NEW YORK | 270 Park Ave | 1,389 FT | 57 FLOORS

[NYguy]

October 16, 2018

[Amanita]

^Nice pics!

[NYguy]

^ I take pics whenever I'm in the area. It'll be coming down before we know it. But it's looking aged.

[Amanita]

^I still feel sad that we're losing this one, it really is one of the better buildings of the time period. As far as looking aged is concerned, that would be easily remedied- the facade of 1345 6th Avenue looks wonderful, piercing black with shiny pinstripes, and it's only a few years younger. I'm guessing it's had new paint or anodizing applied at some point to keep it looking fresh. I noticed last time I was in town that 299 Park Avenue (its slightly older twin) wasn't looking as fresh, but I've heard Fisher Brothers has plans to remedy that over the next year or so. The same treatment would do wonders for this building, I'm sure.

[Prezrezc]

Holy crowbar, Batman; bring that dog-eared — down yesterday.....

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by Amanita

^I still feel sad that we're losing this one, it really is one of the better buildings of the time period. As far as looking aged is concerned, that would be easily remedied- the facade of 1345 6th Avenue looks wonderful, piercing black with shiny pinstripes, and it's only a few years younger. I'm guessing it's had new paint or anodizing applied at some point to keep it looking fresh. I noticed last time I was in town that 299 Park Avenue (its slightly older twin) wasn't looking as fresh, but I've heard Fisher Brothers has plans to remedy that over the next year or so. The same treatment would do wonders for this building, I'm sure.

[Amanita]

^If all you can do is string a few emoji together instead of anything like an intelligent response, don't even bother responding to me. And Prezrezc, you DO realize that a facade can be fixed, right? Quite a few NYC buildings which have kept their original facades have had periods where they didn't look so fresh, whether it was age, exposure to acid rain, or other maintenance issues. I've seen pics of 30 Rock where its facade was downright grungy looking. And One Liberty Plaza had the paint job on its own facade redone a few years ago. They had to clean off the old paint before applying the new, and for a little while, yes it looked pretty rough. It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a facade that's due for some fresh paint to make the case that this building deserves to be gone.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Amanita

^If all you can do is string a few emoji together instead of anything like an intelligent response, don't even bother responding to me. And Prezrezc, you DO realize that a facade can be fixed, right? Quite a few NYC buildings which have kept their original facades have had periods where they didn't look so fresh, whether it was age, exposure to acid rain, or other maintenance issues. I've seen pics of 30 Rock where its facade was downright grungy looking. And One Liberty Plaza had the paint job on its own facade redone a few years ago. They had to clean off the old paint before applying the new, and for a little while, yes it looked pretty rough. It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a facade that's due for some fresh paint to make the case that this building deserves to be gone.

Good answer!

[Prezrezc]

@Amanita with all due respect;

And that case can be perfectly borne out by nothing more than the fact that the entire rezoning area wherein this "monument" to mid-20th century commerce awaits its justifiable--and, let me be clear: unfortunate--euthanization is in drastic need to be made relevant for modernity.

If JP Morgan strikes a lucrative bargain with the City to "make an example" out of this tower in that manner, that's their right.

And while you bring up the example, 1LP is IMHO a completely apples-to-avocados contrast: Here, you're obviously describing a tower completed much later in 1973, retrofitted in 1989 and therefore perfectly capable of housing modernized businesses, and--on top of that--given an exterior "wash and set" only because of the destructive horror that nearly consumed it along with the rest of the WTC v.1 complex.

You have a valid point, however, that a similar cosmetic overhaul of this tower--and its likely conversion to full resi--is hypothetically/subjunctively within the realm of possibility; but here comes that reality bogeyman rearing its head once again:

What you described in your post above is totally feasible only if this tower--which BTW I have always enjoyed looking at in juxtaposition with its two brothers---were in another part of the city in which the economic need for rezoning were non-existent or at least much less exigent.

Believe me when I tell you with how much sadness I pored over those close up photos above; but that sadness--for me at least--has to be tempered with a certain acceptance of the fact that it was and is the far more important inner functionality of the tower that I had to conclude was beyond salvaging.

I hope that explains my POV.

[Amanita]

^For what it's worth, this tower was only overhauled about 6 years ago. From what I've read, they completely gutted and renovated 10 floors at a time, we're not just talking snazzy new office interiors, but a full mechanical replacement and revamp too- all new systems. So for all intents and purposes, it may as well be a new building. There are plenty of shorter, crummier, really lousy little buildings in Midtown east, they are probably the real intended targets of this rezoning. I still feel bad about this one, I wish that all this air rights business didn't make it harder for JP Morgan to sell this building and build their new HQ somewhere close by.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by Amanita

^If all you can do is string a few emoji together instead of anything like an intelligent response, don't even bother responding to me.

No but in all seriousness, good riddance. I can't wait for the rest of the soulless boxes make way for attractive architecture.

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

No but in all seriousness, good riddance. I can't wait for the rest of the soulless boxes make way for attractive architecture.

pleeeease don't jinx us. This is a bank we're talking about. JP Morgan Chase might decide that a big, fat, glassy box is the best fit for them.

Previous (original) Chase Architecture:


One Chase Manhattan Plaza by Emilio Guerra, on Flickr


JPMorgan Chase Tower by Jeff Stvan, on Flickr


JP Morgan Chase Building by Bill, on Flickr

[KevinFromTexas]

I like the glass boxes. They're a part of your architectural history and heritage, and without getting all mushy about it, I also suspect they'll age about as well as more modern styles will in 30 to 40 years. The only difference is these newer buildings will be visible from farther away.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

pleeeease don't jinx us. This is a bank we're talking about. JP Morgan Chase might decide that a big, fat, glassy box is the best fit for them.

Previous (original) Chase Architecture:


One Chase Manhattan Plaza by Emilio Guerra, on Flickr


JPMorgan Chase Tower by Jeff Stvan, on Flickr


JP Morgan Chase Building by Bill, on Flickr

The same could be said for any major corporation that leased or commissioned towers from the 40's to 80's.

Look at what we got with BofA. Look at what we're getting with 1VB. Times are changing. Yes, JP could go for a bland box, sure. But they may very well go for something spectacular.

[BoM Trespasser]

Is the glass original? A new building would have much improved glass than Union Carbide's old glass curtain . Better configured rest rooms, elevators. Higher ceiling heights. Chance for terraces. Lots of good reasons to replace. I mean how different is this building from Seagram's and several others? OTOH I understand nostalgia. Buuut, I don't think that is enough. Wouldn't be enough to sway me, if I was Jamie Dimon

[Amanita]

^If you were Jamie Dimon and you had the opportunity to make a trade of sorts- sell your current building to somebody else who was interested in it, and transfer the air rights to another site close by (perhaps one occupied by a much shorter building that would be a lot faster and cost less to take down), would you go for it?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Amanita

^If all you can do is string a few emoji together instead of anything like an intelligent response, don't even bother responding to me.

Yes, no insults please.

Originally Posted by BoM Trespasser

Is the glass original? A new building would have much improved glass than Union Carbide's old glass curtain . Better configured rest rooms, elevators. Higher ceiling heights. Chance for terraces. Lots of good reasons to replace. I mean how different is this building from Seagram's and several others? OTOH I understand nostalgia. Buuut, I don't think that is enough. Wouldn't be enough to sway me, if I was Jamie Dimon

Originally Posted by Amanita

^If you were Jamie Dimon and you had the opportunity to make a trade of sorts- sell your current building to somebody else who was interested in it, and transfer the air rights to another site close by (perhaps one occupied by a much shorter building that would be a lot faster and cost less to take down), would you go for it?

It needs a new eveything. But the large footprint enables Chase to nearly double the size of the building and consolidate some of its office space. It's a win-win for Chase. And it's a win for the City, as it battles to rejuvenate and retain it's central business district. With all of the developments active and planned, they're putting the Park Avenue back in Park Avenue.

[NYguy]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BpCjzMvnqJa/?taken-by=cstephensnyc

[Zapatan]

Perfect spot for a 1,200+ foot building to compliment Vanderbilt. I wonder if they'll go even higher

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Yes, no insults please.

I didn't know laughing emojis was considered insulting. Thanks for the heads up.