NEW YORK | 350 Park Avenue | 1,600 FT | 62 FLOORS

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Hopefully they just full send it and make it 500 + M

But I'm happy they're going as tall as they already are. Griffin wants a statement piece? Doesn't want to be overshadowed by 270 Park and Jamie Dimon? Who knows, who cares. We're getting a 1,600 ft tower and that's awesome.

For the money they are spending, may as well go for something to stand out a bit from the pack.

Originally Posted by chris08876

The public review is slated to begin next year per CoStar. I wonder what type of time table we are looking at with this. Projected start year of 2028?

Once demo occurs of the existing structures. 2028 might be nice.

It has a completion date of 2032. Approvals won’t begin until early next year, so that tells me things are still being put in order.

One thing for certain, demo won’t occur until they first relocate out of the building. They were looking for space at 280 Park, but apparently RXR put the brakes on that. Maybe that was all tgat was needed to go higher than RXR’s 175 Park. Who knows. I’m happy.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by pianowizard

This is a beauty!

1,600 ft = 487.68 m, so North America still has nothing above 500 m in roof height, but we are getting closer and closer.

Because our government does not subsidize megatall skyscrapers like those in Asia and the Middle East. In North America and Europe, skyscrapers are built out of necessity which is why they require tenants or residents for funding.

The Burj Khalifa in Dubai, for example, has yet to turn a profit. The Shanghai Tower is on the struggle bus as well with securing tenants.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by NYguy

No. The reduction in height for 175 Park was a direct result of the developers plans. There are no height limits, and unlike 175 Park, the zoning here was already approved. The approvals process is a formality that was added to get the Midtown East zoning approved. They do the same thing in Hudson Yards, only those towers aren’t required to go through the full public review. So what they will spell out in this process, for all to see, is exactly what methods they are using to achieve the full FAR. In Hudson Yards, everything comes from the railyards. Here, as we’ve already seen, they are getting air rights from a couple of landmarked churches, and a neighboring building. They also purchased an easement over a neighboring building to preserve views to the west. They aren’t messing around here.

Took me a long time to find this, because I was kind of mad when it happened as it seemed to be an arbitrary reduction, but the blog for 175 Park Avenue said that the council modified the plan to reduce the height from 1642 to 1575 when they approved it in Dec 2021 (see post #1698):

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...237669&page=85


Is this a possibility here?

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

Because our government does not subsidize megatall skyscrapers like those in Asia and the Middle East. In North America and Europe, skyscrapers are built out of necessity which is why they require tenants or residents for funding.

Right, we used to do that back in the 70s with Sears and the original WTC but learned our lesson.

But... the fact that we actually do sometimes have demand for such titans sometimes is insane and unique to the USA.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Just for the hell of it they ought to carefully take down this façade and reattach it to the new building.

[Busy Bee]

Does the air rights agreement preclude 477 Madison from being replaced in the future? What a turd and a half that building is. Does the language of the recent legal arrangement set a max height for a new structure on that corner if it was to occur?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Took me a long time to find this, because I was kind of mad when it happened as it seemed to be an arbitrary reduction, but the blog for 175 Park Avenue said that the council modified the plan to reduce the height from 1642 to 1575 when they approved it in Dec 2021 (see post #1698):

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...237669&page=85


Is this a possibility here?

The council approved the modified plan. The developers modified tgecplan when they switched the programming from hotel to extended stay. The only difference as far as the city is concerned is that extended stay (over 30 days) counts as residential space.

But none of that even matters here, as this proposal has the full backing of the city. There are no height limits. So the only question regarding that would be where this tower would fit in the height rankings. We still don’t have an exact height on the Affirmation Tower proposal, for example.

[Zerton]

Massing-wise it reminds me of a hybrid of Chase Tower and Steinway Tower. Also a bit of throwback 70s/80s Pomo detailing on the facade with the chamfered corners. Fantastic.

[ChiND]

https://www.archpaper.com/2024/04/fo...0-park-avenue/

Super-Supertall
Foster + Partners unveils latest design for 350 Park Avenue
By Daniel Roche • April 17, 2024 • Architecture, East, News

[Charmy2]

I've never loved and equally hated a new design as much as this one. My personal fave was the first design, but the second one was also good. I still like this one don't get me wrong!

[rgarri4]

From my 3d model:

[NYguy]

^ Nice! That looks to be at the 1,350 ft height.

Originally Posted by Charmy2

I've never loved and equally hated a new design as much as this one. My personal fave was the first design, but the second one was also good. I still like this one don't get me wrong!

This tower will likely be further refined. I like that they're showing a willingness to build tall. As strictly an office tower, we don't get a lot of that, at least at this height.

BTW, at 1.8 msf, this tower is almost as large as 270 Park's 1.9 msf of space.

“Today, we are doubling down on our efforts to build a ‘New’ New York with a project that will help supercharge our economy and expand New York City’s iconic skyline,” said Mayor Adams.

I always say, we haven't seen the best New York. The skyline is always changing.

[chris08876]

Plans for Park Avenue office building unveiled

• Video Link

Mayor Eric Adams helped unveil plans to build a new 62-story office tower on Manhattan's Park Avenue on Tuesday, but questions remain as to whether there is enough demand for more office space in NYC.

[NYguy]

I wonder why the city chose to push this tower as a symbol of rebirth, rather than 175 Park, especially considering the formal review won’t begin until Jan or Feb. But I’m guessing a lot has to do with the anchor tenant (Citadel) making that committment. Even if that happened a year ago. Still, when 175 Park announces a tenant, I’m sure the mayor will publicize it too. This is what Hochul should be doing with Affirmation Tower.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Does the air rights agreement preclude 477 Madison from being replaced in the future? What a turd and a half that building is. Does the language of the recent legal arrangement set a max height for a new structure on that corner if it was to occur?

Yes and yes.

[NYguy]

^

Originally Posted by NYguy

Here's a little more on the easement...seems like there may be some sort of cantilever in the design, or just establishing that a neighboring building can't be built to block views.

[NYguy]

https://www.hedgeweek.com/citadel-mo...new-nyc-tower/

Citadel moving ahead with plans for new NYC tower


April 18, 2024

Citadel, the multi-strategy hedge fund major founded by Ken Griffin, and Citadel Securities, his market-making firm, are progressing with plans to build a new 1.8m sq ft skyscraper on New York’s Park Avenue, in partnership with Vornado Realty Trust and Rudin, according to a report by CoStar.

The two firms will become anchor tenants at the 62-storey tower which, at 1,600 ft tall, will be second in height among existing buildings to only the 1,776-foot-tall One World Trade Center in lower Manhattan.

The report cites a statement from New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ office as confirming that Citadel and Citadel Securities will occupy at least 850,000 sq ft at 350 Park Avenue.

Designed by Pritzker Prize-winning British architect Norman Foster’s eponymous firm Foster + Partners, the public-private 350 Park project, which is located between 51st and 52nd streets, includes the creation of a 12,500 sq ft public concourse and funding for other public improvements. The tower will feature floor-to-ceiling glass, landscaped terraces and a stepped configuration.

[Busy Bee]

When that easement diagram was posted a few months back my first thought was that slight wedge was to account for the extent of sway at the very top under the most extreme conditions. Is that a possibility of what that is showing?

[Busy Bee]

If I'm reading that legal description correctly it basically says that 477 Madison if replaced would essentially be required to be more or less the same building in terms of overall height and setbacks. Bummer cause that would pretty much lock in amber 477 as it is since taking fuller advantage of the lot has been made impossible by the easement leaving a radical gut renovation as the only possible scenario to maximize building value.

What I don't understand though is IF the western elevation of 350 Park IS in fact an almost entirely solid concrete "shifted core" - why the air rights easement at all? Or at least why a height limit so low (Elev + 377.7'), especially for 477 which is a better candidate for replacement than its northern neighbor? If the western facade is more or less windowless you would think the easement would allow a higher height threshold for a theoretical replacement scenario for the Madison buildings. An agreement limiting SIGNIFICANT heights above the current roof heights is sensible as the "grantee" 350 Park would want to preserve the siloette and profile by limited height of adjoining structures. But that does not explain why the easement height limits are set at the current structures height essentially preventing any and all vertical enlargements of those building envelopes no matter how reasonable and non-interfering. Kind of weird this arrangement is so inflexible for the Madison buildings owners. What did they receive in return?

[ChiND]

I can see 477 Madisonbeing replaced even if it can’t grow in size. I suspect that Aby cautiously spent de minimus funds for its “upgrade” looking ahead to future redevelopment. With all of the lavish office projects being built on Park, the demand for a five-star hotel in this immediate vicinity is acute. Can you imagine an uber-luxury hotel topped off by some condos? While they might not have park views, it would still do very well.

I’d like to see something like this.