NEW YORK | 175 Park Avenue (Grand Hyatt) | 1,575 FT | 86 FLOORS

[Busy Bee]

^ I'm 100% aware of that. My comment is for the fantasy illustration, knowing full well its a fantasy illustration.

[JMKeynes]

Hopefully, we’ll get a rendering today. It would be fortuitous if we do since the Star of Bethlehem (ie, the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn) will occur tonight for the first time in 800 years. What a wonderful Christmas gift that would be!

[Xing Lin]

I love the nod to a Rose Window motif in Sinaievart's fan render. It's probably too much of a stretch to expect the actual design to include anything similar but looking at it in that unofficial render, it just looks so fitting. That massing shape promises to lend itself to some very unique and fantasy-like interpretations.

[NYguy]

Nothing really new today (as was expected). We're still at the early stages of the environmental review, so that's where the bulk of the information came.
They're capping what all needs to be included in the review, which will follow the standard environmental review...







Everything is pretty much as we saw in the CB5 meeting...

















































I noticed here that the entrance to the office lobby is larger, where previously there was retail on the SE corner...

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Huh, once again they say "up to" 1,646 ft. I guess they are seeking approval to build up to that height, but afterward they might decide to build only, say, 1,450 ft. I hope they won't disappoint us like this!

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

Huh, once again they say "up to" 1,646 ft. I guess they are seeking approval to build up to that height

Again, they're not seeking approval for any height. There are no height limits in midtown, only on bulk (FAR). It says up to because that is the design they are working with. Even a modification of just one floor height would change that exact number. Or an additional floor could change it as well. BTW, it's also stated that even if they were to build all office, the height and massing would remain the same.

The CB5 transportation committee will have a look at the proposal today (6pm). I'll try to check that out, because I'm a big fan of these transit upgrades.

[NYguy]

There were two meetings today, the earlier scoping meeting at City Planning, and the meeting tonight at CB5 (transportation committee). Nothing new from either, but here's the earlier meeting...


• Video Link



As for the meeting with CB5, nothing we haven't already seen, people are concerned about the cut in bike spaces. But it was explained to them that the bike spaces are for employees, not the general public.
Work is at least a year or two away, but that much is obvious.

I'm more confident now that we've seen an early preview of the base though.

[JMKeynes]

This could turn out to be one of the most iconic buildings in the world.

[faridnyc]

They say up to 1646ft so this one is in the pathway to beat 1wtc tip height it will be amazing !!!

[NYguy]

Last night's meeting from the Transportation and Environment Committee of CB5...



• Video Link

[JMKeynes]

Did that Marxist suggest an 800' tall building? I find it too painful to watch that Soviet council.

[Busy Bee]

^Will you knock it off with your asinine political blabber please... you sound silly and I'm stretched to the max with being embarrassed for the people I share a country with.

[NYguy]

^ Yes, the name calling isn't necessary.

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Did that moronic Marxist suggest an 800' tall building?

That guy wasn't at this one, but there was one lady who feared the height because of a terrorist attack. No word on what she thought of One Vanderbilt, or 270 Park, or any of the other towers coming to the area. Most of the people, however, had concerns focused on where it should be, at the ground level (1,000 ft or 1,600 ft, it matters very little from the street). One was concerned about stairs and suggested ramps (which work well indoors, but would look very tacky in a prominent, outdoor location). Grand Central uses ramps well. But stairs are better for this experience.

Layla, who I thought would know better, issued a request at both meetings yesterday that they consider mirroring the Vanderbilt outdoor plaza, and putting it at street level on Depew Place. But as we know, the Grand Hyatt isn't separated from Grand Central like One Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt's connections are underground. The Hyatt's corridors are at street level. Furthermore, there is no access to the remaining Depew Place from 42nd or Lex, the Park Avenue viaduct runs over it, and it's basically a service alley for buildings that border it, including loading for the large post office, There is no way the city would close that to traffic, nor would it make sense to put the plaza there, which would be out of sight and mind. That's the reason Gale Brewer suggested moving the space above ground level. This just isn't a site where you can have a large, open plaza at the ground level.

There is one place where a Depew Place plaza even made sense, and it is here...
https://237park.com/gallery#&gid=1&pid=3

https://237park.com/gallery#&gid=1&pid=16


There were some people who even said it was a lovely proposal, but there are concerns about the reduction in bike spaces (which would be for the office tenants). Understandable I guess coming from the transportation committee. But this is a major transportation hub, and the city could issue more biking stations for the public if needed.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Will you knock it off with your asinine political blabber please... you sound silly and I'm stretched to the max with being embarrassed for the people I share a country with.

You’re rather antagonistic. Calm down. Jesus loves you.

[NYguy]

^ Listen, you guys wanna go after each other, do it in your own spaces, the private message function is there for it. The rest of us want to talk about this proposal.



Now, I was talking about the reduction in bike spaces earlier, but that was for building employees. Here we see one of the beautiful Citibike stations in the area for public use. The city can install more of these if need be, but I don't see a major loss from the building reduction.


DECEMBER 22, 2020

[SkyHigher]

Originally Posted by NYguy

^ Listen, you guys wanna go after each other, do it in your own spaces, the private message function is there for it. The rest of us want to talk about this proposal.

So why not delete 'their' posts??

Anyway I prefer the 1118ft design. Sure it should much higher and taper to thinner than an after eight mint.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

You’re rather antagonistic. Calm down. Jesus loves you.

You're a funny guy.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by SkyHigher

So why not delete 'their' posts??

Anyway I prefer the 1118ft design. Sure it should much higher and taper to thinner than an after eight mint.

The 1,118 ft design is not an actual design they would build, it’s just the measure by which they will study the proposal against. It’s just standard massing of zoning, which is why the proposal is so much taller, with higher ceilings. That question came up. It would be a fine Manhattan tower though.

[NYguy]

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/12/...midtown-tower/

Developers Want to Cut Required Bike Parking In Midtown Tower


By Julianne Cuba
Dec 24, 2020

They’re out of their ride mind.

A development company is under fire for trying to reduce the number of required bike parking spots in its new proposed massive Midtown skyscraper, which would sit on top of one of the busiest transit hubs in the city.

Developers RXR Realty and TF Cornerstone want to build a 1,646-foot mixed-use tower above Grand Central Terminal at E. 42nd Street and Lexington Avenue — dubbed Project Commodore — that would include a 500-room hotel, and retail and office space. Developers say the project, which would take the place of what’s now the 26-story Grand Hyatt, would also benefit the public by providing additional open-air public space, a widened sidewalk on Lexington Avenue, a revamped Lexington Passage and new transit hall, and other mass transit improvements such as new elevators and turnstiles to mitigate congestion inside the popular station.

But in order to break ground, city planners must first approve the developers’ requests for special permits and changes to city zoning laws, including a request to shrink the number of required bike parking spots reserved for commercial tenants of the proposed tower from 286 to 103 — a massive cut sought by the developer given the booming number of cyclists.

” I am concerned about the reduction of the number of bike spots,” said Upper West Sider and longtime advocate Andrew Rosenthal, during a presentation on the project during Community Board 5’s virtual Transportation and Environment committee meeting Monday night, a precursor to the city’s formal land-use review process, which will start next year. “If you build it [bike parking], they will come. Biking is exploding in New York City. This plan doesn’t seem to encompass any of that logic; it doesn’t think about climate change.”

A city zoning law enacted in 2009 requires developers to provide a certain number of enclosed bike parking spaces in new buildings based on their square footage — and under that formula, RXR Realty would be mandated to provide 286 spaces. But the developers claim that roughly 65 percent less bike parking is needed, based on the company’s other buildings.

“We think that makes sense, just given we’re sitting on top of what is probably the largest transportation hub in the city, let alone maybe the country,” said Michael Rem of RXR Realty during the virtual meeting. “We looked across a number of our existing buildings with similar tenants and what we realized was all had bike rooms with about 100 spaces and weren’t fully utilized.”

But the fact that the proposed project is right next to a train station, and at least five subway lines, is even more of a reason to provide bike parking, advocates say.

“It’s shocking to me that bikes are not seen as a method of transportation even for a building built on top of a transit hub, if you really want companies to move to this project,” said Melodie Bryant, a safe-streets activist and member of Transportation Alternatives, during the meeting.

Still, the reduced number of 103 bike parking spots inside the building would be for tenants only — not the general public, who commute to or live in Midtown, where much-needed secure bike parking is already scarce.

And another advocate warned that the developers, who expect to complete construction by 2030, were not looking enough to the future — like by 2100, when experts say whole parts of New York City could be underwater if people do not reduce their carbon footprint, including by choosing to bike instead of drive.

“It’s very shortsighted,” said Andrea Peterson during the meeting. “You need to be more forward thinking about it, make the whole project be more timely.”

The committee voted unanimously, 15-0, to provide members’ comments about the need for bike parking in the board’s overall comments to the Department of City Planning as part of the city’s land-use review process, which will kick off in the spring, according to a spokesman for the developer.

[Visionist]

I'm sure a hundred more bike racks in this building will reverse global warming and refreeze the north pole.

Where do they find these dorks?