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

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ChiND

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.

It's been in Crains NY and other sources. And SL Green and Vornado have been very transparent that their long term plans are demolishing both and replacing with a landmark skyscraper. Those towers have poor layouts.

Originally Posted by ChiND

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

I don't think so. SL Green built One Vanderbilt, on the site of a 900,000 square foot tower. SL Green is the largest commercial owner in NYC. And Vornado built Bloomberg Tower, 220 CPS, and owns most of the Penn District.

245 is an extremely valuable skyscraper with big floorplates, perfect for financial firms. It doesn't make sense to demolish towers with ideal layouts. 280 has small floorplates. Not every mid-century tower will be replaced, just the ones with bad layouts.

[Busy Bee]

Not really down with seeing Bankers Trust bite the dust.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Not really down with seeing Bankers Trust bite the dust.

Well, you're in luck, because it isn't. Vornado has talked up 280's success.


A closer look at the rendering shows some of the features mentioned in the documents.

When approval begins next month, we should get more renderings.

[ChiND]

ICONIC!!!!

[The New York Lion]

Originally Posted by ChiND

ICONIC!!!!

It is glorious, and it's just the beginning.

NYC will eventually be home to 100 supertalls.

By the time this tower is finished, I'd say there will probably be a proposal or two for a tower significantly taller.

[NYguy]

I wonder if the crown will be activated similar to the way 270 Park's crown will be. It seems likely.

[NYguy]

[ChiND]

This is going to be utterly iconic, but it would be even nicer if we had a Madison Avenue plaza where RFR's PoS stands. I hate to be a broken record, but 477 is junk.

[ChiND]

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/202...nn-15s-future/

[jackster99]

I love it, but I keep hoping for a proposal that looks like London's Shard. I think that is a very unique shape that NYC's skyline is sorely lacking.

[BanBrokenChatBots]

Another supertall to the midtown skyline.. and just like JP Morgan's 270 this is moving along quite quickly in the private sector.

Originally Posted by jackster99

I love it, but I keep hoping for a proposal that looks like London's Shard. I think that is a very unique shape that NYC's skyline is sorely lacking.

?!? The Empire State Building & the Chrysler Building are far more iconic not only in silhouette but in history and design significance. Outside of England not many people would know what the Shard is as it was England's probably first significant skyscraper.. its also similarly a glass copy of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco.

[jackster99]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

Another supertall to the midtown skyline.. and just like JP Morgan's 270 this is moving along quite quickly in the private sector.



?!? The Empire State Building & the Chrysler Building are far more iconic not only in silhouette but in history and design significance. Outside of England not many people would know what the Shard is as it was England's probably first significant skyscraper.. its also similarly a glass copy of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco.

IMO the Shard is a very interesting shape, and I think a similarly shaped tower would look great on the NYC skyline. Where in my post did I say the ESB and Chrysler weren't iconic? And where in my post did I say it matters if people outside of a certain country know a particular building? Bizarre response.

[BanBrokenChatBots]

New York commercial real estate is not likely to build a pyramidal supertall skyscraper.. It's all about maximizing office floor space and the top of 350 Park Avenue is mostly mechanical maximizing the commercial space with the existing setback laws.. Maybe a residential tower would be in the form of a pyramid but I doubt it in New York or at least Manhattan.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

New York commercial real estate is not likely to build a pyramidal supertall skyscraper.. It's all about maximizing office floor space and the top of 350 Park Avenue is mostly mechanical maximizing the commercial space with the existing setback laws.. Maybe a residential tower would be in the form of a pyramid but I doubt it in New York or at least Manhattan.

That is correct, and neither is it likely for residential towers. Developers of such buildings pretty much like to build as zoning allows, or risk having their vision altered. We remember the case of the Tower Verre (53w53), although still taller than the Shard.

New York is a city of strict design codes, and for good reason. The canyons of Manhattan are universal. The new towers we see going up on Park Avenue are distinctly and uniquely New York in flavor. 350 Park Avenue has a design that, as they say, is "timeless". It could have been built 100 years ago, and fit in perfectly with the city. Yet, it will be among the most modern and appealing skyscrapers to the workers who will be there day in and out.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

Maybe a residential tower would be in the form of a pyramid but I doubt it in New York or at least Manhattan.

You mean like...


?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by BanBrokenChatBots

It's all about maximizing office floor space and the top of 350 Park Avenue is mostly mechanical maximizing the commercial space with the existing setback laws..

What are the existing setback laws anyway? I was aware some existed in Manhattan but also wondering how some buildings like the WTC and HY are able to have supertall sheer slabs with no setbacks at all (which I like tbh).

432 Park Ave does too but that's residential.

[mrnyc]

for one thing the base, which is what people actually look at and deal with day to day, is interesting and absolutely nothing like 111w57.

[BanBrokenChatBots]

This tower compliments 270 Park Avenue with its setbacks.. One way it does differentiate itself from the herd is the sheer mass of almost 500 meters of glass on it's western wall. The only other thing that could compare would be the original WTC or International Commerce Center in Hong Kong.

[ssh]

Hopefully the glass cladding is Manhattan West caliber. That would take this to the next level.

[NYguy]

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.

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

That's a bit like saying the Empire State is just a taller copy-pate of something already built. Buildings are designed the way they are in the city for a reason.