HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    432 Park Avenue in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
New York Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2011, 11:28 AM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
It's one of the top locations in Manhattan for a residential, and I'm glad plans for the office tower were dropped. With the Tower Verre and Carnegie 57 showing the way, it's time for an attention grabbing residential tower on the east side.
I agree. A resisential tower would be a lot taller and should have a more striking design that an office tower would.
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2011, 9:13 PM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,703
Besides, that site is too small for contemporary Class A office space, which typically requires large floorplates.
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2011, 2:34 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
They could have built a short (500-600 foot), fat box here. When the office market was booming and $125/sf rents were common, Macklowe switched the project from residential/hotel to office. I saw the proposed glass box, and it sucked. Fortunately, the economy collapsed, and the best use for the site now is a tall thin hotel/condo, as was planned originally.

The square footage here would easily enable a 900+ foot tower. (Isn't the Four Seasons planned for downtown expected to be around 915 feet?) The uppermost apartments would rise at least 200 to 250 feet above the GM and Four Seasons, which are the only structures that would otherwise block the park views. In addition, the views of Midtown and lower Manhattan would be amazing.

Last edited by RobertWalpole; Jan 9, 2011 at 4:08 AM.
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2011, 2:23 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
http://www.observer.com/2011/real-es...lideshow/title

Park Avenue at 56th Street



By Laura Kusisto
February 15, 2011

Quote:
Harry Macklowe fought unusually long and hard to hold on to the former Drake Hotel site, but like with most of his assets, it was ultimately doomed.

It’s not difficult to see why Mr. Macklowe was so reluctant to relinquish his Park Avenue gem: It features a swanky history, a prime office location and one of the city’s most desirable retail fronts.

Mr. Macklowe bought the hotel in 2006 and demolished it, before defaulting two years later on a $513 million loan that would have allowed him to build on the site. Last year, the troubled owner finally relented and sold the site to the California-based investment firm the CIM Group for $305.4 million, according to city records.

A few weeks ago, The Real Deal reported that the new owner had bought up an adjacent townhouse on Park Avenue, suggesting plans to build have finally begun inching ahead. It’s 100 percent available as of January 2011, according to Cassidy Turley.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2011, 1:36 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...G05Og396hJSN/1


February 22, 2011

Steve Cuozzo

REALTY CHECK
That means Turnbull might soon be hemmed in by demolition on both sides, a classic card in a developer's hand to intimidate a holdout.

Meanwhile, Jacob & Co., the high-end watchmaker at 48 E. 57th St., is also refusing to leave. Like Turnbull, Jacob owns its building and confirmed through a rep it's staying put.

Even if Turnbull moves to 50 E. 57th St., keeping that building up along with Jacob's next door would leave CIM and Macklowe with much less sidewalk frontage than they hoped for -- 101 feet rather than 150 feet, according to a zoning lot declaration filed with the city.


James Messerschmidt
SQUEEZE PLAY: Turnbull & Asser (center right, without netting) is snared in a demolition squeeze, as CIM Group works on the Drake Hotel site on East 57th Street.
Of course, if Turnbull -- in the middle of the new building's hoped-for 57th Street façade -- doesn't move, it's a bigger problem. But these things have a way of eventually getting worked out, don't they?

*

In welcome news for Brookfield's World Financial Center, Oppenheimer Funds has made a long-term commitment to remaining at 2 WFC, where it just signed a new, 235,000 square-foot lease directly with the landlord. The 15-year lease with Brookfield will begin when its sublease from Merrill Lynch expires in 2013.

The deal typifies a trend of large tenants either renewing leases years before their expiration or, as in this case, converting a sublease to a more stable direct one equally early on -- reflecting the belief that rents are bound to rise in the years ahead.

Oppenheimer Funds -- not to be confused with Oppenheimer & Co., which is based at 125 Broad St. and negotiating a possible move to 85 Broad St. -- was represented by a Cushman & Wakefield team of Stuart Romanoff, Amy Fox and Robert Constable. Brookfield was repped in-house by Jerry Larkin and Duncan McCuaig.

Oppenheimer Funds had once been at the WFC, but moved temporarily to Midtown after 9/11 and returned a few years later. Romanoff said the decision to stay at 2 WFC was by no means preordained.

"We did go through an exhaustive search," he said. "We looked at the market care fully and Oppen heimer Funds decided it en joyed its occu pancy at 2 WFC.

"They like Brookfield and they're excited about planned improvements at the WFC."

Neither Romanoff nor anyone else involved would discuss the rent or asking rent. Brokers not involved with the deal suggested that WFC asking rents have risen from the mid-$40s a few years ago into the $60s, but no one was willing to guess about the Oppenheimer deal.

Whatever the price, the lease will further stabilize the WFC, which faces possible moves-out by Merrill Lynch and Nomura a few years from now.

We recently reported that FINRA is negotiating to move into 204,000 square-feet at 1 WFC via a sublease from Dow Jones, part of News Corp., which also owns The Post. scuozzo@nypost.com



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz1Eh86POTA

Last edited by RobertWalpole; Feb 23, 2011 at 1:43 AM.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2011, 3:03 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
^ More from that article...

Quote:



California-based private equity firm CIM Group and Macklowe, its development adviser, are itching to get started on a huge but undefined, mixed-use project fronting on retail-heaven East 57th Street.

Much of its bulk would rise on the barren, former Drake Hotel site on East 56th Street, with the new building wrapping around 450 Park Ave.

But, after two years of pressure, Turnbull & Asser, the British shirtmaker owned by the family of Harrods' owner Mohammed al-Fayed, is still refusing to sell its townhouse at 42 E. 57th St. -- one of seven store buildings Macklowe hoped to raze for the new project, or perhaps incorporate into its façade if the right retail tenant came along.

CIM acquired the Drake site from Macklowe's lenders when he defaulted in 2008, but kept Macklowe in the picture as its development "consultant." Prior to losing title, Macklowe had also purchased the retail buildings at 38, 40, 44 and 50 E. 57th St., which became part of CIM's assemblage. Last month, CIM added No. 46, home -- at least for now -- to Buccellati, for $42.5 million, the Real Deal reported.

Our sources said Turnbull, which bought No. 42 in spring 2008 for $32.5 million, still has no intention of leaving the block.

"They like it there. It reminds them of their store on Jermyn Street in London," one told us. "They have wealthy customers who stay at the Four Seasons Hotel across the street, and they're not about to lose them."
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2011, 3:35 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
It would be nice if they keep the facades of the old buildings, like on 712 5th. I predict a roughly 900 foot condo-hotel.
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2011, 6:35 PM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,506
Heh, I wonder if T&A would tolerate having their building physically moved a couple lots over to make room for the development.
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2011, 11:13 AM
pico44's Avatar
pico44 pico44 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertWalpole View Post
It would be nice if they keep the facades of the old buildings, like on 712 5th.

we can hope
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2011, 11:34 AM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by scalziand View Post
Heh, I wonder if T&A would tolerate having their building physically moved....
I used to go to a club called T&A. You can imagine what T&A stood for!
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2011, 1:55 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by scalziand View Post
Heh, I wonder if T&A would tolerate having their building physically moved a couple lots over to make room for the development.
Probably not, unless there was a substantial payment.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2011, 9:07 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
A NB permit was recently filed. It's only for a six story building located at 440 Park. Perhaps this will be the long-awaited Norstrom with the hote/condo to follow.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/Jo...93&requestid=4

Last edited by RobertWalpole; Mar 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM.
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2011, 5:40 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
I'm really hoping for a great tower here. I hope we can see something with an interesting massing rather than a boxy tower given the beauties they destroyed in the process.

What do you think, a tower of around 800-900 feet here?
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2011, 12:04 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
Since great, high-floor views will yield the most money per square foot, I expect a tower between 900 and 1,000 feet tall.
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 19, 2011, 5:44 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
This was originally going to be a 70-story residential. Possibly a 700 or 800 footer. It's also possible to be something beyond that, but I wouldn't expect it. It would be a nice surprise.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 20, 2011, 3:24 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
The diagram filed with the NYC DOB shows that the initial six-story building will not disturb the townhouses. SLCE filed the documents which means that maybe a foreign architect will design it.

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BS...de=SC100219034
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 9:49 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
By the way, I have a friend who works for CIM who stated that this tower will exceed 1,000 feet.

http://www.observer.com/2011/real-es...aunted-assets#

Stirrings at Two Haunted Assets

By Laura Kusisto

April 6, 2011 | 4:04 p.m

Life is stirring again at the ghostly Drake Hotel site.

With financing for development sites still virtually frozen, CIM Group has received a $30 million mortgage from Pacific Northwestern Bank on the former home of the Gilded Age hotel, according to public records.

As The Observer reported in February, the spot at Park Avenue and 57th Street is likely the only existing development site with a prime midtown location. The Wall Street Journal once dubbed it "the world's most valuable rubble-strewn lot."

The battle for control of the retail, office or hotel site has been long and complex. Here are the Cliff Notes: Harry and Billy Macklowe bought the hotel for $418 million, plus $543 million in loans, in 2006, and subsequently demolished it over preservationists' cries. But like so many of their prized assets, it was ultimately doomed, and the Macklowes defaulted on the development loan in 2008.

California-based private-equity firm CIM was poised to swoop in and help Billy Macklowe save the site from lenders this January, according to The Journal. Instead, CIM bought the building from Mr. Macklowe's newly formed, eponymous firm for $305.4 million in the same month, according to public records. A William Macklowe Company spokesman confirmed the firm has no involvement any longer.

Sources said CIM still plans to build on the cluster of properties at 434 Park Avenue, as well as 38, 40, 44 and 50 East 57th Street. The company did not respond to requests for comment.

A quiet, but increasingly powerful player on the Manhattan development scene, CIM has also helped pay off loans held by iStar on the Beaver House site at 15 William Street.

Last edited by RobertWalpole; Apr 7, 2011 at 10:45 AM.
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 10:54 PM
yankeesfan1000 yankeesfan1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 10014
Posts: 1,617
Oh, that's great news RW. If you don't mind me asking when did he/she tell you that? Thanks for the article too, I work a couple blocks away and I can't imagine that this type of prime spot lays dormant much longer.
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 11:02 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
He told me recently, but w/o detail, as it's confidential. Nevertheless, we will have yet another thousand footer in Midtown to be followed by Torre Verre, 15 Penn and most likely by 225 West 57th!
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2011, 8:14 PM
RobertWalpole RobertWalpole is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,911
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.