Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn
Why did they even announce it?
|
More than likely it was going to come out or was leaked. You'll notice no one was really commenting on it, as negotiations weren't complete. And as we now see, Related wasn't up for it.
There are hardly any sites I could think of where a headquarters development of that size can take place in Manhattan. It appears Chase wanted to own its headquarters (like it does now), and develop the buildings specifically to its needs (so no WTC play either). Pretty much all of the proposals in play now are with developers looking to lease space in
their towers. Related was able to work out deals with Coach and Time Warner where they will own portions of their towers, and was suggesting Chase take up the remaining space at 30 Hudson, hardly ideal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014...t-side-towers/
By ELIOT BROWN
October 29, 2014
Quote:
The banking giant on Tuesday notified the city, state and developer Related Cos. that it was scrapping its consideration of a move to build a new, two-tower headquarters on Manhattan’s far West Side, as it considered the array of challenges too great, according to people briefed on the decision.
Among the headwinds: a heightened regulatory environment for banks, the high cost of buying land and building new space, and a public reluctance by city officials to offer incentives, the people said.
The bank had considered the move in recent months as a way to freshen its image and give its employees top-quality space, given that its headquarters at 270 Park Ave. is a 54-year-old building, and the bank doesn’t love its space at 383 Madison Ave., Bear Stearns’ former headquarters.
One benefit of the move that J.P. Morgan had pitched to government officials: It would likely maintain more jobs in New York than if it didn’t get new towers. The bank has been moving jobs out of state to lower cost locations like Delaware for years, a process it expects to continue.
|