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

[Eidolon]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The only thing that has advanced so far is for the Grand Central air rights, which is where the bulk of the additional space is coming from. But initial plans called for a tower to house 15,000 employees. The current version in the EAS is for about 12,000 employees.

Remember the smaller pieces...

Damn, so this could be another 5th (~330 feet)taller than what we are seeing now when those other air rights are transferred to this site and are accounted for? A near megatall? About 1800ft tall at the very least? In Midtown?
Count me in!

Originally Posted by Sky88

Between Two Giants

A comparison between One Vanderbilt tower and 270 Park Ave tower.

With One Vanderbilt, 270 Park Ave, 341 Madison and Hotel Roosevelt, the East Midtown Skyline will be more vibrant than Hudson Yards.



imagine from Thomas Koloski
http://www.yimbyforums.com

[Busy Bee]

This is going to be effing fantastic no matter what BUT this could go from effing fantastic to crap your pants epic if that is the direction they go!

[chris08876]

I hope its a new tallest for the city. If the current designs are for 12k employees, and they are seeking to bump capacity for 15k, along with the continued purchasing of air rights as of now... oh man.

[chris08876]

On a side note, the future looks promising. With the Midtown East Rezoning, more super talls are bound to come. You wouldn't build less than what you originally purchased in other words.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Eidolon

Damn, so this could be another 5th (~330 feet)taller than what we are seeing now when those other air rights are transferred to this site and are accounted for? A near megatall? About 1800ft tall at the very least? In Midtown?
Count me in!

Not sure they would want to go that tall, but everything depends on how much of those additional air rights they ultimately decide to use.

Sorry about Vandy being upstaged, but there was always that possibility with the rezoning of the area. They'll be a great team.

[chris08876]

^^^^^

I think it also depends on the design. I do hope this isn't just a massive box or rectangle, but if it does have tapering elements, and if floor size becomes smaller as it rises. Assuming the mass model dimensions change, but the overall tower still retains its 2.4 to 2.5 mil-sq ft.

Any sort of tapering element will reduce floor size, and it might be the best chances for something that eclipses CPT. I'm hoping this will be the tallest to the roof.

Hopefully they use all the rights. Sort of accounting for projected future employee counts or needs. Would be kinda foolish if they built to spec the sq-footage, without accounted for projected ramping of employee count.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Not sure they would want to go that tall, but everything depends on how much of those additional air rights they ultimately decide to use.

Sorry about Vandy being upstaged, but there was always that possibility with the rezoning of the area. They'll be a great team.

Another way to think about it is; imagine a city where 1VB is quickly being significantly upstaged.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^^

I think it also depends on the design. I do hope this isn't just a massive box or rectangle, but if it does have tapering elements, and if floor size becomes smaller as it rises. Assuming the mass model dimensions change, but the overall tower still retains its 2.4 to 2.5 mil-sq ft.

That's where city zoning cones into play. You can't just build anything, even as-of-right. There are various setback and streetwall requirements, as well as maximum widths at certain heights, which require more setbacks.

But the current scenario for both versions would be designed for the same amount of people. The DEIS should be coming out soon, the official start of the approvals process. There will be more info in it, but it likely wont have the final answers to the questions we have.

[NOPA]

This is a monster - I love it. No way they do not have a crown or anything. Either way this ends up it will be massive (Please use nice glass!)

[citybooster]

They seem to want to go with the shorter one so they can chop off a significant amount of public space. It's so short sighted since as right they can go the whole 1,566 ft... they seem to really want the shorter one. It's a great tower in either situation(and even probably in the shorter version come close or just exceed Sears/ Willis Tower. I just like the idea of going as tall as possible.. maybe like in a previous thread I'm spoiled by all the development going on.

[NYguy]

^ It's not about less public space. Like most large office buildings, they want larger floorplates. That's the whole issue. Otherwise, they wouldn't even need to bother with this approval process.

[JSsocal]

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ It's not about less public space. Like most large office buildings, they want larger floorplates. That's the whole issue. Otherwise, they wouldn't even need to bother with this approval process.

Yeah but at the same time it's a little bold to request an amendment and actually decrease the amount of public 'benefit' of the project. If they're justification is that it will be 'A year round space unique to Madison Avenue' then they're thinking everyone is just dumb. Some of the city's more well known Indoor POPS are on that avenue. Perhaps their justification is that it will act as a lobby for GCT riders.

It would be nice to have an indoor lobby extension for Grand Central there, but they should really keep it at 10K square feet. Having the outdoor public area at the 'no-action' location would actually be really nice too (It also harkens back to the courtyard that was at that hotel before Union Carbide). That's an area that could use a little outdoor space.

[chris08876]

Looking at the "no action" condition massing, the base resebles the ESB a lot.

Here is a massing of the base of the ESB.




Compare to the massing in “no action” plan.



I surely hope the final design has a very ESB look to it or inspiration per say. With a kickass crown I’d hope.

I just can’t see any large tower with the massing dimensions being flat in the roof. With zoning, and tapering/setback requirements, I surely hope this has a ESB feel to it.

This is just speculation on my part of the design. An ESB like design would be sweet.


At this height, no crown would be a sacrilege given the profound impact on the skyline.

[NYC2ATX]

I'm imagining an Empire-State type massing with the exposed structure of the John Hancock Center in Chicago. What would that even look like??

Also, it's been a long time since we've had office buildings reaching new heights like this. I feel like in all the time I've been active on this forum, nearly every supertall structure built was always residential or mixed-use.

[antinimby]

I wonder what Pelli or SHOP would have done here.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

I'm imagining an Empire-State type massing with the exposed structure of the John Hancock Center in Chicago. What would that even look like??

Also, it's been a long time since we've had office buildings reaching new heights like this. I feel like in all the time I've been active on this forum, nearly every supertall structure built was always residential or mixed-use.

Remember the millennium project tower in Newark?

That's what I'm thinking it'll look like, and I'm totally fine with that, especially at over 1400 feet.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by antinimby

I wonder what Pelli or SHOP would have done here.

Maybe we'll get to see what the other firms had in mind down the road.

Originally Posted by JSsocal

Yeah but at the same time it's a little bold to request an amendment and actually decrease the amount of public 'benefit' of the project. If they're justification is that it will be 'A year round space unique to Madison Avenue' then they're thinking everyone is just dumb. Some of the city's more well known Indoor POPS are on that avenue. Perhaps their justification is that it will act as a lobby for GCT riders.

It would be nice to have an indoor lobby extension for Grand Central there, but they should really keep it at 10K square feet. Having the outdoor public area at the 'no-action' location would actually be really nice too (It also harkens back to the courtyard that was at that hotel before Union Carbide). That's an area that could use a little outdoor space.

It's not bold at all. Developers and building owners request variances on zoning uses all the time. This is more of a formality. But the city didn't rezone midtown east so that we can get one more under or rarely utilized outdoor plaza. They would throw out that plaza mandate entirely if it meant a tower with the type of large floorplates seen going up in the Hudson Yards district could be built here.

But that aside, that outdoor plaza on East 47th Street would be neither inviting, nor a draw to the public. Even less so on those rainy days or those cold, snowy, 20 degree days. Nor would it be that inviting on those hot summer days. If anything, having the outdoor plaza in that location would just resemble a private courtyard for the building tenant (Chase).






You could add 10,000 square foot more to that plaza, and it still wouldn't be inviting.

On the other hand, this climate controlled, indoor - glassed in plaza with open views - could be used every day of the year. As stated, there could be a variety of public offerings and artwork on display there. And that's all on top of being in a more visible location. You don't need the Chase branch there. Move that to the 47th Street side as planned.







You can see here why the enclosed space would be the size that it is.

[newyorker]

Might it look like this?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by newyorker

Might it look like this?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8461/7...48c7f476_o.jpg

NO. It will look like the massing that we've been shown.

[chris08876]

Chase’s new Midtown HQ could be a supertall with new Metro-North access

Now that Foster + Partners has been announced as the architect for JP Morgan Chase’s new headquarters at 270 Park Avenue, the baking giant isn’t wasting any time in moving forward with its plans for that Midtown skyscraper.

YIMBY reports that Chase has filed a zoning text amendment with the Department of City Planning, which sheds a good deal of light on what, exactly, the company has planned for its new HQ. According to those documents, the new building could indeed be a supertall—rising more than 1,500 feet, depending on whether or not the firm receives approval for a change to how the site would be arranged.

The purpose of the amendment is to shrink the amount of public space that would be provided with the new skyscraper. Under the adopted Midtown East rezoning plan, any new buildings in the area on a lot of more than 65,000 square feet must provide at least 10,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space.

Chase’s text amendment seeks to bring that number down to 7,000 square feet, but would result in what the amendment says would be a “a new and different form of year-round public open space for the area” that would be “attractive to the general user population and help enliven the Madison Avenue corridor.” It could be open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., with retail space and the ability to host private events. It would also have a direct underground connection to Metro-North trains at Grand Central Terminal, just a few blocks away.


As YIMBY notes, DCP has already determined that the new proposal wouldn’t have an adverse effect on the environment.

Preservationists continue to call for the city to try and save the original structure, which was built in 1961 and designed by SOM’s Gordon Bunshaft and Natalie de Blois. The building is not landmarked—and thus, among the city’s most endangered buildings—and the Landmarks Preservation Commission hasn’t indicated that will change any time soon.

========================
NYCurbed