NEW YORK | 350 Park Avenue | 1,413 FT | 62 FLOORS - Page 37

Busy Bee · #1 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 12:10 AM**

^You mean like his need to have a museum named for him after a large donation?

Xing Lin · #2 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:33 AM**

It's great to get to look at the ULURP documents, especially all the diagrams. This image reminded me of my rendering from last year!

ChiND · #3 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 4:08 AM**

You nailed it, Xing!

NYguy · #4 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 2:14 PM**

That rendering came to mind when I saw the graphics also.

We've noticed the impact 270 Park has on the skyline, and this will go beyond that. The fact that we will likely be watching two towers of this scale and impact rising on the skyline at the same time is

ChiND · #5 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 2:18 PM**

Citadel is giving us an extraordinary gift. This tower is going to be incredible.

I can’t wait to see the designs for 10 W 57th, 41 W 57th, 1 E 57th, and 625 Madison. We may very well have several iconic supertalls rising simultaneously.

P.S.: Someone on SSP posted this. They claim that it's from a video that Foster posted on Instagram, but they don't have the link. It looks fantastic.

Mulan · #6 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 2:56 PM**

https://www.instagram.com/fosterandp...l/DDy5rllNZFN/

https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/new...loors/4854/662

NYguy · #7 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Looks legit to me.

A little more on the design:

TREPYE · #8 Posted **Feb 11, 2025, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Looks legit to me.

A little more on the design:

This is pretty much a pudgier version of the Steinway Tower (111 w57th).... Which makes it kind of highly unoriginal; surprising that Foster did not try to make it a more unique shape.

The more I see the design the less I like it. IMO, certainly inferior to 270 Park Ave.

Just a fatter, slighty taller copy-paste of something already built.

ssh · #9 Posted **Feb 11, 2025, 11:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TREPYE

surprising that Foster did not try to make it a more unique shape

is it though? f+p have been putting out boring garbage for years. i actually think 270 and this are decent compared to other f+p concoctions recently.

ChiND · #10 Posted **Feb 12, 2025, 2:27 PM**

I am utterly elated that we are getting an ICONIC, NEARLY 1,600' tower thanks to the GREAT KEN GRIFFIN!

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/v...-and-a-session

Quote:

350 Park Avenue development is on schedule. The new building is now fully designed, and it will stand out as being truly, truly best in class. We are in the formal approval process under the Midtown East zoning and Citadel, our major tenant, and Ken Griffin, our partner, will shortly begin moving out of 350 Park into swing space so the demolition can begin early next year.

Foster & Partners

Crawford · #11 Posted **Feb 12, 2025, 1:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TREPYE

Just a fatter, slighty taller copy-paste of something already built.

This has to be trolling, or someone in serious need of an annual eye checkup.

The tower does not resemble 111 W. 57, outside of the fact they're both tall, have setbacks, and are located in NYC.

ArchGuy1 · #12 Posted **Feb 24, 2025, 1:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TREPYE

This is pretty much a pudgier version of the Steinway Tower (111 w57th).... Which makes it kind of highly unoriginal; surprising that Foster did not try to make it a more unique shape.

The more I see the design the less I like it. IMO, certainly inferior to 270 Park Ave.

Just a fatter, slighty taller copy-paste of something already built.

How can I participate in the public review process for this building.

NYguy · #13 Posted **Feb 24, 2025, 6:10 PM**

^ You can always write.

Approvals will begin soon, so by the time that is complete there shoyld be an idea of what the actual height is intended to be.

But even then, you wait until a construction permit is filed fir the buildingvto see a zoning diagram.

Finally, watch that for adjustments as the building rises.

I’m taking this number from the drawings in the graphics: 1,576 FT. (likely to change)

NYguy · #14 Posted **Feb 25, 2025, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCReid

Buildings must be very complex these days. It seems that 400-500 of the height is mechanical space between the all mechanical upper levels and the levels in the lower part of the building.

They are. None of that space will be deducted from the actual zoning floor space. But they have to prove that it is what they say it is. You can't just have empty floor space, and declare it mechanical. The DOB has stipulations on what counts as mechanical space. With all buildings, there is much back and forth about that, which is just one reason you see height adjustments during construction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArchGuy1

How can I participate in the public review process for this building.

When approval begins, they will have relevant information.

Crawford · #15 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:13 PM**

The three blocks between Chase and Citadel are all redevelopment candidates too. The southernmost block, in particular, is well into planning.

The west side of Park could eventually be a parade of supertalls.

NYguy · #16 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:20 PM**

Another look at that model...

ChiND · #17 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

The three blocks between Chase and Citadel are all redevelopment candidates too. The southernmost block, in particular, is well into planning.

The west side of Park could eventually be a parade of supertalls.

Which one is that which is well into planning?

The Colgate-Palmolive building should come down when CP's lease expires. I think it expires in about eight years.

Crawford · #18 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiND

Which one is that which is well into planning?

The Colgate-Palmolive building should come down when CP's lease expires. I think it expires in about eight years.

SL Green owns 280 Park, which is a two-towered complex just to the north of Chase. They eventually plan on demolishing both and replacing with a major tower. They're keeping space off the market, and the existing leases have demolition clauses.

And yeah, Colgate should go next. It's pretty bad.

NYguy · #19 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

SL Green owns 280 Park, which is a two-towered complex just to the north of Chase. They eventually plan on demolishing both and replacing with a major tower. They're keeping space off the market, and the existing leases have demolition clauses.

I don't think 280 is coming down, at least no time in the near future. At one point, Citadel was considered as a potential tenant there (they instead are moving to 660 5th), but Vornado has signed other tenants...

https://slgreen.com/sl-green-and-vor...0-park-avenue/

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/202...0-park-avenue/

They're currently getting approvals for outdoor restaurants on both the south and north sides of the towers.

ChiND · #20 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

SL Green owns 280 Park, which is a two-towered complex just to the north of Chase. They eventually plan on demolishing both and replacing with a major tower. They're keeping space off the market, and the existing leases have demolition clauses.

And yeah, Colgate should go next. It's pretty bad.

Where did you hear about 280 Park? That's such a hideous tower. I've alwyas wondered why SLG doesn't raze the portion of the tower that's on Park and leave the mid-block tower that it's connected to. The mid-block tower is huge and would be a headache to raze, but the PoS that's actually on the Park isn't very big and could come down easily.

SLG clearly has shown its aversion to demolishing large towers based upon its disgusting plans for the hideous eyesore, 245 Park.

Anyway, Vornado, which owns 280 with SLG, shows availability in this eyesore:

https://www.vno.com/office/property/...311687/landing