Talk:Brooklyn Tower

untitled

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)

9 DeKalb Avenue

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)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Brooklyn Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

May as well get this one out the queue too. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• This may be just that I'm a dope, but the name situation in the lead is confusing to me. Was the name changed from 340 Flatbush to 9 DeKalb and then to the Brooklyn Tower? Or is Brooklyn Tower the unofficial-but-common name and 9 DeKalb is the real official name?
  • Yes, the name was changed from 340 Flatbush to 9 DeKalb to the Brooklyn Tower. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Nitpick, first sentence of para 2 seems to fit better with para 1
  • This sentence is in paragraph 2 because that is where the building's architecture is described. The building actually consists of two parts: the 93-story residential section and the bank building. Nonetheless, I've moved mentions of the architects to the first para. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• The lead doesn't really make clear that the tower is under construction still. It eventually sort of implies it with "The building will contain," but shouldn't that be explicit?
  • I have clarified this now. The building was still under construction when I expanded the article a while ago, but I think I just forgot to update it. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• General nitpick, there are some duplicate links in the body, at least according to the duplicate link script. It's not GACR but for FAC purposes you may wanna check for those.

Architecture

• The rendering sandwiches with the lengthy infobox. Can it be moved?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• The lead says the bank building is preserved in the base of the tower, but this section says the tower is next to the building. I'm sure this is just a wording variation thing but can they be changed to be consistent one way or the other? It feels contradictory.
  • I have modified this now. Technically, the bank building is at the base of the tower, but the tower was built immediately behind the bank, rather than right above it. It's like how Fifth Avenue is the base of the Empire State Building, even though the ESB wasn't built on top of 5th Avenue. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• "façade largely contains" why largely? from the photos it looks like it's only a bit of pink granite before the white starts.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• You may wanna say Roman god Mercury for those who aren't super familiar with classical mythology
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Context for Lee Lawrie?
  • I'm confused by what you mean. If you were asking about his occupation, I've added that Lawrie is a sculptor, but if not, were you asking about the circumstances of how/why he was hired? Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    • No sorry that's all I was looking for, a little bit of introduction as to who he is - just worded it lazily. "Sculptor Lee Lawrie" is perfect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Okay, real quick, I'm gonna put a pin in my review and say that I've started to wonder if this article should be split. It's approximately 4000 words in total, and roughly 1200 (more than 25%) of those are dedicated just to the bank building. Given that the bank building would obviously have been notable in its own right before they stuck the Brooklyn Tower on top of it, would it not make sense for it to have its own article? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the splitting question - I was thinking you might ask that. The answer is a bit complicated. On the one hand, the bank building was notable in its own right, even though the actual building has been converted to retail as part of this development. On the other hand, the tower is actually an annex of the bank itself, rather than a separate development; the only thing is that the annex is 20 times larger than the original building. The tower's address is the same as the bank's address, and the idea for the tower was devised in part because the bank building had been sold. Ultimately, I thought it might be better to keep the info on one page after reading WP:PAGEDECIDE, since much of the info about the bank overlaps with that of the tower (the bank has been adaptively reused like numerous others in NYC; it's just that the redevelopment of this bank building is so much more extensive than others). – Epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I can get behind that argument. I'll carry on with the rest of the review shortly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Interior

• I'm not sure it's necessary to include all 3 figures for the retail footage. Should we not stick with the most recent estimate instead?
• Krista Ninivaggi is called an interior designer on her page, not an architect.
• A foosball court? Like, the tabletop game with the little soccer dudes on the rotating sticks? How do you have a court for that?

History

• "The irregular site had cost $230,000 to acquire." contradicts "with the site alone costing $250,000." in the next paragraph
• Who is Jackie Totolo

As usual, a solid article with pretty minimal issues. Sourcing is reliable and no concerns on the ones I spot checked. No CV issues, no POV, etc etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @PMC. I've fixed all of the above issues now, going with your suggestion for the retail footage. I've also changed "Foosball court" to "Foosball space" (it really is a space full of Foosball tables, but maybe not a court per se). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Good to go! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Brooklyn Tower

• ... that the Brooklyn Tower, the first supertall building in Brooklyn, was described by its architect as both "badass" and "quite elegant"? Source: Wachs, Audrey (July 6, 2016). "SHoP makes the Brooklyn skyline with a "brooding, elegant, and badass" supertall… There goes the neighborhood?". The Architect's Newspaper.
  • ALT1: ... that the Brooklyn Tower, the first supertall building in Brooklyn, was described as the "Empire State Building of Brooklyn"? Source: Greenberg, Rebecca (June 29, 2022). "Inside the Brooklyn Tower, the borough's tallest skyscraper". Spectrum News NY1 New York City.
  • ALT2: ... that the Brooklyn Tower's design was inspired by that of the Dime Savings Bank Building at its base? Source: Warerkar, Tanay (February 17, 2016). "Brooklyn's Tallest Building Could Have As Many As 500 Rentals". Curbed.
  • ALT3: ... that as part of the Brooklyn Tower development, swimming pools were installed above an adjacent bank? Source: Volner, Ian (October 27, 2021). "A Visit to (Nearly) the Top of the Supertall Brooklyn Tower". Curbed.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/A Fistful of Gun

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 00:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @Epicgenius: Good article. Waiting on a QPQ now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Approve now that QPQ has been added. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Height dispute

• 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)

Diarrhea Tower

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)

Requested move 14 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Cyrobyte (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

---

The Brooklyn Tower → Brooklyn Tower – Per WP:NCTHE, the title should not include a definite article. The article does not appear in architectural critique or in the popular press. Even the building's promotional material is mixed: while the architect and developer use the capitalized article, Silverstein Properties doesn't.

References

Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Support. Back when the "The Brooklyn Tower" name was chosen, JDS (source 8 above) owned the building. However, the current owner Silverstein (source 9) not only doesn't use "The", but nearly all the sources published in 2025 (sources 152-159 on the actual article—some of which are reproduced on this talk page) also don't use "The" either. Based on WP:NAMECHANGES, it seems "The" is not part of the official name any longer. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Although, I should mention that sources 1-3 above still use "the Brooklyn Tower" with "the" lowercased. This is consistent with how the word "the" is currently capitalized in the article, per MOS:THECAPS. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support per both comments above, "The" not universally used or capitalized per WP:THE. DankJae 20:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom and statements above. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source updating height—architectural vs. tip

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)

I did some more research, and found more conflict between sources. Here's a summary, ordered in a timeline reshuffled to imply progression:

Source	Roof height	Architectural Height	Tip/Structure Height (AGL)	Tip Height (AMSL)	Ground/Avg. Curb Level elevation	Floors	Notes	Link
NYC BISWEB (2016)	1007 ft 8 in		1065 ft 8 in	1108 ft 5 in	42 ft 10 in	73 (numbered) 76 (total zoned, incl. underground)	Design later modified. "Bulkhead" labeled as full height of crown spikes from roof to tip.	B-SCAN Document
CTBUH (2018, currently cited)	(not specified; Wikipedia article erroneously claims this to be the cited height type)	1066 ft	1066 ft			74		https://web.archive.org/web/20180626192232/http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/9-dekalb-avenue/20684
News sources currently cited in the infobox		1066 ft				93	At least one earlier source used in the article (https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2017/02/24/jds-chetrit-land-135m-loan-for-brooklyns-tallest-tower/, 2017) mentions 73 floors.	https://web.archive.org/web/20220313055232/https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2022/03/09/condo-sales-launch-at-93-story-brooklyn-tower/ (2022) https://www.cnn.com/style/article/brooklyn-first-supertall-skyscraper-9-dekalb (2021)
FAA (2017, currently cited)			1030 ft	1073 ft	43 ft			https://web.archive.org/web/20181016081300/https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=323705384&row=3
NYC BISWEB (2019)	1061 ft 5 in		1098 ft 7 in	1141 ft 5 in	42 ft 10 in	73 (numbered) 77 (total zoned, incl. underground & roof)	Design later modified.	B-SCAN Document
FAA (2019, latest)			1005 ft	1048 ft	43 ft		parapet height aligns with NYC	https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/oe3a/main/#/search/records (search OAS ID 36-160119)
Building topped out (2021-10)							2021-10
NYC BISWEB (2020–2025, latest)	1034 ft 6 in		1072 ft 6 in	(implied 1115 ft 3.5 in)	42 ft 9.5 in	74 (numbered) 81 (total zoned, incl. underground & roof)	"Top of bulkhead" height labeled as 1048 ft 4 in. This label appears to be applied to a new structure added on top of the roof, adjacent to but shorter than the crown spikes.	B-SCAN Document (2020-04, labeled amended) B-SCAN Document (2020-07) B-SCAN Document (2022) B-SCAN Document (2025, latest)
CTBUH (2024–present)		1035 ft				74		https://web.archive.org/web/20240915035726/https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/9-dekalb-avenue/20684 (2024) https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/9-dekalb-avenue/20684 (present)

Here's my conjecture:

1. NYC BISWEB is the strongest source of truth; I would not be surprised if the CTBUH numbers are being sourced from this (due to how frequently they change).
2. If the latest NYC BISWEB data is true, it follows that the present CTBUH listing excludes the crown spires from architectural height. (This may be intentional, though I would expect that the crown spires should be included in architectural height.)
3. If the latest NYC BISWEB data is true, it follows that the FAA listing is inaccurate/out of date. Perhaps the "top of bulkhead" height was the tallest part of the building as it was under construction then, incorrectly entered as AMSL height as opposed to AGL height.
4. Any news sources were using pre-completion promotional material which listed 93 floors.
5. The sources currently used to support the 1067 ft number in the current Wikipedia article are out of date.

I didn't want to unilaterally adjust the height across all articles it appears in (including various tallest building lists) so I'll just add a dubious tag for now, though I'm open to other interpretations. —Quivico (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Quivico, thanks for bringing this up. I think we should disregard pre-completion sources, as they are conjectural only; I've moved them to a footnote. The NYC DOB BIS and CTBUH sources both give a height to roof of about 1,035 feet, based on your above comment. So I'll change it now.

I should note that the elevation drawing, in the 2025 DOB document you linked, states that the height from ground to tip is 1,072.5 feet, which would be the pinnacle height, another acceptable measurement of building height. Elevation documents typically measure from a set point at ground level, not from sea level, and this is what the elevation drawing seems to be doing.. Your table above suggests that the FAA would have measured the height from sea level, but this is not how heights of buildings are typically measured, and if that's the case, the FAA source should be disregarded. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the review and edits. —Quivico (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)