NEW YORK | 343 Madison Avenue | 844 FT | 49 FLOORS

[RobertWalpole]

Therealdeal.com reported on 28 Feb. 2012 that the MTA is submitting RFPs to developers for its Madison Avenue headquarters. It's sad because it's a nice, per-war tower. That being said, a lot of air rights exist here, and something over 300m could rise here.

[babybackribs2314]

By it's you mean the MTA! & this is exciting news.

I wish more companies would do what Hearst did with its HQ; the facade is really all that matters on these buildings as most of the interiors are dingy etc.

People worried about the visual impact of 432 Park (cross fingers it gets to 1,700 as you mentioned was possible) are delusional... all of Midtown is going to be sprouting 1,000' towers by the end of the decade. NYC is going to have the first skyline in the world that is truly Coruscant-esque.

[Crawford]

There are a number of major development sites along Madison near Grand Central that could yield 1000 ft.+ towers.

I think this part of town will look very different 10 years from now.

[RobertWalpole]

That's true. There are A LOT of unused air rights from GCT.

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There are a number of major development sites along Madison near Grand Central that could yield 1000 ft.+ towers.

I think this part of town will look very different 10 years from now.

Potentially dramatically, especially as the city considers upzoning the entire neighborhood (already one of the densest--if not the densest office cluster--in the world).

The main takeaway from all this is that opposition to height in NYC is silly, and also that the ESB's days as a focal point for Midtown are quite numbered. With the developments to the West (Hudson Yards T2, Brookfield's T2, 15 Penn--all as tall/taller than the ESB), the developments to the North (432 Park and likely 225 W57th) and the emerging proposals along the East Side, it is going to be a giant among equals rather than a solitary behemoth.

If only we could get the Met Life North Tower finally completed.

[aquablue]

The news today in the WSJ suggests the office market is going to flooded with space soon and the financial services industry is getting smaller. Don't expect many new office towers to go up any time soon.

[RobertWalpole]

These towers aren't being built on spec., and the financial services industry always expands and contracts. I guarantee that banks alone (excluding Credit Suisse) will be seeking millions of square feet in a few years. As the financial and commercial capital of the world, NY has a unique demand for space. In this regard, it's been well-documented that companies currently seek between 5 and 6m sf of space. No other city in the US or Europe can make a similar claim.

Since you're not from NY, it's understandable that you don't understand it's unparalleled position.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

These towers aren't being built on spec., and the financial services industry always expands and contracts. I guarantee that banks alone (excluding Credit Suisse) will be seeking millions of square feet in a few years. As the financial capital of the world, NY has a unique demand for space.

Since you're not from NY, it's understandable that you don't understand it's unparalleled position.

Being from NY has nothing to do with it. Jesus, just drop it man. You just need to stop talking like that.

[RobertWalpole]

I disagree. By the way, why won't you concede where you're from?

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by aquablue

The news today in the WSJ suggests the office market is going to flooded with space soon and the financial services industry is getting smaller. Don't expect many new office towers to go up any time soon.

No. 51 Astor is being looked at by tech companies. 1 WTC up to this point is largely occupied by a publishing and a law firm. Hudson Yards South's anchor tenant makes purses, among other stuff I've been told. 250 W 55th is almost entirely leased, and it's all law firms. Plus you have L'Oreal looking at enough space to anchor, and get 3 WTC built, 500K for a make up company! (I know they won't move there but just an indication of how much space that is), Viacom and News Corp both none financial firms looking for huge amounts of space, 1M SF each.

Financial service companies have traditionally driven new office construction in the past, but as has been posted in the Hudson Yards thread, all sorts of companies, from all different types of industries are looking for new space because almost 90% of commercial square feet in Manhattan predates 1970, source. That is an incredible statistic.

I met with a woman who works at Studley this morning, and she has worked on the Time Warner account, a media company that is reevaluating it's more than 4 MILLION SF NY portfolio, that's almost one entire of the original twin towers, and they're also managing Jones Day which is another law firm looking for 400K worth of square feet, and she hinted at some other names and locations they're looking at specifically but nothing that wouldn't surprise someone on this site. Plus Milbank is getting booted from the JP building downtown and needs 250K sf.

Plus, your assertion that financial firms won't move isn't well founded either. Credit Suisse is actively looking at new space with CBRE, and Citi is looking around too. There is a lot of natural pent up demand for new space, the vacancy rate is falling, and rents are rising. These companies are smart, they know that at places like Hudson Yards, MW, and the WTC they can get huge blocks of office space (which it's important to understand is very rare in Manhattan) at discounted prices because of tax credits, among other things so they actually save money in the future by signing leases now and get into one of those new buildings instead of waiting until their lease expires in 2015 or 2018 when the economy will probably be better, and rents will be higher.

That was a bit of a rant, I had a long day so I apologize, and don't take it personally but what you said is just false.

[babybackribs2314]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

No. 51 Astor is being looked at by tech companies. 1 WTC up to this point is largely occupied by a publishing and a law firm. Hudson Yards South's anchor tenant makes purses, among other stuff I've been told. 250 W 55th is almost entirely leased, and it's all law firms. Plus you have L'Oreal looking at enough space to anchor, and get 3 WTC built, 500K for a make up company! (I know they won't move there but just an indication of how much space that is), Viacom and News Corp both none financial firms looking for huge amounts of space, 1M SF each.

Financial service companies have traditionally driven new office construction in the past, but as has been posted in the Hudson Yards thread, all sorts of companies, from all different types of industries are looking for new space because 91% of commercial square feet in Manhattan predates 1970. That is an incredible statistic.

I met with a woman who works at Studley this morning, and she has worked on the Time Warner account, a media company that is reevaluating it's more than 4 MILLION SF NY portfolio, that's a half million sf more than TWO ESBs, and they're also managing Jones Day which is another law firm looking for 400K worth of square feet, and she hinted at some other names and locations they're looking at specifically but nothing that wouldn't surprise someone on this site. Plus Milbank is getting booted from the JP building downtown and needs 250K sf.

Plus, your assertion that financial firms won't move isn't well founded either. Credit Suisse is actively looking at new space with CBRE, and Citi is looking around too. There is a lot of natural pent up demand for new space, the vacancy rate is falling, and rents are rising. These companies are smart, they know that at places like Hudson Yards, MW, and the WTC they can get huge blocks of office space (which it's important to understand is very rare in Manhattan) at discounted prices because of tax credits, among other things so they actually save money in the future by signing leases now and get into one of those new buildings instead of waiting until their lease expires in 2015 or 2018 when the economy will probably be better, and rents will be higher.

That was a bit of a rant, I had a long day so I apologize, and don't take it personally but what you said is just false.

He posted the same exact thing in like 5 different threads... if I had to guess, I would say he's from Chicago as that is the #1 region that likes to 'intrude' on NYC threads (but I guess that makes sense when nothing is going on in their city!).

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

No. 51 Astor is being looked at by tech companies. 1 WTC up to this point is largely occupied by a publishing and a law firm. Hudson Yards South's anchor tenant makes purses, among other stuff I've been told. 250 W 55th is almost entirely leased, and it's all law firms. Plus you have L'Oreal looking at enough space to anchor, and get 3 WTC built, 500K for a make up company! (I know they won't move there but just an indication of how much space that is), Viacom and News Corp both none financial firms looking for huge amounts of space, 1M SF each.

Financial service companies have traditionally driven new office construction in the past, but as has been posted in the Hudson Yards thread, all sorts of companies, from all different types of industries are looking for new space because almost 90% of commercial square feet in Manhattan predates 1970, source. That is an incredible statistic.

I met with a woman who works at Studley this morning, and she has worked on the Time Warner account, a media company that is reevaluating it's more than 4 MILLION SF NY portfolio, that's almost one entire of the original twin towers, and they're also managing Jones Day which is another law firm looking for 400K worth of square feet, and she hinted at some other names and locations they're looking at specifically but nothing that wouldn't surprise someone on this site. Plus Milbank is getting booted from the JP building downtown and needs 250K sf.

Plus, your assertion that financial firms won't move isn't well founded either. Credit Suisse is actively looking at new space with CBRE, and Citi is looking around too. There is a lot of natural pent up demand for new space, the vacancy rate is falling, and rents are rising. These companies are smart, they know that at places like Hudson Yards, MW, and the WTC they can get huge blocks of office space (which it's important to understand is very rare in Manhattan) at discounted prices because of tax credits, among other things so they actually save money in the future by signing leases now and get into one of those new buildings instead of waiting until their lease expires in 2015 or 2018 when the economy will probably be better, and rents will be higher.

That was a bit of a rant, I had a long day so I apologize, and don't take it personally but what you said is just false.

Hey man, i am repeating what the WSJ wrote. So, take your rants elsewhere. This wasn't something I came up with. Or, go and take it out on the editorial board of the WSJ!!!

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

He posted the same exact thing in like 5 different threads... if I had to guess, I would say he's from Chicago as that is the #1 region that likes to 'intrude' on NYC threads (but I guess that makes sense when nothing is going on in their city!).

I'm pro NY, and not from Chicago. I posted that in many threads because it is very worrying news for everyone who wants NY to build more tall buildings I don't have insider information to contradict what the press are saying, so if its wrong, you can't blame me for reading a well known publication like the WSJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

Potentially dramatically, especially as the city considers upzoning the entire neighborhood (already one of the densest--if not the densest office cluster--in the world).

The main takeaway from all this is that opposition to height in NYC is silly, and also that the ESB's days as a focal point for Midtown are quite numbered. With the developments to the West (Hudson Yards T2, Brookfield's T2, 15 Penn--all as tall/taller than the ESB), the developments to the North (432 Park and likely 225 W57th) and the emerging proposals along the East Side, it is going to be a giant among equals rather than a solitary behemoth.

If only we could get the Met Life North Tower finally completed.

Agreed. It would be the new ESB for 21st century Midtown. Can't wait for supertalls to be the new standard in New York. We might have one of the world's tallest skylines one day, as well as the largest.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

It's sad because it's a nice, per-war tower. That being said, a lot of air rights exist here, and something over 300m could rise here.

I expect this trend to continue in order to keep Midtown up to speed in the modern office market. As great as the West-Side expansion is, it does not compensate for modern office space in the heart of Midtown. As previously pointed out there are many unused air-rights in the Grand Central area that can be leveraged in order to fill the demand.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Hey man, i am repeating what the WSJ wrote. So, take your rants elsewhere. This wasn't something I came up with. Or, go and take it out on the editorial board of the WSJ!!!

No, actually it was a very informative post. Why the WSJ citing a 13 story building in the village as an example of some sort of office property bubble is beyond me.

[reencharles]

I hope it's an amazing building, because the building that is there now is very good.
Whether it will be replaced, it must be for something much better.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by sbarn

No, actually it was a very informative post. Why the WSJ citing a 13 story building in the village as an example of some sort of office property bubble is beyond me.

Thanks, sbarn.

In the fall of last year Stephen Ross CEO of Related, said he was speaking with 8 companies who all were looking at at least 1M sf of space, plus the companies on the list below (thanks to RW for posting it in HY thread), and add to that list the Milbanks and other firms who haven't been as public with their hunt for new space, and barring an economic catastrophe, there is plenty of demand to go around.

Regurgitating what someone else wrote without putting any thought into the validity of the original point isn't something I'd recommend. But regardless of how well anyone on this board thinks we may understand, in this case New York's commercial real estate market, I guarantee you the cities developers, Related, Brookfield, Silverstein, Vornado, etc, all know it much better than anyone here. So the fact that these firms are still bullish on commercial real estate in the city, like Brookfield building the platform for MW despite not having a single tenant, Related not far behind building a platform for the bigger north tower, and the fact that 51 Astor is being built with no tenants, I think is a much more accurate indicator than a pretty narrowly focused article written in WSJ which conveniently ignores a lot of relevant information. But I digress.


Source.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by aquablue

The news today in the WSJ suggests the office market is going to flooded with space soon and the financial services industry is getting smaller.

I didn't read the article, but if what you're posting is true, the article is stupid.

There are roughly 500 million square feet of Manhattan office space, and Manhattan has, by far, the lowest vacancy rate in the U.S.

The only way that one could "flood" Manhattan with office space is to build minimum 100 million square feet of space or something.

And I guarantee that nothing close to 100 million square feet is u/c. Probably little more than 10-15 million square feet.

Financial services, BTW, are doing just fine. Big banks have issues, but they're still highly profitable, and that's just one portion of the securities industry. Smaller outfits are doing very well by filling in the gap left by the retrenching bigger firms.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

if I had to guess, I would say he's from Chicago as that is the #1 region that likes to 'intrude' on NYC threads (but I guess that makes sense when nothing is going on in their city!).

aquablue has said that he's not from chicago and his IP address routes to washington D.C.

if you continue to stir up more chicago vs. NYC nonsense, you WILL be suspended. this bullshit is getting tiresome; grow up.

now back to the topic on hand.