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

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Iconic is a stretch. Its got a basic design and it's not significantly bigger than its neighbors, especially future neighbors like 175 Park.
As for the medians, yeah I can't wait. Park Avenue is gonna be one of the best streets in Manhattan to walk down after all the renovations.

Height doesn’t automatically equate to “iconic”. The Flatiron is still considered iconic, as are many other towers in the city not at the top of the food chain. Meanwhile, CPT and its 1,550 ft is very forgettable. This tower will stand at both great height, and in contrast to its environs (it will be darker than most people think).

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Height doesn’t automatically equate to “iconic”. The Flatiron is still considered iconic, as are many other towers in the city not at the top of the food chain. Meanwhile, CPT and its 1,550 ft is very forgettable. This tower will stand at both great height, and in contrast to its environs (it will be darker than most people think).

I didn't say height equated to being iconic or even making a building more iconic, but this specific buildings height will not make it stand out compared to its neighbors, especially 270 park which will have a similar albiet shorter height and similar bulk while having a much more striking design.

In my personal opinion there is nothing about this building that will or even can make it iconic. The design is basic, the size isn't outstanding compared to current and future neighbors, and it has no significant cultural impact like The Chrysler for example.

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by MAC123

I didn't say height equated to being iconic or even making a building more iconic, but this specific buildings height will not make it stand out compared to its neighbors, especially 270 park which will have a similar albiet shorter height and similar bulk while having a much more striking design.

In my personal opinion there is nothing about this building that will or even can make it iconic. The design is basic, the size isn't outstanding compared to current and future neighbors, and it has no significant cultural impact like The Chrysler for example.

100% agreed!

[TREPYE]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Iconic is a stretch. Its got a basic design and it's not significantly bigger than its neighbors, especially future neighbors like 175 Park.
As for the medians, yeah I can't wait. Park Avenue is gonna be one of the best streets in Manhattan to walk down after all the renovations.

I agree. This design motif is emulating the Steinway Tower (111 57th st), with its unilateral setbacks; it is basically a pudgier version of it.

I think that Foster is capable of more creativity. 350 Park Ave is OK, but certainly is not iconic, that designation goes to buildings like the Commodore (175 Park Ave), or 1 Vandy, and even the new JP Morgan Chase Headquarters. At a lower height, 270 Park Ave is a more impressive and creative effort by Foster.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MAC123

I didn't say height equated to being iconic or even making a building more iconic, but this specific buildings height will not make it stand out compared to its neighbors, especially 270 park which will have a similar albiet shorter height and similar bulk while having a much more striking design.

In my personal opinion there is nothing about this building that will or even can make it iconic. The design is basic, the size isn't outstanding compared to current and future neighbors, and it has no significant cultural impact like The Chrysler for example.

In your personal opinion. However, for most people (not skyscraper nerds) a building will stand out with both a combination of height and distictive design, which this will very much have. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is. This will be an iconic addition to the New York skyline. Many places would be salivating at the thought of getting it, but it will be New York’s, and New York’s alone. Weepers can weep.

[bdurk]

Originally Posted by NYguy

In your personal opinion. However, for most people (not skyscraper nerds) a building will stand out with both a combination of height and distictive design, which this will very much have. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is. This will be an iconic addition to the New York skyline. Many places would be salivating at the thought of getting it, but it will be New York’s, and New York’s alone. Weepers can weep.

I think many would agree that this is an extremely mundane tower. There is nothing super special or iconic about the design, and while it is tall it's not tall enough to make it unique. The general public seems to dislike new skyscrapers in general in New York, so I doubt many people will like this tower at first. I don't think anything about this tower is special.

[Busy Bee]

I would never use the word mundane to descrbe this tower. Minimal maybe.

I'm just hoping the news of what appears at least a height boost to 175 Park, that this will get some of it's original height back. Extending each one of the last three setback segments at top by 2 floors each would be a good way of going about it.

[Zapatan]

It's sleek and modern looking with nice outdoor spaces and the height is solid, could it have been better? Yes, but it's not that bad.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by NYguy

In your personal opinion. However, for most people (not skyscraper nerds) a building will stand out with both a combination of height and distictive design, which this will very much have. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is. This will be an iconic addition to the New York skyline. Many places would be salivating at the thought of getting it, but it will be New York’s, and New York’s alone. Weepers can weep.

Distinctive design? Come on dude. I never said the design is bad but it very much is basic. As soon as renders were released it was immediately compared to basically every foster skyscraper for the last decade.

I like the design. It’s very sleek and modern but distinctive it is not.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by bdurk

I think many would agree that this is an extremely mundane tower.

Many people, yes. Most people, no. They will see it more along the JPMC headquarters which just opened, a magnificent new addition to the skyline. Most people aren't looking at skyscrapers for any type of design features that the skyscraper nerds would declare "amazing". They're looking at skyscrapers for what they are - behemoths on the skyline.

Originally Posted by MAC123

Distinctive design? Come on dude.

Yes, it is a very distinctive design, the setbacks make it so (as will the windows). It's a tower that can be defined by it's silhouett alone, as iconic skyscrapers (memorable) can be.

[NYguy]

Nonsense aside, the time is at hand for demo .....



APRIL 9, 2026

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by MAC123

I like the design. It’s very sleek and modern but distinctive it is not.

Agreed again!

[Solarian]

[QUOTE=NYguy;10581488]Nonsense aside, the time is at hand for demo .....

[BanBrokenChatBots]

[mrnyc]

i think this is a striking design that will look great on this site.

even if you think it bland remember its all in the details/materials used.

haven’t we learned that lesson from manhattan west yet?

[TREPYE]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

i think this is a striking design that will look great on this site.

even if you think it bland remember its all in the details/materials used.

haven’t we learned that lesson from manhattan west yet?

Nope.

More glass mess blobbling out of the skyline. Hopefully other development can be more respectful than Manhattan West was of NYC's architectural texture.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by TREPYE

Nope.

More glass mess blobbling out of the skyline. Hopefully other development can be more respectful than Manhattan West was of NYC's architectural texture.

what exactly was 'nyc's architectural texture' over an eyesore open railyard?

[TREPYE]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

what exactly was 'nyc's architectural texture' over an eyesore open railyard?

It is not predicated on the covering of a railyard, it is the bait and switch that Related pulled when they were bidding for the site; they won because their proposed towers were supposed to represent the "texture" of NYC, not just glass but also stone, metal cladding the towers, not the 5 glass blobs we ended up with. Actually, 6, 10, 30 HY are not blobs, but a very well done construct (amazing observatory on 30) tower even though its glass.

[ChiND]

How lucky are we to have this extraordinary icon rising in the Greatest City in the Wolrd?

https://www.thecity.nyc/2026/04/14/wall-street-tax-the-rich-employment-exodus-economy/

Never Mind Mamdani: Wall Street Doubles Down on NYC
Record jobs and fat real estate leases make finance the No. 1 industry again.
by Greg David
April 14, 2026, 5:00 a.m.

[The New York Lion]

I hope this tower doesn't get Amazon'd.

Mr. Griffin should realize his tower will last hundreds- maybe a thousand years- and just ignore The Zohan.