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

[The Best Forumer]

I hope this gets built.

[Amanita]

I think the Chase staff are going to end up scattered around between 383 Madison, 277 Park Avenue, and a few other nearby buildings.

[The Best Forumer]

Renderings???

[NYguy]

http://rew-online.com/2018/03/28/slo...own-goes-solo/

Slow-motion change as East Midtown goes solo




BY KYLE CAMPBELL
MARCH 28, 2018

East Midtown rezoning got its biggest endorsement to date last month: buy-in from one of the neighborhood’s oldest and most important corporate occupants, JPMorgan Chase.

.....In February, JPMorgan announced its plan to demolish its current headquarters and replace it with a new 70-story, 2.5 million s/f tower. As the first project to use the new zoning, the bank’s headquarters sparked a renewed excitement in Midtown East.

“It’s the single biggest piece of news we’ve had for Midtown post-One Vanderbilt in terms of what it’s going to do positively for the marketplace,” Cushman & Wakefield Global Brokerage chair Bruce Mosler said, adding that he expects more development opportunities to crop up this year.

In conversation with Mosler during REBNY’s spring lunch last week, Brookfield senior managing partner Ric Clark said citywide demand has shifted toward new construction. For Midtown East to remain competitive, owners either need to renovate or rebuild, he said.

“All this development has created a nuclear arms race when it comes to redeveloping old buildings, (there are) 40-plus buildings that are going through very substantial capital modifications so they can compete,” Clark said. “On Park Avenue, a lot of those buildings don’t lend themselves to that, so what JPMorgan Chase did is great. I know of two large corporate tenants that would love to do something like that on Park Avenue.”

https://commercialobserver.com/2018/...revive-or-die/

As Midtown Looks to Compete in a New Manhattan Market, It’s Revive or Die
Hudson Yards has changed the game for the city’s office landlords. In Midtown, developers are being forced to emulate and recreate to stay relevant.




BY REY MASHAYEKHI
MARCH 28, 2018

For the past few years, the developers, landlords and brokers who constitute the stakeholders of the Midtown Manhattan commercial real estate market have been barraged by waves of conjecture, speculation and hype. On earnings calls, panel debates and in the papers, they’ve been confronted with statements and observations that are, by now, extremely familiar: “Manhattan’s center of gravity is shifting westward.” “Today’s office tenants want new space in cool, hip neighborhoods.” “Midtown South and the Far West Side are now the city’s most desirable office markets.”

It’s all had the effect of painting a rather forlorn picture for Midtown, which today remains the world’s largest central business district and, in many respects, the dominant, bustling hub of commerce in New York City, from Times Square to Rockefeller Center to Grand Central Terminal. With more than 240 million square feet of inventory and 179 million square feet of Class A product, according to Cushman & Wakefield data, it is by far the greatest concentration of office space in the city.

“The millennial generation has spoken: They want [offices with] light, air, amenities and column-free efficient space,” said Bruce Mosler, C&W’s chairman of global brokerage. “Businesses today respond to what the workforce wants and not where the CEO lives. To be successful, they have to be in the locations and property types that attract the millennial generation.”

The task for Midtown landlords then is finding a way to make their existing product more competitive against the challenge of the West Side’s rising citadels. The property owners who will continue to do well in Midtown, sources said, are those who will invest the resources into making their 20th century office buildings attractive to the needs of 21st century tenants.

“One thing that’s clear and evident, and Hudson Yards bears it out, is that tenants want new,” David Berkey, an executive vice president and director of leasing for L&L Holding Company, told CO. “They want modern workspaces—they can no longer live in these older workspaces—and there’s only a finite amount of [new space] getting built.”

One Vanderbilt is rising only a few blocks south from 270 Park Avenue, where J.P. Morgan Chase will be tearing down its existing headquarters building and developing a new 70-story, 2.5-million-square-foot skyscraper, the banking giant announced in February. That endeavor is being aided with air rights acquired by J.P. Morgan through new parameters enabled by the Midtown East rezoning—a regulatory shift that many have touted as imperative in enabling developers to rebuild and renew the aging office stock in the area.

“I think it’s definitely forced landlords to take a good, hard look at a specific asset and whether it makes sense economically [to redevelop],” Fisher Brothers Partner Ken Fisher, whose firm owns five office buildings in the Midtown East area, said of the rezoning. “It gives us the ability to knock [buildings] down and rebuild, if that’s what we want to do.

[Dac150]

“I know of two large corporate tenants that would love to do something like that on Park Avenue.”

Only other tenants I can think of are BlackRock and Citigroup (I know of several BlackRock and Citi employees who are unhappy about the new / soon-to-be new locations). There's also Alcoa, Colgate-Palmolive and Bristol-Myers … and maybe Blackstone and BCG.

[NYguy]

Developers are salivating, as are the owners of air rights to sell.

[patriotizzy]

NOOOOOOOOO. Only hard to reproduce buildings should be saved. Which is why I am always for preserving old ornate buildings. They aren't and won't be reproduced anytime soon because of expenses. However, this box could easily be replaced because it has nothing of interest or of value. The only value this holds is the fact that it is one of the first buildings of its era. Who cares? A label means nothing when it physically holds no substance.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

NOOOOOOOOO. Only hard to reproduce buildings should be saved. Which is why I am always for preserving old ornate buildings. They aren't and won't be reproduced anytime soon because of expenses. However, this box could easily be replaced because it has nothing of interest or of value. The only value this holds is the fact that it is one of the first buildings of its era. Who cares? A label means nothing when it physically holds no substance.

How much value 270 holds is a matter of opinion. A lot of people, especially millennials, happen to quite like midcentury modern architecture, mainly because of the cultural impact of shows like Mad Men. It might even make sense for Chase to acquire and replace one of the smaller, crappier midcentury towers on the blocks between 270 and Lever House and pursue a residential conversion of 270 as has been done with 10 Hanover Square in FiDi, with the revenue from condo sales at 270 going towards the purchase price of the other building. Call it “The Lofts at Union Carbide” or something. “Your chance to live like Don Draper.”

[Amanita]

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71

How much value 270 holds is a matter of opinion. A lot of people, especially millennials, happen to quite like midcentury modern architecture, mainly because of the cultural impact of shows like Mad Men. It might even make sense for Chase to acquire and replace one of the smaller, crappier midcentury towers on the blocks between 270 and Lever House and pursue a residential conversion of 270 as has been done with 10 Hanover Square in FiDi, with the revenue from condo sales at 270 going towards the purchase price of the other building. Call it “The Lofts at Union Carbide” or something. “Your chance to live like Don Draper.”

I'm just a year or two older than a true millennial, but I've definitely got a thing for a lot of buildings of that time period. Walking up 6th Avenue between Bryant Park and 57th street, or down Park Avenue from 57th to just below Grand Central makes me feel like I'm surrounded by friends, in a way.
Heck yes I'd live in 270!

[Zapatan]

Does 270 Park Avenue Deserve to Be Saved?

It's not a terrible building, but there's nothing that special about it either. If getting rid of it means another beautiful, modern 1,250+ foot supertall in midtown then no, it shouldn't be saved.

[chris08876]

The Midtown East rezoning and its outcome will see a lot of towers or existing properties either bite the dust, or see renovation/expansion. 270 Park is a hell of a 1st major project, and as of now, there are folks who want to save it. Okay... one tower that is... but is this something that will repeat each time a property will be demo'd or modified? Point being, 270 Park is the 1st of many.

At some point, we can't save them all, otherwise, what good was the point of the rezoning passing anyways?

In a nutshell, for Midtown East to remain competitive, it must see a change. Some existing towers down the line may bite the dust, but its the cost of keeping the district relevant. Given the high cost of developing in the district, we should not expect the whole district to disappear or dramatically change, no, but some towers will (addition/renovation/possible demo).

Its an interesting dynamic. Often, rezoning is equated with an apocalyptic scenario of the whole area being different, but such is not the case. We win some, lose some... we just have to accept. NYC is not a museum, and the fluid nature of skyscraper development has shown the dramatic change of some district(s), but at the same time, many still keep elements that made them great.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71

How much value 270 holds is a matter of opinion. A lot of people, especially millennials, happen to quite like midcentury modern architecture, mainly because of the cultural impact of shows like Mad Men. It might even make sense for Chase to acquire and replace one of the smaller, crappier midcentury towers on the blocks between 270 and Lever House and pursue a residential conversion of 270 as has been done with 10 Hanover Square in FiDi, with the revenue from condo sales at 270 going towards the purchase price of the other building. Call it “The Lofts at Union Carbide” or something. “Your chance to live like Don Draper.”

The younger generation that developed an appreciation and interest in MCM because of some show on cable is peripheral at best. The celebration of MCM architecture/graphic design/furniture design/textile design was something that was already happening and an idea who's time had come well before Sterling Cooper.

Just like the 1950's saw a renewed interest in the gay nineties, the 1960's and 70's a renewed interest in Art Nouveau, the 1980's and 90's a rebirth of Art Deco appreciation and influence, the 2000's saw the next natural rejuvenation and retrospective in MCM. In the 2010's you've already seen more interest in 1970's mod and though I hope Memphis is skipped, I fully expect the 80's to start getting thrilled on (outside of vaporwave and other counterculture) as this is just the natural course of style revival.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

NOOOOOOOOO. Only hard to reproduce buildings should be saved. Which is why I am always for preserving old ornate buildings. They aren't and won't be reproduced anytime soon because of expenses. However, this box could easily be replaced because it has nothing of interest or of value. The only value this holds is the fact that it is one of the first buildings of its era. Who cares? A label means nothing when it physically holds no substance.

I don't think the people who want to save this building want to save it for its looks so much as for an "idea", or what it supposedly represents. It was built at the time of blah, blah, blah, it's built in the style of blah, blah, blah.

New York has an excess of many things, buildings of this type being one of them. It's not something that needs to be saved. The district as a whole is something that needs to be preserved, and I'm not just talking about it's buildings, but it's purpose. And that purpose sadly, is not to be a museum, no matter how much many may want it to be.

[WhatTheHeck5205]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don't think the people who want to save this building want to save it for its looks so much as for an "idea", or what it supposedly represents. It was built at the time of blah, blah, blah, it's built in the style of blah, blah, blah.

New York has an excess of many things, buildings of this type being one of them. It's not something that needs to be saved. The district as a whole is something that needs to be preserved, and I'm not just talking about it's buildings, but it's purpose. And that purpose sadly, is not to be a museum, no matter how much many may want it to be.

I certainly don’t speak for everyone who wishes to see this tower preserved, but what it “represents” has nothing to do with it for me. I want this tower preserved because, while it may not be an icon, it’s a fine building overall, and it’s entirely possible that what replaces it may not be nearly as good. When you’re talking about a site as large and visually prominent as this one, that’s an immense amount of risk—not to mention completely unnecessary, as there are numerous smaller buildings in the area on sites as large, or nearly as large, as this one. Many are far inferior architecturally to this tower, and, quite frankly, should be demolished. These midcentury buildings are certainly not all equal in quality, and are certainly not as dime-a-dozen as you suggest—especially ones the size and quality of 270 Park. It may not be equal to Seagram or Lever House, but its facade detail and texture, quality of materials, and elegant proportions are above average compared to most other buildings of the period, and even many glass towers being constructed today. After Seagram and Lever, 270 is probably the most deserving example of this style for preservation—and doing so is hardly turning Midtown East into a “museum.” As I’ve said, there are plenty of other sites in the area, and additionally, 270 is only outdated as a bank building. It is still a perfectly viable office building for almost any other type of tenant (or even residential use, as I suggested). In fact, 277 Park, a building almost as old as this one, continues to attract new tenants including major law firms—and as far as I’m aware, it has not been upgraded to nearly the same extent 270 has. I want this building preserved because there is simply no valid reason to tear it down, from either an architectural or economic standpoint. The only purpose it serves is to satisfy Jamie Dimon’s ego.

[Amanita]

Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71

I certainly don’t speak for everyone who wishes to see this tower preserved, but what it “represents” has nothing to do with it for me. I want this tower preserved because, while it may not be an icon, it’s a fine building overall, and it’s entirely possible that what replaces it may not be nearly as good. When you’re talking about a site as large and visually prominent as this one, that’s an immense amount of risk—not to mention completely unnecessary, as there are numerous smaller buildings in the area on sites as large, or nearly as large, as this one. Many are far inferior architecturally to this tower, and, quite frankly, should be demolished. These midcentury buildings are certainly not all equal in quality, and are certainly not as dime-a-dozen as you suggest—especially ones the size and quality of 270 Park. It may not be equal to Seagram or Lever House, but its facade detail and texture, quality of materials, and elegant proportions are above average compared to most other buildings of the period, and even many glass towers being constructed today. After Seagram and Lever, 270 is probably the most deserving example of this style for preservation—and doing so is hardly turning Midtown East into a “museum.” As I’ve said, there are plenty of other sites in the area, and additionally, 270 is only outdated as a bank building. It is still a perfectly viable office building for almost any other type of tenant (or even residential use, as I suggested). In fact, 277 Park, a building almost as old as this one, continues to attract new tenants including major law firms—and as far as I’m aware, it has not been upgraded to nearly the same extent 270 has. I want this building preserved because there is simply no valid reason to tear it down, from either an architectural or economic standpoint. The only purpose it serves is to satisfy Jamie Dimon’s ego.

So much this, 100% this. To what you said, I'll add the issue of sustainability. That building's mechanical systems are only about 6 years old at this point, the building was renovated from the guts out to LEED platinum standards just a handful of years ago. There are brand new buildings that don't measure up to that standard. To tear down a building like this would be an incredible waste. Literally the only thing wrong with this building is that its sole tenant (Chase Bank) has outgrown it. To many other tenants, this would still be a perfectly good, even outstanding building. I'll second what you said about 277 Park (A building designed to be an almost twin to, or at least to compliment this one), that building is set to receive some renovations in the next couple of years, (See my 277 Park Avenue thread in the Buildings and Architecture forum) and it seems to be doing quite well for itself. I'd even argue that 277 and 345 Park are two other fine mid century buildings on the Avenue, but you're right that there are a lot of others nearby that are far more deserving of redevelopment (or at least the 425 Park treatment) than this one.

[pico44]

Thirded. It just so wasteful. I'd say only a quarter of the midtown streetscape is worthy of preservation. If that. And this isn't a building on the bubble, this is a no-brainer.

[Busy Bee]

^While I don't think preservation here is at all justified, I totally disagree with your "ornamentation" based metric for determining what is and what is not worth historic preservation. To translate this idea to say the art world, are works of art of intense complexity and detail the only works worth celebrating? Of course not. What makes any work of art significant, and by extension architecture, is not based on it's monetary replacement cost or how much intricate "irreplaceable" detail it possesses, but instead whether or not the work represents a significant or groundbreaking example of a style or epoch. 270 Park Avenue, while a nice, high quality slab of mid-century high modernism, falls short of being hailed as significant in any regard.

[Amanita]

These 60's and 70's buildings are in an awkward spot ATM. Older, but not quite old enough to be seen as historic and appreciated for that, except by a small number of people. It's hard to believe now, but there was once serious talk of tearing down the Brooklyn Bridge because it was "old and outdated", but not quite old enough to be loveable.
Nobody's asking for the whole district to be turned into a snow globe- notice that 425 Park Avenue didn't get such protests when it met its fate. Although to be fair, 425 wasn't torn down completely- I look at what's happening to it as a metamorphosis of sorts, changing and reshaping behind that cocoon-like shroud they wrapped it in, but not going away. There are lots of other buildings in the area that few if any people would protest this happening to.

[The Best Forumer]

so are they going to tear it down?

[Amanita]

For the stretch of Park Avenue from 57th street to Grand Central, I'd add 450 Park to the list of good buildings. 450's small, but it's got a very distinctive appearance, in addition to being beautifully maintained. Its only issue is the patch of exposed brick where Hotel Drake used to sit right up against it, and that's fixable. (It's already been fixed to some extent, I just wish they had made the new windows match the distinctively shaped ones original to the rest of the building)
425's already getting a makeover- it's now almost as tall as it originally was, so it's in good hands. Who knows what might happen to 245 Park? In the right hands, that one could be improved too.