Talk:Puck Building
I'd like to find out more about the figure of Puck that is on the Puck Building. What or who was the model for this figure? Is it possible to obtain drawings
 | Puck Building has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 18, 2025. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Puck Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 November 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Untitled
I'd like to find out more about the figure of Puck that is on the Puck Building. What or who was the model for this figure? Is it possible to obtain drawings or statuettes like the figure on the Puck Building?
According to this site, it was sculpted by Henry Baerer in 1885 of gilded cast zinc. A reference to Henry Baerer as the sculptor also appears on this site. Beyond that, I don't know. -- Cjmnyc 05:44, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Read the "About The Puck Building" page on The Puck Building website
http://www.thepuckbuilding.com/
The following comment by 66.174.79.231 was posted on the External Links section of the article page:
- this is not correct. the official caterer and event planner for The Puck Building is at www.ThePuckBuilding.com they are located IN The Puck Building and manage the Grand Ballroom and Skylight Ballroom
I updated the outdated link to which this user was referring and moved his/her comment here. --Cjmnyc 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Error in Puck Building Architect link
I believe there is an error in the link in the article in the Puck Building when the link to the architect, Albert Wagner, goes to baseball player Butts Wagner, who shares "Butts" the given name "Albert." 69.250.184.158 (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note! To address it, I just delinked Albert Wagner in the article and replaced that by "Albert and Herman Wagner", not linked. I checked the NRIS database to see if there was adequate information from it to create an article about the architect Albert Wagner, but find mention of this architect only with the Puck Building. So, unless and until someone else creates an article about the architect, this should remain non-linked. Thanks again for helping. --doncram (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The 4th edition of the AIA Guide to NYC is quite specific about who deisigned the building: Albert Wagner designed both the original building and the southern addition, while Herman Wagner supervised the relocation of the Western front when Elm Place (Lafayette Street) was widened. See White, Norval; Willensky, Elliot (2000). AIA Guide to New York City (4th ed.). New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0-8129-3107-5. p. 87. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Useless "features"
I think we should leave out the redundant "Notes" subheading and the useless "<!--spacing-->" comment. Anybody support this? Yworo (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Puck Building. 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/20160210194550/http://gothamist.com/2011/12/02/rei_soho_opens_its_doors_in_the_puc.php to http://gothamist.com/2011/12/02/rei_soho_opens_its_doors_in_the_puc.php
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) 03:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
- 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 Kimikel talk 02:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
( )
.jpg)
The Puck Building
- ... that the Puck Building has two gilded Pucks? Source: Goncharoff, Katya (August 12, 1984). "The Glitter of Gold Gains in Facade and Lobby Decor: Some Say Owners Feel Gilding May Enhance Values". The New York Times.; White, Norval & Willensky, Elliot (2000). AIA Guide to New York City (4th ed.). New York: Three Rivers Press. p. 87.
- ALT1: ... that the Puck Building has two gilded Puck statues on its facade? Source: Goncharoff, Katya (August 12, 1984). "The Glitter of Gold Gains in Facade and Lobby Decor: Some Say Owners Feel Gilding May Enhance Values". The New York Times.; White, Norval & Willensky, Elliot (2000). AIA Guide to New York City (4th ed.). New York: Three Rivers Press. p. 87.
- ALT2: ... that a decade after the Puck Building was built, its western section was demolished to make way for a street? Source: Puck Building (PDF) (Report). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. April 12, 1983. p. 4
- ALT3: ... that a fence from a Coney Island amusement park was moved to the Puck Building? Source: Farrell, Bill (October 28, 1987). "Red bat's still on the ball". Daily News. p. 461.
- ALT4: ... that three years after the Puck Building was renovated into commercial condominiums, none of the condominiums had been sold? Source: "New Friends for Puck". Newsday. April 28, 1986. p. 127
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Peck Building
5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 678 past nominations.
Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
Article is new and long enough (expanded), well-sourced, copyvio-free, and presentable. I prefer ALT1. All hooks are cited to reliable sources, and are short enough and interesting. Images are properly licensed. QPQ done. Looks good to go. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Puck Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 18:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Will take this one.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Lead
- An example of the German Rundbogenstil style of architecture, the building was designed by Albert Wagner and is composed of two sections: the original seven-story building to the north and a nine-story southern annex. – The first clause felt kind of awkward. I would have said
Designed in German Rundbogenstil (architecture) style by Albert Wagner, the building is composed of...
- The facade is made of red brick and is divided vertically.., –
The red brick facade is divided vertically...
- created two sculptures – might say "crafted"
- and renovated it further – might say "and carried out additional renovations"
- Kushner Properties added penthouse apartments there between 2011 and 2013. – How does Kushner Properties add more apartments? Like the above floors were converted into penthouse apartments?
No issues for site section.
- I have fixed all of these. I resolved the first point by splitting the sentence and adding the other architectural style to the first of the two new sentences. For the fifth point, Kushner converted the top stories to apartments, and they built an additional apartment within a brand new penthouse. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Architecture
- It is designed in the Romanesque Revival style, with elements inspired by the German Rundbogenstil style – this quite contradicted the lead.
- The body is correct, but the lead was from a previous version of the article. I have changed the lead and infobox. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- window frames and statues made of cast iron, as well as entrance gates made of wrought iron. –
except for the cast iron window frames and statues, as well as the wrought iron entrance gates.
- Some terracotta and sandstone is also used – might say "incorporated" instead of "used"
- On these stories, each bay has three triple-height arches, which are each one-third of the width of the ground-level arches –
..., each measuring one-third the width of the ground-level arches.
- Both the original building and the annex were originally topped by a parapet; this feature was removed from the original building by the late 20th century[33] but was restored in the 2010s. – so the new parapet doesn't cover the annex but only the original building?
- That appears to be correct. The annex's parapet was never removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would rewrite by saying
A segment of the parapet above the original building was removed by the late 20th century but restored in the 2010s.
or something to specify the part over the original building.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- I have now done this. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would rewrite by saying
- That appears to be correct. The annex's parapet was never removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The brick vault were strong enough to accommodate – do you mean "was strong enough"
- Good catch. I meant "the brick vaults". Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Each of the apartments is assigned a Roman-numeral apartment number –
Each apartment is designated with a Roman numeral as its apartment number.
- I went with the wording "Each of the apartments is designated with a Roman numeral apartment number". Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think (for example, penthouse VI) is unnecessary as most readers would know what's a roman numeral. Or if still unsure, just wikilink Roman numerals
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As built, the units were fully furnished What do you mean "as built"?
- I changed this to "The units were fully furnished when they were built". Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- such as hidden televisions in the bathroom mirrors – interesting detail I must note. What's the purpose of such televisions?
- Unfortunately there aren't many details about the televisions. They seem to be regular TVs embedded into mirrors so residents could watch TV on the toilet or while taking a shower. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments ZKang123. I've addressed all of the above comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
History
- was completed around 1886 – why "around 1886"? Would "in 1886" do?
- Actually, that does work. I fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- several property owners, including Keppler, expressed objections to the street's extension. – so did the widening still go ahead?
- Never mind, saw that it continued in the other section.
- That year, Keppler, Schwarzmann, and Ottmann borrowed $300,000 for the building from the Brooklyn Savings Bank (equivalent to $10,173,000 in 2023) – I would put this before the building annex's completion. Actually also I would prefer the term "annex" so as not to confuse with the main building.
- by the next year –
by the following year
. Also check for similar instances. - A fire in November 1905 caused $50,000 in damage (equivalent to $1,696,000 in 2023) after a can of turpentine caught on fire inside a finishing room where workers were producing Christmas cards Might split to:
In November 1905, a fire caused $50,000 in damage (equivalent to $1,696,000 in 2023). The incident occurred when a can of turpentine caught fire inside a finishing room, where workers were producing Christmas cards.
- In addition, six people were severely injured in 1912 after one of the building's elevators fell seven stories. – Personally I felt "In addition" a bit odd given it's not exactly a follow-up to the previous sentence unless it's to paint a narrative of Puck going out of business. Would rewrite
In 1912, six people were severely injured when an elevator building fell seven stories.
- After the discontinuation of Puck magazine, the building remained well-suited for firms in the printing industry, as its floor plates had been built to accommodate heavy printing presses –
While the Puck magazine was discontinued, the building remained suitable for firms in the printing industry...
- Done, with slightly different wording. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of the rentable space had been rented by the end of 1917 – try to avoid repetition of "rent" such as using "leased"
- There's actually a very slight difference between renting and leasing (mostly with regard to how long the space was used for). Instead I changed "rentable" to "usable" space. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also curious, even though the magazine was continued, the building is still called "Puck Building"?
- Yes. There are many instances where buildings retain the names of their former tenants even if the tenant went out of business decades ago (as is the case here). Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- In addition, in 1937, the Puck statue above the main entrance was cleaned – again I'm unsure of the use of "in addition" and would remove and rewrite to:
In 1937, the Puck statue above the main entrance underwent cleaning.
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- part of the amusement park's fence was moved to the Puck Building – so was it stored or built around the building?
- It was reinstalled there. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- began planning to renovate the building. something about this phrase is rather awkward. Maybe
initiated plans to renovate the building
orinitiated plans for the building's renovation
?- I changed this to "began making plans to renovate the building". Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The two largest tenants moved out of the building in 1980, and all but one of the other tenants moved out during the subsequent months. – I wonder if you can specify the tenants
- Unfortunately, the source does not mention the tenants' names. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- a fee of $9 per square foot. – "a fee of" is redundant
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Puck Building's renovation helped spur the revitalization of Lafayette Street – is it specified how? Especially when it's later said none of the condos had been sold.
- I reread the source, and it seems there were several projects (not just the Puck Building) that helped attract retailers to the area. I've specified this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sonneblick-Goldman Corporation – who is this company? The syndicate?
- It's a real estate firm that was later taken over by another real estate company, Cushman & Wakefield. I misspelled the name, which is supposed to be Sonnenblick Goldman. In any case, I have no idea what Sonnenblick Goldman's role in the building was, so I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because of the ownership syndicate's financial troubles, Kushner's firm, Kushner Companies, had to take over the Puck Building,[156] becoming the sole owner of the structure A bit too many commas here. Might split it up
- After the city government stopped leasing space in the building in 1992,[159] and Pratt subsequently expanded into some of the city government's former space on the fourth floor. – this entire sentence reads like a fragment. Would remove that "and" and "subsequently".
- Also might say "stopped leasing the space"
- I have fixed the first issue. As for "stopped leasing the space", I don't think "the" is necessary, since the page is referring to space in general (which just happened to be leased by the city). "The space" might be appropriate if the article discussed a specific space immediately beforehand. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also might say "stopped leasing the space"
- Meanwhile, the LPC issued a permit to Kushner Companies in May 2011, allowing the firm to begin renovating the facade. –
Meanwhile, in May 2011, the LPC issued a permit to Kushner Companies for the facade's renovation.
- Kushner Companies needed to meet with the LPC –
Kushner Companies was required to meet with the LPC.
orKushner Companies met with the LPC
Impact
- Why is the mention of its designation as a city landmark in this section? Usually in previous building articles, it's incorporated into the history.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good point. I moved it up, since the LPC is mentioned earlier in the article as well. Thanks for the review ZKang123. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Source and image reviews
- Refs 5, 6, 8, 39, 212 check out. Most sources also quote the NYT.
- Ref 218 is dead
- Images are either in public domain or CC license.
That's all for me. Putting article on hold.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.