NEW YORK | 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt) | 1,581 FT | 92 FLOORS

[mrnyc]

^ is there a similar graph for this grand hyatt tower?

what is the total sqft for it anyway?

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

It is rather amusing that 1653' is now floating around along with 1646'. I somehow doubt they can really be making 7' tweaks to the design at this point. But who knows.

I'm curious if the downward slope in grade from the western edge of the lot to the corner of Lex might account for this slight variation...

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

^ is there a similar graph for this grand hyatt tower?

what is the total sqft for it anyway?

Not likely until final.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm curious if the downward slope in grade from the western edge of the lot to the corner of Lex might account for this slight variation...

They would have just used that number.

[JMKeynes]

This tower is a GIFT to NY!

[chris08876]

That is a lot of mechanical. Almost 350k sq-ft.

[NYguy]

^ I think 270 Park has more.



https://www.designboom.com/architecture/som-175-park-avenue-skyscraper-new-york-02-04-2021/

project info:

name: 175 park avenue
location: new york, NY
development team: RXR realty and TF cornerstone

-design architect and architect of record for tower and on-site transit improvements: skidmore, owings & merrill (SOM)

-architectural and historical consultant: beyer blinder belle

-landscape architect: james corner field operations

-structural engineer: WSP USA buildings

-engineering and advisor for transit improvements: stantec

-geotech engineering: langan

-mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineer: jaros, baum & bolles

-building envelope and façade consultant: heintges

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by chris08876

That is a lot of mechanical. Almost 350k sq-ft.

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ I think 270 Park has more.

why so much mechanical sq. footage? and why is that a good thing? Is it just because mech floors dont count against buildable height?

[JMKeynes]

I’d like to see some garbage in the immediate vicinity get redeveloped, like this heinous PoS.


and this flea bag

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by gramsjdg

It is rather amusing that 1653' is now floating around along with 1646'. I somehow doubt they can really be making 7' tweaks to the design at this point. But who knows.

Yeah, that 1653' height is now being mentioned in multiple sources. I suspect the roofline hasn't been finalized. But 1653' sounds really specific.

Given they've been coy about anything above the base, I think they're still holding some aspects of the design close to the vest.

[NYguy]

^ Yeah, I think it's still shifting somewhat, but once we get to approvals, they should have a number to run with. That doesn't rule out any further refinement of course.

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

why so much mechanical sq. footage? and why is that a good thing? Is it just because mech floors dont count against buildable height?

Mechanical floor space exists in all buildings. It is neither a good nor bad thing. Some buildings need more than others, depending on type, size, location, etcs. Mechanical space can be anything that is not leasable floor space. Office buildings usually have more mechanical space than residential buildings. The FAR is what generates floor space. Total floor space (gross square feet) is the combination of both. So when you are talking building sizes, it's important to know the difference. 270 Park Avenue will have about 1.9 msf of floor space. The total space of that building will be closer to 2.5 msf of space.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I’d like to see some garbage in the immediate vicinity get redeveloped, like this heinous PoS.

I love Midtown Comics, even though I don't usually go to that one. But they all have that similar makeup. Touch it at your peril.

[JMKeynes]

The store can move. That building is terrible, as is all of E
45th between Lex and 3rd, including the PoS 1960s office building on Third. When the hotel market recovers, I’d like to see a nice hotel/residential tower rise on that site.

[Crawford]

Agreed, that whole block is horrible. Hopefully we get a nice hotel or residential tower.

I wonder if 425 Lexington will eventually be replaced too. It's a rather tacky 1980's tower that's way underbuilt with the new zoning. It also has kind of weird floorplates.

You could have direct underground access to Grand Central via the Graybar, or Chrysler Center. 425 Lex would be perfect for another supertall office tower/Grand Central expansion.

[JMKeynes]

I like 425 Lex. I’m more concerned with getting rid of filthy eyesores. The whole block on the west side of Third between 42nd and 43rd is truly disgusting. In fact, it’s a total disgrace. It wasn’t too long ago that the area around GCT (and all of 42nd St) was disgusting. It’s now nice, and 175 Park will make it spectacular. It’s time to get rid of this heinous crap.

[NYguy]

^ Well, what you consider "disgusting", many people consider the City. Not every block is meant to be a shiny, glass skyscraper with little character. The midtown east rezoning was adopted to provide for new office space replacing the dated and old, as well as provide transit upgrades and pedestrian improvements. Not so the entire east side can be whitewashed from existence.

Now, if somebody came along with a proposal for those sites, then fine. It's also fine if a little slice of New York stays a little slice of New York. I'm the last person to say everything should remain frozen as is. But I'm also not about to say entire blocks should be demolished just for the sake of it.

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ Well, what you consider "disgusting", many people consider the City. Not every block is meant to be a shiny, glass skyscraper with little character.

I agree with you 110%.

[GertElim]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I like 425 Lex. I’m more concerned with getting rid of filthy eyesores. The whole block on the west side of Third between 42nd and 43rd is truly disgusting. In fact, it’s a total disgrace. It wasn’t too long ago that the area around GCT (and all of 42nd St) was disgusting. It’s now nice, and 175 Park will make it spectacular. It’s time to get rid of this heinous crap.

I believe this is between 43rd and 44th.
You are right in saying this is block is ripe for destruction

[JMKeynes]

You’re correct!

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I like 425 Lex. I’m more concerned with getting rid of filthy eyesores. The whole block on the west side of Third between 42nd and 43rd is truly disgusting. In fact, it’s a total disgrace. It wasn’t too long ago that the area around GCT (and all of 42nd St) was disgusting. It’s now nice, and 175 Park will make it spectacular. It’s time to get rid of this heinous crap.

Looks like many of those buildings are boarded up...any idea why?

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Looks like many of those buildings are boarded up...any idea why?

Many of those old buildings only need restoring their façade, new windows and maybe adding a roof park to return to their glory. I don't want every block of old buildings torn up just for another sterile skyscraper. A friend told me that he hates New York because there is scaffolding everywhere.

[Crawford]

It's obviously a development site. If you don't intend to keep the building, you board up everything but the commercial space, because residential tenants can thwart demolition via rent control laws.

If you have a row of tenements that you eventually want to redevelop, the first step is emptying the buildings of residents, which can take decades, thanks to our crazy tenant laws.