# Talk:Brooklyn Tower

I am going to work on improving this article. There has been sustained coverage of attempts by JDS (and, I believe, other developers, previously) to assemble this parcel over the course of several years. Also, one need look no further than the template at the bottom of the page to see that 340 Flatbush falls well within the realm of buildings that can be predicted: 2019 is only three years away, and construction is likely to begin soon, given that JDS finished purchasing air rights this week, and their current major project, 111 West 57th Street is in full swing, to be finished by the end of next year. There is an enormous amount of precedent for coverage of proposed, approved, under construction, and even cancelled skyscrapers on Wikipedia; as such, 340 Flatbush should be kept.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

In an article yesterday, The New York Times lists this new building's address as "9 DeKalb Avenue", which is the current address of the Dime Savings Bank, which I've read is planned to be re-purposed as the new building's main entrance. It says that one of the buildings that would be demolished to make way for construction is "340 Flatbush Avenue Extension". The real estate website Curbed seems to use both address when running stories. I'm not ready to propose a name change, but either way "340 Flatbush Avenue" probably isn't the most accurate option we have, since that's missing the more accurate designation as "Extension". Thoughts?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the name will eventually be changed, whether it is represented by a different address (such as 9 DeKalb Avenue) or an assigned name that doesn't relate to an address (such as the Central Park Tower, in Manhattan, or The Hub, in Brooklyn). Point being I think it's safe to keep it as is until the next round of news, which will probably be after the Landmarks hearing.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
That said, if you feel it should be changed, I would not object.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree it will probably have a fancy name at some later date, but also don't think its a big deal to move the article multiple times to try to keep it as the most accurate name.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Original title: Demote good article
Why bother putting anywhere in the article that it really only has 74 floors when we can just lie and copy inflated promotional material. The height and floors are both off from the very number one footnote reference the CTBUH. B137 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We are not going to demote this as GA if that is the only issue. Honestly, the fix literally took one minute. In any case I don't see why you said we can just lie and copy inflated promotional material when (1) the "real" height is cited to the FAA; (2) the floor numbers are cited to other reliable sources that just give a different figure from the CTBUH. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is this photo captioned Diarrhea Tower Madovoid (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been reverted now. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, not a skyscraper expert so I can't easily verify things.
The infobox currently lists a roof height of 1,067 ft (325 m), citing the CTBUH listing as archived in 2018 (height 1,066 ft / 324.9 m). The current page instead gives a (architectural?) height of 1,035 ft (315.3 m). (I'm not a member and am otherwise unfamiliar with the website so I can't tell if the metrics tab gives greater detail.)
It seems this page changed over time; first above 1,066 ft, then back down to it, and starting in 2024 further down to the current value.
This page suggests that the architectural height is indeed 1,035 ft, implying the "spikes" are being counted as antennas for a tip height of 1,066 ft.
However the FAA page (archived), upon further inspection, lists a structure height of 1,030 ft, which, combined with the site elevation of 43 ft, forms a total height of 1,073 ft. This seems to me like suggesting the tip height (which may or may not be the architectural height) is 1,035 ft.
Would someone more knowledgeable be able to clear this up? Thanks. —Quivico (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)