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

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

No but in all seriousness, good riddance. I can't wait for the rest of the soulless boxes make way for attractive architecture.

pleeeease don't jinx us. This is a bank we're talking about. JP Morgan Chase might decide that a big, fat, glassy box is the best fit for them.

Previous (original) Chase Architecture:


One Chase Manhattan Plaza by Emilio Guerra, on Flickr


JPMorgan Chase Tower by Jeff Stvan, on Flickr


JP Morgan Chase Building by Bill, on Flickr

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

pleeeease don't jinx us. This is a bank we're talking about. JP Morgan Chase might decide that a big, fat, glassy box is the best fit for them.

Previous (original) Chase Architecture:


One Chase Manhattan Plaza by Emilio Guerra, on Flickr


JPMorgan Chase Tower by Jeff Stvan, on Flickr


JP Morgan Chase Building by Bill, on Flickr

The same could be said for any major corporation that leased or commissioned towers from the 40's to 80's.

Look at what we got with BofA. Look at what we're getting with 1VB. Times are changing. Yes, JP could go for a bland box, sure. But they may very well go for something spectacular.

[Prezrezc]

@Amanita with all due respect;

And that case can be perfectly borne out by nothing more than the fact that the entire rezoning area wherein this "monument" to mid-20th century commerce awaits its justifiable--and, let me be clear: unfortunate--euthanization is in drastic need to be made relevant for modernity.

If JP Morgan strikes a lucrative bargain with the City to "make an example" out of this tower in that manner, that's their right.

And while you bring up the example, 1LP is IMHO a completely apples-to-avocados contrast: Here, you're obviously describing a tower completed much later in 1973, retrofitted in 1989 and therefore perfectly capable of housing modernized businesses, and--on top of that--given an exterior "wash and set" only because of the destructive horror that nearly consumed it along with the rest of the WTC v.1 complex.

You have a valid point, however, that a similar cosmetic overhaul of this tower--and its likely conversion to full resi--is hypothetically/subjunctively within the realm of possibility; but here comes that reality bogeyman rearing its head once again:

What you described in your post above is totally feasible only if this tower--which BTW I have always enjoyed looking at in juxtaposition with its two brothers---were in another part of the city in which the economic need for rezoning were non-existent or at least much less exigent.

Believe me when I tell you with how much sadness I pored over those close up photos above; but that sadness--for me at least--has to be tempered with a certain acceptance of the fact that it was and is the far more important inner functionality of the tower that I had to conclude was beyond salvaging.

I hope that explains my POV.

[Amanita]

^For what it's worth, this tower was only overhauled about 6 years ago. From what I've read, they completely gutted and renovated 10 floors at a time, we're not just talking snazzy new office interiors, but a full mechanical replacement and revamp too- all new systems. So for all intents and purposes, it may as well be a new building. There are plenty of shorter, crummier, really lousy little buildings in Midtown east, they are probably the real intended targets of this rezoning. I still feel bad about this one, I wish that all this air rights business didn't make it harder for JP Morgan to sell this building and build their new HQ somewhere close by.

[KevinFromTexas]

I like the glass boxes. They're a part of your architectural history and heritage, and without getting all mushy about it, I also suspect they'll age about as well as more modern styles will in 30 to 40 years. The only difference is these newer buildings will be visible from farther away.

[BoM Trespasser]

Is the glass original? A new building would have much improved glass than Union Carbide's old glass curtain . Better configured rest rooms, elevators. Higher ceiling heights. Chance for terraces. Lots of good reasons to replace. I mean how different is this building from Seagram's and several others? OTOH I understand nostalgia. Buuut, I don't think that is enough. Wouldn't be enough to sway me, if I was Jamie Dimon

[Amanita]

^If you were Jamie Dimon and you had the opportunity to make a trade of sorts- sell your current building to somebody else who was interested in it, and transfer the air rights to another site close by (perhaps one occupied by a much shorter building that would be a lot faster and cost less to take down), would you go for it?

[NYguy]

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.

Yes, no insults please.

Originally Posted by BoM Trespasser

Is the glass original? A new building would have much improved glass than Union Carbide's old glass curtain . Better configured rest rooms, elevators. Higher ceiling heights. Chance for terraces. Lots of good reasons to replace. I mean how different is this building from Seagram's and several others? OTOH I understand nostalgia. Buuut, I don't think that is enough. Wouldn't be enough to sway me, if I was Jamie Dimon

Originally Posted by Amanita

^If you were Jamie Dimon and you had the opportunity to make a trade of sorts- sell your current building to somebody else who was interested in it, and transfer the air rights to another site close by (perhaps one occupied by a much shorter building that would be a lot faster and cost less to take down), would you go for it?

It needs a new eveything. But the large footprint enables Chase to nearly double the size of the building and consolidate some of its office space. It's a win-win for Chase. And it's a win for the City, as it battles to rejuvenate and retain it's central business district. With all of the developments active and planned, they're putting the Park Avenue back in Park Avenue.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Yes, no insults please.

I didn't know laughing emojis was considered insulting. Thanks for the heads up.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

I didn't know laughing emojis was considered insulting. Thanks for the heads up.

When used in a condescending matter to dismiss someone else's opinion entirely, yes, that is arguably insulting. Just another heads up for you

Still hoping for this one to be saved, while there are many other similar boxes across the city, I always considered 270 to be one of the finer examples of it's kind. It's by far much more sleeker and classier when compared to it's neighbors, I would much rather see 245 Park go. But as much as I love this building, I'm eager to see what it's replacement might look like...


Source

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

I didn't know laughing emojis was considered insulting. Thanks for the heads up.

[NYguy]

CB5 position on the Grand Central air rights transfer...


https://www.cb5.org/cb5m/resolutions.../resolution_2/


October 2018, Land Use, Housing & Zoning Committee

Application N 190080 ZCM by JPMorgan Chase, Co. requesting a certification to allow a transfer of Air Rights from the landmarked Grand Central Terminal to 270 Park Avenue for development of a proposed office tower pursuant to Art 81.682 of the RZ


WHEREAS, Community Board Five (the “Community Board”) adopted recommendations in March 2017 on the Greater East Midtown rezoning proposal, reflecting community priorities including governance structure, public space, the use of funds created by transferred development rights for public improvements, and limitations on floor area ratio (FAR), (together, “CB5 Precedent”); and

WHEREAS, The Greater East Midtown rezoning proposal was adopted by the City Council on August 9, 2017 (the “Rezoning Plan”), after a comprehensive process consulting community stakeholders to inform rezoning, capital commitments, funding mechanisms and other policy decisions affecting East Midtown; and,

WHEREAS, The Applicant has not yet settled on or disclosed most of the critical details of the Proposed Project including the ultimate height, massing, gross square footage, architectural design, potential ground floor activation, the Proposed Project will be built to include 1,871,763 net sq. ft. of Class A office space (and 2,400,000 gross sq. ft. ), built to 21.6 FAR in the southern subarea of the receiving site, and 25 FAR in the Park Avenue subarea of the receiving site, averaging to 23.3 FAR for the entire receiving site achieved via the transfer 666,667 sq. ft. of unused development rights from Grand Central Terminal under the framework of the Rezoning Plan; and,

WHEREAS, The Applicant has indicated that the proposed development could be a 70 story tower; and

WHEREAS, Subject to the Rezoning Plan, the Proposed Project would result in a contribution of $42 million dollars to the East Midtown Public Realm Improvement Fund; and,

WHEREAS, Following the completion of the transaction, the granting site, Grand Central Terminal is mandated to dedicate $10.4 million to the continuing maintenance of the Grand Central Terminal, specifically for the restoration, maintenance and repairs of historic elements; and

WHEREAS, The granting site must comply with the continuing maintenance plan approved and administered by LPC, including by issuing a report every five years; and

WHEREAS, After this transfer, the granting site will have 618,245 sq. ft. of TRD available; and

WHEREAS, The Proposed Project will widen adjacent sidewalk along Madison Avenue to accommodate the increased pedestrian flow and generate a 10,000 sq. ft privately owned public space (the “POPS”) as required by the Rezoning Plan; and,

WHEREAS, The applicant has intents to secure the perimeter of the new building with bollards, financed privately and without any public funding, a funding arrangement that Community Board Five commends and believes should become the norm; and,

WHEREAS, The Transfer is an issue of first impression before the community board, as the first time development rights are being transferred according to the Rezoning Plan in order to construct a structure not previously possible under the previous zoning text and therefore raises important questions affecting the community; and,

WHEREAS, Under the Rezoning Plan’s Reasonable Worst Case Development Scenario, the redevelopment of the Existing Building was not contemplated, meaning its environmental impacts were not specifically studied and it does not trigger certain obligations under the Rezoning Plan such as the imperative to improve transit infrastructure in partnership with the Metropolitan Transit Authority (the “MTA”); and

WHEREAS, The Community Board is concerned about the Proposed Project’s environmental impacts including and especially the demolition, height, light and shadow impacts; the design and intended function of the Project’s required POPS; proposed improvements to the adjacent Metro North stations; and that the Project is a missed opportunity to secure MTA improvements as intended by the Rezoning Plan; and,

WHEREAS, The Community Board regrets the loss of the Existing Building, which is an architecturally significant mid-century structure designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill’s Natalie de Blois and Gordon Bunshaft; and,

WHEREAS, The Community Board recognizes that the Proposed Transfer will increase the Applicant’s Class A office space from the current 1,204,998 sq. ft. to 1,871,763 sq. ft., which will, according to the Applicant, allow them to locate their headquarters in East Midtown indefinitely and is pleased that the Rezoning Plan is beginning to work as intended by keeping business in the Manhattan commercial core; therefore be it

RESOLVED, Given that the site was not identified by the NYC Department of City Planning and therefore was not studied in any iteration of the Great East Midtown rezoning EIS or EAS, lack of factual information prevents any informed opinion to be established, therefore Community Board Five requests that a number of steps be taken to enable best zoning and planning practices, including

- a transit improvements requirements study for the site, had it been included in the original rezoning proposal

- a full shadow study and its impact to open space, parks, POPS and other light sensitive resources;

- a demolition environmental impact study and remediation plan

- a traffic impact study during construction

- a close assessment of the use of mechanical space so as to avoid any hollow mechanical voids, an issue of particular concern given difference between the gross and net square footage for the development (2.4M sq. ft. vs 1.8M sq. ft.); and further be it,

RESOLVED, Community Board Five looks forward to continued engagement with the Applicant about the Proposed Project and anticipates close collaboration on all of the concerns raised in this resolution, ensuring that the Proposed Project accords with CB5 Precedent and engaging with relevant city agencies to ensure that the Zoning Plan adequately supports the community with sufficient environmental assessments and public contributions now that we are engaging with a real world use case.

[Zerton]

I think it's a beautiful example of International Modernism (which I guess it kind of an acquired taste, it's often thought of as boring). It's the simplicity and honesty of the materials that make it interesting.

But if the design of the new tower is better then I'll accept that it's just part of progress.

[The North One]

This is actually one of the more beautiful mid-century towers, would be sad to see it go.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It still amazes me JPMorgan will spend the money to knock down an existing 700+ foot skyscraper to build a new, bigger one, instead of just move into 2WTC or something. I guess they want their own customized office space though and have more money than they know what to do with so it's okay.

More likely a park avenue address is just that valuable to them.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by The North One

This is actually one of the more beautiful mid-century towers, would be sad to see it go.

Yea it's alright, it started the glass box trend. I'm more excited about what's coming though.

More likely a park avenue address is just that valuable to them.

Don't they already occupy this building?

[The North One]

Yeah, that's the point, they wanna keep their location.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yeah, that's the point, they wanna keep their location.

Oh okay I thought you meant them wanting to move to Park Avenue.

I guess the current office space just isn't enough.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

It still amazes me JPMorgan will spend the money to knock down an existing 700+ foot skyscraper to build a new, bigger one, instead of just move into 2WTC or something. I guess they want their own customized office space though and have more money than they know what to do with so it's okay.

They own the building here, and moving Downtown is not the same as just moving across the street. There's a distinction between Downtown and Midtown, they're not always interchangeable. Chase did consider all options, including building a 2 tower complex at the Hudson Yards (50 & 55), but couldn't get the tax breaks from the city they wanted. The rezoning of midtown east made it possible to build a much larger headquarters on this site, which they already own.

JPMorgan Chase Wants To Build Two Massive West Side Towers


By Hana R. Alberts
Oct 17, 2014





The Hudson Yards mega-complex, currently rising over the rail yards on the far West Side, is the sole catalyst for literally dozens of new developments in the area, made possible in part by the creation of a special district that loosens zoning restrictions and encourages construction. The latest project to materialize out of these incentives isn't definite yet, but gosh darn it, it's a big one. The Times reports that JPMorgan Chase is in talks with the city and state to build a $6.5 billion campus on 33rd Street between Tenth and Eleventh avenues. The HQ would include two high-rise towers with a combined square footage "the equivalent of about two Empire State Buildings." Wowza. They'd pack 16,000 staffers inside.

Negotiations are complex and ongoing, and involve how many concessions Chase would get for building the towers, boosting the economy, and being a major employer, and also just how much Chase would have to pay out for development rights and other costs. Stay tuned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/n...manhattan.html

https://ny.curbed.com/2014/10/29/100...n-yards-towers

JPMorgan Chase Decides To Not Build Hudson Yards Tower


By Jessica Dailey
Oct 29, 2014





The Times is now reporting that the financial giant decided that it wants to stay put. Building a new 62-story and 40-story tower on 33rd Street between Tenth and Eleventh avenues—also known as 50 and 55 Hudson Yards, two of the Related-developed towers coming to the area—would just be too much effort. Actually, it doesn't seem like Chase really had a choice. Chase didn't meet Related's October 15 deadline to seal the deal, so Related sold a stake in 55 Hudson Yards to a Japanese company. Related instead offered Chase the opportunity to build 50 Hudson Yards and occupy some of 30 Hudson Yards, where Time Warner will be located.

Additionally, the city wasn't too keen on giving Chase $1 billion in tax breaks in the form of a subsidy package, on top of an existing $600 million in property tax breaks. So Chase considered other options, including moving downtown, but they ultimately decided to stay on the East Side.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/n...s&emc=rss&_r=0

One Vanderbilt came into play briefly...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/s-l-gre...ers-1481371221

S.L. Green Proposes to Trade Its One Vanderbilt for Two Other Towers
J.P. Morgan Chase would hand over two Midtown towers for the S.L. Green building, now being built


By Peter Grant
December 10, 2016


Landlord SL Green Realty Corp., which pulled off one of New York’s biggest office deals of 2016, is again sensing opportunity in the financial-services sector.

SL Green has proposed a complicated deal to J.P. Morgan Chase that essentially would have the bank swap its two headquarters buildings, 383 Madison Ave. and 270 Park Ave., for SL Green’s 1.75 million-square-foot One Vanderbilt office tower that broke ground in October, according to people familiar with the matter.

The bank has been considering the plan, but so far negotiations haven’t commenced, these people said.

...Still, J.P. Morgan made it clear it would consider the right deal two years ago when it negotiated a package of incentives with the city and the state that would enable it to move into Related Cos.’ Hudson Square development on Manhattan’s far West Side. That deal collapsed partly because not enough subsidies were offered.

SL Green might be joined by a partner in its efforts to lure J.P. Morgan to One Vanderbilt. In an investor conference last Monday, SL Green chief executive Marc Holliday said the company was negotiating to sell a 28% stake in One Vanderbilt to a foreign investor.

Corrections & Amplifications:
J.P. Morgan Chase owns its two headquarters buildings at 383 Madison Ave. and 270 Park Ave. and leases space at 277 Park Ave.

And now we arrive and the current solution, building it's own headquarters.

[Crawford]

Norman Foster has been selected as architect for 270 Park. Can't wait for renderings.

JPMorgan turns to Apple HQ architect for new Manhattan tower

JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon has said he wants to build a new world-class headquarters for the 21st century. Now he’s hiring the architect behind Apple Inc.’s futuristic offices to design the new Park Avenue tower.

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

[antinimby]

Let's hope Foster doesn't give us another bloated box like 50 Hudson Yards.