architectural Record, critics likened the building's appearance to an 'enormous cigarette lighter' and to a 'big trophy'. The pdf of the source indicates that the magazine's title is Architectural Forum, not Architectural Record. Is this an alternative name? If not, then both the sentence and ref 123 need to be fixed.
  • Good catch, I have fixed the typo. These are two different publications. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "... but as Olga Gueft of Interiors magazine said ..." Who is Olga Gueft?
  • She is a writer for Interiors magazine and later the managing editor. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Mies considered three alternatives for a slab behind a large plaza, with a facade divided into multiple bays: a square tower, a 3-by-7-bay rectangle with the short side facing Park Avenue, and a 5-by-3-bay rectangle with the long side facing Park Avenue." Do we know the dimensions of the square tower plan in terms of bays? Moreover, since only two dimensions are given, I assume the dimensions pertain specifically to the planned facades, but if that's the case, how can the "long side" of a facade face Park Avenue if a planar facade can only face one street? I feel like this passage could use better wording overall to describe the plans.
  • These were not elaborated upon within the source, but the bays would have been baiscally the same width on all sides. In the 3-by-7 bay plan, this meant there would be 3 bays facing Park Avenue and 7 facing either of the side streets. In the 5-by-3 bay plan, this would have been 5 bays facing Park Avenue and 3 facing either of the side streets. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I think I understand now. If that's the case, I guess the current state works as is. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "At the time, 20 of 250 existing tenants on the site had already left." By existing tenants, do we mean the people living/working there before construction began? If so, when did the rest leave?
  • Yes, these are the tenants who used to live or work at the site. Usually, media do not report on when exactly the other tenants left, unless there was a holdout around whom the building had to be constructed. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Cushman & Wakefield were hired as rental agents." This sentence feels kind of disconnected and isolated, given that nothing about their service as rental agents is ever elaborated, nor is the date of the hiring ever specified (unlike the other events in the paragraph, which are listed chronologically).
  • I've moved this to the next section, where some of the tenants are listed. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "The superstructure was constructed from May 1956 ..." I took the liberty to rephrase this as "The superstructure began construction in May 1956 ..." since "constructed from [start date]" is usually followed by a "to [end date]", but that isn't the case here.
  • That's fine with me. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "... prompting them to temporarily go on strike until the rule was modified." I assume the rule here was made less strict, but the first two sources are locked for me. If my guess is right, it wouldn't hurt to clarify.
  • Your guess is correct. I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "During construction, Lambert convinced the builders to carry through Mies's original design without significant change, including minor details such as the brick bonding, which was hidden from view." Clarification on what exactly is "brick bonding" is needed (I assume it's referring to "while the eastern wall of the 53rd Street wing is faced in brick."). Also removing the phrase "without significant change" is advisable, since that makes it clearer that the brick bonding was part of the "original design" instead of "significant change".
  • I added a link to Bond (brick) and removed that phrase. This is basically just the arrangement of brickwork. In this case, the layout of the brickwork was hidden from view. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "For decades after the sale, Phyllis Lambert continued to maintain an active interest in the Seagram Building's operation." Can it be clarified how exactly did Lambert "maintain an active interest"? So far in History, it seems Lambert had a hand during planning and construction, but no mention later of her role in day-to-day operations. (I can't access the source since it's paywalled for me)
  • The source says, "Even as ownership has passed from the Bronfman family’s control, Ms. Lambert has watched over the building." In other words, she continued to keep tabs on how the building was maintained. For example, Lambert was one of the major figures who pushed for the Seagram Building to be designated as a NYC landmark 10 years after the sale. She even wrote a book about the history of the building a few years ago. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I see. If that's the case, then the sentence is fine as is. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "The Seagram Building continued to be held by Rosen's RFR Holdings... " The company's actual name appears to be "RFR Holding" without the "s". Ditto for the ref.
  • Fixed.
• "Meanwhile, French media conglomerate Vivendi, which had acquired the Seagram company... " It appears throughout the article, that the Seagram Company is referred to by other names like "Seagram & Sons". It would be nice if the entire article could use a consistent name like "Seagram's" or the "Seagram Company", since the company does not seem to have undergone any significant name changes during the Seagram Building's history.
  • Fixed.
    • Hm, it seems the article predominantly uses "Seagram & Sons" to refer to the company. However, according to the Seagram article, "In 1928, a few years after the death of Joseph E. Seagram (1919), the Distillers Corporation acquired Joseph E. Seagram & Sons from heir and President Edward F. Seagram; the merged company retained the Seagram name." – suggesting that Seagram & Sons was not a name used by the company at the time of the Seagram Building? Then again, this statement doesn't have a source in the article, and I haven't looked that much into the name history of the company. Unless there is a source for still using Seagram & Sons to refer to the company, we might want to play it safe and just use "Seagram Company" throughout the article instead. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I just went with the "Seagram Company" to distinguish from the building. Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Great job, looks good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "RFR received the LPC's permission in 2005 to transfer unused development rights at the Seagram Building site to the neighboring YWCA building on 53rd Street, allowing the construction of a hotel on 100 East 53rd Street." This does not seem relevant to the Seagram Building's history; consider for possible deletion?
  • In NYC, some development rights sales can be quite lucrative for the seller, especially if the sale is in a place like Midtown Manhattan, where these sales can involve tens of millions of dollars. In this case, though, the transaction came with the stipulation that the facade had to be kept in near-mint condition, so I added that. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, reasonable. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "French architect Joseph Dirand was hired to remodel the former Four Seasons and Brasserie spaces into two restaurants called the Grill and the Pool." In the Design section, it was stated that the Brasserie was converted into the Lobster Club, presumably independent of the Grill and the Pool. If so, this passage needs to be amended and include some discussion of the Lobster Club as well.
  • I reworded this. Apparently, Dirand was not hired for this project but rather for a neighboring one. My bad. I also mentioned in the Design section that Peter Marino designed the Lobster Club. I repeated this here. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "... the Grill served mid-20th-century cuisine while the Pool served largely seafood." Given that the Grill and the Pool are still serving these foods, it would seem more appropriate to also include this detail in the Design section, like for the Lobster Club's food.
  • Done.
• "The next month, the Grill took over the Pool due to higher demand for cuisine in the Grill." Until now, I was under the impression that the Grill and the Pool were independent restaurants. It seems from the ref article that the Pool is no longer a restaurant itself and is now part of the Grill. Previous sections need to be updated with this new detail (e.g. the sentence "The original Four Seasons had five dining rooms, preserved in the modern-day Pool and Grill restaurants.", but I'm sure there are quite a few more instances)
  • The merger of the two restaurants happened pretty recently (last year actually). I will take a closer look in the morning, but it may be that the Pool retained its name when it was merged with the Grill. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Epicgenius: I did some looking into this, and it seems that the restaurants have indeed merged, though the Major Food Groups website does not seem to be updated with this news (in fact, the latest news featured on the Grill's website is from 2017). However, I found this NY Post article from last month referring to the merged restaurant as "the Grill and Pool". The author Cuozzo seems to have covered the Seagram Building in the past, and is even in the refs, so I think it's safe to just go with his take on the new name. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

      GeneralPoxter, I was actually in the process of doing this. I have fixed it.

      In relation to the other outstanding issue, I've also added a reference and some more info on design influences. Sadly, the sources I encountered don't mention specific names of buildings, probably because so many buildings were inspired by Seagram. Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

      • Looks good. Being a bit pedantic here, but since "the Grill" and "the Pool" are no longer distinct restaurants, we can probably refer to them as "the Grill room" and "the Pool room" when talking about them individually design-wise. That's a minor detail though, that I don't think gets in the way of promotion. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

4 Impact

• "According to Jerold Kayden, who summarized the building in 2000..." What does it mean to summarize a building?
  • I reworded it. Kayden only touched on it in passing. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• "... and who stated that the hidden wind bracing made the building appear like 'beautiful bronze lady in hidden corsets'." Context makes it seem as if Kahn is one of the critics who had "negative comments" about the building, but here this last quote here makes it seem like he also has something good to say. If so, a "however" or "nevertheless" should be used to distinguish this contrast.
  • Done.
• "... which they considered as a symbol of absence" Is the city the symbol of absence or is the Seagram Building the symbol of absence? I assume it's the latter, but the syntax makes it seem it's the former.
  • It was actually the combination of both, so I clarified it. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 232 doesn't have any author attribution, and the Project Gallery this is a part of seems to allow anybody registered to the site to upload. Ref 233 basically covers ref 232 and more, so I recommend removing this source.
  • Removed.
• "... a sharp contrast to the 'wedding cake' model of the 1916 Zoning Resolution. I don't think it's obvious what a "wedding cake" model is in building. This could use clarification.
  • Clarified.
• "... having been copied in several structures worldwide." The examples that follow are all within the U.S. Is it possible to include some more notable but international examples?

References

• Overall, these sources appear reliable, and for many claims, there are multiple sources to boot.
• It's okay for there to be a mix of reference tags and shortref templates, but in the Sources section, there appear to be multiple uncited/unused sources like Lambert, Marshal, Stichweh, Stoller, and Wolfe. These could be moved to a Further reading section unless I'm mistaken.

Overall assessment

• Fascinating survey of the Seagram Building–bravo! The article in general is well-written, well-researched, neutral, stable, and illustrated. However, there are a few minor details that need working out before I'm ready to promote. I am putting this article on hold until July 10. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Great job! All major points have been addressed, and I don't believe any of the outstanding issues bar promotion. Promoting to Good Article status... GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 July 2021 (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.