Talk:John Hancock Center
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What are the official names of these two buildings? I thought the one in Chicago is called John Hancock Center, the one in Boston is call John Hancock building. Anyone from these two cities to confirm this?
-
- Chicago = John Hancock Center
- Boston = Hancock Place, but commonly called John Hancock Tower in city Raime 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm pretty sure I.M. Pei didn't design the Boston John Hancock; it was another architect in his firm. i'd need a reference to take this comment out of Talk, though. --The Cunctator
-
- Yes, you are right. Pei is credited for designing the building, but Pei himself gives credit for the building's design to Henry Cobb. See this site Raime 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, there are three Hancock buildings in Boston, all fairly close to one another. The tallest is the John Hancock Tower (this is the one called the building in the article), the next one down is the John Hancock Building (this is the one with the weather light thingy on top), and I forget what the smallest / oldest one is called. -- EdwardOConnor
-
- While all three buildings may have been officially called "John Hancock Building" at one point, the current names now are Hancock Place for the tallest and newest tower, The Berkeley Building for the tower commonly referred to as the "old John Hancock Building", and The Stephen L. Brown Building for the oldest and shortest building completed in 1922. Raime 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind if you visit the building, if you're on the 94th floor observation level and you want to go to the resturant and lounge on the 95th and 96th floors, you have to go back down to the ground level, and then take another elevator from ground level to the resturant.
JesseG 01:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The picture titled "The 95th and 96th Floor's Resturant and Lounge" is not of a quality that warrants being on this page. I think it should be removed, but I would like to hear some thoughts on this before I make the change. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my plan to remove that picture. Badammcqueen 04:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Besides, removing it would better balance the number the images with the lenght of the text. Lawrence Lavigne 07:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I removed both of the pictures I had taken and had placed in this article.
- JesseG 16:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I removed both of the pictures I had taken and had placed in this article.
-
-
- Thanks Jesse. Badammcqueen 17:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No, don't thank me. I feel that the pictures I had taken and had taken the time to add to this article added to the article, but apparently my pictures aren't good enough.
- JesseG 22:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- No, don't thank me. I feel that the pictures I had taken and had taken the time to add to this article added to the article, but apparently my pictures aren't good enough.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I disagree with the removal of Image:JHancockAug2004.jpg. I think it should be added back. It might not be the best picture we can get of the tower but it illustrates the "x-bracing" architecture mentioned in the article. Not to mention, it's actually a picture of the tower itself, which we don't really have (except the view from Sears Tower). I haven't seen the picture of the restaurant (has it been completely removed?), so I can't comment on that.
- Neil McKillop 14:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with the removal of Image:JHancockAug2004.jpg. I think it should be added back. It might not be the best picture we can get of the tower but it illustrates the "x-bracing" architecture mentioned in the article. Not to mention, it's actually a picture of the tower itself, which we don't really have (except the view from Sears Tower). I haven't seen the picture of the restaurant (has it been completely removed?), so I can't comment on that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with McKillop: the tower's bracing structure was my main reason for visiting the page and would love to see this photo restored. --Myke Cuthbert 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Contents |
[edit] Help stamp out redundancy and repetition!
Take a look at:
"The 95th floor has long been home to a fine restaurant, the latest incarnation being called The Signature Room on the 95th Floor."
Shouldn't "on the 95th Floor" be dropped from the end of this sentence?
TJSwoboda 18:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, because the full name of the restaurant is "The Signature Room on the 95th Floor."Shsilver 18:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah! And I call myself a native Illinoian... :)
TJSwoboda 01:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Good picture?
How about a good picture of the building? Currently, we only have a very distant shot and a view from the center away. Anybody from Chicago mind to add a good picture? Peter S. 13:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I changed it to a slightly better version from Chicago -- however I can crop it when I have a few free minutes to make this pic better. --Quasipalm 16:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] View
The official website says the view from the obersvatory spans four states. this cant be true, can it?--Atticus2020 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's true. Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan. --spyguy 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's f-ing crazy.--Atticus2020 23:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This Article is Bad
Not to underestimate the work of those that came ahead, but this article contains may inaccuracies and incorrect information. For example: -the building's skin does not play any structural role, that is the definition of a skyscraper; -the difference between "commercial district" and "financial district" is connotatively non-existent; -generally, the structural information was not put together with much structural knowledge -it looks like the article was cobbled together, with no allowance for structure and flow. I can make an attempt to clean it up.
-
- This article has gotten a lot better. Thanks to all who contributed to this. Also, the thing that fell off the tower is called a "swing stage", I am an architect and have been on one. I added and slightly modified this in the article.Gary Joseph 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Base and peak
To me, the most salient fact about this building is the fact that its width and breadth are much larger at its base than at its peak, i.e. the sides are not completely vertical, but rather slope inward. Isn't this unusual among skyscrapers? Isn't it worth mentioning? (Not worth mentioning in the article is the fact that this monumental black building with its two antennas sticking up like ears has always somehow reminded me of Darth Vader.) —Angr 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is this really the third tallest building in the world?
As seen from the Chicago skyline picture toward the end of the article, it's the third largest building in Chicago! Who laid claim to this being the third largest in the world, only behind the Sears Tower and Taipei 101? Can this be accurate?
- It is completely accurate, but only when measuring to the tips of its antennae. See List of tallest buildings in the world#Height to Pinnacle. When measuring to architectural detail (which is far common to use when ranking skyscrapers by height, and excludes antennae), it is only the 16th-tallest. Rai-me 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dab link too long
I've edited the extremely long dab link at the top of this article down to a shorter version. It previously read: Several buildings bear this name, all built by John Hancock Insurance and named after John Hancock. For the John Hancock Tower in Boston, Massachusetts, see John Hancock Tower. I've shortened it to: For the tower in Boston, Massachusetts, see John Hancock Tower. Why is a link needed to John Hancock Insurance and John Hancock? There is clearly no chance of confusion with either of these articles, so it did not make sense to have them in the dab link. The "several" was also ambiguous: There are only two John Hancock Towers/Centers that I know of, the one in Boston and the one in Chicago. (There were two buildings in Boston that were formerly called the John Hancock Tower, but both were renamed after the completion of the modern John Hancock Tower.) Raime 02:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
I moved some of the images to a gallery at the end. A panoramic image of the skyline appeared too! Strange why i could not see it before... Looks slightly better now i think? ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Steps or stairs
I know you have a yearly run up the stairs in the building. How many stairs are there exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.97.212 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)