Talk:One Vanderbilt/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead/Infobox

 * "The 1.6-million-square-foot (150,000 m2) skyscraper's roof is 1,301 feet (397 m) high and its spire is 1,401 feet (427 m)..." This phrasing makes it sound as if the spire alone is 1,401 feet. Maybe specify the top of the spire?
 * Infobox claims the top floor is "73", but no mention of a top 73rd floor is in the article body. I assume they skipped some numbers when numbering the floors.
 * Yes, they did. I added a source. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did. I added a source. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

1 Site

 * "...were saved by the developer, to be stored until the New York Landmarks Conservancy found a place for them." Odd phrasing here. Would just "...were saved by the developer and stored until..." work?

2 Design

 * "One Vanderbilt's roof is 1,301 feet (397 m) high and its spire is 1,401 feet (427 m)" See Lead concern
 * "83 rock ties" What are "rock ties"? Source doesn't elaborate, and Google doesn't seem to help either. Are these possibly tiebacks?
 * Yes, that is the correct term. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "On the third floor is an amenity center known as the Vandy Club, which consists of an auditorium, boardroom, and flexible meeting space." The Urbanize NYC and Gensler sources both refer to the place as "the Vandy Club", so I changed the name to that in the article. However, it is still unclear in these sources whether the the "auditorium, boardroom, and flexible meeting space" are part of the Vandy Club, or are just other third floor features. I couldn't read the Crain's source, so I wanted to check with you instead.
 * Crain's says "the third floor's lounge and meeting space, the Vandy Club", so I had that. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, current rewrite looks good. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "The subsequent 58 floors are designated as 1.7 million square feet (160,000 m2) of "Class A" office space." What does "Class A" mean? The best and most modern office spaces? (I also don't agree with replacing it with just "The subsequent 58 floors are used as office space." since it loses out on the designation and square footage details)
 * "Class A" is a technical term used in real estate circles here. Basically it is the best and most modern, but the space is usually also very close to a transit hub or major street, and everything is kept up to date. "Class B" space may be a little smaller but also has lower rents than Class A. "Class C" spaces are a bit cozy and on a side street, but they're also cheap and your landlord will likely confer with you personally if there's a problem. However, this is a bit technical to explain and isn't really common to see in articles about buildings, so I removed it.
 * As for the figure of 1.7 million square feet, I believe this is the figure for the entire building, and that's why I removed the figure. According to the WSJ, "The 1.7 million-square-foot tower is expected to be completed in 2020". This is also corroborated by more recent sources. I believe the total amount of office space is closer to 1.5 million square feet, which is the figure given by Hines, one of the partners in the development, and WSJ. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update with new area figure looks good, and yeah, defining Class A seems to be a bit too technical, so leaving that out should be fine. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Section on The Summit should use future-tense description of features, unless all three parts have been completed construction-wise.
 * Section on The Summit should use future-tense description of features, unless all three parts have been completed construction-wise.

3 History

 * "The developer rejected the offer, calling it a "publicity stunt" because it valued the air rights at $600 per square foot, nearly 10 times the $61 per square foot ($660/m2) Penson paid for it when he bought the station in 2006" Ambiguous pronoun usage here: is the offer valuing the air rights at $600/ft2 or the developer? (I assume the former, but I can't access the source)
 * The offer was a publicity stunt. I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, the math doesn't seem to add up: ($400 million + $210 million) / (1.3 million ft^2) is not $600/ft^2. Are there other costs that were part of the offer but weren't mentioned? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, I got the facts wrong. Penson suggested paying $400 million to SL Green, not the other way around. Also, not all of the 1.3 million square feet were used. Usually, the construction cost of the building will include the amount paid for the air rights; the rent from tenants is supposed to offset that if the air rights are valuable enough.Penson's chief complaint is that $210 million in transit improvements is a very low price for the value of the air rights, while $610 million is an appropriate price. These transit improvements were basically the price SL Green "paid" for these air rights. Penson's argument is that, by having to "pay" only $210 million, he was losing out on potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. By repurchasing the lot from SL Green, he would be able to enjoy the profits from operating the building, which in turn would pay off the cost of acquiring these air rights. If SL Green rejected the offer, they would receive profits from tenants, while (in Penson's view) enjoying additional profit from getting air rights at such a low price. Epicgenius (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, glad the issue's fixed now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

4 Tenants

 * No comments

5 Critical reception

 * Kind of short, but it's a relatively recent building, and I couldn't find any more *accessible* content besides the reviews you included.

Judgement

 * Overall, very well-written with minimal outstanding prose issues. Some minor issues regarding some sources + a somewhat important question regarding many sources. Besides that, the article is verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. I will be putting this on hold until August 7. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed or responded to all of these comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I think you may have missed the concern I raised for the ArchDaily source, and I left a follow up to the "publicity stunt" sentence. Besides that, everything else checks out. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops. I've replaced that source and replied to the publicity-stunt sentence now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All raised concerns have been met, so I'll be passing the nomination now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)