Talk:Chelsea Piers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Piers, which is an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to piers. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Pier 59

I have found some conflicting evidence as to which was the intended berth of the titanic as either 60, 59, or 56. Cunard Steamship Co. definitley leased piers 53, 54, and 56 (of which only Pier 54 remains) were the first three of nine major piers, of which Chelsea Piers occupies four (59, 60, 61 and 62.) Perhaps some of the history here should go under another article dealing with the entire grouping of piers historically. I think it was called the "Chelsea Improvement" in 1910, when the piers were originally built. 03:44, July 22, 2006

[edit] Backwards?

Am I the only one who thinks this article's perspective is backwards? It should be about the current useage of the term - the sports complex - and nto about what the term meant from 1910 to the 1930s.

Everything here is great, but it should be background information to the current structure. If no objections, I'll re-word. --Chancemichaels 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Even though the piers have formidable recreation usage, I think interest in them is primarily because of their historical nature. The current usage information is very very weak and actually inaccurate -- basketball city is not part of the piers. If you float a rewrite the new stuff needs extensive rewrite. Americasroof 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Other than the expected Titanic berth, I don't know that historical interest is such that the loose term applied to the old piers deserves primacy. The current structure is very important to New Yorkers, between the film production facilities (principally LAW & ORDER) and sports facilities (many of which are unique in Manhattan). Agree that the current useage section is weak, and will try to rewrite it soon. --Chancemichaels 16:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels