Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/110 North Wacker

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

110 North Wacker

(
)
  • ... that 110 North Wacker is the tallest all-commercial building in Chicago since 1990? Source: "As proposed, the skyscraper will be the tallest purely commercial building to rise in the Windy City since Two Prudential Plaza was constructed in 1990." [1]; if suboptimal perhaps this can also verify.
    • ALT1:... that 110 North Wacker replaced a building that was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? Source: "The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency in August determined the [predecessor] building's architecture makes it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. [2]
    • ALT2:... that cost considerations resulted in 110 North Wacker technically violating an ordinance on air clearance of riverwalks? Source: "A City of Chicago-mandated ordinance requiring a riverwalk component to be “open to the sky above” would have made the redevelopment of the narrow, trapezoidal parcel cost-prohibitive if interpreted to the exact letter of the rule. To make the project feasible, a compromise was reached allowing the building to overhang the riverfront public space 55 feet overhead." [3]

Created by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 01:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT0 and ALT1 good to go. Not sure what you mean by "economics" in ALT2, though - might be better to say that it was cost-prohibitive to follow the rules exactly, rather than go with the vague word "economics". epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I have fixed the sentence starting with a number. As for ALT2, perhaps we can substitute "cost considerations" for "economics". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @John M Wolfson: Sounds good. If you can just make that change for ALT2, then that should be good to go as well. epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/110_North_Wacker&oldid=943450316"