This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chicago Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cooperatives (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives Skyscrapers Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the anon editor(s) removing all reference to the Esplanade Apartments: It is entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia article on a building to mention notable neighbouring buildings, even more so when those buildings were designed by the same architect. In this case, the cited references for this article group these buildings together as a complex. If there is reason to remove the use of the word complex please cite appropriate references. But to remove all reference to the Esplanade Apartments is simply vandalism. —Jeremy (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Esplanade Apartments, it looks like the "picture from above" is actually of 900/910 rather than 860/880. Someone should verify this and correct if necessary. (I'm arguing neither for nor against mention of Esplanade Apartments, incidentally.) 11 July 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of October 9th, 2025, the same problem affects the image "Aerial view of the buildings from the southwest" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Shore_Drive_from_above.jpg) - it shows 900/910. (The error is easy to recognize from the two towers on this image not being the same size.) 91.17.160.71 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Thanks for catching this. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative might be File:DSCN9483 860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments from John Hancock Center.jpg, but this only shows 880 North Lake Shore Drive. File:Hancock View 3 (3540239024).jpg shows both 860-880 and 900-910, but again 860 is mainly hidden by another building. AlasdairW (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I suppose I could crop File:Hancock View 3 (3540239024).jpg to show only 880. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.nr.nps.gov/iwisapi/explorer.dll?IWS_SCHEMA=NRIS1&IWS_LOGIN=1&IWS_REPORT=100000037
  • In Haish Memorial Library on 2011-03-22 19:12:11, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In Haish Memorial Library on 2011-04-13 04:55:02, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In Haish Memorial Library on 2011-04-22 17:20:16, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 860-880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments on 2011-06-19 21:27:46, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been selected by one of my students as a class project. Please be polite and constructive when editing or giving advice and be aware that the students involved in this project are learning Wikipedia along with learning research and writing skills. please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. If you have any questions, please contact me. --MrSilva (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intro frame for the building lists it as "Moderne" style. It is not. This building is classic "International Style" of the sort Mies van der Rohe was fond of. 73.141.176.8 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 860–880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments. 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/20070503170038/http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/numbers/860880LSD.html to http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/numbers/860880LSD.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612063906/http://www.cps.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Zone%20maps/Elem_Near_North_West_Central.pdf to http://www.cps.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Zone%20maps/Elem_Near_North_West_Central.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YlxjNtQV?url=http://web.archive.org/web/20130517084022/http%3A//www.cps.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Zone%20maps/HS_West_Central_South.pdf to http://www.cps.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Zone%20maps/HS_West_Central_South.pdf

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) 11:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 860–880 Lake Shore Drive Apartments. 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/20051029172217/http://www.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/numbers/860880LSD.html to http://www.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/numbers/860880LSD.html

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) 09:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 860-880-Lake-Shore-Drive-stamp.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:860–880 Lake Shore Drive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 17:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

• 1.2 acres (0.49 ha) — Not in body.
  • Added to body now. - EG
• 1949 — I would say 1949–1952
  • Done. - EG
• August 28, 1980 — The body says 1980, but doesn't include the month or year.
  • Added a ref for this. - EG

Site

• What does officially mean?
  • The actual address is 860–880 North Lake Shore Drive. For some reason, most sources omit the cardinal direction, although in this specific case it doesn't really matter. - EG
• the site had been occupied by a mansion belonging to Edith Rockefeller McCormick — Is the mansion worthy of a red link? Any photos of it?
  • (1) Possibly, but (2) not that I could find. - EG
• The McCormick family's McCormick Management Corporation owned the northern half of the site, while Northwestern University had obtained the southern half in 1944 from Robert R. McCormick. — Does this refer to after the mansion was torn down? When was that?
  • I added a date. - EG Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Lake Shore Drive runs at a slight angle from northwest to southeast — Is this because it is bounded by the lake? If so, you could say something like Lake Shore Drive, which follows the contours of Lake Michigan, runs at a slight angle.
  • Yes, that is correct; I've made the change. Epicgenius (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

• Holsman, Holsman, Klekamp & Taylor was the consulting architect, and Pace Associates were the associated architects. (emphasis added). Is the was/were correct here?
  • Changed the first to plural. - EG
• The towers' design also improved upon earlier International-style designs — What was the improvement?
  • Actually, reading it again, the source didn't exactly call it an "improvement", more that the other two buildings were precedents. (Though, the Lake Shore buildings did use much less masonry - brick, stone, etc. - than the two previous buildings had.) - EG
• Is less is more intentionally piped to a redirect?
  • Nope, I removed the piping. - EG
    • This changed the link. Originally, it went to Minimalism#Design, architecture, and spaces; my point was to ask whether you wanted the piped link to be to Less is more (architecture), which redirects to Minimalism#Design, architecture, and spaces, when you could have just piped the latter. Now, the link goes to less is more, which is a more general page. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I see. I didn't know that you meant to ask "is it necessary to have a piped link to a redirect". In that case, the answer is yes; this is a targeted redirect to a section, which leads to a section title that is liable to change. Linking to the redirect instead makes it easier to update links if the section title is changed. Epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        That makes sense, thanks. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• He did not take sunlight exposure or wind gusts into account when he designed the buildings. — What is the significance of this? Was this an oversight? Intentional?
  • It was intentional - he didn't really care about conforming the buildings to landscape or environmental conditions. - EG

Form and facade

• from above, the positioning of the towers made it seem like they were "sliding past each other" — Is there a photo showing this?
  • Sadly, not that I can find on Commons. - EG

Lower stories

• The glass walls were backlit from inside during the nighttime — Were, or are?
• Specially made lenses were placed over the lamps to distribute the light evenly over the facades. — Ditto.
  • Changed both to present tense. - EG

Upper stories

• To prevent rain from entering the buildings during high winds, steel and rubber strips were affixed to the windows' edges. — Were, or are?
  • Changed to present tense. - EG
• 8 inches (200 mm) thick — Better to convert to centimeters, no?
• 9 inches (230 mm) — Ditto.
  • Not sure, that's the default for the convert template; I've fixed both. - EG
• Adjacent mullions and spandrels formed rectangles ... The facades lacked other traditional design details such as cornices, and there are also no balconies. — Why both past (formed/lacked) and present (are) tense?
  • Changed to present tense. - EG

Interior

• although the trusses are light, they also tended to make the upper stories sway considerably. — Tended or tend?
  • Changed to present tense. - EG
• The superstructures are still made primarily of steel — Does this mean they were changed at some point?
  • It was supposed to pose a contrast with the use of concrete in Mies's other structures, rather than as a temporal contrast. I've reworded it. - EG
• Why are there refrigerators in the basements?
  • Unfortunately, the source doesn't say, but it's not uncommon for U.S. high-rises to have freezers in mechanical areas for one reason or another. (The source says "deep freeze", but our article on the deep freezer redirects to refrigerator.) - EG
• Why the discrepancy between 100 and 116 parking spaces? Does that mean that the sources are inconsistent, or that one building has 100 spots, and the other 116?
  • This is a discrepancy in what the sources say, as both buildings share a garage. - EG
• Barcelona chairs are installed in the lobby of either tower. — Do you mean "each" tower?
  • Since there are two towers, "either" looks like it would be correct. "Each" would be acceptable, too; it's just that it's more commonly used to refer to a group of more than two (e.g. "...each of the three towers"). - EG

Apartments

• Any photos that could be added here?
  • Unfortunately, none are freely available on Commons. I can add {{requested photo}} on the talk page, in case anyone wants to take pictures of an apartment, but I can understand why residents wouldn't be necessarily willing to take an image of their own apartment. In more than a decade, I've only ever come across one person who's willingly agreed to take a picture of their apartment for Wikipedia. - EG
    • Fair enough. I suppose the way I might go about it would be to email seller's agents of people who have apartments listed on Zillow or the like, but that's certainly not required for GA (or FA, for that matter). --Usernameunique (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The original plans called for 92 large units and 192 small units, but 40 of the small units were combined to make 20 large units, for a total of 116 large apartments and 152 small apartments. — I would move this up to perhaps the second sentence of the paragraph, after which you can give the more detailed information about the layout of the apartments. Also, does this mean there were essentially three layouts: (1) six-room units, (2) three-and-a-half-room units, and (3) seven-room layouts (i.e., the combined small units)? If so, I would say so expressly.
  • I have moved up the sentence. Regarding the layouts, one would think so, but there are indeed only two apartment sizes; this has something to do with how rooms are counted in the small vs. large apartments. According to the floor layouts, the smaller units have a living room, kitchen, bedroom, and foyer, while the larger units have all of these plus a dining room and two additional bedrooms (for three total bedrooms). For whatever reason, sources consistently describe the small units' foyers as half-rooms, while leaving them completely out of the room count in the large units. - EG
• Mies also wanted to add a service entrance to each apartment, but this was discarded from the final plan. — Any reason given for scrapping the idea?
  • Unfortunately, no, but I assume that space constraints may have played a role. - EG
• The units also had radiant heating systems, and there are convection heaters near the windows. — Why the disconnect in past/present tense (had/are)?
  • Changed to present tense. - EG
• due to a lack of money — A small point, but was it that they didn't have money (which would be more likely if they actually ran out of money during construction and someone else had to step in), or because they didn't want to spend it? If the latter, something like due to its expense would be more accurate.
  • The latter; I have made the suggested changes. - EG
• Instead, dozens of apartments were retrofitted with air-conditioning units. — Was this done during development, or by apartments' owners?
  • The latter. - EG
• Several tenants modified their own apartments; for example, the Harvey family in the south tower decorated their apartment with ancient artifacts, while the Ets Hokin family decorated their unit in the same building in bright colors. — Is there really any relevance to this? Unless I'm missing something seems to just say "apartment owners decorated their apartments in their own styles"—a thoroughly unsurprising statement.
  • Good point. I have removed these details. - EG

History

• Some of the people/topics here were introduced above. Links and first names thus aren't needed.
  • Removed. - EG
• Greenwald was motivated to develop buildings of high architectural quality, rather than focusing on profit. — What's the source for this? Surely he paid attention to both?
  • He did indeed. Greenwald wanted to develop buildings of high architectural quality, whereas most of his contemporaries didn't really care about the quality of the architecture, focusing solely on money. I've condensed this to include only the architectural aspect. - EG
• Mies had been considering a steel-and-glass skyscraper for three decades but had been unable to realize his design — Did 860–880 Lake Shore Drive represent the realization of his design?
  • Indeed it did. - EG

Design and financing

• Mies's next collaboration with Greenwald — Meaning the one after Promontory Apartments? If so, I would say so expressly.
  • Done. - EG
• facing Lake Michigan between Chestnut Street and Delaware Place — Is there a reason to restate this? Doesn't "Site" already make this clear?
• Northwestern University had formerly owned part of the site and still owned a parcel to the west — Ditto.
  • I have removed the redundant mention of the site's description. However, some redundancy may be beneficial for readers, because an entire section separates this from the Site section. - EG
• their other plot — Which was?
  • Clarified that it was the plot from the west. - EG
• In contrast to the Promontory Apartments, the development would have a steel-and-glass facade, since the wartime steel shortage was no longer as severe. — Wasn't this just said in "History"?
  • I removed the Promontory Apartments mention, but the lessening severity of the wartime shortage wasn't previously mentioned. - EG
• The real-estate company Baird & Warner tried to obtain financing, but the design was considered too extreme. — What was Baird & Warner's role in the project? Why was the design considered too extreme?
  • Clarified. - EG
• another associate architect — Already said, no?
  • Removed. - EG
• soliciting bids — From whom/for what?
  • Clarified. - EG
• Mies had proposed having open plan spaces with central air conditioning, but these features were removed before the final plan was approved. — Further repetition.
• When his open-plan floor layouts were rejected, Mies almost quit the project entirely. — Can this be moved up to where the open plan is first discussed? Anything more that can be said on it?
  • To reduce repetition, I moved it up accordingly. The sources don't say anything more about this; all it says is that "Mies was overruled by other factions on the development team who insisted on more traditional interior plans, for fear the apartments would not sell. Aghast, Mies almost walked off the project.". - EG
• The architectural historian William Jordy later recalled that Mies had considered even a 12-story building to be too tall and that Mies thought the towers "became very thin" at their final height. — Going from 12 to 26 stories is a big difference. Anything more that can be said?
  • Not really, other than maybe something about its proportions. - EG

Construction

• between $13,500 and $27,000 each — Worth an inflation template? And was it really a range, or was it $13,500 for the small, and $27,000 for the large? Did cost go up as the floors got higher?
  • Added. - EG
• and then welded together — This was done on site? If so, that could be clarified.
  • I am not sure, but I think so. - EG
• Due to the materials used in the buildings, they were dubbed the "World's First Multiple Glass House". — What does this mean? Also, "they were dubbed" or "the building was dubbed"?
  • I reworded this. The "Glass House" moniker comes from the fact that the buildings use a glass facade.
• All of the six-room apartments had been sold by August, while only 17 three-and-a-half-room apartments remained. — Where do the combined small apartments fit into this?
• The structures ultimately cost $6 million. Averaging $10.38 per square foot ($111.7/m²) — Inflation templates?
  • Added. - EG

1950s to 1980s

• The photo is from 2007, so maybe better to put in the following subsection ("1990s to present")?
  • Done. - EG
• Mutual Benefit Life renewed its $3.1 million mortgage on the buildings — What does this mean?
  • The mortgage had an expiration date that was then pushed to a later date. - EG
• Robert Picking, a local architect, was the first resident of the buildings. — What does this mean? Above, you said that Residents rapidly moved in while apartments were being completed. Was he just the first one to do so?
  • Yes, he was the first to move in. - EG
• when the buildings opened — Opened, or were completed? From the above, it seems that the buildings opened before completion.
  • When they were completed. - EG
• Apartment owners were allowed to rent out their units, but only for up to 24 months at a time. — How long did they have to wait to re-rent the units?
  • The source doesn't say. Actually, what I gather is that the same tenant could not rent it for more than 24 months, but that in theory it could be possible to re-rent it immediately. - EG
• Early tenants represented a wide range of professions, from architects to businesspeople, doctors, and lawyers. — Probably better above, where you talk about Picking.
  • Done. - EG
• Mies owned an apartment on the 21st floor but did not live there. — Any word on what he did with the apartment instead?
  • Not really, other than the fact that he brought students over occasionally. There are people who own apartments and then leave them empty; sometimes it's for investment purposes, but the source doesn't say this explicitly. - EG
• The Chicago Tribune said this was because he did not want to hear his tenants' complaints — The paper is actually a bit more equivocal here, saying that this is how the story goes. I would massage the language accordingly.
  • Done. - EG
• Initially, the buildings had no central air conditioning — Already stated, no? You could say something like "The buildings' initial lack of central air conditioning ..." instead.
  • Done. - EG
• The trustees attempted to evict all tenants with pets in 1957 — This seems quite harsh. Did they attempt to evict all tenants with pets, or did they grandfather in existing pets, and attempt to evict only those who obtained pets after the ban went into place?
  • Looking at the source again, it seems like some (not all) pet owners were undergoing eviction proceedings, but the sources aren't clear on when these tenants moved in or if older owners were grandfathered in. - EG
• A tenant of number 880 was killed in a fire in 1970. — A single-apartment fire, or a larger fire?
  • The latter. - EG
• even though they were no longer referred to as "the glass houses" — You haven't said that they were called this. Perhaps you could add it above, where you mention the moniker the "World's First Multiple Glass House".
  • Done. - EG
• During the late 20th century, many residents moved to 860–880 Lake Shore Drive because of the shorefront location and because of the views out the full-height windows. — Only during the late 20th century? Wouldn't this have been an attraction from the beginning?
  • I changed this to "by the late 20th century". - EG
• The towers, along with the adjacent development at 900–910 Lake Shore Drive, also housed dozens of architects. — You already have a sentence above on the professions of the residents. Perhaps this and the previous sentence (re location/views) could be moved there.
  • Done. - EG
• the smaller apartments typically cost $50–80 thousand apiece, while the larger apartments cost around $120 thousand apiece — Inflation templates?
  • Done for all pre-2000s instances of this. - EG
• the lobbies' opaque glass panes were replaced with an aquamarine-tinted translucent glass — Why?
  • I could not find any details as to why this was the case. - EG

1990s to present

• the leaking windows were resealed for $1.5 million — Inflation template?
• many of whom had redecorated their units — Same point as above re redecoration.
  • Trimmed. - EG
• The towers had higher maintenance costs than the neighboring 900–910 Lake Shore Drive — Any word on what the maintenance was?
  • The source doesn't say. Even if it did, though, I would be wary of adding it because this detail, all things considered, is relatively minor. - EG
• The renovation was completed in December 2009 at a cost of $9 million. ... The renovation cost is also cited as $8 million or $9.2 million. — Inflation templates? Any reason to have the separate footnote, rather than just say "at a cost variously reported as between $8 and $9.2 million"?
  • As this figure is relatively recent (less than 2 decades), I'm not sure if the inflation template would be useful here. It might be useful in a few years, though. - EG

Contemporary

• "flat-chested architecture" — "flat chested" tends to have a particular meaning. Is this what Wright was going for?
  • Perhaps (he didn't like how the buildings were so monolithic). I've nonetheless removed the quote. - EG
    • I don't necessarily think the quotation needs to be removed, but (if used) it's worth being careful about it, in particular by tracking down the original source where he said it. I took a quick look on Google and Archive.org but just found the isolated words quoted without whatever surrounding context he gave them. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective

• "seem static in their strict geometry of right angles, but manage a dance of shadows that gives each work a dynamic quality." — This isn't the full sentence, right? If so, the period should be outside the quotation mark per logical quotation.
  • I have moved the period outside. - EG
• It would be helpful to say when each critic was writing, since this seems to span a fair amount of time.
  • Done. - EG
• the most influential of Mies's works — To what works were they comparing these ones?
  • The source actually said that "No other building(s) by Mies had as immediate or strong an impact on his American contemporaries, and the influence of these structures was to pervade much of modern architecture". I have revised it. As for the specific works, unfortunately they didn't give details. - EG
• not so wonderful as a place to live — Why? When you discussed residents' reactions above, they all seemed to like it.
  • I've added his specific complaint. As to your second comment, critics' and occupants' commentary can be vastly different for buildings like this, where the occupants see something in the building that is missed by all the critics. Stern was a postmodernist architect and didn't really design structures like these; by contrast, these buildings' residents may have liked modernist architecture for one reason or another. - EG
• the Lake Shore Athletic Club at 850 North Lake Shore Drive — Are either of these red-link worthy?
  • Both of these are the same building, so only one red link is needed, but yes. - EG
    • I wouldn't necessarily think of them as the same; the former is an organization that occupies the building. Both the New York Athletic Club and 180 Central Park South could theoretically have their own articles, for instance (though I note that there the latter does redirect to the former). But a small point overall. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      That's fair. However, I will say that club buildings in itself may oftentimes not be notable, or are only notable because of their tenant and are thus covered on one page per WP:NOPAGE. Generally, I usually create separate articles for clubhouses only if the club has multiple locations and/or the clubhouse has had multiple tenants. For example, the New York Yacht Club Building is the main location of several operated by the New York Yacht Club, while 30 West 44th Street has hosted multiple clubs. Other editors may choose to write two articles regardless, but I generally combine the clubhouse and club articles if the club has only one location and the clubhouse has had only one tenant. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      That's a reasonable way of doing things, and you've clearly had the occasion to give it more thought than I have. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Werner Blaser stated that the building "opposes [Louis] Sullivan's famous axiom 'form follows function' with the term 'structure'", in that the buildings' superstructures did not at all indicate their interior uses. — What is the full sentence?
  • I don't have a copy of the book right now. If this is for source verification, it will have to wait until next week. If not, is there a reason the full sentence is needed? - EG
    • I'm just confused about what the quotation is saying. What does it mean to oppose "form follows function" with "structure"? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I think it might be a case of a non-native English speaker transposing words (e.g. instead of "oppose", a native speaker might say "counters" or "goes against" in this context). If you think this is still too confusing to include, I can remove it. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I wouldn't remove it. It's a bit confusing, but the text following the quotation (i.e., your gloss on the quotation) helps to clarify it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark designations

• Each building's lobby includes a metallic plaque in honor of this designation — Worth adding a photo of one?
  • Unfortunately, not on Commons. If someone in Chicago could go there and take a pic, that would be great, but I am not currently in Chicago. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The NRHP designation also did not prevent unauthorized modifications to the structures. — Were any made?
  • No. This is just intended to say that any possible future modifications (including demolition) would not be prohibited by the NRHP designation. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The building was one of the first official landmarks designated in 1958 by the then-new Commission on Chicago Architectural Landmarks ... The modern Commission on Chicago Landmarks had considered designating the buildings as Chicago Landmarks starting in 1969 — What is the difference?
  • When the modern commission was created, all the previous landmark designations were wiped out. The previous designations (if I recall correctly) were, in any case, merely advisory, and did not provide legal protections for the buildings. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• the majority of residents opposed landmark designation — Why?
  • Added a little context to this. - EG
• temporary protections from pending landmarks — What were the protections? Why were they rescinded?
  • These pending landmarks could not legally be demolished unless the buildings' nominations were resolved (either by designating the buildings or by rejecting the landmark designation). Other cities like NYC have had issues with buildings being altered or even destroyed while the landmark commission there was considering the designation. I will have to check if the sources explain why these protections were removed. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had another look at the source. Essentially, these temporary protections had created a state of legal uncertainty, since the landmark decision (and thus the removal of protections) could occur at any time. This was not ideal for property owners, who could not modify their buildings while the protections were in limbo, or for preservationists, who sought permanent protections for the building. - EG
• 104 of 280 households supported landmark protection while 40 households opposed it — Does "households" mean the number of apartments? There were fewer than 280, no?
  • This refers to the number of families living in the towers. Some apartments may have had more than one family. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• After Natarus voted in favor of the designation — Did others vote too?
  • Yes. I've clarified this. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• A square plaque in honor of this designation is on a railing near number 860 — Or a photo of this?
  • Nope, unfortunately these are not on Commons. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The towers were the first Mies buildings to be designated as Chicago Landmarks — Any others since?
  • Yes. Among them Crown Hall and AMA Plaza, though it's not too relevant to this article, which concerns only the two buildings at 860 and 880 North Lake Shore Dr. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media and awards

• Edward Duckett of Mies's office created an architectural model of one of the towers ... Another model — Any word on what happened to them?
  • Unfortunately not. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The towers were also among ten Chicago buildings that were displayed in an architecture exhibit at the Sears Tower in the mid-1990s. They were showcased in Phyllis Lambert's traveling exhibit Mies in America in the early 2000s, and the Art Institute of Chicago also featured them in a 2005 exhibit about post–World War II Chicago architecture. — How were they depicted? Models, photographs, something else?
  • For the first of these exhibits, the towers were depicted as photographs. Not sure about the other two, as the sources don't go into detail.
• In June 2005, the United States Postal Service included the towers in the commemorative stamp program Masterworks of Modern Architecture — What about a photo of the stamp? It's presumably PD.
  • Sadly, the USPS holds exclusive copyright to all US postage stamp designs since 1978. Only older stamps are PD. - EG
    • Ah, interesting. I had no idea that (modern) stamps are an exception to the general "federal government = PD" rule. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural influence

• There's inconsistency throughout the article in terms of "860–880 Lake Shore Drive", "860 and 880 North Lake Shore Drive", "860 and 880 North Lake Shore Drive", "860–880 North Lake Shore Drive", and "860 and 880 North Lake Shore Drive". I'm not sure that consistency is needed, as these seem to by synonyms, but just flagging.
  • I have made these a bit more consistent. The discrepancy is noted further above; the addresses contain "North" but the proper name does not. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• McCormick House — Worth a red link?
  • Done. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Actually, it turns out that McCormick House already exists as a disambiguation page; neither of the topics currently listed on that page is the subject of this article. Another editor has removed the dab link. I now realize why I hadn't added the link before. Epicgenius (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        You could pipe it as a red link, i.e., to McCormick House (Illinois), but not a big deal. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Phyllis Lambert, whose father Samuel Bronfman's company had commissioned the Seagram Building, said that she had recommended that Mies design that building after seeing 860–880 Lake Shore Drive. — Why is this here, rather than higher up where the Seagram Building is discussed?
  • I moved this sentence up. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

• This version reviewed.
• #17 — The link redirects to a different site. What is "GmbH, Emporis"?
  • Basically in 2022, Emporis was suddenly shut down and redirected to the website of its owner; the archive link, Archive.today, has also been deprecated, creating this situation. Thankfully, an archive.org link exists and is reliable, so I have swapped that in. I removed the pseudo-author. - EG
• #35, #69, #109 — These are the same article. Are there any more issues like this?
  • Fixed all the dup refs. - EG
• #92 — Page number appears to be incorrect.
  • This is the page number given by the ProQuest item. I added a link and changed the page number to "2.10". - EG
• #93 — Recommend adding paper location.
  • Changed to the paper's name at the time, which includes the location. - EG
• #94 — Any reason you're using an external source for this rather than {{inflation}} or similar?
  • This comes from {{inflation/fn}}, a companion template to {{inflation}}. The multipliers in the {{inflation}} conversion are hard-coded based on the sources listed in {{inflation/fn}}. EG
• #95 — This is from page 1 of section 16. I might put the page numbering as 16(1) instead. Also, this is available on newspapers.com, so a free link can be added.
  • This seems more like a formatting difference more than anything. the newspapers.com clip gives the page number as "16-1", which the CS1 template incorrectly treats as "16–1"; "16.1" is both a valid alternative format and the formatting used by ProQuest. Changing the formatting is not necessary for GA status IMO, as the page already uses a consistent format for page numbers. - EG
• #99 — Recommend adding paper location.
  • Changed to the paper's name at the time, which includes the location. - EG
• #107 — Is the page number correct?
  • Fixed and clipped. - EG
• #121 — Recommend adding paper location.
  • Done. - EG
• #122 — Is the page number correct?
  • Fixed and clipped. - EG
• #128 — Page number missing.
  • Fixed. - EG
• #132 — Is the page number correct, or is it page 1 of section H? If so, why not just H1?
  • Both (it is correct - page 1 of section H is formatted as H.1 here and in ProQuest, and H-1 in the original source). I use the ProQuest formatting for consistency with the above. I also added the second page of this citation. - EG
• #133 — Is the page number correct?
  • Fixed and clipped. - EG
• #134 — Is the page number correct?
  • This is the page number given by ProQuest. I have no access to (or at least was unable to find) the newspapers.com scan that corresponds to this article. - EG
• #146 — Page number missing.
  • Fixed and clipped. - EG
• #150 — Title incorrect. Take a look at the actual page here. That should be clipped and added.
  • It depends on whether you see the section title (Nation in Brief) or the paragraph title (Landmark status) as the article title. I have added the clip and shortened the title. - EG
• #151 — Is the page number correct?
  • Fixed and clipped. - EG
• #153 — Is the page number correct?
  • It is. - EG
• #154 — Is the page number correct?
  • Fixed and clipped. - EG
• #156 — Is the page number correct?
  • Fixed and clipped. - EG
• #161 — Is this page 8 of section D? If so, why not just D8?
  • Yes. I use the ProQuest formatting for consistency with the above. - EG
• #164 — Is the page number correct?
  • Fixed and clipped. - EG
• Overall: We've discussed this before, but I'd recommend adding newspapers.com clips whenever possible, even if there's a ProQuest link.
  • I understand your general comment on this. However, my time is even more limited than the previous review, so I don't have the time to add newspapers.com clips; if the ProQuest link existed, I only added the newspapers.com source for refs I've checked. It took me nearly an hour just to add clippings to the citations you listed, never mind the ones you didn't. I will probably complete the remaining clippings later, when I have time, but this will take on the order of weeks if not months. Since it's not strictly a GA criterion (they are technically still verifiable through ProQuest), I think can be resolved outside the GA process. Epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review. Although it will take me some time to go through all these comments, they are appreciated. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Epicgenius. I've finished the review (with comments on the infobox and references), and added a few responses to your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I will take a look later this week. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Thanks again for the review. I have resolved or responded to everything above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are still outstanding comments re the infobox, and one re "Site". I only glanced quickly so there may be some more outstanding comments also. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique, my bad, I missed this earlier. I have replied to these above with my main account. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, passing now. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very through review of the article and a detailed response. This Chicagology article describes the mansion. The article has some photos, but they are mostly undated, so may still be in copyright. This mansion is not to be confused with her country mansion during her marriage, Villa Turicum. AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]