NEW YORK | 343 Madison Avenue | 844 FT | 49 FLOORS

[TKD]

Originally Posted by ChiND

Metaphors and jargon? First, that makes no sense.

Literally almost every single one of your posts (anywhere) all have strange off hand metaphors and jargon, don't try to stray away from that like it isn't a fact, also outside of the fact that you cannot refrain from always posting about ugly buildings that you want to be demolished in threads and topics where they don't belong.

1,000 feet conspicuous feet of Pathmark vanilla

That is jargon. Also the part about the tumor on the east, you couldn't just say you don't like the core sticking out?

I will accept that you are just calling the design boring though even though you still haven't said why outside of your comparison of the design to an old car. You just keep saying the design is a failure and that it's boring while still basing that summation on a single render that does not properly show all the details that have gone into designing the building.

[The New York Lion]

Originally Posted by TKD

You can barely even see the full design from that specific render. There is too early of judgement being made. This will be a beautiful building from the ground.

Also, who cares about the height.

I care about the height.

Anything under 1,000 does not inspire me.

It's like receiving a Vienna sausage when you're expecting a Nathan's famous.

[TKD]

Originally Posted by The New York Lion

I care about the height.

Anything under 1,000 does not inspire me.

It's like receiving a Vienna sausage when you're expecting a Nathan's famous.

Well then I guess 220 Central Park South doesn't inspire you because it is under 1000' tall. This building is almost 900' there's nothing wrong with that also including the fact that it is a commercial building, not a residential building so it couldn't be taller because they wouldn't have wasted floor area even though the ULURP envelope height was 1050'.

Are you telling me that if this building was magically 100' taller that it would all of a sudden inspire you?

[NYguy]

I think this is a nice design. The execution of the design will obviously look better than this graphic rendering. But even here, you can see that this will be a nice tower, far better than another boring blue box, which by the way, we could have gotten.

[ChiND]

To the extent that BP seeks a large pre-lease, this competes with the utterly iconic 175 Park. I can’t imagine anyone wanting this to secure a tenant before 175 Park.

[Mulan]

I like what I see at first glance, especially the yellow on this building. But I would like to see the detailed renderings from KPF to make a final assessment. I hope they can build it because this lot is vacant, not like 175 Park Ave.

[BK1985]

I like it, it’s a nice, modern, cleanly designed filler building. I don’t understand this expectation that every new tower has to be a modern second coming of the Empire State Building. For every stand out tower there are 30 non descript ones that people don’t even know exist.

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by BK1985

I like it, it’s a nice, modern, cleanly designed filler building. I don’t understand this expectation that every new tower has to be a modern second coming of the Empire State Building. For every stand out tower there are 30 non descript ones that people don’t even know exist.

I don’t think that KPF and BP had “non-discript filler” in mind as adjectives for a tower where they’re probably seeking $150/sf+ rents. If this building was proposed for a midblock site in the Garment District, I’d applaud it. If the replacement for The Roosevelt next door looks like this, people will be VERY disappointed.

I really hope that they abandon the project in July of 2025. A hotel with condos and a smaller office component would be nice here.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by The New York Lion

I care about the height.

Anything under 1,000 does not inspire me.

It's like receiving a Vienna sausage when you're expecting a Nathan's famous.

Forgot to switch accounts

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by ChiND

I don’t think that KPF and BP had “non-discript filler” in mind as adjectives for a tower where they’re probably seeking $150/sf+ rents. If this building was proposed for a midblock site in the Garment District, I’d applaud it. If the replacement for The Roosevelt next door looks like this, people will be VERY disappointed.

I really hope that they abandon the project in July of 2025. A hotel with condos and a smaller office component would be nice here.

I think you overestimate what companies who are going to pay to have offices there care about design. In the grand scheme of things this is “filler” for us skyscraper nerds. That’s what I’m getting at. Also BP is a fairly conservative developer when it comes to design of their properties, this design is fine for what it is.

[DCReid]

I think the height and design is a little disappointing considering the location, but it will remain to be seen once it is constructed. It's disappointing because it is so close to the Metlife building which is fairly blocky in one direction and now this building of nearly the same height is also fairly blocky in a 90 degree direction. So at certain angles, the skyline may show an 850 foot L-shaped blockiness. But then again, it may be obscured by the other taller buildings like the planned 175 Park Avenue and 1 Vanderbilt.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I think the height and design is a little disappointing considering the location, but it will remain to be seen once it is constructed.

It's a little less than 1 msf office tower. The design envelope allowed for a little more height, but they're trying to maximize the floors that will have to be leased. I doubt they care anything about the height. This building will be in a neighborhood of supertalls. Not everything needs to be (or should be) of great height.

Originally Posted by BK1985

I think you overestimate what companies who are going to pay to have offices there care about design. In the grand scheme of things this is “filler” for us skyscraper nerds. That’s what I’m getting at. Also BP is a fairly conservative developer when it comes to design of their properties, this design is fine for what it is.

What many people think of as great or exciting designs (on the outside) is of little concern to companies that need to lease the space. It's the inside that they're concerned about, and this tower will have everything all of the newest and modern office towers going up in the city will have.



https://www.commercialsearch.com/news/bxp-unveils-nyc-skyscraper-design-selects-leasing-agent/

BXP Unveils NYC Skyscraper Design, Taps Leasing Agent





By Scott Baltic
November 19, 2024

BXP has chosen CBRE as its exclusive leasing agent for 343 Madison Avenue, the developer’s 950,000-square-foot office project that’s underway less than a block from Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan.

In fact, the 46-story tower will have direct access to Grand Central’s Madison Concourse between 44th and 45th streets.

The building was designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox as a fully electric, zero-carbon workplace and will feature a hospitality-inspired amenity package. For starters, a double-height lounge and conference space on the 45th and 46th floors will include indoor and outdoor dining and collaboration spaces, with biophilic terraces overlooking Midtown Manhattan. Other amenities include a lobby café and bicycle storage with cabanas and showers.

343 Madison Avenue’s 40 workplace floors range from 27,500 square feet in the podium to 22,000 square feet in the high-rise. Among those are specialty floors with private terraces and increased ceiling heights that will let clients design a multi-functional workplace to accommodate a variety of work styles and space needs.

In addition to a fully electric building design, the tower will feature zero on-site combustion and a high-efficiency direct outside air system. Its targeted sustainability certifications include LEED Platinum, Well Core, Energy Star 85+, Fitwel and WiredScore Platinum.

In the first phase of the 343 Madison Avenue development, construction recently began on a new accessible street entrance to the Long Island Rail Road’s Grand Central Madison Concourse at 45th Street and Madison Avenue.

In July, CBRE, which had already been a decades-long tenant at 200 Park Ave., also known as the MetLife Building, extended its 180,000-square-foot lease into 2037. Further, the company assumed the responsibilities of exclusive leasing agent and property and asset manager for the owner, Irvine Co.

Manhattan’s Midtown submarket has the majority of the top office leases in the third quarter, according to a report from CBRE. These include Christie’s renewing 373,000 square feet at 20 Rockefeller Plaza, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP renewing and expanding for 316,000 square feet at 787 Seventh Ave., Ares Capital Corp. renewing and expanding for 307,000 square feet at 245 Park Ave. and Balyasny Asset Management renewing and expanding for 164,000 square feet at 767 Fifth Ave.

Overall, Midtown had seen 11.1 million square feet of leasing activity by the end of September, versus 7.9 million over the same period last year.

[ChiND]

I would have liked to see KPF design something more like what Ferris proposed for 70 HY instead of the boring glass box that everyone describes as “filler” with a nice facade.


Ferrisarch.com

[SamLYNY]

A more detailed look:


Image Source: KPF Instagram

I'm personally looking forward to this one. From what we're hearing online and what we can see here about curved glass, and some nice use of yellow coloring, I think it'll be a very handsome addition to the area. Let's hope it can secure an anchor tenant and get built!

There is some mention of more renders with 'more flattering' angles, that might show it off more. Looking forward to seeing them!

[ChiND]

I wonder if July of 2025 is the drop dead date for BP to walk away. I hope so. I'd rather see a mix of office, hotel, and condos here. A classical tower by RAMSA would be ideal instead of this austere, 21st Century, Emory Roth-style box.

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by ChiND

I wonder if July of 2025 is the drop dead date for BP to walk away. I hope so. I'd rather see a mix of office, hotel, and condos here. A classical tower by RAMSA would be ideal instead of this austere, 21st Century, Emory Roth-style box.

Condos don't really make sense here.

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by BK1985

Condos don't really make sense here.

Sales at 520 Fifth were very strong. I think that the Champs Elyseeificaton of Fifth will precipitate a lot more residential construction on 5th and Madison in the 40s.

I’d gladly live here.


Credit: City Hall

[BK1985]

Originally Posted by ChiND

Sales at 520 Fifth were very strong. I think that the Champs Elyseeificaton of Fifth will precipitate a lot more residential construction on 5th and Madison in the 40s.

I’d gladly live here.


Credit: City Hall

It doesn't make sense here because the city is prioritizing updated Class A office surrounding GCT and up the Plaza district. Not to mention, it would need to be rezoned for residential if i'm not mistaking. Re. RAMSA and their preferred style, I don't think it would work for large blocks of office space since that doesn't align with what companies want for their office space. I think 5th avenue is more of an exception to the "rule".

[NYguy]

Only about 20% of this building could be condos, if they decided to go that way. But they won't, as office is the best use of this site with it's direct transit connections.

Originally Posted by SamLYNY

A more detailed look:


Image Source: KPF Instagram

I always expected this to be a nice design, and it is.

[ChiND]

Originally Posted by BK1985

It doesn't make sense here because the city is prioritizing updated Class A office surrounding GCT and up the Plaza district. Not to mention, it would need to be rezoned for residential if i'm not mistaking. Re. RAMSA and their preferred style, I don't think it would work for large blocks of office space since that doesn't align with what companies want for their office space. I think 5th avenue is more of an exception to the "rule".

Residential construction makes total sense on 5th in the 40s where there are around 4 or 5 1960s Emery Roth junks on smallish sites that would be prime sites for condos.