Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photos[edit]

Photos and/or photo uploads are needed!

  • HABS or HAER photos have been located and included already for all, or almost all, of the sites covered by HABS or HAER. Other sources needed.
  • New photos would be helpful.


DYK hook?[edit]

I'm having some trouble quantifying types of rhp's because there are so many red links, so i'm not sure what category some of them fall into. Here's a possible DYK hook:

....that among the more typical buildings, the List of Registered Historic Places in Chicago also includes a German U-boat, a stadium, a lily pond, a tomb, several parks and a lighthouse?

Obviously all the examples would need to be linked, too, which I'll do if you want to use something like this. Lvklock (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though the one stadium was delisted. My not-too-exciting-yet ideas were:
  • ... that Chicago has 296 places listed on the National Register, but no ships except for a German U-boat?
  • ... that Chicago has 12 parks, ___ commercial buildings, and ___ individual homes listed on the National Register?
Or, how about
It is striking to me that there is just one ship listed, and that a german submarine to boot, given 5% of all NHLs nation-wide are ships, and Chicago is/has been a major port city with 9 municipal harbors.
But is that complaining? Perhaps a more positive approach to describing how many Sullivan skyscrapers there are would be, well, more positive. doncram (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the U-boat has to be in the dyk in some fashion. The stadium I was referring to is Soldier Field, which is not in the delisted section. Others that could be included or replace some are a pier (Navy Pier aka Municipal Pier) and a stock yard gate (Union...). The image that I found most striking is the little lighthouse against the Chicago skyline.Lvklock (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods[edit]

Hi. Just wondering, are you using a specific source to identify the neighborhoods? Some of these seem a little off. The Mundelein College Skyscraper, for example, is located on the north side of Devon Avenue, which would put it in Rogers Park, not Edgewater. And the South Pond Refectory is too far north to be in the Chicago Loop. It's actually part of Lincoln Park. Just FYI. Zagalejo^^^ 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify about Mundelein: I know that its address is 6363 N. Sheridan Rd., which would imply that it's south of Devon (6400 N), but that address is kind of misleading. What happens is that Sheridan shifts west at exactly that point, and briefly merges with the east-west street of Devon. The Mundelein building is still north of the 6400 N line. If you look at a map, you'll see. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the neighborhoods and providing this correcting info; i just update the two sites' neighborhood locations in the table per your direction. I take it that the NRHP's address of 6363 N. Sheridan Rd. for the skyscraper (which Google maps shows is south of Devon hence in Edgewater, Chicago), is actually an administrative address of the former Mundelein College, and I see on the Google map that the current Loyola University Lakeshore Campus is located north of Devon and that short east-west section of Sheridan (which puts it in Rogers Park, Chicago). I will put a note about this in the Mundelein College article's Talk page, too.
Our "source" was the predecessor list of RHPs in Cook County, which in this version presented them in those neighborhoods]. Basically, we now are only trying to use address information plus the well-defined boundaries of the Community areas of Chicago to locate them properly, and i assume that is what previous Cook County editors were trying to do, too. Your local knowledge of where a given address is misleading, to make corrections, is invaluable. Thanks! doncram (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that might indeed be the address for the Mundelein building itself. It's possible that the buildings on Sheridan do not begin using 6400+ addresses until after Sheridan actually "splits" from Devon, which happens about a block west of Mundelein. Anyway, I'll be in that neighborhood Tuesday. I can take a look at the addresses to see what's going on.
BTW, I left a few other comments about the list at the Chicago project page, in case you missed them. Zagalejo^^^ 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for further comments[edit]

I had pasted in some notes here, but have now deleted them, as intro is okay for now. doncram (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates, and google map linked from "Map of all coordinates"[edit]

I am aware that there were a couple bad locations included in the coordinates passed to the Google map. I've deleted coordinates for 3 obvious outliers with incorrect location data. However, it may take Google a few days to catch up and to display a map focused on Chicago alone. But the reader can still zoom in on Chicago and see precise locations for 200 or so sites, which is awesome, i think! doncram (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description column notes[edit]

Just recording here, temporarily, notes for editing articles and/or a future description column in the table:

Jewelers' Building: HABS pics avail

| | HABS pics avail

| HABS pics avail

Not sure who started this unsigned section, but I am all for having a description column, which I just started with two entries. Probably would be good to add references for each description from the get-go, shortening how long it might take to get this to Featured List. Also, by the way, great job Smallbones in adding LOTS of pics recently! --doncram (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Symphony center.JPG[edit]

The image Image:Symphony center.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding NRHPs in enclaves?[edit]

There's a discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Michigan about including NRHPs of Hamtramck and another separate town that are enclaves, surrounded by the city of Detroit. Isn't Cicero, Illinois an enclave surrounded by Chicago? I'm not sure. It has just one NRHP listing, J. Sterling Morton High School East Auditorium, which could possibly be added to the Chicago article, if presented suitably. Are there any other enclaves? doncram (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Cicero would count as an enclave, since it is bordered by several other suburbs to the west. The "hole" to the right of O'Hare in this neighborhood map is Norridge, Illinois and Harwood Heights, Illinois, but I don't think they have any NRHP listings. Zagalejo^^^ 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, then there's no applicability here, right i don't see those mentioned in National Register of Historic Places listings in Cook County, Illinois. (Hmm, if you could describe the neighboring cities to Cicero in its article, i think that would help it. It's odd the article does not mention its neighbors.) Thanks! doncram (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break up this page alphabetically? ... And descriptions[edit]

This page seems to be getting too long. I suggest breaking it into two or more additional pages by alpha organization. In addition to shortening load time and making use easier, descriptions can then be added with greater room. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should definitely split up the page. It's very difficult to make any changes to it right now. Zagalejo^^^ 21:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general other NRHP list-articles that got too big have been split up into geographic areas. See List of RHPs in NYC, List of RHPs in Denver, List of RHPs in Indianapolis, List of RHPs in Philly, List of RHPs in Baltimore. An exception is National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Louis, Missouri which hasn't gotten attention and is split in 2 alphabetically; i have been meaning to change it. Geo-splitting seems to make more sense for readers. One reason is that each of the linked Google/Bing maps still work well to show all the NRHP-listed places in smaller areas, rather than showing an effectively random assortment of places spread out over a larger area. --doncram (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely suggest a split - the only question is how to do it. Much over 100 entries and you get the same problems you have now - which means at least 3, probably 4 divisions. The problem with only 3 divisions is that it's hard to split in any recognizable way that will result in an even 100 in each of three divisions. That said Chicago has some very commonly recognized divisions, i.e. Loop, North Side, West Side, South Side. I'll suggest some practical splits below and mention that the Loop has 56 entries now, if I counted right. We also have a very nice map that defines the Loop in a very practical way.
Possible 3-way division - Loop, North Side (everything north of Madison not in the Loop), and South Side. I think South Side will have too few entries to make this work. More later. Smallbones (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible 4-way division - Loop, West Side (West of the River, north of the ship canal, south of Fullerton) South Side (south of the Loop and the West Side- area in red in the map to the right), and North Side. Perhaps the West Side will have too few entries, but between the loop and the West Side there should be at least 100 entries, which will keep the North and South Sides to a reasonable size. I'll try to get some numbers to see how it all fits together. (PS - dinner was great) Smallbones (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Smallbones/NRHP North Side for 4 way split off of North Side - my count is either 112 or 114, assuming 56 for the Loop and 35 for the West Side, that would give about 115 for the South Side which would be a fairly even split. Maybe the West Side will have more. Smallbones (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative 4-way division - instead of the Loop, use "Central" - the pink area on the map which includes the Loop (56), Near North (38) and Near South (20) - for a total of 114 "Central" listings. South Side would go down to 95, North Side to 75, and West Side stay about my guess of 35. Smallbones (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Smallbones/NRHP South Side for the South Side minus the Near South Side - with a count of 77. With Central having 114, North Side (minus Near North Side) 75, would give West Side 53! None of this has been double checked, but it looks like Spiegel Office Building has bad coords, as does Logan Square HD. Smallbones (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Smallbones/NRHP West Side which gives a count of 53 for the West Side - but it includes the 2 questionable ones given above. I can do Central and redo North tomorrow. Smallbones (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support for alternative. What colors are the other regions that lead to your count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe somebody could make a clickable map for Chicago and/or Cook County? Smallbones (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 way geo-split looks good to me. If there aren't objections posed really soon, i say go for it, make the split. The article by the way is now sized "126,901 bytes", but that size measure only reflects textnames of photo files, does not reflect loading-time very well. Certainly is time for split and this suggested split seems quite reasonable. Thanks to all previous editors for building / verifying the neighborhood locations. I wonder if there are some places which span across two of these 4 sections now; they would need to be reported in both then. Clickable map for the highest level page would be great but is not needed before split. Once split, it would be good to add a couple descriptions with sources in each page, to set a good model for adding other descriptions. --doncram (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with geolocation. As for the suggested split: it appears Central is or soon will be unmanageable again (if someones stated limit above = 100 at most is correct for manageability). I assume there will be future additions. Does central north and central south make more sense with central north basically being Near North (or Near North with Lincoln Park) and Central South being Loop and and Near South. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes make the split. I don't think the list is growing so fast. If we have 110 now, it might be a decade before we get 150 in Central, if I am understanding things correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it - expect real, double checked articles with stubbish intros in a day or two. At that point help would be nice with triple checking (is the renumbering correct, are all the sites in the right division, do the coords line up with the addresses, can I count?), writing real intros, and coordinating the NRHP Cook County List, and the Chicago NRHP list - which I expect will be a brief pass through or even redirect to Cook County. I don't think Central will grow very fast at all - it is after all small and already old! I would defer to a current Chicagoan (I'm former) on whether this division lines up with people's perceptions - but please do it quickly before I finish all the work! Smallbones (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And listings that span borders should be checked, but I think they are rare, with the borders being the River, the Ship Canal, and broad straight streets. Smallbones (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Up is Hard to Do[edit]

I've removed the main content here (see MARK THIS EDIT - in this article's history) and put it into the 4 subcategories

I'd thought I had 320 entries, minus one overlapping district (Logan Square Parks and Boulevards), which would conform to the 319 entries that were on this page. While making the new articles, I thought I saw one other in two districts (Jacob A Ries Park) in both North and West Sides - which would mess everything up!

The intro on Central Chicago is ok, the other intros stink. I'm sure you can find other things to improve. Time for sleep. Smallbones (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. Thanks Smallbones for all your good effort here. It's not a huge deal, but I wonder about the article names, i.e. whether they are Proper Noun places or whether lower-cased phrases would be better:
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in central Chicago
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in the north side of Chicago
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in the south side of Chicago
  • National Register of Historic Places listings in the west side of Chicago
I also wonder about the use of capitalized phrases in some similar splits, e.g., within List of RHPs in Denver where National Register of Historic Places listings in Southeast Denver, Colorado is one component, and for a county within List of RHPs in PA where National Register of Historic Places listings in Eastern Chester County, Pennsylvania is one component. It is preferable to avoid coining new proper noun phrases. Not sure if this is a problem here and/or if there is any better alternative, i am just wondering and asking. --doncram (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got the final (knock on wood) quirk out (minus Riis on the West Side, plus Wheeler in Central). The final counts are 113 Central, 78 North, 77 South, 52 West, minus 1 for the Logan HD overlap = 319.
"North Side" "South Side" and "West Side" are definitely proper nouns and should be capitalized, but I'm not so sure about Central Chicago, or whether "North Side of Chicago" or "North Side Chicago" or even "North Side, Chicago" is the best.
Please note a couple of quirks - "North Chicago" and "West Chicago" can NOT be used - they are separate cities in different counties. Buildings, according to Chicago grammar, are not "in" the South Side, West Side, etc., but "on" the South Side, etc. But somehow I think buildings are "in Central Chicago" and listings might be "in the South Side." (yes, I'm serious)

How about the names:

  • National Register of Historic Places listings in Central Chicago
  • National Register of Historic Places listings on the North Side of Chicago
  • National Register of Historic Places listings on the South Side of Chicago
  • National Register of Historic Places listings on the West Side of Chicago

Smallbones (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is West Jackson Historic District?[edit]

Could someone please identify why there is no link from these Chicago NRHP list-articles to West Jackson Boulevard District, a new article i just created? It is also known as, and redirects from, West Jackson Historic District. It shoulda shown up when searching on "what links to" the article name. If it is not in one of these lists, and i couldn't find it, then it needs to be added. If it is already in then maybe some merge is needed. --Doncram (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you already figured this out, but West Jackson Boulevard District is listed here: National Register of Historic Places listings in West Side Chicago. Zagalejo^^^ 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most endangered building: Prentice Women's Hospital[edit]

It apparently isn't on the National Register (too new, having been built in the 1970s), but it might become a Chicago Landmark, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation has listed the old Prentice Women's Hospital and Maternity Center as possibly the most endangered historic place in the country. See http://www.npr.org/2011/06/15/137201120/places-in-peril-2011s-most-endangered-historic-sites and http://www.preservationnation.org/travel-and-sites/sites/midwest-region/prentice-womens-hospital.html for details. It needs to be documented with a photo (or two or three) before it gets torn down. The building is included on List of Northwestern University buildings, but that's the only place I've seen it documented in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Chicago&oldid=1209328333"