Talk:SoHo, Manhattan

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

SoHo[edit]

It might be worth mentioning that John F. Kennedy bought a place here when it was unpopular. It gained a lot of popularity after that. The price of real estate went up etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.210.25 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who first called it SoHo??? Wshun

The mysterious faceless unnamed beggar fom Sullivan st. :)

I've convinced myself that SoHo is almost certainly a bacronym for a place named after London's Soho. Any etymologists want to pick up on this and investigate?


Whatever it is, saying that it is an acronym is stretching the term. Acronyms are formed from initial letters, not initial pairs of letters. It is more accurate to call it a blend (which is not the same as a portmanteau, incidentally) — it follows the pattern of "cyborg" given in the article for blend. — Paul G 11:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I notice that TriBeCa is described as a syllabic abbreviation; I don't think however that this term is appropriate for "SoHo" becuase the components are not syllables of the source words. — Paul G 07:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>ANSWER::: Since a good number of us were alive when the SoHo name was first applied, let me confirm that the name was made up in 1968 by a group of artists who organized to get the area legalized for artist living. They created the blended word "SoHo" from a description on a City Planning map describing the area "South of Houston". And, by the way, the SoHo Artists Association was successful. And SoHo was formed. (ThreeToes)

Can you confirm it was not influenced by Soho in London? Or that it was? It strikes me as too coincidental.78.86.61.94 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was influenced by the London neighborhood, although I don't have a RS to confirm it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Houston?[edit]

Is there a reason to its unusual pronunciation? Houston is the name of a major city as well, and it is pronounced like Hyoo-stin there. I lived there for years, then moved to New York only to hear this completely different pronunciation of what appears to be the same name.

The article on Houston Street mentions that it's actually the name of a person that died 10 years before Sam Houston was even born. Apparently the person's name was spelled differently and eventually was changed to the current spelling. The name, by the way, is William Houstoun. --Thesilence 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of Houston's pronunciation is fair and might even be needed, but why delete it altogether? An editor deleted Houston's pronunciation by stating: "inappropriate for an article not about Houston Street". Though, being that "SoHo's name comes from its geographical location in the city - South of Houston Street. Designated a historic landmark district in 1973" SoHo's unique pronunciation is appropriate, needed and relevant! Farfallina123 08:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is a much more relevant discussion of the pronunciation on the Houston Street page; it's repetitive to have it on every page that has the word Houston in the title. A link to the page is enough. It's not in the article about William Houstoun, nor is it in the NoHo article. If people really think that it's necessary to include it on this page, at least use the IPA pronunciation, ['haʊ.stən], along with the more correct English version, "HOW-stin" (vs. "HOUSE-tin"), and add it to the two articles about NoHo and Houstoun. 72.231.23.231 20:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


When you say "unusual pronunciation", I assume you are referring to the way the Texans, and their odd accent, pronounce the city in their state, not a street in NYC.

Fact is, Houston Street was pronounced "house-ton" before Sam Houston was ever born, and while Spanish was the official language in Texas.

Pronounce it "Hues-ton" only if you buy "in' -sur-ance" to go to the "thee' - a ter" in the "U'-nit-ed States" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downtown Boy (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing it correctly "Howston" is an indicator that you actually live in New York City. The statement above, though, "SoHo's unique pronunciation", indicates that people might think that New Yorkers pronounce the neighborhood "Sowhow", which they certainly do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randalny (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of "Cobblestones"[edit]

This photograph does not show a cobblestoned street but one which is paved. Cobblestones are round, pavings are flat. I don't wish to edit as I am unsure if these streets were indeed cobblestoned at some time, but both the photgraphs and references to cobblestones may be incorrect. This mistake is made frequently on Wikipedia. Images of cobblestones can be seen

Greynolds999 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. The caption is not technically correct to call those cobblestones. Related discussion: Talk:Cobblestone#Cobbles and Setts. Most people haven't heard of "setts" though. Maybe the caption should just say "stone" -- Harry Wood (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are "Belgian blocks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downtown Boy (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER::: BELGIAN BLOCKS, not cobblestones. (ThreeToes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeToes (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. - Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Per WP:NC(P) which recommends "adding a parethical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused." In this case, only one letter separates SoHo from Soho, the London neighborhood.
  2. Per WP:MOSCAPS: "For proper names and trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as k.d. lang, adidas and others), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." Press and common usage also follows this format. The target name format matches that of other neighborhoods with ambiguous names listed at Template:Manhattan.

Related move requests at Garment District, Manhattan, NoLIta, Manhattan, and TriBeCa. — AjaxSmack 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose This form is actual usage, not advertising (for South of Houston Street. It is supported by the disambiguation from Soho in London. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source for SoHo redevelopment history[edit]

There's an excellent book on the history of SoHo redevelopment and gentrification titled "Loft Living" by sociologist Sharon Zukin. I don't have time to hunt it down right now, but if somebody is itching to make the account on this page more accurate and interesting, that should be your source. DarwinPeacock (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO kidding. This page, as is stands is very poor history indeed and bears little if any relation to the facts of redevelopment in the area now known as Soho (and who still spells it Soho?) . Yes, I was there at the inception, and the facts are very well captured by Zukin's book, written in 1982 and exhaustively researched.Actio (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When was it named?[edit]

This article needs history added going back to the early development of Manhattan. What was SoHo in, say, 1738: farmland? A residential area? When did it acquire its name? Surely it doesn't predate London's Soho? I came here to find this out. See above: named in 1968.

70.59.42.142 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

ANSWER: there is an historical section in the original document forming the SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District. Here is the Link: www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/SoHo_HD.pdf

useful or merely advertising?[edit]

I removed two external links from the article:

They appear to me to be not helpful for the encyclopedia, but rather are commercial advertisements. Open to discussion here. Please do not re-add to article without consensus. I visited here, by the way, after noting repeated advertising links being added to the Soho Cast Iron Historic District article. doncram (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I also removed new references to one of the hotels within SoHo, a park just outside of it and one museum inside of it. Perhaps the museum should have stayed, but I believe that if you have one you should have all. This is not a tourist brochure.Shoesbythedoor (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edges of SoHo Neighborhood[edit]

While the article may be technically correct in stating that SoHo ends at West Broadway in zoning terms, in real life West Broadway is generally considered the heart of SoHo, and the generally perceived neighborhood extends on both sides of West Broadway from 6th Avenue to Broadway. I say this as someone who lived there for ten years and knows the area intimately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randalny (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article describing the area again. Some editors keep getting the historic district and the neighborhood confused. There is also some conflict over what should be South Village and what should be SoHo. The truth is that the lines of SoHo are exactly that of the M1-5a and M1-5b zoned areas south of Houston Street. The original zoning text actually called it "SoHo" but that has been removed sometime in the past 10 years or so. There have been some changes in the lines, as some blocks on both the east and the west were rezoned out of the SoHo zoning. Shoesbythedoor (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe West Broadway is considered the heart of SoHo any longer. In the past 10 years, it has changed and SoHo is much more Prince Street and also Broadway. The closest street to the way the original SoHo was is still Crosby Street.Shoesbythedoor (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is confused, you have a different idea of what the boundaries are then in supported by relibale sources. Neighborhoods have no legal status in NYC, and zoning laws do not define neighborhoods, common usage, as shown by citations from reliable sources do -- as far as we're concerned. What you're attempting to do is what we call original research, more specifically a type of OR called synthesis, where information from two sources in combined to say a third thing that neither of the sources actually says. What that means is that if you want to redefine the boundaries (and "heart", whatever that means) of the neighborhood, you must have a source that says "the boundaries of SoHo are x, y and z" or "the heart of SoHo is q". You cannot say something on the order of "SoHo is about this particular kind of zoning, here are the boundaries of that zoning, therefore these are the boundaries of SoHo." Wikipedia doesn't work that way.

Because of the lack of specific support, I have reverted your edits. Please do not make any changes to the article which are not supported by the consensus of the editors discussing your proposed changes here. BMK (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I have merged all the content of the stub article (almost a sub-stub article) SoHo Cast Iron Historic District into this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a mistake. Merging the two just creates confusion because they are not the same thing. SoHo, which is defined by the M1-5a and M1-5b districts of the Zoning Text, is that area where artists are allowed to live where they work. Some of that area has been designated as an historic district. Shoesbythedoor (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still think it was a good call. The HD takes up a very large percentage of the neighborhood, so two articles are unnecessarily duplicative. BMK (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentrification and shopping[edit]

This section references "1982 Loft Law" as a reason for original artists staying despite gentrification, but the information on the linked page seems to contradict this claim. bendodge (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfathered Zoning for Non-artists in 1987[edit]

I am currently a landlord in Noho and my family has owed the building for 23 years. I have never heard of non-artists being grandfathered into M1-5A and 5-B zoning districts for Soho/Noho. Especially since MDL 281(3) requires tenants to adhere to local zoning laws and the MDL's purpose Is to force tenants to adhere to zoning regulation. The section the author talks about in 1987 is MDL 281(4), which does not create a grandfather clause for non-artists. That section provides a second chance for tenants who missed the 1980-1981 window and that section does not disregard 281(3) that requires adherence to zoning laws, which prohibit non-artist from residing in commercial units. In fact, the Dept of Buildings will refuse issuing a C of O unless the tenants produce their Artist Certificates from the Dept. of Cultural Affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.162.186 (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of this may well be true, it's far outside my own area of interest, experience or expertise, but if anything like this is going to be added to the article, you're going to need to provide a citation from a reliable source that says so. One of our core policies is the need for verifiability, and a citation provides that. It needs to come from a secondary source, and not be a listing of city laws followed by an interpretation of them - we call that original research and we don't allow it. Basically, someone from a solid source has to some something along the lines of what you've written above, before we can use it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn: Yes, indeed, non-certified artists residing in M1-5a and M1-5b were grandfathered as legal tenants (whether owners or renters) in 1987. I know, I am one of them. But Wikipedia rules do not permit personal experience to count as "reliable", although printed matter is, as if oral tradition is not reliable. Anyway here is one of many "reliable" cites. A google search will reveal many more.

https://sohomemory.com/category/everyday-life-in-soho/ "For many long-time SoHo residents, most of whom are artists and some of whom are non-artists grandfathered by the 1987 amnesty,"

Downtown Boy (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Downtown Boy[reply]

Alansohn: The MDL is one thing. The Zoning Resolution is a separate document. MDL refers to IMDs. The ZR refers to JLWQA. Two different animals. Downtown Boy (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Downtown Boy[reply]

Need for definition of "neighborhood"[edit]

Another editor has added a definition of the term neighborhood. I removed the excessive details and overlong quotation about the variability of neighborhood boundaries, as this is an article about a neighborhood, not all neighborhoods in New York City. The statement added is sufficient to address the variability. Furthermore, a use of Google Maps as a source was removed based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_221#Is_Google_Maps_a_reliable_source_for_boundaries_of_a_neighborhood.3F deprecating use of Google Maps as a source. The other editor appears to [[WP:OWN][ the article and has started an edit war with me and other editors here in this article. Any outside input will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor are requested...[edit]

....too compare the latest version of the article as I edited it [1] with the version as reverted by antoehr editor [2]. The other editor claioms that the paragraph on how a neighborhood is defined in New York City is ezxcessive, however it is there because a third editor attempted to define the neighborhood as being the same as the Historic Distric or the local Zoming District. (See the discussion here. The section is needed to explain to that third editors, and to others not familiar with NYC neighborhoods, why firm boundaries for SoHo cannot be given.

In addition, the reverting editor points to a discussion on WP:RSN about the use of Google Maps, however that discussion, which was brought by the editors against me, did not reach a consensus, so it cannot be cited in support of the reverting editor's actions.

In short, I believe the article is better as is, and that the edits of the other editor did not improve it. It should also be noted that the other editor did something very much like this on Tribeca (see discussion here) and appears to be expanding what is widely seen as his ownership behavior on New Jersey place articles to article on New York places. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the article shows up here is involved with an edit war with two other editors and claims that his version belongs here merely because "I believe the article is better as is". The article will be restored to the status quo ante. Get consensus for your edits before further edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete material sourced to reliable sources without havoing a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the text added by the reverting editor to replace the text I had used is factually incorrect. The problem is not that "the borders of the neighborhood have changed over time", but that the border are not officially set, and therefore are subject to interpretation by different sources. This is a different matter, and the reason for the explanatory material. I have no objection to moving some of that material to a footnote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of these WikiProjects: New York City, NRHP and Architecture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at both versions, and the original, cited version is accurate; the replacement is/was neither accurate (for the reasons BMK mentions above) nor cited. Moreover, this edit war seems to derive from some interpersonal feud which needs to stop forthwith before it gets to ANI or ArbCom and a topic-ban or IBan ensues. There seems to be some sort of compromise version of the text in place at the moment ([3]) which is more concise than the original, but still retains the correct cited information in a footnote. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on SoHo, Manhattan. 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) 22:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to Soho, London[edit]

An editor is attempting to remove the following from the article:

  • "...and was also a reference to Soho, an area in London's West End."

which is references to the AIA Guide to New York City, fifth edition, which says on page 111:

  • ""SoHo (or South of Houston), as an acronym, is stretching it, recalling the "Greenwich Village" of London, Soho."

I have no idea what the editor's problem with this is. The AIA, by saying that SoHo "recalls" Soho, is clearly saying that it is reference to it. I have restored the editors unwarranted reverts until a consensus can be determined here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the name "SoHo" doesn't derive from the Soho district of London, but it is a sly sidelong reference to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First off, "recalling Greenwich Village" is not the same as a reference (e.g. The Teton range recalls the majesty of the Swiss Alps). Second, and more importantly, the AIA, which is an architectural guide and not a guide to neighborhood or real estate history, does not say that SoHo was a reference to London. It says that the acronym is a stretch in recalling London. In fact, there is no single citation available on the web that says that there was ever an intention to reference London when the term SoHo was applied to the neighborhood by Rapkin. The NYTimes article about Rapkin mentions him coming up with it at a meeting. At no point is it stated that the idea was a reference to SoHo in London. The problem is that as worded, the Wiki entry says "was also a reference to SoHo." That has not been established; neither has it been established as "a sly slidelong reference." If anything, the AIA article is an opinion that the naming convention misses an association with London. People may make the association, but that does not mean it was "also a reference to SoHo" when the name was created. So I suggest eliminating the phrase because there is nothing that states the intention was to reference London's Soho. Hence, it is misleading in stating that it was intended as a reference, when no historical evidence exists to support that. If any can be found, then this discussion is moot. Andreldritch (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not reading the source correctly. It does not say "recalling Greenwich Village", it says "recalling ... Soho", and inserts a description of Soho as "the 'Greenwich Village' of London". The fact that the AIA in an architectural guide does not disqualify it as being a source -- in point of fact, it discusses neighborhoods and their qualities throughout the book. The fact that Rapkin never explicitly said that the name was chosen to be reminiscent of Soho, London is irrelevant, since he was unlikely to say that in a document prepared for bureaucrats -- what is relevant is that he didn't choose to use any of the other available names for the area, such as "Hell's Hundred Acres" or "The Valley" (because of its low-lying buildings), but instead made up an acronym which (according to you) just coincidentally happened to be the name of a well-known district in London. Such a coincidence is far-fetched, and the AIA Guide is a legitimate reference to the actuality of the circumstances, that the name of the two areas are undoubtedly connected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the AIA never says there is a direct reference. AIA states it as a stretch. Again, there is no source that says the naming of SoHo is a reference to Soho, and even the AIA (regardless of its value as a source) does not say that the term is a reference. If you want to cite the AIA, then I suggest use the wording AIA does--RECALLING--and not saying that it is a REFERENCE. No citation exists that says "it is a REFERENCE to . . . Soho in London. So the word REFERENCE is in contention here, as there is a difference between RECALLING and REFERENCE. Nor do I say the naming coincidentally happened. Even if it was not a coincidence, and was deliberate (and we don't have access to Rapkin's notes or thoughts, so we don't know), there is still no supporting evidence to say it was coined as a REFERENCE to Soho in London. Evidence and citation are key, as you know, and the word REFERENCE is not used in any evidence or citation in this entry.Andreldritch (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And we never say there is a "direct reference", do we? We say it is "also a reference". If you'd like, we can change the language to "also recalling Soho, an area in London's West End." I would have no problem with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with RECALLING. Still not a perfect choice, but acceptable at this time until something better comes along. Andreldritch (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

I recently updated the article with a number of new photos taken and uploaded by Axel Tschentscher and Kzirkel (thank you Axel and Ken). These photos took the place of a number of poor quality images of buildings in SoHo characterized by myriad technical flaws. User:Beyond My Ken reverted these edits, reinserting the poor quality images. BMK has uploaded (or uploaded versions) of the majority of these images, raising a question of WP:OWNERSHIP. I am curious if other editors agree with my opinion that Axel's image's of SoHo are higher quality and thus better suited for the article. Filetime (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated images
User:Beyond My Ken's photographs
  • You've been warned by an admin to stop harassing me by removing my images from articles without a consensus to do so. In this case, the images you have "updated" are uniformly terrible. They are, in point of fact, complete crap. You really don't have a clue about what is and isn't an appropriate images for a Wikipedia article. It has very little to do with the technical qualities of an image, and everything to do with their content and the context they provide. You are clearly unable to comprehend that.
    I have restored the status quo ante until this discussion reaches a consensus. Do not edit without a consensus to support you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the newer photos are obviously of higher quality, the framing and cropping appears to be more artistic than encyclopedic, likely because the photographer was trying to hide some kind of obstruction in the outer portion of the image. For this reason, BMK's reverts might have some weight to them, as the new images didn't work as well as the old ones, even though the older ones have their own problems. There should be an easy way to find a compromise such that some old ones are kept and some new ones are added, but that might involve some changes to the framing and cropping of the new ones, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took another look at the entire set of images with refreshed eyes. Unfortunately, I think BMK was right. The new images are of higher resolution, but they fail in terms of framing, cropping, and subject. I would therefore oppose all of the new images proposed by Filetime until and unless new uncropped (or re-cropped) images are uploaded in their place and demonstrate an improvement. I admit, I was originally swayed by the higher resolution, and I feel a bit foolish now. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like Filetime's image with the yellow cab -- it looks bizarre and amateurish. In terms of the original photos, the one with "Alice's" is particularly good. The new Greene Street photo is attractive; the rest of the newly requested photos have cropping problems as Viriditas alludes. The main issue at hand however is that (1) Filetime is edit-warring with no consensus, and (2) Filetime is apparently stalking and harassing BMK. One or both of those activities is likely going to get him blocked yet again if not stopped. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I would support the updated versions by Filetime. They are clearly better quality and more thought out in general. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SoHo,_Manhattan&oldid=1210440510"