Talk:Philadelphia City Hall

Washington Monument is Taller

At 555 feet, the Washington Monument in D.C. is taller. What is the basis for the claim that Philadelphia City Hall is the tallest masonry building in the world?

I'm comfortable calling the Monument a structure, NOT a building, since its not really "occupied" for any reason other than to visit, much like an observation/communications tower, but not sure how others see that.

Also, it isn't clear to me after all these years (I grew up in Phila) whether the cited 548 ft is to the top of the Penn statue, or to the top of the masonry structure itself? Redneb 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This National Park Service site http://www.nps.gov/wamo/history/chap5.htm says that, while the walls of the monument are masonry, the internal structure (stairs, landings, elevator system, etc.) is ironwork.BillFlis 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good information that helps, but wouldn't this ALSO apply to the City Hall Tower? (there is an elevator, and I presume stairs, to the observation deck at the top). I guess I'd qualify the statement/claim by adding "tallest habited"?? Redneb 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the elevator shaft in either City Hall or the Washington Monument is a load-bearing element, but I'm no building engineer. From the Skyscraper article, "...Philadelphia's City Hall, completed in 1901, is the world's tallest load-bearing masonry structure - a title to which it still holds claim." RockinRob^Talk 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

www.gophila.com/.../211/Philadelphia_CultureFiles/210/Historic_Attractions/12/U/City_Hall/1214.html calls this hall the tallest masonry structure without a steel frame.

Isn't the Mole Antonelliana in Turin as tall as the Philadelphia city hall but completed before it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.102.236 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the top 47m of the Mole Antonelliana are no longer purely masonry -- they were destroyed in a tornado and replaced with a metal structure covered in stone, apparently. So I'd say Philadelphia City Hall is back on top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.136.254 (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Philadelphia claims that it is world's tallest masonry building. Someone should resolve the inconsistency at least. 71.175.125.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC).

Largest Municipal Building

The comment about PHL City Hall maybe being the largest municipal building in the world can definitely be removed. I'm pretty sure the Tokyo City Hall is larger. It's a full city block and 799 feet tall. -th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.62.17 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Plus the only hard fact mentioned is that it has 700 rooms, which itself isn't very meaningful. The total space in square feet or square meters should be cited if anything. In addition to Tokyo City Hall, there are lots of other huge municipal buildings that are probably larger than Philadelhpia City Hall, even North America, like the Manhattan Municipal Building that is 580 feet tall and is very massive.

I'm tagging the claim in the article. It's demonstrable that the building is not the largest (currently) by any meaningful metric. Maybe it was at the time of construction... I'm proposing to rewrite as below.

current text	With close to 700 rooms, City Hall is the largest municipal building in the United States and one of the largest in the World.
proposed text	With close to 700 rooms, City Hall is one of the largest municipal buildings in the World.

this is supported by the exiting citation. Ar-wiki (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia City Hall has a floor area of 630,000 sqft. Tokyo City Hall is only listed as ~250,000 sqft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.208.16 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The number of rooms is relatively meaningless compared to square meters or square feet of total floor space. I note that the Wikipedia article about Los Angeles City Hall states that it has 79,510 sq meters (855,800 sq ft) of floor space, while the Wikipedia article about Philadelphia City Hall states that it has 58,222 sq meters (630,000 sq ft) of floor space. Philadelphia City Hall is obviously, on that basis alone, not the world's largest municipal building. (I have no idea which building is the largest -- I only state that Philadelphia's claim, though it may once have been true, no longer is.)Toddabearsf (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Headings were removed. There were no need for additional sections without more data."

The section headings were added in the course of adding more info and i was a bit surprised to find them gone this a.m. Since i don't like adding to articles that my work is being removed from, at least without some discussion, i guess i'm done here. Carptrash 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have been more patient. I originally thought that they were a vandalism. I ask for you to reconsider and participate. I am sorry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlivewell (talk • contribs) 10:58, 8 November 2006

well i certainly accept your apology - but if my edits look like vandalism, then they are probably best gone. However i shall continue posting my research into this fascinating building. Carptrash 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blank space at top of page

The left side of the top of the page was blank because both infoboxes were linked. I un-linked the second infobox and moved it down, so that text would flow to the top of the page (which it did nicely), and inserted several photos (close up of the northeast section of the architecture) and (base of city hall showing start of Mummers Day parade). To un-do the two quotes and get the two nice TEXT QUOTES using

“ text ”

I had to move the tall photo down in that section and move a wider one up, so the two quotes look kinda pretty now...

The only comment I would make at this time, is that postcard-copied picture of City Hall looks sort of jaundiced.... Has anyone thought of replacing it with something nicer?Wikited (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

City Hall Photo in Infobox

Regarding the yellowish post card picture of City Hall.... I was able to find a pix of Philadelphia City Hall at the Library Congress and inserted it into the infobox in place of the post card picture. (Click on the picture to see the credits.)

I think this pix is better since it clearly shows the entire building and the effect of its architecture.Wikited (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

We need to do some work on the images on the page. There are too many bunched to the left, and the Tallest Building's infobox picture is of terrible quality. Just wanted to get a bit of a consensus before I went through removing images and either looking for more or going to take some myself...nf utvol (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't speak for the rest, but as far as the Tallest Building infobox, that were wasn't a pic on the page when I added that, so I tried to get something on there (yeah, I know my camera sucks - sue me!). As far as doing something about it now, please feel free to replace my pic if you can take a better one. If I wasn't in St. Pete right now, I'd have done it myself months ago - with a better camera, of course. :-) EaglesFanInTampa 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For now, I've replaced it with one with much better resolution if not quite as good framing. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just undid this edit and moved it here to discuss

"At 167 m (548 ft), including the statue, it is the world's second tallest masonry building after the Washington Monument""

My issue is whether the Washington Monument is or should be considered "a building?" Our page on it calls it "a structure" and I think other things, but not a building. Any other ideas? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Antonelliana

If Mole Antonelliana is taller than Philadelphia City Hall, and was finished 12 years earlier, and is still standing, how did Philadelphia City Hall get to be the World's Tallest Building? jnestorius^(talk) 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DESIGN: Architectural Style

I find this section to be poorly written and confusing....

Yet another version for why the statue pointed generally north instead of south is that it was the current (1894) architect's method of showing displeasure with the style of the work; that by 1894 it was not in the current, popular Beaux-Arts style; that it was out of date even before it was placed on top of the building.[citation needed]

Perhaps something along these lines might be more clear:

It is also said that the statue pointed northeast to reflect McArthur's displeasure with the statue itself which did not fit the architectural style of the building and did not appeal to McArthur's Beaux-Arts design aesthetic. [citation needed]

Also, the design section could be improved with more direct references to the architecture section of the Philadelphia's City Hall History Page.

Edit-editor-editing (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"What happened to the other quarter inch?"

A well-known anecdote among Philadelphians relates that City Hall is actually 547' 11-3/4" tall from street level to the top of the hat of the statue of William Penn. The joke goes, "What happened to the other quarter inch?", as a poke at then-widespread corruption in Philadelphia city government and the building trades at the time of construction. Bill S. (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tallest habitable building in the world from 1894 to 1908; shouldn't it be 1901?

"City Hall was the tallest habitable building in the world from 1894 to 1908, measuring 548 ft (167 m) to the top of the statue of William Penn." Doing a quick search reveals that this is a repeatedly quoted factoid, but I have yet to find an originating source. In that same search I found links to http://openbuildings.com/buildings/philadelphia-city-hall-profile-6716?_show_description=1 and http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/280148 that list the year as 1901, which makes sense seeing as that was the year it was completed. The year in this notable fact should change. Dzampino (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

According to the only ref in the history section: "The 26-ton statue of William Penn atop the building was...hoisted into place in 1894" - so the tower had already been completed by 1894. The history section also states "City Hall was topped off in 1894, although the interior wasn't finished until 1901." meaning it was "habitable" and people probably began working there even prior to 1894, but it was not fully, officially complete and "opened" to the public until 1901. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Btw, both of the sources you listed above appear to be copies of earlier versions of this Wikipedia article (the 2nd one is obviously an old copy). Brian W. Schaller (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of "habitable" in this context is to differentiate it from "non-habitable" buildings, specifically, the Washington Monument, which is slightly taller. History of the world's tallest buildings lists it at 1901. The record doesn't start until 1901, even though it wouldn't get higher than from 1894. I simply think it's a small mistake. Dzampino (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but not sure what you mean by a "small mistake"; it's just a clarification of types of buildings to be able to state it's the tallest in some category. The 'habitable' qualifier also handles the case of the Mole Antonelliana whose "Construction was completed in 1889...conceived of as a synagogue, it now houses the Museo Nazionale del Cinema, and is the tallest museum in the world.[citation needed]." (so, presumably no one has ever lived there, hence the addition of habitable) & "Height... 167.5 metres (550 ft)" (2 ft taller than City Hall, till 1953 anyway) though, of course, there's no source for that height. Also note that the current version of this article has a ref about the height of M.A. which states its source as... Wikipedia! "Heights... Source wikipedia entry; Former 550 ft till 1953; Spire 543 ft since 1962" (courtesy of some unknown Wikipedia editor). So, it's just a circular ref with no actual source; should be replaced with a real ref. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like I'm opening a can of worms here. I did a google search for "tallest habitable building" and the Wikipedia page on List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C. lists the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, so religious buildings would be included in this designation. In addition, my search revealed that on the page List of tallest buildings in Wisconsin it lists Milwaukee City Hall as the "tallest habitable building in the world for more than four years after completion (1895–99)." Of course, all of this is un-cited. Dzampino (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That article's not all uncited, just poorly cited. A good definition of 'habitable' is needed (your search just provides some unknown Wikipedia editors' decisions of what 'habitable' means, or includes). Merriam-Webster defines habitable: "capable of being lived in :suitable for habitation"; — habitation: "1 :the act of inhabiting :occupancy; 2 :a dwelling place"; — inhabiting: "1 :to occupy as a place of settled residence or habitat :live in; 2 :to be present in or occupy in any manner or form"; — dwelling: "a shelter (such as a house) in which people live". (of course, there are many definitions of live...)

The editor who claims a religious building is habitable is either using def.#2 of inhabiting or may be referring to the metaphorical "house of God", or religious leaders who might live more-or-less permanently in the building. By def.#2 it seems that anything (with a roof?) can be considered a shelter and is therefore considered habitable, even religious buildings, museums and possibly even large monuments, or trees, though maybe not comfortably for all people ("capable of being lived in" / "suitable for habitation" - capable & suitable can vary greatly). Maybe this article should simply say it's "a tall building" which needs no sources, definitions, clarifications or qualifications; just look at the pictures. :)

The Milwaukee C.H. is only 393' tall at its flagpole tip (40' above bell tower roof) and was completed in 1895 according to the sole infobox source. Meanwhile, the Phila. C.H. tower was finished the year before, or right in the middle of Milwaukee's construction range of 1893-95. Same source only claims Milwaukee's C.H. was "one of the tallest buildings in the world at the end of the 19th Century" and "the tallest building in Milwaukee for 78 years." One of its other sources (a roofing co.) states "the nation’s third tallest structure", while the NPS source says nothing about any records, just 350' high (bit lower than infobox source of 353'). Hmm, seems I've evolved into the next level of Wiki editor - the kind who just likes to jabber on Talk pages instead of doing actual work fixing articles. Guess it's time to become an admin & then quit. ;) Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

We still haven't answered the original talking point. The building was not finished until 1901. No other record we have run into is about a building still be built. I still believe that "habitable" in this context only separates it from things like the Washington Monument (and churches?). More research ([1]) on the history of the tallest buildings in America show Milwaukee City Hall from 1895-1899, the Park Row Building from 1899-1901 and Philadelphia City Hall from 1901-1908. I stand by my original assertion that the record should state 1901. Dzampino (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

1894 if year of tower having reached its full height counts for record setting, or 1901 if it's a requirement that an official ribbon-cutting ceremony has occurred. Bear in mind, many people were working there well before 1901 & most all the remaining work to full completion post-1894 involved interior finishing and upgrading an already outdated electrical system. To take it to the point of absurdity: if it was still under construction today (actually, it is considering there's always more renovation & restoration work to do), you could say it's still not the tallest anything.

Check out an old, archived source on which the above statements are based, with many historical details and exact figures measured to the partial inch (not sure why the pages were hosted by an electrical company...seems like very official historical info). Excerpts: "1875: Commissioners occupy basement offices" - "1877: Court occupies temporary quarters on 2nd floor" - "1889: Mayor Fitler moves into completed offices" - "1891: State Supreme Court opens in permanent courtroom" - "1894: William Penn statue set atop tower" (this is the reason 1894 is used) - "1895: Councils occupy completed chambers on 4th floor" - "1897: Mayor Warwick occupies new offices" - "1901: Commission officially turns the building over to the City." So, if 1901 is to be used, it's simply because the Commission that oversaw and approved funding was no longer necessary and was dissolved, and the city finally took ownership of the building. Full city ownership and responsibility (a legal technicality), rather than the building's architectural topping out seems to be the only reason to state 1901 as the record-setting year. But, maybe that's the way things are in this crazy world. Change it to 1901 & see if anyone notices. :) Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statuesque Spendthrifts

The classic 1952 comic book story Statuesque Spendthrifts by Carl Barks pokes fun at the statue of city founder Penn and the hat agreement. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:480D:3E90:8808:14DE (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo and image formatting needs to be reviewed and improved

More and more photos have been added to this article over the last several years, giving it an increasingly cluttered look that makes it difficult to read, particularly for people with visual impairments. Several of these image additions appear to violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Accessibility standards which urge editors to "Avoid placing images on the left hand side as a consistent left hand margin makes reading easier" and "Avoid sandwiching text between two images or, unless absolutely necessary, using fixed image sizes." At this point, several images need to be removed or repositioned to the image gallery in order to bring the article back into compliance with the MOS and make it more accessible for Wikipedia users with visual impairments. - 47thPennVols (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, the gallery should go. The pics are statues around the outside of City Hall and we have the link to Wikimedia Commons for that reason. – The Grid (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion around this issue. I appreciate your perspective. Quite honestly, I have less of a problem with the gallery than I do with other images in the article (although I would say that there are so many photos in the gallery that it makes it almost seem as if each of the photos are too big). What concerns me most about this article, though, is the sandwiched text in the opening of History and description section. I believe the historic photos are helpful, but they're just so poorly positioned that it makes the article very hard to read for anyone (let alone anyone who has a visual impairment, or may have reading comprehension challenges). Perhaps the 1881 photo could be moved to the right side of the article and the 2013 "View of tower" photo in the gallery could be replaced with the 1899 photo from the History section? I'd welcome your thoughts, as well as what might be done about the gallery. (Would decreasing their size to thumbnails help, for example?) - 47thPennVols (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has been editing this article since 2006, I'll say that you should place the pictures in a way that makes sense to you and there is a 98% chance that I'll back you up. As someone who has eye issues I am inclined NOT to try to do this myself. Carptrash (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for also engaging in this discussion. Your input is helpful and very much appreciated. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

How does text between images make text hard to read? The text is already 'sandwiched' between empty white boxes. Is useful content filling them too distracting? ɱ (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not only distracting for readers without visual impairments, it's particularly difficult for many people with visual impairments to read and comprehend text that is sandwiched between photographs, which is why Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Accessibility standards state: "Avoid sandwiching text between two images or, unless absolutely necessary, using fixed image sizes." Please click on the "sandwiching text" link and read the content provided there for further explanation. - 47thPennVols (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• You can kind of see the effect when using mobile view and then making the browser a window. – The Grid (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand, besides the subjective "distracting", the word "difficult" does not at all explain what exactly about this sandwiching is such a problem. ɱ (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Your persistence in pressing a question that has already been asked and answered several times now seems to indicate that you still have not read Wikipedia's MOS/Accessibility Standards and, more specifically, Wikipedia's very clear explanation of why sandwiched text is difficult to read and should not be used. Are you repeatedly asking the same question over and over again to simply be argumentative and stubborn, or do you genuinely not understand what you have read regarding sandwiched text? - 47thPennVols (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't have to be stubborn and irritated. I don't think the MOS explains at all why it's a problem, beyond "not accessible", and the rare instance it would mess with the formatting of a bulleted list. I would like a better explanation if we're to make a change here. ɱ (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not irritated, and am not being stubborn. The MOS is obviously clear because there are thousands of Wikipedians who make the decision, daily, to follow Wikipedia's Accessibility standards, which is why the majority of articles are formatted without sandwiched text and with the majority of their images justified to the right side and not staggered with a left-right configuration. I have no way of knowing whether or not you personally think that using sandwiched text looks good from a stylistic point of view, but it seems as if you do because of your continued advocacy of not improving the formatting of this article. So, I'm going to extend an olive branch here. Assuming that you simply just don't understand why many people with disabilities would have extreme difficulty reading this Philadelphia City Hall article with the way the text is currently sandwiched (possibly because you have perfect vision yourself and personally have no trouble with reading the article as it is formatted now, or that you may not have anyone in your life who has a visual impairment or cognitive disability, so you have no frame of reference?), I'm going to share an educational resource for you that might be helpful. If you sincerely want to learn why even a single image improperly placed can make reading and comprehension harder for many people with disabilities (or even for just one person), please read the "How People with Disabilities Interact with Images" section of Yale University's "Usability & Web Accessibility" policies and procedures. Kind Regards. - 47thPennVols (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the olive branch, helping me understand. Though, the Yale page only says to use alt text to allow for screen readers (which many wiki articles do, and is a separate issue), to avoid "moving, flashing, or automatically animating images", and to have functionality for magnifying images without making them pixellated/hard to see (which Wikimedia does in its preferences, and through the click-through-to-zoom functionality). I don't see anything about image placement, nor in the thorough section 'Image Guidelines'. I think if someone had difficulty reading webpages (many of which have much more flashy graphics than we do), they would use a screen reader or one of the many tools like Textise or EasyRead that creates a basic/simple layout of any page, easy to read for those with difficulties reading. I would invite you to find an accessibility guideline that talks about this issue. I suspect someone added it into our MOS as a way of benefitting their individual reading ability/preferences. ɱ (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You've made several concerning comments now ("the rare instance it would mess with the formatting of a bulleted list," in reference to Wikipedia's Accessibility standard that the use of sandwiched text be avoided, and "I suspect someone added it into our MOS as a way of benefitting their individual reading ability/preferences") which seem to indicate that you believe that it doesn't matter if one person with a visual impairment or cognitive disability has difficulty reading this article because it's just one person (or just a few people) who is/are having difficulties. I'm not sure if you're aware of how those statements come across, but it seems that what is more important to you is preserving formatting that caused the text to be sandwiched, rather than helping students with disabilities and others who will be trying to read this article have an easier time of reading and comprehending it. (And, because this is a major article, there will be a large number of students trying to read this article, including a sizeable number of students with disabilities in the Philadelphia area.)

As for your suggestion that I continue to find examples for you of accessibility standards, you are fully capable of doing that on your own, and I assure you, that you'll find there are many examples out there at the academic, corporate, governmental, and non-profit organization level because accessibility standards have been around for a long time, largely as a result of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. But, even if you choose not to do that research on your own, Wikipedia's own MOS/Accessibility standards are clear: "Avoid using images in place of tables or charts.... Avoid placing images on the left hand side as a consistent left margin makes reading easier. Avoid sandwiching text between two images...."

The historic images of Philadelphia City Hall need to be shifted to the right hand side of the article, or repositioned to the Gallery section in order to eliminate the sandwiched text problem not only because it would improve the article's compliance with Wikipedia's own Accessibility standards, but because it's the kind thing to do. It will help readers we will never meet, but who will benefit from having an easier time reading the article because the text won't be sandwiched any longer. I sincerely hope that you'll have a change of heart about your position. Kind Regards. - 47thPennVols (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who wants a change to this page. I'm asking if you can support your rationale with evidence from other sources, and a better description than "it's distracting". We can't bow to the ideas of every single person who finds a page difficult to read in some form or another. It has to be a recognized, documented issue. ɱ (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)