Talk:Chelsea Piers

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport: Maritime Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Piersocial (talk · contribs) has been paid by Pier59 Studios on their behalf. https://www.pier59studios.com/

.Piersocial (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We added information about Pier59 Studios, which is located in Pier 59 in Chelsea Piers. Struggling a bit as we dont want to break the rules, but we don't understand how our references and citations were different than that of the "pop culture" section that references Law and Order and other movies shot at the other Piers. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Piersocial (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC) We do work for Pier59 Studios, but we were interested in the company wayyyy before we were even employed. Definitely a genuine effort to make a non-biased page. We just know its influential in the fashion industry and we were surprised to see it doesn't have a page since its so well known and referenced all the time. Deffff did not add the correct tags disclosing that we are employed though. Hopefully doing it correctly now!Piersocial (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

It is not backwards. The article's history section is exactly as it should be laid out, which is chronologically. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Browser problem)

My Firefox browser gets stuck when trying to print out this article. I'm trying to figure out why. 68.36.214.143 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Army-Navy Game

As far as I see, United States Army Corps of Engineers#Enforcement is saying the Army has been in charge of pierhead and bulkhead lines since 1899, so it can't be the Navy that blocked the building of new long piers a hundred years ago. Or am I misunderstanding? Jim.henderson 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt ACE are virtuosi at inter-agency and inter-governmental cooperation. "Blocked" doesn't have to mean "sent Shore Patrol to evict ACE's contractors"; it could be the Navy Department was just steadfast in clarifying its concerns to ACE, the Joint Chiefs (or the arrangements between Dept of War and Dept of Navy that preceded service-unification), and Congress.
--Jerzy•t 23:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split needed

The distinction made in talk above between the historic role in water transport and the modern redevelopment is sharpened by the sharing of the trademark re similar services offered (at an apparently as-yet-undisclosed location!) in another state, via a HQ about 40 miles away from Manhattan. It may be there should be not just a section of the current article about the new development on the West Side, but an article on the consortium or joint venture that is sharing the trademark (and probably operational resources) with the Stamford facility. And of course some kind of Dab mechanism (Dab page or HatNotes) distinguishing Chelsea Piers (the original piers and how they've been used) from Chelsea Piers (the recreation and whatever-else enterprise, no matter whether really structured as two companies or one). While there can be several possible plans for limiting duplication between the two articles, it seems likely that one article is now too few -- and that three are probably too many at least for now.
--Jerzy•t 23:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article should be split to Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment Complex for the main complex, and Chelsea Piers (Hudson River) for the actual piers when this article gets big enough, with this title as a dab page because we don't know about which one is the primary topic. Epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree This article is horribly inaccurate. Chelsea Piers as a departing point is much bigger than the Sports Complex.18:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Plasmatics at Pier 62

I'm sure everybody between 40 and 50 is aware of this 1980 concert by The Plasmatics, where Wendy O. Williams drove an early-1970's Caddy onto an explosives-rigged stage and was taken away in an ambulance at Pier 62 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhLUNP7Wlk8). Is there any way we can (or for that matter should) add it into the article? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When were these originally built?

I know these were constructed sometime before 1920 but there does not seem to be a date in the History section. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chelsea Piers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129055049/http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2013/02/7903561/plans-barry-diller-underwritten-redesign-pier-54 to http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2013/02/7903561/plans-barry-diller-underwritten-redesign-pier-54

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chelsea Piers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]