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

[ChiND]

ICONIC!!!!

[jackster99]

I love it, but I keep hoping for a proposal that looks like London's Shard. I think that is a very unique shape that NYC's skyline is sorely lacking.

[The New York Lion]

Originally Posted by ChiND

ICONIC!!!!

It is glorious, and it's just the beginning.

NYC will eventually be home to 100 supertalls.

By the time this tower is finished, I'd say there will probably be a proposal or two for a tower significantly taller.

[BanBrokenChatBots]

Another supertall to the midtown skyline.. and just like JP Morgan's 270 this is moving along quite quickly in the private sector.

Originally Posted by jackster99

I love it, but I keep hoping for a proposal that looks like London's Shard. I think that is a very unique shape that NYC's skyline is sorely lacking.

?!? The Empire State Building & the Chrysler Building are far more iconic not only in silhouette but in history and design significance. Outside of England not many people would know what the Shard is as it was England's probably first significant skyscraper.. its also similarly a glass copy of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco.

[jackster99]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

Another supertall to the midtown skyline.. and just like JP Morgan's 270 this is moving along quite quickly in the private sector.



?!? The Empire State Building & the Chrysler Building are far more iconic not only in silhouette but in history and design significance. Outside of England not many people would know what the Shard is as it was England's probably first significant skyscraper.. its also similarly a glass copy of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco.

IMO the Shard is a very interesting shape, and I think a similarly shaped tower would look great on the NYC skyline. Where in my post did I say the ESB and Chrysler weren't iconic? And where in my post did I say it matters if people outside of a certain country know a particular building? Bizarre response.

[BanBrokenChatBots]

New York commercial real estate is not likely to build a pyramidal supertall skyscraper.. It's all about maximizing office floor space and the top of 350 Park Avenue is mostly mechanical maximizing the commercial space with the existing setback laws.. Maybe a residential tower would be in the form of a pyramid but I doubt it in New York or at least Manhattan.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

New York commercial real estate is not likely to build a pyramidal supertall skyscraper.. It's all about maximizing office floor space and the top of 350 Park Avenue is mostly mechanical maximizing the commercial space with the existing setback laws.. Maybe a residential tower would be in the form of a pyramid but I doubt it in New York or at least Manhattan.

That is correct, and neither is it likely for residential towers. Developers of such buildings pretty much like to build as zoning allows, or risk having their vision altered. We remember the case of the Tower Verre (53w53), although still taller than the Shard.

New York is a city of strict design codes, and for good reason. The canyons of Manhattan are universal. The new towers we see going up on Park Avenue are distinctly and uniquely New York in flavor. 350 Park Avenue has a design that, as they say, is "timeless". It could have been built 100 years ago, and fit in perfectly with the city. Yet, it will be among the most modern and appealing skyscrapers to the workers who will be there day in and out.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

Maybe a residential tower would be in the form of a pyramid but I doubt it in New York or at least Manhattan.

You mean like...


?

[ssh]

God that thing is such an eyesore.

[NYguy]

I wonder if the crown will be activated similar to the way 270 Park's crown will be. It seems likely.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

It's all about maximizing office floor space and the top of 350 Park Avenue is mostly mechanical maximizing the commercial space with the existing setback laws..

What are the existing setback laws anyway? I was aware some existed in Manhattan but also wondering how some buildings like the WTC and HY are able to have supertall sheer slabs with no setbacks at all (which I like tbh).

432 Park Ave does too but that's residential.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

What are the existing setback laws anyway? I was aware some existed in Manhattan but also wondering how some buildings like the WTC and HY are able to have supertall sheer slabs with no setbacks at all (which I like tbh).

432 Park Ave does too but that's residential.

not sure today, and this isn’t an answer, but for a time you could win concessions to build taller or whatever if a public plaza was included.


this is what google AI sold me:


Some modern Manhattan towers do not have setbacks because zoning regulations have evolved since the original 1916 Zoning Resolution, allowing for taller buildings without the requirement for setbacks in certain areas. This change has led to the construction of "pencil towers," which maximize height on smaller footprints, often at the expense of the traditional stepped design.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

What are the existing setback laws anyway? I was aware some existed in Manhattan but also wondering how some buildings like the WTC and HY are able to have supertall sheer slabs with no setbacks at all (which I like tbh).

432 Park Ave does too but that's residential.

432 Park has a setback, but most people don't pay attention to that because it's on the 57th Street side. But more importantly, 432 Park only reaches its full height on a small portion of the lot. That's basically what the setback laws are, and they vary depending on the area of the city. The Hudson Yards was zoned specifically for larger floorplates. Imagine the destruction to Midtown if the Hudson Yards didn't exist.

Also, the Hudson Yards towers do indeed have setbacks. Buildings like the original Twin Towers of the WTC were built on a huge superblock (like Manhattan West), but those towers were not subject to city zoning, being state development. You would never get a single tower the size of one of the Twins rising on a Manhattan block.

The zoning laws are strict enough that even if you are building as-of-right, you may still need some type of waiver because your particular design may need to differ from what's spelled out in the zoning.

350 Park Avenue will be using the tools of the Midtowns East rezoning that allows for larger buildings.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ChiND

Where did you hear about 280 Park? That's such a hideous tower. I've alwyas wondered why SLG doesn't raze the portion of the tower that's on Park and leave the mid-block tower that it's connected to. The mid-block tower is huge and would be a headache to raze, but the PoS that's actually on the Park isn't very big and could come down easily.

It's been in Crains NY and other sources. And SL Green and Vornado have been very transparent that their long term plans are demolishing both and replacing with a landmark skyscraper. Those towers have poor layouts.

Originally Posted by ChiND

SLG clearly has shown its aversion to demolishing large towers based upon its disgusting plans for the hideous eyesore, 245 Park.

I don't think so. SL Green built One Vanderbilt, on the site of a 900,000 square foot tower. SL Green is the largest commercial owner in NYC. And Vornado built Bloomberg Tower, 220 CPS, and owns most of the Penn District.

245 is an extremely valuable skyscraper with big floorplates, perfect for financial firms. It doesn't make sense to demolish towers with ideal layouts. 280 has small floorplates. Not every mid-century tower will be replaced, just the ones with bad layouts.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's been in Crains NY and other sources. And SL Green and Vornado have been very transparent that their long term plans are demolishing both and replacing with a landmark skyscraper. Those towers have poor layouts.

Vornado isn't going to demolish those buildings anytime soon. Mybe 10-20 years from now. 280 Park Avenue is really 2 buildings connected by a smaller one. They've been signing and extending leases there.

https://books.vno.com/books/mzcd/#p=196

[NYguy]

[ChiND]

This is going to be utterly iconic, but it would be even nicer if we had a Madison Avenue plaza where RFR's PoS stands. I hate to be a broken record, but 477 is junk.

[ChiND]

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/202...nn-15s-future/

[TREPYE]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Looks legit to me.



A little more on the design:

This is pretty much a pudgier version of the Steinway Tower (111 w57th).... Which makes it kind of highly unoriginal; surprising that Foster did not try to make it a more unique shape.

The more I see the design the less I like it. IMO, certainly inferior to 270 Park Ave.

Just a fatter, slighty taller copy-paste of something already built.

[ssh]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

surprising that Foster did not try to make it a more unique shape

is it though? f+p have been putting out boring garbage for years. i actually think 270 and this are decent compared to other f+p concoctions recently.