NEW YORK | 270 Park Ave | 1,389 FT | 57 FLOORS - Page 47

NYguy · #**921** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbrook

She was actually right on this. Mostly, anyway. I don't support strong-arming Chase into making additional overly onerous transit improvements. But what she asked for -- and got -- has improved the tower and improved the experience of this block for the public. It is an example, and it should be followed.

Whether it was an improvement or not remains to be seen. I maintain that an indoor plaza would have been better for public use, and could have incorporated the Grand Central access better. I'm sure they will work out a nice enough plaza, but the open air plaza on the next block is always empty.

Meanwhile, about that purchase across the street, maybe Chase will use those air rights it purchased from the St. Barts to put up a hotel with maybe some residential building since they aren't using those air rights at 270.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...ild-its-new-hq

https://commercialobserver.com/2019/...adison-avenue/

JPMorgan Chase will spend more than $100M for Bank of China’s US headquarters
Bank has already moved into the building at 410 Madison Avenue

March 20, 2019

Quote:

A contract has been signed and the U.S.-based behemoth investment bank has already moved into the the seven-story 58,395-square-foot building at 410 Madison Avenue between East 48th and East 49th Streets, sources said, and Bank of China, one of the biggest Chinese lenders in the U.S., has moved out. The site offers 107,500 buildable square feet due to the Midtown East rezoning. A close date hasn’t yet been determined, the sources said.

Quote:

CBRE’s Darcy Stacom and William Shanahan have been marketing the site, which sits on a 7,164-square-foot lot, per PropertyShark. The brokers declined to comment as did a spokeswoman for J.P. Morgan. Bank of China’s Raymond Qiao, the chief lending officer and executive vice president in the U.S., didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Submariner · #**922** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 9:15 PM**

Did BofC go to their Bryant Park location?

NYguy · #**923** Posted **Mar 21, 2019, 1:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Submariner

Did BofC go to their Bryant Park location?

Yeah, and it's actually a nice looking building.

Meanwhile, what are Chase's plans for this building?

Submariner · #**924** Posted **Mar 21, 2019, 4:55 PM**

Yeah, the BofC building is nice....simple but nice.

smilescraper · #**925** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 4:50 PM**

Just watched the CPC Review Session held on 11th of March. Seems like JP Morgan still plans the 1400 foot version, even with the 10k POPS. They tweaked the model a little bit.

the video is only available from the site: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/a...-sessions.page

around 1:00:00 starts the presentation.

Zapatan · #**926** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilescraper

Just watched the CPC Review Session held on 11th of March. Seems like JP Morgan still plans the 1400 foot version, even with the 10k POPS. They tweaked the model a little bit.

the video is only available from the site: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/a...-sessions.page

around 1:00:00 starts the presentation.

I guess a 1,600 footer was too much to ask... maybe Tower Fifth or Grand Hyatt Redevelopment will yield something of such scale

Still exciting though

JMKeynes · #**927** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilescraper

Just watched the CPC Review Session held on 11th of March. Seems like JP Morgan still plans the 1400 foot version, even with the 10k POPS. They tweaked the model a little bit.

the video is only available from the site: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/a...-sessions.page

around 1:00:00 starts the presentation.

Do they show the whole tower?

smilescraper · #**928** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Do they show the whole tower?

They show the massing model with the modifications, but not a render.

Here is the link for the screenshot i took: http://www.yimbyforums.com/t/new-yor...loors/4189/293

NYguy · #**929** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 7:21 PM**

That graphic gives a better look at the actual footprint (ground level). As suspected, the tower cantilevers on all sides, leaving the public space on Madison, and what appears to be space for employees on the other sides.

NYguy · #**930** Posted **Mar 22, 2019, 8:39 PM**

Another grab...

Crawford · #**931** Posted **Mar 23, 2019, 1:34 AM**

That sucks. Midtown East needs the 1,600 ft. version.

Oh, well. If it's 1,403 ft. and a good design, will still be a landmark tower, and one of the most prominent in Midtown.

It will still be the tallest building on the East Side, until Tower Fifth is built (assuming none of the other Midtown East proposals break ground before Tower Fifth).

Zapatan · #**932** Posted **Mar 23, 2019, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

That sucks. Midtown East needs the 1,600 ft. version.

Oh, well. If it's 1,403 ft. and a good design, will still be a landmark tower, and one of the most prominent in Midtown.

If I'm not mistaken that doesn't include a parapet or whatever other elements

I would guess that this building will be roughly the same roof as Sears Tower?

NYguy · #**933** Posted **Mar 23, 2019, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

If I'm not mistaken that doesn't include a parapet or whatever other elements

I would guess that this building will be roughly the same roof as Sears Tower?

No, that's not what the final height of the building would be, as we define it. I wouldn't weigh too much heavily on the graphic either, it's meant mainly for emphasis on the public space. We'll get actual design details later. But it shows they are moving toward the larger floor option, which is what you would expect. Massing aside, I'm more intrigued by the little details we can get from these images.

We can start putting some pieces together...

NYguy · #**934** Posted **Mar 23, 2019, 3:27 PM**

Here's a rough comparison of those graphics...

Zapatan · #**935** Posted **Mar 23, 2019, 6:29 PM**

I don't really like the setbacks towards the bottom in the revision, I much prefer the other or definitely the 1,560+ version (both from a design and height standpoint)

The facade looks cool though and hopefully will make up for it

NYguy · #**936** Posted **Mar 24, 2019, 4:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I don't really like the setbacks towards the bottom in the revision, I much prefer the other or definitely the 1,560+ version (both from a design and height standpoint)

The facade looks cool though and hopefully will make up for it

Well, the purpose of the cantilver is to increase the size of the lower floors. The result now is a cleaner tower on 3 of 4 sides.

chefforbz · #**937** Posted **Mar 24, 2019, 9:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Here's a rough comparison of those graphics...

Looking at the floors the massing model is showing could we be seeing the top and parapet already? I see four floors of double height ceilings and what I assume will be a giant floor for mechanicals and I’m guessing a tuned mass damper. And one floor above that. If mechanicals are already accounted for in the diagram I don’t see this rising much higher. Thoughts?

NYguy · #**938** Posted **Mar 24, 2019, 1:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chefforbz

Looking at the floors the massing model is showing could we be seeing the top and parapet already? I see four floors of double height ceilings and what I assume will be a giant floor for mechanicals and I’m guessing a tuned mass damper. And one floor above that. If mechanicals are already accounted for in the diagram I don’t see this rising much higher. Thoughts?

The heights given were specifically the bulkhead heights, which are typically below any parapet or crown heights. Also, that graphic itself is probably outdated. Normally you would have renderings presented during tgis process, but I guess the design is being refined enough that things are not as settled. And it's not the same as a more detailed and specific DOB graphic, which would be precise. We'll just have to wait for a render or further details.

Submariner · #**939** Posted **Mar 24, 2019, 3:28 PM**

The tower on the right is the better of the two, IMO. I like that it possesses at least one line of symmetry.

The massing isn't spectacular either way...it will fail or succeed on materials and minor details.

smilescraper · #**940** Posted **Mar 24, 2019, 3:37 PM**

Next Wednesday they are going to vote about the text amendment.

If it is approved, how long does it take for the City Council and the Mayor to approve the project?
Any guesses?