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

[NYguy]

Those idiots in CB5...


https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-e...-midtown-tower

JPMorgan wants to shrink public space in proposed East Midtown tower
Bank seeks zoning bonus without providing open space required by recent rezoning

JOE ANUTA
December 05, 2018

JPMorgan Chase is seeking changes to a recently passed rezoning in East Midtown to provide a smaller-than-required public space at its proposed tower along Park Avenue.

The bank announced earlier this year that it would demolish its current building at 270 Park Ave. and replace it with a much larger structure allowed by the Greater East Midtown rezoning.

Essentially, that rezoning gives developers additional density if they, in various combinations, purchase air rights from landmarked properties in the district, provide transit improvements or build privately owned public spaces.

JPMorgan’s proposed tower would require a 10,000 square foot public space under the rules. However, the bank is arguing that it can only provide a 7,000 square foot space because of an unusual condition at the property. Nearly two-thirds of the block sits directly over a large train shed connected to Grand Central Terminal that is used to store and stage Metro North trains, and the lack of basement and foundation space makes a larger public area infeasible.

Wednesday evening, the bank presented its argument to a Manhattan community board, which voted against the proposal.

“Asking for a huge giveaway in exchange for nothing is not something we would not contemplate,” said Layla Law-Gisiko, chair of the board’s land use committee.

The board argued that granting an exemption on the first development to arise from the rezoning would set a bad percent, and that JPMorgan should at least have offered another public benefit to compensate for the 3,000 square foot shortfall in the open space, if not reconfigured the layout to reach the existing requirement. The bank said that it considered many options but could not arrive at a 10,000 square foot open space that would be suitable to the public.

The proposal will ultimately wind up at the City Council, where a compromise might be struck next year.

Do these people not realize that they will end up with a taller tower? Not that their vote is binding, but it's interesting how the knee-jerk reaction seems to be "no". There is no way that open plaza will be more inviting to the pulic, in that location and configuration.

[JSsocal]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Those idiots in CB5...

Do these people not realize that they will end up with a taller tower? Not that their vote is binding, but it's interesting how the knee-jerk reaction seems to be "no". There is no way that open plaza will be more inviting to the pulic, in that location and configuration.

Believe it or not but in this part of midtown no one cares how tall the buildings are.

And I completely agree with the community board. For them to reduce the scope of a public benefit and offer nothing in return is not something the city should get in the habit of doing. If JPMC said 'we'll reduce the scope of the public space and give $50m to a subway station' then that would be a good deal for the city- or if they simply kept the same amount of square footage- that would be completely reasonable.

We don't need to give developers every last thing they want.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Believe it or not but in this part of midtown no one cares how tall the buildings are.

That's funny, because this same CB has always come out against height. They complained when the whole midtown east was being rezoned (the lights, crowds, etc).

And I completely agree with the community board. For them to reduce the scope of a public benefit and offer nothing in return is not something the city should get in the habit of doing. If JPMC said 'we'll reduce the scope of the public space and give $50m to a subway station' then that would be a good deal for the city- or if they simply kept the same amount of square footage- that would be completely reasonable.

That's where you are wrong. They are giving an indoor space that can actually be used, and used year round, unlike the multiple "symbolic" public open spaces that line Park Avenue and the streets of Manhattan that are barley used by the public. Let's get real here. The open space may sound nice, but it would be anything but. Cold and frigid during the winter, hot and unbearable during the summer. Wetter than wet on those rainy (and snowy) days. Drafty year round. As opposed to a climate controlled space (3,000 ft less? the horror) open year round.

Maybe knowing that their vote is mostly symbolic, it's a "symbolic" no they gave. But Chase should drop it altogether, put up a 1,500 - 1,700 ft tower, build that open plaza, and see how much they like it.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

For the taller tower? They could build that as of right if it's what they wanted. But the whole point is to get those larger floorplates at the base, so that is what they are pushing for.

I know, I was just wondering if there was a possibility to tweak the design and have both (large floor plates and higher height)

I'm fine with it ending up a little over 1,400 feet or whatever, but 1,600+ would just be so amazing

[JMKeynes]

They should build an 1,800' tower and stick it to these Commies. They should top off the tower with statues of Adam Smith and Hayek. This will be the Cathedral to Capitalism!!!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I know, I was just wondering if there was a possibility to tweak the design and have both (large floor plates and higher height)

I'm fine with it ending up a little over 1,400 feet or whatever, but 1,600+ would just be so amazing

Let's look at how that open plaza would fit in the landscape...





And the indoor plaza...





Now, with the comparison of both towers...





You might question why they wouldn't just cantilever over the open space, but then it wouldn't be as "open".

I'm all for a taller tower, but at the same time, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to build a tower as efficient for the company as possible. That is the entire purpose of building a new headquarters there.

[Hudson11]

Wednesday evening, the bank presented its argument to a Manhattan community board, which voted against the proposal.

[NYguy]

^ The boards are never happy. I think it's a belief that their purpose is to say no on so many things. I can't think of a single proposal the community boards were happy with.



Anyway, we've already seen the massing of this tower (pretty much the same in both versions). It's the details that will make or break this tower. As an addition to Park Avenue by Foster, I like to think 425 is an indication of the quality of design we will see. 270 Park will be a much more massive tower, but it won't be overbearing with a good, clean design.

[Sky88]

So, what version of the tower will be built, the 1,400-ft one or the 1,500-ft one?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Sky88

So, what version of the tower will be built, the 1,400-ft one or the 1,500-ft one?

Nobody knows exactly what's getting built.

[NYguy]

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/12/6/1812...e-public-space

Chase’s plan to shrink public space at new Midtown HQ met with skepticism
“If we’re not getting 3,000 square feet, we should be getting something”


By Amy Plitt
Dec 6, 2018

As JP Morgan Chase moves forward with its plans to demolish and replace 270 Park Avenue (aka the Union Carbide Building), more of what the banking giant has planned for its new HQ—to be designed by Foster + Partners—is coming to light.

The firm recently filed a zoning text amendment seeking to change the size of a POPS that will be at the base of the building from 10,000 square feet—a requirement under the East Midtown rezoning plan that was adopted in 2017—to 7,000 square feet. Manhattan’s Community Board 5 weighed in at a meeting of its land use committee last night; board members were unimpressed with the proposed changes, and ultimately voted down the proposal.

Layla Law-Gisiko, the chair of the land use committee, noted that they would not vote to “give away something in exchange for nothing, just because.”

On hand to present the proposed were representatives from the firm, along with Vishaan Chakrabarti of the Practice for Architecture and Urbanism, who is consulting with Chase and Foster + Partners on the building. They laid out the reasons why the reduction in square footage is necessary, largely because of the building’s foundation and the location of a train shed for Grand Central Terminal, which runs below the building. (Chakrabarti compared its structural issues to dealing with a Rubik’s cube.)

They also argued that the proposed POPS location on Madison Avenue (rather than Park Avenue or mid-block) is necessary to create a more attractive space for the public.

That space, at least in its preliminary design, would ideally serve several purposes, per the design team: to add more nature to the area (via a green wall and a water feature); to act as a “glowing room,” bringing more light to the neighborhood; and to function as an urban workspace, with seating and areas where building tenants or neighborhood residents could congregate.

But the board took issue with various elements of the proposal. The largest sticking point was the reduction in POPS size without any additional public benefit to make up for it, which many viewed as a bad precedent to set with the first project to move forward under that plan. Other qualms included the fact that the POPS would not have bathrooms, that it would only be open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and that the owners hope to host private events there.

Chase recently closed a deal with Grand Central Terminal for the landmark’s air rights in order to build a more dense tower; GCT will receive $10 million from Chase to help with its preservation efforts, and the firm has also contributed $42 million to the East Midtown Public Realm Improvement Fund, which oversees the street-level improvements happening as part of the rezoning plan.

Preservationists continue to call for the city to try and save the original structure, which was built in 1961 and designed by SOM’s Gordon Bunshaft and Natalie de Blois. The building is not landmarked—and thus, among the city’s most endangered buildings—and the Landmarks Preservation Commission hasn’t indicated that will change any time soon.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ The boards are never happy. I think it's a belief that their purpose is to say no on so many things. I can't think of a single proposal the community boards were happy with.



Anyway, we've already seen the massing of this tower (pretty much the same in both versions). It's the details that will make or break this tower. As an addition to Park Avenue by Foster, I like to think 425 is an indication of the quality of design we will see. 270 Park will be a much more massive tower, but it won't be overbearing with a good, clean design.

Yes! Something like this with a clean but unique design and not a flat top but again something distinctive nice and clean for such a tall tower.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by toddguy

Yes! Something like this with a clean but unique design and not a flat top but again something distinctive nice and clean for such a tall tower.

I hoping for something as nice, but I've accepted that it may be a flat topped tower. Every indication is that it will be, though it may not be a typical flat roof. We'll see. I wonder how much more, if anything, they revealed to the community board. I would have been more upset about that than 3,000 square feet.

[JMKeynes]

I'd be shocked if it looks much different from the "massing models." A façade like 425 Park's doesn't comport with the International-style that Norm is fixated on.

I'd be pleased with either of the "massing models."

[JSsocal]

Not sure why we're getting worked up on the CB decision. Midtown is littered with BAD indoor public pops, and these developers did not make a good pitch at selling theirs. The simple fact is when it's public space in a building people on the street don't realize it's available to the public. In addition jpmorgan is planning on closing it for events, and it'l only be open 7am-10pm.

The space they've rendered is a glorified lobby.

Now take a look at the sony building or the IBM building, now those are wonderful interior spaces. JPmorgan needs to put the work in.

This attitude that we need to coddle one of the richest corporations in America so they can build their most efficient ideal trophy tower is absurd

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I'd be shocked if it looks much different from the "massing models." A façade like 425 Park's doesn't comport with the International-style that Norm is fixated on.

Foster himself discussed 425 and what he thought a Park Avenue tower should be. The massing model tells you NOTHING about the design, but it does give you a basic shape, a rough outline of the form the tower will take. I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about that.

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Not sure why we're getting worked up on the CB decision. Midtown is littered with BAD indoor public pops, and these developers did not make a good pitch at selling theirs. The simple fact is when it's public space in a building people on the street don't realize it's available to the public. In addition jpmorgan is planning on closing it for events, and it'l only be open 7am-10pm.

The space they've rendered is a glorified lobby.

So basically what you're saying is that people are too stupid to know what's open to the public. Nonsense. First of all, what Midtown is littered with is too many little used open plazas, that do NOTHING to invite public use. Maybe the people who work in the buildings will come out for lunch when it's nice out, which I see quite a bit of. But and open space outside a building, you think would be more desirable than an enclosed, comfortable environment. Yeah, right. And you're further concerned about the masses of people who are rushing to use public spaces after 10 pm. You are aware that there are city parks that have closing times. Yes, public parks.
https://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/f...do-parks-close


I think you're just reaching for reasons you think the outdoor space would be better, and it's just not working. And no one is worked up about the CB's decision, just pointing out the ridiculous. It's allowed.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Foster himself discussed 425 and what he thought a Park Avenue tower should be. The massing model tells you NOTHING about the design, but it does give you a basic shape, a rough outline of the form the tower will take. I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about that.

.

We’ll see when the “final design” is released.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

We’ll see when the “final design” is released.

I don't know what you're talking about. No design has been released at all. We have a massing model to give us the shape and dimensions of the tower - at least as it stands now. If you've seen a design, you should share it with the rest of us.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

They should build an 1,800' tower and stick it to these Commies. They should top off the tower with statues of Adam Smith and Hayek. This will be the Cathedral to Capitalism!!!

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic and ironic in the same way that the ideological conflict between your comment and your user name is?

[NYguy]

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-e...etime-enforcer

In lobbying, JPMorgan deploys City Council's onetime enforcer
Former chief of staff to the council speaker will help bank secure permit to reduce open space at planned Park Avenue tower





JOE ANUTA
December 07, 2018

A former City Council staffer is helping JPMorgan Chase secure permission to shrink required public space at its Park Avenue office project.

Ramon Martinez worked in the council for more than a decade, most recently as chief of staff to both Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and her successor, Corey Johnson, before resigning during the summer.

While Martinez avoided the spotlight, he was widely regarded as a key behind-the-scenes operator who influenced priorities and decided which bills would get a vote. Now he is helping the bank with an application that ultimately will be decided by his former colleagues.

Martinez's move to JPMorgan was first reported by Politico New York in June, four months after the bank announced its plan to replace an existing office tower at 270 Park Ave. with a 2.5 million-square-foot headquarters. At the time it was widely assumed that the bank could build without any additional land-use approvals, which typically entail a bruising fight. That's because the Greater East Midtown rezoning was supposed to create an as-of-right framework under which developers could earn additional density in exchange for purchasing air rights from landmarked properties and, in some cases, making improvements to public transportation and providing public space.

But as Crain's reported Wednesday, JPMorgan is seeking changes to the new zoning that would allow it to provide a smaller public space than what the law requires. That will likely involve striking a deal with the council, for which Martinez's skills are ideally suited. JPMorgan said that it sought guidance from the Conflicts of Interest Board before bringing on Martinez, and the bank provided copies of disclosure forms filed with the city.

JPMorgan argues that unusual conditions on its site—nearly two-thirds of the block sits over a cavernous train shed connected to Grand Central Terminal—prevent it from providing a 10,000-square-foot public space as required. On Wednesday a Manhattan community board committee voted against the plan, arguing that JPMorgan failed to explore all options for providing the full square footage and offered no compensation for the 3,000-square-foot shortfall in its proposal.

Conflict-of-interest laws bar city employees from contacting anyone in their former agency for a year. Because Martinez left during the summer, he would not likely have the opportunity to interact with his colleagues directly on the application, though there is a small chance he could become unencumbered in the final and crucial days of negotiations if the land-use clock were stretched to its limit.