NEW YORK | 350 Park Avenue | 1,413 FT | 62 FLOORS

[Hudson11]

CoStar is a very reliable source in the real estate realm.

[ChiND]

1,600 feet!!! A new tallest for Gotham!!!!

P.S.: The next designs in the Plaza District that I look forward to seeing are Related’s 625 Madison and LVMH’s 1 E 57th. I suspect that they will be show stoppers, like this new icon!

[SkyHigher]

Excellent news. Wonder if this could push 175 Park back over 1600ft? In fact could this towers height influence the heights of future designs in the area?

Someone please say yes!

[ChiND]

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/350-park...-tower-nyc.amp

[DCReid]

Great news. But if this is this skyscraper subject to the public review process, is there a risk of an arbitrary reduction in height like the 175 Park Avenue?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Great news. But if this is this skyscraper subject to the public review process, is there a risk of an arbitrary reduction in height like the 175 Park Avenue?

No. The reduction in height for 175 Park was a direct result of the developers plans. There are no height limits, and unlike 175 Park, the zoning here was already approved. The approvals process is a formality that was added to get the Midtown East zoning approved. They do the same thing in Hudson Yards, only those towers aren’t required to go through the full public review. So what they will spell out in this process, for all to see, is exactly what methods they are using to achieve the full FAR. In Hudson Yards, everything comes from the railyards. Here, as we’ve already seen, they are getting air rights from a couple of landmarked churches, and a neighboring building. They also purchased an easement over a neighboring building to preserve views to the west. They aren’t messing around here.

[MAC123]

Hopefully they just full send it and make it 500 + M

But I'm happy they're going as tall as they already are. Griffin wants a statement piece? Doesn't want to be overshadowed by 270 Park and Jamie Dimon? Who knows, who cares. We're getting a 1,600 ft tower and that's awesome.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by NYguy

No. The reduction in height for 175 Park was a direct result of the developers plans. There are no height limits, and unlike 175 Park, the zoning here was already approved. The approvals process is a formality that was added to get the Midtown East zoning approved. They do the same thing in Hudson Yards, only those towers aren’t required to go through the full public review. So what they will spell out in this process, for all to see, is exactly what methods they are using to achieve the full FAR. In Hudson Yards, everything comes from the railyards. Here, as we’ve already seen, they are getting air rights from a couple of landmarked churches, and a neighboring building. They also purchased an easement over a neighboring building to preserve views to the west. They aren’t messing around here.

Took me a long time to find this, because I was kind of mad when it happened as it seemed to be an arbitrary reduction, but the blog for 175 Park Avenue said that the council modified the plan to reduce the height from 1642 to 1575 when they approved it in Dec 2021 (see post #1698):

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...237669&page=85


Is this a possibility here?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Took me a long time to find this, because I was kind of mad when it happened as it seemed to be an arbitrary reduction, but the blog for 175 Park Avenue said that the council modified the plan to reduce the height from 1642 to 1575 when they approved it in Dec 2021 (see post #1698):

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...237669&page=85


Is this a possibility here?

The council approved the modified plan. The developers modified tgecplan when they switched the programming from hotel to extended stay. The only difference as far as the city is concerned is that extended stay (over 30 days) counts as residential space.

But none of that even matters here, as this proposal has the full backing of the city. There are no height limits. So the only question regarding that would be where this tower would fit in the height rankings. We still don’t have an exact height on the Affirmation Tower proposal, for example.

[jackster99]

Standing on the street looking up at the western wall going straight up for 1600 feet with no setbacks is going to feel insane. Might even make you a bit woozy

Maybe Alex Honnold will try to climb it.

[chris08876]

The public review is slated to begin next year per CoStar. I wonder what type of time table we are looking at with this. Projected start year of 2028?

Once demo occurs of the existing structures. 2028 might be nice.

[ChiND]

If the plan is for this to be occupied in 8 years, I suspect that demo will start as soon as the city process alluded to in these articles concludes.

[pianowizard]

This is a beauty!

1,600 ft = 487.68 m, so North America still has nothing above 500 m in roof height, but we are getting closer and closer.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

This is a beauty!

1,600 ft = 487.68 m, so North America still has nothing above 500 m in roof height, but we are getting closer and closer.

Because our government does not subsidize megatall skyscrapers like those in Asia and the Middle East. In North America and Europe, skyscrapers are built out of necessity which is why they require tenants or residents for funding.

The Burj Khalifa in Dubai, for example, has yet to turn a profit. The Shanghai Tower is on the struggle bus as well with securing tenants.

[Lincolnlover2005]

Here's my take on 350 Park Avenue, the size makes up for its lack of innovation

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/mod...50-Park-Avenue

[Busy Bee]

Does the air rights agreement preclude 477 Madison from being replaced in the future? What a turd and a half that building is. Does the language of the recent legal arrangement set a max height for a new structure on that corner if it was to occur?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Does the air rights agreement preclude 477 Madison from being replaced in the future? What a turd and a half that building is. Does the language of the recent legal arrangement set a max height for a new structure on that corner if it was to occur?

Yes and yes.

[Zerton]

Massing-wise it reminds me of a hybrid of Chase Tower and Steinway Tower. Also a bit of throwback 70s/80s Pomo detailing on the facade with the chamfered corners. Fantastic.

[ChiND]

https://www.archpaper.com/2024/04/fo...0-park-avenue/

Super-Supertall
Foster + Partners unveils latest design for 350 Park Avenue
By Daniel Roche • April 17, 2024 • Architecture, East, News

[Charmy2]

I've never loved and equally hated a new design as much as this one. My personal fave was the first design, but the second one was also good. I still like this one don't get me wrong!