NEW YORK | 350 Park Avenue | 1,600 FT | 62 FLOORS

[KevinFromTexas]

I really like this tower. It has a sort of Bank of China thing going on without really looking anything like it.

https://newyorkyimby.com/2019/05/vor...nYbul6GMpeNBwA

[DCReid]

It's interesting comparing this proposed tower to Ingel's 2 World Trade Center stack of boxes. It shows how much more effort the architect seem to go into designing a distinct tower. I think the top may need a little minor work - I think the spires look a little weird for the location. It will be interesting to see if and how this moves forward.

[chris08876]

Credit: Thomas_Koloski

[chris08876]

Checked the CTBUH, and this is listed.

Official Name 350 Park Avenue
Structure Type Building
Status Proposed
Country United States
City New York City
Street Address & Map 350 Park Avenue
Postal Code 10022
Building Function office
Proposed 2019
Height: Architectural 442 m / 1,450 ft Minimum
Height: To Tip 442 m / 1,450 ft Estimated
Floors Above Ground 70
Tower GFA 156,077 m² / 1,679,999 ft²



Owner Rudin Management Company, Inc.
Developer Vornado Realty Trust

Currently 4 proposals above 1400 ft. Tower 5th, 350 Park, 80 South, 270 Park (JP Morgan).

Loving the trend. Now, we must work our way to 600m.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

New York can't be a museum! The market decides! Insert other SSP cliches!

No need to insert "cliches" when you can insert the truth. It's why I'm glad we had the smart people in charge to make the changes necessary to make such a tower possible, or we would be looking at a museum evntually. It's 2019. Things change. Styles change. Tastes change. And more importantly, what is considered optimal working spaces today aren't the same as it was in 1960. But yeah, let's let older buildings stand just so people can look at them and pretend it is.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I really like this tower. It has a sort of Bank of China thing going on without really looking anything like it.

Hadn't though of that, but it does. I would like some more refinement at the top. I like it a lot more at the street level.

[BXFrank]

About time we get a two spire tower in Manhattan and not Chicago, single spires are overrated lest see if we get three next.

[faridnyc]

They say near 1500ft so we can have a 1480ft height of this tower according To the newyorkyimby

[KevinFromTexas]

I'll go along with it that the top needs refinement, but I actually like the spires. The rest of the tower is actually really pretty interesting and I think the spires are appropriate for the design and proportions of the tower. The roof does need some more detail. At this point, I don't think the roof complements the rest of the building and is pretty boring by comparison. I think maybe some white lattice type members leading up from the roof above the glass facade to the top would add a little detail. They would also play off of the white trim on the tower's facade. They could also tie in with the spires somehow. I say somehow because I'm not an architect and I'm just making a suggestion. Overall, I really like this one a lot, and I hope they don't fiddle with the design too much.

I say keep the spires. A lot of the spindly supertalls that New York has been getting lately would be terrible candidates for spires since they are already very slender buildings. New York could use a few more "new spires" on the skyline on some of the new bulkier buildings to offset that trend.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I think maybe some white lattice type members leading up from the roof above the glass facade to the top would add a little detail. They would also play off of the white trim on the tower's facade. They could also tie in with the spires somehow. I say somehow because I'm not an architect and I'm just making a suggestion. Overall, I really like this one a lot, and I hope they don't fiddle with the design too much.

Yeah, it doesn't need a lot of work, but something more relatable to the base....






__


_
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1490708

I say keep the spires. A lot of the spindly supertalls that New York has been getting lately would be terrible candidates for spires since they are already very slender buildings. New York could use a few more "new spires" on the skyline on some of the new bulkier buildings to offset that trend.

I don't like bulky towers with spires. I think the BofA is too bulky for it's spire, and was glad when they canceled that spire at 3 Hudson Blvd. I'm more of an old school spire, like the slender towers downtown. I think the spires fit here the same way they would have on 3 WTC.

[KevinFromTexas]

Well, I wasn't talking really bulky, I just meant not those pencil thin towers going up around Central Park. And I like that other New York tower you posted. I forget the name, but I like the design. I may be in the minority in liking that one, but it's one I was thinking of with my comment about tying in those vertical lines to the spires.

The design of this building also reminds me a little bit of the Shoreline Plaza Towers in Corpus Christi, Texas. Not everyone likes those buildings, but I have always loved their design. They were really cutting edge when they were built in 1988.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Well, I wasn't talking really bulky, I just meant not those pencil thin towers going up around Central Park. And I like that other New York tower you posted. I forget the name, but I like the design. I may be in the minority in liking that one, but it's one I was thinking of with my comment about tying in those vertical lines to the spires.

The design of this building also reminds me a little bit of the Shoreline Plaza Towers in Corpus Christi, Texas. Not everyone likes those buildings, but I have always loved their design. They were really cutting edge when they were built in 1988.

I think with Foster doing 425 Park and 270 Park, if this tower does get built, it will be a redefining of the Park Avenue style. We will see what other architects are chosen to design the new towers that pop up in the area. Still a long way to getting this one built though.



https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-e...r-midtown-east

Developers may be considering 1,450-foot office tower in Midtown East

RYAN DEFFENBAUGH
May 6, 2019

Another office skyscraper may soon rise in the rezoned Midtown East.

Vornado Realty Trust and Rudin Management are considering building a 1,450-foot tower at 350 Park Ave., according to The Real Deal.

The New York Post reported in April that Vornado and Rudin were discussing a possible joint venture for a new office tower. The plan would build over part of a Vornado property at 350 Park Ave. and a Rudin building at 40 E. 52nd St., as described by the Post.

The tower is not official just yet. The Real Deal cited a source who said the brochure shows just one option the developers could pursue for the two sites.

Should the developers move forward with the plans, their project would join a list of several new Midtown East office towers set to dot the city skyline. As documented in a Crain's report this week, the rezoning of Midtown East—one of the most tortured in city history—has already paved the way for towers such as the 77-story One Vanderbilt, a planned 70-story headquarters for JPMorgan Chase and a soaring tower that would replace the Grand Hyatt.

Developer Harry Macklowe is also assembling parcels to build a soaring tower. But not all developers are as eager to redevelop their Midtown East buildings. Tishman Speyer had been considering razing its 26-story office tower at 300 Park Ave. to build something bigger before abandoning those plans to keep anchor tenants Colgate-Palmolive, as Crain's reported Friday.

_

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by NYguy

No need to insert "cliches" when you can insert the truth.

Yeah idgf about a bland wedding cake, I just thought it would be fun to see your false dichotomy about museums used on crappy post-war architecture for once



This baby is going to look great during the blue hour with those diagonal lines

[Zapatan]

Yeah, but let's just slow down a bit. They've got a few years to get tenants lined up to make this final, but I will say that if KPMG moves across the street, that would be enough to get the building going.

But that doesn't mean the building won't happen (with the current design) it just means we have to wait a bit. I really hope so because this thing is awesome

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Duck From NY

Yeah idgf about a bland wedding cake, I just thought it would be fun to see your false dichotomy about museums used on crappy post-war architecture for once

Yeah, just as I wanted to see you wander out of the wilderness with your not-so-witty commentary again.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

But that doesn't mean the building won't happen (with the current design) it just means we have to wait a bit. I really hope so because this thing is awesome

I never said it wouldn't happen with the current design. I'm saying they still have options, including designing another tower if so desired. (just look at 2 WTC or 15 Penn).
They also have the option to develop each property separately, but that wouldn't be the best course of action for either of them.

[NYguy]

The rezoning of midtown east has at least opened the door for landlords who no longer want to see tenants leaving the district for newer, shinier offices. I mentioned before that 345 is just across the street...

345 Park Avenue is a 634-foot tall, 1,832,210-square-foot office skyscraper in Midtown, Manhattan. It was built in 1969 at the former site of The Ambassador Hotel by Rudin Management Comapany, and was designed by Emery Roth & Sons architects. It was renovated in 1999.

The buildings biggest leaseholder is accounting firm KPMG with 639,562-square-feet.

It makes sense that Rudin would want to keep such a large tenant like KPMG, and a new tower could go a long way in doing that. They own both 345 and 40 E. 52nd, which would be demolished for the new tower, or another new tower.


https://www.rudin.com/commercial-pro...st-52nd-street

40 East 52nd Street, also known as The BlackRock Building, was designed by The Eggers Group and opened in 1986. This Plaza District tower features a granite through-block lobby, which provides access from both 51st and 52nd Streets, as well as two outdoor plazas. The building offers floor plates ranging from 16,000 to 21,000 square feet.

https://www.rudin.com/commercial-pro...45-park-avenue

Located on a prime stretch of Park Avenue, and home to the headquarters of Rudin Management Company, 345 Park Avenue was designed by Emery Roth & Sons and opened in 1969. Tenants of this full-block building in the Plaza District, with floor plates from 40,000 to 70,000 square feet, enjoy exceptional views across Midtown, Central Park, the Upper East Side, and the East River.

I think we'll be looking at a game of "musical chairs" as far as tenants go as developers now have the option to rebuild as well as renovate existing properties.

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/featur...iness-district

Pricey renovations of Midtown East office buildings are underway at 237 Park Ave., 277 Park Ave., 280 Park Ave., 399 Park Ave. and 390 Madison Ave. The Stahl Organization is spending $100 million on 277 Park Ave., and Cushman, its leasing agent, has inked deals with Chase and another major financial services firm.

“Since One Vanderbilt and 270 Park [Levinson’s building] got underway, there has been a significant flurry of activity,” says Mark Boisi, executive vice chairman at Cushman. He says the activity is the strongest since the 1960s.

Boisi should know. His father headed the real estate operation of the New York Central Railroad and was instrumental in using air rights to transform Park Avenue from residential to office buildings.

However, those buildings still have the intrusive columns and low ceilings that are out of favor. As the Chase and Hyatt examples show, taking advantage of the Midtown East rezoning is a Herculean task. Only one or two more such projects are likely to be undertaken in the next decade.

Most owners will instead hope that the unparalleled location and transportation—together with the cachet restored by the new buildings—will
outweigh the turnoff of archaic space.

[JMKeynes]

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that [garbage]!

[Hudson11]

Rudin is looking to free up some capital... the timing seems a bit coincidental.

https://therealdeal.com/2019/05/07/r...mes-to-market/

[Busy Bee]

Because that makes sense.

[gramsjdg]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that [garbage]!

I'll say the same for 4 Times Square

[Zerton]

This is so weird... I thought this was 270 Park for sure. But it's not.

We never get spoiled with so many renderings like this.