|
NEW YORK | 250 Park Ave | FT | FLOORS
„ While debate rages over the future of the office, one investor is looking for someone bullish enough to build a 1 million square foot tower near Grand Central Terminal.
The 1920s-era building is 76 percent occupied, but AEW has structured the leases so a buyer can terminate them and demolish the edifice. With special permitting bonuses available under the Midtown East rezoning, a new building could be as large as 950,000 square feet.„ https://therealdeal.com/new-york/202...0-park-avenue/ |
Mark me on the list of no thanks.
I'm afraid we're going too far with the Terminal City teardowns. If Roosevelt is inevitable, so be it, but there is nothing wrong with this original GCT building and it compliments the NYC Building well, stepping down from Bear Stearns and giving Helmsley breathing room. Leave it alone FFS. https://images1.loopnet.com/i2/BvwL7...an-1-Large.jpg 250 PARK AV |
Not gonna happen sorry ^
|
Given the location, I really hope the eventual replacement is an iconic supertall.
I always wondered how this building still existed. You'd think it would have gotten demolished in the postwar Mad Men years, replaced by some sober, modernist box. Not surprised that it's likely a goner, just surprised it lasted this long. |
Quote:
Surprised they put this one up for sale. At the CB5 landmarking meeting, it was stated that they were drawing up plans for what could be done with the site. It’s complicated because the lot is larger than the block it sits on. That would cause anything built here to be very tall. I wouldn’t mind if it stayed. But I don’t think anyone buys it without plans for using the site. Quote:
|
Details for this particular lot.
https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...N7.250Park.JPG FAR of 27. https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...f.IMG_3757.JPG |
Gorgeous building. Hope it is preserved.
|
RXR has talked about the possibility of converting part of the Helmsley Building to residential. This would also be a nice one to convert, but with that pricetag, no way will it be.
Quote:
|
|
hope they don't demolish this beauty.. in this case I'm def NIMBY!
|
Hoping for a Hearst Tower situation with this one.
|
This is a beautiful building so I'd be fine with it staying how it is, but a Hearst tower kind of thing is probably not happening. The building currently standing is included in the sqft of the development.
In other words to build their tower, they have to demolish the site. Or build something much smaller. |
Yeah, for the price tag alone, nobody is going to want to buy it just to keep the existing building. It would be ground up development.
It's a nice building, but a larger reason for me wanting it to stay has to do with skyline clutter. We already know the Roosevelt Hotel is going to be redeveloped into a very tall building. Standing in the shadow of 270 Park, it could be a bit much for all three to rub elbows. One would really have to jump out in height. But I like the idea of Vanderbilt and 270 having a little elbow room. Still, it's a prime site on Park Avenue. Despite not having large floorplates, it could be very attractive as a multi-tenant, even boutique office building. Some more older photos... https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...14_InPixio.jpg https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...13_InPixio.jpg https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...16_InPixio.jpg https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...17_InPixio.jpg |
Yeh team keep it.
I reckon Metlife will wait until all these towers around are build then come in with a 1700+ footer aka 'Grand Central Tower' for the lol. Either way I expect it to get a reclad and height boost proposal in the next decade. ***Changed my mind......probably get destroyed in an earthquake so best hedge said bets...... |
So much would have to align to get all of the tenants out of MetLife to rebuild that. With a guaranteed tenant for about half the space that will be built, maybe. But we're talking about potentially a HUGE tower. I don't see it happening though.
Between the Roosevelt and 250 Park though, its very much in the cards that two very tall skyscrapers will be competing with 270 Park and Vanderbilt. 250 Park has such a small footprint, it would definitely be a very tall tower, possibly topping even 270 Park. Current building not ideal compared to new construction. https://a4.pbase.com/g13/06/102706/2....7e9fabcd.JPEG Roosevelt and 250 Park... https://a4.pbase.com/g13/06/102706/2....c89e6160.JPEG https://a4.pbase.com/g13/06/102706/2....15162f80.JPEG https://a4.pbase.com/g13/06/102706/2....25c8d4bb.JPEG https://a4.pbase.com/g13/06/102706/2....25c8d4bb.JPEG https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...SizeRender.jpg |
Pan Am being "heightened" is a fantasy.
Re-skin maybe. |
What did you say, bigger than 270 Park Ave. that would be fantastic.
https://global.discourse-cdn.com/bus...c62503432.jpeg |
Quote:
As for this site, I actually would love to see Vanderbilt and 270 crowded. It's going to be such an awesome neighborhood with some many extremely tall buildings side by side, directly connected to Grand Central. |
Quote:
|
A couple of years ago when landmarking was discussed, 24 & 52 min in...(from the Roosevelt thread)
Quote:
|
https://super.news/en/articles/2024/...0-m-tower-plan
Manhattan's Office Market Faces Test with $350M Tower Plan AEW Capital aims for $350M in bold bet on office market, selling 1920s building for potential 1M sq ft tower redevelopment. By Tal Alexander 3/29/24 Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Potential 1M sq ft tower redevelopment? Vandy is 1.7M and is pretty much twice the footprint. Aka yikes this could be one tall tower which may well finally break the 1700ft barrier. Fingers crossed.
|
^ Yeah, I believe it could end up taller than 270 Park. Not guaranteed to, but it is a possibility.
|
Quote:
https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...N7.250Park.JPG |
https://nypost.com/2024/04/21/real-e...ve-boondoggle/
By Lois Weiss April 21, 2024 Quote:
|
Interesting....
Well let's hope 350 Park at 1600ft has started a trend in the area. This building is a similar sized foot print to 350 Park? There are no height limits as such? Therefore I don't know why we ain't well past 1700ft already? If that Oklahoma Tower at nearly 2000ft goes up the 1776ft record way gone. Midtown needs to get something taller to get that record back. |
Quote:
This site, at 25,000 sq ft, is less than half 350 Park's 350,000 sf. It's actually the same size as 343 Madison's 25,000 sf, but with about a third more development rights. |
Quote:
|
Some good stuff in this interview…
https://commercialobserver.com/2024/...filling-space/ Colliers’ Michael Cohen On Filling All That Empty New York Office Space It all starts with rezoning vast swaths of the city and letting private capital come in BY DAVID M. LEVITT APRIL 16, 2024 Quote:
Quote:
|
What a time to be a Michael Cohen;)
|
^ Let’s not.
|
Great article and Q&A!
Really sucks that 250 Park will be torn down.. wish NY developers and LPC would respect NY's heritage a little more... at least integrate a new building into this beautiful old one. :( |
Wonder if JPMC can buy it and turn it into an extended stay hotel for visiting JPMC staff...A wish for such a cute building...
|
Quote:
If JPMC did buy it, it wouldn’t be for hotel space. Quote:
|
I guess that was inevitable, but that had better be one gorgeous supertall tower to be worthy of the site and covering part of the Helmsley Building from that iconic Park Avenue view
|
Quote:
https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...14_InPixio.jpg |
I think this article is a good example of why Midtown east needs more modern office space, or it will keep losing tenants to the west side - at least as long as the west side can continue producing new office towers...
https://www.ft.com/content/7fda88dc-...e-b60860272748 Cravath joins Midtown exodus with move to Manhattan’s Hudson Yards Elite law firms have been relocating to the west side development as they seek to appeal to younger workers https://www.ft.com/__origami/service...idth=700&dpr=1 Joe Miller APRIL 28 2024 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We currently do not have any leasable, major new office construction going on in Midtown East. Which is a problem. But developers will not build on spec, and financing is harder to get without pre-signed tenants. |
Cravath’s initial move to Worldwide Plaza was crazy. That area is not where you want to bring clients who pay $750/hr and more.
The craziest law firm move, however, was Sullivan & Cromwell’s buying that obsolete eyesore on Broad Street. They overpaid for a lousy building in a completely inconvenient and lousy location. John Foster Dulles must be rolling over in his grave. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The legendary John Foster Dulles, who was a Secretary of State, was the Managing Partner of S&C. He would have deplored the firm’s decision to buy that eyesore. |
Ah, got it
|
This isn’t exactly shocking, but a piece of good news for east Midtown…
https://therealdeal.com/new-york/202...aturity-looms/ Bloomberg extends lease at 731 Lexington to 2040 Media organization occupies all 947K sf of office at Vornado-run tower AY 6, 2024 By Holden Walter-Warner Quote:
|
Sullivan & Cromwell really should move to Midtown. The location makes no sense in 2024. I know they do lots of work with Goldman Sachs, but that's hardly their only client, and they can keep a satellite office downtown.
It would be nice if S&C anchors a new tower in Midtown. |
Quote:
They’d be a great candidate for 175 Park since they could move whenever they want to from 125 Broad. |
Quote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ts_per_partner |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.