NEW YORK | 425 Park Ave | 860 FT | 42 FLOORS

[NYguy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303643304579105392773737398.html

Two May Get Jump on Midtown Plan
Developers in Line to Get Early Starts Under Rezoning Proposal Change.


September 29, 2013
By LAURA KUSISTO

The Bloomberg administration has agreed to make changes to a major rezoning proposal for the area near Grand Central Terminal that could help two prominent developers get moving on their projects sooner than some competitors. The City Planning Commission is set to vote Monday on a proposal to rezone the area around Grand Central Terminal to allow developers to build bigger office towers than those allowed under current rules.

The late changes to the controversial plan address its key "sunrise" provision that blocks developers from taking advantage of the rezoning for four years. Planners think the delay is important to prevent the Midtown East projects from competing with office towers under way at Hudson Yards on Manhattan's West Side and the World Trade Center.

But the new wording would allow a couple of high-profile projects in Midtown East to move forward sooner.

SL Green Realty Corp. would be able to get a one-year jump start on its new office tower planned between 42nd and 43rd streets on the block just west of Grand Central. SL Green officials have told the planning commission they would benefit from an early start because they plan to make significant and time-consuming improvements to pedestrian access to Grand Central.

Also, the changes would help David Levinson of L&L Holding Co., who's planning to build a Norman Foster-designed office tower at 425 Park Ave. Mr. Levinson plans to break ground in the spring of 2015 regardless of whether the rezoning passes.

Under the current zoning, he would have to leave the steel skeleton of the bottom 25% of the existing 1950s building in place to maximize the development's size. The proposed new rules would allow Mr. Levinson to fully raze the current building and build a structure that's roughly 15% larger.

Mr. Levinson has argued that buildings like his that sit on smaller sites should be able to move forward more quickly because they don't compete with the mega-towers planned for Hudson Yards. Compared with the huge projects on the West Side and downtown, the floors of his building will be "a half to a third of the size and double the rent," at about $160 a square foot, he said.

Planning officials said the two developers effectively made their cases. The modifications are "well-founded in the thoughtful and substantive testimony we heard in the public review process," said Michael Shilstone, a spokesman for the planning department. "These potential modifications to the sunrise provision would continue to protect ongoing development in Hudson Yards and Lower Manhattan."

The wording changes don't mention the L&L Holding or SL Green developments specifically, and other developers also may apply to build projects under the rezoning. But those two developers are by far the most public about wanting to move forward with their projects.

One of the proposed modifications would allow buildings on sites under 30,000 square feet to move forward as soon as the rezoning passes. Mr. Levinson's site is about 28,000 square feet.

Given its prominent site, SL Green is considered likely to apply for a special permit that enables developers to apply to the city for additional development rights. Under the proposed modifications, those buildings would be eligible for construction permits up to a year before the rezoning kicks in if they're making significant upgrades to transit infrastructure and the city deems they need extra time.

[NYguy]

Concerning today's approval by City Planning, and modifications to the midtown east rezoning...

[NYguy]

[Submariner]

Nice!

[Perklol]

Are those spires or antennas in post 183?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

Are those spires or antennas in post 183?

The same spires we've seen since the early images. Actually very similar to what SHoP has planned with 111 W. 57th.



__

[NYguy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/nyregi...n-rezoning-plan.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all

Clock Ticking, Bloomberg Seeks Council Approval of East Midtown Rezoning Plan

By CHARLES V BAGLI
October 21, 2013

.....David W. Levinson, a developer whose project would benefit from the rezoning, said he was worried about the prospects for the proposal, which has been driven by developers’ desire for a measure of certainty.

Mr. Levinson controls an aging office building at 425 Park Avenue, between 55th and 56th Streets. He has long planned to demolish the building in order to build a modern, high-end office tower for hedge funds and private equity firms. The building was erected before the adoption of the current zoning, which no longer permits towers of its size. If Mr. Levinson razed it, he could erect a tower only about four-fifths as large. But if he retained 25 percent of the existing steel structure, he could build another the same size, under the current zoning.

Back in 2010, Mary Ann Tighe, then head of the Real Estate Board of New York, tried to broker a solution. She asked Amanda Burden, director of the city’s Planning Department, to allow developers like Mr. Levinson to build towers of the same size without incorporating the old steel structure. Such “grandfathering,” she argued, would encourage construction of up-to-date towers in the Grand Central area, where many of the buildings were more than 70 years old and increasingly unattractive to corporate tenants. But Ms. Burden rejected the idea.

Then, in June 2012, she released an early version of the plan now on the table, proposing to rezone an area stretching from 39th Street to 57th Street, between Third and Fifth Avenues, for substantially taller buildings. It was far more ambitious than the grandfathering idea the industry had pushed. To keep the process moving forward, the Bloomberg administration has made a number of concessions to real estate interests. Under certain circumstances, new buildings can now include apartments, and some towers can be built on smaller sites than originally envisioned. Also, St. Patrick’s Cathedral and St. Bart’s would be permitted to transfer unused development rights to more sites than are currently permitted.

The initial rezoning plan contained a sunrise provision in which developers would have to wait five years before they could start building, to reduce competition with other current city-sponsored developments, like the Hudson Yards and the World Trade Center.

But the administration has since revised the rezoning plan to allow Mr. Levinson and a second developer, SL Green, to proceed more quickly.

[tdawg]

I really can't decide if I like this building or not. It seems more Dubai or Hong Kong than New York City.

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by tdawg

I really can't decide if I like this building or not. It seems more Dubai or Hong Kong than New York City.

Agreed, this building almost seems too fancy for NYC style, but I like the innovative design.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by tdawg

I really can't decide if I like this building or not. It seems more Dubai or Hong Kong than New York City.

The massing of the building is all off. It's just awkwardly put together. Like a 1950s building with some tacked on decorations. I'm not a fan.

[NYguy]

I think it's classic New York, setbacks and all (with a modern twist). It's a cross between Chase Manhattan/Lever/Seagram.



_
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21249&page=10

[JayPro]

And 92' taller than Chase. The E/W views will do wonders complementing its neighbor seven addy numbers up the street.

[Blaze23]

Love this tower! Very elegant. Park avenue could use a few more of those

[De Minimis NY]

Yea, I'm inclined to agree with NYguy on this one. In contrast to the proposals we saw from Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas and, to a lesser extent, Richard Rogers at this site, the Foster design seeks to pay homage to park avenue by reflecting existing modernist design elements of the neighborhood and building upon them.

The other proposals seemed bold and exciting in a vacuum, but appeared to me to be more an attempt by those architects to create interesting stand-alone structures rather than thoughtful contributions to the already iconic asthetic of park avenue.

I certainly appreciate cutting-edge architectural forms that stand out from more typical NY structures (although I don't know that this was the best site for one), but I really don't think that this building fits into that category. I think of this building as falling into the opposite category, in fact; it's very New York.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I think it's classic New York, setbacks and all (with a modern twist). It's a cross between Chase Manhattan/Lever/Seagram.



_
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21249&page=10

My gripe with this building is I see a lot more Chase Manhattan, and a lot less classic wedding cake set backs I feel define classic New York. I don't see Lever and Seagram as classic New York. Yes, they were revolutionary in introducing the international style, but they are not classic New York.

This building suffers from the same issues I think Ghery's 8 Spruce St. suffers from, mainly, the top half of the building just goes straight up. It is begging for another set back, yet ultimately we are left with Chase Manhattan with fins.

I agree, there are some aesthetic textures to the building, but ultimately, the massing leaves me unsatisfied.

[NYC2ATX]

I can definitely grant you that this building's homages to wedding-cake New York setbacks are freely adapted for sure...but then again I'll respectfully disagree with the statement that international style towers are not classic NY. Especially given the context of this area. No one can deny that the most iconic image of Park Avenue in Midtown is the one we know today, of massive, mid-century office towers flanking the boulevard and the sightline directly at the Helmsley and MetLife Buildings. Completely classic. In that sense I feel this building takes the best of both worlds and marries them in a fantastic way.

Either way, there's no doubt that clean, sharp lines and crisp edges are always in style.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by De Minimis NY

Yea, I'm inclined to agree with NYguy on this one. In contrast to the proposals we saw from Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas and, to a lesser extent, Richard Rogers at this site, the Foster design seeks to pay homage to park avenue by reflecting existing modernist design elements of the neighborhood and building upon them.

That, I think, is why Foster's design was ultimately chosen.

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

My gripe with this building is I see a lot more Chase Manhattan, and a lot less classic wedding cake set backs I feel define classic New York. I don't see Lever and Seagram as classic New York.

Then you don't understand classic New York. Those are 2 of the classic buildings of Midtown.

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

I'll respectfully disagree with the statement that international style towers are not classic NY. Especially given the context of this area. No one can deny that the most iconic image of Park Avenue in Midtown is the one we know today...

Of course it is. They are particularly reaching for the "Park Avenue" tenant, and I'm sure they will have no problems getting it.

[mistermetAJ]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That, I think, is why Foster's design was ultimately chosen.





Then you don't understand classic New York. Those are 2 of the classic buildings of Midtown.





Of course it is. They are particularly reaching for the "Park Avenue" tenant, and I'm sure they will have no problems getting it.

In my view "classic" New York does not include the 50s and 60s. Classic New York as discussed in most building or city forums is universally considered the pre-war era and the dawn of the 30s and 40s skyscrapers. This building misses the target in both massing and materials to relate to "classic" New York.

I can understand some finding it attractive, and it does have a contemporary feel with a nod to the 50s, but that's hardly classic New York.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mistermetAJ

In my view "classic" New York does not include the 50s and 60s. Classic New York as discussed in most building or city forums is universally considered the pre-war era and the dawn of the 30s and 40s skyscrapers. This building misses the target in both massing and materials to relate to "classic" New York.

I think this point is open to debate. To me, the postwar era is also part of the "classic" NY. NY pioneered the large-scale use of international-style skyscrapers, and landmarks like Seagram and Lever House are globally recognized.

Especially in Midtown East, the postwar era is really the dominant skyscraper typology. And we're specifically talking about Park Ave., which is 90% international-style, and has basically nothing prewar outside of the Waldorf-Astoria.

[dc_denizen]

Chase Manhattan looks awesome in that old pic.

It's the 5-6 mediocre brown boxes ringing the eastern tip of lower Manhattan that are the problem, not Chase.