NEW YORK | 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt) | 1,575 FT | 86 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Sky88

In your opinion, would we witness an evolution of the design similar to that of the 270 Park Ave tower which has gone from the first drawings, those of NO-Action and With-Action up to the final version?

Who knows what Harry B. Macklowe will say now? Maybe ... "My tower will be higher".

Macklowe is spiteful enough to add a 300 ft spire to the top of his tower.

But as far as the design for 270 Park goes, their proposal was denied. The taller, 1,566 ft version was the as-of-right version. Their initial proposal was for the 1,400 ft tower with the enclosed public space. That was denied, but a compromise on plaza relocation led to the current design of that tower.

Usually, by the time a tower gets to this stage of development (approvals), it's pretty much what you are going to get. The NYC zoning code is very rigid in regards to skyscraper form, with specific setback and width limits along its height. That's why every single one of these new towers in midtown east have some form of approval in regards to that. So those approvals are very specific. The design must fit into the envelope of whatever approval they got. Numbers could shift a little, even after approval. But you won't see major changes. Vanderbilt was up, and up, then down. It was the same tower all the way. But they have to do the studies on what will be built, as well as the as-of-right version.

Originally Posted by Hudson11

21st century Terminal City.

That's what I've been saying, and it's really true. I love that all of these new towers have direct connectios to the terminal. They are connected to the city and tri-state.

Originally Posted by chris08876

They keep saying NY is dead... all I see is NY growing and blooming.

I think that's just something that fets repeated in time. You would think the city never went through hard times.

[Visionist]

Looks like Christmas has come early.

I wonder what facade treatment could contextually match the Chrysler's Nirosta steel.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Visionist

Looks like Christmas has come early.

I wonder what facade treatment could contextually match the Chrysler's Nirosta steel.

There are 2 meetings next month. First the community board, and then the public scoping meeting. Both will be virtual. But maybe they will give a little on those details.

[chris08876]

Hopefully the presentations are shown after those meetings. Usually they are chock full of additional details. Will give us an indication if they are going for "with action", which would be ideal. Given the time frame or projection, plenty of time to factor in risk mitigation. I hope they go all out on this. Its in a very very ideal location next to Grand Central. Can't get better than that, other than say Penn Station. Top dollar in other words or high desirability for any future tenants.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Hopefully the presentations are shown after those meetings. Usually they are chock full of additional details. Will give us an indication if they are going for "with action", which would be ideal. Given the time frame or projection, plenty of time to factor in risk mitigation.

The version here is the as-of-right version, by zoning. They could build it today. (Minus demolition of course).










The "with action" will be the same as the current proposal, just no hotel.

[faridnyc]

Nyguy, so you mean we can say farewell to the 1646ft height building !!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by faridnyc

Nyguy, so you mean we can say farewell to the 1646ft height building !!

Where did you get that? The 1,646 ft building is the proposal.

[pianowizard]

It just occurred to me that the hotel occupying the highest floors of the 1739' Guangzhou Chow Tai Fook Finance Centre would remain the highest hotel in the world. However, I am sure the view from the 1646' NYC Grand Hyatt would be much nicer.

Originally Posted by faridnyc

Nyguy, so you mean we can say farewell to the 1646ft height building !!

The 1118' building is the fallback plan, in case the 1646' proposal fails to get the go-ahead.

[JMKeynes]

I’m shocked that the hotel is at the top. It seems that the rent for office space that high would be astronomical.

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I’m shocked that the hotel is at the top. It seems that the rent for office space that high would be astronomical.

Maybe there is demand for elite hotel space with the Waldorf converting some of its space to condos.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

The 1118' building is the fallback plan, in case the 1646' proposal fails to get the go-ahead.

It's not a fallback plan, it's what could be built as of right. All developments that need approval show this "as of right" or "no action" plan. It conforms to current zoning on the site, including massing. Just for development purposes though, they likely wouldn't build exactly like that. But it has to be presented to the table.

As a fallback, the plan without the hotel component will be studied, but would be the same building and size as the current proposal.

[DCReid]

I don't think that the issue will be approval of the 1646 tower. I do think that the issue will be whether the developer moves forward with the larger tower. Remember that One Vandy was supposed to be taller (more space) and the two towers near Hudson Yard were also downsized in height and space. I guess we will see...

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I don't think that the issue will be approval of the 1646 tower. I do think that the issue will be whether the developer moves forward with the larger tower. Remember that One Vandy was supposed to be taller (more space) and the two towers near Hudson Yard were also downsized in height and space. I guess we will see...

True but Chase Tower did the opposite. 1200 to nearly 1400

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I don't think that the issue will be approval of the 1646 tower. I do think that the issue will be whether the developer moves forward with the larger tower. Remember that One Vandy was supposed to be taller (more space) and the two towers near Hudson Yard were also downsized in height and space. I guess we will see...

I think you guys are somehow still getting mixed up. There is only one proposal here, one tower that is up for approval. That's the 1,646 ft tower. That's what this entire thing is about. Vanderbilt is still the same size, the floor layout and number is what changed. I don't know what you are referencing in the HY.


This is the proposal:

[JMKeynes]

This is more exciting than seeing Kerry Russell’s butt on The Americans, and that was pretty damn fantastic!

[faridnyc]

This one will rise almost 200ft above the famous roof of wills tower and becomes the first 500m roof of new York city !!

[Visionist]

I'm already saving up for a suite at the hotel!

So Vanderbilt would have been the same square footage originally at 1501' but more slender with more floors? Why was the 1566' 6" proposal for 270 Park not approved?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Visionist

I'm already saving up for a suite at the hotel!

So Vanderbilt would have been the same square footage originally at 1501' but more slender with more floors? Why was the 1566' 6" proposal for 270 Park not approved?

Yes, Vanderbilt is a bulkier tower, which I thought would be a problem, but isn't really. I don't know if that change was for tenant demand (which it sometimes is), but they were marketing specific floor heights and sizes.

As far as 270 Park goes, the 1,566 ft version (no action) didn't need approval, and was as-of-right under midtown east rezoning. But that's not what Chase wanted or needed. They needed approval (with action) to remove the plaza from the required location, and place it indoors, which would have allowed for the larger trading floors at the base, and larger floors above that. That's why the proposal was going to be shorter. That wasn't approved, but they did get a compromise, which is why the tower cantilevers over the outdoor plaza, they still get the larger trading floors.








All proposals must show the proposed (with action) and no action versions of what could be built. Here's a look at 343 Madison, also being rebuilt under midtown east rezoning.








One more thing about the Hyatt development, like 270 Park, it's a unique site that doesn't conform to the written language. For the purposes of the zoning, the Grand Hyatt and Grand Central are being combined as a single lot. So the lot size here is just over 200,000 sf, more than double that of 270's 80,000 sf. The developers, MSD Partners and TF Cornerstone are the entities that own the GC air rights (about 1 msf remaining). Hyatt has the 100 year lease on the site. And RXR Realty was also brought in on the redevelopment team. Other stakeholders include the city and the state. It's a bit of a complicated mixture, but what it means is that because of the unique nature of the site, the remaining air rights will be used on the hotel portion, which in practicality would give it an FAR of 39.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

True but Chase Tower did the opposite. 1200 to nearly 1400

Chase has a committed tenant that is building it. One Manhattan and Two Manhattan West were originally planned as taller and bigger - without a committed tenant in advance for a large chunk, the developer may decide to play it safe and go with less space.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Chase has a committed tenant that is building it. One Manhattan and Two Manhattan West were originally planned as taller and bigger - without a committed tenant in advance for a large chunk, the developer may decide to play it safe and go with less space.

They're not gonna go with less space, especially on this site, one of the prime sites of Manhattan. This will be a different building from Manhattan West, among the elite of elite. Cutting back on the office space is the last thing that will happen. Interesting fact about Manhattan West (like this site, and the railyard development), for zoning purposes, it is considered one lot. There was (and is) a set amount of development rights for that lot. Brookfield downsized it's taller tower to add a residential tower on it's site, mirroring to a degree the Hudson Yards development that was taking shape next door. And the smaller tower was increased slightly. It's a bit of a reach to say they're gonna build a smaller tower here, and especially here. Besides, with all of the massive new office towers going up in the city lately, when have we seen a downsizing?

Anyway, it seems that when all is said and done, east midtown won't be too far off from this...










I was thinking about the phases of construction here, with potential construction starting in 2024 or sooner (the closure of the hotel could put things in motion sooner). But even if it doesn't start before then, it's not as if we will be lacking for action. Multiple towers would have gotten underway, including 2 new supertalls in the neighborhood. And just as 270 Park is coming on the heels of Vanderbilt, this tower could be coming on the heels of 270 (and more friends with it). I can remember when we weren't getting anything built above 900 ft. We've been seeing non-stop supertall construction for a decade, and we're looking at another decade of supertall construction to come. It makes you wonder when there will not be a supertall tower under construction in the city again.