Talk:John Hancock Center

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Hancock Center article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Illinois High‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago High‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers 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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The restaurant is filled with raptors? Don't want to eat there I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.34.196 (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the official names of these two buildings? I thought the one in Chicago is called John Hancock Center, the one in Boston is call John Hancock building. Anyone from these two cities to confirm this?

Chicago = John Hancock Center

Boston = Hancock Place, but commonly called John Hancock Tower in city Raime 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm pretty sure I.M. Pei didn't design the Boston John Hancock; it was another architect in his firm. i'd need a reference to take this comment out of Talk, though. --The Cunctator

Yes, you are right. Pei is credited for designing the building, but Pei himself gives credit for the building's design to Henry Cobb. See this site Raime 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, there are three Hancock buildings in Boston, all fairly close to one another. The tallest is the John Hancock Tower (this is the one called the building in the article), the next one down is the John Hancock Building (this is the one with the weather light thingy on top), and I forget what the smallest / oldest one is called. -- EdwardOConnor

While all three buildings may have been officially called "John Hancock Building" at one point, the current names now are Hancock Place for the tallest and newest tower, The Berkeley Building for the tower commonly referred to as the "old John Hancock Building", and The Stephen L. Brown Building for the oldest and shortest building completed in 1922. Raime 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind if you visit the building, if you're on the 94th floor observation level and you want to go to the resturant and lounge on the 95th and 96th floors, you have to go back down to the ground level, and then take another elevator from ground level to the resturant.

JesseG 01:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The picture titled "The 95th and 96th Floor's Resturant and Lounge" is not of a quality that warrants being on this page. I think it should be removed, but I would like to hear some thoughts on this before I make the change. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my plan to remove that picture. Badammcqueen 04:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, removing it would better balance the number the images with the lenght of the text. Lawrence Lavigne 07:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I removed both of the pictures I had taken and had placed in this article.

JesseG 16:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jesse. Badammcqueen 17:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, don't thank me. I feel that the pictures I had taken and had taken the time to add to this article added to the article, but apparently my pictures aren't good enough.

JesseG 22:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of Image:JHancockAug2004.jpg. I think it should be added back. It might not be the best picture we can get of the tower but it illustrates the "x-bracing" architecture mentioned in the article. Not to mention, it's actually a picture of the tower itself, which we don't really have (except the view from Sears Tower). I haven't seen the picture of the restaurant (has it been completely removed?), so I can't comment on that.

Neil McKillop 14:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with McKillop: the tower's bracing structure was my main reason for visiting the page and would love to see this photo restored. --Myke Cuthbert 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the location from Streeterville to Gold Coast. According to the official city of Chicago neighborhood map, this is Gold Coast. Streeterville (regardless of where the dear captain landed) ends at Grand. See: http://www.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/City_Neighborhoods_11x17.pdf -- Reaperducer 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the paragraph about Jerry Springer and Chris Farley. It stated that Jerry Springer moved out in May of 2009. This is incorrect. It is now June and I have seen him in the building in June. Also, it stated that Springer's apartment was adjacent to Chris Farley's. This is incorrect. Springer's is on 91, Farley's was on the 60th floor (6002 to be exact). FWIW, I am a resident. The most complete page for reference information on this topic is here: http://chicagoarchitecture.info/Building/1006/The_John_Hancock_Center.php -- Reaperducer 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help stamp out redundancy and repetition!

Take a look at:

"The 95th floor has long been home to a fine restaurant, the latest incarnation being called The Signature Room on the 95th Floor."

Shouldn't "on the 95th Floor" be dropped from the end of this sentence?

TJSwoboda 18:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, because the full name of the restaurant is "The Signature Room on the 95th Floor."Shsilver 18:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah! And I call myself a native Illinoian... :)

TJSwoboda 01:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good picture?

How about a good picture of the building? Currently, we only have a very distant shot and a view from the center away. Anybody from Chicago mind to add a good picture? Peter S. 13:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to a slightly better version from Chicago -- however I can crop it when I have a few free minutes to make this pic better. --Quasipalm 16:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

View

The official website says the view from the obersvatory spans four states. this cant be true, can it?--Atticus2020 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's true. Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan. --spyguy 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's f-ing crazy.--Atticus2020 23:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is Bad

Not to underestimate the work of those that came ahead, but this article contains may inaccuracies and incorrect information. For example: -the building's skin does not play any structural role, that is the definition of a skyscraper; -the difference between "commercial district" and "financial district" is connotatively non-existent; -generally, the structural information was not put together with much structural knowledge -it looks like the article was cobbled together, with no allowance for structure and flow. I can make an attempt to clean it up.

This article has gotten a lot better. Thanks to all who contributed to this. Also, the thing that fell off the tower is called a "swing stage", I am an architect and have been on one. I added and slightly modified this in the article.Gary Joseph 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Base and peak

To me, the most salient fact about this building is the fact that its width and breadth are much larger at its base than at its peak, i.e. the sides are not completely vertical, but rather slope inward. Isn't this unusual among skyscrapers? Isn't it worth mentioning? (Not worth mentioning in the article is the fact that this monumental black building with its two antennas sticking up like ears has always somehow reminded me of Darth Vader.) —An gr 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the third tallest building in the world?

As seen from the Chicago skyline picture toward the end of the article, it's the third largest building in Chicago! Who laid claim to this being the third largest in the world, only behind the Sears Tower and Taipei 101? Can this be accurate?

It is completely accurate, but only when measuring to the tips of its antennae. See List of tallest buildings in the world#Height to Pinnacle. When measuring to architectural detail (which is far common to use when ranking skyscrapers by height, and excludes antennae), it is only the 16th-tallest. Rai-me 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both this and the Aon article claim to be the third tallest in Chicago. 151.185.60.250 (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab link too long

I've edited the extremely long dab link at the top of this article down to a shorter version. It previously read: Several buildings bear this name, all built by John Hancock Insurance and named after John Hancock. For the John Hancock Tower in Boston, Massachusetts, see John Hancock Tower. I've shortened it to: For the tower in Boston, Massachusetts, see John Hancock Tower. Why is a link needed to John Hancock Insurance and John Hancock? There is clearly no chance of confusion with either of these articles, so it did not make sense to have them in the dab link. The "several" was also ambiguous: There are only two John Hancock Towers/Centers that I know of, the one in Boston and the one in Chicago. (There were two buildings in Boston that were formerly called the John Hancock Tower, but both were renamed after the completion of the modern John Hancock Tower.) Raime 02:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I moved some of the images to a gallery at the end. A panoramic image of the skyline appeared too! Strange why i could not see it before... Looks slightly better now i think? ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steps or stairs

I know you have a yearly run up the stairs in the building. How many stairs are there exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.97.212 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible semantic inaccuracy

The introduction says, "The building ... contains the highest residences in the world". There's an ambiguity in the phrasing. It should be rewritten to make clear that the baseline is the structure's base level, since in terms of sea level, there are many human settlements at higher altitudes. - Gyan (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph

The second paragraph in the opening of this article needs to be cleaned up, it seems a bit much like advertisement. Neutral point-of-view might be the wrong flag, if there's a better flag feel free to change it. Organman91 (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of trimming, taken some of teh blatant advertsising and informal text away. I don't know if it ok now, but I think it's a bit better. VanillaBear23 (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highest residence?

"and contains the third highest residence in the world, after the Trump Tower also in Chicago and the Burj Khalifa in Dubai." Well, I own a house on Mau'i that is higher than this entire building, so *I* must own the highest residence in the world. Oh, wait, there are some further up the volcano. Drat! I'm not even sure how to reword the statement, so I'll leave it to you all, but none of the buildings mentioned even come close to having the "highest residence in the world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.145.218 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps by phrasing it as "highest residence above ground-level" or "highest residence in relation to ground-level of a skyscraper"??? SecretName101 (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths?

"A little over three years after the Hancock’s completion, a 29-year-old Chicago woman named Lorraine Kowalski fell to her death from her boyfriend’s 90th-floor Hancock Center apartment. To this day, detectives are dumbfounded by the event; the building’s windows are capable of withstanding more than 200 pounds of pressure per square foot and winds of more than 150 miles per hour, yet Kowalski actually broke through the glass. Four years later, a transmitter technician for a local radio station plunged to his death from the 97th floor offices of his television station. Just three months later, a 27-year old tenant “fell” from his 91st-floor apartment while studying for an exam at breakfast. In 1978, a 31-year old woman shot a man to death in his home on the Hancock’s 65th floor, and in 1998, beloved comedian Chris Farley was found dead in the entrance hall of his 60th-floor apartment. Most recently, in March of 2002, a 25-foot aluminum scaffold fell from the building’s 43rd floor, crushing three cars, killing three women and injuring 8 others."

http://www.chicagohauntings.com/hancock.html

There was also the death of an iron worker during construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.231.71 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive video !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXL_QaK17E#t=597 NYCFC (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwin

Did they really try to knock him off the building? I'm at least assuming very near to the bottom. Was the 80s really that bad? B137 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

photo

here it is under construction : https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwilson1949/5582470062/in/album-72157614049704111/ Victor Grigas (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hancock Center. 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/20120320062017/http://www.justonebadcentury.com/chicago_cubs_history_47.asp to http://www.justonebadcentury.com/chicago_cubs_history_47.asp
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chile-usa.org/consular.htm

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) 22:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant

Mention should be made of its 95th/96th floor restaurant The Signature Room SecretName101 (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a more detailed reference should be made than simply listing it as a tenant. Clarify that it is a restaurant at the very least.SecretName101 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Hancock Center. 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) 22:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Hancock Center. 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) 01:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancock Center No More

As reflected in today's revisions, John Hancock Insurance has requested that their name and logos be removed from this building. I leave it to an editor to decide how to reflect the name change in the naming of this article - and also to change the tower's name in the Chicago Skyscrapers graphic - DiogenesNY (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not obliged to slavishly obey the dictates of a corporation. Abductive (reasoning) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ridiculous. Not even the building's owners refer to it as the John Hancock Center anymore. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia deliberately publish obsolete references? - DiogenesNY (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have undone the move. Triplecaña (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancock Center → 875 North Michigan Avenue – I honestly don't know how controversial this move is, but the name of the John Hancock Center officially changed to 875 North Michigan Avenue almost 2 years ago. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now I still hear of it referred to only as the "Hancock Center", so it appears that the status quo should remain considering only COMMONNAME, but I am a lifelong resident of the city. We did change the name of the far better known Willis Tower, so I'll see how it's referred to (to the extent that it is) in references and by non-residents. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is the common name, and we don't necessarily use official names (WP:OFFICIAL). I find it somewhat doubtful that the number will ever become the common name, since it isn't very recognizable. Dekimasuよ! 08:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Reliable sources still call it the John Hancock Center. In a recent article CBS 2 Chicago notes that the building is rarely called anything other than the "John Hancock Center" or "Big John" [1].--Tdl1060 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. Given that the last attempts to move the page were almost immediately reverted, and "John Hancock Center" remains the common name, it makes sense to keep the page where it is. O.N.R. ^(talk) 14:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd be OK with a page move. I've always felt uncomfortable seeing WP:COMMONNAME used to preserve article titles that are out of date. Wikipedia is wildly inconsistent when it comes to "common names", anyway. We use Cloud Gate, but not "The Bean". Zagalejo^^^ 03:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unfortunately I didn't find time do the research before this closed, but I note the following for the record:

1. In general, moves should occur once a clear majority of published written sources use the new name.

2. Spoken usage is of minimal relevance both because it is hard to track empirically, and because an encyclopedia is a formal written document and hence should track the formal written usage.

3. Sources used for the article should carry some additional weight compared to non-sources, as an encyclopedia should reflect its sources. However, what's important is which name those sources use in their most recent publications/editions not what they used in old editions or old articles even if those are what the encyclopedia directly cites.

𝒬 𝔔 23:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two Towers center?

I heard the Story that Original TWO towers were planned, but they not get the building ground for second.

2A02:908:1015:D440:755F:109C:77A5:B0B7 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elevators

The article states the elevators were mfg'd by Otis, I'm pretty sure the original elevators were made by Schindler. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

USA Illinois location map.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Move to 875 North Michigan Avenue. That is the real name. 2A02:C7E:3AA0:9200:78F8:A724:D9D2:96E6 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We use WP:CommonName SecretName101 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:CommonName even based on anything? Even the tour guides in Chicago these days use 875 N Michigan.

Also if we use WP:CommonName, then why is the Sears Tower page (which everyone, including tour guides, uses) "Willis Tower". Piemadd (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floor plan and tenants section

The large table that attempts to visualize floors in the "Floor plan and tenants" section is unwieldy, not easily viewable on mobile, and really doesn't add much information that a simple list or prose could provide. I suggest removing it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Room and Lounge has closed.

The Signature Room restaurant and the Signature Lounge have permanently closed. This needs to be updated. Building owners and the business owners could not come to a lease agreement. 208.59.176.245 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]