Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1700 East 56th Street


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

1700 East 56th Street

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable unnamed 38 story building with no independent media coverage; its claim to fame is being the tallest bulding in a part of Chicago without any very tall buildings. Formulafiftypoet 16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless properly sourced to establish notability. Note that "here's a source saying it exists" counts for very little. Friday (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, minor media coverage at construction (1995) but nothing since. Most interesting thing about it besides height is that the five different layouts are named for Chicago architects. Whee. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - You may have the wrong building. This one was built in 1968.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The building was converted into a condo ca. 1994. See . Zagalejo 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I see now it was the condo conversion that was in the coverage. Thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete, this one's actually pretty uncontestable. What is the notability criterion for buildings, anyway? And why is there an infobox on "Chicago Skyscrapers"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The template exists because Chicago has a high concentration of important tall buildings and this is a navigational tool. There is also a dedicated list page for the Tallest buildings in Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, the article is well put together, with a photograph. Very weak media coverage though, and not a noteable building in the world, just in that state. However, Google does bring up a handy number of results, even Google Images, so the building has at least some notability. But Google shouldn't determine what goes or not on Wikipedia. To be honest, if the article was bigger, and there were lots of references, I'd be tempted to vote for a keep.  Lra drama 17:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a luxury apartment building, claim to notability is it's the tallest in the neighbourhood. OK, it's big, but it should need something more than that to stay here. And to Lradrama: if you disregard Wikipedia, it looses two thirds of it's hit- and that seems almost odd. Seems like someone is promoting their town here. Greswik 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC) . **Comment not its neighborhood. More than half of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral, if they can expand even more in the article this can be a fine article, if this can be done without making it look like an argumentation for why it should stay, at least. Greswik 18:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing notable about this building except that it is the tallest in a very specific area.  And that's not anything notable, really.  This one doesn't even have a name, just an address.  I don't think any other buildings have articles based on their address, except 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Useight 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Plenty of buildings at Tallest Buildings in Chicago, Template:Chicago skyscrapers and Template:Chicago Landmark skyscrapers are known by their address.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tear it down per nom. The building is not a historic landmark, its architect is not notable, it's a purely residential condo, and it has had no coverage worth mentioning. --Targeman 20:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Weak keep. Changed my mind. It's fugly, but I think it can be considered somewhat notable as residential condos are usually much smaller. This eyesore sure stands out of its surroundings. I'd make it a regular keep if someone could prove that this is one of the tallest 100% residential buildings in the USA, which I think may be the case. --Targeman 17:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, who's its architect/s if he/she/them're not notable? Someone you don't know or they just don't advertise? Just spell it. greg park avenue 23:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The architects were Loewenberg & Loewenberg. Speciate 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but it sounds more like a lawyer's firm to me. Maybe lawyers were the principal occupants of this building and have custom built it - and have named it something like the Loewenberg Concourse or the Loewenberg Tower? greg park avenue 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, they're no lawyers and even notable. Request for Loewenberg and Keep this article as per The 800 Apartments also designed by Loewenberg. I've already added the references and suggest if someone know how to redirect this article to/from the 1700 Building. greg park avenue 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

greg park avenue 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Make it instead 43 Flatbrook Road - 2 story frame house, built originally in 1900, only three houses like that plus YMCA compound on this stretch of hard paved Flatbrook Rd, north of the US Route 206 in Sussex, NJ; the rest is gravel, but it's part of a major highway leading to the Stokes Forest in the Delaware Valley known by the motorcyclists as the Park Avenue Road. Lots of fishing and hunting over here. The main game is fly fish, black bear, deer, racoons and turkey.
 * Keep I don't know what the standards are, but I was extrapolating from Tallest Buildings in Chicago with the tallest of each community area. Basically this building is the tallest in the Southern half of the city.  That is pretty notable actually. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I dont believe that buildings 20 stories or bigger are automatically notable Corpx 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about that one, or this one - still to small? It doesn't look like twenty stories to me. greg park avenue 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The White House is notable because the President of the United States lives there and there are tons and tons of instances of coverage by independent media. How does the white house relate to this building? Corpx 00:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that President's house is more notable than this house, but this one may still be notable. It's old enough, tall enough, a landmark in an otherwise poor neighborhood (South Side), and not another dilapidated HUD projest for Section 8. But before I vote I'd like to know what purpose it had before being converted into the apartment building. greg park avenue 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is 40 years enough to be considered historic? Corpx 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The style of sixties is unique. They don't make buildings like that any more. See here how the same architects design residential buidings these days. And all these buildings starting with "Aqua" are pretty new. Just say if they're notable or not? greg park avenue 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions.   Chicago is the Polish town or what? greg park avenue 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Buildings seem notable. Prove me wrong with a policy... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say buildings are notable? This building is lacking "significant coverage from independent sources" per WP:NOTE Corpx 23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Consider the map of Community areas of Chicago. 12th street is the border between area 32 and 33.  138th St is the is the farthest south.  Between 13th and 138th this is the tallest building in Chicago.  Off topic, considering my track record (see my user page) I think it might have been more appropriate to slap a notability tag on the article and have some discussion.  This might give me a few days to explain why this unique article is notable in the context of the interest in tall buildings in the Chicago one of Americas two homes for supertall buildings.  That aside I will get to the policy issues tomorrow, but I think this building should stay.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't the Sears Tower technically the tallest building on the South Side, since it is south of Madison? That said, I'm going to say weak keep, since the building did get some media coverage in 1994-1995. However, I don't think it's a good idea to make articles for the tallest building in every community area. I live in Norwood Park, and our tallest building is probably a hospital. Zagalejo 04:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply For those of you not familiar with the South Side of Chicago, see Template:Community areas of Chicago. The Sears Tower is considered part of the Loop, which is Chicago's central business district.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Are those groupings official? CityofChicago.org defines them somewhat differently. In any case, the Loop would still be considered "Central," but still...we have to be clear what definition of the "South Side" we're using. Zagalejo 19:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I see you've clarified that point in the article. Thanks. Zagalejo 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The claim of notability for this building seems to be that it's the tallest building south of 12th Street in Chicago, which happens to be a part of Chicago that does not have any really tall buildings, and that does not seem particularly impressive. Note that 1700 E. 56th Street is not listed in List of tallest buildings in Chicago as one of the fifty tallest buildings in the city. If it were a hundred feet taller, it still wouldn't make the city's top 50 tallest buildings. Thus, the building's claim to notability does not even extend throughout its own city. Independent reliable sources that discuss this building are not significant enough to establish this building as notable for its height or for any other reason. --Metropolitan90 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment For buildings, it does seem that height is a sufficient notability criterion judging by List of tallest buildings in Chicago, List of tallest buildings in the world, List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, List of tallest buildings and structures in the world by country, List of tallest buildings in New York City, List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris, List of tallest structures in the world & List of tallest structures in the world by type of use. It is up to us to determine if the tallest building in the southern half of a city with 10 of the tallest 100 buildings in the world is a value added contribution to the encyclopedia.  I believe it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - I think one question that should be asked is, is anyone ever going to care about this building? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That actually goes to the heart of "notability" - what has this building done that it deserves to be written about in an encyclopedia? Does it hold the record for containing the most unauthorized FBI wiretaps? Is it a fine example of some kind of architecture? Does Sharon Stone live here? Do the neighbourhod's residents complain about the shadow it casts over their backyards? Was it the first building in America to ban hamsters as pets? If we can't find any assertions of notability from third-party sources, why does the building need an article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment many arguments at Notability/Arguments apply to this building. Its height superiority for the larger half of the city it is in is its claim.  This is the best policy section for a defense of this page from what I know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Unfortunately, the tallest building south of downtown is, well, kinda boring. But please keep in mind that it is the tallest building on the entire South Side of Chicago. So the argument that it "only" the tallest building in the side of the city that doesn't have tall buildings could be taken as a reason to keep the article. Purely residential buildings are notable, Emporis even has that as a listing. I am unable to find internet sources for the many things I have heard over the years (about its being the 2nd tallest apt-only building in the world at the time of its construction, tallest condo conversion etc), but perhaps someone else can. Speciate 17:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The chance that 1700 E. 56th Street was ever the second-tallest apartment-only building in the world seems very slim to me. Note that on the list of the 100 tallest all-residential buildings which you cited from Emporis, there are four buildings older than this one on the list, all of which are at least 200 feet taller than this one. In fact, three of those four buildings are in Chicago, so this building may never even have been the second-tallest apartment-only building in Chicago. Granted, I don't know whether those three or four buildings started out all-residential, but there's still a 200-foot gap to make up before this building even gets into competition. By the way, Emporis lists 1700 East 56th Street as the 182nd tallest building overall in Chicago. --Metropolitan90 16:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is not the fact that the tallest building on the South Side of Chicago is the 182nd tallest building in Chicago interesting? It shows the disparity between the North and South Sides very well. Speciate 18:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The condo coversion story of this buidling in the Chicago Sun Times is significant secondary coverage from an independent source. --Oakshade 06:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it is coverage from an independent secondary source, but what establishes that story as significant? It's only 355 words long according to the Internet link. --Metropolitan90 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, why does condo conversion make it notable? Notability doesn't simply mean "being written about in the press". Certainly condo conversion happens all the time, everywhere - it's like saying a person is notable because he had a Baptism and Confirmation. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I love this. If the building was notable then the condo conversion story about it in the Chicago Sun would be news, right? What about news about converting the White House into a luxury condominium complex in the Washington Post? And there's another story about hearing bells tolling but not knowing in which church. greg park avenue 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly a significant building from a viewshed perspective, and the notability claim is taken from a reliable source (Emporis). Obviously a recognizable local landmark, and an exemplar of high-rise residential buildings. As a side note, I find the dismissiveness of many of the comments disturbing. Dhaluza 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - if South Side was a county in Chicago like Brooklyn (Kings County) is in New York, than this house would be like Brooklyn Borough Hall - the only landmark in Brooklyn you can see from all over the place, just like once Twin Towers have been in all New York City. And if you got lost in Brooklyn, that's the only sight you see and can orient yourself to find your way home. Unfortunately, Cooks County's seat is somewhere else, so when you got lost on South Side, and ain't got any GPS, this building is all you've got. Isn't that enough? greg park avenue 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a couple of worthwhile external sources, complementing a well-written and informative article. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I found two more refs in the news archives, and added relevant info to the article with cites. Dhaluza 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's clearly part of a template that lists numerous other similar articles, none of which are up for nomination. It seems to conform to ever policy I know of. Should be improved, rather than deleted. MrPrada 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for this particular building, I think it's a sufficiently prominent building ass an apartment complex, and I think there are now sources to show it--other similar articles should of course be checked to see that they are notable.DGG (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.