hmm, well ya got me there. it would be interesting to replace round msg with a round tower. i guess a roundy base would fit better there than anywhere else.

however, i would hope they give more thought to an open sky station for at least part of the msg site, which would probably mean no round base for a tower. :tup:

I guess that would be an ok height for the location, as that height would likely see something with a very large spire on top. I'm thinking of something more balanced with Vanderbilt and Chrysler, in the 1,700 - 1,800 ft range (its own spiral of sorts). But nothing really would surprise me here. We'll just have to see what they come up with in the general project plan. That would give us an indication on where they plan to go.

I hope they pass the WTC, I don't want the 1776 to become sacred or un-passable or anything.

I was thinking about this when I read the quote from today's article about the Penn Station Plan...


https://www.wsj.com/articles/cuomos-...es-11580688000


I like that attitude. Too many of these people find a reason NOT to do something. I really would like to see something special here. It's the best site in the entire city for an office development.

Underneath all that glass is the Commodore Hotel, which opened in 1919.

The hotel had an ad on the RF back bleacher wall when Yankee Stadium first opened in 1923.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...eeaa936f_b.jpg


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...21f7a767_z.jpg


Ads for the Commodore were also on the walls of the Polo Grounds from 1919-23.

A few years ago - not long before she passed away - the elderly lady I grew up near in Massachusetts was telling me about the Hotel Commodore.

She was born in 1913, and never married. She was an independent, working woman (years at Lever Brothers, which eventually became Unilever, in Cambridge, Mass.). And she was a die-hard baseball fan all her life (listening to games on the radio till she died in 2017).

She talked about how much she loved taking the train to New York to see Red Sox-Yankees games, and how she always stayed at the Commodore Hotel, back in the '30s and '40s.

RIP to both of them.

Once this is done later this decade....MetLife will announce a 1000 footer Avengers like Tower to sit on their present one. ;)

Gropius' Pan Am building is completely off limits, though I would be in favor of a modern curtain wall that enhanced it much like the one performed on the UN Secretariat.

One of the biggest problems I have with preservation is that ugly turds can be saved simply because they are unique in their style of ugliness.

It's like, if I find a turd on the sidewalk, and it's fluorescent green, the landmarks commission would come in and say "hey, look at that radioactive poo! We have to save it! There isn't another one like it!"

Call me old fashion, but I kinda like Metlife/PanAm.

Maybe a reclad in the future, and an addition. Or what we are likely to see, a conversion to a higher office standard (most realistic option).

A re-clad is the only option it seems. High quality glass and a reconfiguration of the base to something brighter more open to the street level would go a long way to improving it.

Ah then how about a re-clad and another segment or two to push it way past 1000ft from 800ft?

Some fantasies if a redesigned Met Life are shown here in this thread...
https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/sho...=184752&page=6


Let’s keep the focus here on the Grand Hyatt redevelopment.

An older view of the hotel, before the Chrysler Building was a thing...


https://c8.alamy.com/comp/FD7JPB/the...928-FD7JPB.jpg
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-th...-94210771.html

Photographer: Scherl/Süddeutsche Zeitung Photo
Date taken: 1 January 1928

A spur of the 3rd Avenue el used to run in front of this hotel to a terminus in front of GCT. There aren't many pictures of it as it was gone by the time the Chrysler Building was built. I wonder how it would have looked in the area today and in the near future with all these new buildings going up.

^ More classics...

This hotel was supposed to close at the end of next year, but I wonder if a shutdown, even if temporary, would make closing plans happen sooner. I don’t think it would expedite the timeline of this project, but something to keep an eye on.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ic/2885071001/

Half of US hotels could close amid coronavirus crisis, industry exec says

DAVID OLIVER
March 21, 2020





https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/corona...nion-says/amp/

Coronavirus worse for NYC hotels than recession, 9/11 combined, union says

By Carl Campanile
March 19, 2020

https://pointsmilesandmartinis.board...-more-closing/

Park Hyatt New York, Grand Hyatt New York and More Closing

March 20, 2020
by Points, Miles & Martinis

Hopefully, it won't reopen, and they'll start demo earlier than planned.

I really hope that the HORRIBLE, Helmsley Park Lane on CPS closes for good too.

Last I saw the Hotel Penn was selling rooms for $50/night. Hopefully that one goes too.

Yeah, they were all slashing prices because nobody is coming. At the Grand Hyatt, there was an agreement in place with the hotel workers union about a closing. I’m not sure how much that will weigh on a reopening. As for the Hotel Penn, Vornado was content to leave the hotel open until they finish work on 1 and 2 Penn Plaza (using proceeds from 220 CPS). It will be interesting to see how any extended closing weighs on that as well.

I’m less sanguine about that. That area still needs a lot of improvement before a Class A tower can rise there.

As far as the Park Lane goes, by the time that that fetid piece of excrement is dismantled and a new tower risers, there will be massive demand for super luxury condos.

Do you guys really think there will be a demand for new premium office towers and condos when we emerge from the oncoming severe recession (or even depression)? I’m honestly seeking opinions, wondering how things will be affected here too. In addition to much wealth disappearing, won’t many businesses become even more accustomed to employees working from home?

good question, but that is for another thread, not this one. lets stick to the building proposal itself here. :tup:

Yes. Economies are cyclical. No downturn is permanent.

Nobody's saying that the economy won't rebound... but will there be structural changes that reduce the demand for core-city office space and take some of the pressure off the East Midtown market? I do think a greater number of workers will work from home, and some employers may choose to re-suburbanize to office parks.

Remember, this is also happening at the same time that millennials are starting families and (if they can swing it) looking to buy homes. They don't necessarily want homes in the suburbs specifically, but urban real estate is out of reach for a great many people, especially if they want access to good public schools or if they need to budget for private schools. So they get pushed into suburban markets, especially older suburbs from the 1950s and 60s with more starter homes. And prime suburban office sites (near malls, major interchanges, etc) can be scooped up by businesses for a steal.

This is not pre-determined, but it's something that city leaders in every major city should be prepared to fight.

I don't see that happening. People will always want to be in the core of global cities like NY, London, Tokyo, etc. Your hypothesis may affect cities like Atlanta or Dallas, but not NY.

I think it's waaaay to early to speculate the timing/extent of economic rebound and the impact on future locational decisions. I am more worried about the former than the latter; there is no obvious reason to think that a segment young people aren't gonna prefer cities because there was a virus. You aren't safer from a virus in suburbia (or anywhere, really), unless you completely forego restaurants, social gatherings, public parks, concerts, sports, etc. Most people aren't gonna be willing to permanently forego human interaction because of a one-time event.

This discussion always comes up everytime something happens, certainly after 9/11. But the most important thing to remember is the new office construction in NY is driven more by lease expirations. There are times when it will slow down, which is why you are seeing so much of it being built now. Another of the biggest factors you are seeing drive construction is the age of NY office stock - most of it is old. There are a lot of buildings here, sure, but they are very old. Manhattan's CBDs will never empty out. Could or should more people work from home? Maybe. But it would be a drop in the bucket. New York will still need to house it's companies. Leases will run out. And due to the nature of construction, which can take years, the planning always has to begin years ahead of time. And this tower in particular won't just be run-of-the-mill new office space. It will be the rare new premium space sought after in east Midtown, where there really isn't much. For all of it's size, 270 Park Avenue won't be leasing any space to outside tenants. Tower Fifth and 350 Park are years away from happening (just like this one). The demand will be there.

https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news...l-sheet-103445

March 17, 2020





https://www.pincusco.com/tf-cornerst...al-air-rights/

TF Cornerstone and RXR Realty pay $32M to MSD Capital for stake in Grand Central air rights

I really hope that they expedite the closure and demo of this hotel! :cheers:

so we are waitting for something huge there . we hope that we will see first megatall structure !!!

That won't happen. New Yorkers would fiercely oppose a mega-tall.

NIMBYs have no say on a height of a skyscraper here. The only say they would have is in whatever public space or transit improvements are generated, and that really is up to the City and the MTA. The Midtown east rezoning is already in place. The approvals process is more of a formality to hatch out just what those contributions are. But height is not in question for that process. Of course, they'll get to comment on it as the process allows. But look back on the approvals of One Vanderbilt or 270 Park as an example.

That's good news. I wonder why JP Morgan opted for the shorter tower then? Then should have decided to go with a 1,650' version of the current plan.

I don't think people are going to get too crazy about a 1500+ foot tower in an overwhelmingly commercial area, especially when there has been little to no opposition to the 1425 foot tall tower planned...

Let's hope. How tall is mega-tall? I thought that it was over 1,600'.

JP Morgan took advantage of its footprint to create the large floors on the lower levels. That's something that is extremely hard to come by in Midtown East, which is why the Hudson Yards was created. They could have built a 2,000 ft skyscraper, but that wouldn't have fit their needs.

I think mega tall is 1650 feet?

In any event, isn't the height pretty set in stone?

The height is not an issue here. There are no height limits. What's being approved would be the bonus elements (transit improvements, public space, etc.).

good grief, if there is anyplace around midtown where a supertall would not bother literally anybody, its here.

According to the CTBUH a Megatall is 600 meters or beyond (which is 1968 feet).

I highly doubt anything of that caliber will rise with 2MSF but hopefully something in the 450 - 500 meter range? It would still be a beast.

Tower Fifth, at about 1,550 ft would be about 1 msf, so anything is possible. But it all depends on design. I expect something taller than 1 Vanderbilt, and possibly tallest in Midtown. We know Cuomo was pushing to get involved here, which has me believe it will be something that will stand out, another "legacy" project. Just building another 1 Vanderbilt won't do it.

The two things I look forward to seeing most is how well this tower plays off the Chrysler, and how well it transitions at the street level, which is somewhat complicated. There are issues with public plazas - which would be inappropriate here. This site is surrounded on all sides by landmarks, and there is the GCT streetwall on 2 sides. Also, there's the oppurtunity here to do what was done with 1 Vanderbilt, making GCT more visible. A lot of issues to work out.

Didn't realize Tower Fifth was so small in floorspace, considering 1WTC is over 3MSF and 30 Hudson Yards is 2.6 ish.

The thought of Tower Fifth being built as well as a cluster of 1,400-1,500 foot buildings next to it is pretty mind-blowing.

I hope that something very tall rises at the full-block Manhattan Hotel site in Times Square which Al-Faisal owns. The Qatari's have the money, and they can build something which has Qatari tourist info, etc.

Yeh hoping it's the tallest in the city 1700ft+ if anywhere why not Times Square? :cheers:

Crains NY had earlier reported that the Qatari-owned site would be a 1,400 ft. residential-hotel tower.

But that was a few years ago.

Height is very different from size. Consider the 3.6 msf 55 Water St is only 687 ft. It's a massive building. The MetLife (PanAm) is well over 3 msf also, but just 808 ft. Height always depends on the allocation of space, or basically floor size, followed by the height of those floors. One Vanderbilt is a good example of that, with just 1.6 gsf of space.

I know, but Tower Fifth looks huge and has a high floor count, that's why I'm surprised. Higher than the WTC or Hudson Yards Tower (since those buildings skip floors). One Vanderbilt has an extremely low floor count.

Actual floor count and designated floor counts are different things.