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

[The New York Lion]

Hard to believe an office tower taller than the Twin Towers is going up in Midtown East.

New York went 40 years between building towers of this size- TWICE.

1,389 feet for an office building is just insanity.

A true goliath.

The only office tower taller than this in the developed world is the Willis Tower in Chicago, and that's by just 62 feet.

And this is just the beginning.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by The New York Lion

Hard to believe an office tower taller than the Twin Towers is going up in Midtown East.

New York went 40 years between building towers of this size- TWICE.

1,389 feet for an office building is just insanity.

A true goliath.

The only office tower taller than this in the developed world is the Willis Tower in Chicago, and that's by just 62 feet.

And this is just the beginning.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by The New York Lion

Hard to believe an office tower taller than the Twin Towers is going up in Midtown East.

New York went 40 years between building towers of this size- TWICE.

1,389 feet for an office building is just insanity.

A true goliath.

The only office tower taller than this in the developed world is the Willis Tower in Chicago, and that's by just 62 feet.

And this is just the beginning.

I'll preface this by noting that building usage has changed in the ~50 years since Sears Tower was built and today. Still, if you combined both One Vanderbilt and 270 Park Avenue, the two of them would have only 15 more occupied floors than Sears Towers, which has 108. Sears Tower has >4.5 million square feet, compared to 1.75 million for One Vanderbilt. That means there is nearly an additional 1 million square feet of floor space in Sears Tower as there is One Vanderbilt and 270 Park Ave. combined.

The height is impressive, no doubt, but much of it is vanity height. There was a tower in Chicago, 110 N Wacker Dr., that completed last year. It's an office tower, designed by Goetsch Partners. It's 817 feet tall with 57 floors, so same floor count as One Vanderbilt. The interior volume is 1.5 million square feet. You can fit almost the same amount of office workers into that building as One Vanderbilt.

I suppose the business case for investing so much in a taller building in Midtown Manhattan is that you are competing for occupants. Manhattan is a bigger market, so there are more clients willing to pay the premium. A more impressive structure means higher rents and you can recoup the costs of constructing such a tower.

[chris08876]

I think the big trend is mixed used, which from the standpoint of a tower rising, doesn't really require a massive commitment. If we were seeing proposals say on a frequency that require a major tenant to rise, it would slow down. Not that the market is crap at all but the mixed-used aspect of things helps it rise. Office only vs say office-hotel-residential.

Why I think things like Hudson Yards Phase II will skyrocket quickly once that gets going.

In this case of 270 Park, the allocation of office is there. That's a given considering JP, its their HQ. I'd wish for less of an office component with say 2 WTC, just to increase the odds of a quick turnaround. Considering the competition in Midtown East and West.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SteveD

I don't have much to add except Wow Wow Wow. Thank you for those amazing photos and please keep them coming. What a beast this thing is!

I’m too excited watching this building rise to stop! It also helps that the pace has picked up.

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Still, if you combined both One Vanderbilt and 270 Park Avenue, the two of them would have only 15 more occupied floors than Sears Towers, which has 108. Sears Tower has >4.5 million square feet, compared to 1.75 million for One Vanderbilt. That means there is nearly an additional 1 million square feet of floor space in Sears Tower as there is One Vanderbilt and 270 Park Ave. combined.

The height is impressive, no doubt, but much of it is vanity height. There was a tower in Chicago, 110 N Wacker Dr., that completed last year. It's an office tower, designed by Goetsch Partners. It's 817 feet tall with 57 floors, so same floor count as One Vanderbilt. The interior volume is 1.5 million square feet. You can fit almost the same amount of office workers into that building as One Vanderbilt.

I don’t know why we’re talking about Chicago, but buildings aren’t just built for height. Both the Spiral and 50 Hudson are larger buildings than this one, but of significantly shorter height. The reason we are seeing so many taller office towers built now is because of demand and the differences in how you bulit then as opposed to now.

New York is a market that demands the best of what is to offer, as far as office space goes. So you will see buildings with higher ceilings, for example, than some of the cheaper construction elsewhere. It also helps to be higher when one of your selling points in a dense skyline is your views.

But with all that being said, this building could have been, and would have been even taller - with the same amount of square footage - if they just built as was required by zoning. But they wanted to build an office tower that worked best for them. It’s why we had that lengthy approvals process. Ultimately, they didn’t get the alternative they wanted, but a compromise, and probably something better.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Everything about this building is amazing, including the dramatic, inward-sloped base.

https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...8_InPixiob.jpg

As the main entrance, I’m sure that space is going to be spectacular. We are robbed of a little joy from not having a rendering to compare it to, but what are you gonna do.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I don’t know why we’re talking about Chicago, but buildings aren’t just built for height. Both the Spiral and 50 Hudson are larger buildings than this one, but of significantly shorter height. The reason we are seeing so many taller office towers built now is because of demand and the differences in how you bulit then as opposed to now.

New York is a market that demands the best of what is to offer, as far as office space goes. So you will see buildings with higher ceilings, for example, than some of the cheaper construction elsewhere. It also helps to be higher when one of your selling points in a dense skyline is your views.

But with all that being said, this building could have been, and would have been even taller - with the same amount of square footage - if they just built as was required by zoning. But they wanted to build an office tower that worked best for them. It’s why we had that lengthy approvals process. Ultimately, they didn’t get the alternative they wanted, but a compromise, and probably something better.

A poster above mentioned Sears/Willis Tower, which is what got me thinking about the difference between 270 Park and 1 Vanderbilt and those that are being built elsewhere. There isn't a rule on this forum that I can't compare and contrast, is there? I mean, there are a ton of posts on this forum comparing NYC to other cities, both domestic and international...

I think the point you make about sticking out above the neighboring towers, or what I referred to as vanity height, is driving this trend in NYC. If a developer wanted to slap a corporate sign on the roof and make it visible in most North American cities, you could do that at 750 or 850 ft. If you are in Midtown, that isn't going to stick out enough. 270 Park, being a corporate HQ, is a statement. Ironically, it is the opposite statement once made by JP Morgan at 23 Wall Street.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

A poster above mentioned Sears/Willis Tower, which is what got me thinking about the difference between 270 Park and 1 Vanderbilt and those that are being built elsewhere. There isn't a rule on this forum that I can't compare and contrast, is there? I mean, there are a ton of posts on this forum comparing NYC to other cities, both domestic and international...

We stick to the discussion of the topic at hand (thread title), or even loosely related (city). This tower is being built in New York, so it has a bearing on the New York skyline, and the towers on it. A skyline a thousand miles away doesn't come into play. But more importantly, we don't discuss outside cities because we don't allow city vs. city threads, which it ultimately becomes when we open discussion to it.

[NYguy]

Just for the record folks, this is a discussion for 270 Park Avenue.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

I’m too excited watching this building rise to stop! It also helps that the pace has picked up.





I don’t know why we’re talking about Chicago, but buildings aren’t just built for height. Both the Spiral and 50 Hudson are larger buildings than this one, but of significantly shorter height. The reason we are seeing so many taller office towers built now is because of demand and the differences in how you bulit then as opposed to now.

New York is a market that demands the best of what is to offer, as far as office space goes. So you will see buildings with higher ceilings, for example, than some of the cheaper construction elsewhere. It also helps to be higher when one of your selling points in a dense skyline is your views.

But with all that being said, this building could have been, and would have been even taller - with the same amount of square footage - if they just built as was required by zoning. But they wanted to build an office tower that worked best for them. It’s why we had that lengthy approvals process. Ultimately, they didn’t get the alternative they wanted, but a compromise, and probably something better.







As the main entrance, I’m sure that space is going to be spectacular. We are robbed of a little joy from not having a rendering to compare it to, but what are you gonna do.

That’s true. The Madison Avenue entrance looks spectacular.

[Raysiri]

This building is rising fast! I wonder how fast each floor gets built.

[SteveD]

I don't have much to add except Wow Wow Wow. Thank you for those amazing photos and please keep them coming. What a beast this thing is!

[JACKinBeantown]

I could be wrong of course, but I think BuildThemTaller (BTT) only mentioned the Sears Tower as a good example of the point s/he was making about design of office buildings such as 270 now vs. in decades past. BTT could have also used the original WTC as an example. I think the reason for taller floors now is less about vanity and more about clients wanting/needing taller floors for several reasons, including but not limited to a more open feeling when working in an office with a ceiling height of 11-12 feet instead of 9 feet, the increased need for intra-building infrastructure for elements such as HVAC and more wiring, structural necessity of having larger columns and beams to support those higher floorplates, and the list goes on.

This building includes all pf those newer construction elements. So while there is likely an element of vanity in it being Morgan/Chase' headquarters, there's also just plain need to make the floors, and therefore the entire building, taller.


On a related note, this building isn't taller, it just has smaller construction workers. (They look so tiny! )

Originally Posted by NYguy

FEBRUARY 12, 2022

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

BTT could have also used the original WTC as an example. I think the reason for taller floors now is less about vanity and more about clients wanting/needing taller floors for several reasons, including but not limited to a more open feeling when working in an office with a ceiling height of 11-12 feet instead of 9 feet, the increased need for intra-building infrastructure for elements such as HVAC and more wiring, structural necessity of having larger columns and beams to support those higher floorplates, and the list goes on.

Of course buildings now are constructed differently than they were, and that includes a variety of reasons, including those mentioned above. As I mentioned, both 50 Hudson and the Spiral are larger than 270 Park, but are of significantly less height. This tower has between 60-62 actual floors, but like the other towers may express this as having more floors to account for the height difference. I say may because they aren't trying to lease anything here.

Anyway, in it's current form, this tower looks like it could have been used in a Star Wars movie. A few more pics...

[tiger-cali]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Of course buildings now are constructed differently than they were, and that includes a variety of reasons, including those mentioned above. As I mentioned, both 50 Hudson and the Spiral are larger than 270 Park, but are of significantly less height. This tower has between 60-62 actual floors, but like the other towers may express this as having more floors to account for the height difference. I say may because they aren't trying to lease anything here.

Anyway, in it's current form, this tower looks like it could have been used in a Star Wars movie. A few more pics...

Is there a curve to this building? I didn't see that in the rendering. Or is this curve the result of wide-angle camera lense?

[Streamliner]

Originally Posted by tiger-cali

Is there a curve to this building? I didn't see that in the rendering. Or is this curve the result of wide-angle camera lense?

That was my first thought too

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

That was my first thought too

It's not a curve per se. It fans out though. There are a lot of renderings online which show it. You can also see it at this point too.

[Barney Greengrass]

Originally Posted by tiger-cali

Is there a curve to this building? I didn't see that in the rendering. Or is this curve the result of wide-angle camera lense?

This shows what's happening a bit better:



The sides step in horizontally and are joined to a platform that has the appearance of a curve.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by tiger-cali

Is there a curve to this building? I didn't see that in the rendering. Or is this curve the result of wide-angle camera lense?

The "curve" is mainly the tabletop portion, or the base. The columns fan out to meet it. Basically, the tower increases in width towards the center, and falls back towards the Avenues. That adds a little to the difficulty of trying to get the whole thing in one shot.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The "curve" is mainly the tabletop portion, or the base. The columns fan out to meet it. Basically, the tower increases in width towards the center, and falls back towards the Avenues.

I'm not an engineer, but I'm guessing that, combined with the fact that the building's height will taper on the ends and rise highest in the center, it also means less weight will be placed on the outwardmost leaning columns and more on the ones toward the center where the bulk of the building's mass will be. Thus the more vertical columns will bear more weight than the most leaning ones on the ends. If you look at the photo, you can see that the columns above the tabletop are thicker in the center and thinner on the ends, which is also an indication that the bulk of the mass will be in the center.

[NYguy]

Some great photos from c.lilianmarlen

270park pouring over 100k pounds of #concrete on Saturday starting 4:00am in a race against the snow.