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

[NYguy]

[Prezrezc]

@NYGuy

If your disassembly/reconstruction option were logistically feasible, I can't see why any mid-sized city in the country seeking literally a free skyscraper--and perhaps a new tallest to boot--wouldn't jump on the opportunity.

"It's the brand new 'Box Tower in a Box' ".

"Lots of assembly required."

"From the City of New York."

PS: The materials in this case would most likely suffice for a full resi.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Prezrezc

@NYGuy

If your disassembly/reconstruction option were logistically feasible, I can't see why any mid-sized city in the country seeking literally a free skyscraper--and perhaps a new tallest to boot--wouldn't jump on the opportunity.

It's a comparison of the two. We're not talking about cost, we're talking about functionality. Would a company rather have this tower or a tower of modern construction? Who would choose it over a modern counterpart? I highly doubt anyone would choose this as the preferred option.

Obviously there are companies who don't need modern offices, and could lease this space, even in New York. But given the choice between the two, cost not being a factor, modern construction would win out.

[pico44]

I disagree. This is a serious loss. There are hundreds of modern boxes in New York and this belongs in the top one or two percent in terms of quality and historical importance. Shoot, there five to ten within a few hundred yards that I wouldn't mind seeing replaced. This is wrong. This is bad. And seeing the planned silhouette of the skyscraper going up in its stead makes it even worse. I feel dirty for watching this.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by pico44

I disagree. This is a serious loss. There are hundreds of modern boxes in New York and this belongs in the top one or two percent in terms of quality and historical importance.

Well, I disagree with that.

Shoot, there five to ten within a few hundred yards that I wouldn't mind seeing replaced. This is wrong. This is bad. And seeing the planned silhouette of the skyscraper going up in its stead makes it even worse. I feel dirty for watching this.

My advice: don't watch. There is nothing wrong with a company deciding to replace it's building with a new structure to suit it's current needs. Seems like I've said this a million times, but it applies a million times - New York City is not some museum of buildings that just sit as a marker to history. The buildings function, not just for the owners and occupants, but for the city as well. It's why the city rezoned this particular slice of Manhattan, and this would be it's biggest success to date, more so than One Vanderbilt. These new generation of skyscrapers will leave their own mark on the city's legacy. The city won't end after these skyscrapers are built.

[NYguy]

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=02

02/01/2019

RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING TO ADD NEW DRAWINGS TO APPLICATION TO SHOW INTERIOR DEMOLITION LAYOUTS, OCCUPANT PROTECTION DETAILS AND NOTES.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=02

02/04/2019

INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY ENCLOSURE ON THE 29TH FLOOR AND 41ST FLOOR AS INDICATED ON PLANS FILED HEREWITH.

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by pico44

I disagree. This is a serious loss. There are hundreds of modern boxes in New York and this belongs in the top one or two percent in terms of quality and historical importance. Shoot, there five to ten within a few hundred yards that I wouldn't mind seeing replaced. This is wrong. This is bad. And seeing the planned silhouette of the skyscraper going up in its stead makes it even worse. I feel dirty for watching this.

I mean, everyone has their own taste. Personally, I don't think there's anything remarkable about this building. But, more fundamentally, it's not designated. As far as I know, no one found it significant enough to attempt to designate it. This is the real world: people can do what they want, within the confines of zoning, with non-designated property they own.

[NYguy]

Never landmarked, but at some point, you have to ask yourself, "what are we losing?" Maybe a question that could have came when they built the current 270, but the newer building was what made more sense at the time, as it always does. This was becoming the business district as we know it today. If only we could just live in yesteryear, then maybe keeping everything as is would make sense.



http://daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.co...-270-park.html

[NYguy]

Meanwhile, in these old photos, 270 Park Avenue was always just another tree in the forest.

[NYguy]

FEBRUARY 5, 2019

[PittsburghPA]

I'm just starting to follow this project so forgive me if it has been recently mentioned (I skimmed through a few pages and couldn't find the answer) but what is the plan for the current ~6000 employees housed in the building during demo and construction?

It's absolutely fascinating to me that a 707', 2.4 million sqft building that just underwent massive renovations to push it to LEED Platinum will be demolished. I'm sure the point has been made on here but one would think it would make sense to keep this building, buy less expensive near by property, demo, move the employees once construction is complete then either sell or lease the space in the old building. Either way can't wait to see the renderings. Manhattan has been on an absolute tear and it has been a blast to watch.

[Prezrezc]

And so it begins..........

[Amanita]

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

I'm sure the point has been made on here but one would think it would make sense to keep this building, buy less expensive near by property, demo, move the employees once construction is complete then either sell or lease the space in the old building.

That's what I wish they had done. Apparently they're moving their workers to other buildings, like 277 Park Avenue across the street.

[The Best Forumer]

sorry if i missed them... but anyone have renders?

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by The Best Forumer

sorry if i missed them... but anyone have renders?

Only massing diagrams have been produced. The tower apparently will be a boxy structure with setbacks.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

It's absolutely fascinating to me that a 707', 2.4 million sqft building that just underwent massive renovations to push it to LEED Platinum will be demolished. I'm sure the point has been made on here but one would think it would make sense to keep this building, buy less expensive near by property, demo, move the employees once construction is complete then either sell or lease the space in the old building. Either way can't wait to see the renderings. Manhattan has been on an absolute tear and it has been a blast to watch.

Yes, we've gone over why this building is coming down, and we're all waiting to see some clear renders. Even Tower Fifth gave us a few to look at.

Manhattan has been on a tear, but that's for the most part because the city has allowed its office stock to age. Only rezonings on both the east and west sides, and an unfortunate terrorist attack Downtown has led to rebuilding of the office stock. Further still, a booming city and lack of land has led to a lot of residential building. The more expensive real estate has led to higher residential as well. Still, not many companies can do what Chase is doing.


Current employees at 270 are also moving here.

Originally Posted by NYguy

DECEMBER 30, 2018


1. The rebuilt/reconfigured 390 Madison, where a good chunk of 270 Park employees are moving temporarily...





2.

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by PittsburghPA

It's absolutely fascinating to me that a 707', 2.4 million sqft building that just underwent massive renovations to push it to LEED Platinum will be demolished. I'm sure the point has been made on here but one would think it would make sense to keep this building, buy less expensive near by property, demo, move the employees once construction is complete then either sell or lease the space in the old building. Either way can't wait to see the renderings. Manhattan has been on an absolute tear and it has been a blast to watch.

How the hell are they even going to do the demo? I'm in construction and I can't fathom the method of procedure we'll be seeing. Here in Chicago, we just watched them complete the demo of the GGP building at 110 N Wacker, but that was a squat, 5 story building. If it were me, I'd send a couple bobcats up to the top floor and have them push debris down the elevator shafts!

[NYguy]

Going up, coming down...


https://www.instagram.com/p/Btvx2ULHrV0/

[NYguy]

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...ssdocnumber=01

02/08/2019

NON-STRUCTURAL REMOVAL OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AS PER PLANS. THIS WORK WILL NOT EFFECT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND NO CHANGE IN USE, OCCUPANCY, OR EGRESS.

[NYguy]

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-e...k-avenue-tower

JPMorgan revises proposed Park Avenue tower


JOE ANUTA
February 14, 2019

JPMorgan Chase is redesigning the soaring 1,400-foot office tower it is planning on Park Avenue in response to push-back over public open space, Crain's has learned.

The firm plans to submit a revised plan for the structure at a City Planning Commission hearing scheduled later this month. The new blueprints would increase the size of a public open space from 7,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, and would make the area open-air instead of enclosed as in a previous design.

In the wake of the East Midtown rezoning, the banking giant planned to tear down the existing 52-story office building it owns at 270 Park Ave. and replace it with a new tower that would consolidate its New York City employees currently scattered over several locations. While the rezoning was supposed to give developers the ability to pursue these types of bigger projects as-of-right through some combination of purchasing air rights from landmarked buildings in the district, making transit improvements and offering public space, bank officials argued last year that unique site conditions made the open space requirements infeasible.

The rezoning requires a 10,000 square-foot public open space at the property. But because nearly two-thirds of the property sits on piles above the cavernous Grand Central Terminal train shed—which is used to stage and store Metro-North Trains (and is about to undergo a major overhaul)—architects for the project said they could only come up with around 7,000 square feet.


Members of Manhattan Community Board 5 and elected officials pushed back on that notion. And in response, the bank confirmed Thursday that it is redesigning the base of the tower to meet the minimum requirement.

"Our team has worked diligently with our architects and other advisors to identify this solution and believe it works for all stakeholders involved as we continue our pursuit of a world class building that serves the needs of our company, the neighborhood and city," said a bank spokesman said in a statement.

The firm is still in the process of finalizing the design, which will eventually require approval from the City Council.