NEW YORK | 343 Madison Avenue | 844 FT | 49 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

NY Guy, you seen to have insight into these filings. Is there any technical reason why they’re filing for a smaller tower? Maybe BP just thinks that a smaller spec tower would be easier to finance.

https://newyorkyimby.com/2022/08/bos...town-east.html


The new tower is significantly smaller than the proposed 1,050-square-foot supertall with 55 stories that would have yield 832,613 square feet of office space, 5,357 square feet of retail space, and 5,357 square feet of subterranean circulation paths to Grand Central Terminal and the future East Side Access project. The filed permits call for a 780-foot-tall development that will yield 750,400 square feet of commercial space

The only reason I would have for the difference in filings and plans is that the air rights transfers aren’t complete. We see it all the time. I’m surprised they would be filing NB permits this early, considering how much demo is left to complete.

As usual, time will show what’s going on.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The only reason I would have for the difference in filings and plans is that the air rights transfers aren’t complete. We see it all the time. I’m surprised they would be filing NB permits this early, considering how much demo is left to complete.

As usual, time will show what’s going on.

That’s what I assumed, but I figured that you could provide further insight. Thanks

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

That’s what I assumed, but I figured that you could provide further insight. Thanks

Well, I’m not 100% certain that’s the case, but is a strong possibility. I’m still waiting on the full filing for 3 Hudson, a tower that fiked NB permits a few years ago. Last I checked, it was still a stump.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Well, I’m not 100% certain that’s the case, but is a strong possibility. I’m still waiting on the full filing for 3 Hudson, a tower that fiked NB permits a few years ago. Last I checked, it was still a stump.

I’d rather see 175 and 350 Park get tenants before all of these other projects.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I’d rather see 175 and 350 Park get tenants before all of these other projects.

You do realize that all of these projects can get tenants at the same time right?

It's not a turn based system. There is no "343 Madison got a tenant first, so now 175 is gonna have to wait"

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by MAC123

You do realize that all of these projects can get tenants at the same time right?

It's not a turn based system. There is no "343 Madison got a tenant first, so now 175 is gonna have to wait"

There are a limited number of tenants looking for 500k sf at any given time. If that weren’t the case, 2 WTC and 3 HY would be rising right now.

[NewYorkCity76]

https://therealdeal.com/2022/08/09/b...x-mta-hq-site/

[chris08876]

If its 1 million square feet, I can't see why they could just get commitments from smaller tenants versus a lone 500k commitment. Looks like height reduction...

Via the link above;

It’s been a long road, but Boston Properties is one step closer to building its big office tower on the former site of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s headquarters.

The developer filed plans Friday for a 982,000-square-foot office building at 343 Madison Avenue, Crain’s reported. The building is slated to stand 780 feet tall, shorter than the developer’s original plans for a 1,050-foot-tall property.


The ground floor will have retail space, while the rest of the Kohn Pedersen Fox-designed building will have office and mechanical space. Construction is expected to wrap up by 2026.

Last year, Boston Properties filed a land use application for the Midtown site, wanting to replace the former MTA HQ site and three adjacent lots with a supertall tower. The developer initially proposed a 925,000-square-foot building, so while it has shrunk in height, it has grown in square footage.

[MAC123]

Like YIMhudson was saying, those heights and sqft numbers don't add up. The site is limited (and like TKD was saying as well, they are required to set back as well), they can't go out so there is no way for them to increase the sqft while also decreasing the height, especially by 270 ft, that's a fourth of the building height.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

There are a limited number of tenants looking for 500k sf at any given time. If that weren’t the case, 2 WTC and 3 HY would be rising right now.

One Vanderbilt got underway with about 200,000 sf of leased space taken by TD Bank.


New building plans still haven’t been filed in BIS, but the relevant information from that article is here…











Whatever the final height is, it won’t be 780 ft, but people will report on whatever info is available at the time.

[JMKeynes]

I recall that about 1 Vandy, but isn’t that like a 1.6m sf tower? 175 Park has about 2m sf of office space, and I think that 350 Park will as well. I assume that towers that size would require a 500k sf commitment.

[MAC123]

So like I thought, the number they're getting that height from is probably the pre FAR bonus number.

If anything I'm guessing the height is actually going to increase since the increased the sqft. Or it will get fatter at the top. But I doubt a decrease.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MAC123

So like I thought, the number they're getting that height from is probably the pre FAR bonus number.

If anything I'm guessing the height is actually going to increase since the increased the sqft. Or it will get fatter at the top. But I doubt a decrease.

The problem is, without the direct filing, there’s no indication of what that total size references. On the full filing, it would be a reference to zoned square footage plus mechanical space. For this tower, we know that would be nearly 1 msf - at least as approved. I can’t imagine a private developer would bid on this site, and sit on it only to build something smaller than what is allowed.

Which brings us to this early filing. How then, would you get a mearly 300 ft height drop. The parameters of thecdesign (the zoning envelope), wouldn’t allow for a shorter, wider tower. In fact, they did the opposite during approval. Some nonsense about the sky plane. The other option would be a large drop in floor heights. Which I can’t see a developer doing, as this tower competes with other developments. At the same time, we know that there is a significant crown on top of the building. And finally, the building in the graphic they’ve shown has always been 933 ft.

[Zapatan]

As long as it's 8-900 feet I'm happy with it, the top is kinda neat but I never cared about this one as much

I just really hope and pray 175 Park Avenue doesn't get downsized at this point, that would be a tear shedder. Same with 350 Park Avenue, those are the two coolest towers in Midtown's pipeline at the moment

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

As long as it's 8-900 feet I'm happy with it, the top is kinda neat but I never cared about this one as much

I just really hope and pray 175 Park Avenue doesn't get downsized at this point, that would be a tear shedder. Same with 350 Park Avenue, those are the two coolest towers in Midtown's pipeline at the moment

Those towers won’t be downsized. 175 Park for certain won’t be throwing away those GCT air rights. Foster may have reworked 350 Park by now, but linewise, the development team won’tvwadte time on a tear down to build smaller than what is allowed under the new zoning. It defeats the point.

[NYguy]

Another one not long for this world...


OCTOBER 8, 2022

[JMKeynes]

I wonder if this design will be tweaked. It’s not on BP’s website or the architect’s.



https://a4.pbase.com/o12/06/102706/1...jRybvRZ.g5.JPG

[JMKeynes]

I’d imagine that DPW’s lease, which was renewed in 2012, expires over the next few years. They are going to be a big fish that everyone pursues. They could basically fill 50-60% of a building like this.

https://www.globest.com/sites/globes...20220912214318

[NYguy]

Some images from the wind tunnel test...


1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.

[MAC123]

Ugh, please don't tell me that's the smaller model