# Talk:Broad Exchange Building

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Broad Exchange Building. 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/20081005124916/http://www.swigequities.com:80/portfolio/?PropertyID=39 to http://www.swigequities.com/portfolio/?PropertyID=39
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007171151/http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/newsapr07/25Broad.htm to http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/newsapr07/25Broad.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 02:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

326,500 sq ft per floor - this must be wrong
I don’t think thar’s possible for a NYC building. That would make it 10 floors wide by 326-1/2 floors deep.  Or, 65 floors wide by 50 floors deep.  Calculating 10’h per story.I think this building might be 326,500 rentable sq.ft. in total.
Even today (as a renovation project) it is described as “obtaining an Historic Investment Tax Credit for a 500,000sf 21 story” building. BrookshireArtist (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Broad Exchange Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
...two...Eddie891  Talk Work  02:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments
I'm unclear how building an office building can be speculative? Certainly purchasing land can be and often is...
I clarified that it is a speculative development. It wasn't built with a specific tenant in mind, but that might be something better suited for the link to the "speculative development" page. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe add a note to the lede about uncertainty wrt number of stories?
 Done
: now mostly concealed," Worth saying what by?
 Removed I only included this because modern sources were unable to ascertain whether this fact was still true. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
" than previous buildings" than most?
 Added
"the building contained five elevators" Perhaps "fire elevators were added to the building"?
Hmm, not sure about this. The proposed wording makes it sound like five more elevators were added besides the existing elevators. However, the source says there are five elevators total, which is a marked decrease from its peak of 14-18 elevators. I reworded it to "the building has had five elevators". epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"e 41 Broad Street, "one of the most expensive coal chutes in this country"" who is being quoted?
 Added
Pretty standard stuff, nice work. More to come Eddie891  Talk Work  16:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Images are suitable licenced
Earwigs suggests this is clear, no indication otherwise in my spotchecks
Sources are reliable, check comes up almost clean except for one clarification that I went ahead and added to the article. Additionally, the Emporis source gives it's height as 276.55
That is weird. I swore I saw it say something else, but I might chalk that down to confusion. epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
* Epicgenius one minor point -- Eddie891  Talk Work  23:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Thanks for the review. I have fixed that issue now. epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Short review, but I'm not seeing anything else that needs addressing. Passing. Eddie891  Talk Work  00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)