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

[NYguy]

I like to compare it to 277, shown with the massing, for scale...

[JMKeynes]

Foster said that it will respect the nearby International towers, so the resemblance to 277 is to be expected. I think that the façade also will be very similar to those towers but glassier.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Foster said that it will respect the nearby International towers, so the resemblance to 277 is to be expected. I think that the façade also will be very similar to those towers but glassier.

He said it would respect the character of the area. GCT and Helmsworth are right down the street...

But, I really wish Robert Stren were at the helm...Internationalism needs to die.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Submariner

He said it would respect the character of the area. GCT and Helmsworth are right down the street...

But, I really wish Robert Stren were at the helm...Internationalism needs to die.

I agree re: Stern. By area, he clearly meant Int'l buildings in the area -- not Beaux Artes.

[dropdeaded209]

man AT&T looks so TINY down there in the background... good thing we got that protected when we did... chrysler building has become a literal needle in a haystack by now...

[NYguy]

Foster discussed his ideas about what a Park Avenue tower should be, and 425 Park is just a modern version of those earlier glass boxes. The difference is in the modern elements that set these towers apart. Foster will deliver.



https://www.archdaily.com/294594/425...oster-partners

[JMKeynes]

I agree.

[Amanita]

The interesting thing is I think that 277 was designed to be a respectful neighbor to 270, similar in appearance. So it would be quite something if this new tower was designed to resemble 277 a little.
One cool thing about 277 is that unlike some other buildings, which have changed hands several times, is that it's still owned by the company that built it in 1964. They're proud of their building. As for its base, I think that's because of the setback requirements at the time it was built. They just put the setbacks around the sides and back, giving the building one hell of an impressive tail.

[jsbrook]

I really hope JPMorgan does something significant here. NYC is killing it with residential architecture. I can't say the same for its commercial architecture in this boom. I like One Vanderbilt and 425 Park. Otherwise, most of what's going up on the commercial side is bland and blah. If not for height, filler in most any city. Of course, these buildings are utilitarian and need to meet the needs of tenants as far as floorplates and otherwise. But One Vandy and 425 Park show that something better is still possible.

[chefforbz]

One thing I love about this project is it is purpose built by the bank for itself. Rather than a developer looking for an anchor tenant. 100% occupancy on day one. Are there other sites in midtown east that have this possibility? Or are the possible big assemblages more in play for developers and the typical need for anchor tenants?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by chefforbz

One thing I love about this project is it is purpose built by the bank for itself. Rather than a developer looking for an anchor tenant. 100% occupancy on day one. Are there other sites in midtown east that have this possibility? Or are the possible big assemblages more in play for developers and the typical need for anchor tenants?

This site wasn't even considered to be one of the major development sites in Midtown east because of the size of the existing building. It's not certain which of the potential sites will eventually get built out, but I wouldn't be surprised to see another such large undertaking down the road. Chase being both the owner/occupant made this one a LOT easier to put in motion.

[Zapatan]

What exactly is the bulkhead of a building by the way? Does that refer to the main roof or top occupied floor?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

What exactly is the bulkhead of a building by the way? Does that refer to the main roof or top occupied floor?

It counts as the highest "roof" on a building, and would be the total height minus any parapet height that is usually greater.

I'll use 45 Broad for example, in this graphic you see the "roof" height of 1,115 ft, the bulkhead height of 1,127 ft, but there is a parapet/crown not shown that will extend to about 1,200 ft.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

It counts as the highest "roof" on a building, and would be the total height minus any parapet height that is usually greater.

Cool thanks

I take it they'll likely build to the full 1,400, since that's the chosen design and not just the limit, correct? And with a parapet it's safe to expect this thing will be about ~1,450+ feet?

I'll reiterate this is crazy exciting.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Cool thanks

I take it they'll likely build to the full 1,400, since that's the chosen design and not just the limit, correct? And with a parapet it's safe to expect this thing will be about ~1,450+ feet?

I'll reiterate this is crazy exciting.

Yeah, there is no height limit, that's why they can build the taller version if they wanted to.

[NYguy]

Upcoming CB5 meeting...

[Eidolon]

This building is missing from the NYC diagram.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Eidolon

This building is missing from the NYC diagram.

There's no render, just preliminary massing models.

[Eidolon]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

There's no render, just preliminary massing models.

Plenty of buildings such as 80 South Street and Liberty Rising are there and they don't have formal renders either.

[chefforbz]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Upcoming CB5 meeting...

Isn’t this supposed to be a 2.4 million sq ft building? What’s with the 1.8? And could this massing study we’ve seen been referring to a 1.8 m sq ft version? I’m getting confused.