NEW YORK | 15 Penn Plaza (Hotel Penn) | 1,200 FT / 388 M | 61 FLOORS

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by matt19215

It would never happen, but a supertall art deco tower with a modern walker tower like facade to compliment the ESB would be better than whats proposed now

Basically completing the Met Life north tower (11 Madison Ave)to its original planned height.

[jsbrook]

Trash. Hopefully it has trouble landing tenants like 2 WTC and gets redesigned completely.

[NYguy]

These developers who have been in business for years have been in business for years because they know what the market wants, and how to go fishing in that market. New York developers in particular know what the market wants, and how it's divvied up. As the other Hudson Yards towers continue to draw tenants, and that space is taken, it's the other towers on the market that will have to fill in. The New York market is rich in tenants, and there is always activity. Every year there are a variety of needs to be filled. It's why ultimately, the new towers get built. At the same time, even older buildings with the larger floorplates are attractive to all sectors of the market.


https://nypost.com/2019/07/08/public...far-this-year/

Publicis Groupe inks largest single office deal so far this year

By Steve Cuozzo
July 8, 2019

The largest single office deal of 2019 so far is worthy of Publicis Groupe’s slogan — “Viva la difference!”

The French multinational media giant headed by CEO Arthur Sadoun has inked two leases totalling just under a million square feet at 375 Hudson St., Realty Check has learned — a 20-year renewal on a 680,000-square-foot lease that doesn’t expire until 2023, plus a 280,000- square-foot expansion to start in August.

Among other features, Publicis likes 375 Hudson’s large floor plates up to 71,000 square feet on lower floors and having its own roof deck.

[jsbrook]

I'm involved in development. Developers are humans. They are not infallible. They don't always judge the market correctly. Even generally successful ones. Even in Manhattan. Neither do lenders (though they are usually decently protected if things go south). Failures have been strewn throughout these pages and elsewhere. Or sometimes, things just shift and there isn't time to recalibrate. As to this particular development, I think you are likely right and they have assessed correctly. We will see. It's still a trash building.

Originally Posted by NYguy

These developers who have been in business for years have been in business for years because they know what the market wants, and how to go fishing in that market. New York developers in particular know what the market wants, and how it's divvied up. As the other Hudson Yards towers continue to draw tenants, and that space is taken, it's the other towers on the market that will have to fill in. The New York market is rich in tenants, and there is always activity. Every year there are a variety of needs to be filled. It's why ultimately, the new towers get built. At the same time, even older buildings with the larger floorplates are attractive to all sectors of the market.

[tennis1400]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I'm involved in development. Developers are humans. They are not infallible. They don't always judge the market correctly. Even generally successful ones. Even in Manhattan. Neither do lenders (though they are usually decently protected if things go south). Failures have been strewn throughout these pages and elsewhere. Or sometimes, things just shift and there isn't time to recalibrate. As to this particular development, I think you are likely right and they have assessed correctly. We will see. It's still a trash building.

Maybe the trash design is because many of the tenants out there want these designs? developers arent pushing these designs in a vacuum.. its directly coming from the potential tenants out there and what they are signaling they are looking for. we might disagree with the looks but ultimately these buildings are economic decisions not aesthetic ones for good or bad!

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by artspook

dirt, broken branches & garbage flying . .
gnarly, bent, dead shit hanging every which way . .
a dead tree cracks off & kills 5 tourists atop a
double decker . .

You should do the honors of writing this out to the developers of the site. It's ridiculous how bad this looks. Unbelievable insanity these "architects" even DARE propose this in NYC. The city of crowns and spires.

[pianowizard]

I had never clicked on this thread until just now. I looked over all the comments posted since Jun 4 (when the rendering was revealed) and agree with this the most:

Originally Posted by BXFrank

It’s just the new style of office architecture, open floor slabs and balconies just like BIGs 2WTC and 350 Park ave catering the tenants. Vanderbilt and Hudson yards even though recently built, they are old designs. We just have to get used to this new trend

I too think that there will be more and more "odd" buildings like this. Eventually, after seeing lots of such designs, most of us will likely get used to them.

This rendering suggests that Facebook emphasizes function over form. IMO it's not the worst skyscraper design I've ever seen, although I do think it would blend in better if it were skinnier.

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by tennis1400

Maybe the trash design is because many of the tenants out there want these designs? developers arent pushing these designs in a vacuum.. its directly coming from the potential tenants out there and what they are signaling they are looking for. we might disagree with the looks but ultimately these buildings are economic decisions not aesthetic ones for good or bad!

The ideas of the design are good.

Stacking floors for solar shading, providing outdoor space for workers, getting rid of the monotonous cubicle workspace model in favor of more diverse floor plans. All good and interesting concepts.

It's just the overall massing of the tower that's horrible. It sacrifices how it looks on the skyline for all of the interior design decisions.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

I too think that there will be more and more "odd" buildings like this. Eventually, after seeing lots of such designs, most of us will likely get used to them.

This is probably the worst argument one can make. Wtf

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by Zerton

It's just the overall massing of the tower that's horrible. It sacrifices how it looks on the skyline for all of the interior design decisions.

Indeed, the current design overly disrupts the skyline. It would work better if this monstrosity took up less space.

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

This is probably the worst argument one can make. Wtf

Calm down, this wasn't an argument at all, just a prediction that our perception will change over time. In fact I dislike this design nearly as much as you, so it's impossible that we are "arguing".

[jsbrook]

Originally Posted by tennis1400

Maybe the trash design is because many of the tenants out there want these designs? developers arent pushing these designs in a vacuum.. its directly coming from the potential tenants out there and what they are signaling they are looking for. we might disagree with the looks but ultimately these buildings are economic decisions not aesthetic ones for good or bad!

I don't think many tenants actively want trash design or are otherwise doing all that much to dictate the exterior and facade aesthetics in most cases. But many tenants, both commercial and residential, don't care that much about the exterior, so developers are not obligated to put that much effort into it outside certain buildings designed to be trophy towers. Tenants do care about the interior. Glass towers can be incredible in the right hands and with the proper effort and attention to detail. But one of the reasons we've seen so much thoughtless and banal and subpar use of glass in recent years it because it makes it easy to give the large windows and views we have come to expect as high end buyers. It can be done incorporating other facade materials, and there seems to be a return to more demand for art walls, but it is harder. Fortunately, New York is at the forefront of trending away from this movement and towards a more balanced skyline. https://www.dezeen.com/2018/05/04/bl...GLPhIdbgZW-m3s

In order to cater to tenants, buildings these days tend to be designed from the inside out (with some exceptions). To me, however, this particular building is beyond just lazy or easy design. It's actually bad taste and a bizarre mishmash of elements. I can't figure out what it's trying to do and can't see how much of the exterior aesthetic would be a response to perceived tenant tastes. I, for one, hope the design changes significantly between now and construction. It's definitely possible. But we'll see. It is what it is otherwise.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by jsbrook

I'm involved in development. Developers are humans. They are not infallible. They don't always judge the market correctly. Even generally successful ones. Even in Manhattan. Neither do lenders (though they are usually decently protected if things go south). Failures have been strewn throughout these pages and elsewhere. Or sometimes, things just shift and there isn't time to recalibrate. As to this particular development, I think you are likely right and they have assessed correctly. We will see. It's still a trash building.

Well, Vornado has done well in New York. I wish they would do more, but they have done well. I don't think they just pulled this design out of a hat. There are too many other ways they could have gone. The fact that they went with this one says a lot. I don't have a problem with the design. I think it's the wrong location for such a design, but they're trying to get a building leased. You may well think the design is trash, but if it's leased and built, Vornado won't care. Like I said, things are moving in a direction where the new towers are leased because options are limited.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKCN1U52J1

Hot tech sector, Wall Street drive record Manhattan leasing

Herbert Lash
July 10, 2019

A boom on Wall Street and a thriving technology sector have pushed the unemployment rate in Manhattan to record lows and propelled office leasing activity to its best first six months of a year in a quarter century, brokerage data shows.

The new leasing of office space rose to 18.3 million square feet in the first six months of 2019, the first time since 1994 at the mid-year point total leases exceeded 18 million square feet, according to data from Cushman & Wakefield.

New leasing activity jumped 21.5% in the second quarter from the year-earlier period to 10.0 million square feet.

Technology firms with a presence in Manhattan are expanding. Facebook Inc (FB.O) is negotiating 1 million square feet or more in the new Hudson Yards district on the city’s far West Side, Crain’s New York Business reported two weeks ago.

Companies are on the move as the city’s biggest construction boom in decades has spurred relocations to the Hudson Yards and $100 million office tower makeovers on Avenue of the Americas and elsewhere in the city attract new tenants.

“It’s almost like a chess game,” said Richard Persichetti, lead researcher for greater New York City at brokerage Cushman & Wakefield Plc (CWK.N), referring to how leasing activity occurs.

“Because of new supply you’ve seen a flight to new development. But we’ve also seen a flight to better quality,” he said.

New construction and renovated office space already built or planned will add about 45 million square feet of office space in Manhattan in the decade ending 2023, Cushman estimates.

[Duck From NY]

Originally Posted by NYguy

These developers who have been in business for years have been in business for years because they know what the market wants, and how to go fishing in that market.

-
You hear that guys? These developers are winners and you're just a bunch of losers who like architecture that doesn't punish the millions of people that have to look at these buildings!

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Calm down, this wasn't an argument at all, just a prediction that our perception will change over time. In fact I dislike this design nearly as much as you, so it's impossible that we are "arguing".

You take everything literally and personally?

Let me thoroughly explain:
"An argument is a rationale in which the reason functions as evidence in support of the conclusion. Its purpose is to provide a rational basis for believing the conclusion to be true."

By argument I didn't imply that you were explicitly arguing with me. Is there no such thing as reading between the lines? Where is the reading comprehension?

And yes, your statement was an argument. It does not mean to say you were *arguing.*

And to further clarify why it is a stupid argument, it is because people get used to the worst of worst. Because we will get used to it, it does not give them developers a pass. People get used to the smell of cow shit because they live in a town of conglomerate beef producers. Hoarders get used to living in the filthiest homes, littered with feces and dead rats, and undisposed of rotten food. Women get used to being beat by their partners... Are all of these situations ok? Because these individuals will become used to them in time?

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

And yes, your statement was an argument.

I understood the definitions of "argument" perfectly well; in fact this term is used frequently in my profession. No, I wasn't presenting an argument, because I wasn't defending this ugly design. I was merely, neutrally pointing out that most of us (including myself) dislike it now, but our perception might change in the future. You thought I was defending this design, and so you thought I was presenting an argument for it, but I assure you I was not.

In my first post on this topic, I might have misled you into thinking that I was defending this building when I said "IMO it's not the worst skyscraper design I've ever seen", so let me clarify by rephrasing: It is among the worst skyscraper designs I've ever come across, though I've seen a couple that were even worse.

BTW, by "argue" I didn't mean quarrel. "Argue" has multiple meanings, and in this context it meant presenting arguments different from yours. But again, I wasn't presenting an argument at all, so no, I wasn't arguing.

Now, a question for everyone: does anyone else think that if this tower were made as slender as 432 Park Ave, it would look more acceptable?

[BoM Trespasser]

I still wouldn't like the crown. Jenga lurching to rather weak-kneed International style right above it, does not work for me.

[NYguy]

Most if the biggies have anchor tenants, except for 3 Hudson, 2 WTC, and 15 Penn. I wouldn't put Tower Fifth or the Grand Hyatt tower in that category.


https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news...e-space-101540

IBM On The Hunt For Massive NYC Office Space As It Weighs WeWork Exit

October 29, 2019

IBM is on the lookout for roughly 500K SF of office space to pull all its separate city locations together to one location, Crain’s New York Business reports. The move would involve IBM ditching WeWork’s 88 University Place. IBM occupies that entire Greenwich Village building, which WeWork leases from an entity controlled by former CEO Adam Neumann. Sources told Crain’s that IBM hired former Cushman & Wakefield leasing broker Marlene Manzella as its head of leasing and transactions in North America and tasked her with consolidating its offices. C&W will be helping with the search for new space, which could be as big as 500K SF.

If IBM does withdraw from the WeWork location, it likely won't be for at least a few years, as its lease at 51 Astor Place, where it occupies 144K SF, runs until 2024. The company also has space at 590 Fifth Ave. in the Plaza District, per Crain’s. IBM is the latest tech firm said to be looking around the city for an office space to plant its flag. There have been multiple reports of Facebook prowling around for a lease, reportedly weighing a big footprint at Hudson Yards at one point and now, most recently, facing off with Apple for the 740K SF of offices at the Farley building.

[Submariner]

When did this get bumped to 1400?

[Busy Bee]

Big Blue Skyscraper

[Visionist]

Here's a trick to bestow a "crown" of sorts upon this controversial building; have the vertical columns supporting the segments continue up, above and beyond the weird bricklike final level, and thereupon terminate with a horizontal beam of appropriate thickness, joining them all together as a giant sculptural element.

It's not gonna turn it into a candidate for Miss Skyscraper, but it'll offset the abrupt randomness of the existing "crown".