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

[Prezrezc]

Don't you think they could've performed another 425 Parkostomy here?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Prezrezc

Don't you think they could've performed another 425 Parkostomy here?

For 270? No. And why would they? The only reason 425 Park was built the way it was for zoning issues.

[NYguy]

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-e...own-east-tower

JPMorgan files for air-rights transfer to boost new Midtown East tower
Development rights said to be worth $240 million will help planned headquarters reach 2.5 million square feet

JOE ANUTA
September 24, 2018

JPMorgan Chase filed plans this month to apply development rights from the landmarked Grand Central Terminal to the company's new tower planned for Park Avenue. The transfer of around 668,000 square feet of air rights indicates progress on the project, which was announced earlier this year.

The bank filed the transfer application with the Department of City Planning Sept. 6. The agency will mull over the request before likely approving the measure and paving the way for the transaction.

...JPMorgan may purchase an additional 100,000 of development rights from two religious institutions, including St. Bartholomew's Church.

Also to be discussed by the community board...



https://www.cb5.org/cb5m/calendar/20...housing-zoning

LAND USE, HOUSING & ZONING

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2018, at 6:00pm
SGI-USA NY Culture Center
7 East 15th Street

Layla Law-Gisiko, Acting Chair

Agenda

Application by JPMorgan Chase requesting a certification to allow a transfer of air rights from Grand Central Terminal to 270 Park Avenue for development of an 1.8M+ sq foot office tower, which would result in a $42M contribution to the East Midtown Public Realm Improvement Fund

[chris08876]

This is gonna be big. I have a feeling it'll crack the 1550' mark. Its a lot of development rights, factored that in with class A space accommodated for banking/trading, and your looking at quite high ceiling heights. Along with the amenities that are staples in banking towers, and this will be a biggie. Spire or not is what I'm wondering, but bulk wise, I think at a minimum this will be 1400'. At a minimum.

Just as a reference, Vanderbilt is 1.7 mil-sq ft. Will share similar class A space. IF we are talking 1.8 - 2.4 mil-sq ft, its a very real possibility.

This will be a trophy tower for an elite bank.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by chris08876

This is gonna be big. I have a feeling it'll crack the 1550' mark. Its a lot of development rights, factored that in with class A space accommodated for banking/trading, and your looking at quite high ceiling heights. Along with the amenities that are staples in banking towers, and this will be a biggie. Spire or not is what I'm wondering, but bulk wise, I think at a minimum this will be 1400'. At a minimum.

Just as a reference, Vanderbilt is 1.7 mil-sq ft. Will share similar class A space. IF we are talking 1.8 - 2.4 mil-sq ft, its a very real possibility.

This will be a trophy tower for an elite bank.

A lot of it will come down to slab-to-slab heights...1VB has 14-20 foot floor heights...that’s very, very high.

[antinimby]

Did they select an architectural firm yet?

[Amanita]

^Just what are they doing to the building? Is this the beginning of the end, or something else?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Amanita

^Just what are they doing to the building? Is this the beginning of the end, or something else?

Im not sure, but they still have to occupy the building until moveouts begin. No real work should begin before then.

[Mr Saturn64]

Should we expect initial renderings before or after demolition?

[Amanita]

They should have to show us what we're getting before anything comes down- if we're going to lose one of the better modernist towers on Park Avenue, they should have to prove we're getting a worthy successor.

[NOPA]

I don't have a problem with losing this tower on the issue of design (I don't think it is that amazing and a lot of folks who suddenly discovered a passion for mid century design have ulterior motives).

What I do find problematic is that a 700+ foot, 2.4 million square foot tower has no value simply because it is too difficult in this city to build the replacement modern tower JPMorgan needs on another block. This indicates that our current zoning and planning process is very dysfunctional and inefficient, but we already knew that.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by NOPA

What I do find problematic is that a 700+ foot, 2.4 million square foot tower has no value simply because it is too difficult in this city to build the replacement modern tower JPMorgan needs on another block. This indicates that our current zoning and planning process is very dysfunctional and inefficient, but we already knew that.

It's nowhere near that size, it's about 1.5 msf. The tower that replaces it will be around that size, or a little larger. The building could have more value - somewhere else. I don't put buildings ahead of the city, because buildings can come and go, but the city needs to survive.

I don't think many of you are getting the importance of keeping this part of Midtown healthy, but those in charge of such things thankfully and finally do. Talk about landmarking, what they are doing in effect is landmarking this district as the commercial center is has been in the past. That for me, and the city, is more important than trying to save some building just because it's there.

The Hudson Yards is nice, and needed to supplement the city's stock of modern office space, but it has it's limits. And it will never evolve around the type of transportation core that this district has.

[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 wanker 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!

[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.