NEW YORK | The Spiral (509 W. 34th) | 1,041 FT | 66 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

Yes, yes i know. In the same right the square office towers that we all love on Park avenue are stellar.
This tower is sub par to whats being built at the Hudson Yards so in the context of its surrounding development its nothing extraordinary.

It could be better, they all could be better. But keep in mind this isn't the signature tower of the Hudson Yards. Likewise, 3 Hudson Blvd isn't the signature tower of the area, and neither will 50 Hudson or Manhattan West be. That's not to say that the designs should be crappy, but they are the shiny new toys the companies that keep New York the hub that it is want. (Look at my signature ) If anything, you could argue that 30 Hudson, which I like, should have been pushed to be more than it is. Or the Freedom Tower. But I think we should keep in mind that now our tallest towers are on the residential side (with some hit and miss as well) and many cities would love to get the new office and residential towers we are getting. Yes, we are spoiled.

[NYguy]

All of the permits filed today (9/29/16)


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQu...passjobnumber=122885422&passdocnumber=01

ERECTION OF NEW BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION FENCE

Building Height (ft.): 962
Building Stories: 64

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQu...passjobnumber=122885422&passdocnumber=02

STRUCTURAL WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEW BUILDING.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQu...passjobnumber=122885422&passdocnumber=03

FOUNDATION WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEW BUILDING

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQu...passjobnumber=122885422&passdocnumber=04

MECHANICAL WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEW BUILDING APPLICATION

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQu...passjobnumber=122885422&passdocnumber=05

PLUMBING WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEW BUILDING

[ILNY]

Originally Posted by SkyscrapersOfNewYork

While it's a good financial decision for Tishman lets not sit here acting like this is good architecture. It is no doubt a missed opportunity from a design stand point.

I never thought I would say that, but this behemoth is even more ugly than 2 WTC. If that design is ever built, this will no doubt be the ugliest supertall in New York. If they had Ig-Architecture prices, here is the winner.
BIG should change their name to IG.

[citybooster]

Originally Posted by ILNY

I never thought I would say that, but this behemoth is even more ugly than 2 WTC. If that design is ever built, this will no doubt be the ugliest supertall in New York. If they had Ig-Architecture prices, here is the winner.
BIG should change their name to IG.

Again remember that this property was the spot on where the Hudson Spire concept was promoted. With the size and scope of this plot it SHOULD have been Tishman's opportunity to make the centerpiece of the West Side development. Now it's less than 1,000 FT? This spot should have produced something extraordinary, not merely a nice generic functioning tower with a silly BIG gimmick. Epic fail by Tishman and they should get called on it. I totally concur with your take on this insult of a tower... this begged for a masterpiece. Far short the results so far.

[citybooster]

Reading more the height doesn't include some kind of crown or mechanical topping which would likely give it bare supertall status of 1,005 ft or so. I appreciate that the square footage will likely in total be closer to the 2.8 mil that Tishman is saying. But this could have been a marvel, a true standout with the height originally envisioned...even if the crown or spiral would have capped more likely at 1,500-1,600 ft... that would be 300 ft or so taller than 30 Hudson and among the supertalls in the area none else is likely to go over 1,100 ft...though who knows if the Frank Mc Court property nearby will ever get going and aim for heights of at least 1,400ft like had been speculated. It's crazy...the Spiral is scheduled to be done by 2019, which is in development terms just around the corner with groundbreaking likely early next year. The Hudson Spiral was a vision that many thought was a decade in the future if not longer.. yet two years after initial speculation Tishman has the full property and chose to build wider instead of higher... so many people were captivated by the thoughts of what a realized Hudson Spire would look like(I know fully well it was a placeholder and a vision until a future developer was ready to build there)and as much as I try to appreciate what BIG and Tishman want, It just seems they have blown a tremendous opportunity to build a landmark for 21st century New York on the West Side.

I would say 99% of the time I agree with NYguy... he's been an institution here and really knows his stuff and really is passionate about New York City. This time though I just can't find myself in agreement.. we'll get used to the Spiral(instead of Hudson Spire,alas) and maybe I'm being too negative on Ingels and BIG(though I really see more gimmick than vision here, as with WTC2.) But it's hard to get excited about it when it could have been an exclamation point for a new century skyline. Hopefully there is one coming up somewhere maybe we don't have any idea about yet. It will be a fine building and the West Side is really going to emerge as a grand new neighborhood in the next few years but so far only the incomparable magnificence of 30 Hudson will clearly stand out as a modern icon, and that will be as much for its massive street presence as its height. Bordered by a number of very nice mainly glassy towers between 800 and 1,100 ft as complementary and subordinate... Tishman just should have been more bold and daring. That's all I have to say, just my preference though it is a given now that we'll get the BIG design. Maybe it's also hard to let go because the BIG design still looks like the one that will be built at WTC 2 once Larry Silverstein gets a commitment big enough to justify commencing on that long awaited tower and while having some admirers, from some angles very hard to get excited about.

[chris08876]

Potential Tenant in the market.

==================

Pfizer to seek more modern headquarters in Manhattan

Pfizer Inc, the largest U.S. drugmaker, said on Thursday it aims to sell its world headquarters buildings in midtown Manhattan by the end of 2017 and begin moving into more modern facilities in Manhattan no sooner than the first half of 2019.

"This move is being driven by the significant investment that would be required to bring the buildings to modern standards," Pfizer said in a statement.

Pfizer spokeswoman Joan Campion said the company notified employees of the plans on Wednesday. The drugmaker intends to lease rather than buy a new headquarters, she told Reuters.

Pfizer's headquarters include two buildings in midtown Manhattan with about 1 million square feet of space. Pfizer began occupying the buildings at 235 and 219 East 42nd Street in 1961. A newer complex would have more work space and room for collaboration, Campion said.

Pfizer, founded in 1849 in New York City's borough of Brooklyn, said it has not yet chosen the new location.

A large majority of headquarters-based employees will move to the more modern facility, Pfizer said. Some could be reassigned to other sites in the metropolitan area.

Pfizer's plans follow its decision in April to abandon its proposed $160 billion purchase of Botox-maker Allergan Plc. The deal would have moved the company's tax address to Dublin, thereby sharply lowering its effective tax rate.

Pfizer terminated the deal after the U.S. Treasury proposed new regulations that would have removed many of the tax advantages.

=========================
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-headquarters-idUSKCN1261UO

[De Minimis NY]

I know this is pulling us a bit off topic, but the bigger news here is the sale of 235 E 42nd... That's going to see an FAR bump from 15 to at least 21.5 under the proposed rezoning (with opportunities to get up to 24.5 through added bonuses), all of which may increase an additional 10% if REBNY gets its way.

This is 100% going to get redeveloped under the new zoning, and, given how far it is to the east (fronting on 2nd Ave), it's going to have a very prominent position on the skyline as viewed from Brooklyn/Queens.

[C.]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I hope Blackrock considers this now that I think about it versus its competition like 50 Hudson. IDK, I just think a tower like will be harder to fill versus 50 HY. Would be nice to get this off the ground. Plus 50 HY isn't really that stellar IMO.

Not a fan of this building.

[ILNY]

^ Bjarke's inspiration came from this.



http://sun-surfer.com/photos/2012/02/Spiral-Minaret-Samarra-Iraq.jpg

[chris08876]

^^^

A caramel wedding cake?

[NYguy]

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/201...te&utm_campaign=cnyb-realestate-20161010

BlackRock's relocation would shake city's office market and policymakers
Midtown east, downtown struggling to compete with far West Side


Greg David By Greg David
October 9, 2016

Whenever BlackRock speaks, the markets quake. When BlackRock picks a location for its headquarters, the city’s office market will tremble. And the de Blasio administration could find itself under an unwelcome spotlight.

Consider this a tale of the city’s three most important office markets.

BlackRock—one of the world’s largest money managers—occupies two buildings just off Park Avenue, once the most prestigious address in midtown. But employers including Citigroup and Major League Baseball have been leaving midtown east because the buildings there are old—66 ½ years, on average—and outmoded for the way large corporations configure their operations.

BlackRock considered and then ruled out anchoring Larry Silverstein’s 2 World Trade Center tower. In January, Fox and News Corp. similarly backed out of an almost-completed deal to move to the building, which offers low rents through large city subsidies.

Now BlackRock is eyeing the far West Side. It could relocate to Hudson Yards, the great legacy of the Bloomberg administration, or to a tower that Tishman Speyer is planning one block north. It would be in good company at either location, as Hudson Yards’ developer, the Related Cos., has lured a list of well-known names: Coach, Milbank Tweed, KKR, SAP and Time Warner, to name a few. They are moving into the most modern office space anywhere, helped by significant tax breaks.

Although BlackRock might stay in midtown, as Fox and News Corp. did, the odds of a move seem good.

Here’s what the BlackRock story tells us about the city’s three major office districts:

- Downtown continues to struggle to lure the high-profile, big-name tenants it needs to fill the new skyscrapers at the World Trade Center site. Whether it can do so remains an open question, especially if the city’s economy weakens.

- The far West Side is established as the go-to location for successful companies that want to make it clear they are the best in their business. Its future seems secure.

- Midtown east is in danger of seeing its tenants slip away unless the de Blasio administration can finally push through a rezoning to allow a handful of new office buildings and modernization of old ones—something the Bloomberg administration failed at three years ago.

The de Blasio administration did green-light the SL Green Tower opposite Grand Central Terminal in a nifty deal that produced at least $220 million in improvements at the transit hub. But one building won’t solve the problem.

The latest de Blasio proposal seems to have broader support, possibly because it is forgoing money for transit improvements to instead help the landmark churches in the area sell their air rights—a decision made to neutralize a potential opponent. But it has been three years since the Bloomberg midtown east effort crashed. Time is a-wasting for the help the area needs.

[chris08876]

Tishman Speyer pays $78 million to boost the size of its Hudson Yards tower

Tishman Speyer purchased $78 million worth of air rights from the city and state earlier this year to boost the size of its planned 65-story office tower in the Hudson Yards district, Crain's has learned.

The developer recently filed plans to build a nearly 3 million-square-foot office tower called the Spiral on a full-block site between West 34th and West 35th streets along Hudson Boulevard. It's unclear when construction on the tower, located at 66 Hudson Blvd., will begin since the developer is looking for an anchor tenant first. BlackRock is considering the tower for its new headquarters.

The air rights were purchased from the city and state's joint reservoir of development rights associated with the eastern rail yards, one of two swaths of tracks rezoned in 2004 to accommodate 12.6 million square feet of development on platforms built above the yards. The Related Cos. later won the rights to the project, and is currently working on the complex's first phase.

The 2004 rezoning created additional square feet of development in the eastern rail yards that could be sold to other project developers throughout the Hudson Yards district. So far, the city and state have sold nearly 1 million square feet of these rights for a collective $190 million. There is roughly 3.6 million square feet remaining.

This would be Tishman's second air rights purchase for the Spiral. In the summer of 2015, the developer acquired nearly $30 million worth of development rights from the Imperatore family, according to The Real Deal. Tishman also spent $25 million on tenant buyouts after purchasing the land itself in two transactions totaling $438 million. With the additional development rights from the eastern rail yards, which were bought in March, the tower's size is now billed at about 350,000 square feet more than what could have originally been built on the site assemblage.

Related also purchased air rights this year directly from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, spending $18 million for 60,000 square feet. The rights were mostly used to increase the size of the firm's planned tower at 35 Hudson Yards, a residential and hotel project.

=============================
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/201...low&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[hunser]

Oh come on now! 3 million sq ft? This should be at least 1,600' and not barely 1,000'. A missed opportunity ...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Tishman Speyer pays $78 million to boost the size of its Hudson Yards tower


=============================
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/201...low&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

This is what's always been planned. The rezoning of the Hudson Yards sites were always dependent on getting extra development rights from the railyards to get the full FAR. It's why Related's proposal for 55 Hudson is smaller than Extell's proposal for that site would have been. Related declined to get the max FAR for that site.

[NYguy]

I expect that they will be updating filings to show the 2.85 msf tower. The current filing still shows the 2.2 msf version...


http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQu...passjobnumber=122885422&passdocnumber=01

[Yesh222]

2.85 msf could have been huge here. It will still make an impact, especially from the street level and midtown, but this could have been skyline-defining. Oof.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by Yesh222

2.85 msf could have been huge here. It will still make an impact, especially from the street level and midtown, but this could have been skyline-defining. Oof.

What? I believe it IS 2.85 msf. They are just not using that to build tremendously tall. Lots of valid reasons for that.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Yesh222

2.85 msf could have been huge here. It will still make an impact, especially from the street level and midtown, but this could have been skyline-defining. Oof.

Originally Posted by jsbrook

What? I believe it IS 2.85 msf. They are just not using that to build tremendously tall. Lots of valid reasons for that.

Yeah, it is HUGE. And that will be clear especially from street level. They are taking advantage of the ability to build large floorplates here, something not possible in other areas of Manhattan. One Vanderbilt will be a 1.6 msf tower, but with smaller floorplates. The purpose of the Hudson Yards wasn't just to build tall towers, though the outcome will be exactly that. The purpose was to provide for the large scale office towers that we are seeing.

[Yesh222]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

What? I believe it IS 2.85 msf. They are just not using that to build tremendously tall. Lots of valid reasons for that.

Yeah, by huge I meant really tall. That's why I said it will have major street-level impact but not be skyline-defining.

[Submariner]

My wife made mention to me today on the train that BlackRock seems intent on moving into Hudson Yards. She was at a party with her manager a few days ago and the manager was talking about their relocation plans. Initially, they were to stay in Midtown (at the two buildings they currently occupy) then decided to look elsewhere - primarily Hudson Yards and 2WTC. One of the yet-to-be constructed buildings will be the likely spot for their move.

Hearsay and speculation, but that's the word on the office floor.