Talk:Boulevard East

Photos

Inclusion of images of what is along Boulevard East, including the skyline view provided fromm most of its eastern side is not inappropriate especially since it it one one its distinguishing features. Most articles about streets (ie Riverside Drive (Manhattan) and Wall Street) include points of interest along the street. The skyline is cetainly of interest and is "along the street" in this case. This article is not so dense that the inclusion of images distract in anyway, but to the contrary, add to itDjflem (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But they do not focus on those points of interest to the point of emphasizing them over the street itself. The current photo arrangement is not a good one. In the first place, having an image on both the left and right side of the top of the article, causing the table of contents to be shifted over to the right, looks awful. Second, while including the skyline would not be inappropriate if there were room for it, priority should go to photos that focus on the street itself. You took the one photos that does so, and relegates the other points of interest to background material, and put it last, so that it's dipping down into the References section. That's preposterous. Nightscream (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if I am unbiased in this, but here's my thoughts: this article could have a skyline picture as well as many others, but for now, definitely not. The content is minimal and almost entirely about the road, which is fine, but we have to decide how, if necessary, to structure possible content. Boulevard East is a rather difficult topic to write on, because it can mean a lot of things, the road (of course) the sites (Burr-Hamilton duel, the cliffs (which have an article)), the many parks (Columbus, veterans, Jose Marti, dog parks, sports fields) the skyline (which I thought of a panoramic picture) the walkway (recreational and wedding/prom site) and some history/architecture (there are some existing staircases, but I read about one which is inoperable and closed off that apparently was very important last century and seemed notable). I have to admit that when I was there taking pictures a month or so ago, I imagined a really large article, but I've been unsure of notability or necessity to capture all of what I've mentioned. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think that there should be more input regarding this other than me, as you brought up below Dj, there are a decent amount of things we could have within it, but I have a feeling this could be an article which ends up with a lot of repeat content; I'm still for expansion though. ALso, real estate might be mentionable, and there are a lot of photos at the Weehawken Time Machine. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it: A picture of the view recycled millions of times a year in every media is quite fitting in an article about the place from where it's taken. It's what makes the boulevard notable. The photo of asphalt, trees, cars, with a glimpse of skyline in the background is fine, but doesn't say more than it's a road. (And this is not to offend Nightscream, but it not a very intersting picture). Stories about streets are about what they conjure, history, architecture, and activites. I would like to have some imput (and asked a couple of people for some), not just a rude critique without any suggestive imput as above. What I offered is a little flesh to the skeleton that was there: a route description and hopefully something that would possibly pique curiousity and solicite a contributionDjflem (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You again argue for the photo's mere inclusion, which I never disputed. I do not question whether it belongs in the article, I question whether it should be the primary one. Like it or not, the article is about the street, regardless of whether you like asphalt, trees and cars. Of course you're going to show asphalt, trees and cars. That's the street! Lots of other articles, like the Jersey City article, have shots of the NY skyline, but not as the primary photo. Moreover, the fact that it includes the skyline in the background indeed says more than it's just a street; it just gives proper weight to it. The primary photo should focus on the article's subject. The article's subject is not the skyline. It's also not justified to move the Infobox further down in the article. Are you going to be doing that with all the road articles? It's also not appropriate to continue reverting the article during a discussion. Nightscream (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty; we've got three pix and a dispute about their sequence. First a bit of disclosure; Nightscream is an acquaintance, a nice fellow who usually takes better pictures than I do, and after we had dinner together with other NY area editors a few nights ago he asked me to look into this matter. The other sides of the dispute are strangers to me, though I have come to respect one or two from their work on articles of mutual interest.

At the moment the top photo is a lovely one of my home, Midtown Manhattan, showing the building where I work, the dock where I hang out and the other dock where I take the ferry to, or more often from, Hudson County. The colors, clarity and composition are quite pleasant. Problem is, it shows nothing of the subject street and very little of Weehawken.

The second pic is a good one showing a bit of the subject street's sidewalk and parapet, and it is also a poor shot of Lower Manhattan.

The third is Nightscream's own, and is precisely on topic. Incidentally, I seldom try to defend my own pix against injustice; my love of my own product, no matter how poor, excites me too much and throws me into an unprofitable tizzy. Anyway, though this pic surely shows the subject street, it is an upsun shot, and such pix are seldom pretty, and this is no exception.

My opinion is that the germaneness of my friend's picture is powerful enough to keep it in the article, but its ugliness disqualifies it from the place of honor at the top. The pic of my home across the river easily wins the beauty contest, but its marginal relevance to the article also disqualifies it from the top spot. The pic that nicely depicts the wall, and that incidentally poorly depicts a part of Manhattan, should in my opinion be on top.

And y'know, some of us live not terribly far from the street in question and can visit and give it a go. My more immediate plans are for photo expeditions to south central Staten Island, southeastern Westchester, north central Brooklyn, and the north shore of Nassau County, but if nobody uploads something that improves on all the pix we have now, combining relevance with attractiveness, maybe I'll try my hand. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That said, I do belive that Nightscream has better shots that are usable for the time being that give a feel for the Boulevard. At some point a good pan of the skyline, the view from the Boulevard that makes the street notable, even famous, can come at a later date. To be redundant it is along the street, just as any park, building, school, or church might be. At this stage of the game the info box (which at one point Nightscream wanterd to trash altogether) deals with vehicular traffic info and is apppropriate to the transportation section of article. A shot of Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, New Jersey (Weehawken), the oldest extant building on the Boulevard, should be included. I will try to track down the Edward Hopper painting. Djflem (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know any of the editors in this discussion; Nightscream asked me (seemingly at random, perhaps because my user page indicates an interest in NJ topics) to take a look at this debate and chime in. So I shall. It seems pretty obvious to me that the primary picture for an article about a street should be of said street and not of something visible from that street (in this case, midtown Manhattan). The view is an important factor of the street's character, sure, and I think a photo of that view should be included somewhere in the body, but unless the article is called "Midtown Manhattan," it's silly for that photo to be front and center. That the photo or photos which might replace it are not as eye-catching shouldn't be a large concern. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a travel guide or to engage in web page design. Function over form, folks! I hope this helps. Apologies if it doesn't. Dppowell (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox belongs at the top, overall what we are writing about, regardless of how much content isnt actually about the street, is the street. Also, I look at infoboxes before any of the contents typically. With that being said, I think a map with highlighted route needs to be included, I think it would illustrate its proximity to the Hudson, as well as the relatively parallel path to it, which I feel is important. As far as the pictures, maybe we just need a fresh start with them or something and take some new ones, cos none of them are outstanding, per Jim's comments above. I have a layout here, let me know what you guys think, cos I would like to change it eventually to something similar to that - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dppowell's point is well taken. Let's get some content here and then build a photo expose/structure around it. No sense of having a article with a huge table of contents without anything in them. Seems of the three photos we're working with. The shot of the wall is the best to capture the streets essence. It's on a cliff, overlooking a river, and is lined with a traprock wall that was built from the quarries that were there before it was built. (location and history) 2nd, the view, it is the essence of the boulevard and one of the main reason the street is notable. (fame) The asphalt and trees has little informatinal or visual value is better X'd. (it's a street with cars and trees on it) Would go for the Donnelly statue or another from Nightscreams shots of Woodcliff Section or the the Galaxy. The infobox is of no real interest, and should not have a prominent place. I used it to get a stub on the boards. It takes too much of the precious space for the pictas. It provides transportation information to those travelling in motor vehicles. It's simply a box that contains info discussed in the texr anyone. Nightscream and I discussed this in October when he wanted to replace highway tags with a photo. Subseqent discussions with person overseeing roads project for which this infobox was created asked that it not be included, but rather in streets project as the above header shows. I am now going to add the NJ tag, and wonder how it's going with the HC task force insert. Does Nightscream want to do the honors of making the move?

I hope then we can move on and am curious to see what text will come of the research.Djflem (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Do you think we should go and make a stink about the Brooklyn Heights, Brooklyn article?Djflem (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream asked me to comment. I agree with Jimhendersen, Dppowell and Djflem that the pic with the wall and the view seems to be the one that should be most prominent for now. Since the view is a prominent feature of the road, it's certainly worth having that fine skyline picture (the one without the road in it) of it in the article (in a gallery section if nothing else). I'd accept having the infobox up at the top if that idea comes closer to consensus, but I think a good case has been made to have it lower down in the article (I think infoboxes that don't already have pics in them [other than signs] are at the tops of articles because we generally have nothing better to put there -- a picture specific to the subject seems more justified.) Hope this helps. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for your participation and your objectivity. I don't know what an "unspun shot" is, or why you think the street photo is ugly, if someone wants to go there and take a superior one, I'm all for it. I really don't have any intent on making sure that the primary photo has to be one I took (If anyone doubts this, when someone added a new pic to the Schuetzen Park article, I moved it to the top as the primary one, replacing the one taken by me, because I thought the new one was far superior.)

"DJ Flem: At this stage of the game the info box (which at one point Nightscream wanterd to trash altogether)..." Excuse me? When did I ever want to trash the infobox?

"DJ Flem: Nightscream and I discussed this in October when he wanted to replace highway tags with a photo." No, I did not. I simply asked you if the infobox image had to be of a road marker. You responded that they were standard, and since you have done more work on road articles, I accepted what you said and thanked you. That discussion is still on your talk page, right here.

As for Shri Swaminarayan Mandir or Edward Hopper, how many photos do you think an article of this size can support?

And when you ask if I will "make the move", what are you referring to?

Theornamentalist, I like your layout, though didn't someone at some point tell me that Wikipedia doesn't want galleries in articles? (Personally, I have no problem with them, though, and yours looks both nice and relevant, IMO.) Nightscream (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and "made the move", and shifted the winning photo to the top, moved the view into the body of article, and replace'd the "ügly" photo with another that is more informative, showing the curves of the road and some of the low rise and hi-rise architecture along it. Have also started gallery, which I also don't have a problem with, but actually like. The Hamilton Memorial might be fine here, though used in article about duel and in Whkn. The Marti bust doesn't really capture the the relevence here, nor does the stone "where "Hamilton" laid his head, but I'm an an inclusionist. Sorry if anybody was offended for being misquoted, but silly to rehash old news. Hopefully we can move on write some text now, if that's of interest. I think the Brookyn Heights, Brooklyn photo is a great opener, by the way.Djflem (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay. I have some questions though:

Should the infoboxes in all the road articles be moved down now?

If I or someone else takes a similar photo to the one at top (say, at the same general location), but on a less cloudy day, would you be okay with its replacement?

If you don't want to reference past discussions because you think they're not relevant, that's fine. But you don't get to call "rehashing" after you've chosen to make such a reference, and someone points out that your quote is wrong. Either choose not to reference past stuff, or do so correctly, and take responsibility for when you don't. You can't pick and choose when talking about previous discussions is a "rehash" and when it isn't. Peace. Nightscream (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So, with only a modest level of rancor and a wordy but insubstantial comment from me, the job is pretty much done. Difficulties include the fact that it's a scenic road but not a scenic highway that would get attention from editors who better understand pictures than I do. Perhaps they would have a good solution for the question of infobox on top or picture on top.

We are left with a WP:GALLERY, surely not in violation of any guideline though its existence mildly displeases me. If anybody cares to listen to my feelings, I feel that there are too many pictures now, and too many of them are looking in the approximate direction of the Sun, thus the trees, buildings signs, and whatnot are in the shade. My own File:Duarte Square jeh.JPG similarly suffers this commonplace disease of upsun pictures, redeemed only partly by the presence of a red brick pavement. Upsun problems can be avoided by pointing the camera west in the morning, east in the afternoon, north anytime, or by working on a cloudy day and facing the quite different problems posed by that kind of light. Sometimes the only way to make a picture that works properly is to be there when you have to be there.

The now top pic of this article, showing Manhattan, is also upsun, but here it isn't a bad thing at all, since the article is about the road, so a background that is clear yet dark makes just the right kind of contribution as long as the brightly lit foreground is relevant. That's the problem with following rules in art; sometimes things turn out better when you break a rule that usually works as the "Always shoot downsun" rule works with the pretty but little relevant downsun pic of Midtown.

I still don't quite like the descriptive words; they don't make instantly clear to me where the road is climbing northward or southward or the geometry of the turns. Maybe in a couple days someone will figure a way to fix that. The history words, however, seem pretty much all right. Anyway, enough from me for now. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So, now the words are appreciably better, in part because of paragraphs, and the top pic is better because essentially the same one was reshot a couple hours later in the day, thus more crosssun and less upsun. Me, I would have tried stepping west several steps to catch more roadway, but maybe that didn't work as well as I imagine. Unfortunately it's also high summer rather than early spring, so some of the downslope view is obscured by foliage. Can't have everything; for one thing the Goldman Sachs tower would disappear.

The other upsun shots could also be improved somewhat by a different time of day, more by a different camera direction, and most of all by a bit of haze or light cloud cover diffusing the harsh shadows. That's why natural light makes a simple snapshot take months; you have to keep returning to the spot until the Sun learns to obey the photographer. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The current shot is indeed a great improvement, the accent the trap rock while at the same time catching the expansive of the point view does capture the some important elements of the street. The article cound be expanded by inclusion of the landmarks along it, and would give a better idea about the architectural mix and its appeal as one of HC's premiere rediential districts. But for the time being the aricle is OK. Highway or street? Currently Blvd East is USA streets project (as opposed to highways project) article and that seems to be the better of the two since it doesn't carry one road number and wasn't developed as such.Djflem (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Jim, you mentioned you would've liked to have seen more of the street. That was my feeling too, which is why I originally advocated that one of 60th Street. But just so you know, I created a Boulevard East Commons category page with other shots I took to choose from. This one is essentially the same, but is indeed more to the right, and shows more of the sidewalk and street. The tradeoff is that we see less of the houses on the river below (though I don't know if that's important for you). Nightscream (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I hope with all this discussion, one day this article has absolutely amazing photographs... ha, but the pictures you took Nightscream are very good. I am torn on the photo in the article now vs. the one you proposed above. I am leaning more towards the one showing the parked cars; even though it's not like we have to prove that it's a road right off the bat in the first photo, I think it is a better visual descriptor. It shows just how close the street is to the cliffside and the view of the city (not to mention the lighting is really good, as well as the colors), but I have to agree that the in-bloom greenery does obscure the dramatic slope of the cliffside and its a shame, but I believe this is all really way too much for our concern. Maybe on a sunny afternoon next springtime a great opportunity will arise for a slightly improved picture, but as far as I'm concerned this article and the pictures on it are great. BTW, I like the category idea for BE, I imagine that as commons continues there will be many photographs from that area. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been fun. Yes, I see that the pix that try to encompass both the view and the roadway fail with both, and my own eye (which better handles texture and shadow than composition) is unlikely to see a way to make it work better. Thus my priorities have shifted to places far less well covered, such as southwestern Secaucus (articled but unphotographed bridges galore), north central Nassau County (ports, rail stations and mansions), Bedford-Stuyvesant {factories and churches) etc. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

County Routes

County Route 677
Park Avenue Boulevard East
Route information
Length	2.54 mi (4.09 km)
Major junctions
South end	Observer Highway
Major intersections	Lincoln Tunnel Approach and Helix
North end	Highwood Terrace
Location
Country	United States
State	New Jersey
County	Hudson
Highway system
County Routes in Hudson County System 500-series routes
← CR 676 → CR 678

County Route 505
Route information
Length	20.64 mi (33.22 km)
Major junctions
South end	CR 501 in Union City
Major intersections	NJ 5 in Edgewater I-95/US 1/9 in Fort Lee PIP in Fort Lee PIP in Englewood Cliffs US 9W in Englewood Cliffs CR 501 in Englewood CR 502 in Closter
North end	NY 303 in Northvale
Location
Country	United States
State	New Jersey
Highway system
County routes in New Jersey 500-series routes
← CR 504 → CR 506

County Route 693
Boulevard East
Route information
Length	1.12 mi (1.80 km)
Major junctions
South end	60th Street
North end	Nungesser's
Location
Country	United States
State	New Jersey
County	Hudson
Highway system
County Routes in Hudson County System 500-series routes
← CR 691 → CR 695

A brief (unreferenced) history of the Boulevard

Boulevard is known first and foremost for being a scenic road! It was developed as a thoroughfare at the turn the of the century. Prior to that much of the land was privately owned and was part of estates and farms, notably that of James Gore King, the Brown Family (for whom Brown Street in Union City is named), the Gutenbergs, and the Bull Family who maintained Bulls Ferry landing. Part of the short-lived El Dorado pleasure garden later became became Hamilton Park. A concerted effort by the Womans Clubs of North Jersey and Mr. Donnelly, were able to halt the blasting and quarrying sof the Palisades for stone being used for constuction. Many of the walls which line the boulevard and the foundations of many homes along it come from those quarries. Real estate developers subdivided many of the streets west of Bull's Ferry Road, today's Park Avenue, and marketed them in the New York and local papers as prime residential districts, where indiviudal owners could build there own homes. This coincided with the population boom and urbanization of Hudson County at thhe time. The decision to connect the road to its western counterpart may have been an afterthought. During the whiteflight and near bankruptcy of New York in the 1960s and 1970s many of the first highrises along the Palisades in North Hudson and south of the GWB Bridge went up, the Galaxy Towers (one of the largest), and The Stonehenge included.

Finding references for this is not undoable, but lot's of workDjflem (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The article about the Hudson Palisades does cover some of the story, but not specific to the Boulevard. The Grauert Causeway, (stairway named for 1930's Weehawken mayor) could also be included here, too. Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, New Jersey (Weehawken) complex incorporates the last of the 19th estates and and is built form the stone quarried along the cliff. There's a nice Edward Hopper painting as well as Fiordalisi images. Itwould be easy to do a Weehawken version, but the WNY stuff is hard to come by. Woodcliff less so. Djflem (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes: As a roadway there is not one point that would be exact, but the point on current map could be located to the south to 60th Street, its appoximate middlepoint and would encompass most of it.

Djflem (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted - Partly per your recommendation, partly because the existing coords were off the roadway slightly. You might be interested to know that the proper coords for linear objects is an unresolved matter to some extent, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates/Linear if you are interested. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

Have beefed-up article to give people something to go on. What I think is important to rememeber is that anyone who has been to the Boulevard might take certain things for granted. But we are not preaching to the converted here rather are writing an article for an encyclopedia for people for those who may never see the place.Djflem (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Length

I did a rough estimate of length and inlcuded in tranportation section. Is there a way to get a more defintive reading to be included in lede?Djflem (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalizaion??

The proper name is of course capitalized, but when called the The boulevard, as it often is local nomenclature is there preferred spelling? Am inclined to go with small letters, and will do a check for consistency. Any opinions?Djflem (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Height restrictions

https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2022/S0500/191_I1.PDF Djflem (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Art/ culture representation

• That Touch of Mink (1961)
• Central Park Weehawken
• Fiordalisi paintings
• Marin paintings
• Francis Covers the Big Town opening scene

Djflem (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)